Magically Equipped vs. Unequipped - What is the Level Difference?

[Nyeshet]

I wonder . . .

Compare two groups - one with magical equipment appropriate for their level, the other with only non-magical equipment.

Compare them at the following levels: 4, 8, 12, 16, 20.

At which level is the difference in power enough that they can only fight creatures -1 EL than typical for their level? When does it rise to -2, -3, etc?

By 8th or 12th level it is at least -1, but how great a difference is it by 20th level, or even 16th level? Perhaps we should look at this from a finer perspective: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18th level?

 

[shilsen]

I can't wrap my head around this. D&D thrives on multiclassing; it positively encourages multiclassing. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that you're supposed to multiclass.

Supposed to multiclass? Every class with significant spellcasting (Brd, Clr, Drd, Sor, Wiz) suffers if it multiclasses by losing spellcasting progression. Paladins can't multiclass and advance as a paladin. That's 6 out of 11 classes. Out of the other classes, the barbarian, monk, ranger and rogue all have a large number of higher level abilities that they slow down access to if they multiclass.

I'll go as far as to say you're dead wrong.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Not actually true: you do less damage, but you still do damage. Just because something has e.g. DR 30/whatever doesn't mean that you can't do more than 30 HP damage. Or, if you can't, perhaps you can lead the monster to the Bottomless Pit of Doom or whatever. And, of course, forcing players to use their brains instead of their characters' brawn can be a welcome change. But it is incumbent on the GM to give the players a way out - even if it is running away.

As a practical matter, the potential for using brains to deal with encounters is more severely hurt by a lack of equipment than the brawn route.

FREX, a heck of a lot big scary monsters one is somehow supposed to lead to their doom will have a base movement rate of 40'. A single bad roll or tiny tiny tactical mistake and someone will simply be eaten.

Running away is only likely to succeed if the DM outright coddles the PCs. Playing by the book, it is pretty bad that way at low levels. But the magic items acquired by middling levels tends to shift that dynamic to something more palatable for long term play. Take away the magic items at higher levels and most of the party will look like plump low-level halflings in platearmor to the monsters.

 

[Justin Cray]

I always did it the other (and I now think wrong) way around. I decreased or increased the Encounter Level.

I used to compare the "worth" of their items to the worth an NPC would have, and adjust the amount of XP they'd get.

I.e. the PCs have way too many magic items = lower the EL.

I think adjusting the ECL is much more elegant, partly because some ELs are just a repeated chore to adjust ("Are 20 Goblins that easier to defeat?" etc.), and adjusting the ECL is just one chore.

Edit to clarify: I didn't change the encounters themselves (just their "payout"), but I guess that's a whole other discussion.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

IIRC, UpperKrust's CR system (a version of which appeared in Grim Tales) originally pegged PC wealth at 20% of a CR (CR being equivalent to level in that system), but he changed it to 40% in a later version.

Now, that's *all* PC wealth, not just magic items, so, for example, masterwork items, paid-for mounts and miscelaneous gear are all included. Especially at lower levels, that makes a big difference. On the other hand, even in a mid-level campaign, a fighter can still be effective if he spends his wealth on a war-griffon, masterwork full plate, a suite of masterwork weapons and assorted gear without ever getting a magic item. As he progresses to higher levels and enchants that gear, he may get disjoined and still retain as much as 75-90% of his power, more like a spellcaster. If he were stripped of ALL his wealth, he'd be completely out of luck.

 

[Quartz]

Supposed to multiclass? Every class with significant spellcasting (Brd, Clr, Drd, Sor, Wiz) suffers if it multiclasses by losing spellcasting progression.

Perhaps you might care to go back and read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote.

 

[Nyeshet]

Supposed to multiclass? Every class with significant spellcasting (Brd, Clr, Drd, Sor, Wiz) suffers if it multiclasses by losing spellcasting progression. Paladins can't multiclass and advance as a paladin. That's 6 out of 11 classes. Out of the other classes, the barbarian, monk, ranger and rogue all have a large number of higher level abilities that they slow down access to if they multiclass.

I'll go as far as to say you're dead wrong.

Quartz acknowledged the difficulties core spell casting classes have with multiclassing. He stated that non-pure spellcasting classes often gain almost as much as they lose when multiclassing (if the multiclass is well chosen so that weaknesses are covered by it), and even pure spell casting classes can benefit from two levels in a non-spell casting class (in bab, skill points, in feats, in class specials such as Evasion, etc - especially as an aid towards getting into PrCs that have otherwise difficult to meet requirements).

Personally, I cannot recall the last time I saw someone take a single (non pure spellcasting) class for more than 8-10 levels - let alone all 20 levels. I might see it more often in the future - now that PHB2 has made 10+ level fighters more viable with its variety of feats, but I have not seen it before and I doubt I'll see it any time soon. For pure casters there are too many PrCs that only sacrifice 0-2 levels of casting (thus continuing to allow 9th level casting at level 20). Then there are the many PrCs that act as patches for multiclassing - thus, in a sense, encouraging it. These allow for viable pure caster x pure caster multiclassing, pure caster x combative multiclassing, and other priorly less viable or non-viable combinations.

I think that 3.5e D&D at the least encourages taking PrCs (due to the dearth of interesting ones offered every other book it seems), and with the somewhat less numerous (relative to PrCs) core classes offered every fourth or fifth book it (to a somewhat less degree) encourages multiclassing or re-training into another class that might more closely match the player's concept of their character.

In fact, most DMs I know ignore both the multiclass penalty and the whole concept of 'favored class' as they see these as too restrictive compared to the number of core classes out there (about 60+ at last count) and the fact that some PrCs are not much different from core classes and yet offer no penalty no matter how many are taken. Sometimes these DMs give something to the Human and Half-Elf race for their loss (of favored class: any), but as often as not they do not (as all races benefit from the absolute lack of any multiclassing penalty - thus weakening the benefit gained from 'favored class: any').

As it is a common house rule in my area, I imagine it is likely common in other areas as well (much in the same way many DMs take a lazy or laisse fair stance towards encumbrance rules and how much can really fit in that backpack - so long as it is not too outlandish (such as a ladder or ten foot pole in the (non-magical) back pack). Now I'm suddenly reminded of that scene in 'Mary Poppins' . . . .