The Myth of the Necessity of Magic Items

[Quasqueton]

My old AD&D1 campaign was magic rare. Magic items were truly rare -- a party might have one or two among them by 10th level -- but they were more powerful -- more than just a + or single ability. And since our combat ran in segments instead of rounds, casting spells took multiple "rounds" to cast -- fireball had a 3 segment casting time, so it took 3 "rounds" to cast. [This house rule was actually a misunderstanding of the segment-round-casting time rules at first, but later, after I understood the mistake, I kept it for the flavor it had created.] So spellcasters were rarer by effect (in theory). (Ironically, PC spellcasters were not really rarer -- there was still always a magic-user and cleric in the parties.)

I allowed "masterwork" items at x20 price for +1, and x40 price for +2 -- but this was just for mechanical bonuses, not for "DR".

Creatures with "DR" were rare to non-existent -- lycanthropes were fairy tales/horror stories, undead were restricted to their haunts, and demons and devils were not usually found on the [Prime] Material Plane.

But, my AD&D1 campaigns never really went above ~8th level, so I don't know what the effect would have been at high level campaign play.

I see no reason why low-magic wouldn't work in a regular D&D3 game. The DM can/should remove the item creation feats from the game. The DM has control over what creatures are encountered, so that wouldn't be an issue. And he just needs to be aware to keep the ELs lower for parties with little or no magic items.

That's the great thing about the CR system -- it gives you the baseline estimate, so you can judge the deviation for your game.

A side effect of lower EL for the party level would also mean the party would get less xp for a challenging fight, and therefore would level up slower. This is either a good thing to the DM, or he can adjust the xp awards up to keep the leveling rate the same as a baseline game.

Quasqueton

 

[Li Shenron]

Since I never tried myself, I can only tell what are my fears about doing it...

First, I think that lots of monsters who don't use equipment at all actually have some in-built abilities to make up for it. For example, I *suppose* that such a monster has higher Strength compared to an NPC which could normally own a +X sword and a +Y str-boosting item.

My opinion about this is that monsters who do use equipment (but won't have magical equipment in this campaign) should probably have the same CR as before, but the others should be kept under check, because the PC/NPC are going to have lower attack bonuses AND lower AC, but not the monsters who depend solely on their own stats.

Second, perhaps the only thing which looks truly dire to me is DR. But of course, in a world where magic weapons don't exist, so DR/magic shouldn't exist either. DR/material should be quite the same as before instead.

Other things on my mind:
- saves: maybe magic items are generally more oriented to boost someone's saves rather than spells/SLA's DC, so lack of magic items could make spells slightly more effective than before, but I'm not sure
- skills: there are items which boost certain skills a lot... without them it won't be possible anymore to beat some superheroes-like DCs. However I don't think this is a big issue, because skill ranks increase anyway all the time
- healing: no healing potions at all could affect the game a lot especially at low levels, although low-magic doesn't necessarily mean that you cannot still have healing potions

 

[Darrell]

The latter statement is a nice sentiment, but only if you consider DM fiat or jawing with the innkeeper "interesting."

"DM fiat" in what way? Our style of play was a mutual decision, not mine alone, and the new players who have joined since we began have had no problem with it. I'm hardly 'imposing my will' on the group. We do, by the way, consider 'jawing with the innkeeper (or the captain of the guard, baron, etc.)' to be interesting.

Frodo was an interesting character in a book, but I'd absolutely hate to play him in a D&D game: "You run, you hide, you get your butt kicked, you run some more, you hide some more. Oh look! Mt. Doom is a hundred miles across the plains. Are you ready to run and hide some more?"

You don't have to play a 'Frodo-ish' character, but the person sitting next to you at the game table may very well want to do so.

Character power is not just combat. It is the ability to influence the game and events in the game with your character's abilities.

They've never had any problem 'influenc(ing) the game and events in the game' without having a frag-load of magic items. The character's actions 'speak louder than words' in that regard; and said actions don't necessarily need to be performed with a +25 holy keen vorpal longsword of bloody-ugly monster slaying. Removing uber-items from the campaign does not keep someone from playing a heroic character.

I'm not going to play a wizard with a 12 Intelligence and an 18 Strength just because it's "interesting."

Looking about me, I can't spot anyone who ever asked you to do so. In my games, you're free to play whatever type of character you want (within the game framework, of course--no warforged in Greyhawk, for example). Don't expect me, however, to refuse to let the next player have a 12 INT/10 STR wizard just because you don't like it.

In addition, let me just clear something up: I've not been talking about a "low-magic" campaign; just a "low-magic-item" campaign. That's the kind of campaign I tend to run. If you were here, and we were talking about your joining my campaign, I would make that clear. If you then decided you didn't like that style of play, I would suggest a few other groups in the area.

Regards,
Darrell

 

[Darrell]

Yes, but you also believe balance is an illusion.

Nope, that's the other guy. I believe balance is unnecessary.

Regards,
Darrell

 

[hong]

Nope, that's the other guy. I believe balance is unnecessary.

Regards,
Darrell

Yes, but you also believe balance is unnecessary.

 

[Remathilis]

So the NPC needs gear to be a credible threat, but if you give him too much gear, he's a toy store?

And people wonder why I object to magic item proliferation in D&D.

*goes scuttling back over to Iron Heroes.*

And that these things have to be hand waved due to such metagame reasons rather than follow some sort of ingame consistancy, I find to be bad design or at least following different design criteria that I want in my D&D. So now you've got 15th levels and 15th level Elites wihtout every designating them as such. What happens if you end up with two PC groups in a PvP session? Proper CR determination? XP? Nevermind that this happens with monsters also as dragons tend to be elite types because they were designed to be extra hard for their CR. What's the point of a CR system if it doesn't work? Should have just stuck with static XP like 1/2E.

I think that goes back to the idea that the PCs, barring bad dice rolls or incredibly stupid tactical decisions, the PCs are going to win an encounter. Think about it...

* PCs, by the nature of them being PCs, see manyfold the number of combat than any specific NPC sees. They get the better share of the loot from these combat because they've done more and expected to do more.
* NPCs come in three flavors: Non-aggressive, Aggressive, and Plot-device. It doesn't matter how much treasure a Non-aggressive NPC has (the sage identifying your magical gear could have a sphere of annihilation, but since he's not a threat, it doesn't matter). Plot-device NPCs have as much treasure as the DM needs to get him to drive the plot, since he's going to survive (usually) it doesn't matter. That only leaves aggressive NPCs (city guards, high level mercs, bad-guy lieutenants) to worry about.
* THE GAME IS SUPPOSED TO REVOLVE AROUND THE PCS. Otherwise, write a novel.
* Because the game assumes the same PCs will be there from levels 1-20 (barring again, the occasional death) the goal was not to flood the PCs with gear every time they fought a solider, orc, or wizard, since they are likely to fight many of them over the course of their career.

I guess none of this counts for cohorts, DMPCs, or really sadistic DMs who tend to kill PCs willy-nilly, but for the majority of D&D games, the above is fairly accurate.

There are a lot of balance issues within D&D, but the inequality of loot between a PC and a NPC is NOT a serious one, IMHO.

 

[molonel]

"DM fiat" in what way? Our style of play was a mutual decision, not mine alone, and the new players who have joined since we began have had no problem with it. I'm hardly 'imposing my will' on the group. We do, by the way, consider 'jawing with the innkeeper (or the captain of the guard, baron, etc.)' to be interesting.

By DM fiat, I mean that combat - for example - somehow magically sculpts itself so that fireballs go off but don't engulf the 1st level nobody. Big bad trolls will go for the main fighter instead of the tag-along rookie. I've played in games like that, and it was silly. And it becomes almost inevitable because the damage being handed out in combat would have toasted anyone in a single round with less than 20 or 30 hit points.

Combat is only one example, but it makes my point the most easily. You can take almost any skill usage: trap detection, diplomacy, intimidation, hide, move silently or anything that scales in difficulty against the party. The more experienced players will make the checks easily. The lower level guys will generally be toast unless the DM tosses them a bone.

I never said you imposed it on your gaming group. I meant something else. I hope this clarifies that.

You don't have to play a 'Frodo-ish' character, but the person sitting next to you at the game table may very well want to do so.

I'd say, in my experience - and that's all I can talk about - 99.9% of the people I've played with would prefer to play an action character like Legolas or Gimli or Aragorn than Frodo in a longterm game.

They've never had any problem 'influenc(ing) the game and events in the game' without having a frag-load of magic items. The character's actions 'speak louder than words' in that regard; and said actions don't necessarily need to be performed with a +25 holy keen vorpal longsword of bloody-ugly monster slaying. Removing uber-items from the campaign does not keep someone from playing a heroic character.

I run two low-magic games right now, and play in a third, so we can put this particular red herring to rest. My point here is about large level disparities, not magic gear.

Looking about me, I can't spot anyone who ever asked you to do so. In my games, you're free to play whatever type of character you want (within the game framework, of course--no warforged in Greyhawk, for example). Don't expect me, however, to refuse to let the next player have a 12 INT/10 STR wizard just because you don't like it.

I think you need to chill out.

My point is simply that playing ineffective characters is not superior roleplaying, or somehow reaching a higher level of zen than us mere mortals can imagine.

I didn't say a 12 Int/10 Str wizard, by the way. I said 12/18.

 

[Darrell]

By DM fiat, I mean that combat - for example - somehow magically sculpts itself so that fireballs go off but don't engulf the 1st level nobody. Big bad trolls will go for the main fighter instead of the tag-along rookie. I've played in games like that, and it was silly. And it becomes almost inevitable because the damage being handed out in combat would have toasted anyone in a single round with less than 20 or 30 hit points.

Combat is only one example, but it makes my point the most easily. You can take almost any skill usage: trap detection, diplomacy, intimidation, hide, move silently or anything that scales in difficulty against the party. The more experienced players will make the checks easily. The lower level guys will generally be toast unless the DM tosses them a bone.

OK, I kind of see what you mean, and I think that kind of game is silly, too. I just don't handle things that way, and I don't think it's 'inevitable,' either. In my games, that fireball will engulf whoever happens to be in its area of effect, and the big, bad troll will go after whomever is swinging a sword or torch at it, regardless of that character's level. Though I will note that, in a first-level party, there is very little difference, hp-wise and AC-wise between that 1st-level 'nobody' Commoner and a 1st-level wizard. What's more, just because a character is a Commoner doesn't means that he's necessarily a 'nobody.' The character I mentioned previously ended up a 12th-level Commoner, and retired from adventuring to run an inn when the player moved away. He's a recurring NPC in my campaign, now.

I never said you imposed it on your gaming group. I meant something else. I hope this clarifies that.

OK. It kind of sounded that way. Probably viewscreen-to-brain translation problems.

I'd say, in my experience - and that's all I can talk about - 99.9% of the people I've played with would prefer to play an action character like Legolas or Gimli or Aragorn than Frodo in a longterm game.

I'd counter with the argument that it's not impossible for a 'Frodo' to become an action character...especially in a long-term game.

I run two low-magic games right now, and play in a third, so we can put this particular red herring to rest. My point here is about large level disparities, not magic gear.

But the discussion was talking about the absence of magic gear. In my experience, level disparity between a Commoner and Fighter and a Wizard isn't that vast, even as they rise in level. The Commoner's player can build his character during play just like everyone else, including through multi-classing (though the player in my campaign never did so).

I think you need to chill out.

My point is simply that playing ineffective characters is not superior roleplaying, or somehow reaching a higher level of zen than us mere mortals can imagine.

Sorry, I think I missed a smiley in there somewhere; I didn't mean to come off as particularly antagonistic.

My point isn't that it's 'superior roleplaying' or any of that rot. My point is that those characters aren't 'ineffective.' In fact, they can often be the 'highlight' characters of a campaign.

I didn't say a 12 Int/10 Str wizard, by the way. I said 12/18.

Sorry. Typo. My bad.

Regards,
Darrell

 

[molonel]

OK, I kind of see what you mean, and I think that kind of game is silly, too. I just don't handle things that way, and I don't think it's 'inevitable,' either. In my games, that fireball will engulf whoever happens to be in its area of effect, and the big, bad troll will go after whomever is swinging a sword or torch at it, regardless of that character's level. Though I will note that, in a first-level party, there is very little difference, hp-wise and AC-wise between that 1st-level 'nobody' Commoner and a 1st-level wizard. What's more, just because a character is a Commoner doesn't means that he's necessarily a 'nobody.' The character I mentioned previously ended up a 12th-level Commoner, and retired from adventuring to run an inn when the player moved away. He's a recurring NPC in my campaign, now.

Well, then my hat is off to him:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/commoner.htm

If you can play a character with a wizard's hit dice, a wizard's BAB, no good saves, a fighter's skill points, no proficiencies in any armor or shield, one simple weapon and no special abilities in a low-magic or no-magic game, rock on.

That would absolutely bore me to death, though.

OK. It kind of sounded that way. Probably viewscreen-to-brain translation problems.

Or I simply communicated myself badly. God knows, it happens enough.

I'd counter with the argument that it's not impossible for a 'Frodo' to become an action character...especially in a long-term game.

Sure. That's what Merry and Pippin did in the books. It's possible. But only when they were removed from what would translate into the higher level PCs: Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas. While the higher level PCs were there - although I hate translating books into game terms, generally - it's extremely difficult, and to me not very rewarding, to always stand in the shadow of such folks.

But the discussion was talking about the absence of magic gear. In my experience, level disparity between a Commoner and Fighter and a Wizard isn't that vast, even as they rise in level. The Commoner's player can build his character during play just like everyone else, including through multi-classing (though the player in my campaign never did so).

The discusison has ranged across several levels, and the post I originally responded to had to do with "mechanical balance" and being equal to the rest of the party. I chose my example specifically to talk about level disparity, because the whole "game balance is a myth" argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

In my opinion, naturally.

Sorry, I think I missed a smiley in there somewhere; I didn't mean to come off as particularly antagonistic.

No worries.

My point isn't that it's 'superior roleplaying' or any of that rot. My point is that those characters aren't 'ineffective.' In fact, they can often be the 'highlight' characters of a campaign.

Possibly. In my games, however, I'd rather hand people a roughly equal amount of resources and then allow them to make the decisions.

 

[Darrell]

Sure. That's what Merry and Pippin did in the books. It's possible. But only when they were removed from what would translate into the higher level PCs: Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas. While the higher level PCs were there - although I hate translating books into game terms, generally - it's extremely difficult, and to me not very rewarding, to always stand in the shadow of such folks.

In my experience, gaming-wise (which, admittedly, may be an anomaly), those characters aren't 'in the shadow of' the other characters. They've stood on their own and made their own contributions to both the party and the game. The Commoner character became the driving force behind the party, and (in keeping with the way the player played him) still maintains an active role in behind-the-scenes city politics to this day, as well as keeping a hand in the 'backstage' activities of the current adventuring party (who are figurative descendants of his own adventuring company).

The discusison has ranged across several levels, and the post I originally responded to had to do with "mechanical balance" and being equal to the rest of the party. I chose my example specifically to talk about level disparity, because the whole "game balance is a myth" argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

In my opinion, naturally.

In my defense, I've never said that game-mechanic balance was a 'myth,' only that I don't consider it particularly important.

Possibly. In my games, however, I'd rather hand people a roughly equal amount of resources and then allow them to make the decisions.

Each of the characters I've mentioned came about as the result of the player's choices, not my own. They did make the decisions, although I will allow that knowing they weren't going to be hampered by creating/obtaining uber-equipment (or by enemies possessing such equipment when they did not) may have influenced some of those decisions in some way.

Regards,
Darrell