Wait...what? So you gotta spend 6 Con points to get 6
The bolded part makes no sense, because anything you put into it gives you nothing in return.If I'm crafting a +6 Con item, you're saying I need to spend 6 Con Points to make it. At best, I'm simply transferring Constitution from my character to the next, which seems silly if your frontliners are having HP problems, the Con item only switches the problem from character to character.
At worst, the crafting creation, if designed for use by yourself, forces a lot of your Con to an item, which any high-intelligence being wouldn't do. (And by that point, you might as well go Full-Blown Intelligent Item.) It also raises major ethical qualms, since it would reek of necromantic motivations; for the benefit to be of any good, the life force must come from a living being, something which any character who claims to be good will have nothing to do with such subjects, and would go out and actively seek to destroy such items in attempts to free the souls of those contributed.
You might as well make such an item uncraftable by PCs, and only as a part of treasure loot. (In addition, I'd rule you couldn't use the extra Con for item creation.)
The rule for Con-giving items is a logical progression if we have Con=life force, but yes also, *intentionally* would make Con items impractical to make so that the Con-based crafting restriction, if used,could not easily have its restrictions bypassed.
|
Problem here is - if your endgame is to make magic items rare, why would you use a resource that each player directly has access to (their own CON) or easily get (taking Con from other creatures and not their lives)?
If you want to make magic rare you need to make sure that:
Gold =/= Magic items
Player controlled resources (CON from themselves or NPCs) =/= Magic Items
I always go back to quest magic sources because those you control as the DM.
You control the number of Dragons in you game, so you control the amount of Dragon Blood or Bones that are going to appear in you game and as such the magic items in the game (and even type of magic items based on the resources).
It's actually not a bad trade-off; Items get a limit in your game (goal), players can still craft - just less frequently (resource based) and it ties into the whole point of some quest style missions (go get X).
Once you get into the realm of using Con to make Con items you sort of have painted yourself in a corner. IMO of course.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
a lot of the criticism you had in your earlier post relates to my first idea for this mechanic; please see the revised draft on page 3 of this thread.
Alright, I'll go check it in a sec.
Your +6 Con ring would cost 6 points of Con because it's storing life force. It would also cost a crazy amount of gp because paizo's crafting rules generally have additional bonuses costing exponentially more (a +5 sword costs way more than five +1 swords)
You may want to hold off on big house rulings like this until you understand how the system works at its basics, because you're showing me two big things with this statement.
1. You are drastically overestimating the drawback of +50% cost to item creation when you have literally nothing else to spend money on. If I'm going to create magic items, I can cover my needs quite well at a +50% cost, and will do so. Especially if magic items are otherwise not a thing. Especially since the overall value of a magic item effect is greater now because it's less likely that I will find counter-items in the game.
For example, if I made a single magic item that granted a +2 resistance bonus to saving throws (4,000 gp) and added a +2 Int bonus on it (also 4,000 gp), the total cost is 10,000 gp (4,000 + (4,000*1.5) = 10,000 gp). I craft it for 5,000 gp and 1 Con. The effect is also stronger for me because I can assume that most foes aren't going to have many magic items, so my +2 resistance to saves is paying off big, and my +1 to save DCs is too.
2. You have no idea how bonuses and modifiers work. A +6 enhancement bonus to Constitution is not the same thing as your Constitution score. It does not stack with effects such as bear's endurance. Are you going make it cost 4 Con to cast bear's endurance as well? If your answer is "no" then you also have your answer for ability score items as well. The entire reason you make a +Con item is to become more durable to help you to survive. If you are going to be deficient in Constitution just to make magic items, you need +Con items even more than normal.
Getting a +6 enhancement and eventually a +5 inherent modifier to Constitution is a thing that all characters will strive to do, unless they happen to be undead. Effectively removing Constitution items from the game as well (by making them nothing but a strait penalty since you're losing 6 actual Con + lots of money for no gain and an effect that can be shut down for 1d4 rounds with Dispel, which is enough to murder you Barbarian-style), you are encouraging people to become undead ASAP.
You should probably spend some time studying the system and learning how it works before you try to change it.
Remember this is a suggested rule for *one setting* (not Golarion) that will have appropriate challenges to the PC's capabilities. I'd have spent a lot of time ensuring the challenges were still at a level everyone could enjoy.
I don't really care about the setting. You seemed to be asking what sort of effects this would have on a world from a logical standpoint. Those effects have been suggested.
1. Undead = more win.
2. Noncombat items = not existing.
3. Gold = worthless.
4. Magic items = no more special than they were before, not just a hassle.
5. Spellcasters = GOD, because spellcasters have alternate methods of doing everything that you use magic items for.
Yes, these rules would mean far fewer weird/quirky magic items. I like items like that too. That's why i wouldn't use a rule like this all the time, but as part of one particular setting I think they're worth contemplating. I wouldn't want every campaign to look and feel the same.
Every campaign doesn't. There's a lot of ways that you can change the feel of the game merely by changing the "dials" of the game, such as bumping up or down things like treasure values, community GP limits, and so forth.
However, I think you should carefully consider that this particular route just seems to be spitting on anyone who wants to create magic items and also the good guys. You're also encouraging the loss of most "interesting" magic items and forcing +X stat items to be even more of a priority than they already are. You're pushing casters higher than they already are. I would never play anything other than a caster in a campaign like this, and would be hesitant to play half-casters like paladins and rangers as well in favor of clerics, druids, bards, and wizards, because those classes will have a much better shot at having what they need, or having more than they need given the circumstances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bigger question is, "If you're effectively trying to remove magic items as a thing, what are you replacing it with"?
As noted before, you're drastically reducing the value of the gold piece from a gaming perspective. Treasure is no worth less than it was before. If magic items are actually going to be rare, as in you won't see them frequently (as opposed to the "I want magic items to be rare = I only want players to have the magic items I allow them" which is usually how this goal actually goes down), then what are you going to replace this massive hole in the game with?
No treasure. No magic items (except what the GM throws you). So what are you going to use to make up for it? Are you just going to leave it blank? Are we just going with masterwork equipment for a long time until something plot-relevant comes up and allows you that +1 knitting needle you always wanted?
There is also the point that we havent seen the world yet. I think you may be judging this idea poorly byplacing its mechanics into golarion, a world where it wouldn't work well. Iirc, he's making his own campaign setting here, which may work on different fulcrums with respect to money and magic. Dark Sun did something similar. I would hesitate to dismiss the ideas here wholesale until more is known about the setting. Not everything is high magic/high money, and I would suggest you do more research into other settings before putting all your apples into that particular basket.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is also the point that we havent seen the world yet. I think you may be judging this idea poorly byplacing its mechanics into golarion, a world where it wouldn't work well. Iirc, he's making his own campaign setting here, which may work on different fulcrums with respect to money and magic. Dark Sun did something similar. I would hesitate to dismiss the ideas here wholesale until more is known about the setting. Not everything is high magic/high money, and I would suggest you do more research into other settings before putting all your apples into that particular basket.
What does Golarion have to do with anything? This is a mechanical question. This is discussing mechanical effects as a deterrent to making magic items so that as a result, the setting (it doesn't matter what setting) will have justifiably less magical items present.
I'm critical of what has been put forth because I'm not seeing what's really being gained here. Even the narrative "life force" aspect of it either doesn't maintain consistency (Constitution is a representation of how healthy something is, but positive energy is literally "life force"; likewise Constitution requiring the creature to be sentient implies that it is not "life force" but something else, creating more inconsistency) or it could be handled in other ways (D&D already puts a value on souls thanks to devils trading in them, and spells like trap the soul, which means if you wanted to have big bad evil guys using living people as a component of crafting magic items, there are some pretty obvious ways you could go about doing that).
However, the issues I've seen raised here haven't been addressed (or I've missed them, in which case please point me in the right direction). Those issues are...
1. What magic items exist are either going to be boring or won't make any sense. There is no reason to make a flying carpet or a crystal ball when doing so is going to kill you, unless you're murdering people to do so. So no flavorful magic items, just stuff that makes you stronger and then only if it outweighs the Con.
2. I went and looked at the revisions on pg. 3 as per the OP's direction and noticed more inconsistencies and also the destruction of the "sacrificial" narrative as well, since the "donor" must be willing OR under the effects of a dominate spell, and even that doesn't work if they know that donating Con hurts them. As a side result, most casters, including evil priests, cannot actually do this, because only arcane casters get dominate person or dominate monster.
This means that "evil cult making sacrifices" doesn't work. Again, inconsistency.
3. It doesn't actually explain why magic items are really all that rare. What it does explain is that there's no reason for there to be any magic items for martial characters. No magic swords and the like. It also means that if morality is a question, magic item creation is probably banned, since who is to know if someone willingly put up their permanent-health willingly or under compulsion?
It explains that the only people who are going to have magic items is the bad guys who don't care who gets hurt. It's going to be the bad guys making captured mothers sacrifice their Constitution as ransoms for their children and stuff, and those bad guys are going to be rolling in magic items. Meanwhile heroic characters are going to either go without or are going to profit on the suffering of others when they loot the sweet shwag.
4. It creates a lot of ripples throughout the rest of the game. Money loses value in a huge way, so now you need to re-tune the amount of money that players are getting, figure out more types of rewards, but since magic items are supposed to be rare and things like material wealth is now effectively worthless, there's an issue.
You'll need to re-invent the wheel. Not only are you going to have to change the way you build encounters, you will also now need to reshuffle the entire wealth system, and you will need to figure out new rewards and motivations for doing stuff. There are ways of doing these things, but all of these things are ripple-issues that will need to change.
5. I'm not really sure it would be any fun. What is actually being gained by doing this? That's the biggest question. What is everyone getting out of it? What is being done to re-balance what is being lost from the game? Are you trying to break away from treasure and getting cool stuff? If so, what are your plans for rewarding players? Will quest after quest be one ephemeral reward after another? "You are now an honorary member of the Silver Guard", "You're being awarded a plot of land and a noble title, hope you enjoyed your adventuring career while it lasted", "The troglodytes are so happy that you have rescued them from their baby black dragon overlord that they have gifted you with a harem of stanky scaly concubines"?
For the Record
I too have pondered about some changes and such to make to my own campaigns from time to time. My next campaign that I'm going to be running is going to have significantly less powerful magic floating around, and I might adjust the value of the CP/SP/GP/PP a bit, and shift the availability of spellcasting services up a few notches (so finding very high level spells like resurrection won't be a trip to a metropolis). These things can be done, but you need to really think about what they're going to mean in your game.
Pathfinder gives some really nice "dials" that you can just turn up or down to suite you in great ways. Heck, even simply reducing the availability of wealth is a pretty basic and surprisingly effective means of limiting the amount of magic items floating around the world and encouraging the use of consumable magic items more-so.
I'm just waiting to see where this change "gives back" to the game and the people in it that makes up for all that it's taking away. As it is right now, I would just play a necromancer and say "screw magic items, I don't care about them, I don't want them, the ones that exist are boring, and we don't need them because the GM is apparently changing the game so that they're maybe super rare".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and then there's the "item creation as punishment/torture" factor. The OP said you can't get the Con back at all. No magics, not even greater restoration can restore your Con (even though it can restore pretty much everything else).
So the big bad happens to grab one of the PCs? What would he do with the PC? Well I have a theory, and it's not going to be pretty. Even if you can rescue him/her, the PC is going to be useless after all that perma-Con destruction. If they're killed by said destruction, they're gone forever unless you revive them as an undead creature (since perma-0 Con means even if you cast raise dead on them they're just going to immediately die again).
There's virtually no in-world reason for badguys to not do that as well. Not only are they permanently weakening or killing their enemies but they're getting shinies out of it too. Really, this is a world owned by the wicked and nothing more. Wicked spellcasters. Who only make magic items for spellcasters. Who need the magic items the least in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and then there was the fact that he removed wands entirely save for bonded objects, which basically takes a big steamy dump on everyone except wizards (and the parhaps arcane bloodline sorcerer, but then you're basically telling sorcerers they can't have wands unless they ignore all but one bloodline).
Though I guess as an addendum, maybe you could go on and try to break the magic items that were used to snuff people against their will (not that it does much good for the people already dead). That does imply that good-aligned people (like the necromancer I would play in such a game) would probably just smash every...last...item...that she came across.
"Oh, we found a +3 headband? Destroyed. +2 ring of protection? Be free soul! We found a chime of opening? Only the most foul would have created such an abomination! Disintegrate!"
While I maintain you are confusing mechanics with setting along with some ideas that speak to your comfortable ensconcement along the gamist/simulationist/storyteller lines, yours is a rambling series of posts only the op can detangle- I hope they find it enlightening.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bigger question is, "If you're effectively trying to remove magic items as a thing, what are you replacing it with"?
I can answer this one - nothing mechanical.
It's the same thing you get when you give out reduced XP or use a slower xp track (or both) - their is no "replacement" needed. It is a game play and stylistic change.Incoming..... "but teh magicians can still cast their spellz!!!!1!!!"
Yeah, that's another problem he will have to address (reducing the number of listed spells that can be cast per day, power of spells a "win button", etc) - also how powerful are encounters at CR (from the book) with less magic items as expected, as they level up, statistical assumptions, blah, blah.
All can be fixed if the OP properly IDs these math assumptions and makes adjustments as he reduces the number of items in his game. Fixable - if you know the problem and are willing to make those changes to fix those problems.
At least I hope the OP realizes this.
--------------------------------------------
As noted before, you're drastically reducing the value of the gold piece from a gaming perspective. Treasure is no worth less than it was before. If magic items are actually going to be rare, as in you won't see them frequently (as opposed to the "I want magic items to be rare = I only want players to have the magic items I allow them" which is usually how this goal actually goes down), then what are you going to replace this massive hole in the game with?
Nothing, the value of gold is relative to the needs of his players and the game.
If the objective end game of his campaign is for his PCs to build a Stronghold, Castle or even city - that surplus gold is going to come in handy. If he creates a "higher level" gold buy list (paying for research to find new dungeons, researching magic items (because they are limited), building and facilities, etc) then he just re-purposed the value of gold in his game.Not everything is default Paizo power level/gp value/progression pace/high magic - try thinking outside of the box and see how if you make the changes to one thing, and then follow it up with the correct changes to adjust for consequence - it can work. Paizo doesn't bother with this because they don't really care about changing the assumed power level of the game - that doesn't mean it can't be done by examining and changing the system appropriately.
I know this goes beyond the scope of your gaming experience and knowledge Ashiel, but there was a time (around 26 years) where "I only want players to have the magic items I allow them" was the core mechanic of controlling the power and to a degree the ease of play in the game. The Dungeon Master set this via item placement since item creation didn't exist. It worked rather well and players were not decked out with layers of magic junk that they "needed". Of course there were DMs who handed that stuff out like candy, that goes towards what the play expectation is for that group. Again though - players were not allowed the incredibly stupid "meta manipulation" of making items that increase their stats which in turn increases their saves, save DCs, hit points. The power control was much tighter which lead to a narrower range of ability spikes at level (due to magic items taking PCs out of their level power range, 4th level PCs functioning as 6th level PCs - hits, DCs, etc).
--------------------------------------------
No treasure. No magic items (except what the GM throws you). So what are you going to use to make up for it? Are you just going to leave it blank? Are we just going with masterwork equipment for a long time until something plot-relevant comes up and allows you that +1 knitting needle you always wanted?
Sigh....you can eliminate ALL magic items in the game if you make the proper changes and know how the game works. You can reduce the numbers of spells cast per day if you make the proper changes and know how the game works. You can reduce the xp given out to PCs if you make the proper changes and know how the game works. You can do X if you make the proper changes and know how the game works.
The question to the OP here is - do you know what the proper changes are? Are you making changes to creature stats/dcs/ac/damage to compensate for the math assumptions?
--------------------------------------------
5. Spellcasters = GOD, because spellcasters have alternate methods of doing everything that you use magic items for.
By far the dumbest argument bandied around these boards whenever someone wants to run low(er) magic games.
Easy answer - reduce the number of castable spells per day + get rid of some spells. More complex: adjust the DC system and save paradigms to reflect less items (cloak of resistance). This can be done on the target (raising their saves) or from the source (lowering the DC formula).Oh yeah, spellcasters have had alternate methods of doing everything since '74. The big question is how much/how often - not that they can do it the first place - since that's has been kind of the purpose of magic all along?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The setting and mechanics are by the most part divorced from one another, but it helps a lot if they are working in tandem. For example, I can use Pathfinder to run everything from the Forgotten Realms to Shadowrun, one of which uses an entirely different system. However, sometimes the mechanics of the game may not fit with the narrative of the setting.
The OP said:
I'm worldcrafting, and want to create a place where permanent magic items are special and rare.
What do you think of the following ruling ... would this do it? How would living with this ruling affect you as a player?
This is a mechanical question. The OP is on the right track in the sense that he is trying to make sure that his mechanics are supporting the world that he wishes to deliver. However, he also asked specifically what this would mean for the players (also the right track) and how it would influence you as a player.
The SETTING is irrelevant. What is relevant here is the MECHANICAL deterrent to having lots of magic items with the express purpose of making them rare in a setting. That's the effect of the mechanic. To make magic items rarer by making them unappealing.
I'm asking what is this adding vs what it's complicating / messing up. This is about mechanics, not about setting. Making magic items rarer can be done in a multitude of ways. This is about a specific mechanic.
I have been thinking about this.
I may have an alternative:
Keep all the rules the same, dont change them.
But make an additional rule:
Just require higher int/wis/cha than normal to make the items.
This would "reduce" the amount of magical gear out there, but not eliminate it.
It will avoid all the life force cascading affects that Ashiel and others have pointed out.
But it wont eliminate it. It still allows for the creatin of stuff by the players.
I still have not seen anything about player buy-in. Why go through all this mental stuff if it goes for nothing?
The setting and mechanics are by the most part divorced from one another, but it helps a lot if they are working in tandem. For example, I can use Pathfinder to run everything from the Forgotten Realms to Shadowrun, one of which uses an entirely different system. However, sometimes the mechanics of the game may not fit with the narrative of the setting.
The OP said:
I'm worldcrafting, and want to create a place where permanent magic items are special and rare.
What do you think of the following ruling ... would this do it? How would living with this ruling affect you as a player?
This is a mechanical question. The OP is on the right track in the sense that he is trying to make sure that his mechanics are supporting the world that he wishes to deliver. However, he also asked specifically what this would mean for the players (also the right track) and how it would influence you as a player.
The SETTING is irrelevant. What is relevant here is the MECHANICAL deterrent to having lots of magic items with the express purpose of making them rare in a setting. That's the effect of the mechanic. To make magic items rarer by making them unappealing.
I'm asking what is this adding vs what it's complicating / messing up. This is about mechanics, not about setting. Making magic items rarer can be done in a multitude of ways. This is about a specific mechanic.
mechanics divorced from setting for the part? Just about every campaign setting in existence aside from Forgotten Realms would like to have a word with you...
For the most part? Not even close. The setting and the mechanics are intertwined.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agree with Freehold 100% and will go add that the default of PFRPG is high magic. Which can be part of the problem the OP is struggling with.
Your setting is going to be derivative (to a degree) to the mechanics that govern the game.
This is not me making a statement - this is a fact - pretty much about every rpg out there.
The degrees of influence are factored by how many things you have the rules governing: aspects of daily lives, ease of casting spells and creating items, skill use, damage and hit point system relative to weapon damage (say everyone has 50 hp, swords do 1d8).
Degrees will vary - but the mechanics will influence a game world’s internal consistency and what you can or cannot pull off while running your game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A bigger question is, "If you're effectively trying to remove magic items as a thing, what are you replacing it with"?I can answer this one - nothing mechanical.
It's the same thing you get when you give out reduced XP or use a slower xp track (or both) - their is no "replacement" needed. It is a game play and stylistic change.
Okay, so then it means that as a player you won't really be able to get your jollies looting cool stuff. That's an effect, and an answer to one of the OP's questions.
Incoming..... "but teh magicians can still cast their spellz!!!!1!!!"
Yeah, that's another problem he will have to address (reducing the number of listed spells that can be cast per day, power of spells a "win button", etc) - also how powerful are encounters at CR (from the book) with less magic items as expected, as they level up, statistical assumptions, blah, blah.
All can be fixed if the OP properly IDs these math assumptions and makes adjustments as he reduces the number of items in his game. Fixable - if you know the problem and are willing to make those changes to fix those problems.
At least I hope the OP realizes this.
Which is part of the point. All this seems to do is add in a lot of extra work. A ton of extra work when the goal is simply "make magic items more rare" and "make magic items more special". I'm not actually convinced that it does either of these things and it generates a ton of extra work and retooling of the game from the top to the bottom. When you've changed...
1. The classes.
2. The spells.
3. The loot.
4. The magic items.
5. The monsters/encounters.
That's pretty much the entire game sans skill points and maybe feats (I say maybe feats because now feat ability score prerequisites likely need to be re-adjusted too since you can't qualify for them with magic items effectively as was expected).
This does increase the power of spellcasters relative to everyone else in big ways. If things like flying carpets effectively don't exist, then fly and overland flight become so much better. When magic swords are rare and super unusual, then greater magic weapon is way more precious. Now if you decide to "fix" this, now you have to re-tool all the spellcasting in the game and deal with the ripple effects of those changes as well.
As noted before, you're drastically reducing the value of the gold piece from a gaming perspective. Treasure is no worth less than it was before. If magic items are actually going to be rare, as in you won't see them frequently (as opposed to the "I want magic items to be rare = I only want players to have the magic items I allow them" which is usually how this goal actually goes down), then what are you going to replace this massive hole in the game with?
Nothing, the value of gold is relative to the needs of his players and the game.
If the objective end game of his campaign is for his PCs to build a Stronghold, Castle or even city - that surplus gold is going to come in handy. If he creates a "higher level" gold buy list (paying for research to find new dungeons, researching magic items (because they are limited), building and facilities, etc) then he just re-purposed the value of gold in his game.Which requires the players to care about strongholds, castles, and cities. Most people who play Pathfinder enjoy finding a cool item that they can use. I would hazard to bet that not nearly as many want to play D20 Tycoon (I would, but I'm not everybody).
Most of the things that you listed aren't even very valuable. By 5th level a few spellcasters can pretty much handle all of that stuff on the cheap. A little bit of downtime, plus a little bit of low to mid-level magic and you can do all of that stuff on your own. Animate dead, wall of stone, and so forth can let you build your own fortresses. It's neither hard nor expensive.
Want to find new dungeons? Look for them. That's an adventure right there. Use your own skill checks (Gather Information). Just wander around looking for adventure. Nothing you said actually has any appreciable value to money for an adventuring party. A lot of that stuff is in fact a deterrent to adventuring (managing a city, for example).
Not everything is default Paizo power level/gp value/progression pace/high magic - try thinking outside of the box and see how if you make the changes to one thing, and then follow it up with the correct changes to adjust for consequence - it can work. Paizo doesn't bother with this because they don't really care about changing the assumed power level of the game - that doesn't mean it can't be done by examining and changing the system appropriately.
You clearly haven't been reading what I've been posting then. It's really not that hard to change the power levels of the game. In fact, Paizo gives a bunch of dials in the core system that make it pretty easy to quickly and easily change lots of stuff in the game in a way that's really easy for your players to understand. For example, I could...
1. Treat all communities as 2 size categories smaller for the purposes of spellcasting services and magic item GP limits. Suddenly you have to find a metropolis to get 3rd-4th level spells, and the most expensive magic items you can buy in a metropolis are 4,000 gp.
2. Play a low-fantasy game where the treasure values of everything are cut in half. Treasure is still valuable but it comes more slowly. If players want to create magic items, they will be investing more of their overall gains to them.
3. Shift the GP standard up or down a step (a bit more complicated but if you want your world to have silver as the standard currency then gold and platinum might be more valuable than before, but harder to come by) while leaving the prices of magic items unchanged.
4. Remove magic items from the core assumption of the game using one of any number of magic-lite variants and then treat magic items as sort of mini-artifacts.
5.
I know this goes beyond the scope of your gaming experience and knowledge Ashiel, but there was a time (around 26 years) where "I only want players to have the magic items I allow them" was the core mechanic of controlling the power and to a degree the ease of play in the game. The Dungeon Master set this via item placement since item creation didn't exist.
Beyond my scope and knowledge? Why not just insult my mother while you're insulting my intelligence too?
Along with item creation effectively not existing initially (which it kind of did, but not in any well standardized way) neither did rules for...most anything. Hell, half the time it was being made up as you went along. It was the dark ages of GM fiat and mother may I. Those were dark times. Even then, they still had instructions to not use certain types of monsters and such if your players didn't have any +X swords and stuff to deal with them.
And if you actually followed the charts and stuff in ye olde D and D, you could wind up with lowbie characters swinging around vorpal swords and crazy junk like that. I mean you could overrule it or just place items as you pleased, but then you can today too. The only difference is that players actually have an option to be proactive and make their own items. Which is a good thing.
It worked rather well and players were not decked out with layers of magic junk that they "needed". Of course there were DMs who handed that stuff out like candy, that goes towards what the play expectation is for that group.
Well, except that you actually did need items back then. I mean, good luck dealing damage to even almost mundane monsters without a +1 sword. "Must be this tall to ride" was the name of the game with magic items back in the day. You encounter a monster that needs a magic weapon to hit? If you don't have that magic weapon, there is nothing you can do against it.
Well, that's not entirely true. Your party's mage might be able to do something (either summoning a monster with enough HD to attack as if it were magical, or blasting it with magic and hoping it doesn't have 55% spell resistance, since that was +5% per level beneath 11th, so if you guys were 5th level, 85% spell resistance).
*shrugs* Memory lanes I guess. Now you should tell me something about the Atari like it's impossible for me to experience things about one of those.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agree with Freehold 100% and will go add that the default of PFRPG is high magic. Which can be part of the problem the OP is struggling with.
Your setting is going to be derivative (to a degree) to the mechanics that govern the game.
This is not me making a statement - this is a fact - pretty much about every rpg out there.
The degrees of influence are factored by how many things you have the rules governing: aspects of daily lives, ease of casting spells and creating items, skill use, damage and hit point system relative to weapon damage (say everyone has 50 hp, swords do 1d8).
Degrees will vary - but the mechanics will influence a game world’s internal consistency and what you can or cannot pull off while running your game.
Yeah, and if you were paying attention, you'll notice I said just that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The setting and mechanics are by the most part divorced from one another, but it helps a lot if they are working in tandem. For example, I can use Pathfinder to run everything from the Forgotten Realms to Shadowrun, one of which uses an entirely different system. However, sometimes the mechanics of the game may not fit with the narrative of the setting.
The OP said:
I'm worldcrafting, and want to create a place where permanent magic items are special and rare.
What do you think of the following ruling ... would this do it? How would living with this ruling affect you as a player?
mechanics divorced from setting for the part? Just about every campaign setting in existence aside from Forgotten Realms would like to have a word with you...
For the most part? Not even close. The setting and the mechanics are intertwined.
I don't think you're getting it. I'm saying you have the setting and then you have the mechanics. I can pick up a copy of Grayhawk, Mystara, Eberron, the Forgotten Realms, or World of Darkness and play it with Pathfinder.
The catch is mechanic / setting consistency. That's what I meant when I said that it helps when the mechanics and the setting are working together rather than in spite of each other. Again, the OP asked a good question. I bolded it in the quote above.
He is asking about a MECHANIC that is intended to help synchronize with A GOAL for the setting. The mechanic, when introduced, would in theory make magic items less common in ANY SETTING that it was applied to if followed through to its conclusion.
Ergo, if I were to apply a mechanic that makes magic items rarer, then it doesn't matter what setting I'm running, the magic items are going to become rarer. Even if that setting was EBERRON which is by its own declaration a high-fantasy pulp fantasy. By applying the correct mechanical adjustments, then even that setting that expects magic items to be something you see regularly will suddenly begin seeing less magic items.
This is why Golarion has nothing to do with it and never did.
Now the second, and equally important part of the OP's question was this: What do you think of the following ruling ... would this do it? How would living with this ruling affect you as a player?
This is where I'm throwing my 2 coppers in. I think it's a terrible mechanic and doesn't actually do what he's wanting. All it does is make you go about doing it in a different way. It doesn't really encourage you to make less common magic items, but it does encourage less interesting magic items like flying carpets and figurines and fans and stuff.
Meanwhile, it sets up a slope that will end up changing his setting in ways that may not have been intended. If you can steal life force from people to make magic items, then the people who are going to be in the biggest power bracket are going to be evil spellcasters. Evil people are going to rule. They are going to be the ones with the power. Good people are going to break magic items to try and give people their life forces back (or give them a chance and resurrection if they were slain to make the items). Bad guys are going to have more magic items than the good guys and will pretty much always have them without the cost that the good guys are going to do.
So this RULE only shifts the possession of magic items to evil-doers. It doesn't actually make them more rare. In fact, if you go to Evil McDouchebag's castle, he's probably decorating his Christmas Tree with shiny magic items that he made by blackmailing somebody's loved ones into forking over their Con scores in exchange for releasing their child or something.
Meanwhile, not only is the rule failing to do what it was intended to do (make items more rare and special) it's doing the opposite (it's making a lot of items less special since it's encouraging static items that just give you the staples, rather than interesting and flavorful things) and it's just adding extra irritation for players who wanted to do things like make their own magic items.
I just think the mechanic is ill conceived. I think it fails at its stated intention. I think it causes more problems than it fixes.
Mystara and ESPECIALLY Greyhawk would look very different with pathfinder rules in play. Very different. A wizard would take over in roughly a week using the Pathfinder ruleset.
Memory lanes? Not so much. Experience trumping opinion? More like that, yes. An atari is going to mean different things to you than it does to me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This does increase the power of spellcasters relative to everyone else in big ways. If things like flying carpets effectively don't exist, then fly and overland flight become so much better. When magic swords are rare and super unusual, then greater magic weapon is way more precious. Now if you decide to "fix" this, now you have to re-tool all the spellcasting in the game and deal with the ripple effects of those changes as well.
No, you just remove those spells that break the meta standard/power of what you are looking for at level (greater magic weapon) or you delay the spell (make it higher level) to sync with the level of play you are looking for (making Fly or Overland Flight higher level spells).
He didn't say he wanted to get rid of magic items, he said he wanted to make them rarer (reading comp). This can be a delay, reduction in number, reduction in power, increased cost or any combination.If you are going to make Flying Carpets rarer then you would have to look at the spells that go into Fly Carpet creation and possibly reset them to a higher level? This isn't rocket science and not every spell or item is a gross offender.
----------------------------------------
Which requires the players to care about strongholds, castles, and cities. Most people who play Pathfinder enjoy finding a cool item that they can use. I would hazard to bet that not nearly as many want to play D20 Tycoon (I would, but I'm not everybody).
Most of the things that you listed aren't even very valuable. By 5th level a few spellcasters can pretty much handle all of that stuff on the cheap. A little bit of downtime, plus a little bit of low to mid-level magic and you can do all of that stuff on your own. Animate dead, wall of stone, and so forth can let you build your own fortresses. It's neither hard nor expensive.
And what were saying about mechanics effecting game worlds?
Can you think (?) for a moment that he doesn't want a world where castles are built by undead and walls of stone? Something which, btw is a garbage method of creating a castle (or anything for that matter).TBH, a castle made out of Walls of Stone worked by skeletons and zombies would be a death trap for the inhabitants. Go figure...
----------------------------------------
Want to find new dungeons? Look for them. That's an adventure right there. Use your own skill checks (Gather Information). Just wander around looking for adventure. Nothing you said actually has any appreciable value to money for an adventuring party. A lot of that stuff is in fact a deterrent to adventuring (managing a city, for example).
Subjective and it goes to tastes and play style - I see where yours lie, you want the skill system and wandering around the map to handle it for you - some people may want more depth: utilizing NPC sages to get info, NPCs craftsman to actually build a real castle (and not lumps of stone worked by unskilled undead), etc.
----------------------------------------
You clearly haven't been reading what I've been posting then.
I try avoiding it when possible, I have problems with migraines.
It's really not that hard to change the power levels of the game. In fact, Paizo gives a bunch of dials in the core system that make it pretty easy to quickly and easily change lots of stuff in the game in a way that's really easy for your players to understand. For example, I could...
1. Treat all communities as 2 size categories smaller for the purposes of spellcasting services and magic item GP limits. Suddenly you have to find a metropolis to get 3rd-4th level spells, and the most expensive magic items you can buy in a metropolis are 4,000 gp.
2. Play a low-fantasy game where the treasure values of everything are cut in half. Treasure is still valuable but it comes more slowly. If players want to create magic items, they will be investing more of their overall gains to them.
3. Shift the GP standard up or down a step (a bit more complicated but if you want your world to have silver as the standard currency then gold and platinum might be more valuable than before, but harder to come by) while leaving the prices of magic items unchanged.
All of which are 100% garbage solutions because as the Players level up, guess what - they still have to fight creatures at CR with assumed math. So your suggestions would move them along in levels, but not in gear. Perfect.
----------------------------------------
4. Remove magic items from the core assumption of the game using one of any number of magic-lite variants and then treat magic items as sort of mini-artifacts.
I must have missed this book (maybe ultimate campaign?), but I have never seen Paizo address this concretely. Please cite your source on this one (no really, all snark aside I’m curious to see what they did – maybe it’s on the PRD site)
----------------------------------------
Along with item creation effectively not existing initially (which it kind of did, but not in any well standardized way) neither did rules for...most anything. Hell, half the time it was being made up as you went along. It was the dark ages of GM fiat and mother may I. Those were dark times. Even then, they still had instructions to not use certain types of monsters and such if your players didn't have any +X swords and stuff to deal with them.
......
Well, except that you actually did need items back then. I mean, good luck dealing damage to even almost mundane monsters without a +1 sword. "Must be this tall to ride" was the name of the game with magic items back in the day. You encounter a monster that needs a magic weapon to hit? If you don't have that magic weapon, there is nothing you can do against it.
Which was the only limitation – needing X (which you probably had by level 5-7), this as compared to the current need of X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AF to ride in 3.5/PF with the assumed math.
They were only dark times because someone told you to think that and you believe it.
Must be hard to admit that the game you play - today - was derived from such a terrible hobby with terrible rules. Oh, what a contradiction!
----------------------------------------
And if you actually followed the charts and stuff in ye olde D and D, you could wind up with lowbie characters swinging around vorpal swords and crazy junk like that. I mean you could overrule it or just place items as you pleased, but then you can today too. The only difference is that players actually have an option to be proactive and make their own items. Which is a good thing.
Ah so instead of bad DM placing items that take characters way out of level range in power it's better now because players (optimized ones at least or those with system mastery) can do it instead?
Yes, this is progress.----------------------------------------
The only difference is that players actually have an option to be proactive and make their own items. Which is a good thing.
So the sum of your stance is that no matter what you want players to have the ability to craft items yet you came in a thread in the "Suggestion" forums where the GM in question wanted to make crafting harder, with the end result of reducing magic items in his games? All the while trying to convince him that "it isn't all that bad" and what he wants is wrong?
Is this what passes as help these days?
Ashiel wrote:
4. Remove magic items from the core assumption of the game using one of any number of magic-lite variants and then treat magic items as sort of mini-artifacts.
I must have missed this book (maybe ultimate campaign?), but I have never seen Paizo address this concretely. Please cite your source on this one (no really, all snark aside I’m curious to see what they did – maybe it’s on the PRD site)
I too, would like to see this. We may be talking past each other to no avail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mystara and ESPECIALLY Greyhawk would look very different with pathfinder rules in play. Very different. A wizard would take over in roughly a week using the Pathfinder ruleset.
Memory lanes? Not so much. Experience trumping opinion? More like that, yes. An atari is going to mean different things to you than it does to me.
And you're still missing that I am agreeing with you. My point is that I think this is a poor mechanic for what the intended goal is. That's all I've said.
Also, for the record, I grew up playing on the Atari and the Commodore 64 and Sega Master System and original Nintendo. Making assumptions based on age or generations is generally bad form. Thanks to the world of emulators, I can play lots of the games I own cartridges of again on my PC. Just because we're in 2014 doesn't mean that people have forgotten old games. I've played in some 2E and older games. I've considered running a OD&D game. I have an interest in all things gaming. I don't disrespect you guys by making assumptions about your age or experiences, so I'd appreciate it if you'd return the favor.
I too, would like to see this. We may be talking past each other to no avail.4. Remove magic items from the core assumption of the game using one of any number of magic-lite variants and then treat magic items as sort of mini-artifacts.
I must have missed this book (maybe ultimate campaign?), but I have never seen Paizo address this concretely. Please cite your source on this one
I'm not sure that Paizo has published anything specifically on it, but there are a ton of suggested methods of the homebrew forums (the forum we're on right now), and places like the old WotC boards, Giant in the Playground, and more. I myself threw together a system for Mikaze that can be used either alongside magic items or to dispense with magic items entirely (if the latter is used, the standard GP values you get in PF for treasure instead are obtained as an ability resource), which can be ideal for equipment-lite games and doesn't ruin martials in the process.
I seriously doubt the OP is anti-homebrew given the subforum this was posted in. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the sum of your stance is that no matter what you want players to have the ability to craft items yet you came in a thread in the "Suggestion" forums where the GM in question wanted to make crafting harder, with the end result of reducing magic items in his games? All the while trying to convince him that "it isn't all that bad" and what he wants is wrong?
No. Which is why you're wasting your time. If you're not going to read my posts, it's a waste of everyone's time for you to respond to them.
Again, from the OP:
I'm worldcrafting, and want to create a place where permanent magic items are special and rare. What do you think of the following ruling ... would this do it? How would living with this ruling affect you as a player?
The OP didn't suggest that he wanted to eliminate crafting. In fact, he even went so far as to auto-gift every casting class with every item creation feat as soon as they would have met the prerequisites. He was, according to his OP, looking for a mechanic that encouraged magic items to be rare in his setting. In essence he wants the mechanics to work in tandem with his setting themes. This is what I was explaining earlier.
His setting doesn't do anything on its own. He could say that magic items were rare in his setting, but without supporting mechanics, it would just be obviously incorrect fluff. Likewise supporting mechanics would make items rare regardless of setting. This has been a mechanical question from the get-go.
I have posed, and continue to suggest, that I don't believe that this proposed mechanic is a good one for getting what he seems to be seeking. It creates a ton of additional issues that are beyond what his stated goals were, and it complicates item creation for players even though he clearly doesn't want to remove item creation for players.
I think he sounds like a good GM because he's being mindful and asking about the consequences of what he has proposed, and has already considered that it may have negative consequences for his playerbase. I answered his question honestly and as helpfully as I could. My biggest concerns about what he poses are...
1. I don't think it actually reduces the frequency of magic items. Instead it just encourages magic items to come from violence. Evil characters will have the most magic items.
2. It creates many immersion issues since most likely the only sorts of magic items that you would regularly find are magic-user magic items. Martial characters aren't going to frequently be able to support murdering their own hit points and fortitude saves. I mean, you'd be taking a permanent -2 Fortitude and -2 HP/level if you wanted a magic sword, a magic armor, a magic cloak, and 1 other magic item (such as a bow or a shield). The exception, again, would be bad-guys getting their Con from someone else.
3. It's not internally consistent, since terms like "life energy" are getting thrown around, but that doesn't jive well with positive energy (literally life energy) and the fact it has to come from sentient creatures (making it sound more like something else entirely).
4. It makes item creation unnecessarily complicated for players (NPCs won't care) and pushes players to micro-manage their character development in major ways. That means immediately from the start of their buying or rolling ability scores they are going to have to decide exactly what magic items they are going to want. With system mastery they can invest in Constitution just to get more magic items for the least pain. Doubly so if they later decide to become undead.
5. It encourages players to be bad guys. Since magic items cannot be purchased but are clearly desirable and the most efficient way of making them is to hurt other people to get them, you are encouraging players to treat sentient creatures as treasure, since orc prisoners are now energizer batteries.
6. It devalues money because the lack of something to spend the money on. At least with reduced currency you are still rewarded for saving up and then investing time and money to make magic items. Otherwise money has no appreciable value. There are other ways to do this without directly ruining money.
7. It makes magic items less special and less interesting because the only magic items you're going to see are ones that improve your combat statistics. No magic balls, no flying carpets, no folding boats, no magical chimes or flutes. None of that stuff. This literally goes against what the OP was asking for (to "make magic items more special"). Instead it just makes getting as few magic items with as many obviously helpful effects on them as possible.
None of these points have really been addressed. Other than making excuses like "well you can invent something to spend money on". Well woop-di-friggin'-doo. That's a great idea. Let's do work to make more work that makes more work that makes more work that makes more work than makes more work for us as the GM and we haven't even rolled up characters yet.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Which is why you're wasting your time. If you're not going to read my posts, it's a waste of everyone's time for you to respond to them.
Well reading yours does feel like mental murder.
None of these points have really been addressed
Actually almost all of those issues were were discussed before you joined in the conversation.
1. I don't think it actually reduces the frequency of magic items. Instead it just encourages magic items to come from violence. Evil characters will have the most magic items. Addressed and discussed
2. It creates many immersion issues since most likely the only sorts of magic items that you would regularly find are magic-user magic items. Martial characters aren't going to frequently be able to support murdering their own hit points and fortitude saves. I mean, you'd be taking a permanent -2 Fortitude and -2 HP/level if you wanted a magic sword, a magic armor, a magic cloak, and 1 other magic item (such as a bow or a shield). The exception, again, would be bad-guys getting their Con from someone else.
Addressed and discussed3. It's not internally consistent, since terms like "life energy" are getting thrown around, but that doesn't jive well with positive energy (literally life energy) and the fact it has to come from sentient creatures (making it sound more like something else entirely).
Valid concern about consistancy, and even on the good evil paradigm and item sources of power4. It makes item creation unnecessarily complicated for players (NPCs won't care) and pushes players to micro-manage their character development in major ways. That means immediately from the start of their buying or rolling ability scores they are going to have to decide exactly what magic items they are going to want. With system mastery they can invest in Constitution just to get more magic items for the least pain. Doubly so if they later decide to become undead.
Partailly addressed5. It encourages players to be bad guys. Since magic items cannot be purchased but are clearly desirable and the most efficient way of making them is to hurt other people to get them, you are encouraging players to treat sentient creatures as treasure, since orc prisoners are now energizer batteries.
Addressed and discussed6. It devalues money because the lack of something to spend the money on. At least with reduced currency you are still rewarded for saving up and then investing time and money to make magic items. Otherwise money has no appreciable value. There are other ways to do this without directly ruining money.
I addressed and this, you just didn't like the solution.
Money still buys things: Castles, Countries, Information, Allies, etc - you just equate gold = magic items.7. It makes magic items less special and less interesting because the only magic items you're going to see are ones that improve your combat statistics. No magic balls, no flying carpets, no folding boats, no magical chimes or flutes. None of that stuff. This literally goes against what the OP was asking for (to "make magic items more special"). Instead it just makes getting as few magic items with as many obviously helpful effects on them as possible.
Addressed and discussed.
Somewhat absurd argument - casters of different kinds are going to make different items. A wizard obsessed with knowing things will invest in a crystal ball, while chimes and flutes will be crafted by Bardic characters/NPCs. Unless you think the entire game world revolves around "CHAROP 100% COMBAT LEET!!!1!!!!1!1!!", this doesn't make sense. People have their own things that are important to them so they will craft things that are relevant to their concerns or desires.
My answers are bolded (for the bolding impared).
None of these points have really been addressed. Other than making excuses like "well you can invent something to spend money on". Well woop-di-friggin'-doo. That's a great idea. Let's do work to make more work that makes more work that makes more work that makes more work than makes more work for us as the GM and we haven't even rolled up characters yet.
Ahh, the drooling part/stuck on repeat.
Ok, well most of your points were already addressed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well reading yours does feel like mental murder.
They also come with a Fortitude save vs energy drain.
Actually almost all of those issues were were discussed before you joined in the conversation.
I didn't see any consensus on them. Why couldn't you simply detail what the result of those discussions were, rather than wasting time fighting about nothing?
Why do you take such offense at my pointing out that I think this mechanic does not achieve the stated goals of the OP? If those goals changed then I missed it. I don't get what your problem is.
2. It creates many immersion issues since most likely the only sorts of magic items that you would regularly find are magic-user magic items. Martial characters aren't going to frequently be able to support murdering their own hit points and fortitude saves. I mean, you'd be taking a permanent -2 Fortitude and -2 HP/level if you wanted a magic sword, a magic armor, a magic cloak, and 1 other magic item (such as a bow or a shield). The exception, again, would be bad-guys getting their Con from someone else.
Addressed and discussed
What was the consensus?
4. It makes item creation unnecessarily complicated for players (NPCs won't care) and pushes players to micro-manage their character development in major ways. That means immediately from the start of their buying or rolling ability scores they are going to have to decide exactly what magic items they are going to want. With system mastery they can invest in Constitution just to get more magic items for the least pain. Doubly so if they later decide to become undead.
Partailly addressed
So what was the consensus?
5. It encourages players to be bad guys. Since magic items cannot be purchased but are clearly desirable and the most efficient way of making them is to hurt other people to get them, you are encouraging players to treat sentient creatures as treasure, since orc prisoners are now energizer batteries.
Addressed and discussed
Again, what was the result of that?
6. It devalues money because the lack of something to spend the money on. At least with reduced currency you are still rewarded for saving up and then investing time and money to make magic items. Otherwise money has no appreciable value. There are other ways to do this without directly ruining money.
I addressed and this, you just didn't like the solution.
Money still buys things: Castles, Countries, Information, Allies, etc - you just equate gold = magic items.
Your suggestion was basically Castle Tycoon. I pointed out some issues with that. A lot of people either don't care about such things, don't want to deal with such things, find those things to be aggravating to the wandering lifestyle of an adventurer, or don't want to deal with the bookkeeping of keeping track of bribes and contacts. Even then, the money is only as good as a whim, unless a new system for expending it is introduced to the game.
Essentially, the value of gold becomes a whim. For example, how much does a plot of land cost? What of it's in a swamp? Or in a desert? Can you buy land from nobles? Are their nobles to buy land from? What about home-steading? What if we just want to keep the dungeon we just cleared to use as our base (a popular tactic I've seen)? Why should they care?
Your suggestion amounts to "Who's Line is it Anyway" where the points don't matter. It doesn't really matter if you go out into an adventure and make five gold or five million because there's nothing to spend it on except whatever the GM happens to make up on a whim...unless you make some standards for what you can get for your money, show the actual effects of those things, and remain consistent about it.
The funny thing is, money already does that in the regular game. Except you can also get magic items and stuff to actually make those things worthwhile. For example, in a normal D&D game, you could use money to buy a base on the GM's whims, or homestead a dungeon you cleared out. Then you can get a magic item that has private sanctum to protect it from magical snooping, but not here.
So again, just taking away from the game, and my question was "what is the appreciable benefit for taking away options"?
7. It makes magic items less special and less interesting because the only magic items you're going to see are ones that improve your combat statistics. No magic balls, no flying carpets, no folding boats, no magical chimes or flutes. None of that stuff. This literally goes against what the OP was asking for (to "make magic items more special"). Instead it just makes getting as few magic items with as many obviously helpful effects on them as possible.
Addressed and discussed.
Somewhat absurd argument - casters of different kinds are going to make different items. A wizard obsessed with knowing things will invest in a crystal ball, while chimes and flutes will be crafted by Bardic characters/NPCs. Unless you think the entire game world revolves around "CHAROP 100% COMBAT LEET!!!1!!!!1!1!!", this doesn't make sense. People have their own things that are important to them so they will craft things that are relevant to their concerns or desires.
Well, no, because the people making those items can do all of those things without those items. So why would they kill themselves to make those items?
For example, the benefit of a crystal ball is it allows ANYONE to use scrying (and potentially other spells you can normally use through scrying but it's going to cost you). The DC is low (16) and gets lower every additional time you use it per day. If you can make a crystal ball, you can probably cast scrying or something similar.
Hence the casters just cast their spell (which will have a higher DC in almost all cases) and enjoy the fact they didn't kill themselves to do it.
Carpet of flying? Well, that's a cool magic item for Aladdin. No so cool for Mordekainen who's zipping around with fly, or overland flight.
Most chimes and flutes aren't worth a permanent Con loss. Nobody is going to murder themselves to make pipes of the sewers.
Also, character optimization has nothing to do with it. The point is that magic items exist to serve a function. More times than not, that function can already be done by the person who was creating the magic item. There is no appreciable benefit for them to actually make such items if making those items is going to be killing them. However, items that would be worth while to create are things that help them survive against their enemies and the dangers that they are facing.
Wizard: "Hm, gee, should I expend 2 Constitution permanently to be able to do the things I already do, or should I expend 2 Constitution permanently to get a +5 resistance bonus to my saving throws and +3 to the saving throw DCs of my spells (which also makes my scrying more likely to succeed)? Decisions, decisions..."
Likewise, I don't know why NPCs would be any more suicidal than NPCs. Just because you live in a village and don't go adventuring doesn't mean you're going to want to make your life more difficult (making yourself more susceptible to disease, injury, etc) to make magic items for things you can already do.
And if you will, then again magic items aren't that rare, you just have a lot of morons scattered around who happen to know magic and be exceptionally frail.
New to the discussion, read some posts, skipped some bantering.
An idea that might work is to have an Enchantment Hit Point loss. It will reduce the character's hit points (or a willing ally, or a victim). Maybe it is something like 2 Hit Points per 1,000 gp value of the enchantment. These hit points are expended during the enchantment process, and will start to return after it is complete (or fails for whatever reason, whichever happens first). The rate of return is the reverse, so 2 HP per day. While gone, these Hit Points are treated as being permanently gone. Healing will not restore them.
So a +1 sword? That is a 2000 gp enchantment. It will take a day to enchant, which will reduce the character (or an ally, or victim) by 4 Hit Points. The day after it will drop to 2 hit points, and will be restored after two days.
New to the discussion, read some posts, skipped some bantering.
An idea that might work is to have an Enchantment Hit Point loss. It will reduce the character's hit points (or a willing ally, or a victim). Maybe it is something like 2 Hit Points per 1,000 gp value of the enchantment. These hit points are expended during the enchantment process, and will start to return after it is complete (or fails for whatever reason, whichever happens first). The rate of return is the reverse, so 2 HP per day. While gone, these Hit Points are treated as being permanently gone. Healing will not restore them.
So a +1 sword? That is a 2000 gp enchantment. It will take a day to enchant, which will reduce the character (or an ally, or victim) by 4 Hit Points. The day after it will drop to 2 hit points, and will be restored after two days.
While that's an interesting idea, I don't think it does anything to further the goals stated by the OP, which was for a mechanic that made magic items rarer and more special. Presumably without shutting down the creation of magic items entirely. Essentially...
1. Make it make sense that magic items aren't traded (this is hard because if it has value then it will be traded).
2. Make magic items (or the acquisition?) more special.
3. Make magic items less common (I think).
There's a number of ways that this could be done. One of the simplest ways would be to dial-down the treasure values and to dial-down the availability of magic items and/or spellcasting services. That goes a long way towards making magic items seem significantly rarer and doesn't require a lot of changes to make the game work.
For example, if you using the default "low-fantasy" suggestion in the core rulebook, you're basically looking at halving the treasure values of NPCs and such. If you're doing a slow XP progression game, you also bump treasure values down a level. In such a game you're not going to see many NPCs wandering around with lots of magic items. Quite the contrary, it might take the lots and lots of runoff gold before someone in a group of NPCs can afford a magic item.
A little world background so you know where I'm coming from ...
There are two dominant societies who are currently at peace, but a couple of generations earlier finally finished a long and costly war.
In the west are the hobgoblins. They have an often-brutal warrior society, producing skilled soldiers and using cannons (no guns yet), military engineering, tactics and superior troop numbers. Hobgoblins never have any arcane magic ability, and in their lands using arcane magic or magical items is punishable by death. (Hobgoblin is available as a PC race, but Bard/Sorcerer/Wizard/Alchemist/Witch/Magus are unavailable to them)
In the east are humans, who were/are militarily outclassed by the hobgoblins. However powerful human battlefield wizards inflicted such losses on the hobgoblins that they forced a ceasefire and a peace treaty was achieved.
So, on a regional scale, hobgoblin military might and human spellcasting are roughly balanced.
For the above situation to exist, i see the following
- the human martials as a whole don't have much access to magic items, or they wouldn't have been overwhelmed by the hobgoblins
- human arcane casters are powerful enough that high level individuals can inflict significant losses on an army
- being at peace with magic-hating hobgoblins, the humans will have to avoid having too much magic on show (though the threat of it helps keep the peace)
However not far away are highly magical elves who needn't have as many restrictions, and certainly not political ones, to their items.
Above all, the magic-item level should be such that a human martial still finds a high-level hobgoblin fighter with NO magic items a serious threat..
I really dig the whole idea and applaud your work. Your ideas are inspiring me as I work in my own world.
A little world background so you know where I'm coming from ...
There are two dominant societies who are currently at peace, but a couple of generations earlier finally finished a long and costly war.
In the west are the hobgoblins. They have an often-brutal warrior society, producing skilled soldiers and using cannons (no guns yet), military engineering, tactics and superior troop numbers. Hobgoblins never have any arcane magic ability, and in their lands using arcane magic or magical items is punishable by death. (Hobgoblin is available as a PC race, but Bard/Sorcerer/Wizard/Alchemist/Witch/Magus are unavailable to them)
In the east are humans, who were/are militarily outclassed by the hobgoblins. However powerful human battlefield wizards inflicted such losses on the hobgoblins that they forced a ceasefire and a peace treaty was achieved.
So, on a regional scale, hobgoblin military might and human spellcasting are roughly balanced.
For the above situation to exist, i see the following
- the human martials as a whole don't have much access to magic items, or they wouldn't have been overwhelmed by the hobgoblins
- human arcane casters are powerful enough that high level individuals can inflict significant losses on an army
- being at peace with magic-hating hobgoblins, the humans will have to avoid having too much magic on show (though the threat of it helps keep the peace)However not far away are highly magical elves who needn't have as many restrictions, and certainly not political ones, to their items.
Above all, the magic-item level should be such that a human martial still finds a high-level hobgoblin fighter with NO magic items a serious threat..
I like your ideas on hobgoblins. It's actually surprisingly similar to the way hobgoblins are in my own campaign setting (right down to disliking arcane magic; though they're fully on board with divine magic and have shamans and warpriests).
The biggest issue I see is that a high level fighter with no magic items will never be a serious threat at appropriate levels. Without some big changes to the game, it's doubtful that it would be a serious threat to an enemy half its level. Fighters are scarcely a threat now even if they have normal gear (a friend of mine who GMs occasionally says he uses the Fighter classed NPCs when he just wants to throw XP points at the party, and I don't even use them at all).
Some classes that might actually make that more viable would be to make your high level hobgoblin folks superstitious barbarians (who have a very magic-lite done-right vibe), rangers (who make great troopers), the occasional cavalier, and NPCs with lots of warrior NPC levels (using the bestiary rules for CR advancement instead of the Gamemastering chapter of the CRB).
Nice non-casting support guys might include alchemists. I know you said that they use cannons and explosives and such, so I could see hobgoblin chemists who hopped themselves and others up on stimulants, and threw explosives or acid bombs at people. They would also fill the magic niche for the hobgoblin war-machine, since from the sound of it they also lack divine magics, but alchemists can provide things like restoration, nondetection, and other spells that are kind of important on a world scale.
For example, how would the hobgoblin war-machine fair if they have no ways to do things like heal ability drain? Or to see invisibility? A single creature with greater invisibility could likely slaughter their entire warband if they have no way of countering such a thing (such as faerie fire, see invisibility, glitterdust, dispel magic, etc).
These are some questions that I myself had to answer, and I think my campaign turned out better for answering them, so I'm leaving them here for you as well.
That said, if elves are noticeably more magical than their hobgoblin and human counterparts, that might be another good reason to find yet another reason to hold off on draining Constitution for magic items, since presumably the elves are supposed to have more, but are already taking a hit to Con anyway.
From what you've told me so far, I would strongly urge that instead of complicating the standard system, you instead tackle it with fairly simple setting-adjustments.
This is what I'm getting from your posts
- You want a sort of gritty-low-magic feel from you hobgoblins, with them having less magic than anyone else. But you want them to still be something of a challenge to the more magical cultures.
- You want humans to be kind of "in the middle" from the hobgoblins (no magic) and elves (much magic), so they have few magic items but more potent spellcasters (this is a hard point as even a single 11th level spellcaster could wipe out the entire hobgoblin war-machine if unchallenged by magic of any kind). It's technically possible to do before then, but 11th level is a good benchmark for doing it without really trying.
- You want the elves to be more prominent in magic, but apparently rarer and more removed from the overall struggle of the two other factions. Basically classic Tolkienesque elves who are just better than everyone but don't do much.
I would recommend the following options.
- Use the slow XP progression (and adjust treasure accordingly).
- Cut treasure values in half (low-fantasy PF variant). With less NPC wealth you will see far fewer magic items showing up in equipment loadouts. With wealth slashed, PCs will have less money to buy or craft magic items with. At very high levels, you'll still have NPCs who can afford a magic item or two, which was probably a war trophy for a hobgoblin or a mark of great prestige for a human.
- In human lands, treat all settlements as if they were 3 size categories smaller than normal for the purposes of purchasing magic items and obtaining spellcasting services, to the minimum of a thorpe. That means in a metropolis you could find up to 2,000 gp magic items (plus a handful of random items) and only up to 2nd level spells available to pay for (you can tweak these adjustments until you get what you're looking for). For elven lands, consider making magic items and spells a bit more available (maybe only 1-2 steps below normal PF), which means that if you want to seek more powerful magics you need to go deal with the elves.
- Treat your entire party as being about 1 level below their usual level. Reduce the CR of equipment-reliant enemies by -1 step as well. Monsters with treasure values can fit whatever they can get into their slow-progression halved treasure values, but don't reduce their CR because they have abilities and such that will more than make up for it. Pretty much all bestiary monsters are much scarier when you're low on equipment.
- Consider further simple variants such as E6 or E8, where the strongest people in the world cap out at legendary power but not godlike power. Doing so would go a long way towards explaining why the entire hobgoblin war machine hasn't been wiped off the planet by a single 11th level wizard.
The pros of this approach is that nobody has to deal with anything complicated and it doesn't change the item creation process, and it still keeps money valuable and item creation on the table without having to micro-manage your build or over-valuing races and such that have bonuses to Constitution. In fact, it arguably makes it more valuable since there's less of it but magic item prices have remained the same, and might just act as a simple plot hook to go try to make some deals with the elves from time to time.
Such a campaign could be lots of fun.
Thanks Ashiel, some good suggestions there - clearly I get better responses when i provide context for my query.
My hobgoblins have no issue with divine magic, and with NPC hobgoblins I see Rangers, Clerics, Inquisitors and Cavaliers being common and held in good regard. While having a lawful society and therefore few hobgoblin barbarians, their army contains bugbear and goblin units, and bugbear barbarian seems a good fit.
E6/E8 is a little too extreme, but I intend to top out about level 12.
Approaching elves for magical assistance will likely be its own adventure as they inhabit 10-14 days from human borders, passing through fey-infested forests, and have little interest in gold.
Thanks Ashiel, some good suggestions there - clearly I get better responses when i provide context for my query.
You're very welcome. I'm happy to help.
My hobgoblins have no issue with divine magic, and with NPC hobgoblins I see Rangers, Clerics, Inquisitors and Cavaliers being common and held in good regard. While having a lawful society and therefore few hobgoblin barbarians, their army contains bugbear and goblin units, and bugbear barbarian seems a good fit.
I imagine your hobgoblins and my hobgoblins would fistbump at Hobgoblicon. In my campaign the hobgoblins are very anti-arcane magic, but they still have a few members of their society that practice arcane magic on the fringes. These are usually sorcerers born with arcane magic. They're kind of shunned from society but the smart warlords usually keep them around since they can be useful in a pinch.
E6/E8 is a little too extreme, but I intend to top out about level 12.
Just figured it worth mentioning. There's no one solution to any of these things, more like a tackle-box of options that can be used alone or mixed. :P
Approaching elves for magical assistance will likely be its own adventure as they inhabit 10-14 days from human borders, passing through fey-infested forests, and have little interest in gold.
Sounds like a plan. ^_^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for everyone's thoughts on this ...
As much as I like the Con/life-force idea for magic, I'm going to drop it for the current world build - but keep my notes and possibly use it in some form in the future.
Using a mix of the helpful suggestions by assorted people (and one or two of my original ideas) I'm going with the following
Rule changes on magic and crafting:
- No additional restrictions on crafting potions or scrolls
- No freely available purchase of magic items other than potions or scrolls (they must be crafted, found in-game, or bought at a negotiated price through interactions with NPCs)
- No wands, other than bonded items (a flavour thing as much as anything)
- No crafting feats required, although the prerequisites for the feats must be met (because the components needed for each item and the lower availability of gp add enough restriction already, without having to use a feat up)
- Prerequisites for items MUST be met (no +5 to DC alternative)
- Many items require specific ('talismanic') components; the more powerful the item, the more difficult it is to find out (acquire or research a recipe) what components are required and to acquire those components.(For example, a +1 sword might only require a lynx or wolf claw, but a +5 sword require a claw from a mature dragon.)
- The Master Craftsman feat is only available to Elves and Dwarves.
- Hobgoblin PCs cannot play any arcane casting class (not even Bard or Alchemist) (Divine casters are unrestricted).
- No universalist wizards; they must pick a focused arcane school.
- Superior Masterwork (see posts in thread) weapons and armour and Supreme Masterwork weapons are available
Relevant Campaign Considerations/Notes:
- Reduced treasure values so there is less gp to spend on magic items.
- Carefully set the difficulty of each encounter (there will be more humanoids than monsters anyway, so they'll have the same restrictions as the PCs)
- Carefully set the spellcasting-for-hire level of each individual city
- Arcane Casters have social issues to contend with when dealing with hobgoblins or passing through hobgoblin areas (arcane spellcasting = mandatory death sentence if convicted in the three hobgoblin nations, possession of arcane magic items = confiscation/destruction of items, heavy fine or several months sentence).
- Elves have +2 to Wisdom instead of to Int (encourages e.g. Druids and Rangers) and "Elven Magic: Elves add +1 to the DC of any saving throws against enchantment spells that they cast. Elves with a Wisdom of 11 or higher also gain the following spell-like abilities: 1/day— detect magic, detect poison, know direction and speak with animals. The caster level for these effects is equal to the elf's level."
- No gnomes in this world.
Tinker with the life force idea until it works, id love to see some variation of it.
|
|
Tinker with the life force idea until it works, id love to see some variation of it.
I think anything with lifeforce (Con/XP) is going to be tough because it's such a meta hit for the caster.
I have an idea that won't fly here and will get slammed but I will post it anyway:
Source: Caster only, with some exceptions where heroic (mid level or higher) allies can willingly offer to fuel an item (or aid).
Caster creates items with an xp or Con hit (his own life force) - but when the items are created they are created for a specific function or focus. Ex: Sword +1 cost X amount of xp/Con point, if used to wipe out X tribe of Orc or X number of evil humanoids or even for a large military campaign or war the caster gets the investment back.
Quest terms set between DM and caster at time of creation.
Non-combat items could have quest functions also: Boots of elvenkind could be required to be used on either a mission of stealth (breaking into a Dukes estate) or a quest to aid elves in some specific way (so elves would make these for their people all the time).
So you can have the caster make his own items (with objectives) or items for heroes (with the intent that the hero is going to actually try the task).
Time limits or limits on item creation per year, month, etc could also be put in place to limit the: create item / spend con (or xp)/ satisfy task or quest for item / get investment back / create item.
This is basically a loan system mechanic. You pay for the loan at item creation. Item quest/function conditions must be satisfied or they collateral (Xp of Con, whatever you decide to use) is not returned. Limits to how much of the life force resource can be tied up in unfulfilled items at any one time.
Some arguments: Why would a caster create non-caster items - Chimes of such-and-such or Sword of slaying? They would create them for their allies or for heroes to undertake a quest that the caster cannot handle on their own or needs envoys to help. Of course if the hero dies, the caster would want someone to recover the item and use it (or just recover the item so the caster can give it to someone else).
Other Problems: Same old problems associated with too-low of a Con to play the character, or putting the PC behind the xp curve. Satisfying qualifiers and quest can help mitigate that, as well as limiting how many weapons are on "loan" in this system. It does incentify finishing missions or casters giving their items to PCs/NPCs who are not deadbeats and can actually finish a quest.
Anyway.
-----------------------------
I like this draft but I have a concern about one of the examples
- Many items require specific ('talismanic') components; the more powerful the item, the more difficult it is to find out (acquire or research a recipe) what components are required and to acquire those components.(For example, a +1 sword might only require a lynx or wolf claw, but a +5 sword require a claw from a mature dragon.)
I would consider using a rarer, magical creature of appropriate CR for when that weapon is going to show up (level of play). So instead of a lynx or wolf claw, I would consider using a wyvern for the +1 sword.
Otherwise this draft looks pretty good.
Why no universalist wizards?
Why no universalist wizards?
Mostly just flavour.
Tinker with the life force idea until it works, id love to see some variation of it.
I think one approach that might still work is that giving up life force ages you (I semi-suggested this a few pages back)
- can only use the crafter's life force- life force = age, not Con (so either each item ages you x years, or each item ages you x years per weapon plus or equivalent, or a month per thousand gp, or somesuch variant - I need to work out what figure gives the best balance)
- increasing physical age due to giving up life force gives the normal penalties to physical stats, but to get the increase in mental stats you need to have the chronological age.
- non-permanent items still don't cost any life force.
- (and don't allow the Age Resistance spells from ultimate magic)
- characters with a Venerable age category (from their physical aging) don't have enough life force to create items (or perhaps have to make a Fort save to survive the donation of life force)
(So a 25 year-old human wizard who aged 15 years due to excess crafting would have have a physical age of 40, giving a -1 penalty to physical stats, but would not get the +1 to mental stats as their mental age was still 25. However if he'd only given 8 years of life force in crafting, he would have no penalties at all).
Which would mean
- most NPCs would be put off crafting too much to do more than a little
- most PCs meta-gaming would be fine crafting a few items with no penalties at all, but avoid crafting so many that they would hit middle aged and get physical penalties
- undead can't craft magic items (though a Lich might have created several before he died, knowing the ageing didn't matter in the long run)
- crafting is automatically less costly for dwarves (as the years given up are proportionally less of their life span) and much less costly for long-lived elves.
- Restoration etc. don't need to be redefined/limited as they don't work on aging.
Unlike Con, which can only be dealt with in units of 1 point, age is more continuous, so it's easier to fine-tune/balance the effect. I'm not sure the exact cost there should be for activating items though.
Let's say I'm aiming for the party to have three or four good permanent magic items each by level twelve. (Good item = weapon with 5 total pluses, or other item of similar cost). For a party of five that's around say 18 items, 90 total pluses, or 900,000 gp total cost.
However, if I'm wanting to give them about 2/3 of that number of good items in-game, the amount I *want* them to be able to craft would be about 6 items, 30 total pluses or 300,000 gp of cost.
Assuming a human wizard (starting age average 22 years), and that they'd prefer not to get age penalties (which kick in from 35 years), that gives a metagamer 10-12 years 'spare' (depending on how long the campaign lasts in game terms) to use for crafting. Let's say 10 years for a human. (Some players will role-play their character planning for a longer life, some will not care what happens to the character after the couple of years of campaign time).
So, based on a human crafter we want either 1 item = 2 years of aging (if using a per-item cost), or based on the gp cost, 1 year = 30,000 gp worth of crafting. We could apply this proportionally, so a +1 sword only costs 1/15 of a year, or make a year the minimum amount.
Of course, with Dwarves and Elves the equation would change somewhat ... If we use the APG figures, a dwarf wizard starts about 65 years old and hits middle age at 125 years, giving them around 60 years 'spare' for crafting instead of the 10-12 of a human. An elf wizard would start at 145 years and hit middle age around 175, giving them 30 years of crafting - less than the dwarf, in fact. (Though I'm not using the APG ages for my dwarves and elves). I wonder if paizo thought through having given elves a longer life but shorter young-adulthood than dwarves.
Given PCs can play any of these species (although dwarves have a poor social position that gives them compensating disadvantages), we might want to push up the crafting-cost-in-years a little above the human-based figures - players very keen on crafting would surely play dwarves, given the APG ages. 1 year = 10,000 gp (or part thereof) would give humans 100,000 gp worth of crafting before hitting middle-age penalties but give dwarves around 600,000 gp of crafting. That sounds ok to me ... (I'm using different age bands in my world so would tweak it for that though; dwarves are less long-lived than paizo ones but elves longer-lived).
Hobgoblins live a little shorter than humans, which would help explain fewer magic items in their society. (Also, giving up life force in some form for magic items gives them a reason to be wary of magic. While hobgoblins society is overall evil - they capture dwarves as slaves and kill arcane casters ... I like to give them some 'high' moral stances too - they oppose draining of life force, and are more tolerant of hobgoblin-human relationships than humans are).
I'm still not necessarily going to use this, but I think it could work. Even if it didn't cut down player crafting that much, it would do an excellent job in explaining why different racial societies have different amounts of magic items.