| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my current campaign I've done away with basic "plus" items and replaced them with a character level-based bonus system.
How about other specific items that don't live up to the hype?
So you have this as a chart anywhere? I'd love to incorporate such a thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, my group has a similar thing in place. You pick your +STAT/+armor/+attack bonuses almost like feats, while your AC/saves bonus goes up based on level on its own.
In my current campaign I've done away with basic "plus" items and replaced them with a character level-based bonus system.
How about other specific items that don't live up to the hype?
How do you handle DR/magic if you have done away with plusses on weapons?
This is an interesting concept, inquiring minds want to know more.
Make +1 attack/damage/treated as magic as an option you can pick when leveling up among other bonuses like +2 to a stat.
I personally remove all items from my game that are just X spell Y number of times per day. It makes no sense at all for almost every item in the game to have charges. Did Hercules only get to use his lion's pelt against 7 sword blows per day before he had to have it recharge? Particularly bad though is the Ring of Shooting Stars which is an item I really want to love but at 50k gold and with recharge times of 1 hour at minimum there is no way to love it. It is inferior in most ways to just hiring a level 1 wizard to cast infinite 0 level spells for you. It'd take a hugely long time for his salary to equal out to this potentially great but ultimately terrible item.
I find Chime of Opening to now be pretty worthless. It requires a CL check to open most locks (at CL 11), meaning that this awesome, 3,000 gp magic item is foiled by a 150gp superior lock. I mean, it's magic and should be able to override mundane items, but DC 40 will never be reached. Its sort of a reflection of how worthless the spell Knock has become.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
Weapons can be "magic" or not magical. The bonus you gain when using a magic weapon is either nothing (i.e., it just counts as magic vs. DR but nothing else), or if you pick "magic weapons" as an option from leveling up, then *ANY* weapon you wield gets the bonus you get based on your level.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kinda want to vote the Ring of Wizardry in here too. It used to be a high-value aspirational item in 1st/2nd Ed, crazy expensive but one of the only ways to get more spells per day. Enter the 3rd Ed style, and two things happened:
1. Wizards got fewer maximum spells of each level, so you got a lot less out of the multiplying effect.
2. Wizards started getting bonus spells for high stats.
So instead of potentially doubling a high-level wizard's spells per day at the ring's level from 9 to 18, instead that same high-level wizard probably has 4 spells per day plus 1 or even 2 from a stat.
Now, you can argue that it's gilding the lily anyway to have that many spells in reserve, but still the impact just doesn't seem anywhere near what it once was, to the point where a wizard who found one for free as treasure might not even keep it, much less be seeking after it on purpose.
|
Staves. They can be useful if found as loot, but far too expensive to bother buying or even crafting in most cases. Even when free I find most to be sort of "Meh."
I agree to an extent. I do sometimes wish staves were a little cooler and more interesting ... and definately less expensive!
I've actually done some work toward acheiving this over the last few years ... maybe I'll try to find time to revist it ...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree with the comments upthread about the stock items. Everybody marches around with a Ring of Protection +x, a Cloak of Resistance +x, an Amulet of Natural Armor +x, a +x magic sword, and a belt or headband of +x to a key stat...
I wonder if you could make capitalism work in changing this. Make these items more expensive, or other items cheaper relatively speaking. See if the market changes things.
A big problem with the magic mart system is that supply and demand never have an impact on the game. If everyone always sells an item that item should go down In value to the point where people consider it worth buying.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
I used to be more down on save-or-suck items, like say the blinding armor property, but I think they're a LITTLE better than they seem because a lot of monsters have saves that are worse than an average PC's, so a save that would be trivial for a PC isn't as easy for a monster.
That said, I agree that they mostly suck. Not quite as bad, but still not good.
Efreeti bottle is a good one. That's an item that FEELS like it should be an awesome, iconic thing, but it's so expensive that by the time you'd rationally get one, either you could get the wishes on scrolls or a ring much more cheaply and with a lot less trouble (if you're just getting it for the wishes), and if you're getting it to keep it for the whole "servant of the bottle" kind of fun, an efreeti is too feeble to really be much use to your character. You'd sooner just sell the thing and buy a bunch of other character specific gear.
Admittedly, part of the problem is the magic shop mentality, where items have become commodified as chunks of fungible magic item value, on the principle that magical trade-ins are easy to accomplish and that benefit maximization is most often on the side of "sell/trade found items for cherry-picked alternatives" instead of "use this cool item we found."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
dot'ing - although this topic (IMO) deserves it's own thread - 'Items redesigned for the wow factor' or 'bringing the magic back to magic - items unleashed'
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair points all.
Amusingly, when I designed the stat block for the shaitan genie way back for Adventure Path #18, I gave it max ranks in Profession (lawyer) and described them as the most obsessive legalists among the genie races, which was represented by the convoluted mazeworks they were always building to reflect their intricately convoluted minds. Alas, that didn't end up in the final version. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Btw, speaking of gravy, that's what I did with the Returning property in my current campaign. If it's a magic weapon and it's a thrown weapon, IT GETS RETURNING FOR FREE. This includes a magic weapon that's normally not throw-able but has the Throwing property; Throwing INCLUDES Returning.
|
|
Fair points all.
Amusingly, when I designed the stat block for the shaitan genie way back for Adventure Path #18, I gave it max ranks in Profession (lawyer) and described them as the most obsessive legalists among the genie races, which was represented by the convoluted mazeworks they were always building to reflect their intricately convoluted minds. Alas, that didn't end up in the final version. :)
Ha! That's awesome!
Btw, speaking of gravy, that's what I did with the Returning property in my current campaign. If it's a magic weapon and it's a thrown weapon, IT GETS RETURNING FOR FREE. This includes a magic weapon that's normally not throw-able but has the Throwing property; Throwing INCLUDES Returning.
That's how I've always (apparently mistakenly) run it myself.
Ha! That's awesome!Fair points all.
Amusingly, when I designed the stat block for the shaitan genie way back for Adventure Path #18, I gave it max ranks in Profession (lawyer) and described them as the most obsessive legalists among the genie races, which was represented by the convoluted mazeworks they were always building to reflect their intricately convoluted minds. Alas, that didn't end up in the final version. :)
+1. Added back in if I ever use shaitans for anything.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ha, check it out; from a file dated 10/9/2008:
Shaitan (shy-TAN) are genies from the Elemental Plane of Earth. They live in elaborate mazeworks, delves, mines, and palaces carved into the walls, floors, and ceilings of great cysts and caverns. They are master craftsmen and have a love of working with metal and stone, though they often hire (or sometimes enslave) elementals and xorn to labor on their behalf. Shaitans love to barter for power and wealth, sometimes entering into contracts with others in exchange for riches, honor, or prestige. Shaitains are canny in conversation and are clever bargainers, and of all genies they are the most cunning legalists in structuring the terms of any agreement. They will meet its terms to the letter, but many have found their pacts with shaitans a far poorer bargain than they had thought.
Shaitans are boastful and proud, loving to display their finery (and often using veil to appear finer still, with illusory adornments accenting the actual), even when they take on the appearance of ordinary humans, dwarves, and the like. Even in servitude, their egos are immense, and they must be constantly stroked and showered with praise or they will begin to sulk, doing only the bare minimum to meet their obligations. Free shaitans, on the other hand, pursue their own goals with a single-minded dedication and a focus on efficiency, though always with an open eye or ear if an opportunity should arise.
Shaitans are ruled by a great khan, master of a gilded labyrinth at the heart of the Elemental Plane of Earth whose involutions constantly shift through an elaborate gearworks synchronized to the harmonic vibrations of the plane itself. The khan is served by an array of guilds for each of the great crafts, each guild house or tumen ruled by an ataman and their lieutenants. Individual shaitans are allowed to negotiate their own contracts, but anyone seeking the services of more than one shaitan must first gain the approval of the ataman of the guild, or rarely the khan and his court for any truly massive undertaking.
Under skills: Profession (lawyer) +10 :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're replaced the "cool factor" of owning expensive and quirky magic items with the need to get rid of every bit of unnecessary gear in order to keep our characters gear in line with the WBL/CR targets for their levels.
If we get rid of Magic Marts while keeping WBL, our players will simply stop picking up gear which isn't optimized for their characters. They will leave Pearls of the Sirenes on the dungeon floor if they know they can't sell them and that they will count against their WBL limits.
WBL is such a bad idea that the designers have stopped creating "cool" magic items which do not specifically affect the CR of our characters. In effect, we're turning our cool P&P RPG into some sort of low-end video game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do find rants against WBL to be a bit weird. WBL is a super useful system to tell GMs about how much stuff should be given to the players to keep them in line with what the game expects out of certain CRs, and that if they have less than that you need weaker badguys and if they have more than that you need stronger badguys. In AD&D you still essentially had WBL it was just less codified and relied more on GM eyeballing which led to wildly varying levels of loot. However before that in OD&D (which was better than AD&D in nearly every way) you have fairly solidly coded WBL because the default XP system was based on loot value obtained rather than fighting badguys.
Staves. They can be useful if found as loot, but far too expensive to bother buying or even crafting in most cases. Even when free I find most to be sort of "Meh."http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/staves/staff-of-the-master-necromancy
Please clarify what point you're trying to make.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
I do find rants against WBL to be a bit weird. WBL is a super useful system to tell GMs about how much stuff should be given to the players to keep them in line with what the game expects out of certain CRs, and that if they have less than that you need weaker badguys and if they have more than that you need stronger badguys. In AD&D you still essentially had WBL it was just less codified and relied more on GM eyeballing which led to wildly varying levels of loot. However before that in OD&D (which was better than AD&D in nearly every way) you have fairly solidly coded WBL because the default XP system was based on loot value obtained rather than fighting badguys.
Xp for Gp was also the rule in AD&D, as were fantastically expensive training costs to eliminate said gp once it had passed through the xp gate to level you up. Keeping magic items also gave you xp, but if you wanted to sell them for the gp value you could and that was actually worth more xp to the character (at the cost of not having the item).
WBL certainly has its uses as a weighting mechanism, but it also breaks down the mystery/fun factor of treasure when it becomes hard-coded as an assumption because items become simultaneously themselves and also a commodity value. An item can be fun and interesting, but if its commodity value is out of balance with the alternatives, then with hard WBL it's almost always to your advantage to grind the item for cash and buy a more efficient set of commodities to maximize your character.
Be that as it may, pearls of the sirines and every other aquatic item are a funny case as magic items go, since of course they're virtually useless if you're not in an aquatic-heavy campaign yet have to be priced as though you are. I wonder; should environmentally dependent items have some sort of separate functionality that makes them useful in some way away from their core utility?
So something like a pearl of the sirines could, for example, give you some enhancement to your bardic music ability or a bonus on Profession (sing) or a resistance to emotion effects, giving it a reason to exist other than being a swimming item.
|
Be that as it may, pearls of the sirines and every other aquatic item are a funny case as magic items go, since of course they're virtually useless if you're not in an aquatic-heavy campaign yet have to be priced as though you are. I wonder; should environmentally dependent items have some sort of separate functionality that makes them useful in some way away from their core utility?
So something like a pearl of the sirines could, for example, give you some enhancement to your bardic music ability or a bonus on Profession (sing) or a resistance to emotion effects, giving it a reason to exist other than being a swimming item.
1st consideration: Part of the problem with 3rd ed based games (my opinion) is the heavy codification of pretty much everything. Environment specific items should have had conditional values dependent upon the campaign- but because the focus of 3e was codify/memorize/one system when it came to design this was not put into the game as a consideration or option for the DM. Everything was calculated at assumed power based on what spell value it had.
So I think some specific/limited use items should have two (or more) pricing schemes or value.
Edit: Minor quirkiness addition. Beyond helping the bard, maybe the pearl could also help the owner makes saves vs. sonic based charms and compulsions: command, harpy charm, suggestion..even helping against the subsonic effect of cloakers.
2nd consideration: Maybe these hyper-focused/narrow use items shouldn't exist as written. Your suggestion of a bardic music bonus for the pearl of sirines is one way to go (great idea, and reminiscent of the quirkiness of AD&D items) or possibly some kind of default elemental (Water) focus power that works in areas near water and a different list of elemental powers while away from water? Maybe a bonus to saves vs. water based attacks and a bonus to caster level for any water based spells/conjurations?
I think the pearl of sirines isn't exactly the best example of an environment specific item - water is water after all, a common hindrance for adventuring types: be while exploring a cavern or falling into a flooded pit in a dungeon. It's actually is pretty useful for adventurers as a whole, even when they are in non-aquatic environs.
A Trident of Fish Command is another story and is the type of item that may need a revision/re-examination in use or pricing.
A Coastal campaign - it's great, land-locked desert campaign - no so much.
Edit: Minor quirkiness addition: Besides the bardic bonus, maybe the pearl could help on any sound/sonic based charms and compulsions: Command, Suggestion, Harpy charm, Cloaker subsonic power, etc.
Xp for Gp was also the rule in AD&D, as were fantastically expensive training costs to eliminate said gp once it had passed through the xp gate to level you up. Keeping magic items also gave you xp, but if you wanted to sell them for the gp value you could and that was actually worth more xp to the character (at the cost of not having the item).WBL certainly has its uses as a weighting mechanism, but it also breaks down the mystery/fun factor of treasure when it becomes hard-coded as an assumption because items become simultaneously themselves and also a commodity value. An item can be fun and interesting, but if its commodity value is out of balance with the alternatives, then with hard WBL it's almost always to your advantage to grind the item for cash and buy a more efficient set of commodities to maximize your character.
I'd agree with you if items weren't incorporated as a part of the scaling for monsters and PCs into the game. In OD&D through 2nd edition hp numbers increased far more slowly at higher levels and the range of attack bonus and AC was much smaller. At least for martial and skill characters they need a bit more scaling to keep up with monster numbers. For some reason it was decided by WotC that this scaling should be in items instead of the classes themselves. This kinda led to the destruction of the mystic and semi-random magic items of old D&D as far as I can tell.
What would people say to incorporating things like flat number bonuses into well made mundane items and leaving magic items for the more out there effects? Say a master swordsmith can just make a +3 or so weapon with a check because it's that good of a sword. That and similar things for armor could provide some of the missing scaling and cost for spending cash. Then keep the magical enchantments to more utility story changer abilities like detecting the presence of orcs or allowing you to teleport between shadows.
These are things I need to come back to at some point for my own games.
I seem to recall a houserule that at 3rd level and every 3 levels thereafter, one ability score was chosen to gain a +2 bonus, and all previous bonuses from that incremented by +2, to make ability score items not a thing.
I do find rants against WBL to be a bit weird. WBL is a super useful system to tell GMs about how much stuff should be given to the players to keep them in line with what the game expects out of certain CRs, and that if they have less than that you need weaker badguys and if they have more than that you need stronger badguys. In AD&D you still essentially had WBL it was just less codified and relied more on GM eyeballing which led to wildly varying levels of loot. However before that in OD&D (which was better than AD&D in nearly every way) you have fairly solidly coded WBL because the default XP system was based on loot value obtained rather than fighting badguys.Xp for Gp was also the rule in AD&D, as were fantastically expensive training costs to eliminate said gp once it had passed through the xp gate to level you up. Keeping magic items also gave you xp, but if you wanted to sell them for the gp value you could and that was actually worth more xp to the character (at the cost of not having the item).
WBL certainly has its uses as a weighting mechanism, but it also breaks down the mystery/fun factor of treasure when it becomes hard-coded as an assumption because items become simultaneously themselves and also a commodity value. An item can be fun and interesting, but if its commodity value is out of balance with the alternatives, then with hard WBL it's almost always to your advantage to grind the item for cash and buy a more efficient set of commodities to maximize your character.
Be that as it may, pearls of the sirines and every other aquatic item are a funny case as magic items go, since of course they're virtually useless if you're not in an aquatic-heavy campaign yet have to be priced as though you are. I wonder; should environmentally dependent items have some sort of separate functionality that makes them useful in some way away from their core utility?
So something like a pearl of the sirines could, for example, give you some enhancement...
nono youd didn't get XP for any GP you received from selling an item.
XP only came from loot/gold you plundered.If you sold the plundered item, you got the gold, and NO XP for item or gold you sold it for.
just like you didn't get XP for an item you bought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think all of us may have played AD&D/OD&D very differently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do find rants against WBL to be a bit weird. WBL is a super useful system to tell GMs about how much stuff should be given to the players to keep them in line with what the game expects out of certain CRs, and that if they have less than that you need weaker badguys and if they have more than that you need stronger badguys. In AD&D you still essentially had WBL it was just less codified and relied more on GM eyeballing which led to wildly varying levels of loot. However before that in OD&D (which was better than AD&D in nearly every way) you have fairly solidly coded WBL because the default XP system was based on loot value obtained rather than fighting badguys.
I think the problem is that some GM's try to make the game challenging by handing out less loot. The players check the book, and are not happy when they find out because they feel cheated. The GM now feels like the problem is the existence of the WBL table. However I think the problem is trying to sneakily run a low WBL campaign. If the players are expecting X and you give them Y, they won't like. If you tell them up front ____ won't be done as part of this game, they will either say ok, or not play. Either situation is better because even if they refuse to play, it saves both parties a lot of time and trouble.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do find rants against WBL to be a bit weird. WBL is a super useful system to tell GMs about how much stuff should be given to the players to keep them in line with what the game expects out of certain CRs, and that if they have less than that you need weaker badguys and if they have more than that you need stronger badguys. In AD&D you still essentially had WBL it was just less codified and relied more on GM eyeballing which led to wildly varying levels of loot. However before that in OD&D (which was better than AD&D in nearly every way) you have fairly solidly coded WBL because the default XP system was based on loot value obtained rather than fighting badguys.I think the problem is that some GM's try to make the game challenging by handing out less loot. The players check the book, and are not happy when they find out because they feel cheated. The GM now feels like the problem is the existence of the WBL table. However I think the problem is trying to sneakily run a low WBL campaign. If the players are expecting X and you give them Y, they won't like. If you tell them up front ____ won't be done as part of this game, they will either say ok, or not play. Either situation is better because even if they refuse to play, it saves both parties a lot of time and trouble.
No,
The problems the game was originally designed where everyone didn't peek through the rule books.
The DM had them all, on the other side of the DM SCreen. players had…the players handbook.
It was the dungeon masters GUIDE. Not the dungeon masters hard core restraint system, to back up a pile of RAWyers and their consistent "the book says XYZ".
Plainly put, the game was never intended to be played that way.
That's why that stuff was originally contained in the DUNGEON masters Guide.
Players shouldn't be looking up "how much does it cost to make a +1 sword" or how much to buy a mithral breast plate.
Things could cost less if the PCS are hauling loot after loot after loot back to the same city or cost more if there are a lot of adventurers in that area needing gear. All game/location dependent.
If the characters want to spend some time looking far and wide for a specific thing, that's how they might burn up time and prevent things like gaining 20 levels in 2 years.
The O/A system also had gobs and gobs more gold flowing through the PCs fingertips and so if the PCs got robbed a little on price of X or Y, it wasn't so scrutinized.
The problem is players insisting on following a rigid system in a fantasy setting like an accountant who is upset when the books don't balance.
3.0-3.5 set a gaggle of horrible precedents in this game, chief among them was a rigid system of WBL and CR and how they rely on each other.
Paizo came along and put the DMG and the PHB together in the Core rulebook, but the point was long past moot by then, because every RAWyer was buying a DMG and looking through it anyway well before that.
If there are no storm giants in this world, and no elf PCs, and that's how the world is, WHY should the world also sell +1 swords for exactly way the CRB says it does?
oh…because the book says so.
That's the problem.
Someone seems a bit bitter.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone seems a bit bitter.
He probably is - and rightfully so.
This was a developer contrived problem that could have been avoided or at least better thought out.
In other words - this was totally avoidable for anyone with an ounce of vision.
Keep in mind the subject matter of this thread - "what magic items do not live up to the hype". In 3rd ed based games that's mostly all of them, since they are all reduced down to spell replication (of some kind) which in turn makes them boring/flavorless.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just disagree strongly with the "players should NEVER get to look at the GM books".
If I hadn't I'd never have picked up GMing in the first place. Personally I agree more with Alex and Wraithstrike, WBL has been an invaluable tool for me that I would find some parts of the game immensely more frustrating without, and 99% of player complaints about meeting or not meeting it can be solved with the GM actually, you know, talking to his players and informing them in advance "This is going to be a high/low/average treasure game, be prepared to play accordingly".
He comes across very "In my day you young whippersnappers *shaking cane at people on lawn*"ish.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you read the 1st Ed. DMG, one of the interesting quirks that comes out of it is the idea that the DM is one person and that players are other people, as though the roles never change. If Jason is the DM then Jason is always the DM. Jason DMs and Tony and Lee and Dan and Valerie play. Period. Therefore, only Jason needs a DMG, MM, adventure modules, etc.
But what if Valerie also DMs a different group on a different day? Or, if Tony and Jason switch off who DMs the game; we do Jason's game on 1st and 3rd Fridays and Tony's game on 2nd and 4th Fridays.
That's where the entire "only the DM gets to know XYZ" system breaks down. The *people* playing the game can be both players and DMs, so while it's entirely reasonable that, if Tony is running Tomb of Horrors and Jason is running Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl, that neither would read the adventure that the other one is running, both DMs would need to be familiar with all the DM-side rules.
If you read the AD&D DMG, though, you'd probably get the idea that there is only one DM, and that DM is you, the reader, and that no "player" should ever dare peek between the covers of the book lest their character be struck down with divine retribution (no, seriously, I'm pretty sure it does actually say that), as though players were an entirely different species that could not also be DMs.
Be that as it may, I think it's a fair point that the standardization of commodity values and their placement in the foreground of the game's assumptions have undercut the whimsy value of magic item placement. Heck, even the introduction of weapon specialization in Unearthed Arcana has done the same; before that, a fighter's choice of weapon was largely flavor-based (although some weapons were clearly better than others), but when you have super-specialized fighters, suddenly everything that doesn't fit that specialization goes way down in perceived appeal.
Just that good staves exist.Please clarify what point you're trying to make.Staves. They can be useful if found as loot, but far too expensive to bother buying or even crafting in most cases. Even when free I find most to be sort of "Meh."http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/staves/staff-of-the-master-necromancy
I don't entirely agree on that point, but I'll concede it none-the-less. However, "good" staves are the exception not the rule.
That being said I can think of some specific home brew staves that would work well. Mostly low level at will spells that use a higher CL.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
Xp for Gp was also the rule in AD&D, as were fantastically expensive training costs to eliminate said gp once it had passed through the xp gate to level you up. Keeping magic items also gave you xp, but if you wanted to sell them for the gp value you could and that was actually worth more xp to the character (at the cost of not having the item).
nono youd didn't get XP for any GP you received from selling an item.
XP only came from loot/gold you plundered.
If you sold the plundered item, you got the gold, and NO XP for item or gold you sold it for.
just like you didn't get XP for an item you bought.
Actually, you did. Check it out on page 121 of the AD&D DMG:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, I'd personally have ALL my players read the GM's books and paperwork. I'd LOVE to have a group who all knew the rules as back and forth as those of us who GM regularly and those of us who have played for years. I'd LOVE for that information to be freely available to everyone in the group, because a highly-educated group in my opinion will be able to check and balance on one another, catch when someone makes a mistake, keep track of the nitty gritty things like WBL, and otherwise be a support group for one another for keeping things straight.
As it is, I had to convince my players to set up a formula on their Excel character sheets to keep track of personal worth (including persuading one who knows her way around Excel to actually code the thing, because I'm hopeless at that level of tech savvy), something that has become a staple of our group's play style, which makes it MUCH easier for me or our other GMs to keep an eye on everyone's individual possessions and gauge if future treasures need to be adjusted up or down.
Many of my players know their way around the rules as well as - or better than - I do, but they tend to be the ones already GMing other campaigns, or wishing they could while Real Life prevents them from having the time. The ones who still need to learn are all newer players to the game, still learning the basic ropes. Those are the ones I would pass the GM books to, if they'd be interested in taking them, and not necessarily to push them into learning to GM, but just learning the underlying system of the game.
I know there are groups out there who have players who will use that information antagonistically, harrying the GM when they have less than they feel they deserve, but I at least have been fortunate enough to not have to deal with that sort of behavior outside of a rare few people, one of which is no longer welcome in my games and another of which is swiftly approaching that same point with some of my other players if his antics continue unabated. The rest? Heck no, pass the DMG around and let them read it cover to cover. I WANT these people to know what's in those pages. That way when I have a brain blank moment someone else can step in and remind me what rule I just forgot or how a thing works that I just for some reason can't recall.
|
|
I just disagree strongly with the "players should NEVER get to look at the GM books". If I hadn't I'd never have picked up GMing in the first place.
He just comes across very "In my day you young whippersnappers *shaking cane at people on lawn*"ish.
I think there's something to the separation of information along the lines of the DM/Player paradigm. I understand the reason why 3rd ed players would need access to information that in previous editions would only be readily available to the DM - item creation being the biggest factor (which is a cornerstone of 3rd ed gaming).
And I come from the same era of "in his day", after running 3rd ed games for around 11 years I just recently quit (skipped 3.0 and started with 3.5).
TBH, the older system (with minimal item creation) with partitioned knowledge worked rather well. I think they work better than what 3rd ed/PF offers.
Most all of this is of course colored by the system that you broke in in with - but being a lapsed PF dm recently going back to 1st/2nd ed gaming, I can say (for me) that with all the warts and problems - the older systems maintain a better sense of mystery and wonder when it came to a majority of their magic items.
It wasn't my sense of nostalgia but actually the differences in systems.
Edit: Addressing Mr. Nelson's point - I don't think it's a question of a single DM handling all the duties (thus he/she only having access) but the philosophy of perusing the available books during the course of game play. I am the DM 95% of the time - but when one of my players runs an 2nd ed module I don't dare pick up the DMG/MM during the course of play "to look something up" and if I am not running anything currently under that system (for another group/game day) then even in my OFF TIME I stay away from anything but the PHB.
3rd ed games with both item creation and old polymorph and even monster summoning I (now available as a 1st level spell) almost required the players of that game to have access to the DMG (items) and MM (monsters). This alone is a huge shift in available knowledge the players could access at the table DURING ACTUAL PLAY.
These changes may not seem like much, but they go a long way towards explaining the loss of mystique or mystery associated with many aspects of 3rd ed gaming.
I don't want this to dissolve into an edition war, but I do think it's important to see where the game was, where it has gone and possibly where it has gone wrong. Everyone has a right to enjoy the edition they like - I bring up older editions solely because I feel the way those systems were built and ran factor into the perception of magic items the modern era of gaming.
Yeah, we're not going to come to any sort of agreement on this. Not only do I disagree with your basic premise, I can't fathom it. It's simply not processing in my brain, it's so utterly alien to me.
|
|
Yeah, we're not going to come to any sort of agreement on this. Not only do I disagree with your basic premise, I can't fathom it. It's simply not processing in my brain, it's so utterly alien to me.
Funny thing is, I've done it both your way and mine, so your approach is not alien to me.
I would chalk it up to different worlds and eras of gaming experience. You have to do what works for your group. What I do and the way I run my games works for my players and the groups I have ran in the past, so I stick with what works for me.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
I agree that magic items were more FUN back in my 1st/2nd Ed days, though the Christmas Tree effect was in full swing even in those days. In fact, one of the reasons I preferred 2nd Ed to 1st was the broadening of what classes and characters could do (non-weapon proficiencies, cleric spheres, wizard schools, kits, etc.) was much broader and at least promised the possibility of making characters less gear-dependent for anything other than basic movement and combat. Then again, we hand-waved a lot of stuff in the olden days too. 3rd Ed was another step in that direction, though it came with its own new baggage as well.
I agree that you wouldn't be picking up a monster/DM book to reference DURING the game session even if you were also a GM, but I don't think knowledge segregation about what's in the books was ever going to be as clear-cut as Gygax suggested as the hobby grew and more people acquired that knowledge. Once the books were opened it was in every player/GM's head.
So perhaps a re-direct of the original question, framed in the light of looking back at previous editions, might be this:
What magic items that DID live up to the hype from earlier editions of the game could make more interesting Pathfinder magic items?
We did have plenty of boring items back in the day, too, but there are cool ones as well. What comes to mind?
|
|
The only x-mass tree effect from back in the day (and none of these were a system numeric requirement, just common) were: Magic Armor, Magic Weapons (for martials) and Ring or Cloaks of Protection. Magic armor was more of the "rule of cool" for martial characters.
The only one of these being a real requirement were Magic weapons for any of the 1st and 2nd tier martials: the +X weapon to hit. In some cases (lesser demons and devils) you could actually still use cold iron or silver. This wasn't a numerical assumption (because you needed the +) but it was a level assumption in a different way (needing +X to tackle tougher creatures).
Rings and Cloaks were huge boons, again - there was no system assumption that you would have or need these at ANY level.
--------------------------------------------------
To your question though:
I like the old flametounge sword with target dependent bonuses (base +1 but up to +4 vs. undead).
I understand that some of the mechanical design considerations of 3rd ed took care of a few of these (cold creatures having vulnerability to fire) but it was nice to have a scaling foe-conditional weapon. At it's core it was +1, but vs. undead it was a devastating +4 with bonuses in between vs. other creature types (avian creatures and regenerating creatures). It was cool because it was kinda weird, it looked different and because it's utility an variable function often came into play - randomly (depending on what you were fighting).
Much more interesting than Flaming/Flaming Burst and shooting a ray of fire (IMO, of course).
-
Gauntlets of Ogre Power were also fun - again, that's because the 18(00) was not readily available for Fighter types unless you rolled it.
That plus combing these with a Girdle of Giant strength (making the gauntlets mechanically a non-factor between these two items) + a Hammer of Thunderbolts was a thing for a high level martial to go after. For that weapon you got to count both the Girdle and Gauntlets and it would kill any Giant it struck (and some Golems also).
Very much a high level item but I list it here because: the quest components (need all three) and quirkiness (specific use and limits to use) which make the combination of the three memorable.
What is the equivalent in PF? Thundering and Bane combined? Slaying?
IDK since it doesn't exist in PF. All the components (Gauntlets, Girdle and even the Hammer) have changed or do not exist in PF.
--------------------
Also limiting items to certain classes was a nice control. So in 2nd ed only a Rogue, Priest or Warrior could use the Gauntlets of Ogre Power. Class dipping being a little harder with items being more scarce meant that these items ended up in the hands that could use them best and served as another layer of control to prevent abuse.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One more to add, Ring of Protection - with 5ft radius.
Now why would I add such a purely mechanical item? The 5-ft radius of course.
The ring in of itself is boring (pure numbers) and doesn't do anything flashy (besides maybe keeping you alive). A player in my 2nd ed group had an amulet that did the same thing: +1 to him and anyone near him. For those in area with 5 hp or less the bonus to AC and saves went up to +2. He was playing a rogue/wizard and the secondary aspect of the amulet (ring) changed everything. How he moved around the battlefield (he avoided melee combat when possible) and supported other players and NPCs was epic. And it was a struggle for him, because he knew the ring could also help his allies while his character was at risk due to his average AC but terrible hp.
It made for some interesting decisions on where he was during the course of a fight as they progressed (PCs and NPCs being wounded, fighting creatures with SLAs or save based effects).
So that 5ft radius made a huge difference in what otherwise would be a pretty boring magic item that granted an internal numerical bonus.
The 5ft radius bonus to saves were dropped from the ring of protection during the codification process to 3rd ed (adds to AC only, not saves).