The Myth of the Necessity of Magic Items

[green slime]

I think I prefer magic items over gross generalizations and emotionally loaded arguments.

...okay, got that off my chest. For me, magic items simply make the game more fun. The behavior you describe is not something I've seen.

But then... where would all the fun and flames go, if gross generalizations and emotionally loaded arguments get the cut? That would only leave dry logical discussions devoid of any real feeling.

 

[el-remmen]

What is "dps"?

Also, It may be my own short-coming, but I never understand when people say what "reason" do you have to play a fighter in that kind of game, as if everything needs an in-game mechanical reason.

 

[Rawwedge]

Magic Items are a blessing and a curse

As a player character, I love the accumulation of magic items (especially when they are full of flavor instead of off the shelf). Many players will want to try and accumulate the best items the campaign allows; the DM must feed that desire with careful moderation. I consider this a fun part of character progression.

As a dungeon master I am very aware of the problems that can be caused by the wrong amount of magic items in the campaign recipe. (either too much or too little) It is a constant balancing act.

Long ago, I played in a long running AD&D campaign as a PC and the items we received were few and precious. It worked out fine at the time but AD&D is a very different animal from 3.5.

I am currently in a long running 3.5 campaign as a PC and a few of us have been seduced by the lure of over abundant magic items. We are now paying the price as this has contributed to a highly imbalanced campaign where characters can die all too easily. In our situation the DM has responded to the imbalanced power on the player side with over-powered encounters.

I don't think there is any inherent problem with magic items (and the amount used) unless the people at the table allow that problem to develop; especially the DM. It's one of those issues where the DM has to have a firm hand from the beginning.

I strongly believe that 3.5 encourages lots and lots of lots and lots, be it items, spells, feats...how else can wizard's sell more books.

 

[Sir Elton]

There is a marked difference between fireballing a mob of ghouls without +1 DC from a headband, and charging the vrock with any old stick you found lying at the side of the road.

If you put sufficient force behind the "any old stick", it can penetrate Vrock skin. Just push the Vrock in front of a speeding train.

 

[Holy Bovine]

What is "dps"?

Also, It may be my own short-coming, but I never understand when people say what "reason" do you have to play a fighter in that kind of game, as if everything needs an in-game mechanical reason.

Damage Per Second?
Damsel Prissy Smartypants?
Don't Pee Standing?

ummmm I don't know!

Kidding aside (and ignoring the condecending tone of the op) I don't really see a big difference between making the character powerful due to innate ability vs. a magical item or items. Both are present in fantasy literature and, honestly, one is just as valid as the other.

That said I like magic items and try to make unique and intereasting ones and encourage the players to 'think outside the book' and come up with unqiue stuff to quest for or create. Also i use house ruled Weapon of Legacy rules for making items more powerful as a character levels. No character has more than one however this may change in the future. This has proved to be even better than i thought as I recently stole a PCs WoL greatbow and the party basically put everything on hold to get it back! It was cool when the PC finally wrenched the bow from the cold dead fingers of his enemy.

 

[nute]

What is "dps"?

Also, It may be my own short-coming, but I never understand when people say what "reason" do you have to play a fighter in that kind of game, as if everything needs an in-game mechanical reason.

DPS = an MMORPG term for "damage per second", usually the forte of melee classes.

An appropriate tabletop analogue would be "damage per turn". A measure of strict damage output would be Damage Per Turn * Turns of Sustainability.

Melee Fighters = medium damage per turn, but high sustainability.

Wizards = HIGH damage per turn, but lower sustainability, mitigated by the fact that they can avoid most melee combat.

Archers = medium-low damage per turn, but high sustainability/avoidance

It's all a matter of pros and cons, all of which can be mitigated by magic items.

Give the fighter a +1 longsword, you're getting a 2-for-1 bonus to his melee effectiveness (he hits more often AND does more damage per hit), but the same can be said for giving a wizard a Ring of Wizardry that lets him cast more spells that on the average do much more damage than a fighter's single blow.

 

[delericho]

Give the party Wizard Improved Invisibility and Fly, and then set him against the party Fighter, both without magic items.

Low magic-item D&D can be made to work, but it either requires significant forbearance on the party of the players, very heavy house-rules, or for all the players to run spellcasters (or, for none of them to do so). Once you find yourself going in that direction, and you not better off just playing "Iron Heroes", or some other game built to assume low magic items?

 

[Emirikol]

I agree here. If you keep spell casters as is, there's no reason not to play one, heck, it lets the fighter/mages to being pretty more

If you take a look at all of the base classes of the ENTIRE game, how many are non-magical?
Of the 50 base classes 10 are nonmagical, leaving 80% of the classes essentially variations of FIghter/Mage.

80%!

How much house-ruling do you make on the modules? How many times do you fudge the dice rolls for your players in a given game? How many have died?

We use action points and the players have to 'think' before they act I don't fudge dice rolls (and our group falls well below the death range actually from an earlier poll I ran on "how many deaths per campaign). It's just like in regular D&D except they have to think outside the rulebook, rather than to look up a spell or have an instant solution magic item.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE being addicted to magic item power proliferation as much as the next guy and I LOVE being in the high level party where I don't really have to participate if I don't want to (because someone else always has a MI or spell to solve any given situation).

You guys are going to crap your pants when you hear this, but one of the "tank fighters" in the group has a 22 AC and he's 15th level. I know..I know..it's waaay too high

In regards to modifying scenarios, we're currently playing Age of Worms. I don't change monsters except to make 90% of them appear human and the other 10% I make them appear as something wth tentacles and horror or watever (long story..it's Hyboria). I dont' typically need to change any stats, but there ARE IN FACT TIMES WHERE THE CR, as the other poster said, is unreasonable. In that case, I just use the "scaling the adventure" sidebar. Ironically though, most of the adventures, the PC's are lower level than what is listed..by that I mean the PC's were 4th level and the adventure was for 5th level characters.

I'm beginning to wonder if all the extra levels in the non-spellcasting classes isn't balancing the game AGAINST magic classes. Perhaps magic classes are WEAKER than we think and maybe it's THEM that need the magic items more than the non-magical classes.

I get the impression that the adventures would be way too easy if you had a syringe-boat-load of magical addictions and were going through at the proper level. What's the deal? Has D&D become too easy and comfy with magical items? Have the rest of you had the same experiences with Age of Worms with "normal" amounts of magic items an PC's at the "proper" level?

jh

 

[Emirikol]

Give the party Wizard Improved Invisibility and Fly, and then set him against the party Fighter, both without magic items. Low magic-item D&D can be made to work, but it either requires significant forbearance on the party of the players, very heavy house-rules, or for all the players to run spellcasters (or, for none of them to do so). Once you find yourself going in that direction, and you not better off just playing "Iron Heroes", or some other game built to assume low magic items?

The house rules are very short:
1. All 'magical' classes must be paired up with a non-magical class per 5 levels (e.g. Fighter 1st/wizard 4)
2. Certain spells are knocked up one level (e.g. fly, invisibility, and some spells I know players can find more interesting versions of in those other books everyone owns)

That's it actually. That's not what I consider "very heavy house rules."

jh



..

 

[El Ravager]

What is "dps"?

Also, It may be my own short-coming, but I never understand when people say what "reason" do you have to play a fighter in that kind of game, as if everything needs an in-game mechanical reason.

Thats sort of a peeve for me too. I've ran and played in many moderate to low-ish magic games and the fighters have always remained relevant if not even dominant in some cases. High str + big sword + power attack seems to be one way they still get the job done. Not to mention that low magic doesn't mean NO magic, so the fighter should have some magic item to augment their fighting. In my mind, a fighter at high level might only have a couple magic items, but those two might be really powerfull.

Low magic doesn't have to mean low powered. The items possessed can still be very strong, but the frequency that PCs come across them would be rare. To me, an ideal low magic game would not see an 18th lv figher carrying around a +1 sword as his main weapon but rather perhaps an artifact level weapon. But that and maybe a couple other items would be all the magic he would have access to. Rather than relying on a huge magic tool kit, the PCs only has a few tools, but those are really great.

Also, I don't see it as caster vs fighter. If a situation really requires magic and fighting, maybe the fighter gets the magic help from a party caster rather than an item. If there is a flying enemy the fighter can't reach, the caster could use a powerfull spell to damage it at range. Or he could cast fly on the fighter and have beat on the enemy round after round. Low magic games might be seen as encouraging the party to work together more rather than rely on loot powers. It has also been an observation of mine that casters benefit from magic items almost as much as fighters. I've noticed spellcaster PCs in games I play in are just as eager to get their hads on magic items, if not more so, as the fighter types because they are so fragile.

I suppose its all just anecdotal, but in my experience, the divide is not nearly as extreme as people make it out to be.