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

[TheGM]

I can't speak from a DM point of view, but I played in a campaign from 1st to 20th level that was woefully void of magic items. Over the course of the entire campaign, each of the characters received one major magic item, and a few minor one use items, such as potions or scrolls. So, this was a low magic item campaign, not a low magic one (plenty of spells).

The party was a human bard (ENWorld's very own Crothian), a human monk, and a half-orc druid. I picked up Scribe Scroll as a feat, which did allow for additional spells, but that was it as far as magic item creation feats. I feel that the campaign was not only very enjoyable, but appropriately challenging. We certainly had to run when confronted with some difficult opponents, but we were able to eventually overcome every challenge that the DM presented us with.

But wait! How did the Monk survive! He was so weak without magic!

That's one of the problems that I think CR created. I think it was well-intentioned, but it boxed people into believing you can't play the game "fairly" (whatever that is) without following it, which implies following wealth guidelines and magic shops, which implies heavy magic.

And yet my games are never high magic, but I am capable of figuring out how to challenge a party without a calculator. No massive house-ruling, just some common sense. You know what your party can dish out in a round, how much damage can they absorb, and how challenged do you want them to be?

I would argue that from a GM perspective the game is MORE balanced because people aren't whipping out the fifty single-use items they bought at "bob's magic shack" the week before. But that's my view, it's certainly debatable.

 

[Thanee]

On the other hand, while this is true of melee weapons, can we also consider it to be true of firearms? (I mean: defense bonus can be see as dodging and parry which cannot be realsticially made against firearms.)

Who is easier to hit with a bullet?
The one who stands still, or the one who is ducking and dodging?

Bye
Thanee

 

[S'mon]

I'm running a low-magic campaign right now. Before I started I thought long and hard about the best way to make sure casters don't outshine fighters at high levels, and what I decided was to limit the spell lists available to each class. Also, I increased the rate of ability increase and feat acquisition, tweaked the classes, etc, etc.

So far it's worked fine.

I've done this to some extent, but I'm always looking for handy hint. Do you have a house rules document you could send me? My email is simontmn at postmaster.co.uk

-Simon

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Hey, I agree with that statement, that two fencers of equal levels should be able to parry as much as attack. As such the Defense bonus of d20 Modern makes sense, while the AC bonus provided by magical items is just a mechanical compensation but doesn't adress your issue.

On the other hand, while this is true of melee weapons, can we also consider it to be true of firearms? (I mean: defense bonus can be see as dodging and parry which cannot be realsticially made against firearms.)

Vampire covered this a bit better than D20 (in terms of flavor text more than mechanics). When shot at in Vampire, you can dodge, of course. You make a check with a DC-equivalent (target number) which ranges from low if you're right next to good cover to high if there's no cover (so you throw yourself to the ground). That, and anticipating when and where your opponent will shoot, explains your ability to dodge supersonic projectiles.

I've seen complaints about this on a D20 Modern board, where players don't actively dodge (they don't seek cover), but it seems to me the GM could lead by example (PCs use cover) and either put cover on a map or at least describe what could be used as cover. PCs learn quick when the smackdown is laid upon them.

 

[ARandomGod]

That's odd. While I agree with the basic thrust of your post (that D&D can be played with low access to magic items, but that doing so dramatically changes the feel of the game), I disagree with almost everything you've written.

Don't worry, that's pretty common. Usually it's because I haven't managed to actually express what I'm talking about sufficiently... either that or I just THINK that because I'm arrogant. Either way it must be true!

Of course, it does make me wonder a little bit about what points exactly you're disagreeing with. It all seemed very simple and quite intuitive to me, but then I wrote it, didn't I?


Some of my basic points:

D&D = A game genre, a type or system or feel. It's swords and sorcery, it's Dungeons and Dragons, it's become a generic term to refer to a broad catagory of game systems

3.X = Refers to the 3.0 and 3.5 (and any future suppliments) that WoTC invented when they bought the TSR logo and revitalized the game. I don't really know ANYone who's played both systems who thinks that they're the same game. They have wizards and rogues and fighters and clerics, but the entire system has been completely reworked.

If someone says "I'm playing D&D tonight" you might assume that they're playing 3.X. That would be a common assumption because that's currently the most common form of the game played. But you wouldn't be shocked to discover that they were playing DarkSun or Hackmaster or EarthDawn, or even second edition. You might be surprised but not shocked. And once it was clarified which system they were playing, you wouldn't (I don't think) refute that they're not playing D&D if indeed they're not playing 3.X

And so.
D&D can definitely be played low magic. There are some systems that are lower magic by default than 3.X

3.X was/is written with the base assumption that characters will have a certain power level in states and in character wealth, and that character wealth will include at least the base magic items in the core books. Varying from that will cause additional complications.

Additional point: I stated that 3.X does not take well to house-rules, additions and subtractions. Once exception to that is, of course, the way that they've built in to make new rules, the "feat" system. The system is designed to be able to incorporate a limitless number of feats, all of which will add to or alter the base rules in some way.

However the game isn't designed to adapt well to other house rules. This is in large part because it's such a lawful game system. It's filled with many rules which all interact with each other. If you attempt to make a house-rule you're very likely to stumble across several unintended consequences. If you're either very lucky or very good you won't. You might know ALL the rules extremely well, and be able to make and change rules completely, with each change encompassing all the other rules that it will affect, and noting how this change will or will not change those rules. However if you're doing so you're also validating my statement that it's not really designed to be easily changed. You have to go through a LOT to manage that.

Several paid writers fail to make all the considerations needed. As is generally pointed out and/or exploited by the rest of the gaming community!

That's what I was trying to say in a slightly different form.

 

[ARandomGod]

And yet my games are never high magic, but I am capable of figuring out how to challenge a party without a calculator. No massive house-ruling, just some common sense. You know what your party can dish out in a round, how much damage can they absorb, and how challenged do you want them to be?

I would argue that from a GM perspective the game is MORE balanced because people aren't whipping out the fifty single-use items they bought at "bob's magic shack" the week before. But that's my view, it's certainly debatable.

I have to agree here. As a GM you can indeed tailor your game to the amount of magic the party has. And it's certainly more balanced without some single use magic items.

 

[delericho]

Don't worry, that's pretty common. Usually it's because I haven't managed to actually express what I'm talking about sufficiently... either that or I just THINK that because I'm arrogant. Either way it must be true!

Heh.

Some of my basic points:

D&D = A game genre, a type or system or feel. It's swords and sorcery, it's Dungeons and Dragons, it's become a generic term to refer to a broad catagory of game systems

3.X = Refers to the 3.0 and 3.5 (and any future suppliments) that WoTC invented when they bought the TSR logo and revitalized the game. I don't really know ANYone who's played both systems who thinks that they're the same game. They have wizards and rogues and fighters and clerics, but the entire system has been completely reworked.

If someone says "I'm playing D&D tonight" you might assume that they're playing 3.X. That would be a common assumption because that's currently the most common form of the game played. But you wouldn't be shocked to discover that they were playing DarkSun or Hackmaster or EarthDawn, or even second edition. You might be surprised but not shocked. And once it was clarified which system they were playing, you wouldn't (I don't think) refute that they're not playing D&D if indeed they're not playing 3.X

Okay, I agree with all of that. I did disagree with the labelling of D&D as a genre, on the grounds that it's part of the fantasy genre, but the explanation above clears that up.

I'll agree that 3.x is a different game. People can argue back and forth over that point, but I don't think that argument is terribly helpful. In any event, I do agree that it's different enough to be a different game.

And so.
D&D can definitely be played low magic. There are some systems that are lower magic by default than 3.X

3.X was/is written with the base assumption that characters will have a certain power level in states and in character wealth, and that character wealth will include at least the base magic items in the core books. Varying from that will cause additional complications.

All true.

However, where I disagreed with your initial post was your assertion that making that change was sufficient to say that you were no longer playing D&D, but rather some other game. Given the nature of some of the variant rules presented in Unearthed Arcana, I'm forced to the conclusion that the variety of games that can be labelled "D&D" is necessarily fairly wide. Certainly, I believe that lowering the availability of magic items is no more fundamental than using Gestalt characters, for instance.

Additional point: I stated that 3.X does not take well to house-rules, additions and subtractions. Once exception to that is, of course, the way that they've built in to make new rules, the "feat" system. The system is designed to be able to incorporate a limitless number of feats, all of which will add to or alter the base rules in some way.

I have in the past lamented the extreme coupling of the rules, such that it is difficult to house rule the system. However, I disagree in degree - I probably feel that the game is somewhat more resilient to change than you do. (I say probably because I can't read your mind.)

However the game isn't designed to adapt well to other house rules. This is in large part because it's such a lawful game system. It's filled with many rules which all interact with each other. If you attempt to make a house-rule you're very likely to stumble across several unintended consequences. If you're either very lucky or very good you won't. You might know ALL the rules extremely well, and be able to make and change rules completely, with each change encompassing all the other rules that it will affect, and noting how this change will or will not change those rules. However if you're doing so you're also validating my statement that it's not really designed to be easily changed. You have to go through a LOT to manage that.

Several paid writers fail to make all the considerations needed. As is generally pointed out and/or exploited by the rest of the gaming community!

Good point. I generally take the view that I am capable of making good and useable house rules, without upsetting the balance of the game. However, it is also true to say that I think I have a pretty good grasp of the rules as a whole, and the interactions between them. (Whether or not this is actually true is another question, of course )

That's what I was trying to say in a slightly different form.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your intent.

 

[ARandomGod]

However, where I disagreed with your initial post was your assertion that making that change was sufficient to say that you were no longer playing D&D, but rather some other game.

I'll admit that it was an unfairly wide generalization. One very well *could* play 3.X with low magic and without changing the actual rules. They'd be constrained to avoid most pre-written modules, and there would be a LOT more work for the GM in avoiding certain enemies that really assume magic, and an overall lowering of the CR of creatures at mid to high levels, but it could be done.

Given the nature of some of the variant rules presented in Unearthed Arcana, I'm forced to the conclusion that the variety of games that can be labelled "D&D" is necessarily fairly wide. Certainly, I believe that lowering the availability of magic items is no more fundamental than using Gestalt characters, for instance.

Well, I have to go on record here as stating that many of the variant rules and the gestalt rules in specific actually do consitute an entirely different game. Still very closely resembling 3.X, but vastly different in certain key ways.
Edit: Although still certainly D&D, which I believe was a main point there.

I have in the past lamented the extreme coupling of the rules, such that it is difficult to house rule the system. However, I disagree in degree - I probably feel that the game is somewhat more resilient to change than you do. (I say probably because I can't read your mind.)

Resiliant, I'll say it is that. I'll simply add resistant as well. Although I admit that I see that as largely in the game communities eye. On an individual basis it's much easier. However it can be very, very difficult to get a concensus on certain items. When there are already "perfectly good rules" in place people don't want to allow change. "Unless they're ruining the fun of the game" is another common quote I hear. Strangely one that you (read that: "I") cannot seem to counter with "This particular item IS ruining the fun of the game). But not always. If you get a GM with a sufficient amount of Chaos (creativity), he'll *want* changes, and be more open. I've simply found that the game system tends to ward off the less Lawfully (RAW) minded people, and to instill a RAW attitude in new players.


But someone who's good at the system, who's lawful enough in his soul to read through and understand the rules as written, and yet chaotic enough to be able to see improvements and make changes effectively... THERE is a neutrally aligned GM I can play under!

^_^

 

[Belen]

Turanil is correct. You do not need a certain amount of magic items to play D&D. Magic equipment and super monsters are ONE way to play D&D. There is no "default" play style with the game. The CR system is a set of guidelines to help inexperienced DMs. Crs are not meant to shoehorn you into a certain style of play.

No where does it say "You MUST challenge an 8th level party with 4 CR8 encounters." The DMG is a set of guldelines for DMs. It is not a holy book of D&D dogma.

Thus, a D&D game is any game that uses the core rules from the PHB. You need no other book than the PHB to play. You can run a game of D&D with a group of characters made of the PH and oppose them with NPCs made for the PH. Everything else is nice window dressing.

As for mages being more effective at high levels, is D&D not a cooperative game? Do the casters never "buff" members in their party? In a cooperative game, you are measuring the skill of the party, not the individual members. If each player is worried about how his/her character stacks up to another character, then you've defeated the point of playing D&D. You're not playing a single player video game. You are playing a cooperative roleplaying game.

If anything "default" D&D is a fighter, wizard, rogue, and cleric who band together to aid one another in cooperative adventures.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Turanil is correct. You do not need a certain amount of magic items to play D&D. Magic equipment and super monsters are ONE way to play D&D. There is no "default" play style with the game. The CR system is a set of guidelines to help inexperienced DMs. Crs are not meant to shoehorn you into a certain style of play.

There are, however, default rules, like "no class bonus to AC". If you want to play a game without magic items, that is something you're going to want to fix.

No where does it say "You MUST challenge an 8th level party with 4 CR8 encounters."

That would be a killer encounter though It doesn't say that anywhere. In fact, it doesn't even say "you should challenge everything about your PCs - their skills, attack bonus, hit points, saving throws, ability to think as a group, etc" ... oh wait, it does!

The DMG is a set of guldelines for DMs. It is not a holy book of D&D dogma.

Whereas the PH is what, exactly? That's the book with the AC and saving throw patterns.

Thus, a D&D game is any game that uses the core rules from the PHB. You need no other book than the PHB to play. You can run a game of D&D with a group of characters made of the PH and oppose them with NPCs made for the PH. Everything else is nice window dressing.

As for mages being more effective at high levels, is D&D not a cooperative game? Do the casters never "buff" members in their party?

No, they never do, and why should they? That makes the game less fun for the mage. The purpose of the game is for all the players to have fun, not suck the joy out of being a mage for the benefit of the other players.

In a cooperative game, you are measuring the skill of the party, not the individual members. If each player is worried about how his/her character stacks up to another character, then you've defeated the point of playing D&D. You're not playing a single player video game. You are playing a cooperative roleplaying game.

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.