3rd Edition too quick? too powerful?

[seasong]

Re: Re: 3rd Edition too quick? too powerful?

You can be stingy as long as the players feel rewarded. I give fewer magic items, but I create cool, custom items. A house (and/or it's furnishings) is a huge reward, even though it has little game effect.

Woo! Sing it, brother! I gots nothin' to add to that, other than Me Too .

Lots of people here are talking about "low-magic worlds", but there is no DM without players -- that's a group decision. Even so, a personal pet peeve is being told "It's a low magic world", when, in reality, "It's a low magic group in a standard world."

It's also very relative to player expectations. My Theralis campaign is lower magic than D&D, but overall I (and my players) would consider it medium-high magic compared to most of the campaigns I run.

I also prefer for my players to be the highest magic in the world - that's why they're the heroes, after all.

 

[francisca]

Please read the whole thread, Piratecat. Same goes for you, francisca.

Now, I really do have an axe to grind....

Just kidding. I did read the whole thread. I was just trying to illustrate that much of this stuff has been rehashed by countless DMs since 1974. I'm just glad I/we have a place to throw ideas against the wall and see what sticks.

I didn't mean to offend you, and I'm sorry if I did, but I don't really understand what your problem with my response was.

 

[Buttercup]

Damn, I though *I* was a stingy DM with magic items. By level 4 my guys had a +1 magic dagger and even some +1 arrows! I salute you for your restraint and especially for being able to pull that off without having your players start a minor revolution against you!

Evil, that's me.

Anyway, I probably should have mentioned that those apothecaries sell concoctions that heal, cure disease, explode, are slippery and can poison weapons. So that kind of makes up for the lack of magic items. Even the fighter can purchase a vial of Erlat and smear it on his sword to cause extra bleeding damage. Of course he had better be pretty careful applying it....

Part of the reason they have so little money is because they've been spending it on botanicals. And actually, none of them seem to miss the magic items.

 

[Arnwyn]

I didn't mean to offend you, and I'm sorry if I did, but I don't really understand what your problem with my response was.

Sorry - you didn't offend me at all, actually. I was just confused that a couple of people in a short span suddenly jumped on my second post, with responses that clearly showed they hadn't read my first post above it.

I was like, "but, but, but..." Ah, the wonders of internet messageboards, I suppose.

 

[kengar]

Oh, and a word of warning over making the game "low-magic". It actually makes the spellcasters more powerful, not less. Think about it. In a high magic world, Greater Magic Weapon is more or less useless, since all decent fighters have magic weapons. However, in a low magic world, it's very powerful, since no fighters have magic weapons and it makes a greater difference.

Another vote of confidence for this opinion. I played in a short-lived campaign where magic items and Item creation feats were limited and it made the wizard of the party insanely powerful compared to everyone else. His Haste/Fire Shield/Polymorph Self (into a bear) combos were dealing 2-3x the damage per round of anyone else in the party. That. coupled with the fact the my rogue's Sneak Attack had been nerfed (no flanking sneak attacks) unbalanced things mightily.

That said, the Item Creation Feats are built into the spellcasters power balance. If you start taking those away, you can hurt the casters AND other members of the party. Instead, try making it so getting the materials for the item isn't just a matter of throwing money at it. Just because you need 5000gp worth of materials, etc. doesn't mean you can just buy them anywhere.

 

[Shadowlord]

I fully know if i don't like it i can stop playing it. And i also know that i can change what i don't like. Since i don't have time to come up with my own game system, i'm 'stuck' with 3rd ed, which isn't so bad, i know the system like the back of my hand. So my second option is to change things, which i find hard to do. I'm the type to fully consider any change to the rules, and toning down things for a 'low magic, realistic approach' will take MAJOR retooling to be balanced. Mainly I'm wondering if people have the same problems taht i do, or even if they consider it a problem. Also what has been people's experience with toned down campaigns?

I felt similarly. What I did is lower XP for combat and make combat more risky (being the only major XP source).

This can done very simply, which I find important as I don't like making my own game when having bought 5 bokks. You must know that CRs aren't fixed, they are only a means to judge challenges.

So what did I do? Simply:
1. I don't use average party level but party CR and added RP- & Stroy awards to compensate.
2. I use the Massive Damage rule from d20 Modern.

 

[Someone]

I´m one of the WotC "standard gamers". If we are very lucky, we play once per week; that is, when there´s no exams, or someone´s out of town, or ill, or something else. Two of us DM, so our D&D time is cut in half (we play also L5R, and sometimes other games). We play 4 hour session, not 8. So we´re talking about 12-16 session/year, leveling more or less once per two sessions, that means 6-8 levels/year. I´ll take us 2-3 years to complete a campaing from level 1 to 20.

Remember guys, if you´re playing 8 hours session twice per week for ten years you are in gaming Nirvana. Of course you´ll level too fast.

 

[Victim]

Yes it does, if people don't "fit" WotC's nice little demographic (as shown by people uncomfortable with the fast advancement). Not everyone can be shoe-horned into WotC's research results, y'know.

That doesn't mean that it's inherently bad. Just bad for you.

Just like a slow advancement system that gives your group a stable 10 year campaign is going to suck for me, because I'll have probably moved several times in that period.

Even if our group played the same game every week, I'd still miss out because I don't plan on staying in the area once I graduate. And workers are spending less time in the same job, so people are more likely to move to get other jobs and so forth. I think a short default campaign length is a good idea.

Of course, I don't even bother using the default XP system. I just make up numbers, so PCs will advance at an appropriate speed. I don't like putting in a bunch of filler encounters in my adventures so PCs will gain enough XP, because play time is limited and prep time is limited. On the other hand, I try to have high expectations for the PCs so killing higher level enemies won't earn characters the ridiculous amounts of XP compared to normal enemies as in the standard system. Also, it allows me to curve advancement, so the advancement rate slows down at some point.

 

[Ace]

Navriin, welcome to the boards! I find that if you fix the experience, everything else adjusts accordingly; if you award half the xp like Buttercup does, then you have to award about 50% of the treasure and 60% of the magic items (potions and other consumables making up that extra 10%) to stay on track. It seems to work fairly well.

Good advice Piratecat

I would also suggest that if you are going to reduce magic armor and defese availablity consider using a defense bonus system ala Wheel of Time or Star Wars

This will keep the BAB/AC equation balanced

 

[Ace]

Evil, that's me.

Anyway, I probably should have mentioned that those apothecaries sell concoctions that heal, cure disease, explode, are slippery and can poison weapons. So that kind of makes up for the lack of magic items. Even the fighter can purchase a vial of Erlat and smear it on his sword to cause extra bleeding damage. Of course he had better be pretty careful applying it....

Part of the reason they have so little money is because they've been spending it on botanicals. And actually, none of them seem to miss the magic items.

Erlat. Hmm. I like the sound of that. I just borrowed it. Thanks!