Core concept or rule that just bugs you beyond your ability to put up with it?

[MerakSpielman]

The thing is, people say they want magic items to be rare and special. They say they want their players to be impressed and to treasure their rare, valuable +1 Longsword. But the problem is, no matter how rare you make them, it's still just a +1 Longsword. +1 just isn't that much. A fighter who rolled better than you could have a +1 to hit and damage just from his higher strength, and that's at first level! A +1 weapon is crap. It's practically worthless. No matter how rare it is. Great, I have a 5% greater chance to hit an enemy. Like I'll ever really even notice.

If you want magic to be rare and powerful, the way to do it isn't by making low-powered items rare and difficult to find. It's by eliminating the low-powered items altogether. If ALL the magic weapons in the world are +5, than all the magic weapons in the world will be rare, insanely powerful, and priceless. Adventurers would be lucky to ever find one.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

There are two solutions to that quandry: (1) make it easier to create magic items, or (2) make magical treasure less common. Actually, there is a third option: (3) explain why difficult-to-create magic items are so common in local ruins.

Option 2 is broken on it's own. Ever seen a party where everyone has lame AC scores?

It would only work if you try another system, such as D20 Modern or Midnight, which are designed with fewer magic items in mind.

I don't understand why people think that the acquisition of magic lewt is out of control in 3e when I clearly remember the truckloads of magic items our characters collected in the old days.

Not everyone has had your experiences. I thought I was giving out too much treasure in 2e, only to see in 3e I gave out a lot more.

Even when I did silly things like give 12th-level 2e PCs +3 weapons and armor, it's not as bad as giving them +2 weapons and +4 stat, +2 shield, +2 armor, +2 ring of protection, +3 cloak of resistance, bag of holding, etc etc.

I'm surprised at the hatred of special vision for the demi-human races as that has been around for ages.

I think it was only mentioned because it was in the first post.

you cannot just waltz into a dungeon and kill skeletons and orcs can waltz back out with +1 swords and gold.

It's even worse when the +1 sword is useless to you and you leave the dungeon, not because you're beat up, but because you can't carry any more stuff.

If you want magic to be rare and powerful, the way to do it isn't by making low-powered items rare and difficult to find. It's by eliminating the low-powered items altogether.

Which breaks the game if you don't use a long series of house rules.

 

[Rel]

Which breaks the game if you don't use a long series of house rules.

I don't really understand what you mean by this. If the GM is in charge of handing out the treasure and doesn't give out much if any low power magic items then how does this break the game? True, the PC's will have lower attack bonuses and AC's but so what? That just means that low level creatures will continue to be a threat for longer, level progression will go a bit slower (which seems to be a complaint for many with 3E so that's two birds with one stone) and creatures of the party's EL will be bigger challenges rather than something they walk all over.

 

[S'mon]

Even when I did silly things like give 12th-level 2e PCs +3 weapons and armor, it's not as bad as giving them +2 weapons and +4 stat, +2 shield, +2 armor, +2 ring of protection, +3 cloak of resistance, bag of holding, etc etc.

+3 weapons were standard for 12th level 1e PCs AIR, in the intro to Queen of the DemonWeb Pits the GM is informed the level 10-12 PCs will require at least 1 +3 weapon. And a GM who used the random treasure determination tables from the DMG would most likely see his PCs have much better than that by 12th.

 

[Quasqueton]

If you want magic to be rare and powerful, the way to do it isn't by making low-powered items rare and difficult to find. It's by eliminating the low-powered items altogether. If ALL the magic weapons in the world are +5, than all the magic weapons in the world will be rare, insanely powerful, and priceless. Adventurers would be lucky to ever find one.

This is exactly what I did in my old AD&D1 campaign. Magic items were truly rare and powerful. +1 and +2 weapons and armor were "masterwork", and cost x10 and x20 the normal price. Any *magic* weapon or armor was at least +3 and had other abilities beyond the bonus.

I also made spellcasters rare by having the casting time: segments = rounds. So casting a fireball (3 segments in the AD&D1 PHB) took 3 rounds to cast. They became sort of mini-rituals. Not every PC party had a spellcaster because of this.

Quasqueton

 

[S'mon]

No weak items of course 'breaks the game' because in 3e it imbalances the classes above about 4th level - Clerics can still buff up, Wizards and Sorcs can still slaughter mooks with fireballs, Fighters become hopeless. When we played Midnight, the Channeler totally dominated play until the GM nerfed the spell system.

 

[Rel]

No weak items of course 'breaks the game' because in 3e it imbalances the classes above about 4th level - Clerics can still buff up, Wizards and Sorcs can still slaughter mooks with fireballs, Fighters become hopeless. When we played Midnight, the Channeler totally dominated play until the GM nerfed the spell system.

I'm still not getting this one. You're telling me that the spellcasters totally rule the game but if the Fighter had a +2 sword then everything would be fine again?

 

[S'mon]

I'm still not getting this one. You're telling me that the spellcasters totally rule the game but if the Fighter had a +2 sword then everything would be fine again?

+2 sword, +2 full plate, +2 heavy shield, +2 gauntlets of ogre power, +2 amulet of natural armour, +2 ring of protection, +2 cloak of resistance.... yadda yadda yadda.
Oh, and a +2 mighty comp longbow for ranged attacks.

 

[Rel]

+2 sword, +2 full plate, +2 heavy shield, +2 gauntlets of ogre power, +2 amulet of natural armour, +2 ring of protection, +2 cloak of resistance.... yadda yadda yadda.
Oh, and a +2 mighty comp longbow for ranged attacks.

Well if they've got all that stuff by the time they're 4th level then I'd call THAT a problem.

But what I think it getting missed in your analysis is that the Wizard and Cleric also have or don't have that same amount of gear. They also have a +2 cloak of resistance, +2 ring of protection, +2 amulet of natural armor, +2 headband of intellect, a wand of Scorching Ray, 2 pearls of power and a potion of Invisibility.

I don't foresee a "low magic item" campaign to mean that the spellcasters suddenly have no need for the "meatshield" types. And if they do them then it is in their best interest to keep them alive. So I would think that the magic user types would spend a few spell slots on a Bull Strength, Haste and Magic Weapon for the fighter types at lower levels and also prep a Shield of Faith or Mage Armor for the bad guys who circumvent the front line. Sure, they'll still have a Fireball left over but that's really only a big deal if they only have one encounter a day.

By the time they hit mid levels I'd assume that the Fighter has Midnight the Darkblade in his hand and is cleaving through hill giants two at a time while the Wizard sits back and blasts wyverns with his Staff of Blazing Lights.

I'll grant that the GM needs to be at least a bit selective with his encounter selections until this point but I don't see any rules revisions being necessary.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Elements of Magic [Revised] solved my magic problems, the BoHM makes alignment more pleasant for me, and DanMcS' weapons proficiency system fixes all my proficiency difficulties. Heavy house rules and the mass of quality products out now can fix most anything.