The extreme proliferation of magic in D&D

[Aus_Snow]

when people start to say that, "Well the Fellowship didn't need a golf bag full of magic items." the simplest answer is, "Well, duhhh. Of course they didn't. Tolkein didn't bother to give them any because it wouldn't make sense in a novel."

As a (lesser) species of published writer - and as a voracious reader - I don't think that's the reason, at all.

To some extent, the system always dictates the setting. It has to.

I don't agree with this, either. This is why I love flexible, 'open' systems, or reinterpretations of systems that are not sufficiently so to begin with.

Unless you make massive adjustments to DnD, you require a fair level of magic in use.

Here, on the other hand, we are in accord.

Take away the magic weapons and, logically, wights and other undead should stomp all over your setting. Never mind other critters.

There are other ways and means. I refer here to "massive adjustments", and so forth.

Be careful not to confuse plot elements with setting elements.

I'm not sure that anyone else has, in this thread.

 

[Hussar]

To some extent, the system always dictates the setting. It has to.

I don't agree with this, either. This is why I love flexible, 'open' systems, or reinterpretations of systems that are not sufficiently so to begin with.

Well, actually, I think you illustrated my point quite nicely. 'Open' systems lack mechanics which dictate setting. DnD is most certainly not an open setting. My mistake was in a rather general statement, however, in the case of DnD it applies. If you have to strip, remove, tweak, bend or somehow revise the rules in order to make it open enough that it can encompass another setting, you're obviously playing a reinterpretation of a particular game. It's the same game, although heavily modified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
Be careful not to confuse plot elements with setting elements.

I'm not sure that anyone else has, in this thread.

Well, I've seen in the earlier posts how people were raising issues about how you cannot play DnD in a Conan setting or a Middle Earth setting without making large changes. The justification I saw was the proliferation of magical items. Conan doesn't hump around a bag full of potions, therefore, in a game where characters may do just that, you cannot get the "Conan feel".

My point is that magical items in novels are plot elements. Yes, they can be part of the setting, but, I'm talking about magical items that can be used by characters in the story. An author doesn't hand the protagonist a brilliantly glowing lumpy metal thing in chapter 6 and then go the rest of the book without the protagonist using that lumpy metal thing at least once to overcome some form of obstacle.

Magical items in novels are pure plot devices by and large. While some may exist as part of the setting, personal magical items are placed in novels as part of the plot. In the game, this is not true. Magical items are placed in the game as a reward for the players. The players choose whether or not to use the magical item, not the DM. Unless the DM wants to script out very, very carefully where each and every magical item he gives out is used, magical items cannot be a plot element. Sure, that shattered crystal of Nef is a plot device. But, that potion of Jump certainly isn't.

 

[Aaron L]

Sure, you could implement a sanity rule into D&D, but if you want to play horror, you should play CoC. That's all I'm saying.

Not hardly. I'll keep the nasty horror in my D&D games just the same as it's always been. You seem to have an extremely narrow view of what can be included in D&D.

 

[Steverooo]

I like the LOTR example. It somehow makes the magic swords, almost all of which are named, feel special and more magical because there aren't that many of them about. Notice also that there is only 1 "spellcaster" in the Fellowship, and he doesn't throw magic around very much.

There ARE plenty of magic weapons around, in LotR! In fact, there are SO MANY that the folks who made the barrows buried them with their dead, instead of keeping them for the living! Magic, in Middle Earth, however, is far less flashy than in D&D. Narcil/Anduril is magical, and, indeed, heavily enchanted, but you cannot tell it from the books or movie. Likewise, while many obviously magical things happen, Tolkien never says that anyone (save Gandalf and the Balrog) cast a spell.

I don't think we know how many magical items the Fellowship had. At the battle before the gates of Mordor, Aragorn dons maille. How would we know whether or not it's magical? It's not like it glows in the dark!

Also, the conversation with the Elves of Lothlorien, where Samwise is asking about the cloaks and his rope is very telling... The Elf doesn't understand what he means by "magic". Indeed, even Galadriel seems confused by the multiple Human uses of the word...

So Samwise's rope would, in D&D terms, be a Rope of Climbing. Were the caps and helms magical? What about all the gear they picked up in Rohan? How would you know?

Exactly! You wouldn't!

Also, Sting is more than just a mere +1 Shortsword... It detects Orcs, and glows when they're near. It also bears an inscription (mentioned in The Hobbit, I believe) which states something like "Maedhros is my name; I am the spider's bane", which is why it was so effective against the giant spiders of Mirkwood, in that book, and later both Shelob's webs, and herself, in later volumes.

Also forgotten are that both Orcrist and Glamdring have the detecting and Bane powers (detecting isn't in the basic rules set, but I've seen it elsewhere). Assuming all the "PCs'" armour is +1 or more helps to show that the Fellowship isn't as underpowered as might first appear...

Look at the Phial of Galadriel, for instance... Just a weak light, you say? Not so! If nothing else, it was an at-will light source, a scrying focus for Galadriel to keep an eye on Sam & Frodo (and at one point, Sam wishes for just a sip of water, and clouds roll in from the WEST, over the mountains, and it DOES rain!). It is also the ONLY way through both the guardian-statue-thing at the orc tower, AND the pits of Shelob... and I can make a case that it also inspired Samwise with courage on SEVERAL occasions!

Sorry, I see this as so much more than a mere Sometimes-burning Torch!

So, how well equipped were the Fellowship? The truth is, we'll never know! People can't even agree on whether or not most of them even cast spells! (I can make a case for almost every member, except the Hobbits, using spells).

If you want a similar style of D&D, name your magical weapons, and inscribe them (the latter, at least, is already in the rules)! Give Bards the chance to use their knowledge to recognize such things. Make items that have specific special uses, like the Phial, instead of "stock" magic items! Give EVERYTHING a more unique magical flavor! No more "+1 sword that we got off the troll", but "Glamdring, Hammer of Foes, forged in ancient Gondolin, for the Goblin Wars"! +1 Detection & Bane weapon, or whatever... It's much more interesting!

Tolkien even goes so far as to name and give a special history to POTIONS, for crying out loud! Gandalf's Miruvor is, in D&D terms, an old Potion of Endurance (if I'm getting the name right), which dispels fatigue/exhaustion, and removes poisons during its period of efficacy!

And Gandalf's staff? What powers did it have? Do we know?

No. Not really. He certainly had other powers of protection, at least, that we don't know about... He went toe-to-toe with a Balrog for many, many days, before finally slaying it... Even a D&D Wizard with a Staff of the Magi and a full compliment of spells would find that hard to do... and he DID make a Retributive strike, on the bridge of Khazad-Dum!

So, in short, the LotR magic level is much higher (and generally less flashy!) than most people think. In Middle Earth, Tolkien runs with the rule that "Knowledge is Power", and doesn't call attention to "magic", as it is just "learning", in his world...

 

[Steverooo]

A clever aphorism, but a non-sequitur nonetheless.

This goes to the point that Wombat made earlier: if you don't play with the default levels of magic built into the assumptions and structure of the game, you're not playing D&D.

However, the game itself encourages GMs to personalize their campaigns - that it simultaneously makes that challenging to do is one of the weaknesses of D&D, IMHO. This is what the analogy of Star Trek and westerns misses: the technology and firepower with which magic is equated are specific to these "settings," whereas D&D bills itself as a tool for building a variety of settings.

Uzis in Boot Hill, or M-16s with full-auto and rifle-integral grenade-launchers, for instance. MOST GMs would balk. Slaver-weapons in Star Trek, the RPG? Again, most GMs would say "No!"

Many GMs would like to run lower-magic games, without having to re-write the rules, or compile tables of which creatures they CAN'T use, because they have something like "DR 15/Magic & Silver", while the PCs have no magic weapons, for instance.

Still possible, yes, but much harder to do. Many GMs would like this to be easier to accomplish.

Without magic, most PCs operate at about CR (Level-4), or so. Much work could be done to help fix this, but that's the problem: Much work!

Barbarians, Druids, Rangers, and Rogues with the ability to set simple bow/crossbow, deadfalls, limb-traps, nets, pits, and snares, for example. The current Trapmaking rules don't allow for this. Instead, Rangers get use of the Entangle and Snare spells, instead.

Indeed, IMHO, abilities is the way to go. Some things can't be done that way, though. Spider-climb, for example.

 

[Wombat]

Wow, I've never seen my named evoked so often in a thread!

After reading through all the posts here this morning (yep, from the beginning), I think part of the question comes down to a level of base perception -- what are you trying to model in your rpg?

Here is one overly simplistic dichotomy:

Several people, myself included, are trying to run games based on generalized notions taken from novels and myths, most if not all of which are either non- or pre-D&D in their settings and origins. Such books, as has been pointed out, do not detail a lot of magical items or even magical spells. As such we tend to find the number of magical items and spells in D&D to be rather heavy handed.

A number of other people, however, talk in terms of video/computer games. In these it is quite expected that you will run across a lot of small boosts all the time, whether they be elixirs, magic weapons, bonus coins, or whathaveyou. As such there would be strong expectation that the rpg should include lots of magical items to gain as power-ups.

Of course this may also be a cart-and-horse situation, in that it may be that D&D affected what people expected to find and the computer/video games matched the rpg in the first place, but I'll leave that for later arguments...

The point is this: depending on what your baseline expectations are, D&D is either perfectly in line with what you want/expect in terms of magical power or it is over done. Same game, massively different expectations. This is why I tell people I play D20, but not D&D. I don't use the RAW because they bother me. I don't really look upon the D20 rules, especially as written, as a great set of generic rules, but they are popular so a lot of us do a large amount of tinkering with the rules because it is often easier to tweak the rules and draw players in to the game than to try and use an entirely different set of rules and not be able to find players. Definitely in my case it was a matter of "gaming survival" that pushed me into playing D&D 3.0, which quickly became a different sort of game under my merciless house rulings. Thus I have attempted to force the rules into the setting, rather than find the right set of rules for the setting simply because, with such a brand-name conscious society, it was the easiest way to attract players and keep gaming.

 

[Steverooo]

Really, what harm would there be in every town guard armed with a +1 Sword (something I've never actually seen in any of the highest magic games I've played in)? In the end, it is just a sword that is very slightly better at hurting things than an ordinary sword and no better at hurting things than a well crafted normal sword. Would it make a difference if you said there were no magic swords, just five levels of masterwork blades, made of progressively rarer materials and rarer-talented blacksmiths? The game world mechanic effect would be identical. As someone already stated, he found a huge difference in a bunch of masterwork blades and +1 blades, even though game-balance wise, they are IDENTICAL.

Masterwork = +1 "To-Hit", +0 to damage. Magic = +X "To-Hit" AND damage, plus the bypassing of DR X/Magic. These effects are NOT identical, obviously.

Myself, I use a system of Non-magical +X weapons (+1 and +2 made of steel or other common materials, +3 and better of rarer materials). They are also CHEAPER than the 1,300 GP + Base Weapon Cost of 3/3.5e, as well (at least for the lower ones). I still basically use a re-vamp of the 1e rules, on this...

 

[ssampier]

I LIKE powerful beasties

As a DM, magic makes things more difficult to plan since PCs can always foil your plans. I think it forces you to be more creative to stay one-step ahead.

Besides, I like the idea of using D&D iconic monsters such as beholders, displacer beasts, or the old chestnut, dragons.

That is not to say "low magic" doesn't have its appeal. I especially like the idea of Iron Heroes low-magic, high power paradigm.

 

[molonel]

The Nine Walkers have the following equipment that is in any way special:

* Gandalf has his staff and the magical sword Glamdring.
* Strider has the magical sword Anduril, and later acquires the Elessar (a magical gem of unknown function) and a cloak of Elvenkind.
* Boromir has a sword (possibly magical, but not very) and an heirloom horn (possibly magical). He acquires a golden belt and a cloak of Elvenkind.
* Legolas has an shortbow and a dagger. He later acquires a longbow (possibly magical) and a cloak of Elvenkind.
* Gimli has an axe, helmet, and mail shirt (of dwarvish manufacture, but probably not magical). He acquires a cloak of Elvenkind and three strands of hair.
* Frodo has the Great Ring of Power (which he uses as a ring of invisibility), Sting (a magical shortsword), and a mithril mail shirt. He acquires a phial that will glow on command and a cloak of Elvenkind.
* Merry and Pippin have magical shortswords, but their powers don't seem particularly great except against the undead. They acquired cloaks of Elvenkind and silver belts.
* Sam has a magical shortsword like Merry's and Pippins, a collection of perfectly ordinary cooking pots, and a box of salt. He later acquires a cloak of Elvenkind, a box of superphosphate, and a seed.

You're missing a few things.

Merry and Pippin gained, in D&D terms, inherent bonuses to strength and constitution from the water they drank at Treebeard's home. They probably even gained a size category bump, from small to medium.

Gandalf also had Narya, one of the three elven rings of power.

The Light of the star Eärendil also seems to be a holy item from which Shelob withdrew or suffered harm.

We once did a breakdown of all the items that could POSSIBLY be magical or better than average. Most D&D items are minor, and of little consequence. Maybe, in D&D terms, the armor and weapons that Pippin received from Denethor were +1 or +2.

So they aren't as underequipped as you are saying, especially since several of the listed items - Glamdring, Anduril, the rings of power - are artifact-level items.