PDA

View Full Version : Project Grinch: Eliminating the Christmas Tree Effect



Mike_G
2010-06-28, 10:30 PM
The fun came without ribbons. It came without tags. It came without packages, boxes or bags.

This thread is a attempt to brainstorm a list of fixes that will help to eliminate the Christmas Tree Effect of ubiquitous magic items in D&D. I want ideas on good rules for running a campaign where magic items are rare, but not required.

This is partly a flavor issue, and partly the fact that I'd like to have high level PC's who can still function is they lose their stuff.

If you like the Magicmart, WBL concept, that's fine. I'm just not going to debate it here.

I'm not advocating removing all magic. I like some magic items in my fantasy, I just thing that Aragorn bearing Anduril, the reforged sword of his ancestors which cut the Ring from the hand of the Dark Lord is cool, but if he also had magic boots, a magic belt, magic bracers, magic armor, a magic backup weapon, magic headband, and so on, that kinda ruins it.

I mostly want to remove the generic +x items, to allow more room for the more flavorful stuff.

Let's look at the things that need boosting to stay competitive without items.

Armor Class

Pretty much the only way to raise this by RAW is magic. AC notoriously fall behind attack bonus even with full on magic gear.

A simple fix would seem to be a competence bonus that scales with level. I propose 1/2 BAB as a Defense Bonus. The better you are at fighting, the better you are at not getting hit. It would apply to touch AC, but not Flatfooted, or any time you couldn't actively defend yourself, and would not be limited by physical armor like Dex bonus is. I know HP is sorta supposed to reflect this, but with so many Touch attacks out there, I think this is a good rule.

Saves

Poor saves are 1/2 your level instead of 1/3.

Good saves as the table, +1 per 5 levels.

Ability Scores

Gain +1 every two levels instead of every four.

Feats

Gain a feat at every odd level, rather than every third level.

Skill Points

All classes gain two additions points per level. Caps still apply.



Any other ideas, or critiques of these ideas, cobbled together hastilt at 1 AM, please feel free to reply.

Hague
2010-06-28, 10:45 PM
Just have the players fight in a magic-dead zone. Sure, it totally screws the spell-casters, but it gives the players an opportunity to use their wits (and extraordinary abilities) to figure out a solution. Be sure to let them know that they have the possibility of entering this sort of area so they can prepare for it. I'm looking at you, wizards without crossbows...

Raging Gene Ray
2010-06-28, 10:49 PM
One way to limit magic items is to make sure that when the party does find them, they carry the weight of being something not common in this world.

For example, consider relics that can only be used by clerics of a certain deity, or artifacts that fit into a particular character's backstory if you have the time for that sort of thing.

There's also Weapons of Legacy that awaken new powers as their user gains hit die.

I know I'm pretty much repeating what you said...maybe if we knew the backstories or classes of the characters in this campaign, we could come up with a few Storyline items for each. Maybe leave Magic Items as the reward at the end of the dungeon instead of standard adventuring gear.

Of course, without MagiMart, you have to ask what your PCs will do with all the gold they loot.

Runestar
2010-06-28, 10:50 PM
Are monsters going to stay the same?

+1 AC every round barely keeps up with the extra AC from magic armour/shield/ring/amulets/misc items. It works out to +10 AC over 20 lvs, while the latter grants +20 AC between them (assuming +5 in all of them).

I don't see weapons being covered anywhere either. So players are going to have a harder time hitting their foes as well.

Also, do spells such as greater magic weapon/vestments/superior resistance/stat boosting spells still exist in your game? If so, wizards can still buff the rest of the party, thereby simulating said magic items. Not sure if that is what you want.

Zaq
2010-06-28, 11:03 PM
In standard 3.5, the nice +x and +y bonuses are nice (and they are indeed important), but from a mundane warrior's point of view, they're not nearly as important as, say, the ability to fly, or see invisible things, or otherwise pretend to stay even a little bit on par with casters. I've got a Crusader in my party right now... she'd be sad if she lost her magic armor or her stat boosters, but not nearly as sad as she would be if she lost her Illusion Bane weapon, her Wings of Flying, or her Blindfold of True Darkness. All the +to-hit in the world won't help if you just can't reach your target.

That said, just as a guideline for the numerical boosts, a slightly modified version of the benefits of Vow of Poverty would be a good start. Not a good finish, but a good start.

NMBLNG
2010-06-28, 11:32 PM
I think I'd do something along the lines of what happens in Lord of the Rings.
Each character has 1 magic item, be it mithril armor, a sword, or something.

Now the only problem is that casters in general (in 3.5) break this. Not sure how to tackle this one, you may need to discourage casters or ban some schools or feat/spell combination.

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-29, 12:08 AM
You could give everyone but tiers 1 and 2 both Vow of Poverty and an Ancestral Relic of some sort. However, instead of the standard bonuses and penalties granted by VoP, it grants most of the feats in Magic of Incarnum, as well as access to binder-specific feats, draconic feats, and certain other feats, subject to the DM. You don't lose the Vow if you aren't Exalted-stick-up-the-bum, or if you actually use class features (cleric, wizard, etc), but you do lose it if your Relic is lost.

This seems like it would help everyone who needs it out a lot, and signifies a single item of power that grows with the character. A destroyed Relic requires heroic means to re-forge, or a ritual is required to bond with another item of power.

It could work. Maybe.

You could also allow tiers 3 and below to gestalt with other lower tier classes, as well, while (again) leaving tiers 1 and 2 out of the loop.

taltamir
2010-06-29, 12:13 AM
the first step to eliminating magic items is to eliminate tier 1 player characters.
A +5 sword, +5 armor, +5 shield, items of immunity to a bunch of stuff, etc etc etc all help non primary casters compensate for not being primary casters.

Elimating the christmas tree effect sounds great... but it isn't compatible with traditional dnd because of it being a huge nerf to fighters (and their kind) and a huge boon to wizards (and their kind)

The Shadowmind
2010-06-29, 12:20 AM
Going with Lycan's ancestral relic idea, perhaps the items that could grant things like:
Relic of the dark pact: Gain Warlock Invocations and eldritch blast of a warlock of half your level.
Relic of the Dragon's flame:Gain DFA Breath invocations and breath weapon of a Dragonfire adept of half your level.
Relic of the Incarnate: Gain Meldshaping of an Incarnate of half your level.
Relic of the Soulpact, Gain soul binding of a Binder of half your level(level of vestiges and number bound).
etc.

taltamir
2010-06-29, 12:30 AM
Going with Lycan's ancestral relic idea, perhaps the items that could grant things like:
Relic of the dark pact: Gain Warlock Invocations and eldritch blast of a warlock of half your level.
Relic of the Dragon's flame:Gain DFA Breath invocations and breath weapon of a Dragonfire adept of half your level.
Relic of the Incarnate: Gain Meldshaping of an Incarnate of half your level.
Relic of the Soulpact, Gain soul binding of a Binder of half your level(level of vestiges and number bound).
etc.

so, basically, give every martial class half progression casting to help them compete against casters in a world without magic items?

It would be as effective as eliminating the casters. You still can't (without drastically altering /rebalancing classes) have a low magic world where both tier 1 fullcasters and purely martial characters coexist.

Although, I have heard others say, and I agree, that a high level fighter (who is a world class hero, aka PC) should be wielding amazing powers. Aka final fantasy type powers. So, fighters should get to leap tall buildings, be as if under haste all the time, cut through stuff, etc etc. but that goes to the drastic restructuring of the game.

My solution is to control the setting... simply put, a low magic items setting should have full casters be extremely rare and be considered some of the most powerful being in the world. In such a setting either ALL party members are full casters, or are forbidden from playing full casters...

So... either have a party of a druid, cleric, wizard, and sorc for example.
Or a party of rogue, barbarian, fighter, and ranger.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-29, 12:30 AM
[quote]
Armor Class

Pretty much the only way to raise this by RAW is magic. AC notoriously fall behind attack bonus even with full on magic gear.

A simple fix would seem to be a competence bonus that scales with level. I propose 1/2 BAB as a Defense Bonus. The better you are at fighting, the better you are at not getting hit. It would apply to touch AC, but not Flatfooted, or any time you couldn't actively defend yourself, and would not be limited by physical armor like Dex bonus is. I know HP is sorta supposed to reflect this, but with so many Touch attacks out there, I think this is a good rule. Not a big enough bonus to matter. Plus, there are so many ways to bypass AC at the higher levels this isn't going to be a very relevant change.


Saves

Poor saves are 1/2 your level instead of 1/3.

Good saves as the table, +1 per 5 levels.
This looks okay.



Ability Scores

Gain +1 every two levels instead of every four.
This doesn't really make up for the loss of stat boosting item and still favors casters.



Feats

Gain a feat at every odd level, rather than every third level.


I like this but it still doesn't solve the problem.

The problem is that you're boosting everybody in exchange for less magic items. If you want to remove magic items, get rid of item creation feats and give Tier 3-6 the version of VOP Lycanthromancer posted. I don't include Truenamer since without magic items he's screwed. The Tier 1 and 2 classes don't really need many magic items. The only thing wizard's need are spellbooks and Sorcerors don't even need that.


Whatever you do, be sure to scale down the encounters to match the power of the game.

taltamir
2010-06-29, 12:37 AM
I like this but it still doesn't solve the problem.

The problem is that you're boosting everybody in exchange for less magic items.

To expand upon it...
Limiting magic items hurts greatly hurts martial characters, greatly lowering their power relative to full casters.
However, it is already generally agreed that fullcasters are vastly more powerful to begin with.
So you don't only need to compensate for the loss of magic items, you also need to compensate for the preexisting gap between the power level of a full caster and that of a martial character.

The problem is that power isn't just ability to kill.

Take, for example, flight. Every caster gets all day flight, and protection from ranged weapons (that are not magical). some at lower levels then others...
The only way for a martial character to compete with it is:
1. Use a magical bow to target them.
2. Use a flight granting item. (eg, cloak of flight, graft of wings, etc).

There are a bunch of other examples where magic gives an insurmountable advantage to casters which only magic items can solve...

It is a massive undertaking to solve such issues one by one.
The easy solution is to simply require that players be of the same tier when playing.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-29, 12:40 AM
Speaking of that, if Melee doesn't have some way to be effective in ranged combat then if they ever encounter even a Warlock they're screwed.

I'm assuming a side effect of getting rid of the magic mart is also getting rid of items that grant flying in this scenario.

If you plan on doing this, you have to get rid of pretty much any class that has the ability to fly and all tier 1 and 2 classes because they have other ways of completely screwing melee over than flight.

taltamir
2010-06-29, 12:41 AM
Speaking of that, if Melee doesn't have some way to be effective in ranged combat then if they ever encounter even a Warlock they're screwed.

yap... warlocks get all day flight at level 6. and soon after unlimited dispells and invisibility.
People tell me eldrich spear sucks, I have no idea what they are talking about... snipe a few times, turn invisible, fly to a random bearing around your enemies... rinse and repeat.

Draz74
2010-06-29, 01:02 AM
If we want characters to care about their items the way Aragorn cared about Anduril, then the weapons really need to scale their power along with the character's growth.

Which means they'll either be super overpowered at low levels, or they need a way to "unlock" their powers gradually. Like Weapons of Legacy, only actually worthwhile. This has the added side benefit of actually acting like a lot of powerful items in fantasy literature: growing in power over time as their wielder gains experience.

But while limits can be level-based, making them time-based has an appeal too. I.e. where the character has to carry an item for a certain amount of in-game time before he can unlock it. I approve of this aspect mainly because it actually works quite well to limit the power of the few items that have it, which would otherwise be overpowered: Ring of Sustenance and Tome of Battle maneuver-granting items come to mind. And Ring of Enduring Arcana.

As another side benefit, requiring a time-attunement process like this eliminates the "golf bag" syndrome (as it applies to non-weapons as well as weapons). Hard-core 3e optimization includes the possibility of e.g. dragging along four Healing Belts, so that you can just swap each one out as its daily charges are expended. That is a particularly ugly aspect of the Christmas Tree effect, IMO. Time attunement kills it quick, though.

Then, once we've established some kind of standard where an item's power depends somewhat on how long a character has owned it, we might as well go all the way and murder the Christmas Tree Effect by putting a hard limit on how many magic items a character can "attune" or unlock the powers of at a given time. I think four magic items should actually be plenty to emulate most fantasy literature heroes. For the rare hero whose concept really depends on more than that, there could be a feat available that expands the attunement limits.

These are some thoughts I've had sitting around my CRE8 system, but in general they work well for 3e as well. Though it would be harder to implement them over 3e's wider power scope (20-level instead of 8-level).

taltamir
2010-06-29, 01:05 AM
my favorite time based idea would be finding a dragon egg...
Awesomest mount ever, and a source of pseudo magic (think of the book eragon). But you gotta wait for it grow up.

Caphi
2010-06-29, 01:11 AM
The OP's fixes are all numeric in nature. The best magic items aren't the ones that give simple numerical boosts, and certainly not to boilerplate statistics like AC, saves, and hit bonuses. They are the ones that actually add a new ability to the character's repertoire.

Removing the ability to produce interesting effects through loot and throwing base numbers at characters in return just consolidates caster supremacy, as they now have a monopoly on game-altering tech rather than merely a strong advantage.

taltamir
2010-06-29, 01:12 AM
how come nobody commented on my idea of playing same tiered classes in a low magic world?

You can have a total ban on magic items and either play a party of all full casters, or all martial characters. And either way you have a blast.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-29, 01:13 AM
how come nobody commented on my idea of playing same tiered classes in a low magic world?

You can have a total ban on magic items and either play a party of all full casters, or all martial characters. And either way you have a blast.

Well, I've never really liked the idea of being forced into a specific role. That's all.

taltamir
2010-06-29, 01:15 AM
Well, I've never really liked the idea of being forced into a specific role. That's all.

but you aren't forced. you:
1. Can play any role with all tier 1 classes.
2. Can play most roles with only tier 4 classes.
3. Magic / non magic is not a role, it is a means. Role would be "healer", "tank", "DPS", etc.
4. You get to choose which tier to all play as.
5. You have to choose to play a world with no magic items to begin with.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-29, 01:20 AM
but you aren't forced. you:
1. Can play any role with all tier 1 classes.
2. Can play most roles with only tier 4 classes.
3. Magic / non magic is not a role, it is a means. Role would be "healer", "tank", "DPS", etc.
4. You get to choose which tier to all play as.
5. You have to choose to play a world with no magic items to begin with.

Actually, with your version I have to be the same tier as everybody else whether that's 1 or truenamer.

And don't spellbooks qualify as magic items?

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-29, 01:21 AM
Let's say that a Lawful-Good monk, inexplicably named Triplet Number One, gets a Relic that grants the VoP feat's bonuses, and the "exalted feats" are "MoI feats," instead. He would gain access to lots of feats, Shape Soulmeld, and the Open Chakra feats. This would give him a huge amount of flexibility. He could have access to pounce and always-on buffs to his unarmed strikes. He could get short-range teleportation and ethereality virtually at will. He could gain bonuses to Hide and Move Silently. He could reduce his MAD by compensating through soulmelds. He'd have access to chakra binds and essentia. He could have retributive damage and healing. He can access flight. In short, he's suddenly flexible and powerful.

Now let's say there's another similar Lawful-Neutral monk, an orphan who is, as far as he knows, an only child. His name is Triplet Number Two. He has a ToB Relic, but with one exception: Martial Study isn't limited to being taken 3 times. The relic also grants him full initiator level and the swordsage recovery mechanic, and he also counts as a swordsage for the purposes of feats and such. He now can access self-healing, temporary hit points, concealment when he moves, jump-based movement as a swift action, the ability to ignore terrain penalties, teleportation, ranged attacks, a flanking partner, sneak attack, bonus damage to his flurries, etc etc etc. He's also quite useful in a group; much MUCH more than he was before.

Now we have lonesome little Triplet Number Three, a Lawful-Evil monk whose parents died before he was born (or so he was told), who has a psionic Relic which grants him psionic feats, the psychic warrior pp progression, and powers from the psychic warrior list. Now he can jump really far, get a psicrystal, make his attacks as touch attacks, deal additional damage on his unarmed strikes, gain lower level psion powers (such as [i]psionic minor creation and astral construct), grow fangs, enhance his unarmed strikes in various ways, grow tentacles to show his appreciation to the school girls that picked on him in high school, pounce, and all sorts of stuff. He may be bitter, and creepy, but he's effective.

Seems like it's a halfway decent trade to me, especially given that they also all gain the AC and attack bonuses, as well as the bonuses to ability scores they'd get with magic items as well.

taltamir
2010-06-29, 01:24 AM
Actually, with your version I have to be the same tier as everybody else whether that's 1 or truenamer.

And don't spellbooks qualify as magic items?

nope, spell-books are completely mundane items... but they require magic ink to create though. But you could make an exception in the "no magic items" for spell books... or play a sorcerer, or play the eidetic wizard ACF.

Anyways, yes you have to be the same tier. But as I said, you can be anything within that tier. A tier does not define your role, only your power level.


grow and tentacles to show his appreciation to the school girls that picked on him in high school
o.O

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-29, 01:34 AM
how come nobody commented on my idea of playing same tiered classes in a low magic world?

You can have a total ban on magic items and either play a party of all full casters, or all martial characters. And either way you have a blast.You'd have to be at or around tier 3, and it'd mean you'd have to be pretty careful to limit the group to situations that it can handle without the caster-types the system was designed around.

If nobody in the group has flight, you need to be wary of anything that can fly. Most tier 3s don't have flight, and ranged attacks tend to be pitiful unless they're magic.

You'll need to be wary of things that inflict status effects. A lot of undead, for example, have access to abilities which require healing spells that are easily gotten by clerics, but are difficult to acquire in other ways.

You also need something to give to those at the lowest end of the tiers you're working with the abilities they'll need to keep up at the higher end of the spectrum. A barbarian can deal damage quite well, and they're powerful (so long as damage is the yardstick by which you measure), but they need a boost in versatility to keep up with a factotum, or a swordsage, or a warblade. Not as much as a fighter or monk, of course, but it's still a disparity. They shine in certain combat situations, but they're fairly easy to negate if all they can really rely on is Rage-n-Charge.

And lastly, there are a lot of monster abilities that are just really difficult for mundane characters to deal with without items that simulate spells. Hydras, for instance, and trolls, suddenly become incredibly difficult to kill if nobody has a source of fire on-hand (since alchemical items are unlikely without casters around, and who really carries lots of lit torches around all the time?). The tarrasque is now invincible unless someone can manage to sic an allip on it to take it down. Vampires are now a major threat to pretty much every party that isn't composed of constructs and undead, much more than their CR would indicate. And anything with Supernatural and Spell-Like abilities suddenly has a major advantage, and must be used very very carefully.

PinkysBrain
2010-06-29, 01:44 AM
I want ideas on good rules for running a campaign where magic items are rare, but not required.
Magic items are the only way non casters can get mobility and useful magical effects without help from casters.

If it's so important for PCs to be useful without items it should be even more important they are useful on their own ... if they are not allowed items to gain flexibility then what is the alternative? Make everyone a caster I guess.

taltamir
2010-06-29, 01:51 AM
You'd have to be at or around tier 3, and it'd mean you'd have to be pretty careful to limit the group to situations that it can handle without the caster-types the system was designed around.

If nobody in the group has flight, you need to be wary of anything that can fly. Most tier 3s don't have flight, and ranged attacks tend to be pitiful unless they're magic.

You'll need to be wary of things that inflict status effects. A lot of undead, for example, have access to abilities which require healing spells that are easily gotten by clerics, but are difficult to acquire in other ways.

You also need something to give to those at the lowest end of the tiers you're working with the abilities they'll need to keep up at the higher end of the spectrum. A barbarian can deal damage quite well, and they're powerful (so long as damage is the yardstick by which you measure), but they need a boost in versatility to keep up with a factotum, or a swordsage, or a warblade. Not as much as a fighter or monk, of course, but it's still a disparity. They shine in certain combat situations, but they're fairly easy to negate if all they can really rely on is Rage-n-Charge.

And lastly, there are a lot of monster abilities that are just really difficult for mundane characters to deal with without items that simulate spells. Hydras, for instance, and trolls, suddenly become incredibly difficult to kill if nobody has a source of fire on-hand (since alchemical items are unlikely without casters around, and who really carries lots of lit torches around all the time?). The tarrasque is now invincible unless someone can manage to sic an allip on it to take it down. Vampires are now a major threat to pretty much every party that isn't composed of constructs and undead, much more than their CR would indicate. And anything with Supernatural and Spell-Like abilities suddenly has a major advantage, and must be used very very carefully.

1. why can't you limit players to playing tier 2 or 1?
"in a world where magic is extremely rare and its wielders considered godlike, a new group arises... a wizard, a cleric, a psion, and a druid team up to stand against the forces of darkness"

2. if you do limit them to a lower tier, it is your choice. And you indeed must control the encounters they have. However, the DM already has to control the encounters... it is super easy to TPK parties by just randomly selecting monsters. So I don't see the DM's job as being any harder.

Kantolin
2010-06-29, 01:56 AM
Would allowing 'rituals' which boost your core stats by 2-6, and result in you not obtaining 4000, 16000, or 36000gp help?

That way, instead of getting an amulet of constitution +4, you just have the mechanics you need and no longer glow madly?

This could then work for most magical items that are subtle. Turn to the DM, "Hey, I kind of want an periapht of proof against poison" "Cool, mark off the money and you can just do that". Does wreck the 'you are thrown in jail and now powerless', but it doesn't sound like you care much about that.

That seems like the easiest solution, anyway. That way the dwarf can have a magic axe, magic armour, a magic shield, and maybe magic boots or something, and then he's just strong and sturdy.

taltamir
2010-06-29, 02:21 AM
Would allowing 'rituals' which boost your core stats by 2-6, and result in you not obtaining 4000, 16000, or 36000gp help?

That way, instead of getting an amulet of constitution +4, you just have the mechanics you need and no longer glow madly?

This could then work for most magical items that are subtle. Turn to the DM, "Hey, I kind of want an periapht of proof against poison" "Cool, mark off the money and you can just do that". Does wreck the 'you are thrown in jail and now powerless', but it doesn't sound like you care much about that.

That seems like the easiest solution, anyway. That way the dwarf can have a magic axe, magic armour, a magic shield, and maybe magic boots or something, and then he's just strong and sturdy.

Excellent idea, I think we can improve on it. instead of money (to prevent monty haul, and because the big source of money IS magic items), you could basically have it as a form of points gained from completeing quests... like XP, only representing WBL.
You could either have it be directly boons from the gods, aka, in character.
Or an out of character thing where you just gain points for it as part of gaining XP (aka, every level you gain some points, or as the DM sees fit)

Mike_G
2010-06-29, 07:47 AM
A few good ideas, here, and a lot of people misconstruing what I said.

I'm not eliminating magic items. I wouldn't expect a melee type to never get a magic weapon. I want to eliminate the ubiquitous, +x items, by giving +x per level.

An item that lets you fly is neat, and useful, and not just inflating the numbers on the sheet. Gloves of Dex, a Belt of Strength, Cloak of Resistance, Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armor, are just a pile of pluses. It sooner a guy have Flying Boots, a powerful magic sword, and pluses from being 10th level.

As far as screwing the martial classes more than casters, that's oversimplified. If scrolls and spellbooks are highly prized, secret knowledge, then every wizard won't have access to every spell imaginable. Without the local Wand Emporium, he'll have to burn spell slots, and the sorcerer will have to choose his spells known carefully.

Obviously, this would require houseruling on the item creation mechanics, and some care when planning encounters, but you already need to balance encounters.

As far as the numbers for AC etc, I based them on the D20 Conan rules, where there just isn't access to magic.

I do like the idea of rituals. I really don't like the Vow of Poverty, because of the requirements, and of the non numeric bonus stuff. I don't yjink it all works for every concept.

I also like the concept of Weapons of Legacy, and have used variations on that in my campaign. It eliminated the "hand me down" phenomenon. Higher level PC's need better weapons, but if their existing stuff gets better instead of traded in, I think that keeps magic more rare and wondrous.

Galdor Miriel
2010-06-29, 08:03 AM
A few good ideas, here, and a lot of people misconstruing what I said.

I'm not eliminating magic items. I wouldn't expect a melee type to never get a magic weapon. I want to eliminate the ubiquitous, +x items, by giving +x per level.

An item that lets you fly is neat, and useful, and not just inflating the numbers on the sheet. Gloves of Dex, a Belt of Strength, Cloak of Resistance, Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armor, are just a pile of pluses. It sooner a guy have Flying Boots, a powerful magic sword, and pluses from being 10th level.


I have done this in a 4E campaign. The character builder allows an option of inherent bonuses to keep it balanced as regards CR. The heroes are currently levels 9 and have 3 magic items between 5 players. A ring of feather fall, an undead killer sword and a dragonsbane sword. I am going for the effect you talk about of allowing cool magic items that enhance the story, such as magic carpets and portable holes, and eliminating +3 swords and rods.

I am very hopeful about the experiment and will post a thread on its success after a few more adventures.

GM

Mike_G
2010-06-29, 08:15 AM
I have done this in a 4E campaign. The character builder allows an option of inherent bonuses to keep it balanced as regards CR. The heroes are currently levels 9 and have 3 magic items between 5 players. A ring of feather fall, an undead killer sword and a dragonsbane sword. I am going for the effect you talk about of allowing cool magic items that enhance the story, such as magic carpets and portable holes, and eliminating +3 swords and rods.

I am very hopeful about the experiment and will post a thread on its success after a few more adventures.

GM

I'll have to track down a 4e book and see how they do it. That's the feel I want, as I hate the Christmas Tree Effect.

Haarkla
2010-06-29, 09:34 AM
The fun came without ribbons. It came without tags. It came without packages, boxes or bags.

This thread is a attempt to brainstorm a list of fixes that will help to eliminate the Christmas Tree Effect of ubiquitous magic items in D&D. I want ideas on good rules for running a campaign where magic items are rare, but not required.

This is partly a flavor issue, and partly the fact that I'd like to have high level PC's who can still function is they lose their stuff.

If you like the Magicmart, WBL concept, that's fine. I'm just not going to debate it here.

I'm not advocating removing all magic. I like some magic items in my fantasy, I just thing that Aragorn bearing Anduril, the reforged sword of his ancestors which cut the Ring from the hand of the Dark Lord is cool, but if he also had magic boots, a magic belt, magic bracers, magic armor, a magic backup weapon, magic headband, and so on, that kinda ruins it.

I mostly want to remove the generic +x items, to allow more room for the more flavorful stuff.

Let's look at the things that need boosting to stay competitive without items.

Armor Class

Pretty much the only way to raise this by RAW is magic. AC notoriously fall behind attack bonus even with full on magic gear.

A simple fix would seem to be a competence bonus that scales with level. I propose 1/2 BAB as a Defense Bonus. The better you are at fighting, the better you are at not getting hit. It would apply to touch AC, but not Flatfooted, or any time you couldn't actively defend yourself, and would not be limited by physical armor like Dex bonus is. I know HP is sorta supposed to reflect this, but with so many Touch attacks out there, I think this is a good rule.

Saves

Poor saves are 1/2 your level instead of 1/3.

Good saves as the table, +1 per 5 levels.

Ability Scores

Gain +1 every two levels instead of every four.

Feats

Gain a feat at every odd level, rather than every third level.

Skill Points

All classes gain two additions points per level. Caps still apply.



Any other ideas, or critiques of these ideas, cobbled together hastilt at 1 AM, please feel free to reply.
I think you are going about it wrong.

The problem is that martial characters need more magic items, to stay competetive with casters for longer.

Saves

Fighters and barbarians get good reflex saves, paladins good will saves.

Ability Scores

Gain +1 on two abilities every four levels.

Skill Points

All non- and poor casters gain two additions skill points per level, except fighters who gain four.

BAB/hp

Monks get full BAB. rogues get d8 hit dice.


I'm not eliminating magic items. I wouldn't expect a melee type to never get a magic weapon. I want to eliminate the ubiquitous, +x items, by giving +x per level.

An item that lets you fly is neat, and useful, and not just inflating the numbers on the sheet. Gloves of Dex, a Belt of Strength, Cloak of Resistance, Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armor, are just a pile of pluses. It sooner a guy have Flying Boots, a powerful magic sword, and pluses from being 10th level.

I tend to give out such items in my campaign. The problem is not that the PCs are underpowered, it is that reducing +x items tends to hurt non casters more than casters.

taltamir
2010-06-29, 09:36 AM
As far as screwing the martial classes more than casters, that's oversimplified. If scrolls and spellbooks are highly prized, secret knowledge, then every wizard won't have access to every spell imaginable. Without the local Wand Emporium, he'll have to burn spell slots, and the sorcerer will have to choose his spells known carefully.

A common misconception. Even if you never ever give them a single new spell via scrolls (which is frankly completely STANDARD procedure in DMs methods of attempting to rein in wizards) they still have more then enough spells. Even if you forbid them from taking collegiate and other specialties that increase spells known they still have more then enough spells known.

All you are doing is limiting them to 2-3 ways of breaking the game instead of 20-30.


Obviously, this would require houseruling on the item creation mechanics
Frankly those can die in a ditch... creating items takes years of experience and expertise... you can't just go around slaughtering monsters and suddenly become a world class item forger. (or at least, you shouldn't)... you want an item? you find the person who can make it and order one.

Remember that time conan the barbarian and his friend spent 6 months and a pile of money to create a whole array of magical +x items to wear from head to toe? burning conan's lifeforce for his own gear? no? me neither.

Mike_G
2010-06-29, 09:53 AM
I think people underestimate the effect that limited magic items have on casters.

With restricted access to wands and scrolls, you need to prepare those "once in a while" spells that people normally carry a disposable item for. With few scrolls, and with spellbooks being a carefully protected, jealously guarded item, Wizards simply won't have every spell in existence available to scribe.

Plus, if we eliminate the boost items, but allow buff spells, then the casters need to dedicate some slots for buffs, rather than relying on items for the buffs and the spells for battlefield control.

The removal of the Healing Belt hurts the Cleric more than the Fighter, since now the Cleric needs to spend those slots on Cures, not Divine Might.

It's not a race, it's a co-operative game. The Wizard and Cleric have more of a support role, and more limits on their spells, thus more need for the rest of the party. Now, you need the Rogue to search for traps or open that door, or you blow a spell slot. There's no more "Replace the PC with a wand."

And I would assume that a decent DM wouldn't send a flying enemy against a group with no ability to fly or shoot, or a bunch of incorporeal undead against a group with no magic weapons. It might require the Wizard to cast Fly on the Fighter so he can still be the meatshield against a flying creature, or require the Cleric to prepare some Restoration spells, but that's a good thing. It makes the party work together, not just freelance it and end the first encounter with a spell, since that spell is now a precious resource that you may want for the last encounter. Better to cast Bull's Strength on the Fighter and let him do the smacking than blow a higher level spell and SoD the easy encounter.

kestrel404
2010-06-29, 09:56 AM
Perhaps you should try the magic item system from Earthdawn. In earthdawn, there are three kinds of magic item: Common items, Thread items, and Blood magic items.
A common magic item is something that was enchanted with a spell from a spellcaster or is imbued with an elemental affinity - a stone that glows, a heated cloak, a cup that fills with water once per day. These generally have very practical, low level powers - the equivalent of high end consumer electronics in terms of usefulness.
A Blood Magic item is sort of magical cyberware. A mage has crafted this alchemical doodad which gloms onto the users body, drains them of some HP permanently (in character, it uses their life force as a power source), and enhances the person in some way. Things that blood magic usually give are stat boosts, or once-per-day spell-like-abilities (use it and it falls off until you can get it implanted again), or continual special abilities like detect-magic. Multi-use ones cost more HP to activate. Really powerful ones (like the one that grants flight) have a chance of killing you every time you turn them on. Blood magic is considered by most people to be scary, icky, or morally wrong, so using a significant amount of it causes social issues (people won't talk to you, or let you buy things from them, or stay in their town).
A thread item is the kind of item that Aragorn's sword would be. It is an item that, through circumstance and the belief of many, has gained both a reputation and some kind of power. Each one is a cross between an Artifact and a Legacy Weapon. In order to use the powers granted by this item - which can be anything from bonuses to permanent extra class features - you need to learn the true story behind the item, generally starting with its True Name and becoming more specific from there. At each stage in unclocking the Thread item's potential, you need to bind yourself to that item (called 'tieing a thread to it', hence the name) - this costs XP, and may also require some sort of Deed to perform, and generally requires the character to know something specific about the item. Doing the deed is usually something that gives roughly as much XP as tieing the thread costs.

So, common items take the place of low-level spell items (like scrolls and wands), blood magic takes the place of specialty magic items that the PCs MUST buy and don't think they can live without (like a cloak of flying or helm of undetectable alignment), and thread items take the place of everything else - usually combining several magic items worth of power into a single object. Creating a thread item is generally a cooperative effort between the GM and the player it is meant for, or else a creative GM might make something generally useful (like a magic staff of the changeling, which allows you to Alter self to start with, and eventually you can Polymorph yourself into anything that you've killed) and let the party decide who wants it.

As for arms and armor of +x, the Earthdawn world allows normal smiths to improve on mundane equipment to give it those kinds of bonuses - for a price. So you don't need to give up the +5 platemail, you just have to buy the REALLY pretty platemail armor that costs what you would expect it to cost. And if you need your sword to do extra fire damage? Imbue it with a small fire elemental, and it does the extra damage. Note that the small fire elemental will effectively make the object intelligent, with all the hassles that entails.

So, what I'm suggesting won't eliminate the Christmas tree effect entirely, but it will make it so that every magical item a PC carries IS special in some way, and has an effect on the game other than just granting +x to AC.

Mike_G
2010-06-29, 10:06 AM
A common misconception. Even if you never ever give them a single new spell via scrolls (which is frankly completely STANDARD procedure in DMs methods of attempting to rein in wizards) they still have more then enough spells. Even if you forbid them from taking collegiate and other specialties that increase spells known they still have more then enough spells known.

All you are doing is limiting them to 2-3 ways of breaking the game instead of 20-30.


This isn't a "Caster vs Melee" fix. The only way to do that is a DM to Player chat with the caster players. Without a massive rewrite of the rules, casters can break the game. You just need to get them to agree not to.

I haven't really found that to be hard in actual play. They want to play as much as anyone, so casting Heightened, Quickened I Win the Game isn't much fun for them either.

This does make burning spells more of an issue, and that kind of resource managment was supposed to be the limiting factor on casters. Items let them get around that too easily.



Frankly those can die in a ditch... creating items takes years of experience and expertise... you can't just go around slaughtering monsters and suddenly become a world class item forger. (or at least, you shouldn't)... you want an item? you find the person who can make it and order one.

Remember that time conan the barbarian and his friend spent 6 months and a pile of money to create a whole array of magical +x items to wear from head to toe? burning conan's lifeforce for his own gear? no? me neither.

I couldn't agree more.

I never like PC item creation, and I personally limit the bejayzus out of it, if not outright ban it, but that's not for everyone.

Calemyr
2010-06-29, 10:13 AM
I'm running a pathfinder game right now in a post-magic setting (magic died centuries ago, though it is starting to resurface in places, such as the party's sorceress). What I've done is refluffed the standard +x enhancements to weapons and armor to simply being further grades of quality beyond masterwork - something a master blacksmith can do but not necessarily magic in any way. This means the only magical equipment introduced is what I give them (or via a single arcane smith that they don't have easy access to).

While I have introduced magical items, they are almost exclusively found in equipment caches in pre-fall ruins. These give the party a distinct advantage over other factions (most don't have magic at all, though a few elite ones are better geared than the party) and make them competetive with monsters when they arise.

taltamir
2010-06-29, 10:31 AM
I think people underestimate the effect that limited magic items have on casters.

A played a wizard (rearrange to be precise) in a super deadly campaign where he had as many spells per day as a generalist but was limited to only transmutation spells + a few select spells. Said wizard had, at level 11, only had the following magic items:
1. a magic spellbook that allowed him to use a move action 1/day to take SL*3 damage in order to swap a prepared spell for another spell he can prepare. (that was my designated custom item, each player had one)
2. a headband of int +2
3. "soulbound" (so to speak) via random selection... throwing axe (pretty cool axe... actually, I even killed an enemy with it once)

Other characters, on the other hand, got artifacts when we looted the vault of the god of magic; plus more specific useful gear.

it worked fine letting others have the gear... for example, our sword and board fighter got an artifact sword (always on brilliant energy, indestructible, and a few other things). and I actually contributed money towards the paldin's gear (he glittered like a christmas tree). I was willingly letting others have more of our total item distribution because it was good for the whole party. I certainly didn't need them.

Effectiveness? well, haste was awesome, so was stoneskin, so was teleport (one of the specific extra spells; DM approved in char creation), so was getting 4+ actions a round (thanks to familiar and instant spells).

A wizard simply doesn't NEED any gear, period. Neither does a druid.


This isn't a "Caster vs Melee" fix. The only way to do that is a DM to Player chat with the caster players. Without a massive rewrite of the rules, casters can break the game. You just need to get them to agree not to.

I haven't really found that to be hard in actual play. They want to play as much as anyone, so casting Heightened, Quickened I Win the Game isn't much fun for them either.

This does make burning spells more of an issue, and that kind of resource managment was supposed to be the limiting factor on casters. Items let them get around that too easily.

The problem with casters is that, according to WOTC, d4 HP, ASF, low BAB, etc are all penalties they gave casters to balance things like SoD... so if you are not one shotting boss fights, you are just taking a bunch of huge and difficult penalties for no reason.

jiriku
2010-06-29, 10:39 AM
Well, lessee...

Ban stat-boosting items, stat-boosting tomes, ring of protection, cloak of resistance, amulet of natural armor, and enhancement bonuses on armor (but not shields). Reduce the number of body slots characters have for magic items to 4 or 5, and require 24 hours attunement before a magic item will work. Leave item creation feats in the game, but increase the time required to create magic items by a factor of 5 or 10. Grant the following bonuses by level:

{table=head]Level|To Hit|Damage|Saving Throws|AC enhancement|AC natural armor|AC deflection|Primary Stat|Secondary Stat|Tertiary Stat
1|+0|+0|+0|+0|+0|+0|+0|+0|+0
2|+0|+0|+0|+0|+0|+0|+0|+0|+0
3|+0|+0|+0|+1|+0|+0|+0|+0|+0
4|+1|+1|+1|+1|+0|+0|+2|+0|+0
5|+1|+1|+1|+1|+0|+0|+2|+0|+0
6|+1|+1|+1|+1|+1|+1|+2|+0|+0
7|+1|+1|+1|+2|+1|+1|+2|+0|+0
8|+2|+2|+2|+2|+1|+1|+2|+2|+0
9|+2|+2|+2|+2|+1|+1|+2|+2|+0
10|+2|+2|+2|+2|+1|+1|+4|+2|+0
11|+2|+2|+2|+3|+1|+1|+4|+2|+0
12|+3|+3|+3|+3|+2|+2|+4|+2|+2
13|+3|+3|+3|+3|+2|+2|+4|+2|+2
14|+3|+3|+3|+3|+2|+2|+4|+4|+2
15|+3|+3|+3|+4|+2|+2|+4|+4|+2
16|+4|+4|+4|+4|+2|+2|+6|+4|+2
17|+4|+4|+4|+4|+2|+2|+6|+4|+2
18|+4|+4|+4|+4|+3|+3|+8|+4|+4
19|+4|+4|+4|+5|+3|+3|+8|+6|+4
20|+5|+5|+5|+5|+3|+3|+8|+6|+4[/table]

So, each character now needs approximately 6-8 fewer magic items on his person at any given time, and can benefit from only about half as many slotted items. Plus, a magic shield is about the only way to substantially improve your armor class, which incidentally boosts the much-maligned sword-and-board style.

taltamir
2010-06-29, 10:42 AM
@jiriku, very nice... i think you made an error on level 20 AC deflection

Mike_G
2010-06-29, 10:56 AM
I agree. That seems to work nicely.

Thanks, jiriku.

Another_Poet
2010-06-29, 10:56 AM
Since there are few if any magic items that grant feats, it is unnecessary to increase the frequency of gaining feats (every other level) to accomplish your goal.

Of course, more feats makes gameplay more fun, so no problem if you keep it.

The rest of the stuff on your list seems to do a good job and seems to progress at about the right pace.

The only problem is versatility. For instance with WBL I could choose to put all my money on a better cloak of resistance and a bunch of AC items. But with your progression, the increases to saves, AC, attacks, skills, etc are static and fixed. Indeed the bonuses to saves are tied to existing save progression, but it's the people with bad save progression who would most want to boost their saves.

I would consider offering several different progression tracks to choose from. The one you have in the first post would be the "balanced" progression track. The "defence" track might lose the skill points and attack bonuses but get a deflection AC bonus and better save bonuses. A "striker" track might get better Attack and Damage bonuses but no AC bonuses. "Expert" track might get additional class skills, but have to give up either the attack or AC boosts. You get the idea.

That way people can customize the training that their character does to best support their combat role. A rogue may want to max his saves and skills and not care as much about AC, while a wizard might want everything on saves and AC and not care about to-hit.

ap

ScionoftheVoid
2010-06-29, 12:05 PM
My DM once experimented with a system of gaining magic items in which you attuned to an item and enhanced it as you gained power. No item was inherently magical. Every time you gained a feat you got a +1 numerical bonus linked to an item or something roughly equivalent approved by the DM (e.g. +1 longsword to a +2 longsword, ordinary gloves to Gloves of Dexterity +1, a Dwarven urgrosh to a Dwarven urgrosh of Water Breathing (only on wielder, this was an item used in the game. The normal "at least +1 before special abilities" rule was ignored).

You could add this bonus to any item you had attuned to, so you could have lots of weakly enhanced items or one or two very strong items. If you lost an item you were attuned to you could try to get it back (and be immediately attuned when/if you recovered it) or attune to something else in its place (meaning you had something worth using on the way to getting your item back, but you would have to reattune to your item when/if you recovered it).

The game died very quickly and the DM didn't follow his own rules -:smallfurious:- (originally the bonus was gained whenever you gained a feat, even as a bonus feat but he ignored this when we made our characters. This helps Fighters, Rangers and Monks (in Core) a bit, basically), but it might be a helpful idea for progression of magic items.

cZak
2010-06-29, 03:50 PM
...would assume that a decent DM wouldn't send a flying enemy against a group with no ability to fly or shoot.

... It makes the party work together, not just freelance it and end the first encounter with a spell, since that spell is now a precious resource that you may want for the last encounter.

+1

It is a misconception (or fallacy for those who just completed their required community college course in PolSci) that DnD requires boost/ trick magic items to play.

I run a low magic game, but boost skill points (minimum +2/ level), with non-casters getting the greater boosts.

My current group (of three players) just started Chapter 3 of RHoD. They are all level 8; two fighters (one with 2 levels of rogue & one with 3 levels of cleric) and a full Wizard. They've had Jorr with them since they met him.

They have had no deaths (lots of close calls/ neg hp's). And no, I am not being kind to them. All open dice rolls & logical encounters.

They have no stat boost items.
Each has at least one magic weapon & armor. And the standard +1 or +2 ring of protection or cloak of resistance.

I wouldn't say they are masters of optimization. But they do tend to play to their strengths when they run into things.

Knaight
2010-06-29, 04:11 PM
e6 also covers this fairly well, and a sixth level character is easily enough to cover most heroes from fantasy. Sure there are exceptions (any god, freaking Mistborn trilogy, etc.), but it more or less does it.

Mike_G
2010-06-29, 07:22 PM
Since there are few if any magic items that grant feats, it is unnecessary to increase the frequency of gaining feats (every other level) to accomplish your goal.

Of course, more feats makes gameplay more fun, so no problem if you keep it.


The increased number of Feats was to give power and options to make up for taking away power and options. It's not really one for one, but it gives people something to get excited about, and does increase your effectiveness to make up for what you're losing in items.



The rest of the stuff on your list seems to do a good job and seems to progress at about the right pace.

The only problem is versatility. For instance with WBL I could choose to put all my money on a better cloak of resistance and a bunch of AC items. But with your progression, the increases to saves, AC, attacks, skills, etc are static and fixed. Indeed the bonuses to saves are tied to existing save progression, but it's the people with bad save progression who would most want to boost their saves.

I would consider offering several different progression tracks to choose from. The one you have in the first post would be the "balanced" progression track. The "defence" track might lose the skill points and attack bonuses but get a deflection AC bonus and better save bonuses. A "striker" track might get better Attack and Damage bonuses but no AC bonuses. "Expert" track might get additional class skills, but have to give up either the attack or AC boosts. You get the idea.

That way people can customize the training that their character does to best support their combat role. A rogue may want to max his saves and skills and not care as much about AC, while a wizard might want everything on saves and AC and not care about to-hit.

ap

Different tracks is a thought, or options presented like ACF's.

I just want to lose the pile of itmes that only exist as pluses on the sheet.

Mike

Math_Mage
2010-06-29, 07:49 PM
The increased number of Feats was to give power and options to make up for taking away power and options. It's not really one for one, but it gives people something to get excited about, and does increase your effectiveness to make up for what you're losing in items.



Different tracks is a thought, or options presented like ACF's.

I just want to lose the pile of itmes that only exist as pluses on the sheet.

Mike

And instead you end up with...pluses on the sheet that only exist as pluses on the sheet. This just seems like a way to remove customization in the way you arrange the pluses on your sheet. Maybe something analogous to the skill ranks system would work better. You get X points at level-up, it takes Y points to increase stat Z by 1, the number of points you can put into any one stat is capped by W, etc.

Mike_G
2010-06-29, 09:23 PM
Well, the pluses kind of need to be there in some fashion.

BAB goes up with level. As do Saves, HP, skills ranks, etc. You need more bonuses to face tougher enemies.

AC really should go up with level, but it doesn't, so the guy who has been dodging attacks for 20 levels is every bit as easy to hit with a ray as the 1st level guy, if he loses his items.

This is almost entirely a flavor thing. I don't like the PC's dripping with items, and I like a campaign world where wondrous items are, y'know, wondrous, not common, widely available and expected for any adventurer.

Making the bonuses inherent reduces that whole mess, and it helps if you do want to run an old school pulp style campaign, where the PC's often escape with barely the clothes on their backs, or wind up shipwrecked or drugged or in prison and have to make do with improvised stuff. This really bones a 3e character, but it's a staple of fantasy.

As far as customizable, well, I'm not sold. You don't get to choose how your BAB or Saves or HP go up, other than by class choice. Most of what I'm talking about is bonuses to those things. I'm not talking about cutting all items, just the +x ones.

Instead of items that give you more Attribute points, and more defensive mods, you actually get more attribute points and more defensive mods, plus more Feats. The more Feats actually increases customization.

Like I said, if you actually like the image of a guy with magic hat, cloak, bracers, two rings, a belt, boots, golf bag full of magic weapons, magic armor and a magic sack to hold the rest of his magic stuff, then this really isn't something you'd like.

Math_Mage
2010-06-29, 09:32 PM
*sigh*

Next time, I'll try to avoid wording things so aggressively. So perhaps, in return, you could try not to be so defensive? The fact that I offered an alternative possibility for inherent bonuses should indicate to you that I am not trying to object to inherent bonuses.

You mention variance by class. Well...for example, take AC. Why should the level-20 wizard be inherently all that much harder to hit than the level-5 wizard, as opposed to a fighter or rogue or somebody whose skill set involves dodging attacks? A wizard uses spells to dodge. So maybe using variable progressions by class would be a good way to represent this?

Mike_G
2010-06-29, 09:39 PM
*sigh*

Next time, I'll try to avoid wording things so aggressively. So perhaps, in return, you could try not to be so defensive The fact that I offered an alternative possibility for inherent bonuses should indicate to you that I am not trying to object to inherent bonuses.


I'm sorry if it came off that way. I'm not feeling at all defensive.




You mention variance by class. Well...for example, take AC. Why should the level-20 wizard be inherently all that much harder to hit than the level-5 wizard, as opposed to a fighter or rogue or somebody whose skill set involves dodging attacks? A wizard uses spells to dodge. So maybe using variable progressions by class would be a good way to represent this?

My original proposal increased AC bonuses as a function of BAB, so I did factor in experience in fighting making one better at dodging. Jiriku's table didn't distinguish, but my first thought was a competence bonus to AC of 1/2 BAB. This would benefit a Fighter more than a Caster, but, first, they need the help, second, it makes sense, and third, the Mage should be avoiding attacks by the time there's much difference.

A Wizard would get a (admittedly small) AC bonus, because over 20 levels, they will have been attacked a few times. Not as big a difference as a Fighter, but something.

Math_Mage
2010-06-29, 10:10 PM
That seems like a good place to be. Maybe there are some discrepancies--should a dragonfire adept get a better AC progression than a wizard?--but I can't think of many off the top of my head.

Kantolin
2010-06-29, 11:20 PM
Does removing the '+X to stat items' fix the Christmas Tree effect?

As it sounds to me more like everyone will fill most/many of their slots with not-plus-items, and you'd still have a Christmas tree. Now granted, this still would probably be more interesting as they'd be different ornaments (The star on top might be gloves of lightning or something and not gloves of ogre power), but you'd still be a Christmas Tree.

Tinydwarfman
2010-06-29, 11:43 PM
Does removing the '+X to stat items' fix the Christmas Tree effect?

As it sounds to me more like everyone will fill most/many of their slots with not-plus-items, and you'd still have a Christmas tree. Now granted, this still would probably be more interesting as they'd be different ornaments (The star on top might be gloves of lightning or something and not gloves of ogre power), but you'd still be a Christmas Tree.

Indeed, maybe enforce a rule where people must spend at least 1/4 of their wealth on an item, instead of under an amount. Of course, this would require advancing some cheaper magic items, but I can't see anything wrong with it off the top if my head.

Or rather, stick with the idea of item slots, and you can only have 4 different magic items on at the same time. Any more don't attune to you, and don't work.

Draz74
2010-06-29, 11:43 PM
Does removing the '+X to stat items' fix the Christmas Tree effect?

As it sounds to me more like everyone will fill most/many of their slots with not-plus-items, and you'd still have a Christmas tree. Now granted, this still would probably be more interesting as they'd be different ornaments (The star on top might be gloves of lightning or something and not gloves of ogre power), but you'd still be a Christmas Tree.

Well, the DM would have to restrict the amount of magic items (and even wealth) the PCs have access to. I think Mike_G isn't worried about controlling that aspect in his games; he's just concerned about coming up with house rules that keep such PCs from ending up hideously underpowered.

Satyr
2010-06-30, 01:04 AM
I see two problems with an approach like this: First of all, it's the power gap between spellcasters and mundane characters which significantly increases when you take both of them their toys away. So, I think that it should be common sense that any rules like this should also include either heavy nerfs or bans of spellcasters. I know this was already mentioned, but I guess it bears repeating.
The other issue is lack of options. Characters without toys just have a lot less possiblities to do stuff, and that can make the game a bit more repetetive and
thus dull. So perhaps it is a good idea to come up with a way to introduce other means of adding extra character options and the like.

I think the answer to both challenges lies in Gestalt rules (free for mundane characters, limited to NPC classes for full casters, something inbetween for partial casters).

blueblade
2010-06-30, 01:14 AM
Some basic suggestions:

- You don't actually mention in your OP what you're doing to the items. Will a store in town never sell/craft a magical item?
- Spells for both spontaneous and non-casters (divine and arcane) must be found and are not freely available, to help balance Tier 1. You will need your wizard/cleric/other PCs to be fully on board with the idea, and they should be able to access some pool of spells somehow. But getting a new high level spell should be as big a deal as your fighter 20 finding Andruil.

jiriku
2010-06-30, 01:25 AM
Error fixed.

I see a lot of people concerned with balance between casters and non, I think out of the assumption that the OP wants to take away the toys. My impression is that he's not taking the toys away -- he's converting them into inherent parts of the character instead of external objects. The end result is similar, but stylistically it's much cleaner. And it doesn't cause a balance issue.

I'll definitely promote the reduction in slots idea. IMC, I'm currently limiting players to 6 body slots. All is well. For the next one I think I'll give them the usual slots, but with the ability to attune only 1 item/4 levels. This will further encourage "specialness" of magic items, and put the brakes on my one rabid powergamer who's responded to the cap by turning into a wand factory.

Chambers
2010-06-30, 02:36 AM
I don't remember which forum it was on (dicefreaks? brilliantgameologists?) but I read a revision of the magic item system. Characters were limited to a number of minor magic items, and 1 or 2 more powerful ones. I think the bonuses increased with level of the character?

It was a while ago and I lost the link. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

Mike_G
2010-06-30, 05:09 AM
Just to reiterate, for those who keep bring it up:

This is not a caster fix. It's not going to balance melee and casters. In my campaigns, in my group, we do that through gentlemen's agreement, which is the only way short of gutting the spell list, which is a topic for another thread.


Some basic suggestions:

- You don't actually mention in your OP what you're doing to the items. Will a store in town never sell/craft a magical item?


They will be much more rare and prized. There will be fewer found in loot, and their availability will be more like original Rembrandts IRL, rather than like gold jewelery, with a shop in every mall.

Characters won't get WBL in items. They will get exactly what I hand out, or they quest for. No Xmas Tree. They will start with zippo, then acquire a handful of items as they advance, but each item will be exciting, not just +1 Deflection bonus.

The fluff is that item creation is hard, and takes life force. There's no good reason for Wizards to crank out items for money. They can just get money for spellcasting and not spend xp, or at high levels just summon Efreeti and wish for gold. Logically, a caster would make items for close friends, personal use, or for big, big favors, not just a sack of coins.

I also introduced the fluff that since you pt your life energy into an item, it has a connection to you, and thus can be used to scry against you. Not a huge risk, but enough that you wouldn't want to just create dozens of rings to hawk them for a thousand gold apiece.



- Spells for both spontaneous and non-casters (divine and arcane) must be found and are not freely available, to help balance Tier 1. You will need your wizard/cleric/other PCs to be fully on board with the idea, and they should be able to access some pool of spells somehow. But getting a new high level spell should be as big a deal as your fighter 20 finding Andruil.

Reducing the avaiabilty of scrolls goes a long way to that. Plus, I enforce the fluff that magic is wondrous and precious. Mages wouldn't trade spells with just anyone. That would be like Coke and Pepsi sharing marketing data.or Microsoft and Apple inviting one another to meetings.

Eleven
2010-06-30, 08:59 AM
As I see it, essentially the problem is that heroic characters in myth and literature, whose style I would like to see in my game, use no (or very few) magical items. In the system that we've got, they would suffer from an extreme loss in versatility and strength. Most of the fixes I've seen (Vow of Poverty specifically) give bonuses to stats and a few abilities, and lead to extremely inflexible characters. In order to fix this problem, we need to work with the magic item system, rather than against it.

So I put this feat together [it is worthy of a feat, rather than a simple variant rule, because it gives your items immunity to sundering and theft], which allows you to decide your own fluff for your items and appearance. Effectively, you get all the advantages of magic items without seeming like you do.

Distribute Essence
Prerequisites: 4 Ranks in Craft (any)
Benefit: When this feat is selected, any time the character encounters a magic item of some sort, they can distribute its effect to themselves internally or another item that they possess. Note that this does not work on relics or artifacts, and that the player can choose to deactivate it. The item still takes up the body slot to which it originally belonged.
Specifics: Weapon Enhancements can be moved to unnarmed strikes, natural attacks, mindblades and other weapons. Armour Enhancements typically are moved to other armour worn or directly to the skin.
Example: Serabrakov, a 10th level fighter with the Distribute Essence feat, is trying to give a really barbaric feel to his character. He has a huge axe and leather armour, both of which he has had since he began adventuring and has enhanced along the way. Now, he has found a Cape of the Mountebank. He could wear it and use its power, add its power to his axe, add its power to himself (so that he merely claps his hands and disappears) or any number of possibilities.

Gnaeus
2010-06-30, 09:48 AM
So I put this feat together [it is worthy of a feat, rather than a simple variant rule, because it gives your items immunity to sundering and theft], which allows you to decide your own fluff for your items and appearance. Effectively, you get all the advantages of magic items without seeming like you do.

Distribute Essence

That feat as written is WAY too strong. It negates the need to ever sell magical loot. It turns every PC into a superhero who can be stripped of all his gear and still magic his way out of locked dungeons. Maybe it would be balanced as a mid-high level ability of weak classes like fighter or monk, or at the top of a 3-4 feat chain.



Remember that time conan the barbarian and his friend spent 6 months and a pile of money to create a whole array of magical +x items to wear from head to toe? burning conan's lifeforce for his own gear? no? me neither.

No, but I love the Friar in Van Helsing, and I cheered when Harry Dresden upgraded his magic rings. The concept of a wizard as a guy who makes potions or as an artificer is at least as iconic as the concept of a wizard as a guy who throws fireballs. Personally, I think the item creation minigame is one of the most fun parts of 3.5.



The removal of the Healing Belt hurts the Cleric more than the Fighter, since now the Cleric needs to spend those slots on Cures, not Divine Might.

The degree to which you can be wrong never ceases to amaze me, Mike. You take away the fighter's ability to step away from combat and heal himself, and you think that the Cleric suffers? It is still stronger for the cleric to crush the enemy with spells himself, but now the fighter doesn't even get to re-enter the fight without the Cleric's permission and support.

The Shadowmind
2010-06-30, 10:25 AM
That feat as written is WAY too strong. It negates the need to ever sell magical loot. It turns every PC into a superhero who can be stripped of all his gear and still magic his way out of locked dungeons. Maybe it would be balanced as a mid-high level ability of weak classes like fighter or monk, or at the top of a 3-4 feat chain.
I don't see it being that overpowered, maybe slitting it into two feats one for weapons and one for armor. Wasn't the point of this was so the characters could function without gear in the first place?




The degree to which you can be wrong never ceases to amaze me, Mike. You take away the fighter's ability to step away from combat and heal himself, and you think that the Cleric suffers? It is still stronger for the cleric to crush the enemy with spells himself, but now the fighter doesn't even get to re-enter the fight without the Cleric's permission and support.
The Cleric and the fighter both suffer. The cleric is stuck in one of the most hated roll:the healbot. While, the fighter is now relying on the cleric to be able to fight in the next battle.

Gnaeus
2010-06-30, 10:45 AM
The Cleric and the fighter both suffer. The cleric is stuck in one of the most hated roll:the healbot. While, the fighter is now relying on the cleric to be able to fight in the next battle.

The cleric isn't stuck doing anything. He still has Save or Loses. He still has Battlefield Control. Unless part of the program is commanding the cleric to use spell slots against his will, he has every right, for either tactical or roleplaying reasons, to say "The ability to cast Dismissal against the demon in the next room is more important than you being at full hit points. Suck it up Mr. Meatshield".

In most parties I have seen, it is the Melee who is pushing to spend party funds on a wand of lesser vigor, not the cleric. The cleric can easily afford to heal himself, or can run at high effectiveness with less than full hp.

This doesn't even take into account the fact that the cleric could easily be UNABLE to heal the fighter, due to being held, grappled, paralyzed, feared, healing someone else, or just on the other side of the room.

Oh, and it also gimps the semi divine casters, like the Ranger and the Paladin, who formerly could serve as backup healers with a cheap wand, and just lost that ability. Oh, well, paladins were too strong anyway. And if I am trying to play a holy warrior archetype, and thinking about Cleric or Paladin, well, paladin can't serve as the party's low level healer anymore, so I guess I'm stuck with Cleric. Wait, this lowers my likeliness of casting Divine Power how?



Plus, if we eliminate the boost items, but allow buff spells, then the casters need to dedicate some slots for buffs, rather than relying on items for the buffs and the spells for battlefield control.

When deciding whether to cast a buff or battlefield control, a big part of the decision is which spell is more effective. That calculation is based on the ability of the fighter to do his job (tank, or deliver damage). If the fighter is weaker (because he has no + str item), I am LESS likely to cast Haste, because it now takes Haste 2 rounds (round 1 haste, round 2 bulls strength) to get the same effect it had before. I am also less likely to cast damage spells, because the fighters damage output has dropped, so they are also less helpful in ending the fight. If buffs and damage spells are weaker, Save or Lose or battlefield control are comparatively stronger. Summons are also stronger, because there is less of a gap between the unequipped Dire Wolf and the unequipped fighter. This is the opposite of the direction most DMs want to encourage.

In my group, the melee's best buff support comes from an Imp. The familiar has nothing better to do with his time than cycle through low level buff wands, and occasionally use his healing belt. If the wands and the belt went away, our casters (a Dread Necro who can't heal or buff the living tanks, and a Chameleon who lacks the spell slots to do it every fight) would not make up the slack. Who does this hurt? (Hint, it isn't the casters)

Mike_G
2010-06-30, 06:57 PM
The cleric isn't stuck doing anything. He still has Save or Loses. He still has Battlefield Control. Unless part of the program is commanding the cleric to use spell slots against his will, he has every right, for either tactical or roleplaying reasons, to say "The ability to cast Dismissal against the demon in the next room is more important than you being at full hit points. Suck it up Mr. Meatshield".


Ah.

We're working on different assumptions.

Since I only game with people I actually like, that kind of things doesn't come up.

I played the only caster in a a party where parts of Cleric list was open to arcanists, since nobody wanted to play a Cleric. Needing to have Restoration and at least some of the Cure/Heal line ready did take away from my resources.

Could I have just showboated and let the rest of them suffer while I single handedly ended the encounter? Sure, but I kinda wanted to be invited back next week.

Plus, screw SoD. Screw Dismissal and Turning and all that. Our party wants to actually fight the monsters, since combat is fun.

Redcloak and the Azurite High Priest taking turns casting SoD's is, in my opinion, not.



In most parties I have seen, it is the Melee who is pushing to spend party funds on a wand of lesser vigor, not the cleric. The cleric can easily afford to heal himself, or can run at high effectiveness with less than full hp.



But it's a team game. The Cleric's job isn't to have enough to heal himself, unless he's a douchebag. If the Corpsman in my platoon said, "Screw you, Gomer. I got my bandages," we'd have feasted on his corpse.



This doesn't even take into account the fact that the cleric could easily be UNABLE to heal the fighter, due to being held, grappled, paralyzed, feared, healing someone else, or just on the other side of the room.


Which is what team tactics are for. Spectral Hand exists for a reason. Formations exist for a reason. Prearranged action plans exist for a reason. In our parties, no man is an island, and I'm cool with that.

The Shadowmind
2010-06-30, 07:08 PM
Another reason healbots are important in a low magic item game is that the heal skill is pretty much useless and the healing belt is nowhere to be found.
Possible solution-homebrew how the skill works.
Something like a DC 10 check as a full round action to heal 1d6, and +5 DC per every d6 after that. Unrealistic, but it gives the skill a use and makes out of combat healing not drain resources.

balistafreak
2010-06-30, 07:54 PM
Since I only game with people I actually like, that kind of things doesn't come up...

But it's a team game. The Cleric's job isn't to have enough to heal himself, unless he's a douchebag. If the Corpsman in my platoon said, "Screw you, Gomer. I got my bandages," we'd have feasted on his corpse.


I've had to look a teammate straight in the eye before and say, "I can either burn my last prepared nuke-spell into a heal and you can appreciate having a big number on your sheet until we walk into the final boss room and die anyways, or we can wipe, and none of us will have anything."

It's not so much "screw you these are my bandages" as it is "I can either carry bandages or a bazooka for the tank that is rolling around that corner right now that's going to kill us all".

Being nice doesn't always mean giving people what they want at that moment. Sometimes you gotta look at the big picture.

Granted, most of the time games won't be scraping that deep into the barrel, and I'll gladly burn whatever resources I have to keep a group going, but if we didn't have Healing Belts in our games we'd be Totally Screwed. We'd need at least three Clerics/Healers dedicated solely for healing to pick us up through every encounter.

Perhaps it's simply a difference in game-styles. Some groups view HP as something that is slowly depleted over the course of a single crawl, culminating in the last of your resources at the "boss". Other groups (mine included) prefer it when our HP goes all over the place, from negatives to near full to sucking from a SoD the next turn. People withdraw, get back into the fray, take breathers mid-combat after clearing their general area, and overall have a blast. Healing Belts are bloody everywhere... we love those things so much.

Healing Belt action economy has become a philosophy at our table, about when one can spare the full round needed to switch a belt (we carry several each), whether one should switch a belt before running into the next skirmish a run action away, whether one should burst-heal or heal in three actions, whose action is best spent healing who... it's a great subgame, at least in our opinion. Unfortunately this subgame will probably fall apart when we pass 8th level or so, which saddens me.

(Someone please say there's a Healing Belt v.2. There probably isn't...)

It kinda feels like the 4th Edition Healing Surge (?) rule, to be honest. Having every character able to heal thyself or heal another at the cost of actions (and initial investment) is great, and lends a "tide of battle" feel to the table that I've come to love.

Zaq
2010-06-30, 08:48 PM
Another downside of the removal of healing items is that now someone has to play The Healer. Talk about team play all you want, but for a lot of people, it's just not fun to be forced to cast healing spell after healing spell when you could be doing something useful. I can be a team player just fine without having to ever modify my allies' HP totals... but if you get rid of the items, you better hope that someone genuinely enjoys playing the box o' band-aids, or else you're just drawing straws to take one for the team.

Perhaps you have a designated healer in your group, someone who just loves being on medic duty. Awesome. Good for you. My group does not have that, and I don't think we'd be too happy if one of us had to volunteer to take a role they found boring just because the GM has a thing about wands.

Doc Roc
2010-06-30, 09:10 PM
So, how many items is too many? Can we get a specific and qualitative number on that? Because here's the gear list for one of the most optimized toons in my party, the same one with Bree in it.

Spellguard Ring
4000

+1 Elvencraft Composite Longbow
3000

4x Raptor Arrows
24000

Belt of Battle
12000

Mithril Breastplate
4500

Arcanist's Gloves
500

Cloak of Resistance +2
Loot

Figurine, Griffin
From Bree

Is this too many?

Mike_G
2010-06-30, 09:15 PM
Another downside of the removal of healing items is that now someone has to play The Healer. Talk about team play all you want, but for a lot of people, it's just not fun to be forced to cast healing spell after healing spell when you could be doing something useful. I can be a team player just fine without having to ever modify my allies' HP totals... but if you get rid of the items, you better hope that someone genuinely enjoys playing the box o' band-aids, or else you're just drawing straws to take one for the team.

Perhaps you have a designated healer in your group, someone who just loves being on medic duty. Awesome. Good for you. My group does not have that, and I don't think we'd be too happy if one of us had to volunteer to take a role they found boring just because the GM has a thing about wands.


We've done everything from a Rogue with UMD as the only healer to a player who wanted to be the dedicated Healer to hauling an NPC Cleric around like a First Aid Kit with feet.

Do whatever you want. If you don't mind wands by the bushel, fine. I dislike the concept of "We'd better grab a few dozen Healing Belts while we're in town, Moonglum" enough to provide a workaround. If that means the Cleric converts a few spells to Cures, fine. If that means nobody plays the healbot, I'll send a hireling Healer along who has a pathological fear of hitting bad guys.

But if the Cleric is crying that they don't want to burn a SoD to keep a party member alive, well, we just don't play that way.

You never leave a man at negative HP.

Oooh-Rah!

Gametime
2010-06-30, 09:19 PM
Another downside of the removal of healing items is that now someone has to play The Healer. Talk about team play all you want, but for a lot of people, it's just not fun to be forced to cast healing spell after healing spell when you could be doing something useful. I can be a team player just fine without having to ever modify my allies' HP totals... but if you get rid of the items, you better hope that someone genuinely enjoys playing the box o' band-aids, or else you're just drawing straws to take one for the team.

Perhaps you have a designated healer in your group, someone who just loves being on medic duty. Awesome. Good for you. My group does not have that, and I don't think we'd be too happy if one of us had to volunteer to take a role they found boring just because the GM has a thing about wands.

There are some workarounds, including the reserve point variant in Unearthed Arcana. Making the Heal skill actually heal people (possibly with a limited numbers per target per day) is also something I like, since it makes the skill actually worth taking.

Most of these only provide out-of-combat healing, but then again, that's what magic items mostly provide anyway.

taltamir
2010-06-30, 09:45 PM
No, but I love the Friar in Van Helsing, and I cheered when Harry Dresden upgraded his magic rings. The concept of a wizard as a guy who makes potions or as an artificer is at least as iconic as the concept of a wizard as a guy who throws fireballs. Personally, I think the item creation minigame is one of the most fun parts of 3.5.

its one of the most broken parts of 3.5
The problem with such a mechanic is either it totally sucks due to massive nerfs (which is a big let down). Or it is useful, giving you a huge advantage. This is a problem because you are not playing a game where everyone is a wizard of sorts, you are playing a game where one guy is a wizard, and the other a monk.

In games where everyone is a mage, having such mechanics is viable.

By including such mechanics, and grossly overpowered spells, WOTC has shot themselves in the foot, making it impossible to have a classic heroic fighter (because he will NEED to be decked head to toe in powerful magic items in order to have any chance of survival)

Math_Mage
2010-07-01, 01:21 AM
So, how many items is too many? Can we get a specific and qualitative number on that?

Eh wot? :smalltongue:

[/nitpick]

Kantolin
2010-07-01, 01:51 AM
We've done everything from a Rogue with UMD as the only healer to a player who wanted to be the dedicated Healer to hauling an NPC Cleric around like a First Aid Kit with feet.

That's... actaully really cool. ^_^ I like that a lot.


But if the Cleric is crying that they don't want to burn a SoD to keep a party member alive, well, we just don't play that way.

You never leave a man at negative HP.

Well, that's true too. When someone is dying, you'd be hard pressed to find an excuse not to go fix them up even if it's down to a heal check.

As a note, though, imagine the following event:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DM: And the monster crits the cleric for 20
Cleric: Suck! That puts me at -9
DM: Fighter, your turn.
Fighter: Uh...
Cleric: Dood, I'm going to die if you don't heal me.
Fighter: Okay, I go heal the cleric with my potion/healingbelt/intrinsicability
Cleric: Awesome, thanks.
DM: Okay, your turn Cleric.
Cleric: I use my new Flame Strike.
Everyone else: Awesome!
~
DM: Okay, the monster's turn again. He hits the - ooh, another lucky roll. The cleric takes 16.
Cleric: Dangit, I wa shoping my AC was high enough as it's the highest in the party. Now I"m at -8.
Fighter: Uh, hey can you guys?
Rogue: We burned out my wand just before this combat.
Wizard: I could try a heal check, but I don't have too many ranks in it. Yours is way more reliable?
FIghter: I guess I heal the Cleric again, then.
Cleric: Awesome thanks! I get up and use my Wall of Fire!
DM: Okay, the demon dies.
Wizard: So, enjoying your new sword you were so psyched about? It's Einhander, right?
Fighter: ....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I mean, nothing in there was a wrong action. When someone goes down, everyone should scramble to prevent them from dying or to ensure safety. The problem is that if you didn't want to be the healbot, it's kinda lame to be forced to regardless of what class you are. A friend of mine played a cleric who channeled negative energy because the last time he played a cleric, he was yelled at every round he did an action that wasn't healing even if nobody needed it, and refused to end up in that role again.

(He also had a really awesome story involving being cursed which kind of stole the show from the rest of us as his story was just awesome, but that's neither here nor there).

That's my major reason for enjoying having a bunch of people able to heal. Means the fighter has time to use his nifty new sword, the rogue who just got into position to full attack finally can full sneak attack, the wizard can cut loose with his new nifty cone of cold he's psyched about, the cleric can call down holy fire, but if anyone goes down they can share around healing duties. That way nobody becomes a healbot.

It also helps encourage the party to be more healed, meaning encounters can be utilized with the expectation that people are at full HP, making them generally more neat.

And last, it also discourages narcolepsy. The more healing you have going around, the longer the people who can't run out of any other resource (So fighter-types, but also warlocks and stuff) can run. It also means that the wizard especially has to conserve more resources - if the cleric is the party's only source of healing and he runs out, then the party has to stop, and thus the wizard can use spells at at least that frequency and rest along with the whole party. ^_^

Most of this probably doesn't help you too much beyond perspective, though: Healing being plentiful doesn't necessarily mean the cleric is ignoring the fighter or something.

(One last thing that's mostly an aside: According to the Batman Guide to Wizards, a wizard should buff his teammates and try to maneuver the field such that [i]they[i] can be awesome, not to showboat. I believe the biggest example he used was haste - make the party's fighter and rogue awesome so they can do the damage. He also suggested you use things like walls of stone to split the enemies in half so your team can decimate one group. Not that you particularly said otherwise, but the default Batman Wizard is supposed to be a serious team player. :P)

Gnaeus
2010-07-01, 07:31 AM
its one of the most broken parts of 3.5
The problem with such a mechanic is either it totally sucks due to massive nerfs (which is a big let down). Or it is useful, giving you a huge advantage. This is a problem because you are not playing a game where everyone is a wizard of sorts, you are playing a game where one guy is a wizard, and the other a monk.

Or you use it as a means to funnel power from your wizard (losing XP) TO the monk (who gains items). Used in that way it is probably the most balancing feat in 3.5.



But it's a team game. The Cleric's job isn't to have enough to heal himself, unless he's a douchebag. If the Corpsman in my platoon said, "Screw you, Gomer. I got my bandages," we'd have feasted on his

Maybe, because he was assigned to the group AS the healer. What if he had come into play and said "Hey guys, I want to play a (Zen Archer/Shapeshifter/Holy Warrior of Kord) not a medic. My base class is (Cleric/druid/favored soul) but please think of me as a fighter with different mechanics. I will of course have a few heals, which I will be glad to share, but I won't be doing it in combat, and it won't be a lot." Are you going to eat him for being a douchebag or let him play his fracking concept?

And this is assuming that all the players are intentionally sacrificing themselves for the team game, and not letting their feelings (IC or OOC) interfere AT ALL, ever. What if the cleric decides that he should heal the members of the party that share his alignment/religion first, and if limited healing is available they get the priority, because if someone has to die, it is better if it is the heathens, right? What if, despite being friends, Claire Cleric is angry at Fred Fighter that week and decides to let him sit out a few fights cooling his heels at 5 hp while she heals other people. Taking away the fighters ability to self-heal automatically shifts more power to the cleric. The ability to decide which party members get healed to full and which have to settle for half hp automatically shifts more power to the cleric. Team game or not, any time a PC needs another PC's help in order to do their basic job, it is a weakness. The other player may be unable or unwilling to do that thing right then.


We've done everything from a Rogue with UMD as the only healer to a player who wanted to be the dedicated Healer to hauling an NPC Cleric around like a First Aid Kit with feet.

Do whatever you want. If you don't mind wands by the bushel, fine.

What exactly does the Rogue with UMD as the only healer UMD without wands? How does that work? Sure, if you have a player who wants to play a Healer, thats fine.



Which is what team tactics are for. Spectral Hand exists for a reason. Formations exist for a reason. Prearranged action plans exist for a reason. In our parties, no man is an island, and I'm cool with that.

Thats good. Scream TACTICS loud enough and maybe the problem will go away.

So, Your DM never uses tactics to divide the party? Never has rooms with multiple objectives in different areas that you have to deal with at the same time? Never has enemies drop walls in the middle of your group to separate you? Never uses AOEs on your formation, making you split up, or inflicting damage on multiple characters so that the healer can't deal with all the injured at the same time? There are dozens of reasons why a healer might not be able to heal a given character at a certain time. Taking away characters ability to heal themselves weakens them, and yelling tactics doesn't change that.

Oh, and I'm sure you forgot since you were playing an arcane caster with heal spells, but spectral hand isn't on the cleric or druid spell list.


I've had to look a teammate straight in the eye before and say, "I can either burn my last prepared nuke-spell into a heal and you can appreciate having a big number on your sheet until we walk into the final boss room and die anyways, or we can wipe, and none of us will have anything."

It's not so much "screw you these are my bandages" as it is "I can either carry bandages or a bazooka for the tank that is rolling around that corner right now that's going to kill us all".

Being nice doesn't always mean giving people what they want at that moment. Sometimes you gotta look at the big picture.

Thank you Ballista. That is the point exactly.


There are some workarounds, including the reserve point variant in Unearthed Arcana. Making the Heal skill actually heal people (possibly with a limited numbers per target per day) is also something I like, since it makes the skill actually worth taking.

Absolutely there are workarounds. You could let all PCs recover (level) in hp for every minute spent resting. That solves the balance problem, at a further cost in realism. You could go a 4th ed route with healing surges, but lots of people aren't really comfortable with that. You could give minor at-will healing powers to a number of classes (maybe all divine casters, + monk and bard, let Dragon Shaman heal all the way to 100% etc), which might be the best way to go.

balistafreak
2010-07-01, 07:35 AM
But if the Cleric is crying that they don't want to burn a SoD to keep a party member alive, well, we just don't play that way.

You never leave a man at negative HP.

Oooh-Rah!

Oh, if they're dying, different story. :smalltongue: One SoD < one (semi)competent PC's actions. In that case you burn the spell into a spontaneous heal, gnash your teeth, and fall back.

If they're still stumbling around at low HP, though, you tell them to suck it up, pull out a bow, and stay with the Wizard so as to not die. (Of course, if said character is your only front-liner, you should probably fall back anyways.)

taltamir
2010-07-01, 12:04 PM
Or you use it as a means to funnel power from your wizard (losing XP) TO the monk (who gains items). Used in that way it is probably the most balancing feat in 3.5.
Great theory... lets give the wizard MORE power in order to nerf him by having him use that power exclusively on the monk...

If they wanted it to be a balancing mechanic then give it to monks in the first place. (forging permanent items require mastery of ki; not traditional magic)

Gnaeus
2010-07-01, 12:32 PM
Great theory... lets give the wizard MORE power in order to nerf him by having him use that power exclusively on the monk...

It isn't a theory. I use it regularly in parties with widely separated tiers (although I play druid more often than wizard, it works the same). In my current game I play a Chameleon, who can craft via floating feat. Almost everything I have crafted has been either an item for the party's muggles, or a wand with a low level buff or healing spell intended for the Imp to UMD on the muggles.


If they wanted it to be a balancing mechanic then give it to monks in the first place. (forging permanent items require mastery of ki; not traditional magic)

That is assuming that they realized the imbalance in the game when they were passing out which feats went where. Anyway, I am not arguing that designers intended crafting feats to be a balancing mechanic. Only that with responsible play they can be. I can't guarantee that I will always be there with a timely enlarge person or cure for our chain tripper. I CAN guarantee that with enough time and the right feats I can give him the tools he needs to do his job.

That is a good idea though. In a world where monks and ninjas could craft items and casters couldn't, I might play a monk. Maybe I'll look at homebrewing it.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-01, 01:08 PM
Eh wot? :smalltongue:

[/nitpick]

They call you Math_Mage for a reason...

*cross arms, nods seriously*

Doc Roc
2010-07-01, 01:59 PM
Slip of the keys. The question stands, though. How many items is too many items? I think, personally, that the Christmas Tree effect is not nearly as bad as people think, and a very simple change would go a huge way to fixing it:

Magic items sell at full price.

The real source of the christmas tree effect is getting stuck with tons of old junky effects that are worth more on you than sold. My experience in ToS, which is one of the places that most rewards itemization, is that most players have 8 to 10 items total, including weapons. I think in normal play, most freshly made characters have about 6-7, two of which would probably be eliminated by a variation on your existing schema. So we're sitting at 5. I really don't think there's a big problem here.

Re: clerics
I have never had a cleric who could burn for healing spells not burn for them when it was that or let a party mate actually die. Or cast revenance when a player was down. This is a nasty myth about the "COers who Don't Ever Heal," and frankly, I really resent it.

The issue arises in the interstitial periods, such as 75% of max HP or 40%, where you are fundamentally better served by murdering your opponents. The other issue is that healing spells are just not that great. You could fix in combat healing by simply moving the cure line to swift action status. We've tested something very similar, and it makes things not just better, but more fun, because the healer gets to really interact with the game again. Sure, it may mean that reach spell is suddenly essential to your life style, but hey.

Draz74
2010-07-01, 02:08 PM
The real source of the christmas tree effect is getting stuck with tons of old junky effects that are worth more on you than sold. My experience in ToS, which is one of the places that most rewards itemization, is that most players have 8 to 10 items total, including weapons. I think in normal play, most freshly made characters have about 6-7, two of which would probably be eliminated by a variation on your existing schema. So we're sitting at 5. I really don't think there's a big problem here.

I have to completely disagree here. If MIC is an allowed source, at least, then a character who truly optimizes their equipment, as far as I can see, will be a huge pack-rat, carrying around dozens of cheap items "just in case."

Why this doesn't happen in ToS, I can't say. Perhaps because it's an arena situation, where characters know they will have to fight a battle (and only one battle at a time), and nothing else. No environmental challenges, social challenges, puzzles, or whatever.

Doc Roc
2010-07-01, 02:21 PM
I have to completely disagree here. If MIC is an allowed source, at least, then a character who truly optimizes their equipment, as far as I can see, will be a huge pack-rat, carrying around dozens of cheap items "just in case."

Why this doesn't happen in ToS, I can't say. Perhaps because it's an arena situation, where characters know they will have to fight a battle (and only one battle at a time), and nothing else. No environmental challenges, social challenges, puzzles, or whatever.

A point I had failed to consider. The issue I see is that a lot of the bigger items have disproportionate rewards for bringing them. I'd rather have, for example, a collar of umbral metamorphosis than a hat of disguise, a ring of sustenance, and two scrolls.

The other issue is that I'm not sure this is a bad thing. Most of the MiC items do hugely entertaining things. I don't think I mind them existing in 3.x. If we were talking some other game, with this great and well-refined purity of structure, and a deep leaning towards speed of play and ease of access...

Like say, Legend.

Well, that'd be a different story.

balistafreak
2010-07-01, 02:35 PM
You could fix in combat healing by simply moving the cure line to swift action status. We've tested something very similar, and it makes things not just better, but more fun, because the healer gets to really interact with the game again. Sure, it may mean that reach spell is suddenly essential to your life style, but hey.

Good lord, that sounds interesting. I'll have to try this with my own group sometime...

Of course that means CoDzilla becomes even more so, but yeah, that's a given. :smalltongue:

Draz74
2010-07-01, 02:39 PM
The other issue is that I'm not sure this is a bad thing. Most of the MiC items do hugely entertaining things. I don't think I mind them existing in 3.x.

I do. As much as I love entertaining items from MIC (which I do), I would prefer a system that gave a bigger reward from having fewer items.

As it is currently, Equipment takes me nine times as long to figure out for a moderately-optimized character as all other aspects of the character combined. That's a little extreme. Moreover, and back to the original point of the thread, it really creates a sharp difference between D&D heroes and fantasy literature heroes.

Umael
2010-07-01, 02:41 PM
Some thoughts here, some of which have already been mentioned most likely (sorry):

In a low-magic world, magic-users as they are right now would be extremely dangerous and likely game-breaking. Limiting (not eliminating) magic items would enhance this.

Ergo, magical spells and the like need to be seriously curtailed. Possibilities:

Ban all magic use. Maybe allow rituals for things like the creation of magical items. Not the best solution, necessarily, but it could work.
House-rule on each and every spell. If it is considered as "broken", then toss it.
Eliminate all tier 1 and 2 characters. Substitute classes like warmage and warlock and beguiler. Rename them as necessary.

d20 Rokugan had an idea on magical weapons, which was to say that some weapons are completely non-magical, but like masterwork, only better (and get the appropriate bonuses). I don't recall the names, but the last one was legendary at +4 bonus to hit (but no bonus to damage).

In Iron Heroes, which is low-magic, you encounter monsters with DR. How do you overcome them? By hitting them, really, really hard...

Speaking of Iron Heroes, I love the Arcanist. Maybe use that instead of a wizard?

Also, someone mentioned a campaign setting that nerfed magic spell-casting badly, but that even with its magic nerfed, the druid was incredibly powerful. Maybe allow druids, but eliminate all of their spells?

Could the Healer be used instead of the Cleric? Would a cleric that can ONLY use its spell slots for cure spells be balanced? Would it take being allowed to use the Domain spells more often? More extreme, could a domain power and/or the domain spells be allowed near-indefinitely make the character interesting enough to play?

Slight path away from the topic - shields. Shields should do a lot more for AC - but ONLY if the person knows how to use them. Give some Joe off the streets a shield, and he might know enough to hide behind it*. Give someone like me a shield, and I know how to move the shield to intercept a blow better.

* - I've seen people wince, close their eyes, and pretty much just freeze when I've gone after them with a sword and they have a shield.

taltamir
2010-07-01, 02:43 PM
That is assuming that they realized the imbalance in the game when they were passing out which feats went where. Anyway, I am not arguing that designers intended crafting feats to be a balancing mechanic. Only that with responsible play they can be. I can't guarantee that I will always be there with a timely enlarge person or cure for our chain tripper. I CAN guarantee that with enough time and the right feats I can give him the tools he needs to do his job.

That is a good idea though. In a world where monks and ninjas could craft items and casters couldn't, I might play a monk. Maybe I'll look at homebrewing it.

fair enough. they probably didn't intend it to be a balancing mechanic, but it can be used as one as you described.

Oslecamo
2010-07-01, 02:47 PM
As it is currently, Equipment takes me nine times as long to figure out for a moderately-optimized character as all other aspects of the character combined. That's a little extreme. Moreover, and back to the original point of the thread, it really creates a sharp difference between D&D heroes and fantasy literature heroes.

To be honest, fantasy literature heroes didn't have to deal with magic users with more spell variety that you can shake a sword at.

Plus, when heroes did get naked, they didn't just shrug it off. They were now considerably weaker and their priority was to get some equipment ASAP.

Plus, some fantasy heroes did carry a good deal of gear. Just in LOTR, Frodo has:
-Magic dagger.
-Magic rope.
-Magic cloack.
-Artifact ring.
-Magic rations.
-The star in a bottle thingy.
-Mythral chainshirt.

Yes, you can argue that half of those items are just very good crafted stuff, but the elves do mention that it's what the mortals call "magic". And D&D is quite lacking in non-magic equipment, but it does has a lot of utility items that we do see in fantasy all the time.

Draz74
2010-07-01, 03:09 PM
Plus, some fantasy heroes did carry a good deal of gear. Just in LOTR, Frodo has:
-Magic dagger.
-Magic rope.
-Magic cloack.
-Artifact ring.
-Magic rations.
-The star in a bottle thingy.
-Mythral chainshirt.

Yes, you can argue that half of those items are just very good crafted stuff, but the elves do mention that it's what the mortals call "magic". And D&D is quite lacking in non-magic equipment, but it does has a lot of utility items that we do see in fantasy all the time.

The only one I'd argue is well-crafted rather than "magic" is the rations. And even if they are magic, well, consumables are sort of a separate category.

The Ring ... well, obviously it's a different situation (i.e. a plot device). It could easily have a magical ability to not count against its bearer's limit on magic items.

And the rope? That was definitely Sam's item, not Frodo's.

So by my count, that brings Frodo down to a very reasonable 4 magic items plus the Ring. :smallbiggrin:

Oslecamo
2010-07-01, 03:14 PM
So by my count, that brings Frodo down to a very reasonable 4 magic items plus the Ring. :smallbiggrin:

Wich is more or less what character around lv5 is expected to have. One main magic item counting for half his WBL, magic armor, one magic weapon and a couple utility magic items on top.

Only on high level D&D it's that characters start having loads of magic items, and high level D&D isn't definetely your average fantasy game as you're fighting time-warping plane-shifting wizards and you start to reach godhood. Heck, liches are lv10-12.

Draz74
2010-07-01, 06:26 PM
Wich is more or less what character around lv5 is expected to have. One main magic item counting for half his WBL, magic armor, one magic weapon and a couple utility magic items on top.

Level 5, you say? Let me pull up some Level 5 character sheets and see.

Ardent ... hmmm. That's a big paragraph of Equipment, but admittedly lots of it is mundane equipment or consumables. Ignoring all that, it looks like ... magic armor, armor crystal, and Healing Belt. And two fully-charged Wands, if those don't count as consumables. And his shield and weapon, while not magical, have a fair amount of money and effort sunk into them (masterwork, wand chambers, and special materials).

Warblade ... about the same as the Ardent. Armor, Anklet of Tranlocation, Healing Belt, and Novice Ring of the Diamond Mind. And a bunch of consumables and mundane gimmicks and a nonmagical-but-expensive masterwork weapon.

Factotum ... This character is especially a pack-rat personality, so he might not be the best example. Weapon Crystal, armor, Caduceus Bracers, a custom magic item of Silent Portal, a Handy Haversack, Jumping Caltrops. So that's six magic items, even ignoring consumables and mundanes.

Dragonfire Adept ... LOTS of wands, a weapon crystal, a Handy Haversack, and a Dragon Spirit Cincture.

So yeah, at level five, four magic items does indeed seem to be pretty typical. But on the other hand, I don't think we can just say "level 5 play is the ideal of what magic item selection should be like," considering all of these characters haven't even found it worthwhile yet to get a magic weapon when there are so many great utility items to buy.

Doc Roc
2010-07-01, 06:29 PM
That said, the heart of the original complaint was leveled at the issues regarding items which offered mere numerical bonuses.

Mike_G
2010-07-01, 06:31 PM
Maybe, because he was assigned to the group AS the healer. What if he had come into play and said "Hey guys, I want to play a (Zen Archer/Shapeshifter/Holy Warrior of Kord) not a medic. My base class is (Cleric/druid/favored soul) but please think of me as a fighter with different mechanics. I will of course have a few heals, which I will be glad to share, but I won't be doing it in combat, and it won't be a lot." Are you going to eat him for being a douchebag or let him play his fracking concept?


No, we wouldn't force him to play outside his concept, but as old AD&D veterans, "a Cleric who doesn't heal people" is like a Fighter who opposes violence to us. Such a thing would not occur. Especially if the player said "think of me as a Fighter." Saying "I'll play the Cleric" in a room foull of gamers over thirty means "I'll take care of the healing."

And I wasn't talking about my fellow PC's eating the Cleric, I was talking metaphorically about how my fellow jarheads would have reacted if the guy with the med kit got stingy in the field.

And, please understand, when you use the word "frack," I die inside a little. It diminishes us all.




And this is assuming that all the players are intentionally sacrificing themselves for the team game, and not letting their feelings (IC or OOC) interfere AT ALL, ever. What if the cleric decides that he should heal the members of the party that share his alignment/religion first, and if limited healing is available they get the priority, because if someone has to die, it is better if it is the heathens, right? What if, despite being friends, Claire Cleric is angry at Fred Fighter that week and decides to let him sit out a few fights cooling his heels at 5 hp while she heals other people. Taking away the fighters ability to self-heal automatically shifts more power to the cleric. The ability to decide which party members get healed to full and which have to settle for half hp automatically shifts more power to the cleric. Team game or not, any time a PC needs another PC's help in order to do their basic job, it is a weakness. The other player may be unable or unwilling to do that thing right then.


There is no preference in combat. You heal your comrades ion the order of who needs it.

Maybe this just comes naturally to a group with mostly ex-military or emergency service guys, but I don't care how angry I am at the guy next to me. In combat, you withhold nothing from your team, or you bleed out in the sandbox.

If it's not for you, don't use any of the suggestions in this thread. I'm totally cool with that. I want to eliminate the Christmas Tree, you won't convince me I don't want to, so I will listen to people who suggest how I can eliminate it.

Something like allowing the Heal skill to restore HP would be a useful suggestion.



What exactly does the Rogue with UMD as the only healer UMD without wands? How does that work?



Clearly, we haven't implemented these changes yet, since I'm here fishing for ways to do it. We had a party where nobody wanted a Cleric, so I maxed out my UMD and we bought wands. I don't like this option, but it's what we had.



Sure, if you have a player who wants to play a Healer, thats fine.



That's part of planning. If there's no Cleric, we grab a hireling, or figure out who can cover. We cover the roles in character creation, or we hire NPC's. Nobody gets "forced" to play the healbot.




Thats good. Scream TACTICS loud enough and maybe the problem will go away.

So, Your DM never uses tactics to divide the party? Never has rooms with multiple objectives in different areas that you have to deal with at the same time? Never has enemies drop walls in the middle of your group to separate you? Never uses AOEs on your formation, making you split up, or inflicting damage on multiple characters so that the healer can't deal with all the injured at the same time? There are dozens of reasons why a healer might not be able to heal a given character at a certain time. Taking away characters ability to heal themselves weakens them, and yelling tactics doesn't change that.


We don't feel the need to have everyone able to cast Cures. A few potions each covers those situations. Yes, that's magic items, yes, this thread is about limiting magic items. Limiting isn't eliminating.

There are times when you do get split up. That's part of the ebb and flow of combat. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bears eats you. I don't like the Healing Surge concept in 4e, and "give everybody a Healing Belt" is just the same thing for 3e.





Oh, and I'm sure you forgot since you were playing an arcane caster with heal spells, but spectral hand isn't on the cleric or druid spell list.


OK, I'll give you that one.

I've never had the tiniest shred of an iota of the ghost of an inkling to play a Cleric, since religion gives me hives, so I'm not real familiar with the spell list. Since none of us ever want to play a Cleric, we had a DM houserule the healing/restoring/ neutralize poison/ disease etc as open to arcane casters.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-01, 06:34 PM
Clerics don't have to serve gods. They can serve concepts instead.

Doc Roc
2010-07-01, 06:37 PM
Mike, I have a question:

If I am pretty sure I can kill or decimate the remaining foes, but one of my team-mates is at 50-20% HP, what is the tactical choice you would make as a cleric?

Gnaeus
2010-07-01, 07:35 PM
No, we wouldn't force him to play outside his concept, but as old AD&D veterans, "a Cleric who doesn't heal people" is like a Fighter who opposes violence to us. Such a thing would not occur. Especially if the player said "think of me as a Fighter." Saying "I'll play the Cleric" in a room foull of gamers over thirty means "I'll take care of the healing."

Sorry. No dice. I am a gamer over 30, playing since 1st edition. Everyone in my group is over 30. I think, but would not swear, that we have all been playing since first ed. None of us feel that cleric necessarily equals healbot.



And, please understand, when you use the word "frack," I die inside a little. It diminishes us all.

I am sorry it causes you pain. My vocabulary is limited to words my 2 and 4 year old can repeat. It seems to translate into my typing. I will try not to use it in threads where I know you are, but I may forget. "Crivens" is more common as an expletive in my house, but it doesn't translate into as many parts of speech.


If it's not for you, don't use any of the suggestions in this thread. I'm totally cool with that. I want to eliminate the Christmas Tree, you won't convince me I don't want to, so I will listen to people who suggest how I can eliminate it.

I have no problem with eliminating the Christmas Tree Effect. That is an aesthetic choice, one which I understand, and to a degree sympathize with. More power to you. If you can make it work in a way which doesn't hurt the mechanics of game play, we might even implement it. Our group has already dumped stat enhancement items, replacing them with 1 point enhancement bonus on a stat on your choice per level after 4 (max bonus = level/3).

I do have a problem with statements like "removing healing belts hurts the cleric more than the fighter" "removing magic items will make wizards prepare more buffs", or "removing the christmas tree effect will not have negative impacts on balance if implemented without addressing a number of these issues." The first I believe to be absolutely contrary to fact. The second I believe to be unlikely in most groups, although perhaps not yours. The third I find to be somewhere in between. I realize that the last one isn't a direct quote. If you disagree with it as a characterization of your argument please clarify.


There is no preference in combat. You heal your comrades ion the order of who needs it.

Maybe this just comes naturally to a group with mostly ex-military or emergency service guys, but I don't care how angry I am at the guy next to me. In combat, you withhold nothing from your team, or you bleed out in the sandbox.

OK, you have an unusually cohesive group. Please believe me when I say that there are many people who let their personal or their characters beliefs impact their tactical play. Many people would vigorously defend the second position as good roleplaying.


There are times when you do get split up. That's part of the ebb and flow of combat. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bears eats you. I don't like the Healing Surge concept in 4e, and "give everybody a Healing Belt" is just the same thing for 3e.

Fine. Just don't pretend that that doesn't hurt people who can't do their own healing disproportionally.

Mike_G
2010-07-01, 09:37 PM
Mike, I have a question:

If I am pretty sure I can kill or decimate the remaining foes, but one of my team-mates is at 50-20% HP, what is the tactical choice you would make as a cleric?


Probably wipe out the enemy.

We do have a hate on for turning, Sleep, and generally one- shotting encounters. We don't ban it, but the players don't like it, since what's the point of four guys showing up if one can just press the Win Button. If the battle has gone on, been epic and fun and we're on deaths door and you can end it, then we'd expect you to.

But before kicking in the door of the BBEG's throneroom? No, you spam the cures so everyone can play, rather than saving all your slots for SoD's.

It's not about winning, it's about having fun. One shotting the encounter is fun for one player, once or twice, then it's boooooooooooooring. The whole party slugging it out in a well co-ordinated plan of attack is fun. Having to scramble and improvise when the enemy throw a wrench into your plans is exciting, and pulling it off is triumphant.

So "why should I heal Bob when I can just end the game?" is the exact antithesis of our philosophy. You should heal Bob and not end the encouter because: A) Bob would like to play, and B) the encounter is enjoyable, so ending it soon is a bad thing.

It's like sex. If you are the only one who gets to fully enjoy it, and you pride yourself that you can get it over really quickly, chances are you'll be playing solo next time.





I do have a problem with statements like "removing healing belts hurts the cleric more than the fighter" "removing magic items will make wizards prepare more buffs", or "removing the christmas tree effect will not have negative impacts on balance if implemented without addressing a number of these issues." The first I believe to be absolutely contrary to fact. The second I believe to be unlikely in most groups, although perhaps not yours. The third I find to be somewhere in between. I realize that the last one isn't a direct quote. If you disagree with it as a characterization of your argument please clarify.


To address these in order, as we play it:

A) The party Healer's responsibilty is to see to Healing. Whether that role is a Cleric or an NPC cohort or a Rogue with a bag of wands. If he has the only Healing spells, he has to spend slots and actions on them. Less space for Righteous Might.

You may not think that way, but we do. If nobody wants to play a Healer, I'd rather send Corpsman McMedic the hireling along than give everyone a Healing Belt.

B) The Wizard needs buffs. For himself and the party. A Fighter with Bull's Strength is a better meatshield than one without. Since he has no Belt o' Strength, your choice is buff him, or do without. the same goes for the Wizard not having Bracers of Armor. He can cast Mage Armor and Shield or have a crap AC. If the spells are the only source of buffs, then the party will burn spells.

C) I never said that. this thread is not about those issues. It's not looking for a caster/melee balance. I don't think there is a way to balance casters vs melee other than on a party by party basis. We fixed our issues by selective spell nerfs and gentleman's agreements. I'm not concerned with class balance issues in this thread.

I have tried to be as clear as possible. I hope this helps.

balistafreak
2010-07-01, 09:57 PM
Perhaps it simply comes down to different challenges thrown at both of us from different DMs then.

It seems that your DM is giving you an appropriate challenge for your tactics. When you use heals instead of SoDs, most of the time this is going to be objectively weaker - you've admitted as much. However, your games remain fun - this is hardly something you'd lie about, after all. :smallwink: This means that your DM throwing challenges at you that don't require SoDs to beat, and instead only require that everyone in the party be at full-health and be able to take whatever (non SoD) actions they might be capable of. If your party suddenly decided to break out all of the SoDs, then as you've said the encounter would be anti-climatically flattened.

DMs that many of us are familiar with (including ourselves, when applicable) prepare challenges that take into account the ability of PCs to use SoDs, most likely resulting in objectively more powerful (not "difficult" as difficulty is relative) challenges. But since our parties use SoDs, we end up having the same amount of trouble that your parties have healing up with their spells instead. If we decided to drop the SoDs and use our spells to heal instead, our PCs would be anti-climatically flattened.

To sum up, each of our DMs are throwing appropriate challenges at us. While SoDs are more objectively powerful, the fact that both sides of the DM's screen know this means that overall difficulty (and presumably fun) are about the same for both of us.

Draz74
2010-07-01, 11:37 PM
I am sorry it causes you pain. My vocabulary is limited to words my 2 and 4 year old can repeat. It seems to translate into my typing. I will try not to use it in threads where I know you are, but I may forget. "Crivens" is more common as an expletive in my house, but it doesn't translate into as many parts of speech.

I for one appreciate it. So let my opinion counterweigh Mike's.

Gnaeus
2010-07-02, 07:50 AM
A) The party Healer's responsibilty is to see to Healing. Whether that role is a Cleric or an NPC cohort or a Rogue with a bag of wands. If he has the only Healing spells, he has to spend slots and actions on them. Less space for Righteous Might.

You may not think that way, but we do. If nobody wants to play a Healer, I'd rather send Corpsman McMedic the hireling along than give everyone a Healing Belt.

I think part of the problem here is that there are 3 separate issues, all wrapped up in the umbrella of "Healing"

Out of combat healing is adequately handled by McMedic. Whether the DMPC is a better option than what it replaced is entirely a matter of personal opinion.

In combat healing is usually handled by McMedic. The fighter is still weaker than he would otherwise be, because he could be separated from McMedic, McMedic could be incapacitated or healing someone else.

The fighter has an absolute reduction in options. Fighters have a problem finding useful things to do if "I hit it" isn't appropriate anyway, and taking away his limited equipment based solutions without replacing them is a kick in the pants.

For the purpose of this discussion I mean Fighter as a shorthand for all non and semi casters. It could just as easily be Monk, Ranger, Paladin, etc.


B) The Wizard needs buffs. For himself and the party. A Fighter with Bull's Strength is a better meatshield than one without. Since he has no Belt o' Strength, your choice is buff him, or do without.

But that is not true. Bearing in mind your group's distaste for SoD's, the wizard still has more than adequate meatshield options that have nothing to do with buffs. He could become invisible. He could create a wall. He could fly up into the air where the monsters can't reach him. He could summon a monster to act as a meatshield. He can make a meatshield. The weaker the fighter is, the better all those other options look by comparison.

And then there are the same problems as with healing. If the wizard isn't available, or is doing something else, the Fighter simply has to do without. If you remove self buffing from the fighter, that is one less thing he can do in any round in which "I hit it a lot" isn't a viable option for whatever reason.

If you are absolutely wedded to caster as source of buffs, you should probably crank up the durations on many common buffs. Bulls Strength on the fighter is a lot more likely to happen if it is hr/level, as opposed to every combat. That one change would justify some reduction in party wbl.


C) I never said that. this thread is not about those issues. It's not looking for a caster/melee balance. I don't think there is a way to balance casters vs melee other than on a party by party basis. We fixed our issues by selective spell nerfs and gentleman's agreements. I'm not concerned with class balance issues in this thread.

It is one thing to not be looking to improve caster/melee balance. I wouldn't expect such a fix to include addressing all of 3.5's woes.

It is entirely another thing to advocate a fix that makes the existing problems worse. Maybe in your group balance isn't an issue at all, because the fighters just don't care that they are weaker than the casters. There are, however, people who are interested in your aesthetic goal (reducing magic toys to a minimum), for whom these problems will be an issue in play.




One suggestion might run as follows: Use Jiriku's table, or something like it. calculate the approximate WBL of your inherent bonuses, subtract that from normal WBL.

Then take half of that modified WBL, and allow players to purchase pseudo items with it. Reflavor those pseudo items as class abilities, and the DM and Player must agree on whether a particular item is appropriate to the abilities of his class.

For example, a fighter might spend 1400 of his wbl on Anklets of Translocation, reflavored to a class ability called Mighty Leap. Twice per day, the fighter can rush forward 10 feet as a swift action, leaping over or dodging around obstacles. He retains his ability to full attack enemies that are 10 feet away and to maneuver around a battlefield, but there is no unsightly magical jewelry. (He couldn't jump through metal bars, but he could dodge around an enemy or jump over an obstacle even in an AMF, so probably about even). A Healing Belt class ability might not be thematically appropriate for a fighter, but it could be appropriate for a cleric, paladin, or dragon shaman.

You could also, if you wanted, allow the WBL for pseudo items to go to purchase long term enchantments from characters with craft feats. Example: Rather than crafting an amulet of Natural Armor, the druid casts a permanent enchantment on the fighter, giving him the strength of the forest. Druid pays the xp cost, but either the fighter or the druid can pay the gold cost out of their WBL.

Then make triple sure that the remaining fraction of WBL goes to items that can't be easily reflavored as class abilities, but are needed to function. Like flight items for muggles, healing wands, items to allow bypassing DR or incorporeal, and other required toys.

Doc Roc
2010-07-02, 11:35 AM
I for one appreciate it. So let my opinion counterweigh Mike's.

I second. Let the great weight of my approval serve.

Mike_G
2010-07-02, 06:30 PM
I think part of the problem here is that there are 3 separate issues, all wrapped up in the umbrella of "Healing"

Out of combat healing is adequately handled by McMedic. Whether the DMPC is a better option than what it replaced is entirely a matter of personal opinion.


"DMPC" as a pejorative, does not apply. When we do this, the NPC is basically a hireling, cohort, or similar, with few resources spent on anything the party wants to do, like fight or use skills or battlefield control. If having the medic along means nobody has to worry about a role they don't enjoy, where is the downside?



In combat healing is usually handled by McMedic. The fighter is still weaker than he would otherwise be, because he could be separated from McMedic, McMedic could be incapacitated or healing someone else.

The fighter has an absolute reduction in options. Fighters have a problem finding useful things to do if "I hit it" isn't appropriate anyway, and taking away his limited equipment based solutions without replacing them is a kick in the pants.

For the purpose of this discussion I mean Fighter as a shorthand for all non and semi casters. It could just as easily be Monk, Ranger, Paladin, etc.


I'm still unimpressed. If you can scrounge a Potion of Cure X for everyone for emergency use, and use the healer as Plan A, it's never been a problem for us.

I don't actually like "equipment based options" for things outside the character's role. Like I said, No man is an island. We are a team. we have a guy to do that, so I don't have to. I can spend all my gold and feats and skill points on being the best swordsman/trapsmith/diplomancer I can be.





But that is not true. Bearing in mind your group's distaste for SoD's, the wizard still has more than adequate meatshield options that have nothing to do with buffs. He could become invisible. He could create a wall. He could fly up into the air where the monsters can't reach him. He could summon a monster to act as a meatshield. He can make a meatshield. The weaker the fighter is, the better all those other options look by comparison.


You're wrong. You just are. It is, true that the Wizard benefits from buffing himself, and from buffing the rest of the party.

I played a Sorcerer for a time, and my best defense was to cast Invisibility on the Rogue and have her stand between me and danger, then put a shiv in the spleen of anyone who charged me. So, for a second level slot, I could cast spells at the enemy without ending the buff, force a bad guy to spend an action charging me, and allow the Rogue to unload a readied action, full attack TWF barrage of Sneak Attacks on him and end his charge.

Much better than casting Invis on myself, when I'd have ended it when I cast my next offensive spell, not drawn the enemy action or pulled him into the rogue's attack, which she was able to full attack since she didn't have to move up, like she would have if I'd used it on myself.

Fly, while nice, burns a third level slot, higher than Bull's Strength on the Fighter or Invis on the Rogue, and isn't much defense if you are inside, or the enemy has ranged or flight capabilities. I'd sooner Haste all my party. Summon Monster, if you want better than the Fighter, burns a higher level slot than Bull's Strength.

That's precisely what I mean by team tactics. We all benefit by relying on one another. I trust the Rogue not to run off and leave me, and she trusts me to buff her, she gets to shine, and I get good results from a fairly low cost.

Plus, if you don't have buff items for yourself, you cast buffs. I don't see how that's a hard concept. What Wizard doesn't want some kind of Mage Armor or Displacement or Blur or Shield or whatever? Without items for those, his option is to spend some slots.




If you are absolutely wedded to caster as source of buffs, you should probably crank up the durations on many common buffs. Bulls Strength on the fighter is a lot more likely to happen if it is hr/level, as opposed to every combat. That one change would justify some reduction in party wbl.



I actually like that idea a lot.





It is one thing to not be looking to improve caster/melee balance. I wouldn't expect such a fix to include addressing all of 3.5's woes.

It is entirely another thing to advocate a fix that makes the existing problems worse. Maybe in your group balance isn't an issue at all, because the fighters just don't care that they are weaker than the casters. There are, however, people who are interested in your aesthetic goal (reducing magic toys to a minimum), for whom these problems will be an issue in play.




One suggestion might run as follows: Use Jiriku's table, or something like it. calculate the approximate WBL of your inherent bonuses, subtract that from normal WBL.

Then take half of that modified WBL, and allow players to purchase pseudo items with it. Reflavor those pseudo items as class abilities, and the DM and Player must agree on whether a particular item is appropriate to the abilities of his class.

For example, a fighter might spend 1400 of his wbl on Anklets of Translocation, reflavored to a class ability called Mighty Leap. Twice per day, the fighter can rush forward 10 feet as a swift action, leaping over or dodging around obstacles. He retains his ability to full attack enemies that are 10 feet away and to maneuver around a battlefield, but there is no unsightly magical jewelry. (He couldn't jump through metal bars, but he could dodge around an enemy or jump over an obstacle even in an AMF, so probably about even). A Healing Belt class ability might not be thematically appropriate for a fighter, but it could be appropriate for a cleric, paladin, or dragon shaman.

You could also, if you wanted, allow the WBL for pseudo items to go to purchase long term enchantments from characters with craft feats. Example: Rather than crafting an amulet of Natural Armor, the druid casts a permanent enchantment on the fighter, giving him the strength of the forest. Druid pays the xp cost, but either the fighter or the druid can pay the gold cost out of their WBL.

Then make triple sure that the remaining fraction of WBL goes to items that can't be easily reflavored as class abilities, but are needed to function. Like flight items for muggles, healing wands, items to allow bypassing DR or incorporeal, and other required toys.

These are all options worth looking at.

Math_Mage
2010-07-02, 07:31 PM
I played a Sorcerer for a time, and my best defense was to cast Invisibility on the Rogue and have her stand between me and danger, then put a shiv in the spleen of anyone who charged me. So, for a second level slot, I could cast spells at the enemy without ending the buff, force a bad guy to spend an action charging me, and allow the Rogue to unload a readied action, full attack TWF barrage of Sneak Attacks on him and end his charge.

Nitpick: How is the Rogue readying a full-round action?

balistafreak
2010-07-02, 07:54 PM
Nitpick: How is the Rogue readying a full-round action?

Comment: The ability to ready full-round actions (aka delay until the middle of someone's turn, then take your full turn) is an extreme power boost to martial types attempting to tank/defend/stab suprised people in the kidneys while invisible, since they can now make not only an AoO and but a full attack (instead of a mere standard single attack) to dissuade people from walking on by to hit squishies.

Caster types obviously get a boost too, but since most of their actions are standard, the boost is miniscule.

... this is a non-trivial houserule/rules oversight that may in fact explain a lot of Mike_G's points of view. Not to say that it's a bad idea - I may in fact adapt this.

Draz74
2010-07-02, 07:58 PM
I actually like that idea a lot.

Me too, at least at first glance. Needs to be thought over more.

Gishes become overpowered? :smallamused:

Mike_G
2010-07-02, 09:26 PM
Hmmm...

It's not a deliberate house rule. If you delay your action, you haven't moved, you haven't done anything to prevent taking a full round action on a later initiative, as far as I can see. I may be misreading the rule, but if I could have taken a full round action on Initiative 20, and decide to wait until initiative 10, why am I limited to a Standard Action? If the bad guy charges me on Initiative 15, and I go on 10 because that's what I originally rolled, I can take a Full Attack, no? So why do I get boned for rolling higher Initiative?

If I roll a better initiative than the bad guy, I can move up and attack once, then he can Full Attack me on his later initiative, right? So why can't I delay and do that to him?

I just dragged out the PHB, and on p 160, under Delay, it states "You voluntarily reduce your initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative comes up later in the same round you can act normally."

So, reducing my initiative to the enemy's shouldn't, so far as I can see, limit me to a standard action.

sofawall
2010-07-02, 09:39 PM
Readying an action is different from delaying. Readied actions are "I stab him if he tries to run by." Delaying is "I'll wait for a bit." Readied actions go off whenever, including an enemies turn. Delaying it resetting you initiative to a lower value, so you can go before or after the enemy, not at the same time.

Seeing as how delaying actually changes your init, it would be like this:

P1: I got a 10
DM: I got a 10
P1: So you take half your turn, I take my whole turn, then you take the other half of yours, right?
DM: :smallconfused:

Mike_G
2010-07-02, 09:50 PM
Readying an action is different from delaying. Readied actions are "I stab him if he tries to run by." Delaying is "I'll wait for a bit." Readied actions go off whenever, including an enemies turn. Delaying it resetting you initiative to a lower value, so you can go before or after the enemy, not at the same time.

Seeing as how delaying actually changes your init, it would be like this:

P1: I got a 10
DM: I got a 10
P1: So you take half your turn, I take my whole turn, then you take the other half of yours, right?
DM: :smallconfused:

Ah. So since it interrupts the enemy charge, it would have to be a 'readied' rather than 'delayed' so just a standard attack.

Yeah, we were doing that wrong then.

I think I'll continue to do it wrong, though, since it makes defending the squishies a viable option.

My original point, of the value of buffing the Rogue, still stands, I think. I know we used this tactic before she qualified for iterative attacks and it was still nifty, so I would still think it a good use of a 2nd level slot.

sofawall
2010-07-02, 09:59 PM
TWF was mentioned, I notice. TWF takes a Full-Round as well, so no TWF on AoO or readied actions.

A side note, does that mean the wizard can delay to cast a Solid Fog on the enemy Barbarian, then just walk away with the rest of his turn?

Also, since Delaying changes you initiative, your initiative now seems to be "In the middle of the enemy turn". How does that work? Ignoring more rules?

Mike_G
2010-07-02, 10:01 PM
TWF was mentioned, I notice. TWF takes a Full-Round as well, so no TWF on AoO or readied actions.

A side note, does that mean the wizard can delay to cast a Solid Fog on the enemy Barbarian, then just walk away with the rest of his turn?

Also, since Delaying changes you initiative, your initiative now seems to be "In the middle of the enemy turn". How does that work? Ignoring more rules?


If I admit to being wrong, can we not derail this thread?

sofawall
2010-07-02, 10:05 PM
The thread derail started 8 posts ago, but sure.

Mike_G
2010-07-02, 10:07 PM
Thanks.

Not that I mind discussing action economy, but I see that I'm wrong by RAW here, and want to keep this on topic.

balistafreak
2010-07-02, 10:27 PM
Back on topic with that "great idea". Perhaps introducing several kinds of "currency" would facilitate anti-Christmas treeing.

Gold should still buy items. This is a constant. Using gold to fuel other things just smacks of odd - I remember in NWN when I was supposed to give a smith who improved weapons gold in payment because it "fueled his magical forge". Yeah right. :smallannoyed:

These items should be all of the fun things that are associated with magic and have no nonmagic equivalent - teleportation, telepathy, etc.

Introduce a second currency alongside gold. Have you read The Runelords series? There's a special item that allows people to become harder/better/faster/stronger. Have this be scattered over the world as loot as well. This stuff is spent to directly improve abilities. Statboosts, physical abilities (the aforementioned super-fighter-rush, for example), and other such superhuman tasks can be bought with this. Perhaps limited flight and such can also be acquired through here.

Finally, you have XP, which levels you up, so yeah.

Gnaeus
2010-07-03, 10:11 AM
"DMPC" as a pejorative, does not apply. When we do this, the NPC is basically a hireling, cohort, or similar, with few resources spent on anything the party wants to do, like fight or use skills or battlefield control. If having the medic along means nobody has to worry about a role they don't enjoy, where is the downside?

Taking time away from players. Distracting the DM. Perceived bias. There are lots of potential problems with DMPCs. Personally, I think that this fix is far worse than the problem, but as I said before, opinions here can legitimately vary.



I don't actually like "equipment based options" for things outside the character's role. Like I said, No man is an island. We are a team. we have a guy to do that, so I don't have to.

Your personal distaste for it is an opinion. Nothing wrong with that opinion, but it is just a personal preference. That it weakens the fighter (and the team) is a fact. If your healer is on the other side of the map and your rogue is lying next to you bleeding, you want a heal. If your healer is bleeding, you want a heal. If the monster is incorporeal or has unbeatable AC or DR, you want something useful to DO.




You're wrong. You just are. It is, true that the Wizard benefits from buffing himself, and from buffing the rest of the party.

I played a Sorcerer for a time, and my best defense was to cast Invisibility on the Rogue and have her stand between me and danger, then put a shiv in the spleen of anyone who charged me. So, for a second level slot, I could cast spells at the enemy without ending the buff, force a bad guy to spend an action charging me, and allow the Rogue to unload a readied action, full attack TWF barrage of Sneak Attacks on him and end his charge.

Much better than casting Invis on myself, when I'd have ended it when I cast my next offensive spell, not drawn the enemy action or pulled him into the rogue's attack, which she was able to full attack since she didn't have to move up, like she would have if I'd used it on myself.

Fly, while nice, burns a third level slot, higher than Bull's Strength on the Fighter or Invis on the Rogue, and isn't much defense if you are inside, or the enemy has ranged or flight capabilities. I'd sooner Haste all my party. Summon Monster, if you want better than the Fighter, burns a higher level slot than Bull's Strength.

That's precisely what I mean by team tactics. We all benefit by relying on one another. I trust the Rogue not to run off and leave me, and she trusts me to buff her, she gets to shine, and I get good results from a fairly low cost.

I am not really sure if you are trying to strawman me, or if you completely fail to understand.

Obviously the wizard casts spells in a way which benefit him. He doesn't cast fly in a small room with 5 foot clearance. He doesn't cast invisibility if he knows the monsters have blindsight, on either the rogue or himself. That argument is either foolish or a deliberate attempt at misdirection. The point is that in any circumstance in which he has a choice of good options, when he is making the choice between fly or summon or buff or blast, buff or blast is comparatively weaker, and evade/summon/battlefield control is comparatively stronger.

And the new buffs that he would have to cast to make up for missing items are ALSO competing with the old buffs he would have cast anyway. So (rules difficulties aside) Wizard wanted to cast invisibility on your rogue, and that is still the plan. But now, to put the rogue where he would have been in that combat, he needs to cast Invisibility AND Cats Grace. Sometimes he will only have the opportunity to cast one or the other, so the rogue is behind where he would have been (thus weaker). Sometimes he may decide that the invisible rogue (lacking the dex bonus) is unlikely to hit the enemy, so rather than spending 2 rounds casting level 2 spells, he spends 1 round summoning a monster or making a wall.

I am not saying that no buffs will be cast ever. I am saying that they are comparatively weaker when compared against other options, and that when buffs are appropriate they are competing for space and time with buffs the wizard would have cast anyway.


Plus, if you don't have buff items for yourself, you cast buffs. I don't see how that's a hard concept. What Wizard doesn't want some kind of Mage Armor or Displacement or Blur or Shield or whatever? Without items for those, his option is to spend some slots.

I guess. I mostly cast those for myself anyway. But you have a point.

There are other problems as well. Almost everyone agrees that Tier 3 casters are more game friendly than tier 1s. But they largely rely on items for buffs (Yes, I know beguilers have a handful of excellent buffs on their list, but for many buffs they need either Eternal Wands, or UMD'ed items.) If I want to play a Necromancer, and DN can no longer buff, I will either not buff at all, or I will switch to a Sorc/Wiz, a less balanced option.

Mike_G
2010-07-03, 11:35 AM
{Scrubbed}

DragoonWraith
2010-07-03, 12:11 PM
My thoughts on this:
Magic items are rare, and 'generic' magic items don't exist. Someone will go to the trouble to make a magic cloak to grant flight, or a spear that can slay dragons, but not to make a pair of gloves that make your fingers a touch more nimble.
More common are shrines to various gods. Offerings of sacrifice to gods are a common way to get the resiliency expected of an adventurer - many adventurers are happy to donate to any church that provides results, though of course some prefer that of their own faith. Like many polytheistic religions (especially in Classical times), the world is quite comfortable with 'quid pro quo' faith, but a sacrifice has to be meaningful to a person to be meaningful to a god. Sacrificing money is a pretty common option (especially since most churches and shrines will take a cut), and is the usual way of doing things. The average adventurer can count his blessings from many shrines to many gods, and woe to he who neglects to make appropriate sacrrifices.
Thus, you 'buy' the +x items, but they're not items, they're blessings. Maybe Paladins and Clerics are restricted in who they can sacrifice to, but Paladins get a bonus on sacrifices to their chosen god? Something like that.

Aotrs Commander
2010-07-03, 01:29 PM
My personal take on this exact this issue was to first grant flat, level-based bonuses to everyone. (Yes, everyone, including the monsters and especially the animals!) I made an estimation of what approximate value of kit from craft points (or something similar as I recall), and came up with the following (which is still undergoing playtesting):

At 2nd level and every 4th level thereafter, a character gets a +1 enchanement bonus to weapon attack and damage rolls, armour bonus and shield bonus whenever they use the appropriate equipment. (Replacing flat +x bonuses. Magic +1-3 items will still exist but be extremely rare and grant untyped bonuses.)

+1 Resistance bonus to all saves for every 4 levels

Every 6 levels, the character gets a +2 enhancement bonus to permenantly apply to a stat.

Every 6 levels, the character gains a +1 enhancement bonus to natural weapon attack and damage rolls (this may warrent some revision).

All characters gain a level bonus to AC equal to open-third their level (one-half of this applies to Touch AC). (Replacing the approximation of natural armour and deflection bonuses).

Items that grant the afore-mentioned bonuses, will, of course, be generally unavailable, or considerably "higher" in value. (E.g. an item that grants a +1 deflection bonus might be approximated in value to a Ring of Deflection +3 or +4 in regular D&D).

The theory is, in going for a more LotR-y sort of world (with a shade Mercedes Lackey-ness in there too), as Mike-G suggests, magic items will Do Stuff, but will be much fewer and far between. (And, as usual for my campaigns, will predominatelty feature classed characters as enemies, rather than monsters - though in this world, some of the classed characters may well be non-humanoid.)

This rule is functioning in concert with a lot of other rules; no magic items shops and what will probably be a much more AD&D/Rolemaster-like magic item creation system, for starters. There is also an assumption is that everyone better damn well have ranged weapons, because a melee-only combatant is going to get murderisied the first time they run into flying enemies (fairly common in this world) or archer enemies (omnipresent in my play dynamic.) A steadily increasing number of the wizard's favourite toys are being taken away (Wind Wall for one!), though in some respects they may gain a bit of flexibility in the removal of Vancian casting (traded off for considerably less spells per day, espcially at high level, but that's an dicussion for another thread).

It's all very much still work-in-progress, as I'm not-quite-but-nearly writing my own edition of D&D (3.Aotrs...?) Which is one of the reasons I've not taken to Pathfinder. Aside from nicking some of their better ideas (and some of those from 4E as well; let it not be said I cannot crib something out of that...)

Mike_G
2010-07-03, 02:07 PM
My thoughts on this:
Magic items are rare, and 'generic' magic items don't exist. Someone will go to the trouble to make a magic cloak to grant flight, or a spear that can slay dragons, but not to make a pair of gloves that make your fingers a touch more nimble.


That's the feel I'm looking for.



More common are shrines to various gods. Offerings of sacrifice to gods are a common way to get the resiliency expected of an adventurer - many adventurers are happy to donate to any church that provides results, though of course some prefer that of their own faith. Like many polytheistic religions (especially in Classical times), the world is quite comfortable with 'quid pro quo' faith, but a sacrifice has to be meaningful to a person to be meaningful to a god. Sacrificing money is a pretty common option (especially since most churches and shrines will take a cut), and is the usual way of doing things. The average adventurer can count his blessings from many shrines to many gods, and woe to he who neglects to make appropriate sacrrifices.
Thus, you 'buy' the +x items, but they're not items, they're blessings. Maybe Paladins and Clerics are restricted in who they can sacrifice to, but Paladins get a bonus on sacrifices to their chosen god? Something like that.

That's a thought. It eliminates the Christmas Tree, keeps the numbers where they need to be, and has a nice flavor.

Gnaeus
2010-07-03, 02:18 PM
{Scrubbed}

Mike_G
2010-07-03, 02:34 PM
Oh no? What if he is seen as healing the DM's best friend or girlfriend first?

In my experience, the DM's PC is the fastest way from a fun game to players who will not speak with each other. YMMV



My mileage does vary. Kormun and Mehdek were two longrunning NPC clerics who filled the role for grateful parties, never stole the spotlight.

And I've pointed out, we heal by standard triage. They guy who needs healing most gets it first. We may have IC disagreements about shooting prisoners or how to plan an assault, but I've never seen one about someone being denied healing. I've never been in a group that would put up with that.




My DM regularly gives us encounters that we aren't equipped to handle, and lets US figure out how to deal with them. And what does "a party who can't deal with them" have to do with anything. The fact that the OTHER fighter has a good aligned/ghost touch sword, and the casters all have things that will hurt the enemy doesn't make me feel a lot better when my guy is sitting in the corner playing wii because I have nothing to contribute.



Part of good DMing is throwing challenges where everyone can contribute.






They aren't always the right spell. They are sometimes the right spell. If the muggles are less effective, they are the right spell somewhat more often.


Maybe. Maybe not.

I'd still buff my buddies before I'd throw up a wall or use a Summoned beastie for my meatshield.

I like being part of a team. I like the idea that you do the smacking, he does the sneaking, I do the buffs and blasting, and Guy the Unnamed stands in the back until we yell for healing.

I don't have any desire to "use a better option" than my friend the Fighter to do my melee for me. I don't even understand that desire. I'm at the game to play with my friends, not show them up or make them stand in a corner.





Well, whether you allow it to stack is up to you. We make our inherent bonuses enhancement, so they don't stack YMMV.



So, if you gain two points of Str because you've reached 8th level, those don't stack with enhancements?

I've never seen it interpreted that way.



The discussion of ability bonus spells was begun by you. The wizard who needs to cast bulls strength so that the fighter can be an effective meatshield was your example IIRC. If you remove them from the discussion, it simply shifts to Enlarge or ghost touch or whatever the other ability was that formerly the muggle could give themselves if they needed and now they can't. It changes nothing.

I started this with a suggestion to bump up the stat increases, since the stat boost items won't be around. That's been there from the beginning.

Doc Roc
2010-07-03, 02:45 PM
Spells are a terrible way to boost ability bonuses, because there are wildly better things to cast every time. I have literally never cast an ability boost spell from the Animal line except to boost my own UMD for a ritual. They are, frankly, terrible, because you could just as easily be casting magic weapon and magic vestment, or something like solid fog.

I think, basically, that boosting them is not the answer. You want to make these boosts part of leveling up, not part of the "Do I Has Wizard?" question that melee already asks way too often.

Mike_G
2010-07-03, 03:24 PM
Spells are a terrible way to boost ability bonuses, because there are wildly better things to cast every time. I have literally never cast an ability boost spell from the Animal line except to boost my own UMD for a ritual. They are, frankly, terrible, because you could just as easily be casting magic weapon and magic vestment, or something like solid fog.

I think, basically, that boosting them is not the answer. You want to make these boosts part of leveling up, not part of the "Do I Has Wizard?" question that melee already asks way too often.

I have suggested bonuses at leveling.

That was the very first post in this thread.

I don't know that there are better uses for your low level spells than boosts, once you get to a certain level. Low level Summons are weak, low level Save or lose spells are an easy DC to beat. Magic Weapon is good, but doesn't stack, so not as good as one would think, unless you are in a low magic group.

Doc Roc
2010-07-03, 03:29 PM
I have suggested bonuses at leveling.

That was the very first post in this thread.

I don't know that there are better uses for your low level spells than boosts, once you get to a certain level. Low level Summons are weak, low level Save or lose spells are an easy DC to beat. Magic Weapon is good, but doesn't stack, so not as good as one would think, unless you are in a low magic group.

I know that GWM doesn't stack. It's irrelevant, because it saves your fighters between 20k and 100k. Now, ideally, under your system, you've eliminated traditional bonuses to magic weapons, so I guess that's less relevant. I've found that later on in the game, I tend to fill my lower slots with a lot of divination or light CC effect, or use them for MM'd damage spells. I'ven't found that they're less useful than 1 min/level spells that I never have time to cast in combat. To present a stronger case, there are, simply put, superior buffs at those levels, such as haste.

Chambers
2010-07-16, 04:09 AM
Mike_G

I'm intrigued by this idea and would like to hear more. :smallsmile:

The two ideas that I like the most from the this thread are the 1/2 BAB as Dodge bonus and Legacy Items. Each character develops their one magic item over the course of their career. You might not even need to give all the characters the other bonuses (AC, saves, etc) because you can customize the Legacy items to grant different bonuses or abilities.

So a character could get a +6 stat enhancement...but it's coming from his Legacy item that only works for him and he's had the item for long enough to invest that much into it.

Psyx
2010-07-16, 04:15 AM
No need to mess around much: Just reduce the BAB of monsters, or increase their CR value. Decrease some of the saves required against them, and think about your encounters, and it's not a problem.

This is a problem that's solution sits on the GM's side of the screen, not by tuning players.

I've been playing two years in a low magic campaign, and it's not been a problem, particularly; although our ACs do result in us taking a good kicking quite often.

Chambers
2010-07-18, 08:45 PM
Here's something to read. Scaling Items. (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=49755)