About the myth or fact (?) of needing magical items

[Belen]

The low-magic lovers keep saying, "You can do it!"
Then everyone else says, "Of course you can, but you'll have to change things to make it work."
Then the low-magic lovers say, "Stop saying it doesn't work! It does work! CR isn't important! It's still D&D!"
Then everyone else says, "That's great, but you still have to change some stuff."

Look, you want to do it, fine. Just, whatever you do, don't throw unaltered spellcasters into a group with unaltered warrior types with low magical-item distributions. It isn't fun for the warrior types. I have experienced this. It's a game of, how is the spellcaster going to save us next? It's like playing with a DM who makes you start at level 1 when your character dies, and everyone else is level 6 already. It's frustrating, boring, and completely unfun.

I never said that you did not have to be mindful if you do not give out a lot of items. I have said that you do not need a truckload of items to play D&D. I am disputing those people who like to denigrate D&D because it is the item that makes the character.

You can half a game that does not have a magic shop in every city or a character that has every slot filled with an item. I do not run "low magic" games, but I do not load people down with 1001 items either. There is no "default" amount of items that you need to play the game.

That is my point.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Remind me never to get into a game with you. I expect my compatriots to help me out if I need it. If they are that selfish, then why adventure together?

That's silly. Why should the wizard buff the fighter when he can buff himself and get more mileage out of it? Enlarge person, sure. Bull's strength okay. Greater invisibility, no. Tactically minded players will use spells on the person who can best use the spell. And, if the wizard doesn't want to use buffs, then the wizard doesn't have to use buffs. This is why noone wants to play clerics, because everyone expects them to just be a cure tank.

 

[ThirdWizard]

That is my point.

Who here said that? I must have overlooked it. Why are you arguing with people that agree with you?

 

[Belen]

That's silly. Why should the wizard buff the fighter when he can buff himself and get more mileage out of it? Enlarge person, sure. Bull's strength okay. Greater invisibility, no. Tactically minded players will use spells on the person who can best use the spell. And, if the wizard doesn't want to use buffs, then the wizard doesn't have to use buffs. This is why noone wants to play clerics, because everyone expects them to just be a cure tank.

I never said that all a Wizard must do it buff the party. I am saying that they should help if a party member is in need.

And to be technical, the rogue is the best person to get Greater Invis with that nasty sneak attack.

 

[drothgery]

Look, you want to do it, fine. Just, whatever you do, don't throw unaltered spellcasters into a group with unaltered warrior types with low magical-item distributions. It isn't fun for the warrior types. I have experienced this. It's a game of, how is the spellcaster going to save us next? It's like playing with a DM who makes you start at level 1 when your character dies, and everyone else is level 6 already. It's frustrating, boring, and completely unfun.

It's also not fun for the spellchucker, who's either dominating combat (which stops being fun after a few months of the other players complaining about it) or taken out early because the bad guys are concentrating on the biggest threat, and he's still got a d4 hit die.

 

[just__al]

The purpose of point buy stats and intraparty game balance is to remove this problem from game play. Removing magic items causes intraparty game balance problems (more than were there to begin with). Monte Cook has this wonderful article about how game balance is supposed to promote fun, and I'm sure you've read it.

You wouldn't have a link to the article. I'm sure it articulates a point I've been trying to make for a while much better than I've been with a few fellow gamers.

 

[Ace]

I never said that you did not have to be mindful if you do not give out a lot of items. I have said that you do not need a truckload of items to play D&D. I am disputing those people who like to denigrate D&D because it is the item that makes the character.

You can half a game that does not have a magic shop in every city or a character that has every slot filled with an item. I do not run "low magic" games, but I do not load people down with 1001 items either. There is no "default" amount of items that you need to play the game.

That is my point.

No offense BU but there is a default needed amount of magic items built into the system as it is written.

Without the items listed you can't safely use many DR encounters, flying encounters, encounters with many kinds of magic in them (default low saves lag way way behind spells-- I mean do you really want your 20th leve; fighter to be easily dominated by a 7th level wizard?) and in addition fighters and the like get hit more than twice as often.

lets say you have a high level fighter who normally have plate +3 heavy shield +3 amulet of natural armor +3 ring of deflection +3 plus a Dodge feat and a +1 dex bonus his base AC is 32

A low magic fighter with a Plate, a +3 heavy shield,a dodge feat and a +1 dex bonus has a base AC of 25 --

This means in melee he takes 35% more hits -- it is the same effect as dropping him from a d10 to about a d6 for HP even against normal opponents

Also Wizards are staggeringly powerfull without an appropriate amount of PC magic

Lets say you have a party of 4 blog standard guys each 12 level -- each has two magic items

Fighter has +2 silver longsword and a +3 shield

Rogue has +2 studded leather and Elven boots

Wizard (who is 11th ) has piles of scrolls he made and a +2 natural armor amulet and a wand of magic misisles (l9) with 30 charges

Cleric (who is also 11th) has a bunch of potions (he made), +2 Chain and his mace of disruption

This seem like a fairly equipped party but its not. Both the fighter and rogue can be easily taken down with any will related effect, say Dominate -- The cleric has a good chance if he can buff -- and the wizard --well he needs a few rounds to buff but is otherwise OK

What happens without items is the non spell users are hosed badly and the spell casters are either hammered flat or if they pick spells wisely and a have some time to buff will be about the same except for an increased amount of resource use.

What low magic item games do (without comensatory rules mods) is grossly nerf fighters and make the party casters need to recharge resources more which leads to a lot more -- stop, rest and a lot less ---fight on!

They also put heavy limits on the DM's monster pallate. There are a lot of cool monsters that would be challenging for say a level 12 party that can and will TPK an under equipped party at level 20.

This is why rules modiications are essential if you reduce items.

WOTC shows this with the vow of poverty feat. It seems gawdawful powerfull but its not compared to a well equiped parties resources

To make low item D&D balance even against mostly human opponents you need the following

extra feats,
extra skill points,
better stat rolls (no 25 point buy),
better hp roll method
Optionally a few stat points on level up
better saves for weak saves
and most importantly a level based AC bonus that stacks with armor

I also allow feats in a low item game that I might not allow in a regular game as too strong as well as use stuff like combat styles to balance out

With these mods and a little care in the monster selectionlow item D&D can balance out at similar power levels to regular D&D

 

[Belen]

No offense BU but there is a default needed amount of magic items built into the system as it is written.

None taken. Basically, we're arguing what constitues "D&D." It is a no win argument. For me, the DM chooses the encounters, level of equipment, etc. I have no trouble challenging characters no matter what equipment they may or may not have.

I have been in games where the casters outshined everyone else even when they had better than wealth by level limits. I have also been in campaigns where the casters stunk even when the fighter only had a +1 sword.

Is there a problem with high level magic? Yes. I, for one, would prefer to go back to how some of the 2e spells worked in that they had negative side effects.

However, I maintain that characters do not need a grab bag of items. I do not advocate zero items. I just do not think you need a magic shop on every corner to play D&D.

 

[Ace]

None taken. Basically, we're arguing what constitues "D&D." It is a no win argument. For me, the DM chooses the encounters, level of equipment, etc. I have no trouble challenging characters no matter what equipment they may or may not have.

SNIP

However, I maintain that characters do not need a grab bag of items. I do not advocate zero items. I just do not think you need a magic shop on every corner to play D&D.

Me either.

In fact I agree with the last statement you made. I think the crucial difference is that I believe that the base AC rules are wack and the PC's need something to compensate to make the rules feel right. I happen to liek more feats and skills but they aren't actually mandatory

One suugestion I have been considering is to allow BAB to be used for both AC and attack as if the character has Combat expertise and Improved Combat Expertise. I haven't figured out how to replace the feats as prerequesites or how to deal with actions and feats that work of fighting defensivly and the like but I think it would resolve my worries about AC imbalance and allow me to do just what you were talking about -- tweak the magic items to suit rather than be held by the RAW magic items needs


Interestingly True 20, a variant Mutants and Mastermind/D&D uses this rule

 

[Hussar]

However, I maintain that characters do not need a grab bag of items. I do not advocate zero items. I just do not think you need a magic shop on every corner to play D&D.

So, if I understand correctly, you are saying that magical items and character wealth should be carefully balanced against their level and the style of campaign being played. Gee, that looks surprisingly exactly like what's stated in the DMG under Character Wealth by Level.

IME, if you follow that table fairly closely, you'll find that it works pretty well. Characters do not get overpowered with that level of wealth, but neither do they get shortchanged. Plus, if you follow the demographics guidelines in the DMG, you'll find that the "magic shop on every corner" syndrome is far overplayed. In addition if you follow the wealth limits by population, you'll find that character equipment stays pretty much in line with where it should be by level.

In other words, read the DMG, follow those guidelines, and everyone's happy.