Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6058765" data-attributes="member: 22779">Again, you're ignoring what's actually there.&nbsp; Look at EVERY module ever produced for D&amp;D.&nbsp; They all have a level range.&nbsp; You can go all the way back to the very first modules, and you'll see that you have to be &quot;this tall to adventure, have so much magic items&quot; and so on.&nbsp; There's a reason that the 1e (and 2e IIRC) paladin were restricted to TEN magic items.&nbsp; Everyone was expected to have more than that in fairly short order.&nbsp; A quick look at the treasure tables in AD&amp;D shows that you've got about a 10% chance (give or take) for 3 magic items with every lair.&nbsp; Sure, it might be higher or lower, but, that's a decent estimate.&nbsp; How many lairs will you clear per level?&nbsp; Easily 5, and probably 10 - note, lair could be as small as a single ogre, although it could be much larger when we deal with humanoids.&nbsp; It's not unreasonable that the party is gaining 3-5 magic items per level.Now, as far as 3pp goes, I'm somewhat ambivalent.&nbsp; For one, a lot of the 3pp material was very, very bad.&nbsp; The gems shine by comparison.&nbsp; But, even though I personally bough in pretty heavily into 3pp, I was generally the only one.&nbsp; And I could very rarely entice anyone to join in.&nbsp; It was WOTC or nothing.&nbsp; And, let's not forget, that the basic advice whenever anyone was having problems with 3e was, &quot;Core only&quot;.&nbsp; No one ever said, &quot;Hey, you're having problems with 3e, you should start using lots of 3pp, that'll help&quot;.&nbsp; I think that the 3pp material was far less prevalent at tables than might be assumed on a messageboard.&nbsp; But, in any case, I think that you are really not looking at the history of the game objectively.&nbsp; Sure, you can chuck in an IME on your idea, but, then, okay, my question becomes, &quot;So what?&quot;&nbsp; If it's only your experience, then you cannot make any broader statement, nor can you use your experience to make statements about how the game was played.&nbsp; In other words, if you think that 3e DM's were more beholden to canon than other edition DM's, show me some proof beyond your group.&nbsp; Otherwise, your idea has some pretty large holes in it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6058765, member: 22779"] Again, you're ignoring what's actually there. Look at EVERY module ever produced for D&D. They all have a level range. You can go all the way back to the very first modules, and you'll see that you have to be "this tall to adventure, have so much magic items" and so on. There's a reason that the 1e (and 2e IIRC) paladin were restricted to TEN magic items. Everyone was expected to have more than that in fairly short order. A quick look at the treasure tables in AD&D shows that you've got about a 10% chance (give or take) for 3 magic items with every lair. Sure, it might be higher or lower, but, that's a decent estimate. How many lairs will you clear per level? Easily 5, and probably 10 - note, lair could be as small as a single ogre, although it could be much larger when we deal with humanoids. It's not unreasonable that the party is gaining 3-5 magic items per level. Now, as far as 3pp goes, I'm somewhat ambivalent. For one, a lot of the 3pp material was very, very bad. The gems shine by comparison. But, even though I personally bough in pretty heavily into 3pp, I was generally the only one. And I could very rarely entice anyone to join in. It was WOTC or nothing. And, let's not forget, that the basic advice whenever anyone was having problems with 3e was, "Core only". No one ever said, "Hey, you're having problems with 3e, you should start using lots of 3pp, that'll help". I think that the 3pp material was far less prevalent at tables than might be assumed on a messageboard. But, in any case, I think that you are really not looking at the history of the game objectively. Sure, you can chuck in an IME on your idea, but, then, okay, my question becomes, "So what?" If it's only your experience, then you cannot make any broader statement, nor can you use your experience to make statements about how the game was played. In other words, if you think that 3e DM's were more beholden to canon than other edition DM's, show me some proof beyond your group. Otherwise, your idea has some pretty large holes in it. [/QUOTE]

Verification