The extreme proliferation of magic in D&D

[M.L. Martin]

I have asked this question before but I've never received a satisfactory answer.

And, the wealth per level tables don't dictate the amount of magic required to keep up with the game. They dictate how effective a character needs to be in order to overcome the challenges he is expected to face, but his effectiveness doesn't have to come from magic.
Give your "non-magic" 6th-level fighter a +1 enhancement bonus to hit and damage with any weapon he wields and a +2 enhancement bonus to AC with any armor he uses (maybe require him to spend a day practising with the weapon and armor first), give him a +1 dodge bonus to AC and a +2 resistance bonus to saves (call these level-dependant bonuses or whatever).

In fact, you can just work off the Vow of Poverty benefits from the Book of Exalted Deeds to create a "low-magic" character that is about as effective as his "properly-equipped" counterpart.

This is a good idea and one I've considered myself . . . but it runs smack into the problem that the game just dumps the wealth levels on the DM with little or no guidance as to how the game expects that wealth to be used in order to keep PCs at their proper "effective level".

What I've wanted for years, and hope to see at some point in the future (whether in a DMG III, some other supplement, or That Which Must Not Be Named ) is 'effects-based balance'. Tell the DM what PCs are supposed to be able to do at a given level, note how much of that is assumed to come from inherent benefits and how much from equipment, and give some advice on the pros and cons of shifting the ratios.

Matthew L. Martin

 

[Merlion]

is 'effects-based balance'. Tell the DM what PCs are supposed to be able to do at a given level, note how much of that is assumed to come from inherent benefits and how much from equipment, and give some advice on the pros and cons of shifting the ratios.

~raises hand~


I second that idea.

 

[Altalazar]

~raises hand~


I second that idea.

We could also tie that into a chart of variances from that standard and label them as 'high' or 'low' magic, for further such discussion.

But why wait for WotC - we already know the GP value of items - someone here could probably whip something up rather easily.

 

[VirgilCaine]

Yes, exactly. However, even if the powerups come from somewhere else, the math of the situation is such that you have to deal with the fact that a 10th level person could likely defeat hundreds of 1st level people almost without trying. In a standard game it's fairly easy to say that your sword bounces off the overlapping "force fields" created by a ring of protection, bracers of armor, and amulet of natural armor. It's much harder to say "You seem to fail to hit the 10th level wizard because...well, he's high level."

Not always. In some flavors of magic, some amount of magical energy accumulating around a mage and being unconsciously used for protection by the magic-user is natural.

 

[Andor]

This is a good idea and one I've considered myself . . . but it runs smack into the problem that the game just dumps the wealth levels on the DM with little or no guidance as to how the game expects that wealth to be used in order to keep PCs at their proper "effective level".

What I've wanted for years, and hope to see at some point in the future (whether in a DMG III, some other supplement, or That Which Must Not Be Named ) is 'effects-based balance'. Tell the DM what PCs are supposed to be able to do at a given level, note how much of that is assumed to come from inherent benefits and how much from equipment, and give some advice on the pros and cons of shifting the ratios.

Matthew L. Martin

But... This is almost entirely campaign dependant. Aquatic/seafaring campaign? A significant portion of the parties abilities, or "power-ups" if you prefer, will be spent on water breathing, swimming and other means of coping with the marine enviroment. Vs the undead campaign? Ghost touch weapons and armour, means of coping with ability/level drain etc. Vs Demons campaign? Means of skirting DR, as well as means of tracking and detecting demons. Vs Dragons? Long range firepower, lot's of resistance stuff and a way to negate dragon fear.

The power-ups are how the party specializes itself to deal with the problems they are used to seeing. Conversely, if you as DM want to present terrain based challenges to your PC you should prevent them from getting flight items. However be aware that in doing so you reduce their ability to deal with flying foes.

This is why you will never see such a guideline, it's a dynamic process.

 

[Crothian]

I'm not quite certain how one should go about playing D&D if one doesn't go the obvious route.

There are rules for giving XP for things besides fighting. And the way to do that is go the unobvious way. It is harder and takes a bit more from the players and DM, but it is possible. THat's all I'm saying, you seem to think that it is impossible to play D&D any other way when that is so not true.

So, player's should pick worthless feats every level? Even the newest players will figure out very quickly how to maximize their skills and feats. Furthermore, the game prohibits flexibility and creativity in character design because it penalizes things like cross-class skills. So, if I had a concept of a fighter who likes to track his prey, and uses stealth, but a rogue isn't what I want, I'm going to get penalized for having a creative thought. So, you have to focus your character (i.e., maximize) into a very specific frame of reference. To create a bard that *isn't* an enchanting, manipulating specialist is to create something other than the class is designed to be, and he'll suffer in the long run by not playing on his advantages. That's maximizing.

Does the game only have powerful and worthlessf feats? I'm pretty sure there is a middle ground. And whats wrong with a tracking fightier that has survival ranks? Is he going to be as good as the Ranger? No, but he's still a tracking fighter and that's what the concept is. Skill don't have to be maxed out to be useful. And there are feats like Skill focus so if you really wanted the fighter to be able to track you'd take that. And the same for stealth. People seem to think that if its in the concept then their character has to be better at it then anyone else and that is simply not the case.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Doctors and lawyers make far more money than most people in our world, so why would people choose other professions?

Because both professions have a very strong and legally supported system of keeping people OUT of their profession. And even then, there's lots of people who know first aid, and EVERYONE is EXPECTED to know enough about the law to stay out of trouble in the first place.

If you apply this to magic and wizardry, this is the equivalent of having some huge proportion of the population knowing one or two zero level spells, and some people knowing a lot more, but not being allowed to cast magic in public, because then they could potentially get in trouble from magic's governing bodies.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

A label & chart for magic levels

How's this?

Ultra-High magic: >400% of DMG recommended levels
High magic: >200% of DMG recommended levels
Standard Magic: 100% of DMG recommended levels
Medium magic: >75% of DMG recommended levels
Low magic: >50% of DMG recommended levels
Mundane: < 50% of DMG recommended levels

 

[I'm A Banana]

Sure, you don't have to have magical items, so long as you have the equivalent in power, I can go along with that! For example, I gave the ranger IMC the ability to turn any weapon she wields into a holy weapon or an energy weapon. The barbarian can haste himself. This means -1 magical weapon (or more) and -1 boots of speed. As innate abilities, they're slightly more potent than one that's in an item they carry around, but I don't care. I also gave the entire party +2 Wisdom, so lets say -1 periapt of wisdom (honestly doesn't help everyone equally). I'm sure there are more that I'm forgetting.

That's what? 22k gp roundabout. Do that a few more times and you're good to go.

Absolutely. Making the powers inherent changes flavor, to make it feel more "low magic item" and "low wealth." It's actually what I prefer doing, myself (more because my campaigns advance way too fast to have the recommended treasure distribution make any sense). And I would say it's still D&D, because it changes nothin' but the look. It's a D&D skin, a D&D mod, but still D&D software at the core.

Yes, exactly. However, even if the powerups come from somewhere else, the math of the situation is such that you have to deal with the fact that a 10th level person could likely defeat hundreds of 1st level people almost without trying. In a standard game it's fairly easy to say that your sword bounces off the overlapping "force fields" created by a ring of protection, bracers of armor, and amulet of natural armor. It's much harder to say "You seem to fail to hit the 10th level wizard because...well, he's high level."

Well, it's all in how you describe it. Fer'instance, IMC, it varies. If they were facing off against a wicked necromancer with a "ring of deflection" kind of power, spectres would leap from his robes to chase aside your weapon, or he waves his hands and a human skull materializes, shocking you and deflecting the blade. If it's a "generic wizard," I might describe it as an eldritch shield, or a mere glance. An illusionist would use shadow and light to gain that deflection bonus, while an enchanter would simply overpower your base instinct -- you find yourself *unable* to strike such a lovely creature.

I'm pretty good at spur-of-the-moment type descriptions, though.

 

[Altalazar]

How's this?

Ultra-High magic: >400% of DMG recommended levels
High magic: >200% of DMG recommended levels
Standard Magic: 100% of DMG recommended levels
Medium magic: >75% of DMG recommended levels
Low magic: >50% of DMG recommended levels
Mundane: < 50% of DMG recommended levels

That's a good start, though I think it needs to go much lower. What I've seen labeled as "low magic" seems to be where it is in the 5-10% range (or less) - like with the 9th level party of six that had only two magic items in it total (would that be <1%?)

So we'd have:
25-50 % Very low magic
10-24 % Extreme low magic
<10% Almost no magic
<5% Basically zero magic

Then, since it is based on gp value, it is easy to calculate where you lie - just total up the gp value, averaged per person in the group, and compare it to the standard magic level, and now we have a common basis for conversation.