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

[Turanil]

BTW, your tone is extremely confrontational.

It's because again and again I do hear (on these forums) that the D&D game cannot be played without magical items. So, I must use a confrontational tone to tell that indeed it's possible. (In addition, with a confrontational tone, I may expect twice as much responses as without )

You cannot presume to claim your campaign standards can be applied to every game out there.

Right, the sort of campaign with very few magical items in it, and no care for CRs and such, cannot be applied to every game, and likewise for my use of monsters from a restricted list.

By the way, I don't like the idea of a band of grimlocks, all of them being 6th level fighters. It reminds me of a campaign when our DM increased the level of random encounters brigands as we got levels. This infuriated me and broke my suspension of disbelief. Okay to have foes that would be a challenge, not foes who get levels just because a single party of 4 PCs in a whole world are more powerful. Hence, when playing a very few magical items game, I don't need (what I consider) such a nonsense.

 

[Turanil]

I played in a campaign from 1st to 20th level that was woefully void of magic items. <...> 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.

Glad to hear others that D&D with few magical items is possible, even if it obviously means a different kind of game. Also, glad to hear it is possible without having automatically do it with Iron Heroes. The latter may be a great game (well, not one I am interested in after having read everything I could about it), but it has not the monopole of low/no-magic campaigns.

 

[Morrus]

It's because again and again I do hear (on these forums) that the D&D game cannot be played without magical items.

Really? I've never heard anyone say that.

I've heard people say that D&D plays very differently without the magic items and that balance and appropriate challenge issues become more difficult (in that the DM can't just plug in stuff out of the books but must do a little more prep), but that's about it. I've run a low magic item campaign before, and can attest to the fact that it works just fine as long as care is taken on the part of the DM (ignoring the issue of game style taste).

 

[delericho]

By the way, I don't like the idea of a band of grimlock all of them being 6th level fighters. It reminds me of a campaign when our DM increased the level of random encounters brigands as we got in levels. This nfuriated me and broke my suspension of disbelief. Okay to have foes that would be a challenge, not foes who get levels just because a single party of 4 PCs in a whole world are more powerful. Hence, when playing a very few magical items game, I don't need (what I consider) such a nonsense.

Note that he didn't say it was a random encounter - it's entirely likely that the beholder chose those grimlocks as his elite guard because they were higher level. The fact that they were all 6th level and (probably) had identical stats is purely out of a need for simplicity - there's little point in generating 6 sets of individual stats for some NPCs who will be met in combat once, and used for perhaps 20 minutes.

It is a problem when the level of the NPCs that are encountered increases as the PCs also increase in level. However, if they don't increase, the opponents just aren't a challenge. Might as well say "you're accosted by bandits. What do you want to do with them once you've defeated them?"

With magic items or no, a group of 8th level PCs will not be challenged by a band of 1st level bandits, almost regardless of how many there are. All it takes is a handful of sleep spells, and they're dealt with. It's the same problem as is found with mass combat in D&D - large numbers of low-level opponents are just too vulnerable to area effect and multiple target spells to make such things viable.

 

[Thanee]

As I said above, of course it's possible (if the DM is good enough to handle it properly). Impossible doesn't exist in roleplaying.

I don't see the point, tho. There are games out there, which are a million times better suited for this style of gaming.

Specifically, I would prefer more emphasis on skills in such a game. The other fantasy RPG I like quite a bit is exactly like this. Low-magic (concerning items, but also overall power of magic, i.e. flying is powerful magic there, not just a glorified cantrip) and high skills. It's also quite gritty. Works extremely well.

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.

That's cool! But I would like to note, that you all picked classes, which work well in that context. Not all classes really do. And you probably had (have) a good DM (and good players), which goes a long way towards enjoying any kind of game.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Turanil]

Really? I've never heard anyone say that.

Not in such direct terms. But I often hear people suggesting it strongly, including all those who are glad that Iron Heroes is here because they want campaigns where characters don't need magical items. So for me it clearly sounds as if you "can't play" normal D&D characters if they don't have magical items. I just wanted to say that D&D games with few or no magical items are possible, even if it obviously require some adjustment and use less powerful foes than usual.

 

[Darmanicus]

I've run a low magic item campaign before

What do you mean 'before'??? You still are RB!!!

 

[Aust Diamondew]

The way the current incarnation of D&D is set up you need lots of magic items at high level. If you just do away with standard magic item progression and don't adjust CRs appropriately be prepared for a TPK.

You can play with out them and I have up until very high level. To compensate I gave characters an AC bonus equal to 1/2 their level and a bonus to saves of +1 for every 4 levels. The magic items I did give out I always made sure would help non-spell casters slightly more. It was a great campaign, was it technically D&D? I don't know.

As a side note I've had great fun in standard magic item campaigns too.

 

[S'mon]

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

This is exactly right. And it's no fun playing a Fighter completely overshadowed by the Cleric & Wizard. IME the 3e combat rules make spellcasters more, not less, powerful - the 5' step, casting in melee, lack of full attacks if you move, etc. Also there are lots of new & very powerful spells. If you eliminate magic items you need to tone down the spellcaster classes too or they totally overshadow non-casters. I strongly dislike this fact, but it's true.

 

[Darkness]

You can play with out them and I have up until very high level. To compensate I gave characters an AC bonus equal to 1/2 their level and a bonus to saves of +1 for every 4 levels. The magic items I did give out I always made sure would help non-spell casters slightly more. It was a great campaign, was it technically D&D? I don't know.

(Emphasis mine.) Why wouldn't it be?