Magic Items, PC Level, and 'old school' feel

[Ariosto]

I would say that's more characteristic of a "sandbox" game rather than an "old school" game - old school games are not necessarily sandboxes, and vice-versa.

I would say that assessment is a problem because "sandbox" is a newfangled term for what formerly was called a "campaign" -- and was explicitly the end to which the D&D books were intended as a means.

It is absolutely essential to the game concept that players have plenty of freedom in choosing their courses through the environment. It is a game of strategy, regardless of the scope.

The practical necessities of convention games, and especially of tournaments, dictate some limitations (usually including pregenerated characters). Implementation in the game design of the assumption that such hobbling is going to be the rule rather than the exception is in itself a "new school" characteristic, however one might characterize other features.

 

[S'mon]

As a final point, even in 3e, an 18th-level fighter who has lost all his magic items is not without options. He can still take on lesser challenges, even if he does not earn XP from them, and rebuild his equipment to the point where he can continue to take on level-appropriate challenges. Many "old school" DMs and players would consider this a viable recovery route.

Fair point. The difference between the item-less Fighter and the item-less Cleric is a vast gulf, though - admittedly even the fully-equipped 3e Fighter remains underpowered, which is why I find 3e works best with well *over* standard wealth-by-level.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Fair point. The difference between the item-less Fighter and the item-less Cleric is a vast gulf, though - admittedly even the fully-equipped 3e Fighter remains underpowered, which is why I find 3e works best with well *over* standard wealth-by-level.

How effectively would that level the playing field, when that additional wealth (i.e., wealth of magic items) is equal, across the board? And yeah, I'm assuming it is here.

As I mentioned before, my preferred solution is to alter tha class(es) (or adopt more balanced ones) so that the problem doesn't exist in the first place. While I'm not going to try persuading any other DM to do the same, doesn't it make a bit more sense, in this situation? Hm, or am I simply biased. . .

 

[AllisterH]

Actually, the item less 3e fighter should have no problem gaining xp. Technically, said fighter isn't considered an 18th level character and thus, on the XP to CR chart, you would look up under a lower level.

The only issue is "what level _IS_ an item less 18th level fighter?"

(An item less 2nd level fighter os pretty much the same thing as a 2nd level fighter with magic items, but at 18th level, that's an entirely different thing....

As an eyeball situation I'd say that for every 4 levels, you subtract 1 from the CR of the PHB melee classes....

Thus, a 18th level fighter without magic items is akin to a 14th level fighter WITH standard wealth)

 

[billd91]

I would say that assessment is a problem because "sandbox" is a newfangled term for what formerly was called a "campaign" -- and was explicitly the end to which the D&D books were intended as a means.

It is absolutely essential to the game concept that players have plenty of freedom in choosing their courses through the environment. It is a game of strategy, regardless of the scope.

The practical necessities of convention games, and especially of tournaments, dictate some limitations (usually including pregenerated characters). Implementation in the game design of the assumption that such hobbling is going to be the rule rather than the exception is in itself a "new school" characteristic, however one might characterize other features.

That assessment isn't a problem at all. Plenty of old school modules were played and they were all tailored to the approximate power of the PCs. "Adventure Path" is also a new-fangled term for what we used to call a campaign, though in the old days the campaign was more likely to be a set of otherwise unconnected individual modules run in sequence as the PCs leveled up to them.

 

[ExploderWizard]

How effectively would that level the playing field, when that additional wealth (i.e., wealth of magic items) is equal, across the board? And yeah, I'm assuming it is here.

As I mentioned before, my preferred solution is to alter tha class(es) (or adopt more balanced ones) so that the problem doesn't exist in the first place. While I'm not going to try persuading any other DM to do the same, doesn't it make a bit more sense, in this situation? Hm, or am I simply biased. . .

This does seem to be the best solution. If there is no class that gets crippled without a certain level of gear then magic items can be rewards for successful play as opposed to required gear needed to maintain some sort of combat parity.

 

[FireLance]

That assessment isn't a problem at all. Plenty of old school modules were played and they were all tailored to the approximate power of the PCs. "Adventure Path" is also a new-fangled term for what we used to call a campaign, though in the old days the campaign was more likely to be a set of otherwise unconnected individual modules run in sequence as the PCs leveled up to them.

Heh. What my 16-year-old self used to call a campaign was a series of tenuously-linked adventures that evolved from me asking myself, "Okay, so what next?" every time the players completed an adventure. My campaigns were definitely not plotted and planned to the extent that modern adventure paths usually are.

At the same time, although I had the core rulebooks and never had the money or the inclination to obtain any of the modules or to buy Dungeon magazine, my campaigns were never the free-wheeling player-driven sessions that "sandbox" games were supposed to be. My players were quite willing to accept the "quest of the week" model of gaming and they seemed to be enjoying themselves.

The only way I can reconcile this with Ariosto's Platonic ideal of the Real True Game being a game of strategy where it is absolutely essential that players have plenty of freedom in choosing their courses through the environment is that my players must have simply used their freedom to choose to go on the adventure I had prepared for them. Of course, while they were on adventure they also had plenty of freedom to choose how they went about overcoming the challenges (or not), in terms of both strategy and tactics, but I guess that freedom must be a comparatively petty and unimportant one.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It is absolutely essential to the game concept that players have plenty of freedom in choosing their courses through the environment. It is a game of strategy, regardless of the scope.

Sez you!

 

[Doug McCrae]

In regards to magic items and PC level, I've found that the best approach in 3e and 4e is to run a relatively low-level game (both PC and NPC), with slowish advancement and few high level NPCs, but the PCs have more than standard items for their level. It's particularly important in 3e because more items means less disparity between casters and non-casters.

Interesting idea. What sort of level of magic are we talking about? Level 3 fighters with +5 swords? That wouldn't necessarily be OP imo.

You're right that non-casters are much more gear dependent. That's probably true in every edition of the game, purely because in D&D magic weapons and armor have always allowed the fighter to do what he does much more effectively.

At levels 1-4 though aren't fighters and barbarians more powerful than casters anyway? I guess it depends on how many encounters there are per day. In our recent D&D games we haven't used dungeons much so often there was only one encounter per day, which meant even low level casters were still very effective.

 

[Gilladian]

Referring to the OP's question, and disregarding "Old school", I do like to keep my PCs advancing slowly; I prefer about 1/2 speed for 3.5E (I don't run 4e). I also find that I like handing out a fair amount more treasure than the "rules" allow.

I do this by giving out mostly unique, quirky items with limited uses, or items that don't have a great deal of "adventure" value, but help to define a character (ie the magical pipe that produces dozens of colors of smoke and can shape images in the smoke).

I also tend to include more "fighter stuff" than "wizard and cleric stuff", to help balance the PCs.

My players must agree with me that this produces a fun game (note, not the ONLY fun way to play) because I have people clamoring to game with me, and my players stay for years.