Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder RPG: No XPs for magic items!

[azhrei_fje]

Seriously, I've found the option of item creation to be a clear net positive to the fun in my gaming experience.

With the right player-GM combination, item creation can be a wonderful way to extend the imagination.

But with a munchkin player or an overly generous GM, item creation can quickly break the game.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Huh. I never thought of it that way. After all, the party usually stays together, so the fighter gets 0 XP during the time the wizard pays however many thousand.
I thought of it more as just an abstraction.

The net result is the same-- the party ends up with more XP than the wizard.

If the wizard stays home crafting magic items, he'll have fewer XP than the rest of the party, who is off adventuring without him.

The abstraction is that it's not necessary to actually make the wizard player sit out a session, nor is it necessary to actually run the other PCs through any side adventures, which would have the undesirable effect of advancing the story line without the wizard present.

 

[BryonD]

The net result is the same-- the party ends up with more XP than the wizard.

If the wizard stays home crafting magic items, he'll have fewer XP than the rest of the party, who is off adventuring without him.

The abstraction is that it's not necessary to actually make the wizard player sit out a session, nor is it necessary to actually run the other PCs through any side adventures, which would have the undesirable effect of advancing the story line without the wizard present.

Well, its 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

I just view the abstraction differently. The other PC didn't do any adventuring, significant or trivial, without the wizard. It is just that the effort of crafting the magic item has moved the goal line of *next level* a little further away for the wizard.

 

[BryonD]

With the right player-GM combination, item creation can be a wonderful way to extend the imagination.

But with a munchkin player or an overly generous GM, item creation can quickly break the game.

A munchkin player or overly generous GM can quickly break the game without any help from item creation.

I'd rather the rules assume decent players and leave it up to me to make that be a reality, than have the rules hamstrung assuming that they can "fix" people who intend to be disruptive.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

A munchkin player or overly generous GM can quickly break the game without any help from item creation.

I'd rather the rules assume decent players and leave it up to me to make that be a reality, than have the rules hamstrung assuming that they can "fix" people who intend to be disruptive.

Well, I agree with you in spirit. 100%. You absolutely should not have to design the rules to keep disruptive players in line.

The problem is that there's nothing inherently munchkin about a fighter who wants a Belt of Strength, Cloak of Resistance, Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armor, Magic Sword, Armor, and Shield.

I think that's a perfectly innocent desire.

I just also happens to throw the math out of whack.

 

[BryonD]

Well, I agree with you in spirit. 100%. You absolutely should not have to design the rules to keep disruptive players in line.

The problem is that there's nothing inherently munchkin about a fighter who wants a Belt of Strength, Cloak of Resistance, Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armor, Magic Sword, Armor, and Shield.

I think that's a perfectly innocent desire.

I just also happens to throw the math out of whack.

Meh. I guess this is where I've just always been very comfortable going off on my own.
I think that balance (by which I mean "the math") is critically important for a good base game rule set and very marginally important to actual games.

As a DM I've never found the math being out of whack to be an impediment because I know the specifics of my own game. To hell with the big picture math, there are some orcs over there, an evil wizard back there, a lavafall right here and a bottomless pit there. GO!!!! It is up me to make that work well with the party at hand. No problem.

 

[ValhallaGH]

I just also happens to throw the math out of whack.

How? The game was designed with the idea that your fighter would have those things. Just because the design idea of "challenging encounter" and everyone else's idea of challenging encounter differ doesn't mean it breaks the math of the game.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

How? The game was designed with the idea that your fighter would have those things.

No, it wasn't.

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

Actually, yeah, it kinda was. 3/3.5 were designed very much with a mentality that by certain levels each character class would be particularly effective via a combination of inherent class abilities and magical items. For a fighter, that means magical swords and Str boosters, just as for a wizard that means having certain staple spells in their repertoire and Int boosters, etc. You can safely assume that a main ability score booster item for each class was an expected eventuality and when you don't have them, you are underclassed for the encounters that match your level.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Actually, yeah, it kinda was. 3/3.5 were designed very much with a mentality that by certain levels each character class would be particularly effective via a combination of inherent class abilities and magical items. For a fighter, that means magical swords and Str boosters, just as for a wizard that means having certain staple spells in their repertoire and Int boosters, etc. You can safely assume that a main ability score booster item for each class was an expected eventuality and when you don't have them, you are underclassed for the encounters that match your level.

That is not remotely the same thing as saying that the game is balanced with the expectation that every character will have the Big Six in optimized configuration for his class and level.

That is not balance-- that is pushing the numbers at any given level of the game all the way to one end of the scale. There's nowhere else to go.

It's also patently absurd to suggest that a halfling fighter and a half-orc fighter can't exist in the same party without one of them being underclassed or overmatched. There's a 4 point swing in STR between the two.

And that's before we even look at 4d6 drop the lowest vs. point buy, etc. How in the world can you suggest that the game is balanced around the expectation of the Big Six when simple character generation can easily introduce 6 point swings in the main attribute?

"The game is designed around the big six" is a canard that deserves to die.