The Myth of the Necessity of Magic Items

[green slime]

It's called street legal, no house rules.

And so when discussing low-magic-level campaigns, this is relevant because....

I'm really trying to understand this. If there are no house rules, then it can hardly be low magic, given the default assumption of the DMG, regading the availability of Item Creation feats, assumptions regarding magic item cost and their availability?

 

[Remathilis]

My problem isn't that magic shouldn't exist, but that D&D assumes certain items exist. To whit.

Kysus's DC 36 Fort Wail of the Banshee is unsurvivable by a great many PCs.

At 20th level, the "classic" four have around the following saves naturally.

Fighter/Cleric: +12 (class) +2-+4 (con)= +14-18 (5%-10%)
Rogue/Wizard: +6 (class) +2-+3 (con)= +8-9 (5%)

Perhaps (depending on the PC) he took Great Fortitude (+2) or Luck of Heroes (+1), but Most non-warriors rarely have many feats to dump on those feats (forgoing something else, like metamagic or weapon finesse). Even if he took both, thats only a 15% higher chance of survival for two feat slots. (the poorer save classes still don't break the 5% barrier)

Now, Assuming the party knows what it will be facing something and prepares, they can add the following spells

* Bears Endurance
* Resistance
* Holy Aura
* Protection from Spells
* Moment of Prescience
* Prayer

(and probably a bunch more from the Spell Compendium, if applicable).

However, if they are caught "flat-footed" or don't have any of these spells memorized/prepared/known (often at the expense of attack or healing magic) the PCs are screwed. They're natural abilities, even at zenith, cannot save them vs. this attack.

Enter the cloaks of resistance, amulets of health, stones of good luck, etc.

Because the game assumes you'll have them, you have to have them. Otherwise, you have slim to no chance of surviving, barring constantly dumping all spell slots on buffing.

So no, the game doesn't assume PCs CAN survive without magical do-hickeys, and we're all a little worse off for it...

 

[Warren Okuma]

And so when discussing low-magic-level campaigns, this is relevant because...

It takes real skill to run it street legal and have fun.

I'm really trying to understand this. If there are no house rules, then it can hardly be low magic, given the default assumption of the DMG, regading the availability of Item Creation feats, assumptions regarding magic item cost and their availability?

Sure it can be. No big cities to buy magic items, encountering monsters will the "half standard treasure" or less.

 

[green slime]

It takes real skill to run it street legal and have fun.

I find "fun" is more dependant on the company being kept, rather than the tool at hand.

Sure it can be. No big cities to buy magic items, encountering monsters will the "half standard treasure" or less.

And yet, there is an expected wealth level, and there are still Item Creation feats.

 

[Darrell]

But none of your points makes a case for why similar character concepts should not be mechanically equal to other, similar concepts? That way, you could have your cake, and eat it too.

I don't need to 'make a case' why character concepts should not be mechanically equal, simply because I've never seen a reason why they should be.

This type of discussion always seems to boil down to 'such-and-such can do this-and-that, so I should be able to do thus-and-such to balance it out.' As far as I'm concerned that's really a specious argument. All men are not created equal, when looked at on an individual basis, no matter what Thomas Jefferson might have written. Some people have more advantages than others, without having correspondingly 'balancing' disadvantages simply to make other people feel better about themselves. It's that way in real life; it can be that way in a game, too, and never once destroy the ability to play and enjoy said game.

I simply don't see the need (or even have the desire) to make everything 'equal.'

On several occasions over the past twenty-odd years of gaming, I've created BBEGs who were conventionally unstoppable. They outclassed and outmatched the heroes in literally EVERY way, stat and talent-wise. The characters simply could not beat such a character, and were forced to find ways to circumvent this fact.

On other occasions, there have been 'master villains' whose defeat was almost an afterthought, because the party outmatched him in every way.

Inter-party relations are often conducted on a similar level. In the 'early days' of 3.0, I had a player who played a DMG Commoner as a PC for over a year. The character was statistically outmatched by every other PC, had no special combat or spellcasting abilities, or any other type of 'advantage;' and still, the character became a productive and valuable member of the adventuring party.

Since I see no overwhelming need for mechanical balance, and can not be convinced of its value, I feel no need to make a case for things not being balanced. 'Balance,' as far as I'm concerned, is simply unimportant.

Regards,
Darrell

 

[Warren Okuma]

I find "fun" is more dependant on the company being kept, rather than the tool at hand.

Agreed. And my company at hand likes street legal and find it more enjoyable.

And yet, there is an expected wealth level.

Expected, yes. Required, no.

and there are still Item Creation feats.

So? You can make items in a low magic campaign, why take that away?

Just have small towns. They are willing to buy it for X.

 

[Darrell]

I find "fun" is more dependant on the company being kept, rather than the tool at hand.

Agreed. That's the entire allure of D&D/RPGs for me, too. I'm just hanging out with my friends.

And yet, there is an expected wealth level, and there are still Item Creation feats.

"Expected" doesn't always equal "received;" and in my case, Item Creation feats have never been a concern, since my players don't take them.

Regards,
Darrell

 

[green slime]

...snip...
Regards,
Darrell

See, the problem isn't one of whatever story you want to tell, or whatever character someone in a party decides to create, because, you don't need rules to do that, at all.

Given that many DM's may not always be running that kind of game, would you concede, that having a mechanical balance (that does not hinder you from creating blind commoners or Divine Hercules with DM-fiat) amongst similar character concepts (which is basically what the base classes represent, to a limited degree) could not be contrived to be a bad thing? Necessary or not as that may be for your particular game?

 

[green slime]

So? You can make items in a low magic campaign, why take that away?

Just have small towns. They are willing to buy it for X.

Not to sell, but to equip. Because the characters have access to custom ordered magic items of their desire. With half normal wealth levels, it works out fine, minus a few XP.

 

[Warren Okuma]

Not to sell, but to equip. Because the characters have access to custom ordered magic items of their desire. With half normal wealth levels, it works out fine, minus a few XP.

Wear it, fine. So what? Make them quest to learn the feat instead if it bothers you. That's half or less. Wolves and animals don't carry much cash.

Again, why take it away from the PC's?