About the myth or fact (?) of needing magical items

Turanil · Aug 17, 2005

I have read it so many times. That D&D 3.5 is made in such a way that PCs actually do need magical items or, well, or the game is unplayable?

I understand that it has to do with the Challenge Rating stuff, but after having tried to use it, eventually came to the conclusion that CR are nearly useless.

SO: I maintain that if I want to, I can run a D&D game with very few magical items. I just need to choose the opponents and obstacles accordingly, which isn't difficult as it's like I always do anyway (i.e.: only vaguely looking at the CR but using my own judgement). Since many of my adventues are improvised (including the XP award), and the players not the wiser (in fact I adjust my gaming style to what I perceive they wish to have out of the game), I don't see the need to abide by all this regulation of said amount of CR, monsters, XP, magical items, given treasure per level, etc. Most of the time my players are happy, and if I want to have adventures with few or very few magical items, it will work as well as if making them "magical items christmas trees".

Thanee · Aug 17, 2005

Of course you *can* do that, but if you do use the CR guidelines, then magic items are pretty much required. While spellcasters can get a long quite well without, non-spellcasters are extremely weak without magic items at higher levels.

Bye
Thanee

Turanil · Aug 17, 2005

Thanee said:
While spellcasters can get a long quite well without, non-spellcasters are extremely weak without magic items at higher levels.

Extremely weak in relation to what? To magical-items-christmas-trees? A 17th level fighter with just Frost-brand greatsword, a plate-mail +2, and a couple of simple potions will do very well. Just my campaign won't need uber-dragons and demons with 10 levels of sorcerers at every gaming session.

Sammael · Aug 17, 2005

Turanil said:
Extremely weak in relation to what? To magical-items-christmas-trees? A 17th level fighter with just Frost-brand greatsword, a plate-mail +2, and a couple of simple potions will do very well. Just my campaign won't need uber-dragons and demons with 10 levels of sorcerers at every gaming session.

No, he won't. IMC, when confronted with a beholder and a group of grimlocks (most were grimlock fighter 6 or so), the entire party came very close to dying before they managed to negate beholder's antimagic eye. The party was level 14 on the average, which means that grimlocks should have been a cakewalk for them. As a side note, the beholder did nothing except aim its eye so that the entire party was subject to antimagic.

Without equipment, a standard-issue D&D character should be treated as several levels lower than usual. Sure, he can get lucky and still beat a creature of higher CR, but he is woefully underpowered.

BTW, your tone is extremely confrontational. You cannot presume to claim your campaign standards can be applied to every game out there.

Aaron L · Aug 17, 2005

Extremely weak in relation to the spellcasters. Compare the power and coolness of a magically limited high level fighter to a magic item weak high level spellcaster, and in quite a few situations the fighter just cant do anything at all to match up. Youll get a situation like 1E, where high level magic users were veritable gods compared to the other classes. Not that thats a bad thing, and I actually like games like that myself, but it can easily frustrate and reduce the fun for melee types if they are constantly outstripped and rendered useless compared to mages and clerics.

Zappo · Aug 17, 2005

Yes, you can play D&D with little to no magical items, as long as the DM is aware that he'll have to estimate each challenge by himself, without CR. Also, the players should be aware that they won't be of roughly equal power any more. Spellcasters become a lot more powerful. Any fighter is going to have troubles agasinst a flying wizard with a protection from arrows spell.

Pinotage · Aug 17, 2005

Wouldn't it be easier to just simply play something like Iron Heroes without a magic system? Without magic, high levels are going to be too deadly as has already been pointed out. You could adjust the CRs and things yourself, but some creatures need to be fought with certain kinds of magic - if you don't have access to that kind of magic, you have to remove that creature from the game. If you're going to be cutting creatures from the game, you could probably make it work, but it sounds fairly limiting to me.

Pinotage

Thanee · Aug 17, 2005

Turanil said:
Extremely weak in relation to what?

What I want to say with it is, that non-spellcasters suffer more, much more from lack of magic items.

The worst comparison to a pure fighter would be a pure cleric. The fighter is laughable in comparison, if both have only masterwork equipment. If you add magic items to both, the fighter gets a lot more mileage out of those, while the cleric gets a few nifty toys or a few saved spell slots and some dispel robustness, because of diminishing returns and redundancy (with their spells).

It's not that I think this is how it should be, I just think this is how it is.

Bye
Thanee

Inconsequenti-AL · Aug 17, 2005

I think higher level DnD was designed/balanced with 'christmas tree' magic in mind. In this context I would consider balanced not to mean some abstract balance of power, but also a balance of fun between characters. I've had a good dose of 'not fun' in a low magic game playing a fighter type. YMMV.

I enjoy the 'default' DnD style, but also have fun with low magic games. If I want to play or run one, then I would not want to try this with high level DnD. My answers would be:

1) Play a low level DnD game.
2) Low magic system - Iron Heroes or WFRP most likely.
3) House rule DnD to suit the desired game.

Generally I'd far prefer 2) over 3) - why repeat all the work that someone else has done? 1) sits somewhere in the middle.

Still, this is all my opinion - If someone can make a high level/low magic game of core DnD that their group enjoys, then more power to them!

Casters really get a leg up in low magic/high level games. Less ways to resist their spells and their buffs are even more powerful. Some of them become very problematic to deal with. A Stoneskinned, Flying wizard is near indestructible without some magic.

I've recently had experience with this. Our 17th level party had all their gear stripped. The sorceror and cleric were somewhat reduced in power, but could quite conceivably have carried on adventuring much like they used to. The Paladin was pretty much looking like a walking liability, without relying on significant buffing from the cleric.

IME, one particular problem with low magic/high level is AC. A fighters ability to hit things rapidly outstrips their ability not to get hit.

Example:
A 20th level fighter with masterwork gear

Their attack is going to be around:
20 + 4 strength + 1 masterwork = ~+25

Compared to their best AC:
10 + 1 Dex + 8 Plate + 1 dodge + 2 shield + 5 expertise + 2 defensive fighting = 29, with a -9 penalty to hit.

Not really a balanced situation?

physicscarp · Aug 17, 2005

I can't speak from a DM point of view, but I played in a campaign from 1st to 20th level that was woefully void of magic items. Over the course of the entire campaign, each of the characters received one major magic item, and a few minor one use items, such as potions or scrolls. So, this was a low magic item campaign, not a low magic one (plenty of spells).

The party was a human bard (ENWorld's very own Crothian), a human monk, and a half-orc druid. I picked up Scribe Scroll as a feat, which did allow for additional spells, but that was it as far as magic item creation feats. I feel that the campaign was not only very enjoyable, but appropriately challenging. We certainly had to run when confronted with some difficult opponents, but we were able to eventually overcome every challenge that the DM presented us with.