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

[delericho]

Extremely weak in comparison to what the game system the way it is written suggests they be fighting. They will still be strong compared to non-magical humans.

Really I say it depends on what you're talking about. You're asking if D&D can be played well low magic. The answer is a resounding YES. But that's because you're asking if Dungeons and Dragons, the genre, can be played with low magic. And many systems have been designed to do this.

3.X is not one of those systems. 3.X is a specific system, and while it is in the genre of D&D, it's not all of D&D. But 3.X is designed to be played with magic items, and you really cannot play 3.x without magic items. You can hack and chop at the 3.X system with house-rules, but then you're back to playing D&D, based losely on the system 3.X. You are certainly NOT, however, playing the 3.X game. And, speaking of houserules, 3.X is a system that does not respond well to house-rules (in comparison to others that are practically designed to be heavily house-ruled, and in fact have sets of suggestions about how to properly make up house-rules).

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.

 

[LostSoul]

Extremely weak in relation to what? To magical-items-christmas-trees? A 17th level fighter with just Frost-brand greatsword, a plate-mail +2, and a couple of simple potions will do very well.

The 17th level fighter is going to have a hard time against invisible, flying opponents. His Will save is going to be very low, so low he's going to have a hard time saving against Charm Person. Those are two problems that spring to mind right away. (Although I guess potions of fly and see invisibility could be carried by the dozen.)

I ran a low-magic campaign a while back (my first 3E game). Nobody really had any magic items of note. Then they started gaining levels (a Fighter/Paladin, a Rogue-type, and a Wizard). The Wizard soon totally outstripped the other two characters. So I went to a more by-the-book magic item distribution, put my faith in the CR system, and hoped everything would work out.

It did, we all had fun, and the Wizard no longer completely dominated the game. (And this was a Wizard who generally only had 4 spells per spell level! He hated me. )


I think you can run a game with few magic items, but there are a lot of things to take in consideration. You can have a great game doing that, though.

 

[LostSoul]

Off-Topic

Without magic items, they're just meatshields, without the shield - they have to stand there and take hits. I don't know why a trained warrior would allow that, but that's how DnD works. You can't have a cool combat scene like Bronn vs the older guy in George R R Martin's work.

This is off topic, but - as I see it - that's not exactly true. When the PCs are taking HP damage, they are dodging, bobbing, weaving, parrying, gritting their teeth against the blows raining down upon their shields, feeling the numbness run up their arms after parrying blow after blow.

That's how I see it. Hit points are abstract concept that you can take to mean many things.

 

[Voadam]

My 15th level eldritch knight was recently stripped of everything except his spell book. He has done really well in continuing on in the solo adventure and taking out powerful opponents by doing hit and run tactics with major prep. If he had lost his spellbook too he would have been effectively a 12th level warrior with improved unarmed strike and he would have bit it when he took on the dozen shadows and ghasts alone with no equipment. Even if he could scrounge up regular platemail and a good sword he would have died against them. As it was with the right spells I mopped them up once I got my tactics right for the situation and used improved invisibility.

 

[Darkness]

well, I guess because the dungeons and dragons game doesn't have defensive bonuses linked to character level. So it wasn't a RAW D&D game, certainly.

Heh. Unearthed Arcana has just that option.

 

[WayneLigon]

I have read it so many times. That D&D 3.5 is made in such a way that PCs actually do need magical items or, well, or the game is unplayable?

I've never found it to be true. I throw monsters and opponents at the party following or even exceeding the CR ratings they should be able to handle and they generally do it without nearly as much magic as is claimed to be 'required' by various people. In the last 3E game I ran, they all got to about 15th level or so; around the end I totalled the book value of all the magic items they owned. On average it came to about 40% of what the DMG claims a character of that level should have. Some had a little more, some had a lot less.

 

[nharwell]

This is off topic, but - as I see it - that's not exactly true. When the PCs are taking HP damage, they are dodging, bobbing, weaving, parrying, gritting their teeth against the blows raining down upon their shields, feeling the numbness run up their arms after parrying blow after blow.

That's how I see it. Hit points are abstract concept that you can take to mean many things.

I agree that this was once the theory behind hit points, but the rules do not support this approach very well -- the rate of hit point recovery is far too slow, and there are too many attacks that bypass hit points (stat-draining touch attacks, etc.).

 

[beaver1024]

SO: I maintain that if I want to, I can run a D&D game with very few magical items. I just need to choose the opponents and obstacles accordingly, which isn't difficult as it's like I always do anyway (i.e.: only vaguely looking at the CR but using my own judgement). Since many of my adventues are improvised (including the XP award), and the players not the wiser (in fact I adjust my gaming style to what I perceive they wish to have out of the game), I don't see the need to abide by all this regulation of said amount of CR, monsters, XP, magical items, given treasure per level, etc. Most of the time my players are happy, and if I want to have adventures with few or very few magical items, it will work as well as if making them "magical items christmas trees".

Yes, this is fine. The CR system is suppose to make the DM's work easier. To that end it assumes certain things like magical items etc. However you don't have to follow this and do your own thing and the way you described how you go about it is fine to me. Hence if magical items ups the strength of the characters. Their absence means the characters are weaker hence their opponents need to be appropriate.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

This is off topic, but - as I see it - that's not exactly true. When the PCs are taking HP damage, they are dodging, bobbing, weaving, parrying, gritting their teeth against the blows raining down upon their shields, feeling the numbness run up their arms after parrying blow after blow.

That's how I see it. Hit points are abstract concept that you can take to mean many things.

I disagree. I expect a battle with a swashbuckler to go differently from a battle with a barbarian. (I'd mention the monk ... except I think the monk is wussy and not well balanced at all, and has poor flavor on top of that.)

And finally, being unable to miss makes things boring. You're not challenging your attack bonus, and why should that happen when everything else is still being challenged?

 

[Turanil]

And finally, being unable to miss makes things boring. You're not challenging your attack bonus, and why should that happen when everything else is still being challenged?

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.)