Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="drnuncheon" data-source="post: 917111" data-attributes="member: 96">ShadowX"I don't get this arguement about making the character more important. So instead of using the abilities of an item you use the special abilities of the character. Whats the difference? Both do the same thing. Killing someone with an item is just as epic as using abilities from you character, especially since the monster power levels will be scaled accordingly and so the battle would be just as tough in either style of game."Since I'm one of the people who brought it up, I guess I should respond.Partially, you're right.  The method of defeating someone is not really the issue.  After all, Thor fighting against the giants was using his belt and gloves of strength and his magical hammer Mjolnir, and many people still think that's pretty cool.  King Arthur used Excalibur and his magic scabbard.  There's all kinds of examples.On the other hand, the belt and gloves and hammer are part of Thor's legend, because they're uniquely his.  Excalibur is uniquely Arthur's.  Nobody else is going to show up with those things.  So they become a part of the character in a way that, say, a ring of protection +5 does not.So getting back to "why does it matter"?  Because, at least for me, I want it to be important that it is my character there, doing those things.  I don't want you to be able to erase his name and pencil another one in and have it come out the same, because that's not what I did when I made the character.  The character being more important than the stuff is only a part of that equation, but it is a part of it.S'mon"It's strange, I find the pro low-magic arguments here much more compelling, the adherents of high-magic arguments come across as very weak. Yet I've enjoyed GMing ultra-high-powered (deity level) AD&D for many years, and I enjoy high-magic fantasy novels, especially those of Michael Moorcock, where super-powerful magic destroys armies and ends worlds, where heroes battle directly against demonic gods. If anything it's the _mundanity_ of magic in 3e, not its power, that I find dispiriting."Well said, sir!  (And sadly, I agree with you about the seeming weakness of the high-magic arguments).  D&D is not only high magic (in the sense of power), it is also ubiquitous magic, and it is the latter and not the former that many people seem to object to.Even that, though, can make an interesting setting: I refer people (as I have before) to Steven Brust's excellent Vlad Taltos books, where the characters think nothing of teleporting across a city rather than walking (except for Vlad, but that's because it upsets his stomach) and where killing someone is usually only a rather pointed warning.J</blockquote>

Verification