The Myth of the Necessity of Magic Items

[molonel]

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).

You're the only expert here on your game, or how it runs. I can't speak to that.

In my experience - and no, I'm not talking about min-maxed powergaming unrestrained munchkinfests - character abilities are an enhancement to roleplaying, and not a detriment. Someone who plays a Commoner in a low magic game is pretty much telling me, as a DM, that I'm going to have to NEED to give them stagetime in a big, BIG way, because they literally can't do anything EXCEPT roleplay. They have the worst of everything, and nothing to compensate.

In your game, it worked. I absolutely believe that. If it were me, though, my first reaction if someone said they wanted to play a Commoner would be to roll my eyes. I've seen people play characters like that, and I've seen them grow bored while other people are casting spells and using skills.

I'm not just talking about combat, either. I mean at every level of the game.

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.

You know, I've been playing 3rd Edition D&D since it came out, and I don't know what you mean by "uber-equipment." You mentioned - jokingly, I assume - the +25 holy keen vorpal longsword of bloody-ugly monster slaying. But you really can't be serious about that.

In a low-magic game, I would care MUCH more about spellcasters than I would care about magic items. I mean, let's face it. D&D up until about 5th or 6th level is a low magic game, anyway, from the perspective of magic items.

In the low magic games I run, and play in, the general rules we have adopted is to cut wealth by anywhere from 25 to 50%. Then we remove permanent stat enhancing items, whether enhancment (gloves or belts or headbands) or inherent (tomes or wishes), and we give everyone a feat at every odd level and a stat bump at every even level.

I've played up to 35th and 40th level, and frankly, I haven't seen a lot of uber equipment. The pricing for epic items is borked, anyway, but I won't go into that, here. Generally, most of the glittery stuff at high levels is stat-enhancing gear: +6 to strength and +6 to wisdom and +6 to constitution. At epic, those start creeping up to +8 and +10. On melee types, a lot of resources go into weapons and armor. On wizards, spellbooks and epic spells.

Yes, it powers up your character. But is it "uber"?

But, for whatever reason, anything bigger than a +1 dagger is seriously rare.

What level do you play to, generally?

 

[hong]

LOL!

Well, you know, when much of the enjoyment in the game is derived from activities to which game mechanics don't apply (freeform yakking between commoners and innkeepers for example), it's not surprising that the balancing mechanisms of the ruleset also become less important....

 

[Shazman]

Well, you know, when much of the enjoyment in the game is derived from activities to which game mechanics don't apply (freeform yakking between commoners and innkeepers for example), it's not surprising that the balancing mechanisms of the ruleset also become less important....

Yeah, some people might like that, but I just don't get it. If you are just going to sit around and yak (and that's pretty much all a commoner can do), why have stats or use dice at all? You might as well just hang out with your friends and talk. Just my 2 coppers.

 

[marune]

Yes, but you also believe balance is unnecessary.

"Fire-power balance" is of course unnecessary in many role-playing games, but the "Spot-light balance" is not.

Because in the D&D game, combat is the major focus of the system (rules) the "fire-power balance" often translate directly to "Spot-light balance".

 

[marune]

Yeah, some people might like that, but I just don't get it. If you are just going to sit around and yak (and that's pretty much all a commoner can do), why have stats or use dice at all? You might as well just hang out with your friends and talk. Just my 2 coppers.

At some point, it's no more a game but some free-form acting. There is no problem with that, but you are clearly no more playing D&D.

 

[NilesB]

I played in a SR game recently where the group did this; everybody had to have the extra 6 dice gear, and really, all that does is make the GM have to run encounters 6 dice tougher (so to speak). The level of challenge is always going to be relatively constant. In a high magic item game, the GM will have to run the party through higher EL encounters, in a low magic item game the ELs will be a little lower. I consider it a "Season to Taste" issue.

This would be more pertinent if all characters were equally affected by the loss of magic items. A cleric has no magic weapon, there's a magic weapon spell. No magic armor, magic vestment spell. No belt of giants strength, Bulls Strength. No cloak of resistance, Resistance. Depending on these spells will reduce their adventuring endurance and increase their vulnerability to ambushes over a properly equipped character, but it's nothing like having to do without.

Not to mention that the CR system assumes that by high level all PC's will have certain capabilities that only come from magic, for example a 15th level party is assumed to be able to fly. Some PCs can provide for themselves with spells, but others without magic items will simply have to do without. Do without meaning in this case sit on their hands unable to contribute and/or die very quickly.

 

[Emirikol]

Originally Posted by Doghead Thirteen : "But, for whatever reason, anything bigger than a +1 dagger is seriously rare."

I think that sets a bad precident. If magic exists in any world, it should be "for a purpose" or not. I think a +1 dagger doesn't have a big enough purpose for a DM to waste his time on to create a 'background.'

If there's going to be magic weapons, what were they "really" created for? Were they created to slay monsters that can be hit only by magic weapons? OR were they created to twink out the fighter in the wizard's party?

That doesn't mean that a DM needs to spend 45 minutes creating a background for every weapon, but there should be some logic about why wizards in your D&D world might be making such items (or not..if you do play a lower magic world).

I think that the lower magic DM's such as myself need to bear the burden of why wizard's AREN'T just slaving away to twink out fighters, such as in super-high magic games such as FR or GH or Ebb. The players probably deserve that explanation better that what we typically give them.

Thoughts?

jh





..

 

[molonel]

Originally Posted by Doghead Thirteen : "But, for whatever reason, anything bigger than a +1 dagger is seriously rare." I think that sets a bad precident. If magic exists in any world, it should be "for a purpose" or not. I think a +1 dagger doesn't have a big enough purpose for a DM to waste his time on to create a 'background.' If there's going to be magic weapons, what were they "really" created for? Were they created to slay monsters that can be hit only by magic weapons? OR were they created to twink out the fighter in the wizard's party? That doesn't mean that a DM needs to spend 45 minutes creating a background for every weapon, but there should be some logic about why wizards in your D&D world might be making such items (or not..if you do play a lower magic world). I think that the lower magic DM's such as myself need to bear the burden of why wizard's AREN'T just slaving away to twink out fighters, such as in super-high magic games such as FR or GH or Ebb. The players probably deserve that explanation better that what we typically give them. Thoughts?

I don't think players need an explanation so much as a compensation. When I run or play in low magic or no magic games, I do so because of flavor. I do so because there is an edge or a feeling I'm going for in the game. Overall, I'd describe it using Stephen Schubert's phrase, "It's you, not your gear."

I love 3rd Edition D&D. It's my favorite edition of the game so far. But like 1st Edition, to a certain extent (I don't have as much experience with 2nd Edition, because it killed the game for me), I feel like the heroes aren't really heroes without their gear. To a certain degree, I think magic items SHOULD define a character. Aragorn was more himself with Narsil. Thor had his hammer. Odin had his spear.

But I've seen high level or epic level heroes in a dead magic zone, and it's comparable to turning off a light switch. It's like ... suddenly they're Superman in the presence of Kryptonite. They stop being heroes and start being chumps.

I don't like that. It's a personal thing. I'm not saying that particular flavor is a worse game, or a better one. But it's not the game I want to play.

I like the fact that Conan was still Conan whether he was in a loincloth with a poniard, or decked in chainmail with a full helm, a shield and the Phoenix Sword on his hip.

That's the flavor I lean toward, more. If I take something away, like magical goodies, it's because I want to replace it with something which, to me, is better.

 

[ruleslawyer]

This, of course, is why I like Iron Heroes. What other d20 game allows a berserker to out-damage his colleagues by wielding an oar as a double weapon?

I do like "iconic" magic items, but I really hate them as "required" gear. (And, I too must disagree with the OP that it's "easy" to pull them out of the game without radically altering play.) IH gives me a baseline to which I can occasionally add one or two items (think Anduril or Orcrist) for a specific set of purposes rather than to bring PCs' attack or damage bonuses to a needed par.

 

[Choranzanus]

Originally Posted by Doghead Thirteen : "But, for whatever reason, anything bigger than a +1 dagger is seriously rare."

I think that sets a bad precident. If magic exists in any world, it should be "for a purpose" or not. I think a +1 dagger doesn't have a big enough purpose for a DM to waste his time on to create a 'background.'

If there's going to be magic weapons, what were they "really" created for? Were they created to slay monsters that can be hit only by magic weapons? OR were they created to twink out the fighter in the wizard's party?

That doesn't mean that a DM needs to spend 45 minutes creating a background for every weapon, but there should be some logic about why wizards in your D&D world might be making such items (or not..if you do play a lower magic world).

I think that the lower magic DM's such as myself need to bear the burden of why wizard's AREN'T just slaving away to twink out fighters, such as in super-high magic games such as FR or GH or Ebb. The players probably deserve that explanation better that what we typically give them.

Thoughts?

jh
..

If you want to know what magic items would actually be created just watch a party that really takes those item creation feats and uses them (and they cooperate, among other things because effective item creation badly needs party cooperation).

This unfortunately, also reveals how unbalanced the item creation and costs are-item creation rules are among the worst in core rules, IMHO.

Magic weapons are built either by clerics, duskblades, bards.... or for money, or perhaps simply out of friendship.
However, nobody will ever make a +1 dagger...