Unintended(?) Consequence of No More X-Mas Tree?

[Njall]

I maintain that this statement is untrue.

It is easy to run low magic at high levels in 3.X with a one simple houserule: Spellcasters gain normal level benefits at every second level. Thus, a houseruled 4th level wizard is equivalent to a 2nd level wizard. Don't like it? Don't play a spellcaster. After all, reducing the number of spellcasters is one of the necessary things to create a lower-magic game.

Because the higher level PCs are more vulnerable, lower-CR mooks are still a credible threat, and can be used as antagonists. Because the PCs are fighting lower-CR mooks, if you use the normal XP table, as they gain levels their rate of level gain with decline. This doesn't require a rules change from the DM; just some common sense.

RC

At mid-high levels, even low level mooks won't cut it: for example, a 20th level fighter without magic items would probably have a hard time against a CR 9 opponent. This means 0 xp for the encounter.

OTOH, even a 20th level "house ruled" spellcaster ( 10 CL ) can craft magic items.
Thus, you're unbalancing the game and you're not stopping the christmas tree effect, you're just replacing the "+5 items" with "+2 items".

 

[Reynard]

At mid-high levels, even low level mooks won't cut it: for example, a 20th level fighter without magic items would probably have a hard time against a CR 9 opponent. This means 0 xp for the encounter.

The presumption is that CR's would be adjusted to reflect difficulty, however.

 

[Njall]

He said the only house rule required would have been the spellcasting classes' one.
Furthermore, this doesn't address the fact that magic would be less powerful, but still common due to item creation rules, or the over reliance on healing magic at higher levels.

 

[Njall]

Edit: Sry, double post.

 

[Raven Crowking]

At mid-high levels, even low level mooks won't cut it: for example, a 20th level fighter without magic items would probably have a hard time against a CR 9 opponent. This means 0 xp for the encounter.

Reynard is incorrect; I do not mean that CRs are adjusted. I mean that the fighter gains 0 xp for the encounter.

OTOH, even a 20th level "house ruled" spellcaster ( 10 CL ) can craft magic items.
Thus, you're unbalancing the game and you're not stopping the christmas tree effect, you're just replacing the "+5 items" with "+2 items".

I don't believe that 3e is so terribly designed that this unbalances the game; it merely changes the point on which balance rests. While doing this doesn't prevent PCs from having magic items, I think that it would stop the Christmas tree effect. Remember that the caster needs XP to create those items, and that his available XP is being reduced as he gains levels, to the point where, as you note with the fighter, he may have several adventures in which he gains no additional XP at all. Conversely, "found" items are likely to be as useful (or more) than anything the wizard creates. Hence, the focus shifts from exploration for treasure (1e & 2e model) and away from combat & crafting (3e model).

Try it and see.


RC

 

[ruleslawyer]

I maintain that this statement is untrue.

It is easy to run low magic at high levels in 3.X with a one simple houserule: Spellcasters gain normal level benefits at every second level. Thus, a houseruled 4th level wizard is equivalent to a 2nd level wizard. Don't like it? Don't play a spellcaster. After all, reducing the number of spellcasters is one of the necessary things to create a lower-magic game.

Because the higher level PCs are more vulnerable, lower-CR mooks are still a credible threat, and can be used as antagonists. Because the PCs are fighting lower-CR mooks, if you use the normal XP table, as they gain levels their rate of level gain with decline. This doesn't require a rules change from the DM; just some common sense.

RC

And how do PCs get appropriate wealth per level? Do you assume the existence of 40th level item crafters in your game?

 

[Raven Crowking]

And how do PCs get appropriate wealth per level? Do you assume the existence of 40th level item crafters in your game?

Appropriate wealth per level isn't a rule; it's a guideline.

And, as with any guideline that doesn't fit with the game you want to run, you ignore it. This isn't a houserule, as it doesn't replace any rules. Hence, "This doesn't require a rules change from the DM; just some common sense."

RC

 

[Njall]

Reynard is incorrect; I do not mean that CRs are adjusted. I mean that the fighter gains 0 xp for the encounter.

Then you and I must have different notions of what balance means in this context, because to me a difficult encounter should provide some xp.

I don't believe that 3e is so terribly designed that this unbalances the game; it merely changes the point on which balance rests. While doing this doesn't prevent PCs from having magic items, I think that it would stop the Christmas tree effect. Remember that the caster needs XP to create those items, and that his available XP is being reduced as he gains levels, to the point where, as you note with the fighter, he may have several adventures in which he gains no additional XP at all. Conversely, "found" items are likely to be as useful (or more) than anything the wizard creates. Hence, the focus shifts from exploration for treasure (1e & 2e model) and away from combat & crafting (3e model).

Try it and see.


RC

Maybe I've tried?
Maybe, I've tried various times, both in 2e and in 3.x? With both raw games and house ruled games, including the ones presented in Unhearted Arcana? (BTW, using UA's "AC as DR" and "Class based AC bonus" it worked much better, as long as I bothered to remove item creation feats)?
3.x is not "terribly designed"...it's just designed with some assumptions in mind.
High magic is one of these assumptions.
That's why in both d20 modern and SW ( both RCR and SE) we have a class based AC bonus and healing is not handled like it is in D&D ( it's generally easier to come by ).
As for the XP invested in items creation, they're often not significant enough to make a difference, and if you play strictly by the raw they might also make you level up faster (obviusly, this is a bug of the system more than a feature, but still it doesn't scream "balance" to me...).

To make any system work, the numbers have to be balanced: in 3.x, some of the most important numbers simply aren't.
BAB vs AC has been balanced with magic in mind; the same is true for Saving Throws.
Remove magic from the equation and you've made these checks a nonissue.
In a game where Save or Die spells exist, this is a huge problem.
In a game without a resurrection spell, the constant loss of HP in combat due to the lower rate of misses becomes a problem pretty fast.

 

[Njall]

Appropriate wealth per level isn't a rule; it's a guideline.

And, as with any guideline that doesn't fit with the game you want to run, you ignore it. This isn't a houserule, as it doesn't replace any rules. Hence, "This doesn't require a rules change from the DM; just some common sense."

RC

I'm afraid the designers disagree with this statement. Sure, it's labeled as a "guideline", but it's also said that the game is balanced with that "guideline" in mind. In the context of game balance, it's not more optional than class features or CRs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Then you and I must have different notions of what balance means in this context, because to me a difficult encounter should provide some xp.

Define what "balance" means to you.

Maybe I've tried?

Then you know it works.

Appropriate wealth per level isn't a rule; it's a guideline.

And, as with any guideline that doesn't fit with the game you want to run, you ignore it. This isn't a houserule, as it doesn't replace any rules. Hence, "This doesn't require a rules change from the DM; just some common sense."

I'm afraid the designers disagree with this statement.

Can you quote that somewhere?

Because, in every thread about 3e ever, whenever anyone ever suggested that there was a problem with DMs being forced to follow CR or the Wealth Per Level Guidelines, the immediate and overwhelming response has always been that these are guidelines.

What changed now?

RC