Unintended(?) Consequence of No More X-Mas Tree?

[Voss]

Isn't WotC making it so that instead of the DM controlling the characters' items and such, the DM controls the level of the game through the difficulty of the monsters and opponents? So I think 4th Ed. is just switching from Christmas Tree Characters to Scaling Power Monsters & Encounters.

At least for me, thats a big 'just'. Its been an issue since 1st edition, but 3rd reached a high point (or, what feels like a low point) in playing the items, not the character.

As long as the encounters are a challenge, the relative lack of items won't bother me. It also prevents the nasty spiral of item accumulation. (along with the lesser evils of magic shops in every town, and the goofiness of the item creation rules).

Its a lot easier to add those things back in if you want them then try to take them out when they're part of the challenge rating of encounters.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Exactly. If the stuff you need to have in order to fight a vampire is available to characters of 5th levdl in 3E only with magic items, you can hold back on Vampires simply by not giving out the required items. If, however, you make those qualities inherent in the characters then 5th level characters are automatically capable of fighting Vampires regardless of what gear they have. If "can fight vampires" is a benchmark for "high fantasy", then through the reduction of the christmas tree effect have solidified the low-high fantasy line.

Note, "vampires" and "5th level" are just examples intended to illustrate my reasoning and not to be construed as me making an assertion that vampires=high fantasy or that 5th level=no longer low fantasy.

It seems to me that the 4E mechanics are turning what was a mechanical problem in 3E (Xmas trees) into a flavour problem in 4E. So instead of needing to have X item to kill a particular sort of monster, you can just kill it, which as you say, may blur the low/high fantasy boundary. But the fix, I think, is fairly easy to implement. Using your example, let's say that you need a stake made out of a certain type of rare wood to kill the vampire. Now the weapon you need is no longer a magic item, but a plot device. There will be no vampire killing until the players figure out how to get their hands on such a stake. The vampire is totally scary because they know they can't kill him until they find the stake, and so they are vulnerable. I think that most monsters or NPCs that are supposed to be hard to kill can be quickly tweaked in a similar way, so that no matter how tough you are, they're still a pain in the butt to deal with.

Another fix is this: don't fight vampires. If you want to preserve a certain low fantasy style of game, set up the challenges so that the players never feel like superheroes butchering a bunch of monsters that mere mortals would flee in terror from. Fight goblins, giants, dire animals, and other more mundane challenges. This isn't an ideal fix, because it does constrain the DM quite a bit, but perhaps a viable one.

 

[pemerton]

Changing the math so that a hero can deal with level-appropriate opponents without relying on magic items does not integrate high fantasy into the game. On the contrary, it means you can now have a low fantasy game with less magic without having to houserule a whole new math into the core rules and without having to recalculate what is a level appropriate challenge for your magic deprived player characters.

<snip>

If 4th edition delivers on this promise of reducing need for magic items, you can have a low magic campaign without rewriting the rules, and you can have a high magic campaign which merely increases the options available to the players without significantly changing the math.

I'm not sure "low magic" = "low fantasy". I think Dr Awkward has it right when he notes that PCs who have the "big 6" built into them may well play with a very superheroic flavour, regardless of whether or not they own magic items.

That being said, I'm not sure that D&D should really be trying to support low-magic/low-fantasy play. I don't think it's ever done it all that well, given the preponderance of magic-using classes and the need for healing magic to be readily available if the game is to be played according to its default assumptions.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

One of the few design philosophies of 4E that has me interested enough to consider using it for my 3E games is reducing the need for loads of magical items. 4E is hardly the first to try and do so, mind, but the way it wants to do it, but integrating those "typical" item bonuses into the math of PC development, sounds interesting.

However, as i got to thinking about it, I realized that this wasn't actually a good idea. One of the things about the "christmas tree effect" that is positive is that it allows the DM to control the "low-high fantasy" spectrum of the game fairly easily. If the DM wants a high fantasy feel, he can allow lots of items. if he wants a much lower fantasy feel, he can not allow lots of items.

I figure low fantasy can just be done with lower level characters (who would face lower CR opponents). The problem with low fantasy in 3.x was even a 3rd level character was expected to carry magic items.

(It also gave a shockingly high number of DMs the belief that they could run a low-item campaign without knowing what they're doing. Even DMs who made changes to accomodate it rarely made enough of them.)

 

[Scribble]

I'm not sure "low magic" = "low fantasy". I think Dr Awkward has it right when he notes that PCs who have the "big 6" built into them may well play with a very superheroic flavour, regardless of whether or not they own magic items.

That being said, I'm not sure that D&D should really be trying to support low-magic/low-fantasy play. I don't think it's ever done it all that well, given the preponderance of magic-using classes and the need for healing magic to be readily available if the game is to be played according to its default assumptions.

Yeah... I wouldn't say 4e is getting rid of the magic items... From the previews it just seems the effect are being pre-built into the classes.

The Fighter won't need a magic flaming sword, because he has an ability that already adds fire damage to his sword...

 

[DreamChaser]

Isn't WotC making it so that instead of the DM controlling the characters' items and such, the DM controls the level of the game through the difficulty of the monsters and opponents? So I think 4th Ed. is just switching from Christmas Tree Characters to Scaling Power Monsters & Encounters.

Exactly. The big advantage to this is that you can control, moment to moment, the difficulty of the challenge without "punishing" the characters by withholding, removing, or f-ing with their magical items.

One of the worst things, IMO, that 3e did was to attempt a parity between monsters and PCs so that it was assumed that anything you gave a monster the ability to do, there would be some way of the PC doing it as well. How do you make that medusa more powerful? Give her some class levels. If you give her the eye rays of a beholder out of her snakes, the players wonder (rightly within the structure of the game) where the hell that power came from and how they can get it too. (of course I am aware of (and frequently use) DM fiat to do crap like this anyway, but I was illustrating a point of rules assumption)

From what I've read so far, this error has been corrected. Monsters are monsters and they do not need to be identical to PCs; in fact, it is better that they not be because they fill a different role.

DC

 

[Aldarc]

Exactly. The big advantage to this is that you can control, moment to moment, the difficulty of the challenge without "punishing" the characters by withholding, removing, or f-ing with their magical items.

One of the worst things, IMO, that 3e did was to attempt a parity between monsters and PCs so that it was assumed that anything you gave a monster the ability to do, there would be some way of the PC doing it as well. How do you make that medusa more powerful? Give her some class levels. If you give her the eye rays of a beholder out of her snakes, the players wonder (rightly within the structure of the game) where the hell that power came from and how they can get it too. (of course I am aware of (and frequently use) DM fiat to do crap like this anyway, but I was illustrating a point of rules assumption)

From what I've read so far, this error has been corrected. Monsters are monsters and they do not need to be identical to PCs; in fact, it is better that they not be because they fill a different role.

DC

I much prefer this approach as well as it should make it easier to set up encounters without having to adjust monsters too much as from what we have heard thus far, they are coming mostly prepackaged at different difficulty levels. And then add this to the idea that the DM and characters do not have to worry as much about what magical items they need to offset the difficulties of the monsters, and you have a much easier time for the DM and players alike.

 

[DarkWhite]

I'm not sure how WotC expect to hold back the Christmas Tree effect. Players enjoy magic items, they're cool rewards that players look forward to, for some, it's the sole reason for adventuring. Magic items have always been a part of fantasy gaming. It will only work until a third-party company releases a book of cool magic items, then WotC will do the same to keep ahead in the arms race. Look at how prestige classes evolved in 3rd Edition for a comparable example.

 

[Njall]

Well, in the end, deciding how many magic items the party should have is up to the DM.
What WotC can ( and should ) do is making the game balanced with or without magic items.
This way when a PC goes to town and asks if he can purchase a +5 longsword, you're free to say "yes" or "no", as you see fit, knowing that you're not unbalancing the game.
WotC cannot remove the christmas tree effect if you as a DM don't want to, but they can provide a fun, balanced game that works whatever you choose for your campaign.

 

[Stogoe]

Using your example, let's say that you need a stake made out of a certain type of rare wood to kill the vampire. Now the weapon you need is no longer a magic item, but a plot device. There will be no vampire killing until the players figure out how to get their hands on such a stake. The vampire is totally scary because they know they can't kill him until they find the stake, and so they are vulnerable.

I actually thought of this, too, while brainstorming for my first 4e campaign (though it came to me via werewolves, instead of vampires).