Selfsufficient classes

[Andor]

To answer my own question...

I personally like the more self-sufficient classes. A part of D&D I really like is exploring the growth in power of a character he they progress in levels. I don't feel like it's really the character that's growing if the items are the most important things on the character sheet. Yeah items are cool, but intrinsic power appeals to me more. Even Elric, freaky little artifact weilding druggie albino that he was, was a seriously powerful sorcerer even without Stormbringer.

Two of the classes that really appeal to me from Tome of Magic are the Binder and the Shadowblade PrC. The Binder can adapt his abilites to suit whatever is needed, and if he finds a cool item that covers a normal power he get, he can shift his summons to cover something else. The Shadowblade, while item dependant mechanically, themantically overrides his weapons normal attributes with his own powers. Both strike a nice balance between the coolness of self advancement and the joy of bling.

 

[Nightfall]

Nope, I haven't. I've been tempted to check it out, but I don't have the cash atm.

I run most of mine online since I can never seem to get anyone (other than my youngest brother and a few of his friends) to play in the Scarred Lands.

 

[Graf]

Self-sufficient can mean a lot of other things.

Monks require magic items as much if not more than other character classes. A mid-level paladin can get by on full plate, a shield and divine feats, but a monk without AC boosters is in real trouble in a standard adventure.

Your thread title is misleading. It should be: “I don’t like magic items, how can I get rid of them” or whatever…

 

[Tsillanabor]

At 4th level my group each has a +1 weapon OR protective device and a couple of disposeable magic items. They get a feat at every level, and bonuses feats for not multi-classing (1 every four levels in a class, every three if it is your racial favoured class). So far everything seems balanced, and if they get too weak at higher levels it is a lot easier to give out more magic than to take back what they already have.

 

[Sound of Azure]

Self-sufficient/ magic items.....

In response to the OP, I'd have to say there is an implicit expectation of magic item use by high-level pcs. In many ways I don't like this.

That being said, certain magic items, like scrolls, potions, and staves/wands have a useful role to play in most of my campaigns, so long as it doesn't get out of hand. Bandoleers of potions and scroll-caddies, for instance.

I've always stressed the abilities of characters' innate skills, maybe enhanced by spell or psionic power, but the characters' innateness nonetheless. Unique and interesting magic items certainly exist, but they shouldn't define the character, just augment.

Self-suffiency, though? To me, it is a both boon and bane. A self-sufficient character can look after themselves, and perhaps doesn't really need the other PCs, or society in general. What is their role in a party of adventurers?

Anyhow, that's just my 2 cents (1.5 cents US)

 

[Hairfoot]

I think the real issue is that players consider equipment to be an extension of their class abilities, rather than some cool stuff the character is lucky to possess.

IMC I try to get around this by having primo equipment loaned to the party, or given on condition that it's used in an appropriate manner (such as using a blessed hammer to defeat an undead menace, rather than simply to kill orcs and take their stuff).

 

[The Shaman]

I prefer self-sufficient characters without lots of magic* items.

This is one of the reasons I like d20 Modern so much. The character classes are designed with magic as an optional add-on, not a core feature.


*Magic in this context could be extended to include sci-fi tech or "bigger guns" in other genres.

 

[Andor]

Your thread title is misleading. It should be: “I don’t like magic items, how can I get rid of them” or whatever…

But that's not what I'm asking. If I didn't want items at all I'd just play Iron Heros. I'm pointing out that there is a lot of difference in self-contained effectiveness between a naked 15th level fighter and a naked 15th level Binder. The fighter is dependant on the GM allowing him to reequip himself before he dares to take on a challange appropriate for his level. The binder can whistle up level appropriate gear in 20 minutes. This difference alters the kinds of stories that can be told about these characters.

I'm just asking which people prefer.

 

[The_Gneech]

I'm not anti-magic item generally, but what I'd rather see is a smaller number of very cool items, rather than a boatload of items that give +1 here and +2 there.

Paladin with +2 elven chain and a +5 holy sword but no other magic items? Rockin'.

Paladin with +1 sword, +1 breastplate, +1 shield, ioun stone whizzing around his head giving him +2 Con, cloak of resistance +1, amulet of natural armor +1, boots of striding, gauntlets of ogre power, and ten +1 arrows? Bah.

It's purely a fluff-preference point, mind you, but for me it's a crucial one. To that end, the more self-sufficiency, the better! This is why I tend to have high-stats-but-few-magic-items type games. I also like the Conan game's setup of giving all stats a boost every few levels (I seem to recall it's 5, but I may be misremembering), to make up for all those potions and +1 whatevers that the characters aren't getting.

It's like those "sense of wonder" threads that went "poof" with the board crash; having a smaller number of more powerful items is skipping to the good stuff. I'd like to see all those piddly-but-universal items edited out all together.

-The Gneech

 

[Hairfoot]

having a smaller number of more powerful items is skipping to the good stuff. I'd like to see all those piddly-but-universal items edited out all together.

I'm also in favour of treating +1 to +3 enchanted weapons as simply superior equipment, and reducing the price accordingly. A +1 enchantment is nowhere near as good as the "flaming" quality, and shouldn't be an equal price.