Making "level" king again in 3.x

[Reynard]

From this thread on wealth in the 4e forum.

I hope none.

The value of "level" as short-hand for character prowess is severely undermined in 3e by this assumption.

Cheers, -- N

I am reassessing 3.x in light of the fact that 4E holds almost no appeal to me, but this issue is a very real one in 3E. Given that we've had 7 years to discover alternatives and methods by which to do this, what's the best way to remove or at least mitigate the issue of "gear" in 3.x without rewriting the entire system (ex Iron Heroes)?

 

[Corsair]

I think a lot of it has to do with what you are fighting. For fighting dragons, outsiders, some of the freakier aberrations, etc, the assumption that you have access to that equipment is pretty big. If your game focuses more on humanoids, or more "mundane" monsters (giants, trolls, dire animals, etc) then it isn't as big a deal. As long as you control the flow of cash and goods into the game and restrict the creation of the items that bother you, both the PCs and NPCs will be on equal footing.

 

[Nifft]

Yeah, basically what he said.

If the critter is loot-dependent (like a humanoid NPC): then the elimination of loot for both sides evens things out reasonably.

If the critter is loot-independent (like pretty much everything else): look carefully at its shtick. Look at its total attack bonus vs. a magic-free NPC of the same CR. Same for AC, saves, etc. Look at its ability scores and HD, because these play a role in setting the DCs of its special attacks.

But why not re-write the entire system? What's wrong with Iron Heroes?

Cheers, -- N

 

[an_idol_mind]

My games have included two house rules to help balance the fact that I run a low magic/high heroism game:

-I use Action Points from Eberron/Unearthed Arcana, which help PCs recover from a low save or other bad luck from time to time.

-I give all PCs and major NPCs a combat bonus equal to 1/2 their base attack, which increases their AC and all damage done with weapons or unarmed strikes. That doesn't entirely eliminate the need for magical weapons or armor-enhancing items, but it helps.

It also helps that I don't hold CR as a hard guideline; I take the party's abilities into account when planning encounters. You don't necessarily have to make any rules adjustments to run a low-magic game, provided that you use lower-CR creatures against the PCs to reflect the fact that they don't have tons of magical equipment to help them.

 

[Minicol]

From this thread on wealth in the 4e forum.

I am reassessing 3.x in light of the fact that 4E holds almost no appeal to me, but this issue is a very real one in 3E. Given that we've had 7 years to discover alternatives and methods by which to do this, what's the best way to remove or at least mitigate the issue of "gear" in 3.x without rewriting the entire system (ex Iron Heroes)?

That's a great question.

If you look at a medieval economy, the price system for magic items is waaaayyyy too high in 3.e.

Since I will be launching a new 3 e campaign fairly soon, and i'd like it to be something at least moderately believable, I was considering the following solution, but I'm not final on this :

- Keep the costs of standard equipment the same, as well as the masterwork and greater masterwork rules. I have no better references than those.

- Curb the cost of magic, except potions and scrolls, by dividing the cost of every item by a factor ranging from 10 to 3.

After all, in these times, the real wealth was arable land, and a magic sword is no good if you starve.

- Divide the loot of cash by a 10 factor : I want my players to suffer for their gains. But add tradable/salvageable nonmagical items on the baddies

For all the rest : Use A magical medieval society : western europe from Expeditious Retreat press, which i'm currently reading.

Comments are welcome, at this stage I am fishing for ideas

 

[Reynard]

I think a lot of it has to do with what you are fighting. For fighting dragons, outsiders, some of the freakier aberrations, etc, the assumption that you have access to that equipment is pretty big. If your game focuses more on humanoids, or more "mundane" monsters (giants, trolls, dire animals, etc) then it isn't as big a deal. As long as you control the flow of cash and goods into the game and restrict the creation of the items that bother you, both the PCs and NPCs will be on equal footing.

This is what I was thinking, that the challenges -- particularly the monsters -- that the PCs face is the thing that really determines whether their gear is part of their "build". That the CR system started out broken helps in that I don't feel bad tossing it.

Keeping things "mundane" also has the added benefit of making the magical truly magical.

 

[Reynard]

What's wrong with Iron Heroes?

Nothing except I don't like it.

 

[Nifft]

Nothing except I don't like it.

I don't have it, so I can't be one of the chorus who does like it, but: if you spell out why, perhaps that'd help?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Psion]

Well, if you want to make powers the same, I've seen two published systems that replace wealth with power and don't require you to shift system. If you want to keep CR the same,

1) replace magic items with similar special abilities; up the price a bit to represent the fact that these items take no slot (or they might...) and can't be taken from you or destroyed. There's a formalized system for this in Green Ronin's Advanced GM's Manual.
2) There is a similar system to this in ENPub's Four Colors to Fantasy.

 

[Reynard]

Well, if you want to make powers the same, I've seen two published systems that replace wealth with power and don't require you to shift system. If you want to keep CR the same,

I think adjusting the CR system -- or ignoring it and eyeballing -- is easier and less effort than trying to figure out a way to incorporate gear abilities into characters -- which is the system that seems most common with d20 variants like IH. The last I, personally, would want to do with D&D is increase the power level.