3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Raven Crowking]

My point isn't that the players should or will do this. My point is that this idea is perfectly valid and SOMEONE would obviously think of it. As soon as one person person figures this out, you have a cottage industry on the go. There's no reason someone wouldn't clue into this and start making money. The basic premise that particular items are not available doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless the method for creating those items change.

Well, I think that you are forgetting the general nature of the D&D rules. They are abstractions. For the purposes of rules, saying that you have a particular item creation feat means that you can create all associated items. For the purposes of role-playing, this may not be the case. While I have yet to see a PC take an item creation feat and then claim that (despite the rules) he only knows how to make a limited set of items, this is pretty common practice for DMs. Similarly, the DM might create an armourer in a village who works chain but does not work plate.

The abstract nature of the rules does little to limit feats, but DMs create part of the feel of their worlds by deciding which feats are given to various NPCs. You could easily create a campaign in which there is no one, living or dead, who has ever made a magic item before the PCs come along. A bit extreme, I know, but the point ought to be clear. The DM does not have to allow NPCs the same latitude he allows PCs. This requires no rules changes whatsoever....you could even give the same general value of treasure, if you wanted to.

I would also point out that the original poster didn't mention any in game reasons for preventing a cleric or mage (not necessarily a PC, but any cleric or mage) from setting up shop and doing this.

I repeat:

As for the cleric sitting on his duff and cranking out continual flames:

(b) Perhaps you missed the part where I said "I am using a setting that, by WotC standards, is definately low-magic and low-wealth" (emphasis mine). Good luck finding the people willing and able to pay for your continual flames at 1000% profit. Could you make a profit? Yes. Could you make the profit you are implying? No.


(d) You also apparently missed the part where I said, "Some spellcasters in the past have caused problems that cause people to look down upon them." Genetically modified foods may (or may not) be perfectly safe, but that doesn't mean that everyone is comfortable with the idea. Now, remove the easy transfer of ideas that the modern era creates and add the fact that the genetically modified foods have, in the past, gotten up and eaten the farmers. Continual flame may be perfectly safe (and even without changing the RAW, it may not be if after a time the flames attract fire elementals, for example, or ethereal filchers), but how do you convince your target market of that fact? Show that you aren't burned by the flames? You're a spellcaster, though, and only the gods know what powers you might have.....!​

As the original poster, I will point out that the post you are referring to included:

I am using a setting that, by WotC standards, is definately low-magic and low-wealth. However, the only changes I have been forced to make are changing the XP system and varying the amount of treasure I give out from the assumptions in the DMG.

Of course, I am using my own definition of "low-magic" here. There are fewer high-level characters than the DMG would suggest (again, 1/2 XP). I make fewer NPC spellcasters. Some spellcasters in the past have caused problems that cause people to look down upon them. There are magic items to be found, but no magic item shops. You cannot even buy a sunrod.

And, again, YMMV, but I find that the core assumptions give rise to far worse logical inconsistencies. For example, if the standard XP and wealth progression is used, where is all the money coming from? Shouldn't epic characters be a dime a dozen? Why haven't they wiped out all the low-level monsters long, long ago? Or at the very least, consigned them to zoos or private reserves?

Etc., etc.


RC

 

[Berandor]

What the spork? Assuming you're talking about humanoids, like the PCs, in what way is it NOT unfair that they can do things that the PCs just flat-out cannot access? Goose and gander law people, what possible justification is there for this sort of nonsense?

It's not unfair, it's for the sake of the game.

Maybe I want to try a rule that might be unbalanced. Maybe I think an option would be unbalanced in a whole campaign, but not in a short encounter. Maybe I don't like an option enough to work at including it into my story, but like the abilities well enough that it would make for an interesting encounter nonetheless.

So yes, NPCs in my game can be warlocks, or magisters, or psions, even though my players can't. On the other hand, my players get to live through the fight, while the NPC often doesn't. Isn't that unfair, too?

 

[Belen]

Well, I would say that my views of a low magic setting come from the fact that you want to create a LOW magic setting - as in a setting without a great deal of magic. Otherwise, it's not usually called a low magic setting. I would have a problem calling a group comprised of a cleric, paladin, wizard and bard a low magic campaign. When three of the four PC's are spell casters and can possibly create magical items at 1st level while the fourth PC has magica immunities and abilities, calling that campaign low magic seems a little strange to me. If a DM wants to call his campaign low magic and have that statement actually be true, then my list is a pretty good start. It's not the only way, that's true, but, I'd say that you'd need to at least partially address those issues if you truly wish a low magic setting.

But what if the PCs are unique and they comprise only a handful of those types of classes in the world? What if most "bards" are minstrels or most "paladins" are LG fighters who belong to the church?

It is not hard to use the 3e rules as is and still have a "low-magic" world.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Let's not forget that the terms "high magic" and "low magic" are relative to some set standard. I would argue that, when discussing D&D worlds, the core assumptions are that set standard. "Low magic" does not have to mean "no magic".


RC

 

[Belen]

Core assumptions is a good way to describe the current trends with WOTC. Wizards tells players that these core assupmtions should be a part of any 3e game. What burns me is that some of those "core assumptions" are found in the DMG. The players should have NO assumptions where the DMG is concerned. It is a rulebook meant to provide guidance for DMs and should not be used to fit the DM into a box for the players.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

On the arrow thing, I would likely do something similar. However, one thing I would not do is change, or announce new rules AFTER the action was taken and then not allow the player to change his action. That's a perfect example of what I mean by ad hoc DM'ing that should not be allowed. While the call may be perfectly realistic, by forcing the player to use new rules the DM has done wrong. The player announced his action with the understanding that the RAW would be used. Had he known that new rules would be in effect, he might have chosen a different act. Whether the call is realistic or not is irrelavent. It's just a case of the DM saying, "Aha, gotcha, yer screwed. Aren't I just a nasty boy?"

Agreed, mostly. With the caveat that changes to make the game more "realistic" start piling up since the rules are designed to be vague on purpose to cover as many situations as possible with the same rule to avoid having to come up for new rules for each circumstance.

For instance, the arrow situation was basically us in a 5-ft wide hallway with 4 party members in front of me and the enemy in melee with the first party member. I was a sorceror in a D&D 3.5 edition game which took place in HARN world. In other words, casting spells could get me arrested and killed.

In this situation, the rules give just a cover bonus to the AC of the enemies. In the case of a house rule that allows you to hit your friends in the way, how many friends between you and your enemy does it take to get a percent chance to hit your friends? Is it a straight percentage or do you actually have to have rolled high enough to hit your friends? Does it happen with ranged touch attack spells as well as ranged weapons? What about reach weapons? Does the percentage change based on how many friends are between you and your enemy? What if there are enemies between you and the enemy you are firing at, do you risk hitting them instead? Is there a max percentage, or at some point do you have no chance of hitting the person you were aiming at?

Those are just the logic problems involved in just ONE house ruling. Then there are the balance and fun issues. Is it fun to play an archer when often you will be at the back of a party in a dungeon corridor with a large chance of hitting your friends? Shouldn't everyone just play melee fighters rather than kill their own party? If you happen to choose an archer anyways, what fun is it going to be for you when 90% of your actions are "I do nothing because I don't want to hit my party"? Doesn't that remove a lot of choices from the players?

That it's "stupid" is not a reason for DM's fiat.

Exactly, I also don't consider it a reason to change the RAW unless you think out the consequences of a rules HEAVILY before putting into place and even then, avoid making changes JUST because of a lack of "realism" in the rules. Understand that your views on realism might not be the same as your players' views. Often, the unrealistic version of the rule is also more fun and more easily remembered and understood.

 

[Psion]

What burns me is that some of those "core assumptions" are found in the DMG.

The core book on DMing isn't supposed to tell you what assumptions the game is built around?

It is a rulebook meant to provide guidance for DMs

I daresay it would be hard pressed to do so if it didn't make a few assumptions about the way play was supposed to proceed. Indeed, the way adventures are written, and the relative ease of conceiving activities for players in D&D, all falls back on the fact that the game has a strong core adventuring model.

Of course, all bets are off if the DM wants to deviate from that formula. But I think that fact is made pretty clear with the "step 0" of the chargen process.

Use the rules; don't let the rules use you.

 

[Rasyr]

Core assumptions is a good way to describe the current trends with WOTC. Wizards tells players that these core assupmtions should be a part of any 3e game. What burns me is that some of those "core assumptions" are found in the DMG. The players should have NO assumptions where the DMG is concerned. It is a rulebook meant to provide guidance for DMs and should not be used to fit the DM into a box for the players.

Part of the problem is that some of the core assumptions are based on setting elements, setting elements that are NOT part of the core rulebooks. This includes things like the Wealth system. It is also a bad thing that the core assumptions actually include not only things in the rules, but abuot the style of play, and what should or should not be allowed in a campaign. (somebody gave an example about how one small group of Feats said to get GM approval cause it needs the Leadership Feat, implying that everything else in the book did not need GM approval for use).

To me, it all washes out to say "we want you to play OUR game, OUR way", which is something that I disagree with. My personal opinion is that once the GM gets his hands on the rules/guidelines it is no longer the company's game, but the GM's game.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

It is a rulebook meant to provide guidance for DMs and should not be used to fit the DM into a box for the players.

Actually, core assumptions belong in the DMG more than anywhere else.

Think of it this way. The DMG could cover a wide gamut of potential styles and assumptions.. from low magic, to high fantasy, grim-n-gritty.. etc.. and the book would be huge! Trying to be everything for everyone...
Or.. they can say 'this is the default', covering one style and balance pattern. Allowing GM's to alter from that one base as desired.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The rules-slave approach also puts the game's emphasis somewhere that I don't want it to be. I would rather be thinking about what actions would make sense from my PC's point of view than what would give me another +1. That is i prefer a simulationist approach and insisting on precisely following the rules even when they don't make sense seems very gamist.

I actually find it is the other way around. When you KNOW that you can charge and you KNOW it adds a +2 bonus to your attack roll and lowers your AC by 2, then you know your options, you know what effects they will likely have. Then you can decide "Would my character be the type who would risk himself this way?" and take the action.

The other way tends to end up with players making role playing decisions based on assumptions in the rules that end up killing them when they figured there was no risk. I have yet to run into a DM who changed ALL his house rules upfront. I had a couple who listed SOME houserules upfront, then as play progressed "discovered" all sorts of house rules as they suddenly learned how the RAW worked (they couldn't be expected to READ the rules, after all, it was their game, they could make up their own rules) and decided they didn't like the RAW.

It seems a difference in attitude, all of the DMs I've met who follow the rules rarely have any house rules at all or 1 or 2 at most. Others who like to house rule tend to change almost everything, haven't read the rules(or did, 2 years ago...then forgot all the rules he didn't like), and come up with house rules for small situations that may never come up again on the fly.