The Myth of the Necessity of Magic Items

[Holy Bovine]

DPS = an MMORPG term for "damage per second", usually the forte of melee classes.

OMFG! I was right??!?!?!!

 

[Holy Bovine]

The house rules are very short:
1. All 'magical' classes must be paired up with a non-magical class per 5 levels (e.g. Fighter 1st/wizard 4)
2. Certain spells are knocked up one level (e.g. fly, invisibility, and some spells I know players can find more interesting versions of in those other books everyone owns)

That's it actually. That's not what I consider "very heavy house rules."

jh



..

So none ever gets 9th level spells (or 8th? I think since they would be limited to 15 levels of a spellcasting class) and some of the more powerful low level spells get bumped up a level (I'm sure that is not a short list). That is actually quite a major shift in power as a lot of people feel 8th level spells and up are where wizards get their major power boost over fighter types.

 

[green slime]

So none ever gets 9th level spells (or 8th? I think since they would be limited to 15 levels of a spellcasting class) and some of the more powerful low level spells get bumped up a level (I'm sure that is not a short list). That is actually quite a major shift in power as a lot of people feel 8th level spells and up are where wizards get their major power boost over fighter types.

No 9th level spells, is what I think he is saying, as the class would have to be matched up 4:16. (If I understood Emrikol's statement).

Sounds quite intriguing actually.

 

[Darrell]

Low magic-item D&D can be made to work, but it either requires significant forbearance on the party of the players, very heavy house-rules, or for all the players to run spellcasters (or, for none of them to do so). Once you find yourself going in that direction, and you not better off just playing "Iron Heroes", or some other game built to assume low magic items?

I've been running a low-magic-item 3.5 game for a while now, and it hasn't really been a problem. The party is 12th-ish level right now (party make up is: human fighter 12; halfling bard 8/wizard 3, human rogue 11, dwarf fighter 12), and they have exactly two magic items between them--a sword and an axe. I use virtually no house rules; but I have to admit that many of the more 'fantastic' critters see no use in my game (and none of the planar stuff).

Also, It may be my own short-coming, but I never understand when people say what "reason" do you have to play a fighter in that kind of game, as if everything needs an in-game mechanical reason.

Exactly. "What reason do you have to play a fighter when...?" "Because I want to play a fighter." The player in my campaign who plays the halfling bard/wizard plays that character because she wanted to play that character concept. The character also has her highest score placed in CHA, and her STR and WIS are, in the opinion of many people I've talked to on these boards, 'unplayable' (both scores are 8). The player who plays the dwarf fighter plays him because he wanted to play a dwarf fighter. There doesn't have to be a 'rules-bound' reason for playing a character.

Regards,
Darrell

 

[Emirikol]

So none ever gets 9th level spells (or 8th? .

It's just at a higher level. Lemme think. 1, 5, 1, 5, 1, 5, 1, 3 = 9th level spells. Character level would be 22 (4 levels in non-spellcaster such as expert(UA), rogue, or whatever).

Since AoW ends at about 18th, I think they will have 8th level spells. That's only one spell level down. Believe me, it's still enough to make players have to think twice

jh

 

[RichGreen]

Hi,

I've been running Skull & Bones, Green Ronin's d20 pirate game, which has very little in the way of magic items. The main issue has been with the D&D monsters I've used which are much much harder if there is no access to magic items. For example, most PCs cannot do enough damage to penetrate even DR 5/- a lot of the time. I've had to read each monster very carefully rather than relying on CR.

Most of the time, in a normal D&D game, magic items make the game more fun, both as DM and player!

Cheers


Richard

 

[green slime]

Exactly. "What reason do you have to play a fighter when...?" "Because I want to play a fighter." The player in my campaign who plays the halfling bard/wizard plays that character because she wanted to play that character concept. The character also has her highest score placed in CHA, and her STR and WIS are, in the opinion of many people I've talked to on these boards, 'unplayable' (both scores are 8). The player who plays the dwarf fighter plays him because he wanted to play a dwarf fighter. There doesn't have to be a 'rules-bound' reason for playing a character.

Regards,
Darrell

Are you suggesting it would be a bad thing if those character concepts were supported by being mechanically equal to other, similar concepts?

 

[Emirikol]

Hi, I've been running Skull & Bones, Green Ronin's d20 pirate game, which has very little in the way of magic items. The main issue has been with the D&D monsters I've used which are much much harder if there is no access to magic items. For example, most PCs cannot do enough damage to penetrate even DR 5/- a lot of the time. I've had to read each monster very carefully rather than relying on CR. Most of the time, in a normal D&D game, magic items make the game more fun, both as DM and player! Cheers Richard

Richard:

Rather than overworking yourself studying monsters, just use my standing rule: remove any DR/magic and tack on 50 hit points (per plus). It allows the combats to be much more fun and also eases up any conversion difficulty.

The problem a lot of DM's have is that they may make conversion more work than it needs to be..and probably why so many DM's and players out there are so scared of the words "lower magic campaign"

The myth of magic item necessity is based on " well....welll..what about DR monsters?" Hrrmph!

jh

 

[Brian Gibbons]

The classes are supposedly balanced on their own without magic items.

Er, says who?

The various classes have varying degrees of reliance on magic items built into them. It's enough of a stretch for us to say that the classes are balanced on their own, given the standard wealth-per-level assumptions, but we can live with that. Assuming that you can make change these assumptions and retain the balance is even more of a stretch.

Your argument seems to be that "Hey, if a fighter with 50k worth of magic items is balanced against a monk with 50k worth of magic items, then a naked fighter is balanced against a naked monk."

Unfortunately, that's not the case. Generally speaking, the less a class is reliant on magic items, the more they need to spend for meaningful ones. For example, classes that don't wear armor or use weapons typically need to spend a good deal more to increase their attack bonus or AC than classes that can use magic weapons or armor.

As an obvious example, consider the ever-popular "The party is taken prisoner and stripped naked" scenario. Given the bare minimums (basic weapons and spell components), certain classes are still going to retain a large portion of their power (the wild-shaping animal-summoning druid, for example) while others are going to be sorely diminished (the fighter).

 

[Nightfall]

Dunno if it's "necessary" to have magic items but they are nice to have.