New Monte Cook article Magic and Mystery

[Hussar]

In 1E you coulf hit (almost) anything with non-magical items if they were made of the right stuff. E.g. a cold iron weapon could hit any demon and a silver one could hit any devil. Many undead could be hit by silver also (but not all). Even the toughest demons and devils (excluding lords, princes, archdevils, etc) had an AC of about 25 (in 3E terms). A 9th level fighter with a decent STR (let's say 17) and double weapon specialization would hit that AC on a roll of 13 or higher, and all of his attacks hit on the same odds as the first, so a F9 without a magic weapon wasn't useless against demons, devils, or undead by any means.

Really? Virtually any undead over 4 HD could only be hit by magical weapons, not silver - it started with Wights and carried on. Gargoyles also had no particular weaknesses. Demons and devils, sure, but, that presumed that you KNEW that you would be facing one or the other, or you carried a golf bag full of different weapons.

I think that if you actually looked at the weapon immunities in AD&D, you'd find that most creatures didn't have specific weaknesses.

Now, it's true that your PC's were MUCH stronger vs creatures in AD&D than in 3e and 4e. As you said, a Fighter 9 with a pretty minimal strength is still hitting virtually every round vs the strongest of AC's. Again, this isn't true in 3e or 4e. In 3e or 4e, a fighter with a minimal Str and no magical enhancements is probably hitting mid range AC's regularly, but the high AC's are right out of reach.

Bill91 - the problem I found with the item creation feats in my game (beyond wands and scrolls) is the caster classes started getting VERY testy when the non-casters kept bugging them to make magic items at cost. It's not like the fighter was losing Xp when the wizzie made a magic sword, nor did the fighter have to take any down time. Nor did the fighter have to burn feats in order to make those magic items in the first place.

While the groups I played with made liberal use of scrolls, potions and miscelaneous magic items and wands, I rarely, if ever, saw weapons or armor get created.

 

[billd91]

Bill91 - the problem I found with the item creation feats in my game (beyond wands and scrolls) is the caster classes started getting VERY testy when the non-casters kept bugging them to make magic items at cost. It's not like the fighter was losing Xp when the wizzie made a magic sword, nor did the fighter have to take any down time. Nor did the fighter have to burn feats in order to make those magic items in the first place.

Well then your caster players were probably being dicks, that is, unless the non-casters were constantly badgering. The XP cost isn't very high at all. With all of the magic item feats except magic arms and armor (which even clerics and druids could make good use of), the spellcaster would have been getting just as much benefit from it, so worrying about the feat cost is pointless, particularly when the wizard has the option of picking some up as bonus feats.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

While the groups I played with made liberal use of scrolls, potions and miscelaneous magic items and wands, I rarely, if ever, saw weapons or armor get created.

Our group got around this by having the XP come off of the requesting PC, explained in game as a ceremonial ritual or something.

Now, I think in the end, Pathfinder nailed this perfectly.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hussar]

Well then your caster players were probably being dicks, that is, unless the non-casters were constantly badgering. The XP cost isn't very high at all. With all of the magic item feats except magic arms and armor (which even clerics and druids could make good use of), the spellcaster would have been getting just as much benefit from it, so worrying about the feat cost is pointless, particularly when the wizard has the option of picking some up as bonus feats.

The problem is, if you make four or five suits of armor, five to seven weapons and burn two feats, and you're NOT a wizard, then you're probably not very happy.

Sure, as I said, the wands and Craft Wonderous were fine and all. But, I can really see the wizard player telling everyone else to go jump in the lake when everyone else is telling them to take feats they can get no use out of just so they can make magic items they can never use. AND have to spend xp on.

"Oh, you get bonus feats anyway" isn't really a good argument IMO. That's like telling the fighter he should take meta-magic feats. After all, he's got feats to spare. And they're about as useful as Craft Armor is to a wizard.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Clearly I inferred stuff different than you intended from your earlier post, mea culpa.

In 1e I played a 9th level fighter who was a perfectly fine character who had some plate mail +3 (IIRC- coulda been +2 or +4), a longsword +1, +4 vs. fire using creatures that gave him fire resistance, a couple potions at a time and a helm of underwater action, and he mostly did fine. I long for the days when a high level pc with only a few magic items isn't inherently screwed, where you can have a "lose everything" moment (shipwreck, taken captive, slain and gear taken, etc) and still be doing okay with mundane gear. Sigh.

IMO you're looking for 4e with Inherent Bonusses. You are a little behind without proper equipment but mostly by the utility rather than the raw power.

 

[ShaneB]

I have always found an easy way to deal with magic items is that the enhancements are the rewards, not the items themselves.

This means that your daring fighter type starts off with a standard sword and goes on quests that enhance the capabilities and wire the enhancement into the storyline, yes you can BUY a +x version of the sword but the number of them are limited because the number of heroes by definition are limited. That way the "mechanics" of magic items doesnt change, you just dont "find" a magic item, you find the means of creating said item - the higher the "level" of item the more you have to do to get it.. which also fulfills MC's requirement of player driver magic item reward... you are a level 1 PC and want to "create" a level 4 magic item - fine I will craft an adventure to suit (ie its a Level 4 adventure with appropriate encounters).. you will be lucky to survive it, but that is your choice. You will probably be well on the way to level 3 by the end of it, but that is ok as well. My job as DM is winding the quest for the power into the story. Doesnt change the mechanics of the game but fulfills the requirements of MC's article, and keeps the "wonder" of magic items... anyhow the "rules" for every edition of D&D have been guidelines for as long as I can remember (and this is my 26th year of playing D&D )

 

[Viking Bastard]

Now, I think in the end, Pathfinder nailed this perfectly.

How does PF do this?

 

[billd91]

How does PF do this?

Two methods.

No XP for crafting items.
Master Craftsman feat that allows non-spellcasting classes to use magic item crafting feats.

Between the two, there's no reason for wizards to whine about having to spend resources to help their friends acquire custom items.

 

[JamesonCourage]

T"Oh, you get bonus feats anyway" isn't really a good argument IMO. That's like telling the fighter he should take meta-magic feats. After all, he's got feats to spare. And they're about as useful as Craft Armor is to a wizard.

Except that the Wizard can help the other players with the feat, and the Fighter can't. Huge, massive, major difference there.

 

[Hussar]

Except that the Wizard can help the other players with the feat, and the Fighter can't. Huge, massive, major difference there.

Oooh, I can spend my own Xp so you get a +1 AC at a cost of a feat that is absolutely useless to me. Please, can I have more of that?

Now, if there was no feat cost or xp cost, then fine. No problem. But, expecting a player to burn a feat (and also presuming that you have a wizard in the group and not something else which doesn't get these bonus feats) and the xp for pretty much no reward other than to help someone else in the group is not a winning game design IMO.