3rd Edition too quick? too powerful?

[Alchemist]

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.

This is the stuff I'm looking to do in my next campaign also. I'm a big fan of alchemy.

What resources have you used, and will you share your results? I'm hoping to not have to do redundant work...

 

[Larcen]

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

...... But people with the potential to do such things are rare (even if the PCs happen to be such people). The talent for sorcery, or the faith to be a spellcasting cleric, are very unusual. Even if the PCs happen to be such people, that doesn't mean the world need be filled with them, right?

I haven't read this entire thread yet, but I just wanted to comment on this. I would think that if you set up a situation where the PCs are so rare and unusual in terms of the ability to use magic, then you have just made them VERY powerful when compared to the rest of the world. Even a first level wizard in a world with little to no magic would be held in awe by the commoners. Of course, I suppose you could always have them organize a witch hunt.

 

[navriin]

I've thought about scaling xp and wealth back, but I don't want to do it on an even ratio. If you reduce everything by say 50%, that means it takes twice as long to level (ok in my opinion) but it still means the PC's will have the same amount of magic at any given level, it just takes longer to get it.

I realize lowering magic equipment makes casters more powerful, that's why i was considering the prestige class route, with a lower spell cap, perhaps like d20 modern. Ideally casting clerics would be REALLY rare, and would have to earn their powers, and this would have the side affect of reducing raising and access to easy healing. I'm not so sure about wizards, I like the wheel of time magic system and have an idea how to rework it to my world.

I am growing more and more in favor of xp based on story, as per based on kill. I think earning xp based on how many critters you slaughter really works counter to RP. Despite my stating I give xp for avoiding uneccesary encounters, it never really sank in to my players heads. I would have situations where they would attack something with hollow justification because they just needed a few more hundred xp to level. When I run D&D I tend to do it a lot. Ideally I would like to have PC's level up about once every 4-6 adventures, with an adventure being close to an hour long tv show in pacing I suppose. That would be easy to do based on an xp reward per overall adventure difficulty.

Wealth I would lower to a silver standard I think. I would like to achieve a semi-realistic viewpoint on wealt-a fighter's set of full plate would be a prized possession, and favors and land would be a viable source of income. I find that greed tends to lead to a lot of hack n' slash as well.

My item creation idea should be a bit more explained I suppose. If I changed wizards to a wheel of time type of caster, they get feats every other level, a sacrifice in casting power could lead to creation feats, more often than a standard wizard. The feat would allow the creation of one permanent item, but the item could be upgraded by the creator. So at low levels a wizard could make his fighter friend a +1 sword, but continually upgrade it as they adventure together.

Protaganist would tend to me humanoid. Magical monsters would have to be very rare because they would become incredibly challenging to a low magic party. I think the main thing I am shooting for is that a PC wins because of skill, not the amount of magic he has. By the book a PC will beat an equal level NPC, not because he has better skill but better goodies, that bugs me at times, especially because if you give the NPC more items to compensate, you just make the PC more powerful if he wins.

I believe I'll start drawing up my version of a low magic campain, and pose the ideas as I go along. Thanks for the input, I would appreciate more, especially on the actual mechanic changes that must be made to lower the magic threshold.

 

[jasamcarl]

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

I haven't read this entire thread yet, but I just wanted to comment on this. I would think that if you set up a situation where the PCs are so rare and unusual in terms of the ability to use magic, then you have just made them VERY powerful when compared to the rest of the world. Even a first level wizard in a world with little to no magic would be held in awe by the commoners. Of course, I suppose you could always have them organize a witch hunt.

Please explain how this is a problem.

 

[Nightfall]

My only comment is, Try Aedon by my friend Bendris. It's pretty good campaign setting if you like low magic and lots of psionics.

 

[Voneth]

"Why doesn't every peasant in the game level up to epic heights within a month?"

/em gnarlo

As compared to every peasant being 20th level in 5 years in 2nd ed.? Use what every in-game reason you want, that argument does hold much water when comparing a level-based system vs. a level based system. Now on to the "how fast is too fast?"

Acutaly I played in a 2nd ed game that had me in high teen within a year, the guy threw out exp like it was going out of style, of couse were were almost dead at the end of every game session.

I find that it all boils down to how fast the DM can keep up with the pace of advancement.

I know some guys who whip up a high-level game and keep it going into epic levels without a sweat.

And I know some guys who start getting nervous when certain spells become available that almost literaly shrink the game world (Wind Walk, Teleport, etc.) so that there is no need for weeks of marching across land and be constant targets of ambushes.

The game I was just in went to 16th level in 2 years and only the bard and fighter had a magic item each. The GM was taken back by the wizrd's teleport and my druid's wind walk, so he "shook the etch-a-sketch" and started us over. Personaly, I think he quit when it was just getting interesting.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

If you're going to reduce magic item availability, you'll need to either nerf spellcasters or beef up fighter-types.

 

[Ravellion]

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

Please explain how this is a problem.

Becuase you might want a low magic campaign without your PC's being considered gods from 1st level onwards?

Rav

 

[Desdichado]

I agree navriin, but I have a bone to pick with you as a DM too, in a manner of speaking, that is.

It's a pet peeve of mine that with the advent of CRs and ELs, many DMs have migrated to using them as crutches for "real" planning. That is, in the "old days" of D&D, we had to eyeball the monsters to see what was an appropriate challenge for the PCs without the aid of any handy number on a line item in the monster stat block. And, for the most part, it worked well if you knew anything at all about your players and their characters.

And, if you take this point of view, most of the rest of your complaints melt away too. Don't like the high treasure or high magic items? Worried that your PCs won't be "balanced" without it, and you won't be able to just throw CRs at them? So what -- if you know what your PCs are capable of, you know what to throw at them without CRs.

So, I've made tons of modifications to campaigns I've run, and any campaign I'll run in the future -- in fact, I'll probably use a d20 Modern-like ruleset rather than straight D&D next time I'm behind the screen. And I'm not worried about balance at all.

 

[John Smallberries]

Too quick? Too powerful?

Not in my opinion. Works fine for me.