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

[MerakSpielman]

The main problem with the setup is that certain classes are more equipment-dependant than others. Take a 20th level Fighter and a 20th level sorcerer, strip them of all equipment, and have them fight. Sorcerer wins. Why is that? They had the same value of equipment, so they should have been on equal footing, right?

If you're going to run a game without much loot, you're going need to do more than adjust the encounters, you're going to need to re-balance the different classes.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I never said that you did not have to be mindful if you do not give out a lot of items. I have said that you do not need a truckload of items to play D&D. I am disputing those people who like to denigrate D&D because it is the item that makes the character.

"Mr. Strawman? Paging Mr. Strawman."

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'm one of the ones who argues you can't use D&D to do low (or no magic).

I always assume worst case scenario to show problems with something. The problem gets more and more as you go up levels and are assumed to have more and more magic items.

A 20th level fighter is supposed to have 780,000 gp worth of equipment. Assuming the core rules and allowing any magic item that costs up to 1/4 your wealth, you can easily have an AC of 40, +41 to hit doing at least 2d6+30 damage per hit. His minimum save is likely +11.

A 20th level fighter without any magic at all has at most 23 AC, has at most +30 to hit, doing at most 2d6+17 damage. His smallest save is likely +6

You'll notice a fairly large different difference in the numbers. At CR 20, I can tell you most creatures have ACs in the 50 range. This allows the fighter without magic to hit only on a natural 20 as opposed to 9 or higher with the magic using fighter.

Assuming average damage the magic using fighter does 13 more points per hit and hits more often (a LOT more often), basically the non magic person has no chance to defeat these enemies.

It gets more complicated after that. You can use lesser enemies, but you still have to guess. Enemies with high ACs, plus people with high plusses to hit or damage reduction magic can cause severe problem for parties without magic.

If you allow wizards and other casters, they will be the only ones with magic and the only ones who will feel useful against most enemies. Anyone playing a non-magic using class will feel inferior and basically won't be useful until they get buffing spells from the casters.

Disallowing casting classes means that now ALL people in the party feel useless without specifically choosing enemies who won't overpower them. It also means healing will be in very short supply.

 

[Crothian]

I'm one of the ones who argues you can't use D&D to do low (or no magic).

I always assume worst case scenario to show problems with something. The problem gets more and more as you go up levels and are assumed to have more and more magic items.

A 20th level fighter is supposed to have 780,000 gp worth of equipment. Assuming the core rules and allowing any magic item that costs up to 1/4 your wealth, you can easily have an AC of 40, +41 to hit doing at least 2d6+30 damage per hit. His minimum save is likely +11.

A 20th level fighter without any magic at all has at most 23 AC, has at most +30 to hit, doing at most 2d6+17 damage. His smallest save is likely +6

I like how to prove low and no magic, you just look at low magic. His smallest save would more then likely be +8, in low magic and no magic games people tend to take the feats that up saving throws a lot more often.

D&D does do low and no magic well. The think you seem to assume is that the DM is going to be stupid and match his party that has no magic against the same creatures he'd throw at a normal party. The DM is the key, and it is him that needs to be able to do a no magic game not the system.