Characters defined by "their stuff"
- Thread starter Plane Sailing
- Start date
buzzard
First Post
Actually a solution I had to the high level fighters being about stuff issue was a slight change in systems. If you take a look at Spycraft, it has an extensive selection of higher level feats which really increase character power. Thus you could have a high level fighter be effective with ANY longsword he picks up not just his munchikin-O-matic. Alas, I tried to get the DM of our current campaign to adopt this stuff, but he was not familliar enough with Spycraft to accept it.
buzzard
buzzard
WayneLigon
Adventurer
I always find the arguement amusing, since I found that 3E was the first edition where a character is not 'defined by their Stuff', esp. at high levels. I've had parties reach 8-9 level and not all of them have a magic item, much less a magic weapon. Usually they find that unless they have to fight a creature that has very high damage reduction, they simply don't need it.
Inconsequenti-AL
Breaks Games
hong said:
Yoink.
Thanks! That's great!
reiella
Explorer
Hmm, to me, it's less defined by their stuff.
While it is assumed that the party will effectively have a certain relative baseline (ie, this ammount of 'magic bonuses' to armor class or to hit), much of the specifics of the character are defined by their choices.
3.5 itself reduces alot of the "Stuff Equals Power" aspects in general. The more general damage reduction classes, lower general DR are a good example of this in the combat field, while the lowered effectiveness of skill bonuses in magic items is a good example of it outside of combat.
While it is assumed that the party will effectively have a certain relative baseline (ie, this ammount of 'magic bonuses' to armor class or to hit), much of the specifics of the character are defined by their choices.
3.5 itself reduces alot of the "Stuff Equals Power" aspects in general. The more general damage reduction classes, lower general DR are a good example of this in the combat field, while the lowered effectiveness of skill bonuses in magic items is a good example of it outside of combat.
Gutboy Barrelhouse
First Post
Tallarn said:
Yes! Well said. Just a smidge of PC backstory and goalsetting can make for big fun, even for the hardcore powergamer.
Gnarlo said:
Dang, Gnarlo - you made me spit coffee!
Stuff usually does help define all kinds of characters, lit'rary and RPG. I guess the goal here is not let that totally identify our characters, e.g it's Frodo of the Nine Fingers, not Frodo Mithrilcoat.
hong said:
Looks good, hong - thanks for the link. I want to try that.
el-remmen
Moderator Emeritus
As someone who does not buy into the mythical idea of true rules balance - I find that you cna strip and tweak all you want, because in the end it is all in the DM's hands to tweak things as the campaign progresses to keep "balance" - thigns may be 'out of balance' briefly, but then it get fixed (either in-game or out of game - though I prefer the former) and everything is hunky-dory again. You can't expect a set of rules to do that for you.
One of my core philosophies in terms of doing this is called the "Stingy At First" rule - which is to say, I tend to be more strict about rules and items and things at the beginning of a game - because it is easier to fix that by awarding more XP, gold or magic or more generosity in making a ruling than it is to take away what you have granted the players - this makes them grateful, not resentful.
An example of another thing I have done is create a wide variety of types of masterwork weapons - one that give bonus to damage, ones that give bonus to attack, some both, some give a knockdown bonus b/c of how they are weighted (I used converted "knockdown rules" from 2E Combat & Tactics), etc. . .the range of bonuses is from +1 to +3 and the time and cost to make them depending on how much you plan to "put in there" varies accordingly.
I also play with a Base Defense Bonus determined by class that you always get (unless flat-footed).
I say take the stuff away!
One of my core philosophies in terms of doing this is called the "Stingy At First" rule - which is to say, I tend to be more strict about rules and items and things at the beginning of a game - because it is easier to fix that by awarding more XP, gold or magic or more generosity in making a ruling than it is to take away what you have granted the players - this makes them grateful, not resentful.
An example of another thing I have done is create a wide variety of types of masterwork weapons - one that give bonus to damage, ones that give bonus to attack, some both, some give a knockdown bonus b/c of how they are weighted (I used converted "knockdown rules" from 2E Combat & Tactics), etc. . .the range of bonuses is from +1 to +3 and the time and cost to make them depending on how much you plan to "put in there" varies accordingly.
I also play with a Base Defense Bonus determined by class that you always get (unless flat-footed).
I say take the stuff away!
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
My 1e D&D game was heavily houseruled to make items less important in a magic-rare world; I've attempted to keep the same campaign world and bring it into 3e and it has transferred pretty well (read my storyhour and judge for yourself!) but I have to say that it was much easier to change things back in 1e because there wasn't the interlocking-ness of so many factors which appear in the much more integrated 3e. 3e is easier to tweak than earlier editions but more difficult to make wholesale changes to IME so far.
I've already decided that the next "D&D" game I run is likely to be heavily based on d20Modern rules (unless I get charmed further by Eberron
) and with a brand new magic system, probably borrowed in spirit more from Call of Cthulhu d20 than anything else.
I've already decided that the next "D&D" game I run is likely to be heavily based on d20Modern rules (unless I get charmed further by Eberron
) and with a brand new magic system, probably borrowed in spirit more from Call of Cthulhu d20 than anything else.
TracerBullet42
First Post
hong said:
Dinosaurs, eh? Nice...you crack me, so consistently, up.
Not too long ago in a campaign I played in, our party wizard was challenged by a rival wizard to a duel to the death. Being honorable (lawful), he turned it down. When someone in our group mentioned to him later, "Dude, if you would have killed her you would've gotten her stuff!"
His response was priceless: "......her stuff? Really? Where'd she go?"
And then someone else made some comment about how you shouldn't do things just for the "stuff".
To which a wise veteran replied, "No, that's why we're here...for the stuff!"
Personally, I think that the "stuff" is necessary to keep the combat balanced at high levels, but it doesn't necessarily define your character.
I wish I had a dino-picture to share now, but I don't. Sorry. Maybe hong can give another one...
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
This has been 'solved' IMC:
I give out a lot less gold, now. Instead, I give out 'powers' that work exactly like magic items that the characters get from their deity, flavored by the deity, and by the character. So instead of getting a Belt of Strength +2, they just get +2 Strength. To balance it out, I take roughly double the cost of the magic item, and subtract that from any treasure I give them.
They're magic items in everything but flavor, and give me a good excuse to tailor them to the individual, while simultaneously enriching the campaign setting.
I give out a lot less gold, now. Instead, I give out 'powers' that work exactly like magic items that the characters get from their deity, flavored by the deity, and by the character. So instead of getting a Belt of Strength +2, they just get +2 Strength. To balance it out, I take roughly double the cost of the magic item, and subtract that from any treasure I give them.
They're magic items in everything but flavor, and give me a good excuse to tailor them to the individual, while simultaneously enriching the campaign setting.
Similar Threads
