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

[Mallus]

Plenty of old school modules were played and they were all tailored to the approximate power of the PCs.

Which explains why the TSR modules all came with suggested PC level ranges stamped right on their covers. The idea that difficultly scaling is somehow new to D&D is 1) surprising, 2) recent, 3) crazy.

"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.

That's how every group I knew of played 1e back in the day (the 'day' being the mid 1980s -- and no, this had nothing to do w/Dragonlance. Never played any of the modules, didn't make it past the 2nd book...).

 

[Bullgrit]

"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.

"Adventure path" is a new term for what used to be called a "module series".

GDQ
U1-U3
A1-A4
EX1-2
H1-4
I3-5
R1-4
L1-3
UK2-3
X4-5
And the granddaddy of them all: T1-4 -> GDQ

It's just lately, designers figured out players might like full campaigns from level 1-20 with these kinds of series.

Bullgrit

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

It is a good idea but there may be better ways of making fighters better than piling on the magic goodies. The 4E power system gave fighters lots of options but just made most classes equally gear dependent instead of eliminating the problem.

The Basic D&D Masters set introduced the weapon mastery system which was a good idea but too OP and wacky as written IMHO. It was a good idea too and with a different implementation could help solve gear dependency for pre-4E type systems. I like the idea of weapon damage increasing with expertise instead of being a fixed number and different types of weapons being useful for performing maneuvers that become more impressive as skill improves. It's the idea that I'm currently working with.

 

[coyote6]

The Basic D&D Masters set introduced the weapon mastery system which was a good idea but too OP and wacky as written IMHO. It was a good idea too and with a different implementation could help solve gear dependency for pre-4E type systems. I like the idea of weapon damage increasing with expertise instead of being a fixed number and different types of weapons being useful for performing maneuvers that become more impressive as skill improves. It's the idea that I'm currently working with.

You'd have to have the weapon mastery feature make your ordinary weapons able to strike as +X weapons; otherwise when those Type IV demons & their numerically-typed cousins come out to play, the magic item-less fighters will be reduced to cheerleaders for the spellcasters.

(Well, they could try grappling & such, but that way lies the overbearing rules, and thus madness! )

(Alternatively, adapt some of 3.5e's Damage Reduction -- either the bit where it isn't an outright immunity, but rather a reduction in damage, thus allowing Mundane Mike the Myrmidon to still contribute somewhat; or the part where some kind of non-magical special material or substance can overcome the immunity/DR. Make high-level monsters' immunity to weapons more Balder-esque mythology, rather than a "your weapons must be this mighty for this ride" thing.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Adventure path" is a new term for what used to be called a "module series".

<snip>

It's just lately, designers figured out players might like full campaigns from level 1-20 with these kinds of series.

Sorry, but which one is it? They always existed, or the designers just now twigged that it might be a good idea? Or they existed, despite the designers being clueless?

BTW, the first true "adventure path" IMHO is DragonLance. Very popular with some, scorned by others, but definitely an adventure path.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

It's not just "sez me"; it's what the designers themselves said and wrote. "How I played when I was 10 years old" is so subjective a standard as to be useless -- just as "How I play at 40 years old" would produce all sorts of characterizations having nothing to do with the the design of 3e or 4e.

Some people use automobiles, hammers or even pillows as murder weapons; that is not the purpose for which those artifacts were designed, though.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Well the Paladin IMC had a Rod of Lordly Might (inc +4 battleaxe) at 5th level, without noticeable balance issues.

Edit: It came from the scenario Palace of Shadows, which is for 4th-6th level PCs but has a lot of very powerful items, including a Horn of Blasting.

 

[Mallus]

"How I played when I was 10 years old" is so subjective a standard as to be useless...

How a single 10 year old played D&D is useless. Put enough of them together, however, and you get a representative sample.

-- just as "How I play at 40 years old" would produce all sorts of characterizations having nothing to do with the the design of 3e or 4e.

How people use a thing says oodles about its design.

Frankly, I'd go so far to say it's irrelevant what the designer had in mind, if enough end users deviate from that in their everyday use.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You'd have to have the weapon mastery feature make your ordinary weapons able to strike as +X weapons; otherwise when those Type IV demons & their numerically-typed cousins come out to play, the magic item-less fighters will be reduced to cheerleaders for the spellcasters

The +X weapon or better to hit a variety of foes will not be part of the plan. There may be certain rare unique creatures that require special weapons to be very effective but these won't be a regular occurance. Tough creatures will have some DR. This means that the damage output of highly skilled fighters could be required to score enough damage to last against the foe and still not require magic weapons. A magical weapon will be of benefit, but not required to face tougher foes. As a side benefit, hit point totals won't have to get astronomical either.

 

[S'mon]

Just a note that IME increasing magic item wealth definitely does help Fighters more, both because many Cleric & Wizard spells emulate magic items, and because spellcasters run out of spells, whereas Fighters can keep hacking all day. In the former case, in a low magic item campaign you can get the situation where a Greater Magic Weapon spell gives more +s than the Fighter's own magic sword.