Epic Handbook just a little bit unreasonable?

[hong]

*sigh* - Well, would you accept that FOUR NPCs are supposed to be an equal match for four PCs of the same level?

Chapter and verse, please.

 

[Wolfspider]

An anti-magic shell will eliminate magical DR in my game anyway.

So wizards get to shine but fighters don't?

Take a look at what you're saying when you cry "munchkin." A +3 sword isn't munchkin but a +5 sword is? You're talking about a very small difference here: an increase of 2 to BAB and +2 to damage. Not very substantial at all. But look at the kind of damage a wizard will be doing at 20th level.

When you start adding special abilities on top of the +5 to attack and to damage, then you start getting some spectacular results--but still nothing that can even compare with the damage potential of a high level wizard or sorcerer.

 

[S'mon]

The wealth guidelines in the DMG exist basically for two reasons:
1) to give characters the ability to go up against monsters with high CRs; and 2) to equalise power levels between classes with supernatural abilities and those without. A 20th level fighter without magical equipment is puny compared to a 20th level wizard, or even a 20th level monk.

Also, rule 0 still exists, as it's always existed. The DM still has free rein to impose restrictions on what equipment a character can get, and the DMG in fact points this out explicitly.

This sort of whinging along the lines of "3E hands out items like it's Christmas" has been heard since the PHB came out. It's very old, very boring, and quite irrelevant.

Hong, I know you're an annoying git from previous encounters, but I'll try one more time:

I am saying that the 3e magic baseline is very high.
I fully agree that the rules give GMs allowance to use a lower magic allocation.
This is what I do.
What's your problem?

BTW, IMO even with the baseline magic a 20th level fighter is not going to be as powerful as a 20th-level cleric, the system is not intended to be 100% balanced, merely to be playable.

 

[S'mon]

Take a look at what you're saying when you cry "munchkin." A +3 sword isn't munchkin but a +5 sword is?

No, obviously, it all depends on the power level set by the GM. A munchkin is a player who refuses to accept that power level, whatever it is - eg by demanding the right to have a +5 sword 'because it's in the rules', say.

I've seen munchkin players at all power levels - in a game where the PCs are normal school children, the munchkin is the player who insists on playing a teacher with Special Forces training.

 

[S'mon]

So wizards get to shine but fighters don't?

Wizards & Fighters are most effective when they work together.

 

[drothgery]

Re: Re: Re: defining munchkinism

Indeed - after playing through 20 levels you should hopefully have realised that the game was 'magic light' (compared to the incredibly magic-heavy 3e baseline, that is). There's nothing outrageous about my suggestion - in OD&D 'Dawn of the Emperors' by the great Aaron Allston, Emperor Thincol of Thyatis, 36th level Fighter, had nothing above +2 - in my game he eventually gained a +4 sword after killing the evil god Thanatos in battle.

The things is this doesn't make much sense in 3e, assuming a balanced 20th-level party. A 15+ cleric can cast Greater Magic Weapon to give the fighter a +5 sword for 15+ hours. A 17+ Paladin can cast Holy Sword to start a battle to give himself a +5 Holy weapon for longer than most D&D battles will last.

Heck, my 9 cleric/1 Loremaster casts GMW on a stack of arrows for the party archer every day if there's a non-trivial chance of violence.

 

[hong]

Hong, I know you're an annoying git from previous encounters,

Is that all? Must try harder.

I am saying that the 3e magic baseline is very high.

And I say that this is a meaningless assertion, in the absence of any other baseline to compare it with. "Very high" compared to what? Your 1E/2E campaign? That may be true, but irrelevant to anyone who isn't in it.

I fully agree that the rules give GMs allowance to use a lower magic allocation.
This is what I do.
What's your problem?

The volume of noise you're generating.

 

[Mark_Aurel]

Hong, I know you're an annoying git from previous encounters, but I'll try one more time:

I am saying that the 3e magic baseline is very high.
I fully agree that the rules give GMs allowance to use a lower magic allocation.
This is what I do.
What's your problem?

BTW, IMO even with the baseline magic a 20th level fighter is not going to be as powerful as a 20th-level cleric, the system is not intended to be 100% balanced, merely to be playable.

How can a _baseline_ be very high? That kind of defeats the purpose of a baseline. What are you comparing it to, then? A baseline in a different game?

Might be better to say that you like to give out less magic items than the baseline; remember that you are the deviant here, not the baseline.

 

[S'mon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: defining munchkinism

The things is this doesn't make much sense in 3e, assuming a balanced 20th-level party. A 15+ cleric can cast Greater Magic Weapon to give the fighter a +5 sword for 15+ hours.

Which fills a 4th level spell slot and can be dispelled. So permanent magic weapons are still useful, although not necessary. And trying to balance the Fighter, or any other class, against the Cleric is a pretty hopeless exercise - clerics are better, deliberately so, as far as I can tell.

 

[S'mon]

How can a _baseline_ be very high? That kind of defeats the purpose of a baseline. What are you comparing it to, then? A baseline in a different game?

Might be better to say that you like to give out less magic items than the baseline; remember that you are the deviant here, not the baseline.

I'm comparing it to the baseline in every other RPG I've ever read, including the various editions of D&D/AD&D - it's much much higher than any previous game. It seems strongly influenced by CRPGs like Diablo.

And I do say I give out less magic items than the baseline, though more than any of the other 3e GMs I know personally (in-real-life).