What's your magic level preference?

[hong]

I don't think you CAN make 3E into a low-magic game without SOME work

Oh well, I guess that means I won't be running a low-magic game any time soon, then.

As for higher level or game-breaking spells - in-game regulation of what spells are available and how easily gained (and strict use of material components) curbs such abuses.

More work. Ick.

The summoned monsters example was cool - I could just imagine the moral debate that would erupt at my table if someone suggested that (and someone would) - if summoned creatures are brought from somewhere else to serve you what right do you have to exert your will over them? Or, even if you could - Isn't unconscionable to knowingly cause a being pain and suffering? Etc. . Etc. . .

You haven't been in many alignment wars, have you? I can tell.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Hong, what if someone did the work for you?

 

[el-remmen]

You haven't been in many alignment wars, have you? I can tell.

As a rule, I avoid those pointless endeavors. . .

 

[hong]

Hong, what if someone did the work for you?

See previous post about Massive Property Damage. And while you're at it, see previous post about stupidly leading poll questions.

 

[hong]

As a rule, I avoid those pointless endeavors. . .

But d00d, you just said that the summon monster thang could lead to all sorts of cool moral debates. And moral debates in D&D ALWAYS lead, in the end, to alignment wars. Always.


Hong "and immoral debates, even" Ooi

 

[d20Dwarf]

See previous post about Massive Property Damage. And while you're at it, see previous post about stupidly leading poll questions.

Who is the more foolish, the poller, or the one who responds to the poll and the poll's responses over and over again?

 

[hong]

Who is the more foolish, the poller, or the one who responds to the poll and the poll's responses over and over again?

Did I say I wasn't a fool? You can join me, if you want.


Hong "as stupid as d20dwarf" Ooi

 

[Broken Fang]

Hong...you made my day. Since the stupid Broncos lost I've been lounging around on my butt. Now I read this and get a great laugh. Your the EN World version of Gimili .

 

[Sanackranib]

warning about items

I've always warned the DM I have gamed with not to put items that they think are too powerfull for the group in the hands of its adversarys thinking that they can always escape. if you put it in and use it aginst me, unless that was the last charge or it kills me I will end up with it eventually . . . and it always has with those DM's who were too careless.

 

[Corinth]

Now For Some Serious Suggestions

To compensate for the lack of magical AC bonuses, you could add a class-based AC bonus progression to all character class in the game. Combatants get higher bonuses and better progressions than non-combatants. (i.e. fighters get a better progression than wizards, and they start with a higher bonus) This is concept sees use in other d20 games (d20 Modern and d20 Star Wars are the most prominent ones, and it's a oft-used option in d20 CoC) to good effect.

Masterwork bonuses can be extended from +1 upward, and the bonuses can also add to an item's Hardness and HP (as if it were magical). The ability to make superior masterwork items can be a class ability or granted by a feat, or just left to skill use. Feats allowing greater faculty with armor use can also be introduced, increasing the AC or the Max Dex bonus (etc.) for the user. (Deeds Not Words has two such feats--Armor Focus and Armor Specialization--that do that as well as reduce the Armor Check Penalty.)

Magic use can be restricted by making all spell-casting classes into prestige classes. With the right combination of prerequisites you can tailor the frequency of PC spell-casters to your desire yet maintain verisimilitude, which helps to make D&D conform to your setting/campaign design specifications.

There's three suggestions. I'm that there's more.