The Myth of the Necessity of Magic Items

[Seeten]

Don't think this means EVERY bad guy goes out and stock piles magic weapons. That is just a ridiculous assumption.

---Rusty

Its what YOU stated as fact. Since you made the statement, you cant refute it by calling it an assumption, assumption means he guessed at the source, where actual fact was not in evidence, whereas in this case, you stated what he repeated as FACT in your game. It was, in fact, your #1 point.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I've heard it argued that magic items are necessary to help fighters balance against wizards at upper levels. I don't buy it because there are also equal items for the wizard so how does that result in balance?

Economics helps answer this quandry: The law of diminishing marginal utility.

A wizard has lots of magic already; a bunch extra is a modest benefit.

A fight has no magic; even very little can be a big big boost, especially if carefully chosen.

Let's try a thought experiment...

DM: "Mr. Fighter finds Winged Boots and a Ring of Invisibility."
Fighter Player: "Hot dog! That is kewl loot!"
DM: "Mr. Wizard finds Winged Boots and a Ring of Invisibility."
Wizard Player: "<huff> I learned to cast those spells 5 levels ago and I have plenty of scrolls and wands. But I guess I could do worst. Maybe I can sell them..."
DM: "Um. You also find a +5 Dagger."
Wizard Player: "Wowwee. Now I can kill an orc in a single blow!....Just kidding. I can sell that for some really good cash."

 

[Darrell]

If you prefer free-form acting, I strongly recommend you to give a try a game that gives you ways to defines character outside of their combat abilities. You should also find that a "conflict resolution" system instead of a "task resolution" system will be better for your group.

A) D&D does define a character outside of combat abilities. All it means is that in my games, CHA and the 'non-combat' skills and feats see more use than they may in someone else's game.

B) Whether you call it 'conflict resolution' or 'task resolution,' it's still rolling dice to see if you can or cannot do something (unless you're talking about a 'diceless' system, in which case you should aim your arguments in another direction--my group isn't interested in diceless RPGs, and quite frankly, neither am I ).

That being said, I'm not bashing the D&D game here, I'm just saying that D&D is not the best game for everyone wanting to play a table-top role-playing game. Instead of arguing hours long that D&D isn't good at X or Y that D&D was never supposed to support, just give a try to something different.

Not the best for everyone? Agreed. It is, however, the best for my group, in that a) it's the system we choose to play, and b) it works just fine for our games. The fact of the matter is, my group doesn't want to play something different. They want to play Dungeons & Dragons (TM).

Part of it has to do with D&D (and d20, to widen the scope slightly) being the most prolific and supported system on the market. It isn't necessarily some festering evil to be the 'big dog in the yard.' We've tried other systems on occasion, but have always come back to D&D (in either edition). On those occasions when we've added a player to our group, it's been a lot easier to do so with D&D. If the 'new' player is an experienced RPGer, he already knows D&D, at least to some extent; and when the new player is a 'newbie' to RPGs, it's alot easier to get a handle on the system when everyone around you is able to help you learn, because they're experienced with the system.

Regards,
Darrell

 

[Remathilis]

Economics helps answer this quandary: The law of diminishing marginal utility.

A wizard has lots of magic already; a bunch extra is a modest benefit.

A fighter has no magic; even very little can be a big big boost, especially if carefully chosen.

True. Very true.

The thing people forget is they always compare fighter to wizard (opposite ends of the spectrum) but the other nine D&D classes fit into this paragrim...

In a game with few or no magical items (esp. low-powered ones)...

Sorcerer's do better than wizards: wizards need scrolls to improve their spellbooks, sorcerers do not. Without scrolls or other sources of magical learning, the wizard gets put at a disadvantage...

Paladins, rangers and barbarians trump the fighter. Each has an ability to boost their strength (rage, bull str) for more damage without needing gauntlets. BBns gain hit, damage, and hp, as well as some movement. Paladin's can make their weapon temporarily magical, and rangers get some ability to boost AC (barkskin). They can all take needed feats (power attack, etc), and they can wield any magical weapon they find. (probably better than the fighter, who is busy devoting himself to one weapon).

Monks also thrive in this environment; their AC scales with level, they get a free magic/lawful/adamantine weapon (doing up to 2d10 damage), SR, immunities, small healing, mobility, good saves, and even DR! Effectively, monks get everything a character with magical gear would eventually, but in a lesser form. And in the valley of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Of course, clerics and druids trump them all. Decent weapons, good AC, and full casting to boot. Bards don't do so bad for themselves either.

Who gets the shaft? Fighters and Rogues. Sure, a fighter has feats galore and rogues get trapfinding, but without magical backup, they cannot do what a cleric, monk or sorcerer can. Eventually, without any real magical backup, fighters and rogues cannot handle combats well (rogues die easy) and the casters do all the heavy lifting. (invisibility, true seeing, fireball) And how exactly is the game "low magic"?

Unless you remove or restructure all the other classes, the non-caster or non-magical classes drop below the radar very quickly and the casters (and bbn and mnk) become ascendant. Which to me strikes me a the OPPOSITE of the intention of a low-magic styled game.

 

[marune]

A) D&D does define a character outside of combat abilities. All it means is that in my games, CHA and the 'non-combat' skills and feats see more use than they may in someone else's game.

I was talking about thing like personality traits, backgrounds, special physical features or mannerism, etc, i.e. features that are fun to use while acting.

B) Whether you call it 'conflict resolution' or 'task resolution,' it's still rolling dice to see if you can or cannot do something (unless you're talking about a 'diceless' system, in which case you should aim your arguments in another direction--my group isn't interested in diceless RPGs, and quite frankly, neither am I ).

In a "conflict resolution" system you can still roll dices but 1) you roll less often and 2) both results (success, failure) must have interesting consequences.

In a "task resolution" system like D&D you have a skill like "Move silently" where you have to roll for each 30' moved, or skills like "Open lock" that can be repeated without consequences. Those are quite "realistic" of course, but you are losing precious time rolling for no real purpose.

I won't say that it's easy to make a group try a new RPG.

 

[DungeonMaester]

Its what YOU stated as fact. Since you made the statement, you cant refute it by calling it an assumption, assumption means he guessed at the source, where actual fact was not in evidence, whereas in this case, you stated what he repeated as FACT in your game. It was, in fact, your #1 point.

No, it was looking at the example of a Evil bad guy wizard Vrs the party. It was then taken out of that context and made into a million assumptions.

Even if we look at the out of context question of random creatures using magic weapons vrs party magic weapons, I would see a problem with that ether. Why would goblin swashbucklers want +1 rapier of wounding or bleeding? For the same reason a fighter would want a +3 flaming vorpal greatsword. Saying only the party should have magic weapons and not monsters/Bosses is like saying only the party should allowed to take feats and not monster/bosses.

The point I was making is in my campaign you don't need magic items to clean out a evil wizards castle. He would be just as tough in low magic setting then in he had a staff with fireballs and the party all had magic weapons, just in a different way.

---Rusty

 

[Thaniel]

I was talking about thing like personality traits, backgrounds, special physical features or mannerism, etc, i.e. features that are fun to use while acting.

Why do you need rules for determining personality traits? Those are what you think up on your own. If you can't, or won't, do that, then you're not interested in playing an RP-heavy game anyways. Those sorts of rules are IMHO counterintuitive.

In a "conflict resolution" system you can still roll dices but 1) you roll less often and 2) both results (success, failure) must have interesting consequences.

Where in the rulebooks does it say that successes and failures can't have interesting consequences. They always have had in any game I've ever played in. You make a roll, something is going to happen (or not happen, depending on what you're trying (or trying not) to do).

I won't say that it's easy to make a group try a new RPG.

Did you miss where he said his group was happy with D&D? This thread was not "How do I do this with D&D?" It was "We're doing this with D&D, why can't you?" At least that's how I saw it.

 

[Ace]

I have a feeling I know the answer to this, but yet I feel compelled to ask: doesn't that throw things like Feat Pre-reqs and Prestige Classes out the window? You could have Whirlwind Attack by 4th level or easily qualify for PrCs that normally have harsh cross-class requirements. (Dervish springs to mind...)

Secondly: do your NPCs follow these guidelines as well?

I tweak the PRC's a bit and rely only on BAB, spell or skill requirements.

feats don't worry me much as its one level ahead of the game -- no biggy

NPC' classes get the defense bonus and skills only -- I don't use Adept

NPC's using PC classes get the same as PC's do

 

[molonel]

1) By the time a players can afford A Etheral cape and a +3 greatsword and a Cloak of Resistance is about the time a the Wizard would be throwing up a Scrying spell and readying a charges on a staff of fireball. So..What exactly do you think you are arguing?

For the following reasons:

1. Scrying allows a Will save.
2. Not every foe my players face should be a high level wizard who knows their identities, and automatically scries them 24/7 to learn their plans.
3. If #2 occurs, it becomes awfully difficult to explain why the aforementioned wizard doesn't just pull a Scry-port and wipe the party off the face of the planet.
4. Detect Scry is also a 4th level spell.

2) Discrediting magic items in the game has been my stance through out the thread.

What a noble purpose. Good luck with that.

3) So is dieing. Yet even though players stock up on every class they can cross class into, and buy ever magic item they can afford, a 'un-ideal' Dm would give the bad guys powerful magic?

Enemies who always perfectly know your plans and have perfectly laid counteroffensives are not using "powerful magic." They are using a DM fiat that steps outside the possibilities of a simple 4th level spell.

I had a DM try to pull that crap one time, as an excuse to always have perfectly prepared counterplans to everything we did. That is, until I started memorizing at least two Detect Scrying spells a day, and keeping a battery of Dispel Magics available.

When that failed, my character would simply moon the scrying sensor or do other obscene things until it went away.

It's a narrative crutch, and a poor one at that.