Magic Items And Campaign Balance?

[nopantsyet]

Consistency, anyone?

I think it's often overlooked in these discussions that there needs to be consistency between the players and their foes. As I see it there are two low-magic scenarios. True low-magic means the level of magic is reduced across the board. If it's only reduced for players, that's deadly/dangerous magic, and that means there will be a different balancethat has to be taken into account.

If it's truly a low-magic world, not only are magic items going to be rare, but magical creatures or humans foes with magic items will be equally rare. It's up to the DM to adjust the whole setting appropriately. So you will be fighting more beasts and ordinary human(oid)s than astral filchers and dragons.

As for balance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters, I think that falls on the DM's shoulders too. If you have one encounter per day with a single high-CR opponent, spellcasters beat non. However, multiple encounters force the spellcaster to cast judiciously and multiple opponents means that he can't rely on the fighter as a meatshield. The game as written can be run to favor any class without changing the rules; the DM needs to consider the characters when planning the game if this type of balance is important.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Re: Consistency, anyone?

So you will be fighting more beasts and ordinary human(oid)s than astral filchers and dragons.

I almost totally agree with you, but just wanted to point out the option that you can keep the dragons and other normally more powerful monsters- just tone them down to the appropriate magic level of your campeign.

FD

 

[Old One]

Another low(er) magic adherent...

I think it's often overlooked in these discussions that there needs to be consistency between the players and their foes. As I see it there are two low-magic scenarios. True low-magic means the level of magic is reduced across the board. If it's only reduced for players, that's deadly/dangerous magic, and that means there will be a different balance that has to be taken into account.

Good points...

I run a low(er)-magic campaign and use a more realistic (IMO) economic system. Consequently, I pay no attention whatsoever to the wealth tables in the DMG. The setting is the frontier of a once great empire, where much magic has been lost or forgotten.

I used an approach similar to Jester's with regards to what is available in various villages, towns and cities. One-shots like scrolls and potions are available, but items with greater power have to be commissioned, unearthed, stolen or otherwise discovered. I also require power components and special formula for the fabrication of permanent magic items.

The PCs are currently 5th level and the party make-up is:

• Sorcerer 5
• Ranger 3/Rogue 2
• Barbarian 5
• Bard 3/Ranger 1
• Fighter 2/Cleric 2

Right now - not counting a dozen or so one-shots - they have exactly 4 permanent magic items between them:

• 2 "bonded" weapons with 1 minor power each
• +1 ring of protection
• axe that changes from hand to battle to great on command

They discovered several other items in their travels, but sold them to raise money for training and other equipment. I poll the players regularly about their satisfaction with the campaign, etc. Thus far, they all like the tone of the campaign and don't feel that their characters need a bunch of magic items.

It works well for us, because challenges are tailored appropriately. Most of the enemies they face are human or humanoid with limited magic themselves. I include lots of non-combat challenges (traps, puzzles, politics) and don't throw DR critters at them (at least not yet). They are aware that more powerful magic does exist in the ruins that dot the land, but haven't pursued it much to this point.

Finally, all of the players knew - up front - what the magic level was going to be in the campaign and created their characters accordingly.

Some might look at the magic item listing above and faint in disbelief, but 21 years of DMing have left me with a much greater liking for a low(er) magic campaign than a stuffquest campaign.

~ Old One

 

[LostSoul]

Err.. why bother saying you are running a "low magic" campeign when you are allowing the full spell list to the casters?

You are not running a low magic campeign, you are running a low magic item campeign.

Thanks for defining my campaign for me.

I assumed that D&D could be applied to low-magic (item) games without having to make radical changes (such as changing the magic system). I guess you'd say I was wrong.

I also assumed that if I didn't allow the Fighter access to magic items (such as sword & armours), he would be balanced with the Wizard if he didn't have access to magic items (such as scrolls - new spells). But I was wrong.

 

[AvarielAvenger]

Re: Another low(er) magic adherent...

Good points...

I run a low(er)-magic campaign and use a more realistic (IMO) economic system. Consequently, I pay no attention whatsoever to the wealth tables in the DMG. The setting is the frontier of a once great empire, where much magic has been lost or forgotten.

I used an approach similar to Jester's with regards to what is available in various villages, towns and cities. One-shots like scrolls and potions are available, but items with greater power have to be commissioned, unearthed, stolen or otherwise discovered. I also require power components and special formula for the fabrication of permanent magic items.

The PCs are currently 5th level and the party make-up is:

• Sorcerer 5
• Ranger 3/Rogue 2
• Barbarian 5
• Bard 3/Ranger 1
• Fighter 2/Cleric 2

Right now - not counting a dozen or so one-shots - they have exactly 4 permanent magic items between them:

• 2 "bonded" weapons with 1 minor power each
• +1 ring of protection
• axe that changes from hand to battle to great on command

They discovered several other items in their travels, but sold them to raise money for training and other equipment. I poll the players regularly about their satisfaction with the campaign, etc. Thus far, they all like the tone of the campaign and don't feel that their characters need a bunch of magic items.

It works well for us, because challenges are tailored appropriately. Most of the enemies they face are human or humanoid with limited magic themselves. I include lots of non-combat challenges (traps, puzzles, politics) and don't throw DR critters at them (at least not yet). They are aware that more powerful magic does exist in the ruins that dot the land, but haven't pursued it much to this point.

Finally, all of the players knew - up front - what the magic level was going to be in the campaign and created their characters accordingly.

Some might look at the magic item listing above and faint in disbelief, but 21 years of DMing have left me with a much greater liking for a low(er) magic campaign than a stuffquest campaign.

~ Old One

First off, I really wish people who run "low-magic" campaigns could enter these discussions without throwing out insulting references to other types of campaigns. And second, I don't think a "realistic" system of any kind, for anything, is neccessary in D&D, or even desirable.

Second, I've found that, at lower levels, having a low magic campaign is actually somewhat workable. However, once you reach about 8th level, these campaigns fall apart. I've noted that many who prefer "low magic" campaigns also prefer low level campaigns.

I always figured it was because it becomes nearly impossible to maintain balance in such games without radically altering the system. As Lostsoul says, once Wizards/Sorcerers/whathaveyou get access to spells like Improved Invisibility, Fly, and Haste, the "balance" of "low magic" campaigns is rapidly eliminated.

The key difference between the classes with primary magic and secondary magic, and the reason it is neccessary to use the DMG Wealth tables if you want to maintain balance in game that lasts beyond 8th level, is what the primary power is of those classes.

Wizards, Clerics, and so on rely on their inherent class abilities (spells) for their main source of power. This is enhanced by the magic items they recieve. However, they can still function reasonably well without them. Meanwhile, the situation is the opposite for Fighters, Rogues and so on.

Their primary power comes from magic items. This is enhanced by their inherent abilities. If you take away their magic items, you are taking away their primary source of power, unlike the Wizards and Clerics. And that's the reason, when you run a "low magic" campaign, you are going to have difficulties maintaining balance, especially once you get to 8th level and beyond.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Re: Re: Re: Magic Items And Campaign Balance?

I tend to disagree with doing stuff like that, because situations like this will occur:

Fred The Fighter: Crap, the enemy is flying! I can't touch him!
Steve The Sorcerer: Not to worry, Fred. (Steve fries the enemy.)
Fred The Fighter: Damn, you're good.
Steve The Sorcerer: That I am. Oh look, there are some kobolds you can smash. Have fun!

I think your argument here rings a little false - the problem in the scenarios you provide is NOT low magic - it is about a DM who plans a campaign to screw over the fighter.

It is little different from a DM who runs a campaign that takes place entirely in a dead magic area to mess up the magic using classes, or an undead only campaign to prevent the rogue using his sneak attacks and social skills.

The DM has a responsibility to create a game setting that his players will enjoy, and that means including opportunities for all the players to shine. This is independent of high-magic, low-magic, or inbetween magic!

The core rule books provide a baseline of characters, wealth, magic and challenges at levels 1-20 to make it as easy as possible for people to pick up the game and run it and have fun, without stuff getting obviously out of kilter.

It is possible for any elements of the game to be changed and still have a fun and challenging game at levels 1-20, as long as the DM and players are happy to put in a little bit of extra thought and work to make it so. Old One has an excellent campaign which illustrates that, as do many others.

Back in 1e the rules ethos was "this is the ONE TRUE WAY, if you deviate from it you will RUIN YOUR GAME!!!!". With great relief I find a completely different ethos in 3e, which ENCOURAGES us to tinker in all manner of ways, while giving notice about the potential impact of changes to certain systems.

I like the 3e mindset much better than the 1e one.

Regards

 

[AvarielAvenger]

Really? I disagree. The point of that argument was simply that, without magic items, the Fighter cannot be effective in many situations that may occur, while the Sorcerer is unaffected. And that is affected by whether or not you have a "high magic" or "low magic" campaign.

Again, without magic items, classes like the Fighter and Rogues power suffers, and this gets worse the higher level the characters become. If you don't maintain the DMG suggested Wealth Tables, certain classes become "better" than other classes, and that's why I think you should not do that.

It's a simple fact that unless the DM is going to change the classes drastically and completely just for his campaign, classes with inherent magical abilities will always outshine those who do not possess such in a "low magic" campaign.

 

[S'mon]

A funny thing about my lower magic game is that the PCs actually have much more magical wealth than the DMG stipulates! One of the 8th level Monk PCs has a horn of undead summoning I'd put at nearly 75,000 gp, and the group recently killed an Archveult wizard and took his 6 ioun stones with a rated value of around 60,000 gp. To me it's the idea of any magic item being freely available for cash that bugs me about 3e's default rules - it doesn't seem credible, never mind realistic.

 

[Hammerhead]

Re: Another low(er) magic adherent...

Good points...


The PCs are currently 5th level and the party make-up is:

• Sorcerer 5
• Ranger 3/Rogue 2
• Barbarian 5
• Bard 3/Ranger 1
• Fighter 2/Cleric 2

Right now - not counting a dozen or so one-shots - they have exactly 4 permanent magic items between them:

• 2 "bonded" weapons with 1 minor power each
• +1 ring of protection
• axe that changes from hand to battle to great on command

They discovered several other items in their travels, but sold them to raise money for training and other equipment. I poll the players regularly about their satisfaction with the campaign, etc. Thus far, they all like the tone of the campaign and don't feel that their characters need a bunch of magic items.



~ Old One

I'm glad that your low magic game is working out. However, fewer magical items has a much greater impact at higher levels, when spell casters have more, and more powerful spells. Even your single classed spell caster doesn't have 3rd level spells. Also, at lower levels, even base wealth provides only a few items.

However, you made an interesting comment: They discovered several other items in their travels, but sold them to raise money for training and other equipment.

You just established that there's some kind of market for magical items. That doesn't mean that every place sells them, or that every single item is availible.

The whole idea of a Sear's catalog or Walmart for all magic items, including super expensive ones, is stupid, IMHO. Who the heck is going to make a Mirror of Mental Prowess, and then sell it? On the other hand, I think it equally unrealistic that no one would sell magic items, especially since items that are valuable to one person would be almost worthless to another. If a wizard dies, then he could leave a horde of magical scrolls, wands, spell books, and other items. Those items aren't going to be very useful to a fighter type, yet to another wizard they'd be priceless. Assuming that the fighter knew the items would be valuable to someone else, some form of transaction would help both parties - unless the other wizard simply decided to kill the fighter and take the items.

I also agree that the idea a wealth guideline can act as a bad influence as well. First of all, some people are going to feel compeled to ruthlessly optimize their items, selling those that don't fit their ideal plan. One person I played with wanted to sell a potion of water breathing. Sure, it may not have the same utility as a healing potion or wand, but, in an emergency, that water breathing could be a life saver. To those kind of people, all the weird/cool items aren't occasionally useful items, they're obstacles on the road to bigger bonuses. Because they feel that the cool item will prevent them from getting a more useful item, they want to sell it. Also, they don't get back up weapons, etc.

 

[Old One]

Interesting...

First off, I really wish people who run "low-magic" campaigns could enter these discussions without throwing out insulting references to other types of campaigns. And second, I don't think a "realistic" system of any kind, for anything, is neccessary in D&D, or even desirable.

How, exactly, did I insult other types of campaigns by saying that I preferred low(er)-magic level campaigns? As for complaining about realism, I will refer back to your initial post on this thread...

In addition, I never thought the 2E way of doing things was very realistic, as if there's a profit to be made selling something, a market will exist, but for some reason that was never true of magic items.

Your entire premise seems to be (please note, I say seems) that if a DM does not follow wealth/magic items guidelines IAW the recommended levels in the DMG and any/all magic items are available for purchase and/or creation at the local Magic-R-Us then:

(A) The campaign is doomed to failure after a certain level.

(B) The primary magic classes - clerics, sorcerers and wizards - will always be superior at higher levels unless the other classes have full access to "stuff".

(C) Those that happen to disagree with you position are, at best, uninformed and, at worst, dolts.

If a DM runs a "standard" campaign and running through the MM from CR 1/2 to CR 20, then I am in complete agreement with you. DR, SR, very high ACs, very high BABs will play havoc with characters that are light in the magic department.

I think you are assuming, however, that in low(er)-magic campaigns the spellcasting classes get full and unfettered access to any and all spells. Remember, wizards must find or research spells; clerics answer to some manner of higher power; sorcerers spell progression is fairly slow. Also, spellcasters need to rest to regain spells and magic (or certain types) may be distrusted or outlawed in certain locales.

I can't speak for other DMs running low(er)-magic campaigns, but I use the parameters above (along with others) to monitor magical advancement by spellcasters. You may consider that "radically altering" the system...I don't.

I go back to nopantsyet's post and his/her comments on consistency. It is incumbant that the DM tailor challenges and challengers appropriately in any campaign and a low(er)-magic level campaign is no exception. Fielding opponents that significantly outclass the PCs in magic power or that require items the PCs don't have access to harm them doesn't make sense.

For every example you can cite where Steve the Sorcerer outdoes Fred the Fighter, I can cite one where Fred the Fighter or Rhonda the Rogue outdoes Steve...Steve's magic ability not withstanding.

Fred and Steve are both subject the paralytic poisoned blades from sneak attacking rogues...

Fred (with high CON and good FORT saves): "Gah, that burns, come here so that I may smite you!"

Steve (with normal CON and poor FORT saves): "Urk..."

or

Steve and Rhonda are enveloped in a magical frost blast and both fail their saves...

Rhonda (with Evasion): "Boy that was close, I'm a little frost-rimed but OK. How are you, Steve?"

Steve (with no Evasion): "Urk..."

In 21 years of playing, through Basic - 1E - 2E - 3E, I have DMed parties from levels 1-20+ in low-magic, standard magic and high-magic settings. I happen to prefer low(er) magic campaigns and my experience has been that they work fine if the DM tailors challenges appropriately. My players, whom I poll regularly, are having fun, enjoying the campaign and enjoying their characters. They are having fun...I am having fun and that's what it's all about.

You (seem to) feel that a campaign is broken without full and open access to DMG recommended wealth/magic levels...I disagree. I doubt that I will ever persuade you to agree with my take on it and I don't agree with yours...so we agree to disagree!

'Nuff said.

~ Old One