Question for DMs who DO NOT use magic marts

[Jon_Dahl]

Since the PCs are not able to buy and sell magical items, should it be that the magical items of newly created high-level characters are drawn randomly?

Longer version:
I've noticed that my players think that the positive thing about character death is that they are able to buy gear for their new characters. I don't have magic marts, so creating a new character is their only chance to buy magical items.
I can't change this situation in mid-campaign, but I was thinking that in my future campaigns the gear should be drawn randomly.
It would work like this:
Roll "Items" from the treasure table according to the character's CR. One roll only. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/treasure.htm
The rest of the WBL you get in gold for nonmagical gear.

An example:
Magic items for a 9th-level character. One roll from the treasure table CR 9 Items section.
The character receives 4 minor magical items.
1 armor and shields: heavy steel shield +1
1 wondrous item: efficient quiver
1 wand: wand of eagle's splendor
1 scroll: arcane scroll of protection from good and invisibility.

Deduct the value of these items from WBL. You can use the rest to buy items that are readily available for purchase in your campaign.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

[mucat]

An example:
Magic items for a 9th-level character. One roll from the treasure table CR 9 Items section.
The character receives 4 minor magical items.
1 armor and shields: heavy steel shield +1
1 wondrous item: efficient quiver
1 wand: wand of eagle's splendor
1 scroll: arcane scroll of protection from good and invisibility.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

No, because the character will end up with items that she never would have kept if they she and her past associates had found them "organically". If the character is a melee fighter, why did she ever want to own that scroll and wand? If he's a wizard, why is he carrying the shield?

If you want the random element, it would make more sense to let the player roll three or four times as many items, and then choose which ones the character would have kept.

[Jon_Dahl]

No, because the character will end up with items that she never would have kept if they she and her past associates had found them "organically". If the character is a melee fighter, why did she ever want to own that scroll and wand? If he's a wizard, why is he carrying the shield?

If you want the random element, it would make more sense to let the player roll three or four times as many items, and then choose which ones the character would have kept.

Agreed. This would be even better. Four times would be neat, since usually you have four companions to share the items with.

[avr]

What if the character was a human Druid. What imaginable division of treasure from his previous life could have given him these items? How is he supposed to use them?

If the character was a nonmagical type you've just made them unable to fight many creatures. Note that there was no magic weapon in that loot.

With potentially tens of thousands of gold in nonmagical items characters almost have to purchase some immobile stuff - houses or a ship or something. This may or may not be something you want.

It's possible for a campaign to exist somewhere between MagicMart and "If you touch it, no one else can use it until you die".

[Haldir]

I do not assume that any characters backstory includes situations where he or she would have magic items thrown at them randomly.

Better to assume they had the items commissioned or somehow directed the making of themselves....

[Crake]

I've found that in campaigns without magic marts, players can usually still commission items from NPCs, and since new characters have had all the time in the world, there's nothing stopping all their gear from being commissioned to tailor them perfectly. Or they might have crafted their gear themselves if they're magic users, and just recently retrained their crafting feats into adventuring feats.

There are plenty of ways to explain why a new character, who hasn't had any time constraints up until joining the group, could have a perfectly tailored set of gear in a setting that lacks a magic mart.

[Spore]

Still, if a character reaches 9th level the quest giving duke KNOWS that you wouldn't give a huge brutish fighter an wand of Glitterdust. That is the same reason why I dislike random treasure. A NPC has dedicated npc gear, a quest reward is a carefully chosen item, maybe the loot off of monstrous humanoids is random pillaged gear.

Also then gold doesn't play ANY role on your game economy (at least for the players).

[Jon_Dahl]

What if the character was a human Druid. What imaginable division of treasure from his previous life could have given him these items? How is he supposed to use them?

The other items were even worse. Besides, the "rolling four times" idea would help with this.


If the character was a nonmagical type you've just made them unable to fight many creatures. Note that there was no magic weapon in that loot.

Someone else in your previous group got the magical weapon (the only one you found).


With potentially tens of thousands of gold in nonmagical items characters almost have to purchase some immobile stuff - houses or a ship or something. This may or may not be something you want.

That's fine by me.


It's possible for a campaign to exist somewhere between MagicMart and "If you touch it, no one else can use it until you die".

A good question!

Rolling random gear was used in AD&D. Why can't we have it again?

[Spore]

Rolling random gear was used in AD&D. Why can't we have it again?

It's lazy. Not cool, not creative, just lazy.

I also dislike omnipotent magic marts but you should be able to provide magical weapons of any non-exotic description in a major city. It's not optional but required after a certain level. And by 9th level you HAVE to have a magical weapon.

Also remember that mundanes are as powerful as their gear makes them. If you leave useful magic items out (be it by chance or by decision) you further the growing gap between casters and mundanes.

[Fax Celestis]

Rolling random gear was used in AD&D. Why can't we have it again?

because it sucked then too.

Let me ask you a question: when you go buy a new shirt, or a car, or a house, do you roll some dice and take what they say, or do you keep looking until you find what you want?

If you answer is no, why are you letting someone who fights dragons for a living rely on such a dated, potentially fatal method of buying possessions?

[Jon_Dahl]

because it sucked then too.

Let me ask you a question: when you go buy a new shirt, or a car, or a house, do you roll some dice and take what they say, or do you keep looking until you find what you want?

If you answer is no, why are you letting someone who fights dragons for a living rely on such a dated, potentially fatal method of buying possessions?

Because magical items are rare and after you have shared the loot with your comrades you end up with useful/useless stuff.

[Togo]

I don't generally use magic marts.

I do let players sell stuff whenever they're in a big city, and have a random selection of magic goods for them to choose from that may be available to buy. I also let them seek out individual items, and often provide favours from powerful individuals in the form of item access.

I also tend to provide more than the listed number of random magic items as loot, on the understanding that most will be sold at half price.

[Fax Celestis]

Because magical items are rare and after you have shared the loot with your comrades you end up with useful/useless stuff.

You didn't answer my question.

Even barring the existence of magical walmarts, with all these people with magic items that they frankly can't use, why is there a conspicuous absence of magical swap meets?

And, more at the heart of the matter, why do you feel the need to power trip over yor players so much that they can't choose their own equipment? Are you going to make them roll for which class they level in next? Or which feat they choose when they level? Because a characters equipment is just as important to them as their class and feat selection, and yet you're removing one of those choices entirely from the players purview. The fact that your players look forward to dying so they can buy the equipment they want should be a warning sign that your players want to play a different kind of game than the one you're running.

[Jon_Dahl]

You didn't answer my question.

Even barring the existence of magical walmarts, with all these people with magic items that they frankly can't use, why is there a conspicuous absence of magical swap meets?

In my campaign it's forbidden to deal with magical items, because 5% of them are cursed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#cursedItems). That's like having a 5% chance of contracting HIV every time you buy a used car. No dealmaking with magical items is allowed.

[Fax Celestis]

You are still dodging my questions.

Even with the 5% curse rate, all that does is incentivize an economy wherein people purchase remove curse and break enchantment more frequently and possibly for higher prices than normal.

[Jon_Dahl]

All right, all right, I will answer your question.


Let me ask you a question: when you go buy a new shirt, or a car, or a house, do you roll some dice and take what they say, or do you keep looking until you find what you want?

No, I don't roll some dice when I buy anything. Exception: if I buy new dice, I may roll it before I buy it.


If you answer is no, why are you letting someone who fights dragons for a living rely on such a dated, potentially fatal method of buying possessions?

Because I'd like to do that. I'd simply like to do that in my game. I'm just asking your opinion about the idea.
But I'd like to let someone who fights dragons for a living to rely on such dated, potentially fatal method of buying possessions because it feels like a good idea. Nevertheless, it's up for a debate.

[icefractal]

Even if you were going to do this, the realistic way would be:
1) Roll 13 times on each level's treasure table, up to but not including the starting level (maybe roll once or twice on that table).
2) Out of the huge pile of treasure which results, select items valued up to your starting wealth.
3) Any unspent money you keep, obviously.
4) If the character has crafting feats, determine how much XP they could have spent and still catch up (math I am too lazy to do right now), and they can do that much worth of crafting.

That still doesn't account for commissioned/awarded items, and it's a gigantic pile of rolling, but it's certainly more fair than "out of the dozens-hundreds of encounters you faced, only the last couple had any treasure."

[Destro_Yersul]

In my campaign it's forbidden to deal with magical items, because 5% of them are cursed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#cursedItems). That's like having a 5% chance of contracting HIV every time you buy a used car. No dealmaking with magical items is allowed.

By a doggedly literal interpretation of that rule, purchased magic items would never be cursed - only randomly generated ones.

And why should purchased ones be cursed? Isn't there some form of quality control? Why, if fully 5% of these items cause bad things, is there not a Magical Item Safety Commission? What you've done is banned used car sales entirely because 5% of them have broken radiators. Disregarding used items entirely, why can't people have items specifically commissioned for them? Is it now forbidden to make magic items, too? Because that's like banning the manufacture of cars entirely since 5% of them will have a manufacturer's defect.

[Actana]

I didn't have "magic marts" in one of my older E6 games. Instead, the city the game was based around (post-cataclysm Neverwinter) had a lot of specialists with whom the players dealt with when they wanted their magical needs taken care of. There was the artificer guy for their general magic needs, a smith for their weapons and armor (I ruled that it was possible to produce +1/+2 gear without magic), and a black market for other kinds of items, which included magic ones, but they may have had to use a Gather Information check to find something specific if it were at least a bit rarer than usual. And beyond the usual gear, they could also commission stuff from their contacts and they'd make them. It gave the game a low-magic and low-power feel while still allowing PCs access to the things they need. The game was E6 in the first place, which allows for a lower magic feel. Higher level D&D is just silly how high magic it is.

The thing is, D&D is a high magic game, and the game expects PCs to have certain magic items. Characters need their magic weapons and armor to succeed, and if their access to those items is arbitrarily restricted, you might be better off playing another game or at least a lower-magic variant of 3.X, one that doesn't require magic items for the PCs.

[Fax Celestis]

All right, all right, I will answer your question.



No, I don't roll some dice when I buy anything. Exception: if I buy new dice, I may roll it before I buy it.



Because I'd like to do that. I'd simply like to that in my game. I'm just asking your opinion about the idea.
But I'd like to let someone who fights dragons for a living to rely on such dated, potentially fatal method of buying possessions because it feels like a good idea. Nevertheless, it's up for a debate.
All right. Well, your idea is, in my opinion, terrible and countermands what the game expects you to have in order to be able to succeed.

In any case, my opinion is irrelevant to your game. Ask your players. I will bet, however, that if they're honest with you (and based on what you've said in this thread) they'll say they'd prefer to just have the magic mart.

[Jon_Dahl]

By a doggedly literal interpretation of that rule, purchased magic items would never be cursed - only randomly generated ones.

And why should purchased ones be cursed? Isn't there some form of quality control? Why, if fully 5% of these items cause bad things, is there not a Magical Item Safety Commission? What you've done is banned used car sales entirely because 5% of them have broken radiators. Disregarding used items entirely, why can't people have items specifically commissioned for them? Is it now forbidden to make magic items, too? Because that's like banning the manufacture of cars entirely since 5% of them will have a manufacturer's defect.

I haven't really considered this. I just tell the phrase you quoted to my players and that's it. You are the first person ever who has questioned my logic.
Unfortunately I'm not able to answer your question :smalleek:

[Drachasor]

Do you randomly roll all treasure? Or do you tweak it for the players?

Do you allow them to make magical items?

I find this all very curious, because the people that need certain magical items the most are the people that can't make them.

[Pan151]

Because I'd like to do that. I'd simply like to that in my game. I'm just asking your opinion about the idea.
But I'd like to let someone who fights dragons for a living to rely on such dated, potentially fatal method of buying possessions because it feels like a good idea. Nevertheless, it's up for a debate.

Well, your players would obviously like you to not do that. If the way you DM results in your players looking forward to dying, then that's a sign you're doing something terribly wrong.

You don't have to have a Magic Mart, and you don't have to make it easy for your players to hand-pick their magical equipment. In that case, however, you do have to handpick all major loot the party gets to make sure everybody has items relevant to their class and build. They shouldn't be the exact items the players are looking for, but they should definitely be items that they'd absolutely want to keep. Because, if your characters get bored of having no good equipment for their character, then they'll inevitably get bored of the character itself too.

[Jon_Dahl]

Do you randomly roll all treasure? Or do you tweak it for the players?

Do you allow them to make magical items?

I find this all very curious, because the people that need certain magical items the most are the people that can't make them.

I never roll for treasure. I always tweak it for my players.
I allow them to make magical items, but the materials are rare and hard to find.

[Drachasor]

I never roll for treasure. I always tweak it for my players.
I allow them to make magical items, but the materials are rare and hard to find.

So why make a player roll for loot when that isn't how you generate it?

Do you mean special materials (mithril, adamantine, etc) are hard to find, or the X gold worth a materials an item requires is hard to find? If the latter, what does "hard" mean?

What range of character levels do you play at?

[HammeredWharf]

I've always thought Magic Marts are those mysterious places that can sell you a Wand of Obscure Spell From A Ravenloft Splatbook with 12 charges without batting an eyelash. A shop that sells Longsword +1s is just a normal fantasy weapons shop.

Frankly, I think your idea is terrible and would make me never play anything except characters who don't rely on magical items. If I had to participate in this campaign, I'd pout for a while and make a VoP druid. Imagine a fighter who has six feats dedicated to being really good at beating people up with hammers getting a dwarven waraxe +2 he can't even use. I don't envy him.

[Spore]

In my campaign it's forbidden to deal with magical items, because 5% of them are cursed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#cursedItems). That's like having a 5% chance of contracting HIV every time you buy a used car. No dealmaking with magical items is allowed.

Ever heard of the termin "black market"? If there is someone willing to pay a price, there is someone to sell it. Also a decent caster can easily find the cursed items. I like your idea, but D&D is a terrible system for that.

[yougi]

I don't generally use magic marts.

I do let players sell stuff whenever they're in a big city, and have a random selection of magic goods for them to choose from that may be available to buy. I also let them seek out individual items, and often provide favours from powerful individuals in the form of item access.

I also tend to provide more than the listed number of random magic items as loot, on the understanding that most will be sold at half price.

That would be my answer too.

If a character comes in after 1st level, then I will provide them with a list of magical equipment, often with choices. For example, for a Warmage/Barbarian/Rage Mage, recently:

+1 Weapon
Mwk Weapon (for ranged if first is melee, and vice versa)
Mwk Weapon, Silver
+2 Chain Shirt
+2 stat item
Either Bag of Holding Type 1, Sovereign Glue, or any +5 skill item
+1 Cloak of Resistance OR 1st level Pearl of Power
1500gp worth of scrolls or wands

Then again, I'm flexible. That very same player asked if he could have a second +2 stat item instead of the Cloak and +5 skill. I told him to knock off 500gp from his scrolls budget, and he was on his way.

The reason why I do that is to create a sense of mystery and rarity about these items. Yes, they can be created if you find a powerful enough caster. Magic Marts, in their most basic expressions (i.e. buy anything you like with your WBL) give this sense of absolute control to the PCs, which ruins this feeling of mystery and rarity. Yes, I do have the few exotic shopkeepers, but they don't have EVERYTHING you can think of. That also forces PCs to keep the gear they loot from their enemies, which is more in line with the kind of games I like to create. Finally, it forces PCs to build their PCs around the gear they have, which I think is a nice challenge.

It's not for everyone, that I can accept. However, to say this is wrong is not cool, people: there's no one right way to play.

[Drachasor]

That also forces PCs to keep the gear they loot from their enemies, which is more in line with the kind of games I like to create. Finally, it forces PCs to build their PCs around the gear they have, which I think is a nice challenge.

The problem is the game really doesn't support this at all. It works alright for low levels, because magic items doesn't really matter. By mid to high levels the DM is forced to do a lot more work if he wasn't already carefully selecting the items.

The end result is you send a message to PCs to not pick classes like Fighter, because they won't do well in your game. Instead pick more magic item independent classes or the rare few that are more flexible (like the Warblade). But even classes like the Warblade can easily get screwed if they don't have the right defensive gear, so non-casters are a gamble.

[Pilo]

First, I am playing a game where the Arcanes sell us anything we want for a high price. In that game my character has too much stuff.

I also played a game where there is no magic items except for class that can craft it, as I am the meatshield, I find this boring. I am level 6, I still have a regular weapon (not even mastercrafted), where the wizard has a few wands
which allow him to deal with anything (Flying, blasting, controlling people ...).

In a game I DM, I have magic marts, however the stuff they sell is randomized regarding of the type of the shop. (Forge have one or two magic weapons or armors and a hand of magical missile; magical store have a few scrolls and potion, and one or two wands; Tailors (...); Jewellery shop (...); Temple (...) and so on). Well of course, every shop does not sell magical items in a city, and some shops may not be availlable in villages or smaller settlements. However I think that if a PNJ, tired of adventuring has a crafting feat, she/he will try to make money with it. That's why some of my crafters offers jobs to capture some magical creatures. If one of my PJs, want a particular item, he can command it to a crafter which will ask him/her to get the base ingredients and to pay the normal price or I will offer them a quest where they have to find a fallen hero item and complete the quest he was on to get his/her stuff.
It has the advantage of keeping the magical items rare without preventing my players to have fun.

As some people say in this thread, if ypur PCs think of killing their characters to get new stuff, because it is the only way they have, you have a problem.

If you give magical items to the character who come to replace a dead one, how will you manage the new characters whose keep dying in order to get enough items for the party to be stuffed, if you don't how will you deal with a crafter character who can craft what the party need in its past history and die now that the party as the loot?

[Dread_Head]

I agree with most people saying this is a pretty bad idea. Most characters above level 7 or so are screwed if they don't have the appropriate equipment. So I'd end up playing something pretty gear independent like a Totemist, druid or Sorcerer possibly with VoP or maybe a crafting Wizard. Not because they would be my first choice of character but because they are the only one that will be reasonably effective.

If you're tailoring the loot so for your players you're basically choosing their equipment for them regardless of what they might want which takes away from it being their character choices. If your players are looking forward to dying because they get to buy their loot anew have you considered rather than restricting this lifting the restrictions during play? They're both solutions to the same problem and one is much more reasonable and seems to be what your players want. If the impossibility of buying / selling magic items is plot significant I guess you could keep it but otherwise it'll probably make he game more fun for your players to scrap or at least ease up on the restrictions.

[Khedrac]

But I'd like to let someone who fights dragons for a living to rely on such dated, potentially fatal method of buying possessions because it feels like a good idea. Nevertheless, it's up for a debate.
Restricting treasure to the result of a variable roll works at very low levels.

Above that, one's character wealth is not "what you have found" - it is "what you have after selling what you found and buying useful stuff".

If I generated a 9th level fighter and was told that my equipment was a wizard's staff, 4 scrolls and a potion of levitation (e.g.) - oh and several thousand gold pieces of mundane equipment my reaction would probably be along the following lines:
Spend the money on trade goods.
Equip the character as a merchant.
Refuse ALL adventure hooks - he's a merchant.
Suggest that the items could be extra reward for adventurers when they are needed to to be hired.
Pass the character to the DM as a new NPC merchant and ask if I can generate a PC now please.

If you force players to use totally inadequately/inappropriately equipped caracters expect them to:
1) Refuse all adventures you plan.
2) Use their extra mundane wealth to try to wreck the organisations you set up in the world.
3) Laugh a lot when you get frustrated with them.

One of the posters stated that they like the random tables "because magic items are rare". Well, if they are rare they should be less random, but should be tuned to the person holding them - why would they have them otherwise? Also if magic is rare (something I approve of) are you adjusting encounters and CRs for the fact that D&D assumes magic is common in it's assessment of what is a reaosnable fight when? Change the magic distribution, change the monsters toughness.

[Spore]

Khedrac. Sarcastic comments are supposed to be written in blue.

[Brookshw]

Seems like an interesting idea Jon_dahl, I wouldn't mind using it if it fit a particular campaign.

[Drachasor]

Overall I think something like this could be cool. However, you have to change the reliance on magic items so that's not an issue. Then you can potentially introduce cool items and flavor items that can be used creatively but don't screw anyone over because nothing is required anymore.

[yougi]

By mid to high levels the DM is forced to do a lot more work if he wasn't already carefully selecting the items.

I don't know exactly what levels you mean by "mid-to-high", and none of my games have gone over level 13, so my perception might be skewed and simply invalid.


The end result is you send a message to PCs to not pick classes like Fighter, because they won't do well in your game. Instead pick more magic item independent classes or the rare few that are more flexible (like the Warblade). But even classes like the Warblade can easily get screwed if they don't have the right defensive gear, so non-casters are a gamble.

I mean, the message to anyone playing 3.5 is not to play a Fighter, because they suck, but I do see your point. However, I think that this problem is not as large as people say it is, and that might very well be more representative of the type of game that I like to play. I might simply have too little experience, but I don't see any one item that would screw a PC if they didn't have it. Could you give me an example?

Also, doing this allows me to put in custom magic items that go "against" the spirit of 3.5, and are more 4E-like, which are based on more options rather than purely numerical bonuses, and which the meatshields in particular love.

[Fouredged Sword]

Another interesting idea is that a player starts with 2 magic item rolls per level (pick on item from the two) and half the WBL listed on the table to be spent after the treasure rolls.

So, for a level 5 character, they would roll twice for magic items from a CR 1 encounter (picking one of the two results), again from a CR 2, again from a CR3... All the way to CR5.

This represents a random sampling of loot from the various CR's and maintaining randomness.

Then they can spend half their WBL on custom items they NEED to make their character concept work.

[tricktroller]

Here is how I generally do it,

If the item is in the PHB or the DMG you will be able to find it. If it comes from anywhere else, first you must make the appropriate roll to know about it, then you must find one someone is willing to sell, then you can have it.

Magic mart is boring and easy, I would much rather get a little bit of roleplaying out of looking for your +1 keen collision Jovar.

So while yes you can find anything you want in my games it might take you awhile.

Same rules apply for any character rerolling in one of my games. Those two books have at them, there are enough random 10th level wizards in the world to crank out those items, but beyond that you have to roleplay for it.

Oh and anything super weird, like a large kaorti resin keen collision metalline Jovar will probably involve an entire quest not just some rolls and some roleplaying.

[Jon_Dahl]

Another interesting idea is that a player starts with 2 magic item rolls per level (pick on item from the two) and half the WBL listed on the table to be spent after the treasure rolls.

So, for a level 5 character, they would roll twice for magic items from a CR 1 encounter (picking one of the two results), again from a CR 2, again from a CR3... All the way to CR5.

This represents a random sampling of loot from the various CR's and maintaining randomness.

Then they can spend half their WBL on custom items they NEED to make their character concept work.

Fouredged Sword,
If one day I decide to use "random starting gear" system in my games, I'll be doing it exactly like that. It's a very good idea, and the way you put it will most likely prevent any arguments from my players.

[Grollub]

I've also seen players who figure they can kill their characters ( or someone elses character ) so they come into the game with new items, just to try to kill them again. All in the name of getting "new/ more" stuff.

:smallcool:

[zephyrkinetic]

I don't like the Magic*Mart Big Box Store either, but in bigger cities, there should still be a merchant with a few random items. And there are always rich eccentric collectors of oddities to be held-up, robbed, or killed. I recently had my players pull a heist on one collector (under the employ of a rival collector). I randomly rolled his "collection" (CR appropriate), and they chose what to keep/sell. Works well; they're not spending hours shopping in the MIC or AaEG, but they still get neat stuff now and then. Plus, it leads to some interesting uses and adaptations. (Like singing an Orc tribe a lullaby on the Lyre of Building, simultaneously encasing them in a concrete tomb :smallbiggrin:)

[Kesnit]

I mean, the message to anyone playing 3.5 is not to play a Fighter, because they suck, but I do see your point. However, I think that this problem is not as large as people say it is, and that might very well be more representative of the type of game that I like to play. I might simply have too little experience, but I don't see any one item that would screw a PC if they didn't have it. Could you give me an example?

Here's two examples...

1) Not long ago, I played a Rogue/Druid/Daggerspell Shaper. You can argue that Druids don't need any items. However, I was playing the character very Rogue-like, and part of a DSS class features involve their items remaining effective when they wild shape. Not having daggers (1) takes away the use of WF(Dagger) that is a pre-req for DSS, and (2) takes away the power that comes from being able to merge daggers into claws. Also, since he was a DEX/WIS based build, a finessable weapon was necessary. ("What do you mean you rolled a greatsword and full plate for me????")

2) Fighter 12, who put their feats into (as someone said farther up the thread) into being really good at hitting people with hammers. If they didn't get a hammer, a lot of what power their build has goes out the window.

[yougi]

1) Not long ago, I played a Rogue/Druid/Daggerspell Shaper. You can argue that Druids don't need any items. However, I was playing the character very Rogue-like, and part of a DSS class features involve their items remaining effective when they wild shape. Not having daggers (1) takes away the use of WF(Dagger) that is a pre-req for DSS, and (2) takes away the power that comes from being able to merge daggers into claws. Also, since he was a DEX/WIS based build, a finessable weapon was necessary. ("What do you mean you rolled a greatsword and full plate for me????")

2) Fighter 12, who put their feats into (as someone said farther up the thread) into being really good at hitting people with hammers. If they didn't get a hammer, a lot of what power their build has goes out the window.

That makes a lot of sense. It never was an issue that came up in my game, but I can see how it could. However, I do believe that if your build is based around the use of a particular type of item, it shouldn't affect the likeliness of you finding that particular type of item, whether negatively or positively: it's a disadvantage to "overspecialization" which I find acceptable. I'm not advocating that the DM stop giving out hammers or daggers either. What I'm saying is in the case of your dagger-focused character, I, as a DM, wouldn't have felt bad giving a +2 greatsword before the +2 dagger, even if you couldn't use it. I would have, however, if you had gotten a +4 greatsword before your lousy +2 dagger.

However, that depends on how specific what you need is. If a player came to me and said their build REALLY needed a pair of magical daggers, I wouldn't mind fudging the likeliness a bit. If you tell me that your build doesn't work without a +3 collision corrosive burst keen falchion or whatnot, then I'd tell you it's really not the type of game for such a character.


If you're tailoring the loot so for your players you're basically choosing their equipment for them regardless of what they might want which takes away from it being their character choices.

The point we're debating (or at least, the point I'm debating) is whether or not it should actually be the character's choice.

[winter92]

To be clear, I think there are two questions here.

1: Is rolling for loot at character creation a reasonable model, and if so how best can it be done?

2: Is rolling for loot at character creation a reasonable thing to do in this game, with these players.

I think that the answer to one is sure, depending on the circumstances. I'd play in a campaign where I got rolls for past loot, particularly under the roll 4 choose 1 model (or perhaps some kind of critical item option where you can pick one thing you desperately need without a roll). It's an interesting way to add some realism and rein in power creep for higher level campaigns if your world suits it.

The answer to two, though, would appear to be no, no, and no. You have players who are eager to die because it's the only way to get class/level appropriate items. You're rightly recognizing this as a problem, but you're solving the problem by taking away their only means of getting appropriate gear. The answer is to introduce a non-death means of balancing things (and then maybe nerf death-as-a-tactic if it's still needed).

D&D3.5 was balanced on the assumption that players have level-suitable equipment, and depriving players of that without compensation makes the game nearly unplayable. It's looking like you go beyond no Magic Marts (defined here as get any reasonable scroll/enchanted item you request) to saying "no buying magic items", a much stricter rule. Not allowing access to items of the players choosing is very different than saying that no one is selling what magic items they have, even illegally. That's both hard to understand on a story basis, and debilitating on a gameplay basis.

Given normal rules, no magic items for sale, and random loot, your players will die to powers beyond their control. Your level 10 fighter will roll up a wand, some nightsticks, and a wilding clasp, and get beaten
to death by a single babau because he can't bypass DR.

From the sound of it, your players are already unhappy enough with the item model you use that they're seeking to bypass it. If you keep them from doing that without granting new items, or bonus feats, or something to offer balance, they're going to die to unwinnable fights until they quit.

[Fouredged Sword]

You should always allow some of your character's WBL to be spent as they see fit. There is plenty of money that, in your world, can't be used to purchase items from a magic-mart. That money SHOULD be spendable on a commissioned item. A licensed spell-caster should be able to MAKE basic magic weapons and armor to suit a character. Seeking out such people and doing quests to pay for their services is a staple of adventuring.

If you say that magic items cannot be sold, boost the treasure with a set of wealth that CAN be used to commission items, like gold or art. These things CAN be used as money to buy the magic items the characters NEED.

Is a setting that you randomize items completely, I would double the treasure to even the odds, maybe even triple it. The game counts of players selling gear at half value. If you deny them this, they will have to be given MUCH more stuff to even the odds of getting what they need.

That would be kind of a fun game. The party would pull in seriously huge hordes of magic items from killing high loot foes, but they would then be tasked with figuring out how to make do with the items they get.

[Stux]

I think it could be assumed that any character that had made it to a reasonably high level would have spent some time specifically seeking out particular magic items.

What I would do is get the player to put together a wish list, and then as a DM vet that list fairly liberally, allowing anything that I haven't been specifically restricting in the campaign world for whatever reason.

[TrexPushups]

Items such as numerical weapon bonuses, save bonuses, and armor bonuses should not be denied to players.


Things that are fun to have be random are things like bag of tricks and other wondrous items that let you do cool things.

Denying a weapon using character their level appropriate weapon is like telling a wizard they can't have fireball or other bread and butter combat spells.

[Seharvepernfan]

Since the PCs are not able to buy and sell magical items, should it be that the magical items of newly created high-level characters are drawn randomly?

Just because it isn't magic-mart doesn't mean that they can't buy or sell magic items. I like what PF did in their core rulebook; items up to a certain point (3k? 5k? I forget) are assumed to be available in a population center whose "available gold" or whatever is high enough, but in cities there are a certain number of randomly generated items readily available to be bought and sold, and if the players want something not on that list, they have to either order it or find somebody who can find it for them. So, you can still get the items you want, but it takes time and effort; you can't just walk into walmart and buy everything you want right on the spot.

I think it's assumed that if players keep everything they find, they'll have more wealth than the WBL states, but it won't be stuff they particularly want or have much use for.

[Wargamer]

I would personally have your player tell you about the character, quiz him, find probable plot hooks for adventures he had "off screen", and design accordingly.

For example [and please keep in mind this is hyperbole; do NOT start ranting about the rewards being inappropriate for the character level!]:

DM: "Okay, so tell me about your new Level 9 Barbarian."
PC: "Well, Haakon came to the West in search of Miklagard - the Great City. He believed that he could earn fame and fortune there, and wanted to become a mercenary, or possibly a bodyguard. He hoped the wealth and glory he earned would give him a Name and he could return to his people and become part of the chief's hall, or even chieftain himself!"
DM: "Hmm... okay. Let's say he became a bodyguard then. He served with a knight for several years, and when the knight died was freed from service. Now... he's got a longsword, a hand axe a light wooden shield and two weapon fighting?"
PC: "The shield is plain until he earns his name, then he can paint his heraldry upon it. The axe is his own weapon, but the longsword was his fathers. He would never part with that under any circumstances."
DM: "Nice idea. What else... ah, yes - Haakon was involved in a raid against the Necromancer Lifeblight alongside the Knights of Pelor. Only he survived, and he lost many good friends including the man he had served. How did he take that?"
PC: "Badly. If Haakon was his bodyguard then he would have done everything he could to protect him, including dying if needs be. He must have been separated, or taken out early in the fight. Either way, he'd likely want revenge one way or the other."
DM: "Okay, well that ties him back to the main party - he can lead them to Lifeblight. For his gear... I think we can make his father's sword a +2 Keen Longsword. We'll also give him a suit if mithril chainmail, which he received as a gift from the knights. I'm also going to give him a special magical amulet that gives him Spell Resistance of 10, which doubles to 20 against all Evil spells - a gift from the Church of Pelor before his last adventure. The rest you can sort yourself; you can spend up to one thousand gold on mundane gear, basic potions, etc."

[Clistenes]

How I think you can avoid using Magic Marts:


My favourite explanation are planar travellers (Janni, Mercanes, Witchwyrds) who buy those magic items from Genies (who can't use their Wish ability on their own, only for others) and sell those items in the Prime in exchange for luxury wares (gems, gold, platinum, silks, spices, works of art...etc.).

Still, that doesn't explain why there are people keeping stocks of incredible expensive magic items that almost nobody can buy, so I think there are magic brokers who take orders from customers, contact the Janni/Mercanes/Witchwyrds/whatever, who write it down and buy them from the Efreets or Noble Djinns next time they visit them.

[Yawgmoth]

I just let my players buy what they want to have so they can play the character they want to play and I can run a game where everyone has fun by being challenged by the encounters I want my game to involve.

I guess I will never understand the "you must bash your face against this wall N times before you're allowed to have fun" mentality that so many people have.

[Seharvepernfan]

I guess I will never understand the "you must bash your face against this wall N times before you're allowed to have fun" mentality that so many people have.

It's about being challenged and making do with less. Some people don't like it, but eh.

[Gemini476]

Large one-stop-shop “magic emporiums” are unrealistic and rare
even in metropolis-sized cities. Instead, a community’s total
stock of magic items for sale is widely distributed among dusty
alchemist’s shops, bookstores, scribers’ boutiques, pawn shops,
elixir brewers, the residences of retired adventurers, the old mage
on the corner, curio shops, and so on.
Do you want to know why the "Magic-mart" is a thing? I mean, even when it's just the collective term for all of the curios shops within a few days travel from the PCs. 'Cause there's a reason to have one. A big, heavy, expensive reason.


Well then, let's roll up some loot for a Fighter 9. (I'll roll until I get bored of it, just to see what I'll get.)

I'm using the DMG tables rather than the MIC tables because I wasn't aware of the latter until I finished EL 1 and screw rerolling all of those dice.
Really.
Hope you like rolling!

13 encounters per level (a bit low-balling)
Encounter Level = ECL

Starting wealth: {17} (170gp)

EL 1:
1 - {43, 5} (500sp) + {90, 97, 10} (1000gp gem) + {28} (nothing)
2 - {21, 2} (2000cp) + {94, 37, 5} (50gp gem) + {37} (nothing)
3 - {34, 6} (600sp) + {82} (nothing) + {68} (nothing)
4 - {41, 1} (100sp) + {1} (nothing) + {4} (nothing)
5 - {62, 11} (110gp) + {15} (nothing) + {29} (nothing)
6 - {63, 9} (90gp) + {34} (nothing) + {83, 58, 60, 66} (masterwork longspear [305gp])
7 - {7} (nothing) + {84} (nothing) + {8} (nothing)
8 - {84, 9} (90gp) + {11} (nothing) + {84, 85, 58} (artisan's tools, masterwork [55gp])
9 - {20, 2} (2000cp) + {89} (nothing) + {30} (nothing)
10 - {7} (nothing) + {89} (nothing) + {75, 13, 33, 4} (4 smokesticks [80gp])
11 - {100, 2} (20pp) + {36} (nothing) + {78, 5, 3, 1} (1 flask of alchemists fire [20gp])
12 - {18, 4} (4000cp) + {25} (nothing) + {11} (nothing)
13 - {90, 9} (90gp) + {68} (nothing) + {57} (nothing)
Total treasure from level 1-2:
20pp 380gp 1200sp 8000cp
2 gems (1000gp+50gp)
1 masterwork longspear
1 set of masterwork artisan's tools
4 smokesticks
1 flask of alchemist's fire

Total value of treasure: 2290gp
Fighter's share of the treasure: 572gp 5 sp (158gp below WBL)

EL 2:
1 - {88, 18} (180gp) + {77} (nothing) + {5} (nothing)
2 - {68, 23} (230gp) + {38} (nothing) + {24} (nothing)
3 - {61, 24} (240gp) + {39} (nothing) + {85, 24, 49} (half-plate [600gp])
4 - {37, 5} (500sp) + {66} (nothing) + {76, 42, 89, 84} (darkwood shield [247gp])
5 - {22, 2} (2000cp) + {20} (nothing) + {22} (nothing)
6 - {19, 3} (3000cp) + {32} (nothing) + {61, 77, 18, 20} (masterwork greatsword [350gp])
7 - {90, 12} (120gp) + {29} (nothing) + {90, 93, 8} (elixir of sneaking [250gp])
8 - {48, 23} (230gp) + {63} (nothing) + {61, 79, 22, 78} (masterwork bastard sword [335gp])
9 - {81, 25} (250gp) + {74} (nothing) + {27} (nothing)
10 - {68, 23} (230gp) + {83, 1, 34, 5} (50gp gem) + {81, 79, 52, 16} (masterwork hand crossbow [400gp])
11 - {44, 17} (170gp) + {12} (nothing) + {18} (nothing)
12 - {78, 25} (250gp) + {98} () + {42} (nothing)
13 - {74, 20} (200gp) + {24} (nothing) + {20} (nothing)
Total treasure from level 2-3:
2100gp 500sp 5000cp
1 gem (50gp)
half-plate [600gp]
darkwood shield [247gp]
masterwork greatsword [350gp]
masterwork bastard sword [335gp]
masterwork hand crossbow [400gp]
elixir of sneaking [250gp]

Total value: 4432
Fighter's share: 1108gp
Total wealth: 1850gp 5 sp (849.5gp below WBL)

This isn't going well on the wealth front so far (curse my dice!), but I'll add in an encounter every three levels to try to fix that. (It's 13.33 encounter/level, after all.)

EL 3:

1 - {89, 2} (200gp) + {86, 3, {63, 13}, {4, 10}, {3, 11}} (3 gems: 130gp, 10gp, 11gp) + {67, 1, 50, 46} ( half-plate [600gp])
2 - {86, 2} (200gp) + {27} (nothing) + {90, 7, 50, 37, 46} (+1 heavy mace [1312gp])
3 - {62, 4} (400gp) + {82, 2, {58, 7}, {50, 7}} (2 gems: 70gp, 70gp) + {75, 2, {25, 20}, {67, 47, 99}} (breastplate [200gp], masterwork dwarven waraxe [330gp])
4 - {47, 1} (100gp) + {56} (nothing) + {96, 44, 39} (Shillilagh oil [50gp])
5 - {56, 3} (300gp) + {21} (nothing) + {3} (nothing)
6 - {53, 1} (100gp) + {89, 2, {80, 3}, {75, 5}} (2 gems: 200gp, 500gp) + {71, 2, {72, 46, 42}, {39, 79, 40}} (masterwork light mace [305gp], full plate [1500gp])
7 - {50, 1} (100gp) + {95, 3, {15, 11}, {61, 9}, {90, 6}} (3 gems:11gp, 90gp ,600gp) + {87, 10, 92} (Remove paralysis potion [300gp])
8 - {37, 16} (1600sp) + {77} (nothing) + {44} (nothing)
9 - {100, 6} (60pp) + {91, 3, {32, 6}, {77, 4}, {66, 13}} (3 gems: 60gp, 400gp, 130gp) + {6} (nothing)
10 - {44, 1} (100gp) + {38} (nothing) + {8} (nothing)
11 - {26, 19} (1900sp) + {9} (nothing) + {46} (nothing)
12 - {34, 15} (1500sp) + {84, 2, {28, 5}, {34, 4}} (2 gems: 50gp, 40gp) + {21} (nothing)
13 - {88, 2} (200gp) + {97, 2, {40, 4}, {59, 10}} (2 art objects: 400gp, 1000gp) + {62, 2, {98, 19}, {25, 24}} (lock, average [40gp], breastplate [200gp])
14 - {23, 23} (2300sp) + {92, 2, {3, 9}, {21, 7}} (2 gems: 9gp, 7gp) + {9} (nothing)

Total treasure from encounters:
60pp 1700gp 7300sp
17 gems, total 2388gp
2 art objects, total 1400gp
half-plate [600gp]
breastplate [200gp]
masterwork dwarven waraxe [330gp]
+1 heavy mace [1312gp]
masterwork light mace [305gp]
full plate [1500gp]
lock, average [40gp]
breastplate [200gp]
Remove paralysis potion [300gp]
Shillilagh oil [50gp]

Total treasure: 11655
Fighter's share: 2913gp 7sp 5cp
Total wealth: 4764gp 2sp 5cp (635.75gp below WBL)

EL 4

1 - {48, 6} (600gp) + {68} (nothing) + {88, 88, 30, 19} (wand of Shocking grasp, 19 charges [285gp])
2 - {37, 22} (22000sp) + {87, 3, {75, 6}, {14, 10}, {20, 8}} (3 gems: 600gp, 10gp, 8gp) + {7} (nothing)
3 - {16, 23} (23000cp) + {60} (nothing) + {25} (nothing)
4 - {31, 24} (24000sp) + {45} (nothing) + {51, 2, {13, 7, 4}, {21, 100, 7}} (4 alchemist's fire [80gp], masterwork buckler [165gp])
5 - {91, 4} (400gp) + {54} (nothing) + {49, 1, 84, 20} (average lock [40gp])
6 - {24, 27} (27000sp) + {3} (nothing) + {4} (nothing)
7 - {52, 5} (500gp) + {19} (nothing) + {40} (nothing)
8 - {31, 33} (33000sp) + {56} (nothing) + {42} (nothing)
9 - {95, 3} (300gp) + {22} (nothing) + {56, 2, {98, 10}, {33, 22}} (bullseye lantern [12gp], breastplate [200gp])
10 - {71, 4} (400gp) + {67} (nothing) + {24} (nothing)
11 - {31, 26} (26000sp) + {8} (nothing) + {40} (nothing)
12 - {89, 3} (300gp) + {94, 4, {41, 7}, {54, 10}, {83, 2}, {28, 7}} (4 gems: 70gp, 100gp, 200gp, 70gp) + {34} (nothing)
13 - {33, 24} (24000sp) + {28} (nothing) + {33} (nothing)

Total treasure from encounters:
2500gp 156000sp 23000cp (did the errata change the treasure tables? Because having silver pieces be 4d12*1000sp is nuts)
7 gems: 1058gp total
wand of Shocking grasp, 19 charges [285gp]
4 alchemist's fire [80gp]
masterwork buckler [165gp]
average lock [40gp]
bullseye lantern [12gp]
breastplate [200gp]

Total treasure: 20270
Fighter's share: 5067gp 5sp
Total wealth: 9831gp 7sp 5cp (831.75gp above WBL)

EL 5

1 - {45, 3} (300gp) + {72, 2, {56, 10}, {58, 12}} (2 gems: 100gp, 120gp) + {30} (nothing)
2 - {26, 2} (2000sp) + {42} (nothing) + {57} (nothing)
3 - {69, 5} (500gp) + {52} (nothing) + {20} (nothing)
4 - {87, 2} (200gp) + {60} (nothing) + {8} (nothing)
5 - {24, 2} (2000sp) + {6} (nothing) + {13} (nothing)
6 - {19, 3} (30000cp) + {38} (nothing) + {34} (nothing)
7 - {69, 8} (800gp) + {59} (nothing) + {52} (nothing)
8 - {75, 4} (400gp) + {19} (nothing) + {61, 2, {92, 29}, {45, 95, 67}} (superior lock [150gp], masterwork heavy wooden shield [157gp])
9 - {48, 8} (800gp) + {26} (nothing) + {58, 2, {40, 55}, {29, 15}} (full plate [1500gp], masterwork studded leather [175gp])
10 - {53, 1} (100gp) + {59} (nothing) + {62, 2, {53, 57}, {9, 86, 3}} (masterwork longspear [305gp], 3 tanglefoot bags [150gp])
11 - {94, 2} (200gp) + {59} (nothing) + {24} (nothing)
12 - {33, 2} (2000sp) + {53} (nothing) + {56} (nothing)
13 - {99, 8} (80pp) + {22} (nothing) + {7} (nothing)

Total treasure from encounters:
80pp 3300gp 6000sp 30000cp
2 gems: 220gp total
superior lock [150gp]
masterwork heavy wooden shield [157gp]
full plate [1500gp]
masterwork studded leather [175gp]
masterwork longspear [305gp]
3 tanglefoot bags [150gp]
Total treasure: 7657gp
Fighter's share: 1914gp 2sp 5cp
Total wealth:11746gp (1254gp below WBL)

EL 6

1 - {42, 2} (200gp) + {31} (nothing) + {54} (nothing)
2 - {43, 9} (900gp) + {8} (nothing) + {59, 3, {93, 64}, {39, 54}} (disguise kit [50gp], half-plate [600gp])
3 - {75, 6} (600gp) + {65, 3, {42, 7}, {83, 6}, {85, 2}} (3 gems: 70gp, 600gp, 200gp) + {27} (nothing)
4 - {53, 4} (400gp) + {16} (nothing) + {92, 3, {88, 32}, {50, 16, 1, 29, 72}, {41, 11}} (Wand of Summon monster I with 45 charges [675gp], arcane scroll of CL 1 Protection from Good [25gp], potion of Endure Elements [50gp])
5 - {32, 9} (900gp) + {86, 2, {49, 5}, {40, 7}} (2 gems: 50gp, 70gp) + {59, 4, {67, 73, 83}, {23, 93, 4}, {13, 53, 3}, {53, 40, 76}} (masterwork bastard sword [335gp], masterwork buckler [165gp], 3 doses of antitoxin [150gp], masterwork composite longbow [400gp])
6 - {99, 4} (40pp) + {28} (nothing) + {9} (nothing)
7 - {34, 6} (6000sp) + {55} (nothing) + {31} (nothing)
8 - {57, 8} (800gp) + {82, 1, 25, 7} (1 gem: 7gp) + {10} (nothing)
9 - {31, 4} (4000sp) + {57} (nothing) + {70, 2, {10, 33}, {40, 2}} (potion of protection from good [50gp], potion of cure light wounds [50gp])
10 - {51, 8} (800gp) + {32} (nothing) + {66, 1, 53, 61, 78} (masterwork ransuer [310gp])
11 - {22, 3} (3000sp) + {22} (nothing) + {87, 3, {29}, {51, 71}, {88, 36}} ()
12 - {26, 2} (2000sp) + {99, 86, 3} (1 art object: 3000gp) + {34} (nothing)
13 - {53, 5} (500gp) + {60} (nothing) + {19} (nothing)
14 - {88, 9} (900gp) + {76, 2, {9, 10}, {8, 12}} (2 gems: 10gp, 12gp) + {35} (nothing)

Total treasure from encounters:
40pp 6000gp 15000sp
7 gems: 1012gp total
1 art object: 3000gp
disguise kit [50gp]
half-plate [600gp]
Wand of Summon monster I with 45 charges [675gp]
arcane scroll of CL 1 Protection from Good [25gp]
potion of Endure Elements [50gp]
masterwork bastard sword [335gp]
masterwork buckler [165gp]
3 doses of antitoxin [150gp]
masterwork composite longbow [400gp]
potion of protection from good [50gp]
potion of cure light wounds [50gp]
masterwork ransuer [310gp]

Total treasure: 14772gp
Fighter's share: 3693gp
Total wealth: 15439gp (3561gp below WBL)

EL 7

1 - {84, 10} (1000gp) + {89, 1, 64, 13} (1 gem: 130gp) + {67, 3, {31, 53}, {30, 70}, {70, 71, 1, 60, 92}} (potion of Bear's endurance [300gp], potion of Darkvision [300gp], arcane scroll of Summon Monster II [150gp])

2 - {3} (nothing) + {20} (nothing) + {52, 2, {10, 36}, {98, 63}} (potion of Shield of faith +2 [50gp], gauntlets of ogre power [4000gp])

3 - {33, 5} (5000sp) + {57, 3, {97, 10}, {8, 12}, {60, 11}} (3 gems: 1000gp, 12gp, 110gp) + {54, 3, {42, 5}, {48, 85, 2, {35, 48}, {21, 37}}, {58, 2, {63, 18}, {17, 78}} (potion of cure light wounds [50gp], divine scroll of Endure elements and Detect snares and pits [50gp], arcane scroll of Command undead and Reduce person)

4 - {34, 7} (7000sp) + {76, 1, 26, 4} (1 gem: 40gp) + {67, 4, {88, 26, 28}, {19, 16}, {26, 82}, {85, 84}} (CL1 wand of Magic Missile with 28 charges [420gp], potion of Hide from undead [50gp], potion of Lesser restoration [300gp], wand of Mirror image with 20 charges [1800gp])

5 - {26, 10} (10000sp) + {47} (nothing) + {42} (nothing)

6 - {40, 7} (700gp) + {24} (nothing) + {88, 3, {14, 73}, {82, 14, 41}, {93, 45}} (potion of Delay poison [300gp], wand of Color spray with 41 charges [615gp], cloak of elvenkind [2500gp])

7 - {21, 2} (2000sp) + {24} (nothing) + {91, 1, 89, 19, 34} (wand of Cure light wounds with 34 charges [510gp])

8 - {61, 6} (600gp) + {10} (nothing) + {33} (nothing)

9 - {2} (nothing) + {24} (nothing) + {8} (nothing)

10 - {43, 10} (1000gp) + {58, 3, {78, 4}, {14, 12}, {56, 10}} (3 gems: 400gp, 12gp, 100gp) + {34} (nothing)

11 - {66, 6} (600gp) + {72, 2, {66, 12}, {67, 11}} (2 gems: 120gp, 110gp) + {60, 4, {60, 3, 1, {25, 79}, {55, 89}, {74, 54}}, {48, 2, 52, {33, 33}, {46, 20}}, {79, 2, 20, {87, 76}, {11, 55}}, {70, 2, 61, {22, 65}, {5, 6}}} (arcane scroll of Remove fear, Spectral hand, and Mage armor [350gp], arcane scroll of Lesser confusion and Enlarge person [75gp], arcane scroll of Resist energy and Magic missile [175gp], arcane scroll of Obscuring mist and Arcane mark [37gp 5sp])

12 - {84, 8} (800gp) + {43} (nothing) + {28} (nothing)

13 - {32, 6} (6000sp) + {75, 2, {3, 9}, {77, 3}} (2 gems: 9gp, 300gp) + {62, 4, {26, 43}, {28, 22}, {69, 3, 14, {77, 60}, {53, 22}, {88, 37}}, {17, 12}} (potion of Enlarge person [300gp], potion of Mage armor [50gp], arcane scroll of Magic mouth, Darkness, and False life [460gp], potion of Endure elements [50gp])

Total treasure from encounters:
4700gp 30000sp
12 gems: 2343gp total
potion of Bear's endurance [300gp]
potion of Darkvision [300gp]
arcane scroll of Summon Monster II [150gp]
potion of Shield of faith +2 [50gp]
gauntlets of ogre power [4000gp]
potion of cure light wounds [50gp]
divine scroll of Endure elements and Detect snares and pits [50gp]
arcane scroll of Command undead and Reduce person [175gp]
CL1 wand of Magic Missile with 28 charges [420gp]
potion of Hide from undead [50gp]
potion of Lesser restoration [300gp]
wand of Mirror image with 20 charges [1800gp]
potion of Delay poison [300gp]
wand of Color spray with 41 charges [615gp]
cloak of elvenkind [2500gp]
arcane scroll of Remove fear, Spectral hand, and Mage armor [350gp]
arcane scroll of Lesser confusion and Enlarge person [75gp]
arcane scroll of Resist energy and Magic missile [175gp]
arcane scroll of Obscuring mist and Arcane mark [37gp 5sp]
potion of Enlarge person [300gp]
potion of Mage armor [50gp]
arcane scroll of Magic mouth, Darkness, and False life [460gp]
potion of Endure elements [50gp]

Total treasure: 22600gp 5sp
Fighter's share: 5650gp 1sp 2.5cp
Total wealth: 21089gp 1sp 2.5cp (5910.875gp below WBL)

EL 8

1 - {16, 9} (9000sp)
+ {17} (N/A)
+ {48} (N/A)

2 - {80, 7} (700gp)
+ {8} (N/A)
+ {71, 1, 68} (scroll)

3 - {31, 9} (900gp)
+ {89, 3, {91, 5}, {62, 9}, {71, 9}} (3 art: 5000gp, 900gp, 900gp)
+ {48} (N/A)

4 - {79, 15} (1500gp)
+ {50, 3, {66, 9}, {15, 12}, {67, 13}} (3 gems:90gp, 12gp, 130gp)
+ {71, 3, {81, 18, 1, 54, 6}, {51, 25, 3, {51, 34}, {59, 42}, {84, 41}}, {75, 97, 2, {32, 92}, {69, 94}}} (arcane scroll of Bear's endurance [150gp], arcane scroll of Eagle's splendor, Fox's cunning, and Fox's cunning [450gp], divine scroll of Shield of faith and Undetectable alignment [175gp])

5 - {9} (N/A)
+ {27} (N/A)
+ {3} (N/A)

6 - {75, 9} (900gp)
+ {51, 6, {36, 7}, {86, 5}, {30, 4}, {68, 15}, {2, 9}, {28, 12}} (6 gems: 70gp, 500gp, 40gp, 150gp, 9gp, 12gp)
+ {19} (N/A)

7 - {78, 10} (1000gp)
+ {46, 2, {67, 11}, {65, 8}} (2 gems: 110gp, 80gp)
+ {39} (N/A)

8 - {12, 8} (80000cp)
+ {52, 2, {49, 4}, {79, 3}} (2 gems: 40gp, 300gp)
+ {54, 1, 36, 93} (potion of Remove paralysis [300gp])

9 - {18, 5} (5000sp)
+ {56, 5, {64, 10}, {24, 7}, {68, 7}, {62, 13}, {64, 10}} (5 gems: 100gp, 7gp, 70gp, 130gp, 100gp)
+ {41} (N/A)

10 - {90, 11} (1100gp)
+ {86, 2, {27, 2}, {99, 5}} (2 art: 200gp, 5000gp)
+ {33} (N/A)

11 - {24, 7} (7000sp)
+ {42} (N/A)
+ {78, 3, {12, 15}, {13, 88}, {9, 57, 75, 73}} (potion of Endure elements [50gp], potion of Owl's wisdom [300gp], +1 heavy pick [1308gp])

12 - {41, 10} (1000gp)
+ {92, 3, {7, 7}, {56, 6}, {23, 13}} (3 art: 70gp, 600gp, 130gp)
+ {51, 4, {40, 60}, {66, 52, 1, 2, 87}, {68, 48, 2, {16, 4}, {36, 85}}, {66, 61, 2, {67, 48}, {86, 73}} (potion of Cat's grace [300gp], arcane scroll of Resistance [12gp 5sp], arcane scroll of Animate rope and Silent image [50gp], arcane scroll of Hypnotic pattern and Protection from arrows [300gp])

13 - {40, 8} (800gp)
+ {14} (N/A)
+ {90, 2, {65, 56, 3, {40, 43}, {11, 20}, {18, 87}}, {85, 26, 49}} (arcane scroll of Grease, Lesser confusion, and Sleep [100gp], wand of Cure moderate wounds with 49 charges [4410gp])

Total treasure from encounters:
7900gp 21000sp 80000cp
18 gems: 1950gp total
7 art objects: 12800gp total
arcane scroll of Bear's endurance [150gp]
arcane scroll of Eagle's splendor, Fox's cunning, and Fox's cunning [450gp]
divine scroll of Shield of faith and Undetectable alignment [175gp]
potion of Remove paralysis [300gp]
potion of Endure elements [50gp]
potion of Owl's wisdom [300gp]
+1 heavy pick [1308gp]
potion of Cat's grace [300gp]
arcane scroll of Resistance [12gp 5sp]
arcane scroll of Animate rope and Silent image [50gp]
arcane scroll of Hypnotic pattern and Protection from arrows [300gp]
arcane scroll of Grease, Lesser confusion, and Sleep [100gp]
wand of Cure moderate wounds with 49 charges [4410gp]

Total treasure: 33455.5gp
Fighter's share: 8363gp 8sp 7.5cp
Total wealth: 29453gp (6547gp below WBL) - EDIT: Forgot 2000gp from magic weapons, so add 500gp to that value

Alright then. That was a thing. Why did I make that statement up there regarding why you need magic marts?

Because here's what our Fighter got that was even slightly useful:

potion of Remove paralysis [300gp]
potion of Endure elements [50gp]
potion of Owl's wisdom [300gp]
+1 heavy pick [1308gp]
potion of Cat's grace [300gp]
half-plate [600gp]
darkwood shield [247gp]
masterwork greatsword [350gp]
masterwork bastard sword [335gp]
masterwork hand crossbow [400gp]
elixir of sneaking [250gp]
1 masterwork longspear
1 set of masterwork artisan's tools
4 smokesticks
1 flask of alchemist's fire
half-plate [600gp]
breastplate [200gp]
masterwork dwarven waraxe [330gp]
+1 heavy mace [1312gp]
masterwork light mace [305gp]
full plate [1500gp]
lock, average [40gp]
breastplate [200gp]
Remove paralysis potion [300gp]
4 alchemist's fire [80gp]
masterwork buckler [165gp]
average lock [40gp]
bullseye lantern [12gp]
breastplate [200gp]
superior lock [150gp]
masterwork heavy wooden shield [157gp]
full plate [1500gp]
masterwork studded leather [175gp]
masterwork longspear [305gp]
3 tanglefoot bags [150gp]
potion of Endure Elements [50gp]
masterwork bastard sword [335gp]
masterwork buckler [165gp]
3 doses of antitoxin [150gp]
masterwork composite longbow [400gp]
potion of protection from good [50gp]
potion of cure light wounds [50gp]
masterwork ransuer [310gp]
potion of Bear's endurance [300gp]
potion of Darkvision [300gp]
potion of Shield of faith +2 [50gp]
gauntlets of ogre power [4000gp]
potion of cure light wounds [50gp]
potion of Hide from undead [50gp]
potion of Lesser restoration [300gp]
potion of Delay poison [300gp]
cloak of elvenkind [2500gp]
potion of Enlarge person [300gp]
potion of Mage armor [50gp]
potion of Endure elements [50gp]


If we remove useless duplicates, the shield, and and lesser armors? (and also sort it a bit because wow)

potion of Remove paralysis [300gp]
potion of Remove paralysis [300gp]
potion of Endure elements [50gp]
potion of Endure elements [50gp]
potion of Endure elements [50gp]
potion of Owl's wisdom [300gp]
potion of Cat's grace [300gp]
potion of Bear's endurance [300gp]
potion of protection from good [50gp]
potion of cure light wounds [50gp]
potion of cure light wounds [50gp]
potion of Lesser restoration [300gp]
potion of Hide from undead [50gp]
potion of Enlarge person [300gp]
potion of Darkvision [300gp]
potion of Shield of faith +2 [50gp]
potion of Mage armor [50gp]
potion of Delay poison [300gp]

elixir of sneaking [250gp]

+1 heavy pick [2308gp]
+1 heavy mace [2312gp]

gauntlets of ogre power [4000gp]
cloak of elvenkind [2500gp]

masterwork greatsword [350gp]
masterwork bastard sword [335gp]
masterwork hand crossbow [400gp]
masterwork dwarven waraxe [330gp]
masterwork longspear [305gp]
masterwork composite longbow [400gp]
masterwork ransuer [310gp]

full plate [1500gp]
masterwork buckler [165gp]

1 set of masterwork artisan's tools
4 smokesticks
5 flasks of alchemist's fire [100gp]
3 tanglefoot bags [150gp]
3 doses of antitoxin [150gp]
lock, average [40gp]
average lock [40gp]
superior lock [150gp]
bullseye lantern [12gp]
That adds up to 19387gp. Or, in other words, 10066gp below his share of the rolled treasure (never mind that he took everything that wasn't a scroll or wand), and waaay less than his level 9 WBL.

Note also how there weren't any Bags of Holding rolled -it's 0.9% chance that any given Minor magic item is one, in fact.
At least he has a boatload of gems and such so that he doesn't need to lug around 200lbs. of gold pieces around - which is what I was hinting at, by the way - but without a Magic Mart (or various smaller shops, as in the MIC quote) there really isn't that much to spend thousands of gold on.

I guess he could buy a small town or something?

Oh, and the Fighter is generally underequipped - beyond having just two magic weapons (+1 heavy pick and +1 heavy mace), the only other permanent magical items he has are his +2 gauntlets of ogre strength and his cloak of elvenkind. And a bunch of the potions are pretty useless - Mage armor isn't very useful for a Fighter, for instance.
A couple adventures later, and that's all he has left from his eight first levels of adventuring - 11000gp of mediocre magic items.

Not to mention that finding a level 5 wizard who can spend two days to enchant his Masterwork Greatsword into a +1 weapon (or eight to make it +2) shouldn't be that hard.

The reason that "magic marts" are a thing are both because it makes it simpler to buy things, and also because roleplaying shopping gets old really fast. Oh, and because the assumption of magic items being a thing is baked into the maths of the game itself, not to mention that not having something like a magic sword makes you worse than useless against incorporeal enemies and not having flight making you worthless against flying enemies (with or without Wind Wall and other anti-archer effects).

Now if you excuse me I need to read all of the thread that happened while I was rolling dice.

[Mrc.]

Sorry if this has been asked before, I only skimmed the comments. How common are magic items in your world? Does each party member reliably get something useful every few levels or so? How many villains have magic items? Answering these will help give an insight into your game. If magic items are the sort of thing each miniboss would have, I'd find an item that the player will want to use (wildling clasps for druids, monk's belts for practically everyone etc.) and give them it at a level roughly equal to the magic items of the rest of the party.

Other than that, your idea seems decent enough, just make sure there is something to spend all that gold on. Nobody likes having the wealth of a nation in their pocket and the inability to spend any of it.

[Gnaeus]

I mean, the message to anyone playing 3.5 is not to play a Fighter, because they suck, but I do see your point. However, I think that this problem is not as large as people say it is, and that might very well be more representative of the type of game that I like to play. I might simply have too little experience, but I don't see any one item that would screw a PC if they didn't have it. Could you give me an example?


As well as the weapon/armor specific issues given above (Halfling rogues with full plate and lances and paladins with leather and a dagger) there are other problems.

3.5 assumes that characters above a certain level have methods that allow them to do certain things. The biggest ones that come up in sandbox play are fly, and overcome monster resistances like DR and incorporeality (and for rogues, immunity to sneak attack). In a more optimized campaign, that list adds other things, like a way to keep the badguys from scry & dieing you. As a (fighter/monk/paladin/ranger/barbarian/rogue) your main contribution to the game is hitting the enemy. If you can't hit the enemy because they are 20 feat in the air, or have DR(x) 15, you can't do your most basic job.

And as other people have pointed out, this rule is not even in application. If a caster gets imperfect gear, they change their spells memorized to cover the lack. If a monk gets bad gear, he has no options other than to whine to the casters and hang around in back until the right treasure gets rolled, if ever.

[HammeredWharf]

It's about being challenged and making do with less. Some people don't like it, but eh.

It's only challenging for builds that would be challenged in a normal game, such as various mundanes. Top-tier classes don't need magical items or can craft them just fine by themselves. So, the only thing this does is make the game more unbalanced in favor of casters.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Rolling random gear was used in AD&D. Why can't we have it again?

In AD&D characters weren't as dependent on their wealth to the point that WBL wasn't even a thing. The game was also -much- more loosely built. If you prefer AD&D play AD&D. Don't try to shoehorn out-dated concepts where they don't fit.


Because I'd like to do that. I'd simply like to do that in my game. I'm just asking your opinion about the idea.

At least you're being honest about there being no significant thought behind the decision now. I realize this wasn't addressed at me directly but my opinion is that you need to put a -lot- more thought into this. Seriously, a lot.


But I'd like to let someone who fights dragons for a living to rely on such dated, potentially fatal method of buying possessions because it feels like a good idea. Nevertheless, it's up for a debate.

This is nonsensical. Unless you're a powerful spell-slinger you barely stand a chance against a -dragon- with optimally selected gear for the task. You're completely boned trying to do it with randomly selected gear worth a fraction of that.

Far more importantly, if you were going out to fight dragons, why on earth would you rely on whatever random crap you picked up along the way instead of actively seeking out specialized, dragon-slayer equipment. I'll tell you why: either you simply have -no- time to seek out that gear or you're a madman. This is just as true of any other type of dangerous, magical foe.

Taking the time to seek the best equipment you can reasonably afford that suites your method of combat just makes sense. Without some external force preventing it, there's simply no good reason not to.


I haven't really considered this. I just tell the phrase you quoted to my players and that's it. You are the first person ever who has questioned my logic.
Unfortunately I'm not able to answer your question :smalleek:

That's simply not true. It may be the first time anyone's phrased it in a way to make -you- question it but most everyone telling you that it's a terrible idea is questioning your logic or, in some cases, if there's any logic behind the decision at all.


The point we're debating (or at least, the point I'm debating) is whether or not it should actually be the character's choice.

What you're questioning is whether or not it should be the -player's- choice. It always was, and will be, the character's choice. The character decides, with every adventure hook, whether his gear is adequate to the task being presented and whether or not to seek better gear. You can take away the latter choice by simply making magical gear so rare as to be impossible to find but that comes with the inherent question of why they're so rare. The former decision cannot be removed from the character. He will -always- have the choice to accept the task being presented or not, even if choosing not to accept it means having to flee or, in end of the world scenarios, to lay down and die.

Generally, I don't impose any restriction upon the purchase of magic items beyond the normal settlement GP limits outlined in the DMG's demographics section.

If I were to do so, there would be a very compelling reason in the setting for that particular adventure or campaign setting. Most likely it would result from the world being young enough that the creation of magic items being a newly discovered art, if not magic itself being fairly young. IMO, no other explanation really works without introducing houserules on how magic items function.

They're illegal is a woefully inadequate explanation. Black-markets are a thing and, in this case, the black market would be -immensely- better equipped than the authorities in what resources they had to protect themselves and prevent the opposition from operating. This just makes being an effective adventurer equate to being an outlaw.

In the case of magic item creation being a newly discovered art, it's necessary to restrict players from choosing classes of wildly disparate power so that the DM can accurately account for the party's abilities when designing encounters. Something to the effect of either no one plays a class whose primary feature is spellcasting or no one plays a class for whom it isn't at the very least.

It's a simple point of fact that non-casters -require- the static numeric bonus items to challenge foes of a CR appropriate to their level. Without them such creatures will handily crush them unless they get lucky with an alpha-strike. An NPC caster will prove utterly insurmountable unless it's played with only the simplest, most direct, and inefficient tactics.

A game in which magic items are a rarity can be done but it's significantly more difficult for the DM to do well than a normal "magic mart" game and it -cannot- be done if the party is a mix of casters and non or partial casters unless the casters are willing to play a strictly supporting role to replace the missing gear.

[ddude987]

Maybe this has been said, but it seems like your issue is that the only time your players get gear is on character creation. If your players want to die so they can get new gear, then you aren't offering them enough options. I'm in a campaign without "magic marts" and I'm also currently running a campaign with no "magic marts".

Some of the things you can do are ask the players out of game what items they are interested in. Then give them out as quest rewards or treasure, along with some items you think the players might want or other treasure the player's would just sell. You can also have NPCs selling gear, sure it isn't a magic mart with everything you could ever want, but it isn't unreasonable a retired adventurer who has magic items collecting dust would want to sell them, and as the DM you can give him a few nice items some of the PCs might want to buy.

In terms of random rolled loot, I enjoy randomly rolled loot in a dungeon once in a while, but after the third or fourth "gloves of +2 Dex" it gets old. Having new characters roll random items is even more ridiculous, and is a good way to make mundane characters very ineffective. If you give players some items they want as loot, then they won't want to kill themselves and make new characters so often.

[Coidzor]

Makes sense, doesn't it?

No, not really, your players seem like they really don't like an aspect of your game, so you've decided that you're going to change the game to double-down on a part they don't like in order to eliminate a silver-lining they've found. :smallconfused:

Edit: I feel that this may be a poor decision if it is as you seem to have presented it. Otherwise, it feels like there's some crucial knowledge about your players we'd really need in order to give proper feedback.


Another interesting idea is that a player starts with 2 magic item rolls per level (pick on item from the two) and half the WBL listed on the table to be spent after the treasure rolls.

So, for a level 5 character, they would roll twice for magic items from a CR 1 encounter (picking one of the two results), again from a CR 2, again from a CR3... All the way to CR5.

This represents a random sampling of loot from the various CR's and maintaining randomness.

Then they can spend half their WBL on custom items they NEED to make their character concept work.

Certainly sounds like it has potential.

[ddude987]

No, not really, your players seem like they really don't like an aspect of your game, so you've decided that you're going to change the game to double-down on a part they don't like in order to eliminate a silver-lining they've found. :smallconfused:

That was articulated perfectly my good sir.

[DarkSonic1337]

I mean, the message to anyone playing 3.5 is not to play a Fighter, because they suck, but I do see your point. However, I think that this problem is not as large as people say it is, and that might very well be more representative of the type of game that I like to play. I might simply have too little experience, but I don't see any one item that would screw a PC if they didn't have it. Could you give me an example?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187851

From the list of high level necessities here's what I think applies at mid levels (7-13 or so imo)


1. You NEED to be able to fly. The game assumes after a certain level...you can fly and if you can't you just auto lose.

2. You need see invisibility, and you need it in a timely manner (like the swift activation scout's headband). It's not quite as auto lose as not being able to fly but....it's pretty bad.

3. Someone's gotta be immune to fear and capable of getting rid of it for others. This i kinda campaign specific but...fear is dangerous, really really dangerous. Some fear effects are based off an intimidate check and that can scale really freaking fast.

4. Tactical teleportation. It's just really damn useful. Getting past crowds of enemies, getting around the weird terrain that the battlefield control guy is making, it just makes life easier. Also some methods of teleportation will get you out of grapples, and monsters have HUGE grapple modifiers.

5. Extradimensional storage space. It's where you keep your loot and other items.

6. Dispel Magic and its counters. Well...D&D is a high magic game. And in this game you fight magic...with magic.

[Fitz10019]

In my campaign, players may 'magic mart' when they level, spending up to WBL, completely rekitting if they want to (ignoring the sell-for-half-price-and-get-screwed-buying-new rules). They 'make do' with what they find during each level, particularly because most spend every frickin' gold when they have the chance. If every level sounds really unappealing for your style of game, consider every 2nd or 3rd level, or choose specific levels that need jazzing up (5th? 11th?).

[Kelb_Panthera]

Flying isn't strictly necessary but it's definitely something you want ASAP. Without the ability to fly or serious ranged weapon capability you have to flee and/or take cover to avoid being kited to death if the flier has a ranged attack. If it doesn't have a ranged attack there are a number of options but you're still at a disadvantage. Finally, it's worth noting that there -are- mundane options for flight even outside of choosing a flying race.

Invisibility can be heavily mitigated with mundane methods as well. A good listen modifier, blind-fight, and a couple flour pouches is all you need.

I -think- there's a drug that renders the user fearless but that comes with all the attended issues of drug use.

Tactical teleportation is nice but by no means strictly necessary. Same goes for extradimensional storage.

You definitely need dispel magic if you want to stand a snowball's chance against NPC casters but you can get along without it reasonably well otherwise.

People have an unfortunate tendency to underestimate mundane options. While there are things to which there are no non-magical response, there aren't that many of them and they're pretty much all spells.

What magic items the non-casters -do- need is the flat numeric bonuses that shore up the otherwise unscaling defenses of AC and saves. Most everything else can be handled, albeit with terrible efficiency.

[Worira]

DMs who do not use magic marts.

[Eldest]

Quick question: would you be as opposed to me buying items if I said I was hiring adventurers to hunt down and bring me, say, a Handy Haversack, cash on delivery? They get to keep all the other look, I just want the Haversack, and I might buy other items they find that they aren't interested in.

Oh look. I just bought an item. For cost. Offered to maybe buy stuff they don't want (at cost). And made some of the plentiful adventurers be less unemployed.

edit: a disclaimer, this is not my own original idea, I'm happily poaching from somebody else on the forum and if I knew who came up with the idea I'd give them credit.

[Fax Celestis]

DMs who do not use magic marts.

I <3 u wor

[Jon_Dahl]

DMs who do not use magic marts.

Thank you for correcting me, Worira. That was a mistake on my part.
I thought that the "who" was the object of the sentence, but I didn't realize that it was a relative clause (in other words, two different sentences).

[SiuiS]

Define magic mart? I don't have stores that sell magic items, but I do have wizards, clerics, Druids, etc., and I have players who commission magic items, or get them as quests. If there's a dragon that the priesthood needs handled because he interferes with a massive pilgrimage, say, then a quest find a wizard with the feats to make magic items and bring him to the eccentric mountain pope of that religion to get the high level priest spells and the item creation feats together for the special McGuffin weapon to slay the dragon is fine.

Other times, players simply want a better item and commission enchantments.

I've never had a problem with this, and at worst I've had a player start his new character with item creation feats to avoid magic mart. But in general, no, I do not have a problem saying no magic mart but letting PCs have some custom equipment. If you really need to rationalize it, assume that the regular Joe happened to find the item and mold their skills to use it well, and that's how try got to high level. Remember that the PCs are always special not because pcs are special, but because the camera only follows special people, and they become Pcs.

[Artillery]

Do you consider it magic mart if characters need to wait several days before they get the thing they want?

+1 weapons and armor can be obtained in a timely manner, usually players have their current gear enchanted instead of buying it. Magic Items outside of glove/cloak of stat +2, cloak of resistance, and bag of holding/haversacks variety need to get made to order. Wands of 0th and 1st level of common spells are available.

If its under 4k gold and is common to adventurers(PHB, DMG, MIC) its easily obtainable in cities. Wands of light, Cure Light Wounds, Lesser Vigor, etc. Its still a case of it taking at least a day to get there item. But my people actually have down time between adventures to gear up or spend time crafting etc if they would like to. Usually they level up at the end of something so its a good point to spend money they just got, make things, blah blah.

Standard potions/oils are magic mart though. You can just walk in and buy 3 potions of cure moderate wounds. But most of my players op for a healing belt and lesser vigor wands. Due to sustainability.

[BeerMug Paladin]

Since the PCs are not able to buy and sell magical items, should it be that the magical items of newly created high-level characters are drawn randomly?

An example:
Magic items for a 9th-level character. One roll from the treasure table CR 9 Items section.
The character receives 4 minor magical items.
1 armor and shields: heavy steel shield +1
1 wondrous item: efficient quiver
1 wand: wand of eagle's splendor
1 scroll: arcane scroll of protection from good and invisibility.

Deduct the value of these items from WBL. You can use the rest to buy items that are readily available for purchase in your campaign.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

Interesting idea, but I'd change this in a couple of ways. First, roll the magic item selection method you outline several times. Maybe 5, as a number. If you get the 'nothing' result for a roll, disregard it as a result, for the example, each roll should either give a medium magic item or 1d4 minor magic items.

Second, let the player choose their items from that list you've generated using their player wealth to buy it, instead of select a specific number (as a later poster suggested). There's no magic-mart in this method, the list of items you've generated just indicates what they, as a higher level character, have had the chance to come across (higher level characters have probably seen more magic items). If they can afford a lot of the items, let them pick up as many as they want. If they don't see much they want, let them keep the GP instead and do something else with it.

I'm not sure how this compares to player wealth, but if they could easily buy all the items, you might want to provide more. As in, 5 medium magic items, and 5d4 minor items (instead of something like 2 medium and 3d4 minor). I'm not sure how that would compare to what the wealth of a 9th level character, but it should be relatively easy for such a character to spend most of their wealth in magic items if they encounter a lot they like.

[Krazzman]

In my PF game the term MagicMart is entirely wrong. More like Magic Tribe.

The players are part of a tribe that settled in an abandoned Dwarven Mine in the northern parts of Rashemen. At first they had the set of items they choose (efficient Quiver, neverending rations, +1 armor or similar stuff).
Their adventuring brought them progressively expanding formulaes(often additional stuff through rool of cool).
For example they found a few Weaponcrystals before (the barbarian choose one from the start). In the basement of a castle a mad scientist they encountered an unfinished gascrystal (if they beat it and searched it they would have found recipes for empowering Crystals to tack on different effects than those described in MIC. Instead they burned the gas despite the laboratory being filled with various gasmixes and flamable fluids (I warned them) and succeeded through sheer badassery and as such empowered the barbarians weapon crystal.
Later after a battle with some FrostDragonNinjaMonkthingies and their now revived boss they found a manual to build weapon crystals. They have an Alchemist, Gemsmith and Wizard in their tribe and for dumping gold into research and bringing them materials/Manuals/Formulae they expand the stuff those 3 can build. They just have to wait for x-long. Numeric bonus stuff (and everything under 6k Gold) was already known by those 3.

They actually can "buy" the stuff for half price but have a small list and they don't find that much treasure. They get custom items/Boons "soon" (campaign is on hiatus because 2 players got baby) for example a Piece of a armorset of the Clan the samurai originates from or a feycraft shadowbow for the Huntress.

This works for ME and my group... mainly because they are lazy and don't like looking up magic items or deciding what to buy. (My wife would play a barbarian with just a magic weapon and maybe magic armor in a high level game if she could avoid choosing wondrous items or other such stuff. Maybe she would try to buy something boosting CON/STR.)

[Ailurus]

Define magic mart? I don't have stores that sell magic items, but I do have wizards, clerics, Druids, etc., and I have players who commission magic items, or get them as quests. If there's a dragon that the priesthood needs handled because he interferes with a massive pilgrimage, say, then a quest find a wizard with the feats to make magic items and bring him to the eccentric mountain pope of that religion to get the high level priest spells and the item creation feats together for the special McGuffin weapon to slay the dragon is fine.

Other times, players simply want a better item and commission enchantments.


This is my favorite way to avoid the Magic Mart. It still lets the players get items they want/need (within reason - if you don't want them to have a particular item, just have Archwizard Crafty McCrafterson say he can't/won't build it, or charge an outrageous price for it), but it makes them work for it. And, there are plenty of opportunities for world building and additional quest hooks from it. If the melee guys want mithril (or some other material) armor or weapons, then they need to go find the few smiths in the world who can forge it, plus maybe even find some mithril. Or maybe the warlock wants some particular rare spell components or the death of his rival instead of gold to craft the items

[Aharon]

I've noticed that my players think that the positive thing about character death is that they are able to buy gear for their new characters. I don't have magic marts, so creating a new character is their only chance to buy magical items.
I can't change this situation in mid-campaign, but I was thinking that in my future campaigns the gear should be drawn randomly.

How about instead introducing magic marts in future campaigns instead? Your players obviously think that the ability to buy stuff instead of getting random stuff is good, so much so that dying has a positive aspect for them. Instead of taking a nice thing from them (buy stuff at death!) why not instead give them a new nice thing (buy stuff during the campaign, too). You don't have to go all-out magic mart and have everything be available everywhere, but some magic shops in larger cities can make sense, fluff-wise.

[Gnaeus]

Finally, it's worth noting that there -are- mundane options for flight even outside of choosing a flying race.

Yeah, but I wouldn't assume that a campaign that is so much against item purchases that I can't buy a potion of fly will let me buy a griffin.

[NichG]

Nothing is actually 'necessary' so long as the DM adjusts the campaign to fit within its restrictions. Flight is not necessary if, e.g., the DM never uses flying monsters or enemies with access to flight. That's something to keep in mind when considering the impact of item availability.

Anyhow, what I'd do is basically say 'you can pick one item outright, then you can pick a certain number of things out of a pool of other items hand-picked by the DM as being sort of standard gear, and then you get some number of rolls on a treasure chart'. I'd vaguely aim for WBL, but if they roll a Mirror of Mental Prowess on their random rolls at Lv3, then thats what they get.

This means that if they depend strongly on a particular thing, they can get it (but they can't make something that depends on a specific set of many items). They can also get 'everyday useful things' - Cloaks of Resistance, stat boosters, whatever you as the DM put into the pool they can choose from. Then they get a few things that neither you nor they planned on, that they can try to use creatively or just get rid of or swap around.

[Gnaeus]

Nothing is actually 'necessary' so long as the DM adjusts the campaign to fit within its restrictions. Flight is not necessary if, e.g., the DM never uses flying monsters or enemies with access to flight. That's something to keep in mind when considering the impact of item availability.

True. But:

1. This assumes that the DM will be custom designing every encounter to be within the capabilities of the party's weakest members. That is a lot more work than just letting the fighter get his flying carpet. And it becomes increasingly difficult as levels go up and the number of enemies that can't fly drop. If your goal is to be "authentic" to AD&D, restricting magic marts and therefore never being able to use Dragons as opponents seems counterproductive to me.

2. This method of balance is not actually balancing. Any encounter that isn't in tightly enclosed spaces or possessing a very strong ranged option is suddenly likely to be soloable by the party's wizard and cleric, who CAN fly.

[NichG]

True. But:

1. This assumes that the DM will be custom designing every encounter to be within the capabilities of the party's weakest members. That is a lot more work than just letting the fighter get his flying carpet. And it becomes increasingly difficult as levels go up and the number of enemies that can't fly drop. If your goal is to be "authentic" to AD&D, restricting magic marts and therefore never being able to use Dragons as opponents seems counterproductive to me.

2. This method of balance is not actually balancing. Any encounter that isn't in tightly enclosed spaces or possessing a very strong ranged option is suddenly likely to be soloable by the party's wizard and cleric, who CAN fly.

For #1, it really isn't that bad. Make your own monsters. Really, people assume that going outside of what's written is a lot harder than it actually is. If you're already changing things to the extent of replacing magic marts with alternate systems, a certain level of comfort with changing things needs to be assumed.

For #2, thats the nice thing about dungeons - lots of tightly enclosed spaces where flight doesn't make or break the encounter. Sure, the wizard can move freely over the pits in the floor, but if the ceiling is at 8ft then flight just isn't that critical.

[Gnaeus]

For #1, it really isn't that bad. Make your own monsters. Really, people assume that going outside of what's written is a lot harder than it actually is. If you're already changing things to the extent of replacing magic marts with alternate systems, a certain level of comfort with changing things needs to be assumed.

I don't think OP ever remotely suggested that he was going to be using his own custom menagerie. I don't think that can be assumed AT ALL. I agree that it would be better if it were done. But I suspect that most games where this happens just kill the magic mart and go on with play as normal, without thinking through the metagame ramifications of what they just did. And again, you are gutting a huge number of iconic enemies by removing all the fliers.


For #2, thats the nice thing about dungeons - lots of tightly enclosed spaces where flight doesn't make or break the encounter. Sure, the wizard can move freely over the pits in the floor, but if the ceiling is at 8ft then flight just isn't that critical.

Indeed. As long as the players never go outside (or to the underdark, or Moria, or anywhere with more than an 8 foot roof). I'm not saying that it can't be done. But to make it workable requires several miles of railroads and a level of work that seems disproportionate to any potential benefit.

[evil-frosty]

Something that my DM does, since he too does not like the idea of a Walmart of magic items, is he has magic item stores and such, and he rolls for what they have. And it works, he also will reroll if he thinks the item in question is stupid. And when he is placing loot in the adventure he keeps the party in mind when doing so. It works quite well. Sure I do not have every item I ever wanted, but the items I do have are more unique and I have to think sometimes about how to use them in a given situation since I do not the perfect item or spell.

[Rejusu]

The problem with rolling random equipment is a lot of the time it's going to be useless. And if they aren't allowed to trade it in for something useful it's just junk you're taking out of their WBL, hampering their power progression. It also has the potential to mess with party balance if one person gets good rolls and useful items while the others get a load of rubbish. It doesn't even make much sense for new characters, why would a wizard be walking around with a set of +2 mithral full plate in their bags?

In any case this kind of system would just push players towards casters. I would not play a mundane if getting a decent weapon was up to chance. You couldn't even try to specialise. How are you supposed to build a spiked chain tripper when you can't guarantee that spiked chain?

Fair enough o if you don't want a magic mart but you have to give your players some choice at character creation.

[NichG]

The problem with rolling random equipment is a lot of the time it's going to be useless. And if they aren't allowed to trade it in for something useful it's just junk you're taking out of their WBL, hampering their power progression. It also has the potential to mess with party balance if one person gets good rolls and useful items while the others get a load of rubbish. It doesn't even make much sense for new characters, why would a wizard be walking around with a set of +2 mithral full plate in their bags?

In any case this kind of system would just push players towards casters. I would not play a mundane if getting a decent weapon was up to chance. You couldn't even try to specialise. How are you supposed to build a spiked chain tripper when you can't guarantee that spiked chain?

Fair enough o if you don't want a magic mart but you have to give your players some choice at character creation.

Casters are a significant problem with this, that's very true. I don't necessarily think that forcing people to not pre-emptively specialize is a bad thing though, if the caster issue could also be solved.

The idea would be, you don't build a spiked chain tripper, but you use retrain mechanics to basically specialize for the awesome weapon you do happen to find. If you find a really nice artifact sword, you spend a few weeks training at it and re-assign your feats to sword stuff, and so on. This is a lot more 'organic', which is generally part of the aesthetic that leads to the removal of magic marts in the first place.

The real problem is that, as you point out, casters aren't forced to be organic by this, so they end up even more ahead of things. If casters didn't learn spells by choice on level-up but instead had to find scrolls and spellbooks and stuff, or spend large amounts of time and gold doing spell research, that would move in the direction of addressing the asymmetry.

Before people jump on me for this - yes, this would play very differently than by-the-book 3.5ed, and I'll explicitly recognize that here. It also requires a GM who really knows what they're doing. Given a skilled GM, I think whether the resulting game is enjoyable or not is probably largely a matter of taste, which means that this is the kind of thing the players really have to be on board with. Hopefully thats enough boilerplate...

[Hurnn]

Personally I would destroy your game.

Step 1: suicide current caracter.

Step 2: reroll as an item creation based wizard

Step 3: literaly spend every moment and exp point I could up to and including taking level hits to the point I could nolonger create items, making stuff for the rest of the party to use.

Step 4: Suicide my now lvl 3 wizard.

Step 5: Reroll VoP druid and face roll eveything.

Not allowing any trade in magic items is insane, classes can make the crap, PC's can make it. There is a market for everything. Cocaine is illegal I'm sure if you tried you could buy some. How would magic items be any different? Actually Magic Items in your world would be more like meth, tons of people can make it and it's way more avalible.

[Sudain]

The problem with rolling random equipment is a lot of the time it's going to be useless. And if they aren't allowed to trade it in for something useful it's just junk you're taking out of their WBL, hampering their power progression. It also has the potential to mess with party balance if one person gets good rolls and useful items while the others get a load of rubbish. It doesn't even make much sense for new characters, why would a wizard be walking around with a set of +2 mithral full plate in their bags?

In any case this kind of system would just push players towards casters. I would not play a mundane if getting a decent weapon was up to chance. You couldn't even try to specialise. How are you supposed to build a spiked chain tripper when you can't guarantee that spiked chain?

Fair enough o if you don't want a magic mart but you have to give your players some choice at character creation.

I think players can't trade the items in isn't an assumption we can make. In fact I'd assume the opposite. The wizard with +2 full plate for example - it's not directly useful to him, but he could trade it into the local garrison who would have a use for it. Donate it to a noble cloister for services. An authentic costume. FIND a use for it is what the players should be doing.

This may push players towards casters, but I don't think it should. You can gussy up a commoner with top-of-the-line gear and he can be an absolute monster in combat, to kill him I'd use my brain and not engage him there. Hire/be a prostitue and kill him in the shower.

I'd still allow players to build the characters they want; just give them a warning they should NOT expect a magic mart - if they want custom magic items they should have someone in the party be willing to craft magic items. Or they should be willing to accept quests from people who can enchant items.

[NichG]

Personally I would destroy your game.

Step 1: suicide current caracter.

Step 2: reroll as an item creation based wizard

Step 3: literaly spend every moment and exp point I could up to and including taking level hits to the point I could nolonger create items, making stuff for the rest of the party to use.

Step 4: Suicide my now lvl 3 wizard.

Step 5: Reroll VoP druid and face roll eveything.

Not allowing any trade in magic items is insane, classes can make the crap, PC's can make it. There is a market for everything. Cocaine is illegal I'm sure if you tried you could buy some. How would magic items be any different? Actually Magic Items in your world would be more like meth, tons of people can make it and it's way more avalible.

Once you hit Step 1, you could reasonably be slapped down for metagaming. There are a number of forms this could take, but this is fundamentally an OOC problem, not an IC problem. In my games, at least, the response to Step 1 would start with 'please knock it off' since suiciding a character to play a new one is a danger sign of misbehavior (as opposed to asking 'hey, can I rebuild/make a new character?'). At Step 4, after discussing it, I'd likely just ask you to leave.

I've seen people suicide a character as a means to an end. Unless this is a played-for-laughs AD&D oneshot, its always been a sign of disruptive play tendencies.

[Fouredged Sword]

I would also point out that the kill of characters to buy their wealth may be a symptom as well as a disease. If you don;t give your party items that are useful to them, they fall behind the curve of wealth, and feel like they are falling being in power compared to their challenges.

Talk to your players OOC, and get a list of desired items. Randomly fold those items into random treasure. OOC, they get what they asked for, IC, the treasure is random treasure.

Don't say "I'm gonna hand this out next combat" but get a decent sized list and use it for inspiration for handing out stuff the party will get excited about.

[Hurnn]

Once you hit Step 1, you could reasonably be slapped down for metagaming. There are a number of forms this could take, but this is fundamentally an OOC problem, not an IC problem. In my games, at least, the response to Step 1 would start with 'please knock it off' since suiciding a character to play a new one is a danger sign of misbehavior (as opposed to asking 'hey, can I rebuild/make a new character?'). At Step 4, after discussing it, I'd likely just ask you to leave.

I've seen people suicide a character as a means to an end. Unless this is a played-for-laughs AD&D oneshot, its always been a sign of disruptive play tendencies.

First you have the notion that suiciding your character has to be obvious. Bad placement in combat or risky tactics will kill you quickly enough especialy in an environment where you have F**k all for magic items.

Second I'm a lvl 3 mage at step 4, party is 9 I will either: A) get one shot by monsters in encounters or B) level up stupid fast so no worries cause I'm a T1 class that isn't Item dependant, ie; even with out toys I'm awesome compaired to anything t3 and below.

finnaly if you were running a game that was so bad that character death was a positive thing; because it is the only real way to get gear that is worth while to your character. I wouldnt miss it....

[NichG]

First you have the notion that suiciding your character has to be obvious. Bad placement in combat or risky tactics will kill you quickly enough especialy in an environment where you have F**k all for magic items.

Second I'm a lvl 3 mage at step 4, party is 9 I will either: A) get one shot by monsters in encounters or B) level up stupid fast so no worries cause I'm a T1 class that isn't Item dependant, ie; even with out toys I'm awesome compaired to anything t3 and below.

finnaly if you were running a game that was so bad that character death was a positive thing; because it is the only real way to get gear that is worth while to your character. I wouldnt miss it....

The idea that somehow the ability to break the game with bad behavior and a bad OOC attitude is a sign of a problem with the rules is ridiculous. Yes, its possible to be a jerk and mess up a campaign. Thats as true in a game with or without magic marts.

[MukkTB]

This feels like a worldbuilding exercise. The cursed item thing wouldn't work. An owner wouldn't be able to sell you a cursed item because its cursed. Furthermore a halfway competent caster would be able to tell the difference.

When I build a city/country I ask what level the highest level caster in the setting is. I then assume that they aren't going to spend their time crafting unless they're some legendary artificer or some thing. The runners up probably are. So that gives me a rough caster level for the crafters in the area. If an item comes in under that caster level someone in the city can sell it no problem. The only restrictions would be if the item requires some really bizarre abilities or components.

For items beyond this level I just generate a few items that the shops have. Plane Shift to a planar metropolis/bazaar is a workable alternative when the local city can't supply the adventurers needs. In a lower level campaign a magic item shopping trip might include a trip to the capital.

Only in low level wilderness campaigns without any significant civilization do my players have problems finding a magic mart. It creates an appropriate sense of isolation and surviving on meager resources.

[Hurnn]

The idea that somehow the ability to break the game with bad behavior and a bad OOC attitude is a sign of a problem with the rules is ridiculous. Yes, its possible to be a jerk and mess up a campaign. Thats as true in a game with or without magic marts.

His game is broken in the first place as shown by his own players attitudes. "



I've noticed that my players think that the positive thing about character death is that they are able to buy gear for their new characters. I don't have magic marts, so creating a new character is their only chance to buy magical items.


Pay the slightest bit of attention. His players already have the attitude I have just taken it to its most extreme example.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yeah, but I wouldn't assume that a campaign that is so much against item purchases that I can't buy a potion of fly will let me buy a griffin.

Who said anything about griffins? A&EG has several mundane flying machines. Buy a hang-glider, put some ranks in knowledge nature (cross class if need be), and find some thermal updrafts.

[SiuiS]

The problem with rolling random equipment is a lot of the time it's going to be useless. And if they aren't allowed to trade it in for something useful it's just junk you're taking out of their WBL, hampering their power progression. It also has the potential to mess with party balance if one person gets good rolls and useful items while the others get a load of rubbish. It doesn't even make much sense for new characters, why would a wizard be walking around with a set of +2 mithral full plate in their bags?


Players don't get rolls for treasure, ever. Monsters do. You will not end up with one guy loaded up and the rest not unless the party agrees or that one guy is an *******.

Search for "StevenAC Sagiro story hour". It's a decade long (or more) campaign that went from 2e through 3e (and stayed there when 4e came along) and the players gained only half XP. They accumulated a lot of items they couldn't sell, and still use a lot of them because they're adventurers. Instead of having three Really Useful Items they're all basically batman, with utility belts of trophies with superpowers.

That's not a bad economy at all.


Casters are a significant problem with this, that's very true. I don't necessarily think that forcing people to not pre-emptively specialize is a bad thing though, if the caster issue could also be solved.

The idea would be, you don't build a spiked chain tripper, but you use retrain mechanics to basically specialize for the awesome weapon you do happen to find. If you find a really nice artifact sword, you spend a few weeks training at it and re-assign your feats to sword stuff, and so on. This is a lot more 'organic', which is generally part of the aesthetic that leads to the removal of magic marts in the first place.

Before people jump on me for this - yes, this would play very differently than by-the-book 3.5ed, and I'll explicitly recognize that here. It also requires a GM who really knows what they're doing. Given a skilled GM, I think whether the resulting game is enjoyable or not is probably largely a matter of taste, which means that this is the kind of thing the players really have to be on board with. Hopefully thats enough boilerplate...

On the contrary, this is completely by the book. If you have a level 5 PC who is optimized for sword use with a falchion and happens to have a magic falchion, well now you know why.


His game is broken in the first place as shown by his own players attitudes.


I disagree. His players have an understanding they don't realize is orthogonal to intentional structures. That's nowhere near the level of spite you're suggesting.

I also disagree the game is broken. Your basic premise is you can't trust other people so you need to insure your survival against the DM. That's broken Hurnn, not broken game.

Also, I believe telling people to pay attention is a violation of the forum rules?

[killem2]

I can't honestly say I do not have a magic mart, because I do, but they themselves are found in exotic places and not easy to get to with out a session worth of travel.


That said, the other 90% of the time they are getting look, I hand pick it, or at the very least have rerolls on the random chart.

[Rejusu]

I think players can't trade the items in isn't an assumption we can make. In fact I'd assume the opposite. The wizard with +2 full plate for example - it's not directly useful to him, but he could trade it into the local garrison who would have a use for it. Donate it to a noble cloister for services. An authentic costume. FIND a use for it is what the players should be doing.

Actually it's not an assumption we have to make, the OP has said that "the PCs are not able to buy and sell magical items". Buy and sell. And just to hammer the point home:


In my campaign it's forbidden to deal with magical items, because 5% of them are cursed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#cursedItems). That's like having a 5% chance of contracting HIV every time you buy a used car. No dealmaking with magical items is allowed.

We don't have to assume he can't trade it in because the OP has very clearly stated that they can't. The local garrison would arrest him, the noble cloister would curse him. So he's left trawling around this junk. Sure maybe one of the players might have a use for it, but in the example the OP posted one of the random items was a magic quiver. What if you have no archers? No one is going to find a use for that. It's just junk.

It's one thing to say that the players should be finding a use for it, but it's kind of hard when the DM has deliberately handicapped them doing so.


This may push players towards casters, but I don't think it should. You can gussy up a commoner with top-of-the-line gear and he can be an absolute monster in combat, to kill him I'd use my brain and not engage him there. Hire/be a prostitue and kill him in the shower.

Assuming of course that the only encounters you face are over geared commoners and not dragons, and undead, and oozes, and orcs. Good luck killing those with your brains.


I'd still allow players to build the characters they want; just give them a warning they should NOT expect a magic mart - if they want custom magic items they should have someone in the party be willing to craft magic items. Or they should be willing to accept quests from people who can enchant items.

The main issue is not the lack of in-game magic marts. It's that he's talking about assigning random gear at character creation. Which would make playing anything remotely gear dependent (like any kind of martial fighter) almost impossible. If I had to build a character with those restrictions I'd just say screw it and go VoP Druid. VoP sucks but it's better than having a load of gear I can't use. But even without that the restrictions on the trade of magic items make things even more difficult for the players than a simple lack of a magic mart would.


Casters are a significant problem with this, that's very true. I don't necessarily think that forcing people to not pre-emptively specialize is a bad thing though, if the caster issue could also be solved.

I disagree. I think a DM is within his purview to limit character options on occasion. But this is far too sweeping a limitation in my opinion. And yes as you've pointed out the problem is that for mundanes to be effective they pretty much have to specialise. Casters can afford to be generalists, but if you're a mundane you have to pick a trick and hone it.


The idea would be, you don't build a spiked chain tripper, but you use retrain mechanics to basically specialize for the awesome weapon you do happen to find. If you find a really nice artifact sword, you spend a few weeks training at it and re-assign your feats to sword stuff, and so on.

Snip

Before people jump on me for this - yes, this would play very differently than by-the-book 3.5ed, and I'll explicitly recognize that here.

Again as you pointed out it's something that just hampers mundanes while barely affecting casters, and that's something that's never needed in 3.5. And yes there's no way you could do it by-the-book. The retraining rules only allow you to retrain one feat per level, since a lot of builds rely on a lot of feats there's no way you could just switch to a different build easily or quickly.

At any rate using random loot at character generation and cutting off the players means to make any use of the stuff they can't use is just not a good idea. And if the OPs players think the positive thing about character death is buying new gear it sounds like something they won't like either.

SWORDSAGE'D

Players don't get rolls for treasure, ever. Monsters do. You will not end up with one guy loaded up and the rest not unless the party agrees or that one guy is an *******.

What I meant was that if a lot of magic items that are beneficial to casters, or archers, or rogues, or whatever are rolled on the random table then the barbarian is going to feel a little put out with his plain wooden club. Generally parties distribute gear to those who would get the most benefit out of it. You aren't going to give the mantle of intelligence to the barbarian now are you?

[CrazyYanmega]

To be clear, I think there are two questions here:

2: Is rolling for loot at character creation a reasonable thing to do in this game, with these players.

The answer to two, though, would appear to be no, no, and no. You have players who are eager to die because it's the only way to get class/level appropriate items. You're rightly recognizing this as a problem, but you're solving the problem by taking away their only means of getting appropriate gear. The answer is to introduce a non-death means of balancing things (and then maybe nerf death-as-a-tactic if it's still needed).

D&D3.5 was balanced on the assumption that players have level-suitable equipment, and depriving players of that without compensation makes the game nearly unplayable. It's looking like you go beyond no Magic Marts (defined here as get any reasonable scroll/enchanted item you request) to saying "no buying magic items", a much stricter rule. Not allowing access to items of the players choosing is very different than saying that no one is selling what magic items they have, even illegally. That's both hard to understand on a story basis, and debilitating on a gameplay basis.

Given normal rules, no magic items for sale, and random loot, your players will die to powers beyond their control. Your level 10 fighter will roll up a wand, some nightsticks, and a wilding clasp, and get beaten
to death by a single babau because he can't bypass DR.

From the sound of it, your players are already unhappy enough with the item model you use that they're seeking to bypass it. If you keep them from doing that without granting new items, or bonus feats, or something to offer balance, they're going to die to unwinnable fights until they quit.

For the sake of argument, I'm gonna disagree here. A sufficiently creative player can do the impossible if they put their minds to it. Is DR a problem? No. There are ways around DR without having to resort to cheap magic tricks. Especially since you don't need to kill an enemy to get the experience points for it. Speaking of, a Babau is a bad example, since that damage reduction can be bypassed with a nonmagical Cold Iron weapon.

I think the DM is trying to get his players to stop being lazy and to start being inventive. A possible solution would be to ban magic items outright.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I think the DM is trying to get his players to stop being lazy and to start being inventive. A possible solution would be to ban magic items outright.

He's dangerously close to this point anyway. The problem is that the game just doesn't work that way without other houserules to compensate.

You say that there are ways to bypass DR beyond magical "tricks." Other than simply doing overwhelming amounts of damage on each strike, what are they? How do you get past DR X/evil or DR X/magic without a magic weapon or SU ability that allows your weapon to bypass? The questions are rhetorical. You can't bypass those types of DR without magic, period.

Item dependence isn't about lazy vs creative. Beyond a certain point and with certain foes you simply -cannot- function without magic and if you're not a caster that magic has to come from items or caster allies.

I understand that not every foe is to be slain but there are foes for which there is no other option. If you can't outrun it, and you can't fight it, you're dead. It's a d-bag move on the DM's part to use such foes when he denies the party the means to combat them but that doesn't change the fact they exist.

The list of genuinely necessary, "you can't survive beyond a certain point without them" magic items is much shorter than most people think but it does exist.

[NichG]

He's dangerously close to this point anyway. The problem is that the game just doesn't work that way without other houserules to compensate.

You say that there are ways to bypass DR beyond magical "tricks." Other than simply doing overwhelming amounts of damage on each strike, what are they? How do you get past DR X/evil or DR X/magic without a magic weapon or SU ability that allows your weapon to bypass? The questions are rhetorical. You can't bypass those types of DR without magic, period.

There's a Lv2 Desert Wind maneuver that converts all your normal weapon damage to fire damage, just off the top of my head. The various ways exist, though they're scattered through the books and fairly idiosyncratic.

On top of that, Magic Weapon is a Lv1 spell and has a pretty good duration. In a campaign like this, it becomes worth burning the slot to let the party's Fighter use whatever weapon he likes.

I'm generally very leery of any claim that something becomes 'impossible' or that something is 'completely necessary'. The game is an ecology. When you change something, options change in value - some formerly good choices become bad and some formerly bad choices become good - but in general the game is actually pretty flexible. You may have to tweak CRs (but you always had to do this) or hold back from certain kinds of encounters or recognize that certain things become much more dangerous, but there are ways to adapt on both sides of the DM screen.

Whether its fun for a given player? Well, that may not adjust. Whether its a good idea? Again, arguably not. But it can be made to work.

Whenever you think 'this is necessary for survival' just remind yourself that there are people out there running by-the-book campaigns where monks are overpowered and wizards need buffing.

[Augmental]

On top of that, Magic Weapon is a Lv1 spell and has a pretty good duration. In a campaign like this, it becomes worth burning the slot to let the party's Fighter use whatever weapon he likes.

*cough*


You can't bypass those types of DR without magic, period.

That aside, however, Magic Weapon only gets past DR/Magic and lasts for 1 minute/CL. You want Greater Magic Weapon, which lasts for 1 hour/CL.

[SiuiS]

The main issue is not the lack of in-game magic marts. It's that he's talking about assigning random gear at character creation. Which would make playing anything remotely gear dependent (like any kind of martial fighter) almost impossible.

Unless you use the DMG 2, the PHB 2, any item creation feats, the mentor feat (or apprenticeship), leadership, ancestral relic, play a samurai, etc., but yes. Aside from all of those easily accessible and game enhancing fixes, and aside from the myriad situations which can arise that make this not an issue, it's an issue and making a melee character is impossible.



What I meant was that if a lot of magic items that are beneficial to casters, or archers, or rogues, or whatever are rolled on the random table then the barbarian is going to feel a little put out with his plain wooden club. Generally parties distribute gear to those who would get the most benefit out of it. You aren't going to give the mantle of intelligence to the barbarian now are you?

That depends. You're assuming mantles of intelligence are needed for making intelligence characters useful, when instead they could shore up weaknesses. In a game where kobolds are a threat because of their spears and numbers, at level eight. It's possible for archery to not be a devoted thing and everyone benefits from the quiver. These issues that are game breakers for you aren't always issues.



The list of genuinely necessary, "you can't survive beyond a certain point without them" magic items is much shorter than most people think but it does exist.

What's the list?

[Kelb_Panthera]

There's a Lv2 Desert Wind maneuver that converts all your normal weapon damage to fire damage, just off the top of my head. The various ways exist, though they're scattered through the books and fairly idiosyncratic.

On top of that, Magic Weapon is a Lv1 spell and has a pretty good duration. In a campaign like this, it becomes worth burning the slot to let the party's Fighter use whatever weapon he likes.

While this is true, it utterly fails to refute my statement. That desert wind maneuver is a SU ability and fire is the most commonly resisted energy. Magic weapon is spell. You simply cannot bypass those types of DR without magic and unless you can produce the necessary magic yourself, you're utterly dependent on someone else to do it for you unless you have a magic weapon.


I'm generally very leery of any claim that something becomes 'impossible' or that something is 'completely necessary'. The game is an ecology. When you change something, options change in value - some formerly good choices become bad and some formerly bad choices become good - but in general the game is actually pretty flexible. You may have to tweak CRs (but you always had to do this) or hold back from certain kinds of encounters or recognize that certain things become much more dangerous, but there are ways to adapt on both sides of the DM screen.

Bottom line: AC doesn't scale with level at all and saves scale poorly without supporting magic. If the players can't get the necessary magic to boost those values then they're increasingly hosed as the enemies grow stronger and stronger. Unless the party's casters are willing to drop a -lot- of spells to prevent this you -need- the appropriate magic items. You can't affect incorporeal foes at all without magic and even then you need specific magic or you're not going to affect them half the time.


Whether its fun for a given player? Well, that may not adjust. Whether its a good idea? Again, arguably not. But it can be made to work.

I'm not saying it can't be made to work. I'm saying it takes a lot more effort to make it work than just rarifying magic items and telling the players, "deal with it."


Whenever you think 'this is necessary for survival' just remind yourself that there are people out there running by-the-book campaigns where monks are overpowered and wizards need buffing.

Monks are not overpowered. Virtually all seemingly valid claims to the contrary boil down to "The DM has trouble killing the monk." That's what a monk's supposed to do. It's a -very- defensively oriented class. It's power to affect other creatures, however, is really no better than any other mundane played at WotC optimization levels and as op level rises it falls behind rapidly.

Ineptitude at playing a wizard isn't surprising. It's a difficult class to play well. If those players were running sorcerers instead they'd almost certainly find themselves wondering "why is this so much easier when they use nearly the exact same mechanics."

Ultimately, a skilled DM can make almost anything work if he's willing to think each rules change all the way through and make the necessary tweaks to support them. The problem is that all too many DM's either can't or won't do that.

Heavily restricting the availability of magic items leaves the non-casters increasingly dependent on their caster allies for survival as the game progresses unless you compensate somewhere else. If the casters' players don't want to devote virtually the entirety of their resources to supporting the non-casters then the non-casters are just screwed. Simple as that.

[Kelb_Panthera]

What's the list?

Basically just the most boring +X to Y bonus items. Your gauntlets of ogre strength, cloaks of resistance, rings of protection, +X magic weapons, etc.

[Telok]

One thing I always do in a D&D game is to ask four questions. The answers should inform and mold the setting or campaign.

1) Who makes magic items.
2) Why do they make them.
3) Why (if ever) are they sold.
4) To whom are they sold, and how.

It turns out that npc casters actually make magic items. Sometimes a pc will make a scroll or potion, and pc artificers will create their craft reserve in wands or slotless 1/day "cast spell X" wonderous items. This has held true in my group for over ten years now, other groups may vary.

Player made items are used and never sold. It stands to reason that npc adventurers follow the same pattern. This is because adventurers make items that are pretty much always useful for adventurers. Even if your caster level 5 spoon of Dispel Magic 1/day isn't very useful at level fifteen you don't sell it, you give it to the fighter so he can contribute to the ten mirror imaged sorcerer simracula caster battle. So it is the npc non-adventuring casters who make the majority of magic items. These people do not adventure for xp and gold. If they want gold then it is more profitable and less resource intensive (in time, effort, and money) to sell spell casting services than to make magic items, except for 1st and 2nd level scrolls or potions. So the magic items they make will either be for personal (and probably non-combat use) or made on commission for somebody with money. Furthermore, because these casters do not adventure they probably should not be higher than tenth level.

Will post more later...

[Hurnn]

I disagree. His players have an understanding they don't realize is orthogonal to intentional structures. That's nowhere near the level of spite you're suggesting.

I also disagree the game is broken. Your basic premise is you can't trust other people so you need to insure your survival against the DM. That's broken Hurnn, not broken game.



Again seeing dying as a positive thing because it "lets you buy items that are relevant to you" is clearly a sign of something being wrong. I'm not entirely sure how to put it in a way that some people will understand. "I died Awesome now I can have some cool loot" is NOT a sign of a well functioning game, and now he wants to kill the symptom not the fix the cause.

[Coidzor]

I disagree. His players have an understanding they don't realize is orthogonal to intentional structures. That's nowhere near the level of spite you're suggesting.

I also disagree the game is broken. Your basic premise is you can't trust other people so you need to insure your survival against the DM. That's broken Hurnn, not broken game.

Also, I believe telling people to pay attention is a violation of the forum rules?

I don't think there's grounds for that kind of analysis unless he's posted elsewhere about this, in which case, would you mind sharing the link?

At any rate, it's all so much ephemera without knowing more about his group of players and the game than we currently have to go on.

[Gnaeus]

Player made items are used and never sold. It stands to reason that npc adventurers follow the same pattern. This is because adventurers make items that are pretty much always useful for adventurers. Even if your caster level 5 spoon of Dispel Magic 1/day isn't very useful at level fifteen you don't sell it, you give it to the fighter so he can contribute to the ten mirror imaged sorcerer simracula caster battle. So it is the npc non-adventuring casters who make the majority of magic items. These people do not adventure for xp and gold. If they want gold then it is more profitable and less resource intensive (in time, effort, and money) to sell spell casting services than to make magic items, except for 1st and 2nd level scrolls or potions. So the magic items they make will either be for personal (and probably non-combat use) or made on commission for somebody with money. Furthermore, because these casters do not adventure they probably should not be higher than tenth level.


That doesn't make sense. Eventually, 99.9% of adventurers will either die or retire. That may happen off screen, but after it happens, their items will re-enter the market, since most items will last for a very long time. Also, just because an NPC caster is a fat merchant NOW doesn't mean that he didn't fight dragons in his youth. Or even that he might not have a CR relevant encounter in the form of a challenging encounter with a hostile merchant guild or thieves or the local authorities or a demon sent by a rival to kill him every couple of months. Remember you don't actually need to kill monsters to get xp.

I confess, the actual magic item charts don't reflect very accurately which items would be most commonly made by low level casters or which items would last forever vs which items would be used before they were sold, but there would always be a market for magic items, and items to feed that market.

[NichG]

While this is true, it utterly fails to refute my statement. That desert wind maneuver is a SU ability and fire is the most commonly resisted energy. Magic weapon is spell. You simply cannot bypass those types of DR without magic and unless you can produce the necessary magic yourself, you're utterly dependent on someone else to do it for you unless you have a magic weapon.


Not using SU abilities is your own self-imposed handicap here. But fine, use Mountain Hammer instead then.



Monks are not overpowered. Virtually all seemingly valid claims to the contrary boil down to "The DM has trouble killing the monk." That's what a monk's supposed to do. It's a -very- defensively oriented class. It's power to affect other creatures, however, is really no better than any other mundane played at WotC optimization levels and as op level rises it falls behind rapidly.

Ineptitude at playing a wizard isn't surprising. It's a difficult class to play well. If those players were running sorcerers instead they'd almost certainly find themselves wondering "why is this so much easier when they use nearly the exact same mechanics."


My point is, there are campaigns where the average forum-goer here could survive in their sleep with no actual effort. There are in fact campaigns where every encounter is equal CR and the DM doesn't have a lick of tactical sense. Heck, I've been in - I've even run - fights with dragons where they just sit there under the open sky and don't even bother to fly.

This kind of game exists. It may not be a game you want to play, but it does exist, and in such games, it really doesn't matter what abilities or items you have, so long as you have a lick of tactical sense.

[Coidzor]

My point is, there are campaigns where the average forum-goer here could survive in their sleep with no actual effort. There are in fact campaigns where every encounter is equal CR and the DM doesn't have a lick of tactical sense. Heck, I've been in - I've even run - fights with dragons where they just sit there under the open sky and don't even bother to fly.

This kind of game exists. It may not be a game you want to play, but it does exist, and in such games, it really doesn't matter what abilities or items you have, so long as you have a lick of tactical sense.

Sort of an odd decision to really bring them up though, as they don't really seem to have anything to do with the OP or serve to illustrate anything about the subject of curtailing the ability of players to get gear that they want without descending into the depths of farce. :smallconfused:

I mean, unless you can show that this applies to games where the DM isn't just phoning it in, you're not really going to undermine the argument that the system as intended expects certain numbers that aren't there by default and ostensibly require the gear system to compensate for said shortfall.

[Rejusu]

Unless you use the DMG 2, the PHB 2, any item creation feats, the mentor feat (or apprenticeship), leadership, ancestral relic, play a samurai, etc., but yes. Aside from all of those easily accessible and game enhancing fixes, and aside from the myriad situations which can arise that make this not an issue, it's an issue and making a melee character is impossible.

Really? You're suggesting samurai as a fix? I'd rather brave the random item table and have to make do wielding an inflatable chicken than play a samurai. I'd still probably be more effective in combat. Item creation feats require you play a caster/artificer so you can only really play Gish. If the DM is limiting magic items you can bet leadership is banned. Ancestral relic requires burning a feat and requires a fair amount of down time (whether that's an issue or not is DM dependant). I'm not sure how mentor even helps (and it burns two feats), and apprentice is highly subject to DM fiat.

Exactly how are any of these viable fixes? About ancestral weapon is the only thing that would make a martial mundane workable. And even then you're giving up a feat to do so. I did say almost impossible anyway, perhaps that was overly hyperbolic. Unnecessarily difficult is a much better way to put it. Frankly it's not even something that should need fixing. A character should be able to start with the gear they need, everything after that is gravy.


That depends. You're assuming mantles of intelligence are needed for making intelligence characters useful, when instead they could shore up weaknesses. In a game where kobolds are a threat because of their spears and numbers, at level eight. It's possible for archery to not be a devoted thing and everyone benefits from the quiver. These issues that are game breakers for you aren't always issues.

Yes, because the Barbarians weak intellect needs shoring up far more than a wizard needs bonus spells. It's for all those knowledge checks he's going to make see.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Not using SU abilities is your own self-imposed handicap here. But fine, use Mountain Hammer instead then.

I said magic. SU abilities are magic. That's why they fail in an anti-magic field.

Okay, that's one. You said "tricks," plural.

Not that it's at all relevant to the point. Even if you could find maybe half a dozen ways around this issue you're still pigeon-holing all non-casters into one of those half dozen choices. It's crippling player choice and limiting creativity; the opposite of the intended effect, I think. Then, of course, there are incorporeal foes. You literally cannot effect them without magic, period, end of story.

And all of this is still ignoring the elephant in the room; NPC casters will crush the party's non-casters effortlessly unless the DM is seriously pulling his punches. I don't know about you, but I don't get much of a sense of accomplishment from beating someone with both arms and one leg tied behind his back.




My point is, there are campaigns where the average forum-goer here could survive in their sleep with no actual effort. There are in fact campaigns where every encounter is equal CR and the DM doesn't have a lick of tactical sense. Heck, I've been in - I've even run - fights with dragons where they just sit there under the open sky and don't even bother to fly.

This kind of game exists. It may not be a game you want to play, but it does exist, and in such games, it really doesn't matter what abilities or items you have, so long as you have a lick of tactical sense.

Okay, let's say that we are talking about a game where every foe is an equal CR to the party. What's the party's fighter supposed to do against a wraith at level 5? How's a level 15 monk supposed to survive the onslaught of a marut? Their not doing it on their class-features alone, that's for damn sure.

The DM deliberately pulling his punches and tailoring everything to never poke at the party's weaknesses is certainly a way to make it work but the former leaves a bad taste in some people's mouths and the latter is more than a little limiting to the DM.

Btw, a dragon choosing not to take flight when the enemy has half-killed him is playing that dragon -way- below its intelligence. Did you also have it choose not to use its breath weapon?

[TuggyNE]

Yes, because the Barbarians weak intellect needs shoring up far more than a wizard needs bonus spells. It's for all those knowledge checks he's going to make see.

"Int check. Oops, you failed? Your Barbarian is too stupid to realize it would be a good idea to Rage and charge the enemies this turn. Guess you'll have to do something else, eh?"

More seriously, any ability score can technically be attacked, and lower scores make you more vulnerable to being taken out that way. It's not, however, something most players would really worry about; even at level 20, burning some cash and an item slot on "I am now two points further from Int 0 unconsciousness" is not a good trade.

[NichG]

The DM deliberately pulling his punches and tailoring everything to never poke at the party's weaknesses is certainly a way to make it work but the former leaves a bad taste in some people's mouths and the latter is more than a little limiting to the DM.

Btw, a dragon choosing not to take flight when the enemy has half-killed him is playing that dragon -way- below its intelligence. Did you also have it choose not to use its breath weapon?

Yes, people play enemies way below their intelligence. People run games where tactics are non-existent, because they don't know how to actually run games with tactics or because they just don't care. These things happen. I would even say they're highly common. In such games, it really doesn't matter what items or class features you have. A Marut? No problem, because it will not be used in a way that is actually all that threatening.

Its like this idea that you must pierce DR to have a reasonable chance in an encounter. No, you don't have to actually pierce DR to win.

Are these games for you? Probably not - as you said, it can leave a bad taste. But I think its disingenuous to claim that something is 'necessary' or that the game 'doesn't work' under certain conditions when there are counterexamples, even common ones.

[Deophaun]

"Int check. Oops, you failed? Your Barbarian is too stupid to realize it would be a good idea to Rage and charge the enemies this turn. Guess you'll have to do something else, eh?"
Maybe the Barbarian is too stupid to understand he doesn't need the +2 Int boosting headband. So he puts it on, realizes he doesn't need it, takes it off, thinks he needs it, puts it back on...

...and finally one of his teammates breaks the infinite loop by upgrading the headband to +4, so the barbarian realizes that he doesn't need it, but it is advantageous to keep it on to avoid the logic fault.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yes, people play enemies way below their intelligence. People run games where tactics are non-existent, because they don't know how to actually run games with tactics or because they just don't care. These things happen. I would even say they're highly common. In such games, it really doesn't matter what items or class features you have. A Marut? No problem, because it will not be used in a way that is actually all that threatening.

A marut is a straight bruiser. The DM using him in a non-threatening way amounts to simply not using it in a combat encounter at all. This goes back to my point about the DM handicapping himself.


Its like this idea that you must pierce DR to have a reasonable chance in an encounter. No, you don't have to actually pierce DR to win.

You do unless you can go around it or can do such ludicrous damage for your level as to make it irrelevant. The former means magic and the latter means charger build. Simple as that.

And what about incorporeality?


Are these games for you? Probably not - as you said, it can leave a bad taste. But I think its disingenuous to claim that something is 'necessary' or that the game 'doesn't work' under certain conditions when there are counterexamples, even common ones.

Meh. "It's not broke if you can fix it" is the oberroni fallacy to a T. Counting on the DM to pull his punches is, at best, flawed logic. I can half-ass a game of poker if all I want is to hang out with my buddies.

[Telok]

That doesn't make sense. Eventually, 99.9% of adventurers will either die or retire. That may happen off screen, but after it happens, their items will re-enter the market, since most items will last for a very long time. Also, just because an NPC caster is a fat merchant NOW doesn't mean that he didn't fight dragons in his youth. Or even that he might not have a CR relevant encounter in the form of a challenging encounter with a hostile merchant guild or thieves or the local authorities or a demon sent by a rival to kill him every couple of months. Remember you don't actually need to kill monsters to get xp.

I have two issues with this. First, in my experience roughly 95% of all adventurers die while adventuring. When they do so their items become the basis for the random magic item tables. Retirement is actually very rare and even then the ex-adventuer will not sell his magic items because any enemies he made while adventuring will still be CR appropriate challenges that will require him to have those magic items. The adventurer's descendants may sell off items, or may use them, or may consider them family heirlooms and a sort of insurance policy to defend the family with. No matter what path is taken the vast majority of magic items are either entering or leaving dungeons, or not for sale.

The second issue is essentially the assumption that high level adventurers retire and continue to risk their lives several times a year with the intention of crafting magic items for lower level adventuers. Spell casters can make money faster, with less outlay and danger by selling spellcasting services than they can by making magic items. This is even ignoring the various infinite money loops available in the later levels. No caster motivated by money, power, or saftey will craft magic items primarily for sale.

This all brings me to the third quesion in my previous post. Why are magic items sold? The answer "Because money" isn't actually an answer, money isn't a goal but a means to a goal. You can, of course, DM fiat an NPC who is motivated by noting but amassing money but selling or trading magic items isn't actually a very good way to amass money in the D&D game.

In D&D magic items are sold when they are of no use (real or imagined) to the person holding the item. That "real or imagined" refers to the current and future use of the item for the character. I've had players sell a Keen Ghost Touch sword because they couldn't imagine a use for it since undead are immune to critical hits, less than a week later they fought wraiths with no ability to bypass the incorporeal miss chance and of course Keen works against all the normal enemies anyways. Since people don't (ok, almost absolutely never) sell magic items that they know they can use what they do sell is the stuff that they consider useless. This is going to be stuff from the random loot lists gleaned from dungeons and +number items that they have outgrown. If this logic is followed then the majority of magic items available for money is going to be essentially random (and primarily lower level) with the more universally useful items costing more due to the market rarity inspired by the speed that they are sold. The +5 attribute raising tomes should never be for sale since everyone has a use for them and uses them up immedately while the cost of making them should absolutely prohibit them from being made for the purposes of selling them to random strangers. Of course this still ignores the total lack of logic behind some magic items (Craft Ring requires caster level 12, a 12th level caster has no use for a +5 ring of Swimming or a +1 ring of Protection there is no reason for a 12th level caster to make these items).

This beings me to the final question, how and to whom are the items sold? Most campaigns answer this by having merchants or magic shops of ill defined character and operation. This is fine if you want a "DM waves his had and it happens" game because that's how magic shops generally work. If you want a semi-realistic and believable setting it's harder to work out what happens. Remember that when dealing with mere +1 weapons you're dealing with twenty and fourty pounds of gold at a time (a +1 sword costs 2300+ gold, at 50 coins to the pound it retails for 46 pounds of gold and re-sells for 23 pounds). Any thief who manages to palm a simple +1 dagger from one shop and sells it at another is now wealthy enough to live for several years without working. In addition any spell caster powerful enough to chain-bind Efreeti (generally around 12th level) can essentially have a new +2 weapon every day.

I'm not really trying to advocate a paticular position here. It's just that approaching the magic shop issue from a RAW starting point and applying normal economic, market, and people's actions results in a number of inconsistencies with the usual way it's played and causes issues as soon as people look any closer at it than the DM hand-wave.

What I do advocate is asking the four questions and deciding how you want a magic item market (if any) to work. Once that is decided you need to figure out what you need to change from the RAW to make it happen and how that will affect your game.


1) Who makes magic items.
2) Why do they make them.
3) Why (if ever) are they sold.
4) To whom are they sold, and how.
Answer those in a believeable manner that is consistant with your rules and setting. It will make for a better game.

[Deophaun]

This all brings me to the third quesion in my previous post. Why are magic items sold?
Land and beer.

Martial characters are going to retire, and they're going to retire fairly quickly, because those aging penalties hit them hard. Adventuring is something you do when you're young. At some point you either get responsibilities, maybe a title or a manor house, or you sit yourself down at a table and get your thrills from a gambling table and whatever bar maids tickle your fancy. Regardless, that +4 Vorpal sword isn't a help anymore, but it will cover your debts either way. And if a threat comes along? Well, now you have the gold to pay the younger, fitter adventurers to handle it.

[CrazyYanmega]

Kelb (fighting the urge to call you Kelbi), the answer to the question about Tricks is TRAPS! No amount of DR is gonna help you if you get dropped into a punji pit or have a building collapsed on you. Is is difficult? Yes. Is it practical for every situation? No. But it IS useful enough that the difficult foes will be incapacitated, if not outright killed.

[NichG]

A marut is a straight bruiser. The DM using him in a non-threatening way amounts to simply not using it in a combat encounter at all. This goes back to my point about the DM handicapping himself.


The Marut's Earthquake is a potent form of action denial - its a lot weaker without it, and people who don't realize how broken Earthquake can be when used right may well just not bother using it.

Someone who doesn't think about pre-buffing may not have the Marut come into the fight with True Seeing up, meaning that the Marut may waste a round entirely putting up True Seeing to counter some Invisibility/Illusion/etc of the combatants.

Someone could have the Marut waste an action trying to use e.g. Greater Command against a PC who will have no problem at all with a DC 19 save.

A Marut who Full Power Attacks every round and a Marut who outright looses two or three rounds to bad planning are widely different. In fact, the WotC-provided tactics text suggests that the Marut waste a round when starting to Wall of Force the exits and then follow with Chain Lightning. So basically WotC recommends wasting two rounds. If a fight is on average 3 rounds long, the thing is nearly dead by the time it uses its more potent options. And thats just running it as the book actually suggests.



You do unless you can go around it or can do such ludicrous damage for your level as to make it irrelevant. The former means magic and the latter means charger build. Simple as that.


All you 'need' technically is a way to deal 1 point of damage more than the DR. Of course that would take forever and in a situation where you can apply that, you can reasonable say that you've already won. But a charger build, really?

Lets take the Marut. It has 15 points of DR and 112hp. If you do 25 points of damage before DR per hit and you're Lv15, then that means about 30 points of damage are getting through per round that you full attack it, -10 for fast healing is 20. So it takes 6 rounds of a single fighter whaling on it to kill it instead of the usual 3. Is this an ideal situation for the fighter, no. Is it one in which the fighter can actually kill the Marut? Certainly. Add other PCs attacking it at the same time (say a party of 4 fighters) and it goes down in 2 rounds. And thats just an outright slugfest.

How hard is it to do 25 damage per hit before DR? Well, lets assume a mundane great sword - 7 damage base average, +6 from an 18 Strength. Weapon specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization (if you're using a mundane greatsword rather than that +3 ranseur you found, it can only be because you're specializing towards a greatsword) is another +4. Which means you just have to power attack for 4 in order to do 25 damage per hit with that completely mundane sword and mundane strength.



And what about incorporeality?


Indeed, you have to ask your wizard/cleric friend for help here. Or be a martial adept. Or use Incarnum. Or use Holy Water (incorporeal undead being the majority of natively incorporeal effects).



Meh. "It's not broke if you can fix it" is the oberroni fallacy to a T. Counting on the DM to pull his punches is, at best, flawed logic. I can half-ass a game of poker if all I want is to hang out with my buddies.

Counting on the DM to pull their punches? Well, who exactly are we talking about doing the 'counting on' here? If you're the DM, and you (for whatever reason) want to run a campaign like this, then pulling your punches is a way to do it. There's no 'hoping' about it - you make the choice and run the game in which the idea works.

If we're talking about my example table of WotC-level optimizers, then there's no 'counting on the DM to pull his punches' either - generally given the arsenal at people's fingertips at such a table, any one PC played optimally could solo the campaign, but the situation is just that people don't know how to (or have no desire to) deploy that level of optimization.

I bring these tables up because I object to what amounts to a statement of personal taste wrapped up in language that makes it seem like a statement of fact. If you want to say 'for any reasonably optimized game, being able to bypass DR is important' then I have no objections to that. But of say 'you have to be able to bypass DR' then that's patently false - the statement has over-reached the intention behind it.

[HammeredWharf]

This all brings me to the third quesion in my previous post. Why are magic items sold? The answer "Because money" isn't actually an answer, money isn't a goal but a means to a goal. You can, of course, DM fiat an NPC who is motivated by noting but amassing money but selling or trading magic items isn't actually a very good way to amass money in the D&D game.

"Because money" is why everything is sold in real life, so why would that not apply to a D&D game? Selling items is actually pretty profitable, because by RAW you buy them from adventurers at half price and sell them at full price. You double your investment each time and that's pretty good to say the least. You don't have to fight dragons and or swallowed by tendriculoses. It's a good deal.

Basic magical items are

1) very, very useful to wealthy people (adventurers)
2) easily created
3) expensive

It makes no sense at all for no vendors to exist. I can understand not being able to find a Mirror of Life Trapping in a medium city, but a spiked chain +1 or 2? Of course there'll be someone willing to sell it. The assumption that people wouldn't trade for items even if their lives depended on it is even more ridiculous than D&D's economics.

[Togo]

I usually reason that magic items are often near-immortal, but their weilders aren't. After a few hundred years, they start to pile up, particularly if the popuation isn't growing.

[SiuiS]

Basically just the most boring +X to Y bonus items. Your gauntlets of ogre strength, cloaks of resistance, rings of protection, +X magic weapons, etc.

Can you be far, far more specific on what is explicitly required? I've had games where those were sometimes neat, but I've never had a game, even when monsters were played straight, that these were necessary.


Again seeing dying as a positive thing because it "lets you buy items that are relevant to you" is clearly a sign of something being wrong.

You're making assumptions. Have you considered that you're reading it wrong? I read the OP and got "oh man I died! Oh well. On the bright side, we get new gear, so that's a plus" which is a far cry form celebrating death because they finally get relevancy.

People viewing new stuff as a silver lining is pretty common. It's rarely been a finally this DM can't jack me over though.


I don't think there's grounds for that kind of analysis unless he's posted elsewhere about this, in which case, would you mind sharing the link?

At any rate, it's all so much ephemera without knowing more about his group of players and the game than we currently have to go on.

I'm assuming based on the language choice in the first post that the players view it as a plus but not as a reason to go die. There's very little analysis involved.


Really? You're suggesting samurai as a fix? I'd rather brave the random item table and have to make do wielding an inflatable chicken than play a samurai.

That's because you're probably forgetting oriental adventures is a WoTC book and assume that any actual working samurai is a third party class.


Item creation feats require you play a caster/artificer

Or have one on the team? What, you don't play with a party?


Ancestral relic requires burning a feat and requires a fair amount of down time (whether that's an issue or not is DM dependant). I'm not sure how mentor even helps (and it burns two feats), and apprentice is highly subject to DM fiat.

"No way, I'm not using my martial character resources to get magic! Then how will I get shock trooper and stuff so I can still not hurt enemies that require magic?" Nice argument.

How does mentor require two feats? It's requires being first level. I am also not sure what the problem with DM fiat is. "I encourage my apprentice to learn to craft magic items." "Okay".


Exactly how are any of these viable fixes?

Every one of them.


About ancestral weapon is the only thing that would make a martial mundane workable

To be honest? I have a hard time believing someone who says "ancestral relic is the only one that could work" but also says they would Rater. What was it, dual wield inflatable chickens than take the class that gets you ancestral relic without a feat slot.


Yes, because the Barbarians weak intellect needs shoring up far more than a wizard needs bonus spells. It's for all those knowledge checks he's going to make see.

Why does the wizard need more spell slots? Are your wizards so bad at their job they use them all? Have you not read the comic this forum is made in the site for? Do you feel that items graft to flesh and cannot be moved around in emergencies? Do you know what Roleplaying is? Have you never wanted to be both smart and not a wizard? Have you ever used algebra to solve a problem in game? Was it in character to do so?

Crikey. Why not just slap down a bunch of smilies and intersperse exclamation points with ones and demand I play by your one true method?


Kids these days, I swear. :smalltongue:

[Pan151]

Where there is a demand, there will sooner or later inevitably be a supply.

There's always a high demand for magic items. Adventurers, powerful organisations, elite military groups etc. The initial investment can be somewhat high, but they're easy to make, they sell reasonably fast and make a good profit. Spellcasters able to make them are also relatively rare, so the competition is not too bad.

Quite frankly, if you have the ability to run a magic mart and are not doing so, then you've probably made some wrong decissions in your life.

[Augmental]

That's because you're probably forgetting oriental adventures is a WoTC book and assume that any actual working samurai is a third party class.

Oriental Adventures is a 3.0 book; the CW Samurai takes precedent.

[Hurnn]

Oriental Adventures is a 3.0 book; the CW Samurai takes precedent.

I disagree they are not even remotely the same. One is a pos from a splat book that some random dudes wrote for WotC and said hey know what would be cool dwarf samurai. The other is a setting specific class that actually functions and has specific rules for operating in that setting.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Kelb (fighting the urge to call you Kelbi), the answer to the question about Tricks is TRAPS! No amount of DR is gonna help you if you get dropped into a punji pit or have a building collapsed on you. Is is difficult? Yes. Is it practical for every situation? No. But it IS useful enough that the difficult foes will be incapacitated, if not outright killed.

The time it takes to setup traps is -way- too long for it to be even a little practical unless you're in one of the -two- PrC's that allow you to make simple traps quickly. A punji pit isn't even that damaging; a couple d4's for the spikes and some falling damage. The DR will eat a chunk out of both since they're separate instances of damage.


The Marut's Earthquake is a potent form of action denial - its a lot weaker without it, and people who don't realize how broken Earthquake can be when used right may well just not bother using it.

Someone who doesn't think about pre-buffing may not have the Marut come into the fight with True Seeing up, meaning that the Marut may waste a round entirely putting up True Seeing to counter some Invisibility/Illusion/etc of the combatants.

Someone could have the Marut waste an action trying to use e.g. Greater Command against a PC who will have no problem at all with a DC 19 save.

A Marut who Full Power Attacks every round and a Marut who outright looses two or three rounds to bad planning are widely different. In fact, the WotC-provided tactics text suggests that the Marut waste a round when starting to Wall of Force the exits and then follow with Chain Lightning. So basically WotC recommends wasting two rounds. If a fight is on average 3 rounds long, the thing is nearly dead by the time it uses its more potent options. And thats just running it as the book actually suggests.

Without the appropriate armor, weapons, and save boosters it can afford to waste two rounds. It's not going to be eating that much damage, especially since, by your own description, the PC's are being played just as poorly.

I'll admit that I did misremember some details of that particular creature.




All you 'need' technically is a way to deal 1 point of damage more than the DR. Of course that would take forever and in a situation where you can apply that, you can reasonable say that you've already won. But a charger build, really?

Lets take the Marut. It has 15 points of DR and 112hp. If you do 25 points of damage before DR per hit and you're Lv15, then that means about 30 points of damage are getting through per round that you full attack it, -10 for fast healing is 20. So it takes 6 rounds of a single fighter whaling on it to kill it instead of the usual 3. Is this an ideal situation for the fighter, no. Is it one in which the fighter can actually kill the Marut? Certainly. Add other PCs attacking it at the same time (say a party of 4 fighters) and it goes down in 2 rounds. And thats just an outright slugfest.

And without a level appropriate weapon, how many of those attacks are realistically going to hit? By my count, right around half of the primary attacks, a quarter of the secondary, and virtually none of the tertiary attacks and that's only for a full BAB class.


How hard is it to do 25 damage per hit before DR? Well, lets assume a mundane great sword - 7 damage base average, +6 from an 18 Strength. Weapon specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization (if you're using a mundane greatsword rather than that +3 ranseur you found, it can only be because you're specializing towards a greatsword) is another +4. Which means you just have to power attack for 4 in order to do 25 damage per hit with that completely mundane sword and mundane strength.

Let's also look at the attack bonus and target AC shall we? +15 for class, +4 for strength, +2 for WF and GWF, -4 for PA, makes +17 against AC 34. That only hits on a 17. If you feel like giving up the PA bonus damage you'll be hitting about where my previous estimate suggests (hitting on a 13 is a 40% chance for the primary) but you'll also only be netting 2 points of damage per hit. This poor fighter is going to get slaughtered by this mechanical incarnation of inevitable death.




Indeed, you have to ask your wizard/cleric friend for help here. Or be a martial adept. Or use Incarnum. Or use Holy Water (incorporeal undead being the majority of natively incorporeal effects).

And, with the exception of holy water, they're all forms of magic (There are no strikes that are not SU that can harm an incorporeal foe). That one exception does such pitiful damage as to only be applicable at the -lowest- level of play.




Counting on the DM to pull their punches? Well, who exactly are we talking about doing the 'counting on' here? If you're the DM, and you (for whatever reason) want to run a campaign like this, then pulling your punches is a way to do it. There's no 'hoping' about it - you make the choice and run the game in which the idea works.

If you're the DM, sure, but as a DM your primary concern is making sure everyone has a good time. The DM is counting on all of his players being satisfied with half-assed foes or accepting that there are simply a whole set of challenges he can't present because they'd brutalize his PC's.


If we're talking about my example table of WotC-level optimizers, then there's no 'counting on the DM to pull his punches' either - generally given the arsenal at people's fingertips at such a table, any one PC played optimally could solo the campaign, but the situation is just that people don't know how to (or have no desire to) deploy that level of optimization.

No one that plays this game is completely disinterested in optimization. Some may only wish to put in a fairly minimal effort but they -will- direct that effort toward making their character as effective as that limited effort will allow. At the lowest level of play that's fine but it becomes increasingly less so as levels advance. This is a mathematical fact. It -will- get harder and harder for the DM to select or design challenges that won't curb stomp the PC's by accident. Deny it if you like but it's inescapable in actual play.


I bring these tables up because I object to what amounts to a statement of personal taste wrapped up in language that makes it seem like a statement of fact. If you want to say 'for any reasonably optimized game, being able to bypass DR is important' then I have no objections to that. But of say 'you have to be able to bypass DR' then that's patently false - the statement has over-reached the intention behind it.

I think my math above, in regards to the marut, speaks for itself. Without being able to get past that DR or being able to hit -much- harder than a poorly optimized fighter ever could, you're -not- going to kill it without using some non-weapon attack.


Oriental Adventures is a 3.0 book; the CW Samurai takes precedent.

The classes are so drastically different that I'd be very hesitant about calling them the same thing just because they have the same name.


Can you be far, far more specific on what is explicitly required? I've had games where those were sometimes neat, but I've never had a game, even when monsters were played straight, that these were necessary.

Sure; gauntlets of ogre strength and girdle of giant strength, gloves of dexterity, amulet of health (respec to shirt when necessary), headband of intellect, pariapt of wisdom, cloak of charisma, ring of protection, amulet of natural armor, level appropriate magic armor, level appropriate weapon, and cloak of resistance.

The mental ability boosters tend to be less important overall and some characters don't have much use for an armor or weapon but -every- character will need some of these things to survive beyond early mid-levels unless you're willing to put a -lot- of stock in good luck or have one or more casters in the party that are utterly dedicated to boosting the party.

[SiuiS]

Oriental Adventures is a 3.0 book; the CW Samurai takes precedent.

oriental adventures received a 3.5 update which left it's samurai intact, and does not put the CW samurai as most recent printing.


Sure; gauntlets of ogre strength and girdle of giant strength, gloves of dexterity, amulet of health (respec to shirt when necessary), headband of intellect, pariapt of wisdom, cloak of charisma, ring of protection, amulet of natural armor, level appropriate magic armor, level appropriate weapon, and cloak of resistance.

The mental ability boosters tend to be less important overall and some characters don't have much use for an armor or weapon but -every- character will need some of these things to survive beyond early mid-levels unless you're willing to put a -lot- of stock in good luck or have one or more casters in the party that are utterly dedicated to boosting the party.

Hmm. I think I actually have to accept this premise, as there has always been a mitigating factor. I think it's an unartful expression however; These items are not required, but some form of item or mitigation is required, and this is the most commonly accepted default form.

[NichG]

Without the appropriate armor, weapons, and save boosters it can afford to waste two rounds. It's not going to be eating that much damage, especially since, by your own description, the PC's are being played just as poorly.

I'll admit that I did misremember some details of that particular creature.

And without a level appropriate weapon, how many of those attacks are realistically going to hit? By my count, right around half of the primary attacks, a quarter of the secondary, and virtually none of the tertiary attacks and that's only for a full BAB class.

Let's also look at the attack bonus and target AC shall we? +15 for class, +4 for strength, +2 for WF and GWF, -4 for PA, makes +17 against AC 34. That only hits on a 17. If you feel like giving up the PA bonus damage you'll be hitting about where my previous estimate suggests (hitting on a 13 is a 40% chance for the primary) but you'll also only be netting 2 points of damage per hit. This poor fighter is going to get slaughtered by this mechanical incarnation of inevitable death.


I'll accept that the AC is pretty hard to hit for unoptimized fighters. You forgot a +1 for masterwork btw, if we're restricting ourselves to totally non-magical options. I'm kind of tempted to do a run-down of 4 Lv15 fighters versus the Marut run-as-suggested, round by round - I'm pretty sure the fighters win, though it turns into a pretty sad sight once the Blindness effects start stacking up. The Marut's damage output just isn't very good either.

Actually, here, for concreteness, our generic fighter:


Mr. Generic: Lv15 human fighter

Str: 18(base)+3(levels) = 21
Dex: 13
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 12
Cha: 12

HP: 10+14*5.5+15*2 + 3(Toughness)+15(Imp. Toughness)= 135
Fort/Reflex/Will: 11/7/7
AC: 10+1+8 (Full Plate)+1(Dodge) = 20
BAB: 15

Feats (15 total): Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, Toughness, Improved Toughness, Dodge, Cleave, Improved Critical, Melee Weapon Mastery (Slashing), Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Armor Specialization, Overwhelming Assault

I felt it was in theme to continue down the WF/GWF/etc thread with Weapon Mastery since there are just so many feats to play with and its kind of a no-brainer. There's some junk feats in there too, so I don't think this is unreasonably 'over-optimized' - I avoided Leap Attack, Martial Study, Indomitable Will, etc, after all.

Attack Bonus: +15 (BAB) + 4 (WF,GWF, Melee Weapon Mastery) + 1 (Mwk weapon) + 5 (Str) = +25 (+4 for Overwhelming Assault if not attacked by the Marut)

Damage: 2d6 (greatsword) + 6 (Melee Weapon Mastery, WS, GWS) + 7 (1.5*Str) ~= 20 base


So, how do these guys fare against the Marut?


Whether or not the Marut moves first, it spends the first round popping a Wall of Force as recommended by WotC. The first round, the fighters all close and make a single attack at their highest bonus. One fighter draws an AoO and is hit, taking 28 damage and having a 50% chance of being blinded (we don't care about deafened). The blinded condition basically means '50% miss chance', so I'm going to just keep track of 'total (statistical) damage reduction per round', which caps out at 1/2 and is increased by 1/16th for every time the Marut hits someone (50% chance of Blindness, which is 50% modifier).

Anyhow, the fighters now have 28,0,0,0 damage.

The fighters each make an attack against the Marut, PA for 5. One needs a 14 to hit, the others need a 10, and they deal 15 damage per hit. This means they deal 15*1.9*(1-1/16) this round = 26.7 damage, -10 for Fast Healing is 16.7.

Next round, Marut Chain Lightnings, dealing 49 damage to each fighter (77,49,49,49). The fighters all attack, PA for 4, needing a 13, 18, 20 to hit. (0.35+0.15+0.05 = 0.55 total), which averages 30.9 damage, -10 for Fast Healing. So the Marut has taken 37.6 damage so far.

Next round, Marut Full Attacks a fighter for 56, so thats (133,49,49,49) if the Marut focus-fires, or (77,105,49,49) if the Marut picks a random target (a fairly common method for DMs who don't want to be seen as picking on a single player). Either way, no one has dropped. Damage reduction from miss chance is now 3/16.

This round, three fighters have not been attacked, so the total of all hit chances is 3*(0.6+0.35+0.1)+(0.35+0.3+0.05). So total damage is 40.7, and the Marut has taken 68.3 damage so far.

Next round, Marut full attacks again, probably dropping a fighter (which means no increase in the miss chance, and probably a reduction given that statistically a fighter who is dropped will have been blind). Damage this round is then 33.3, so the Marut has taken 91.6 damage.

Next round, Marut full attacks again but cannot drop a fighter. The three surviving fighters drop the Marut this round.


Summary: Four Lv15, totally non-magical fighters with no tactics or healing items versus a WotC-run Marut win with one fighter dropping. The presence of a Healbot Cleric on the team instead of a Fighter would likely mean a win with no deaths. If the Fighters had picked slightly better feats they could probably also win with no deaths.

In fact, if the DM used random targeting rather than focus fire, there's a 50/50 chance that that alone would mean that none of the fighters would die.

How much difference would magic weapons have made? Almost none - +15% hit chance and +4 damage damage wouldn't've been enough to drop the Marut before one of the fighters dropped. Its just not that important.



And, with the exception of holy water, they're all forms of magic (There are no strikes that are not SU that can harm an incorporeal foe). That one exception does such pitiful damage as to only be applicable at the -lowest- level of play.


Not using magic at all is a limitation that you imposed on yourself here, since the thread is about not using magic marts - e.g. personally chosen magic items. There is very little in D&D that is actually 100% mundane.



If you're the DM, sure, but as a DM your primary concern is making sure everyone has a good time. The DM is counting on all of his players being satisfied with half-assed foes or accepting that there are simply a whole set of challenges he can't present because they'd brutalize his PC's.


As a DM, I have to accept I can't throw a Balor against a Lv7 party. If I throw an Ogre against a Lv3 party I have good odds that someone will die, despite being equal CR, because the Ogre is a burst damage creature. If I throw 128 CR 2 creatures at a party, that is not actually the same as the CR 16 threat the rules say it should be.

The fact that changing the game means changing the constraints one has to operate under as a DM is obvious. Having to actually think about what you throw at a party is a given, not some unbearable condition that comes into play only once you've changed something in the game.



No one that plays this game is completely disinterested in optimization. Some may only wish to put in a fairly minimal effort but they -will- direct that effort toward making their character as effective as that limited effort will allow. At the lowest level of play that's fine but it becomes increasingly less so as levels advance. This is a mathematical fact. It -will- get harder and harder for the DM to select or design challenges that won't curb stomp the PC's by accident. Deny it if you like but it's inescapable in actual play.


Actually, I do deny this, and its factually inconsistent with the existence of many many tables in which this simply isn't a problem. It really isn't all that hard to say 'okay, my guys are kind of bad at this, so lets just pretend their ECL is 2 lower' or 'okay, my guys are really good at this, so lets pretend their ECL is 4 higher'. I would say that in general for inexperienced DMs its far harder to deal with highly optimized PCs than poorly optimized PCs. In my own experiences I've certainly had far more times where the PCs curb-stomped something I thought would be a challenge than times where the PCs got curb-stomped.

Generally speaking, the players will play smarter than the DM, even at a similar level of skill. Thats because the players each have one character to keep track of and get to use that character over and over, so they quickly learn exactly what the character can do. The DM on the other hand has to both dedicate mental effort towards adjudicating the fight, as well as deciding actions for multiple NPCs/monsters, and is also working with builds that tend to be less well-rounded than character classes and are also generally new to the DM. Add to that that the game is front-loaded by design in favor of the PCs, and the result is that you have a pretty flexible gaming experience - you can reel in a lot of slack before you start to risk TPKs.

You can also do this intentionally - use better tactical thinking when the party is faring well against an enemy, and default to worse tactical thinking when things look like a TPK is looming. That may not be your preference for how the game should be run, but it doesn't change that for a large array of tables this is not only acceptable, but desired play style.

I would ask you not to take this as a debate about what play style is best, but instead try to understand that when you give advice on a forum like this, you may not be talking to people who share your preferences for play style. Exaggerations like 'such and such is impossible', 'such and such are absolutely necessary', etc which hinge on your particular skill level and preferred style of play just lead to the creation of misunderstandings and tend to polarize people. Much of the tension between the optimization culture and other cultures of play is because of this tendency to state consequences of the highly optimized game state space as if they were absolute truth across all games.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That math doesn't look quite right. Let me double check.

Edit to come.

Right off the bat, I can see that you're base stats are off. That comes out to a 37 point buy. Am I simply to take your word that you rolled those?

You've also flubbed the damage outputs all around. Average DPR values are useless in determining the outcome of a single fight or even the odds of a single fight. Average damage per attack is fine since you need some value to attach to each hit but either the creature does its full damage on a given attack or it misses outright. It's about 30 points of damage per hit and every time the lighting fist hits somebody's going blind, they can only make the save on a nat 20.

The theoretical setup's off too. Where did it put that wall of force and why? Where is the combat even taking place?

If you want to give something concrete, you need to do better.



Let's redo this, I'll even be generous enough to leave the bogus stats.

The marut is in a lit chamber in a dungeon; a simple, square room, 60ft on a side, one door on either side. The marut stands in front of the far door which is closed and, unbeknownst to the PC's, locked.

The PC's enter and, upon seeing the creature and being BSF types, immediately draw their weapons. Roll initiative. This is pure chance since they all have the same initiative mods.

Let's split the difference and have 2 fighters act before and 2 after the marut.

The first fighter charges and, at 10ft out, eats an AoO from the marut's lightning fist and goes blind (the marut only misses on a natural one and the fighter only saves on a natural 20). The fighter's attack has a 35% chance of hitting and will do 7 damage if it hits, after the DR.

Fighter 2 also charges. Since the marut's already used its AoO for the round, he approaches unchallenged and has a 70% chance to hit. He will also do 7 damage after DR.

The marut, per WotC suggestion to deter escape, pops his wall of force over the far door.

Fighters 3 and 4 cannot charge because of their allies being in the way so each of them takes a double move to take flanking positions on either side of the marut.

End of round 1: One fighter has taken 29 damage (reducing him to 86 HP) and is blind. The marut has, perhaps, taken 7 damage (80% chance of taking any damage, 56% of that being only 7), reducing it to 105 HP.

Round 2:

Fighter one full attacks where he last remembers seeing the marut; 35% chance to hit for 5 damage, 22.5% chance to hit for 5, 10% chance to hit for 5. That's a 49% chance of doing any damage at all. Less than 1% of that is for 15. Realistically, only luck will see even one hit.

Fighter two also full attacks. 80% chance for 5, 55% chance for 5, 30% chance for 5. 93.7% chance to do any damage. 13.2% of that is for 15. 44.9% of that is for 10 and the remaining 48.8% is for 5.

The marut strikes fighter 3 with his lightning fist, doing 29 damage and blinding him. Then strikes fighter 1 with his thunder fist doing another 29 to him and deafening him. Its fast healing triggers and restores it to full health.

Fighter 3's attack routine is the same as fighter 1's.

Fighter 4's routine is like fighter 2's.


End of round 2: The marut has likely taken 15 damage putting it at 95. Fighter 1 is now at 57 HP and fighter 3 is at 86.

Begin round 3:

Fighters 1 & 2 repeat the last round.

The marut blinds fighter 4 and strikes fighter 1 for the third time; reducing him to 28. Its fast healing restores it to 105.


I'll leave off there since how this will conclude is pretty obvious at this point. The marut is going to drop these guys piece-meal and there's nothing they can do about it. They simply can't do damage in great enough numbers or fast enough to overcome its DR and fast-healing. They -might- get lucky but the odds say they're as good as dead from the moment the marut locks them in.

If it actually played to its abilities -at all- it would slaughter two of them without even trying and the other two would have the opportunity to escape but they'd have to leave their buddies corpses behind by dropping the wall of force in the middle of the room; separating the party into two pairs.

[Gazzien]

Math doesn't look right to me either; especially because dropping a fighter would absolutely increase the "miss" chance - a dead fighter has a 100% chance of missing :P

[NichG]

Math doesn't look right to me either; especially because dropping a fighter would absolutely increase the "miss" chance - a dead fighter has a 100% chance of missing :P

Thats why in the last round, only three fighters contribute to the total damage, rather than all four. So yes, I did take it into account. The way I did the math is actually slightly in favor of the Marut, though by that time its too late to make a difference, because the pre-multiplier for blindness should actually go down due to correlations between who is blinded and who is killed.

E.g. before the fighter is dropped, the Blindness premultiplier is 3/16, because one of the fighters has been hit once and another - perhaps the same fighter - has been hit twice. Once the Marut attacks again, it should go down to 1/12, because now one blind fighter has been removed, and so there was one 50% chance of blinding remaining amongst the 3 fighters. If the same fighter was attacked all times, then it should actually go all the way down to zero. But since this is the last round and the Marut is killed by 3/16, it doesn't matter.

The other simplification in the Marut's favor is that I assumed that the fighters would fail their saves against Chain Lightning 100% of the time, but they actually have a decent chance of making the save for half (Reflex save of 7 vs DC of 20) - so they'd basically take about 20% less damage than shown. I don't think that ends up saving the life of the one fighter though because of the power of focus-fire. It could make a difference in the random targeting scenario, however.

Edit: Other things that would be in the Fighters' favor - I didn't give them +2 to hit from charging during the first round, and I didn't consider that they might have put cross-class ranks in Tumble, thus avoiding the opening AoO.

Incidentally, opening with Fear is probably the most brutal thing the Marut could do against these particular fellows. Takes about 50% of them out of commission per casting and its at-will.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Edited in a more thorough analysis. Those fighters are going to be crushed.

[Oko and Qailee]

~stuff~

Also CR is supposed to favor the player. A Level 15 character with WBL should beat a CR15 creature on average assuming a not-terrible build. This is 4 fighters and odd's are they'd lose.

Hell, the situation can be even easier for the Marut. Wall of Force on round 1, it will certainly survive til round 2, Fear, 2 Fighters fail. Marut certainly survives to round 3, Fear again or greater command.

I kinda vote with Kelb for this. Magic items are fun and part of a players build. If your players want to play a low magic campaign or something, then do so, make sure their builds are equal powered and that you make the fights absurdly easier than CR. Random magic items results in some players getting absurdly useful items or being absurdly useless.

[Hurnn]

Edited in a more thorough analysis. Those fighters are going to be crushed.

^that^ no question.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Also CR is supposed to favor the player. A Level 15 character with WBL should beat a CR15 creature on average assuming a not-terrible build. This is 4 fighters and odd's are they'd lose.

It's worse than that. An equal CR encounter is supposed to burn off only about a fifth, 20%, of the party's daily resources. In the case of a party of four fighters that should amount to about a fifth of the party's total HP's. Not even enough to kill one of them.

If it was re-organized as 4 maruts against a party of magically naked 19th level fighters it wouldn't even be a contest. The maruts would utterly destroy that party. If the action advantage can't save you, nothing can.

[Oko and Qailee]

It's worse than that. An equal CR encounter is supposed to burn off only about a fifth, 20%, of the party's daily resources. In the case of a party of four fighters that should amount to about a fifth of the party's total HP's. Not even enough to kill one of them.

If it was re-organized as 4 maruts against a party of magically naked 19th level fighters it wouldn't even be a contest. The maruts would utterly destroy that party. If the action advantage can't save you, nothing but being high epic level can.

Fixed :smallsmile: I'm sure with enough HP, will save, and epic feats they can

[Kelb_Panthera]

Fixed :smallsmile: I'm sure with enough HP, will save, and epic feats they can

If you're into epic levels and still having trouble with an EL 19 inevitable death squad composed of four CR 15 creatures, you're definitely doing something wrong.

CR isn't the most accurate measure by any stretch but it's very rarely accused of swinging in that direction quite so greatly.

[NichG]

That math doesn't look quite right. Let me double check.

Edit to come.

Right off the bat, I can see that you're base stats are off. That comes out to a 37 point buy. Am I simply to take your word that you rolled those?


Eh, chop off the dump stats then, it should be easy to get that into a reasonable range. The only things that matter for the math are Con and Str. The Dex is there for Dodge, but the Fighters' AC never actually enters into the analysis since the Marut hits on a 2.

Str 18 is 16 points, Con 14 is 8 points, everything else at 8. That's a 24 point buy.



You've also flubbed the damage outputs all around. Average DPR values are useless in determining the outcome of a single fight or even the odds of a single fight.


I could have simulated 100k runs, but that would be far less transparent than doing the math on the averages out in the open like this.



Average damage per attack is fine since you need some value to attach to each hit but either the creature does its full damage on a given attack or it misses outright. It's about 30 points of damage per hit and every time the lighting fist hits somebody's going blind, they can only make the save on a nat 20.


I assumed that the creature always hits, and it does 28 because of Armor Specialization. I assumed that 50% of the time its hitting with the deafening hand and 50% of the time its hitting with the blinding hand, and that the Fighters always fail the save.



The theoretical setup's off too. Where did it put that wall of force and why? Where is the combat even taking place?


This is straight from WotC's round-by-round tactics for the Marut. According to the SRD, the Marut first puts up a Wall of Force, then casts Chain Lightning, then uses melee. Thats exactly what I had it do. Obviously if it uses optimal tactics the situation will be different - it'll drop Fear for three rounds until all fighters are panicked and weaponless, then proceed to demolish them. But this exercise was about a tactically ignorant DM accidentally TPKing a party, not about optimal tactics.




The first fighter charges and, at 10ft out, eats an AoO from the marut's lightning fist and goes blind (the marut only misses on a natural one and the fighter only saves on a natural 20). The fighter's attack has a 35% chance of hitting and will do 7 damage if it hits, after the DR.

Fighter 2 also charges. Since the marut's already used its AoO for the round, he approaches unchallenged and has a 70% chance to hit. He will also do 7 damage after DR.


Power attack is important here. When DR is present, Power Attack's effects are very much amplified. Thats why my fighters were doing nearly twice the damage that your fighters are doing.



Fighters 3 and 4 cannot charge because of their allies being in the way so each of them takes a double move to take flanking positions on either side of the marut.

End of round 1: One fighter has taken 29 damage (reducing him to 86 HP) and is blind. The marut has, perhaps, taken 7 damage (80% chance of taking any damage, 56% of that being only 7), reducing it to 105 HP.


One fighter has a 50% chance of being blind, assuming the Marut strikes with a randomly chosen fist rather than always choosing the blinding fist.

Anyhow, the big difference between our calculations seems to be Power Attack, which more than doubles the damage output of the party. Its clearly the deciding factor, since your version of the exercise got slaughtered and mine won with losing one member.

[Gazzien]

Fixed :smallsmile: I'm sure with enough HP, will save, and epic feats they can
Hm. Maybe if we amend it to only apply when you would get XP from the fight..? :P

[Oko and Qailee]

How much difference would magic weapons have made? Almost none - +15% hit chance and +4 damage damage wouldn't've been enough to drop the Marut before one of the fighters dropped. Its just not that important.


Whoa, hold on. I want to address this.

WBL for level 15 = 200k

What can you get with that?

Well, +1 Chaotic Weapon (2d6 + 16 damage more per round because of DR, not even considering increased chance to hit, not sure where you're only getting 4 more damage, oh this costs 18k)

Belt of Giant STR +6 (+6 STR, means + 4.5 more dmg for 2H fighting, and another +3 to hit, this is 36k)

Vest of Resistance +5 (Remeber how those fighters would fail fear 50% of the time? Now they only fail 25%, huge difference, 25k)

Boots of Speed (An extra attack at Full BAB, +1 to Hit, +1AC, 12k)

And thats only 91k, you can keep the change though, because I think I made my point. The magic items turns it from a fight of "Fighters getting wrecked" to "Lol, why is the DM giving us so many easy encounters."

Not sure how you get only +15% chance to hit and +4 damage...

[NichG]

It's worse than that. An equal CR encounter is supposed to burn off only about a fifth, 20%, of the party's daily resources. In the case of a party of four fighters that should amount to about a fifth of the party's total HP's. Not even enough to kill one of them.


It was about a quarter of their resources in my run of it. Yes, being magically naked Tier 5 characters lowers your effective CR - is this really surprising?



If it was re-organized as 4 maruts against a party of magically naked 19th level fighters it wouldn't even be a contest. The maruts would utterly destroy that party. If the action advantage can't save you, nothing can.

Now this I'll agree on. The multiplier on blindness if you get everyone blind early on is a big deal. At that point I would say 'you can probably build a mundanely equipped Lv19 Fighter party that can deal with this, but it would require a reasonable amount of optimization'.

Iron Heart Surge via Martial Study would be an obvious necessity, for one. Blind Fight would also improve the odds quite a bit. Some sort of Spring Attack/Dash hijinks to prevent the Maruts from getting full attacks would be good too, since with the Marut's AC the iteratives don't buy you all that much. Leap attack + charge is a better deal anyhow for return on power attack, and thats very nice given the DR.

Edit:


Whoa, hold on. I want to address this.

WBL for level 15 = 200k

What can you get with that?


Mostly I was addressing the idea that you had to have a magical weapon of your specialization to be functional at this level. Yes, wealth is a potent tool - we know this. But having 'your ideal weapon' really doesn't matter all that much.

Incidentally, the Chaotic Weapon thing I consider to be a bit in bad form here, because that assumes you buy your kit specifically to defeat Maruts. I could have stuck Blind Fighting on my fighters, for example, which would have changed the math significantly in their favor.



Not sure how you get only +15% chance to hit and +4 damage...


+4 Greatsword versus Masterwork Greatsword.

[Hurnn]

(chopped)

Anyhow, the big difference between our calculations seems to be Power Attack, which more than doubles the damage output of the party. Its clearly the deciding factor, since your version of the exercise got slaughtered and mine won with losing one member.

Hardly, you make some very dubious assumptions in your version including the 50% chance of being hit by each fist. Even if the marut randomly picks a fist for each attack 75% of possible results involve 1 or more blinding fist. Beyond that your scenario describes a "tactically challenged DM" In my mind that means he is swinging both fists each round 1 thunder 1 lightning. That means a blinded fighter every round.

[Oko and Qailee]

Incidentally, the Chaotic Weapon thing I consider to be a bit in bad form here, because that assumes you buy your kit specifically to defeat Maruts.
+4 Greatsword versus Masterwork Greatsword.

Fair enough. I was just thinking of the point being non-magic available vs magic available. Because non-magic the absolute best you can do is a masterwork weapon and some meh armor. Magic means you can have more saves, to hit, damage, etc.

EDIT: Did you guys remember the -2AC from charging?
EDIT2: Lol, I'm dumb, realized it doesnt matter.

[NichG]

Hardly, you make some very dubious assumptions in your version including the 50% chance of being hit by each fist. Even if the marut randomly picks a fist for each attack 75% of possible results involve 1 or more blinding fist. Beyond that your scenario describes a "tactically challenged DM" In my mind that means he is swinging both fists each round 1 thunder 1 lightning. That means a blinded fighter every round.

Yes, that is the math I used in my calculation. Every attack increased the cumulative miss chance of the party by 6.25%. That is 50% miss chance, divided across 4 fighters (12.5%), divided by 2 because every other attack is a Blinding attack (6.25%).

[Kelb_Panthera]

You're assuming that the DM will make -no- decisions about how the creature fights and simply assigning probabilities to its use of its abilities. That's absurd. No DM is going to roll dice for every action the creature takes.

It's absolutely pointless to drop a wall of force on open ground unless you use it to divide and conquer. If this was an open field either the marut wouldn't waste its first turn like that or it would divide the group, either way things just got a lot tougher.

I also feel a strong need to question how you've applied power attack.

I'll recalculate one of the non-blind fighters to account for PA. -5 for +10 damage, same as you.

From round 2.

Fighter two also full attacks. 55% chance for 15, 30% chance for 15, 5% chance for 15. 70% chance to do any damage. Less than 1% of that is for 45. 17.6% of that is for 30 and the remaining 52% is for 15.

Unless I've flubbed my math, that may give them a fighting chance if the marut just stands there and only makes good use of its lightning fist as I showed before. This doesn't change the fact that what should only require a fifth of the party's resources has a non-trivial chance of a TPK with pathetically little effort and becomes a guaranteed TPK with only a little more.

Without the appropriate magic items non-casters simply cannot keep up with the numbers game baked into the system at its deepest level.

Seriously, if that thing even does something as simple as moving around the room to prevent them from full attacking they're doomed.

[NichG]

Unless I've flubbed my math, that may give them a fighting chance if the marut just stands there and only makes good use of its lightning fist as I showed before. This doesn't change the fact that what should only require a fifth of the party's resources has a non-trivial chance of a TPK with pathetically little effort and becomes a guaranteed TPK with only a little more.

Oh, it was never a question that having no gear changes your ECL. But this is a pretty extreme step to take from 'no magic marts'. If you have an entire party of people receiving random item rolls, you aren't going to have 'no gear', you're just going to have random gear. You're also not going to have a party of pure fighters.

So I feel somewhat justified using a dumb-as-rocks DM in the example :smallsmile:

The point is, what you've said was 'impossible' (surviving the encounter) is actually statistically nearly guaranteed in this case. I'm not trying to make a case that this is a good way to run the game, I'm trying to make the case that by jumping immediately to hyperbole - 'such and such is impossible', 'such and such is absolutely necessary' - you alienate a large number of people whose experiences with the game do not actually support those statements.

The game is wider and deeper than any one particular view of optimization/challenge/etc. I want encourage you (and others) to at least think about not just how you play, but how other people might play, when responding and giving advice. Rather than saying 'no, you just cannot make this work', its much more useful for the querent if you ask questions and find out what the person actually wants from the game, and then figure out how their playstyle and their intent can be made to work. And that may mean that, to help that person, you have to temporarily discard things that - in your experience - would be true.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Oh, it was never a question that having no gear changes your ECL. But this is a pretty extreme step to take from 'no magic marts'. If you have an entire party of people receiving random item rolls, you aren't going to have 'no gear', you're just going to have random gear. You're also not going to have a party of pure fighters.

So I feel somewhat justified using a dumb-as-rocks DM in the example :smallsmile:

The point is, what you've said was 'impossible' (surviving the encounter) is actually statistically nearly guaranteed in this case. I'm not trying to make a case that this is a good way to run the game, I'm trying to make the case that by jumping immediately to hyperbole - 'such and such is impossible', 'such and such is absolutely necessary' - you alienate a large number of people whose experiences with the game do not actually support those statements.

The game is wider and deeper than any one particular view of optimization/challenge/etc. I want encourage you (and others) to at least think about not just how you play, but how other people might play, when responding and giving advice. Rather than saying 'no, you just cannot make this work', its much more useful for the querent if you ask questions and find out what the person actually wants from the game, and then figure out how their playstyle and their intent can be made to work. And that may mean that, to help that person, you have to temporarily discard things that - in your experience - would be true.

Near guaranteed? Hardly.

You've shown that, if the creature's actions are completely random, there's a -chance- for survival against what should be a relatively trivial foe. Applying even a touch of logic, seriously just a touch, turns it into a massacre. Hell, given proper gear that could be a dicey fight if the marut is played to full capacity in the scenario I suggested, nevermind with random gear.

Color me unimpressed.

Edit: seriously, you're throwing away two rounds and still coming up with a nearly literal craps shoot. That honestly doesn't strike you as problematic?

[Hurnn]

Yes, that is the math I used in my calculation. Every attack increased the cumulative miss chance of the party by 6.25%. That is 50% miss chance, divided across 4 fighters (12.5%), divided by 2 because every other attack is a Blinding attack (6.25%).

And that's the first flaw. best case is a fighter gets hit by a blinding fist 75% of the time which even using your math works out to 9.375%. However I still feel totally randomizing which fist hits borders on silly in this scenario.

Under my model of it's attack pattern you are getting hit by 1 each every turn which gives the poor fighter a 90.5% chance of being blind which is a stacking 11.3% reduction every round capping at 50%

[NichG]

Near guaranteed? Hardly.

You've shown that, if the creature's actions are completely random, there's a -chance- for survival against what should be a relatively trivial foe. Applying even a touch of logic, seriously just a touch, turns it into a massacre. Hell, given proper gear that could be a dicey fight if the marut is played to full capacity in the scenario I suggested, nevermind with random gear.

Color me unimpressed.

Edit: seriously, you're throwing away two rounds and still coming up with a nearly literal craps shoot. That honestly doesn't strike you as problematic?

I've been in games where the enemies effectively threw away rounds. Heck, I've run them. WotC basically tells you to do this in the monster entry, too. Even putting aside situations like this, where its just a lack of tactical sense, I've been in games where the enemies have taken a round to scream to the skies, got distracted and wasted actions, etc - things prompted by clever RP on the part of the players. Cases where fights do not go via streamlined, down-the-line computation of best actions are actually quite common.

Many DMs do not know what they're doing, or do not bother to think through tactics. Many players do not know what they're doing, or do not bother to think through tactics. A given table may have any combination of these people with people who do think through tactics.

You don't have to like this style of play, but its useful to be aware of its existence when talking with other people - some of whom might. People in general don't take kindly to being told 'the way you play the game doesn't exist'.


And that's the first flaw. best case is a fighter gets hit by a blinding fist 75% of the time which even using your math works out to 9.375%. However I still feel totally randomizing which fist hits borders on silly in this scenario.


The first attack was an AoO, so only one slam hits. Thats a 50% chance of blinding. Blinding is a 50% miss chance. So thats a -25% reduction to one of four fighters. 1/4 of 25% is 6.25%, or 1/16.

On subsequent rounds, I computed the Marut's full attack as having a 100% chance of blinding. Thats a -50% reduction to one of four fighters, or 2/16. Note that by round 3, the damage reduction rate is 3/16, which is exactly consistent with this.


Under my model of it's attack pattern you are getting hit by 1 each every turn which gives the poor fighter a 90.5% chance of being blind which is a stacking 11.3% reduction every round capping at 50%

There are four fighters in my example, maybe thats what you're missing? By round 3, one fighter is blind and a second fighter has a 50% chance of being blind, the way I did the math. If the Marut does focus fire and you keep careful track of who is blind and who is not, the amount of damage reduction is less than the numbers I used because the first fighter cannot be blinded twice, so the fighters actually kill it quicker.

Edit:

I did the 100k simulation run, using random targeting from the Marut and taking saves and crits into account, as well as individual-level tracking of blindness.

In 94709/100000 fights, the fighters win without a single one dropping.
In 5291/100000 fights, one fighter drops.
There are no results in which more than one fighter drops in the 100k sample.

When the Marut uses focus-fire (e.g. attacking each fighter until they drop) then the stats are:

80282 fights, the fighters win without a single one dropping.
19718 fights, one fighter drops
No results in which more than one fighter drops in the 100k sample.

I would call that a statistical certainty of victory.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I've been in games where the enemies effectively threw away rounds. Heck, I've run them. WotC basically tells you to do this in the monster entry, too. Even putting aside situations like this, where its just a lack of tactical sense, I've been in games where the enemies have taken a round to scream to the skies, got distracted and wasted actions, etc - things prompted by clever RP on the part of the players. Cases where fights do not go via streamlined, down-the-line computation of best actions are actually quite common.

That's just it, you -did- throw away rounds in this fight and its still not much better than an even chance of victory if the creature literally stands still for the party to beat on it, only directing basic attacks with a touch of thought. That's not just sub-optimal, it's borderline-retarded. Just choosing to fight defensively shifts things dramatically in the marut's favor. If you have to get within spitting distance of having the creature slit its own throat, which is what you've described, you've done something terribly wrong.

If you're gonna throw the fights for your players like that, why bother with rolling dice at all?

DM: You see a marut (or flowery description describing a marut). What do you do?

PC's: We attack!

DM: It dies (or a more detailed and awesome description), here's some XP and random loot.

Just seems like it'd waste a lot less time that way than rolling a bunch of dice just to hear them rattle.

[NichG]

That's just it, you -did- throw away rounds in this fight and its still not much better than an even chance of victory if the creature literally stands still for the party to beat on it, only directing basic attacks with a touch of thought. That's not just sub-optimal, it's borderline-retarded. Just choosing to fight defensively shifts things dramatically in the marut's favor. If you have to get within spitting distance of having the creature slit its own throat, which is what you've described, you've done something terribly wrong.


Look at my edit to my above post. The chances of victory are much better than even. The Marut simply cannot cause a TPK in this example (well, within 200k trials). It can't even kill a second fighter.



If you're gonna throw the fights for your players like that, why bother with rolling dice at all?


I'm not arguing in favor of any particular style. I'm arguing that such games exist and are actually not that rare. Whether you like the style or not does not mean that people do not have fun playing this way. Thats why, in particular, I think asserting things in terms of absolutes - X is impossible, Y is absolutely necessary - is a bad way to go about things. It invites a lot of futzing around with one side trying to explain 'well anecdotally, I don't see any evidence of anything you've said' and the other side constantly reasserting the same things.

What this means for the magic mart question is that the problems with PC strength versus monsters from the book may well be a non-issue, if the GM isn't running things the way you would run things. Yes, its useful to say 'PCs will be weaker' or 'PCs will have problems with incorporeality/fliers'. Its not useful to say 'it is impossible to make this work, so don't even try'.

[RegalKain]

Isn't this also assuming the Marut never uses the Power Attack or Awesome Blow feats it's listed as having? It has an Int of 12, that's above human average INT if I'm remembering right, when it realizes it can easily hit the fighters, wouldn't it PA? Or for that matter Awesome Blow? Knocking them back, causing them to stand from prone (getting an AoO) and move in to attack again, with no attack that round since standing from Prone is a move action, and closing in was their other?

I understand the point of the debate to some degree, but there's a difference between playing a monster as if it were an animal with an int of 1 or 2, and playing "bad tactics", the first is how you're running the Marut, WOTC gives you the openers, and you're assuming it does nothing but full attack and nothing else form then on. The latter is, it realizes how easy these fighters are to hit (After wasting it's first round in Wall of Force) the second round isn't wasted since it's still damage technically. This is where it proceeds to use PA or Awesome Blow to better it's chances of survival through a swift defeat, at least that's how I'd play it.

OT: I've run games with and without Magic Marts, I prefer the middle-ground, anything is available to be made, sometimes the wait can simply be excessive, the Elemental Command rings are a good example, base crafting is what, Marketprice/1,000=days to craft? Baseline that's 200 days to craft your ring, the chances of finding it in a store are very rare. Now is your party going to take a nearly year long hiatus so Bob can have his Element Command (Fire) ring? Maybe, that's when you make quests things of pressing time and issue, (If you don't want full magic-martness.) however going under the assumption your party is not optimized to fight right now (Hence why they are getting things crafted.) you throw things that are one CR below them, or, throw things two CR below them, but throw more such encounters (You can always just toss the last two encounters if your party is ragged and can barely stand, it's a lot less believable to think the BBEGs just ran away when the party was almost wiped.) don't let them simply sit on their hands for nearly a year in-game time. Force them into action.

As for the ideals you proposed, I tried doing much the same thing, though I don't know how you're compensating your players, I gave them interesting and nifty things throughout the adventure in lieu of being able to auto-buy everything as they went. (The player who consistently missed sessions found out the hard-way that it was very hard to keep-pace with Magic Mart gear) One such thing was basicially a set of Pyroclastic Dragon armor (They had, with the help of some clever tactics and a few ballista) they created/crafted from Pyroclastic Dragon scales, I'm all for whipping something up that's not int he books if my players are really for it, they hired the man-power to drag the dragon's body back to their camp, peeled it's scales off, made dragon leather etc, they took a great deal of time to do this, even sent two scout/runner NPCs they had to fetch books on dragons and dragon-like armors etc, for their efforts the armor was Masterwork of a decent tier ("heavy" armor from the stuff gave them I 7AC IIRC, a hefty ACP though.) it gave them AC and furthermore fairly heavy Fire Resistance, the Heavy Armor being in the area of 60 Fire res, suddenly combat that was much harder for them before like Red Dragons for instance (IT was a very, very dragon heavy campaign.) weren't nearly as bad, as the dragon couldn't just burninate them with it's breath weapon from the skies, it could sling spells etc, but they had a caster to counter that.

The tl;dr here, is if you're going to hamper their ability to buy magic items, allow them creative use of what they DO have available to them, you're homebrewing a lot out, so make sure you homebrew equal parts in to compensate (This takes a lot more forward thinking then you might originally think.) if you don't want magic-marts that's fine, but if your players are looking forward to death as a means to re-equip, re-evaluate your skills as a DM, as your players (IMO) should cherish their characters in any campaign that's more then a one-shot.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm not talking about your nonsensical "the marut attacks completely at random" setup. No one plays that way. That's playing with literally -no- thought at all. To ignore the fact that even a moron can see that hitting each of the fighters with the lighting fist gives the marut dramatically better chances is absurd.

If you've -never- used the creature before at all, the first time it's lightning fist blinds a foe you think, "huh, that's effective," and give it priority over thunder fist. You can't call ignoring that anything less than deliberately handicapping the creature.

Your focus-fire numbers are probably accurate enough but if it's not focus-firing there's a 90% chance of a fighter going blind every round until all four are blind unless the DM is deliberately choosing not to do that. That's not a chance of victory, it's the DM throwing the fight.

[NichG]

Your focus-fire numbers are probably accurate enough but if it's not focus-firing there's a 90% chance of a fighter going blind every round until all four are blind unless the DM is deliberately choosing not to do that. That's not a chance of victory, it's the DM throwing the fight.

Maybe it would be better if I were more explicit. Many people play at tables where yes, the DM 'throws' the fight. Either through not paying attention to tactics or making errors or being bad at tactics or even just catering to the tastes of the players.

Assuming that these tables do not exist, and that every table plays for keeps is willful ignorance. It isn't helpful in discussions where yes, 'pulling your punches' can in fact be a valid way to adjust for modifications to the core game.

Your personal distaste for it does not mean that it is not a reasonable option to consider or something to keep in mind when talking with people operating under different constraints than yourself.

Edit:

The Marut using power attack (for 4, which appears to be close to optimal) does change the numbers in its favor, but not to the extent of it winning. It now kills a fighter 29% of the time, and never kills more than one.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Maybe it would be better if I were more explicit. Many people play at tables where yes, the DM 'throws' the fight. Either through not paying attention to tactics or making errors or being bad at tactics or even just catering to the tastes of the players.

That's not "bad at tactics" or "making errors" it's a failure to recognize the events that are occurring right in front of you as a direct consequence of your own choices. It's borderline mentally deficient or it's -deliberately- choosing to loose the fight.

Of course the party can "win" if you're deliberately throwing the fights but, like I said, why bother with dice at all if you're going to go that far?


Assuming that these tables do not exist, and that every table plays for keeps is willful ignorance. It isn't helpful in discussions where yes, 'pulling your punches' can in fact be a valid way to adjust for modifications to the core game.

Your personal distaste for it does not mean that it is not a reasonable option to consider or something to keep in mind when talking with people operating under different constraints than yourself.

What I'm saying is that what you're talking about with that example isn't "pulling your punches." It's putting a gun in your mouth and asking the players to pull the trigger for you.

At that point it's not a game anymore. It's just collaborative story telling. There's nothing wrong with collaborative story telling but continuing to call it a game at that point is disingenuous and rolling dice is an utter waste of time. It's the point of mechanics becoming irrelevant. Why bother?

If you're going to take it that far you're far better off to just switch to a free-form game already.

[NichG]

What I'm saying is that what you're talking about with that example isn't "pulling your punches." It's putting a gun in your mouth and asking the players to pull the trigger for you.

At that point it's not a game anymore. It's just collaborative story telling. There's nothing wrong with collaborative story telling but continuing to call it a game at that point is disingenuous and rolling dice is an utter waste of time. It's the point of mechanics becoming irrelevant. Why bother?

If you're going to take it that far you're far better off to just switch to a free-form game already.

That's not your call to make for other people.

[Invader]

Picking your players gear for them is a terrible idea. Not giving them some flexibility in buying their own gear is even worse. If someone told me we were starting at level X and all the gear was being rolled for (Even if you rolled multiple times) or I could have X weapon, X armor and X items, I wouldn't pay in that game.

3.5 isn't meant to a low magic item game. If you play it that way you're doing a disservice to the people that require those items the most. You don't have to give unlimited access to every magic item in the game but don't screw over your players because it requires more work on your behalf to reach the compromise.

[Kraken]

That's not "bad at tactics" or "making errors" it's a failure to recognize the events that are occurring right in front of you as a direct consequence of your own choices. It's borderline mentally deficient or it's -deliberately- choosing to loose the fight.

Of course the party can "win" if you're deliberately throwing the fights but, like I said, why bother with dice at all if you're going to go that far?



What I'm saying is that what you're talking about with that example isn't "pulling your punches." It's putting a gun in your mouth and asking the players to pull the trigger for you.

At that point it's not a game anymore. It's just collaborative story telling. There's nothing wrong with collaborative story telling but continuing to call it a game at that point is disingenuous and rolling dice is an utter waste of time. It's the point of mechanics becoming irrelevant. Why bother?

If you're going to take it that far you're far better off to just switch to a free-form game already.

This is something I agree with very strongly. I've recently played with a DM who takes rules very seriously, except when they're suggestions, which is whenever he feels like it. And unfortunately, his opinion of how well he understands the rules is dramatically disproportionate to his actual understanding of the rules (complete with mixing in pre 3e stuff accidentally on a regular basis). As a result, nobody knows when to speak up about something not making sense with regard to the rules, because we can never tell when he's deliberately fudging things. And unfortunately, it affects our character choices. We've come to learn that there's a pretty broad spectrum of actions, affecting pretty much all character archetypes, that simply will never work, because a monster will mysteriously always make their save, be immune, have its HP grow, etc. It makes combats unfortunately predictable, and have a very scripted feel to them. There was a unique kind of resigned malaise among the players that I hadn't felt in another game prior to this. The things that we're taking the effort to research and put on our character sheets need to have meaning if we're tasked with putting them on there in the first place.

[Telok]

I've been gone a day and half and the thread adds two+ pages...

See, I approach the magic-mart issue from a world building standpoint. In that way it becomes important who creates the magic items, which begs the why question. Answering that determines what magic items get made and how they get used, that will determine how and when magic items start getting sold. Then you finally come to the possibility of merchants who deal in magic stuff as their business.


Selling items is actually pretty profitable, because by RAW you buy them from adventurers at half price and sell them at full price. You double your investment each time and that's pretty good to say the least. You don't have to fight dragons and or swallowed by tendriculoses. It's a good deal.

Making and selling magic items is more risky and less profitable than just selling spellcasting services. A caster motivated by a money/risk ratio will not be making magic items. Making magic items requires 500 gold each 8 hour day and results in a maximum potential profit of 500 gold each 8 hour day not including interruptions and finding a buy or broker. Compared to 540 gold for a 6th level caster selling three 3rd level spells.

Anyone rich enough to buy and sell magic items is a major target for theft and embezzlement, protecting against such will eat into profits if you use people and items to defend the investment and spell casters have better and faster ways to make money. You are not doubling an investment every time, simply absorbing the cost of Identify spells to check your inventory and the occasional Remove Curse ensure that at a minimum.



It makes no sense at all for no vendors to exist. I can understand not being able to find a Mirror of Life Trapping in a medium city, but a spiked chain +1 or 2? Of course there'll be someone willing to sell it.

100,000 gold is a literal ton of gold in D&D. Yes that's a +7 weapon, but it's also five Tridents of Fish Command. A weapon so crappy that I've heard it referred to at the table as "vendor trash". What sort of brain dead moron is buying those? If there aren't buyers you can't sell, and if you can't sell it then it's not worth the money. You can DM fiat a buyer or a reason, you can DM fiat anything, but it will fail to stand up to close scrutiny by the players. Where are the NPCs getting the gold to make this store work? How are they securing and transporting it? What happens when your players realize that there are mid-level experts with a dragon's hoard of loot in every city who rely on NPC warriors and low level spells to defend it?

The magic-mart, as posited in most games, as a beliveable and economically viable business, has problems. You can sell it a +1 Mighty Cleaving, Throwing, Ki Focus, Aquatic Humanoid Bane, Last Resort small whip for 720 pounds of gold. You just completely ignore things like the fact that nobody has a use for it or a reason to spend 720 pounds of gold, 2900 xp, and ten weeks making it.

In my games there are people who make and sell low level gear. I've forced this by putting a magic school in the game that is government supported and requires a permanent magic item (or items worth X amount) to be created in order to graduate. There are some individuals in my setting who make the inexpensive scrolls and potions and are willing to sell them for money. But an institutionalized trade of items for amounts for gold exceeding about 150 pounds of gold does not exist in my game because I can't come up with in-game explanations that hold up under scrutiny.

If you have a solid and beliveable magic trading industry in your game I would like to know about it. I would be very pleased to learn about games and settings where magic item stores rely on more than DM fiat. It would help me to improve my games.

[Clistenes]

*Snip*

About that, what I said here: How to deal with magic marts? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=311314) and here: Just hate the idea of Magic Shops (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=317406)

Simple. Don't use them. They don't make sense. There can't be shops selling items as expensive as the whole kingdom's GDP.

I like to remind people that a +2 weapon is worth more than, 8,000 gp, which is more than 160 pounds/72 kilograms of pure gold, the third-fourth part of the price of a small keep or castle, money enough to hire a hundred 10-level knights for forty days or a thousand light footmen for the same time.

That means that only kings and dukes can afford magical weapons.

Low level Wizards, Clerics, Magewrights and Adepts probably craft very low level magic items for rich people, usually on order.

The few mid-level spellcasters that do exist probably craft some low level items sometimes, to gain some coin, but they wouldn't probably bother crafting mid or high-level items, since they get the same gp per day crafting a single +5 sword than crafting twenty-five +1 swords, and anyways, there isn't demand for mid and high-level items. They could work on demand, however.

Anyways, once the Wizards and Clerics hit 9th level they get Raise Dead and Teleport and Fabricate, and they are filthy rich: The Clerics can demand money for resurrecting rich people, and the Wizards can break the market Teleporting expensive wares with the help of Bags of Holding, or creating anything with Fabricate. Those folks don't craft anymore, they are beyond that.

Some very rich merchants probably keep small caches of low level magical items for their richest customers (we are speaking of international businessmen here, not village peddlers), but not mid or high-level items, because there are neither demand nor spellcaster willing to make them.

Temples and churches probably craft some very low level potions and oils for sale, and keep caches of low level weaponry, armor and other equipment for their own Clerics and Paladins.

Elves and Dwarves probably have more magical weapons, since they can afford to work a hundred years to pay for a magical sword that they will later pass down to their children. And given their low numbers, their armies need the extra mojo to stay alive.

Mid-level magic items should be legendary relics, hoarded by kings, emperors and popes.

Where does the equipment of the adventuring parties come? well, magic items don't break, they keep existing forever.
Mages and other spellcasters craft them for themselves, and when they die, somebody else find or inherit them, and tries to sell them, but since nobody can pay them, they have to sell them for a small fraction of their true price.
Those mid or high-level magic items end in the hands of very rich merchants that know their price and keep them in their hoards, hoping to find somebody someday that will be able to pay them.
Some of those magic items will be given to kings as gifts in exchange of titles and lands.
And of course, villains seek them and try to steal them for themselves.
Sometimes a city will be looted, or a hero will be slayed, and a magic item will end in the hands of barbarians that can't understand its true price.

And of course, there is interplanar trade: Janni, Mercanes, Neogi and Witchwyrd make business with Noble Djinns and Efrits, who can create anything for free with their Wish ability, but can only use said ability for non-genies...so Mercanes and Neogi and Witchwyrd probably visit the genies bearing expensive gifts, and the genies say "We are pleased, and would like to give you a gift in exchange, what do you want?", and use their Wish ability to create anything.

But the best stuff probably come from the ruins of ancient civilizations. In almost every setting there was a very powerful and magically advanced civilization that was destroyed in and ancient past (Suel and Backlunish Empires, Sulm, Itar, the City of Summer Stars, Ishtar, Netheril, Imaskar, Narfell, Raumathar, Myth Drannor, Aryvandaar, Ilythiir, Okoth, Isstosseffifil, Mhairshaulk..etc.). A lot of the stuff has probably been already looted and is kept as regalia of some kingdom or hoarded by some lich or dragon, but a lot more is probably still buried.

So, in short:

-Very low level potions an oils can be purchased in temples or fancy merchant houses.

-Low level magic items can be made on order by mages and temples.

-Temples and the richest merchants may keep small caches of already made low level magical items.

-Dukes and counts may keep low-level items as family legacies.

-Mid and high level items are very rare, are almost never made on order (since spellcasters that powerful are very rare and don't care for money anymore), and are usually hoarded by powerful and important people.
Some are kept by kings as part of their regalia.
Some are crafted by wizards that made them for their own use.
Some are hoarded by the richest of merchants, who adquired them for a fraction of their true price and hope that someday somebody will be able to buy them.
The character may receive some of these as rewards from desperate royals or grateful mages, or will buy them from the super-rich merchants who hoarded them.

-Most mid and high level items the players will own will be found buried in dungeons, as part of dragon's hoards or among the possessions of villains. Sometimes savage raiders will have nice magical items which they looted from cities or found in ruins.

-Once you hit high levels, interplanar merchants can sell anything for the right price, if you are willing to wait a bit of time for them to find it.

I mentioned earlier in this thread the idea of magic brokers who live in the major cities, people who know how to contact the extraplanar merchants, who can produce any magic item on demand:

My favourite explanation are planar travellers (Janni, Mercanes, Witchwyrds) who buy those magic items from Genies (who can't use their Wish ability on their own, only for others) and sell those items in the Prime in exchange for luxury wares (gems, gold, platinum, silks, spices, works of art...etc.).

Still, that doesn't explain why there are people keeping stocks of incredible expensive magic items that almost nobody can buy, so I think there are magic brokers who take orders from customers, contact the Janni/Mercanes/Witchwyrds/whatever, who write it down and buy them from the Efreets or Noble Djinns next time they visit them.

[Oko and Qailee]

At that point it's not a game anymore. It's just collaborative story telling.

I feel like this is wrong. If an enemy is attacking randomly (they can have a low Int and Wis score and be in a rage and it would make perfect sense) then how is is collaborative story telling. If there is still a chance a player dies and still a chance no players dies.... then how is it not still a game?

I agree with a Marut attacking randomly being dumb, but certainly not with your definition of collaborative storytelling. In collaborative story telling nothing the players do changes the campaign even for their characters. Stupid enemy tactics doesn't make it that, unless the tactics are so stupid there is only one possible outcome (as we know there is not).

Wow, I don't know how to spell collaborative...

[Rejusu]

That's because you're probably forgetting oriental adventures is a WoTC book and assume that any actual working samurai is a third party class.

And you're forgetting that the OA Samurai isn't much better, being around on the same level as Paladin and Monk. It's a pretty reasonable assumption to make that an actual working Samurai is a third party class because such a thing doesn't exist in any WotC book.


Or have one on the team? What, you don't play with a party?

What? All your parties have crafty casters or artificers? That's still pigeon-holing one person into a role which was the problem I was getting at.


"No way, I'm not using my martial character resources to get magic! Then how will I get shock trooper and stuff so I can still not hurt enemies that require magic?" Nice argument.

Oh yes, this is clearly a much better argument. Let's have the martial characters who rely heavily on feats have to waste them to shore up weaknesses that could normally be solved by gold. While the casters laugh and spend their feats on metamagic like they normally do. A very nice argument.


How does mentor require two feats? It's requires being first level. I am also not sure what the problem with DM fiat is. "I encourage my apprentice to learn to craft magic items." "Okay".

Okay we are clearly looking at very different feats, which is odd because you cited the book and everything. There may have been confusion when I said it requires two feats because I included the mentor feat itself in that number. But it's still accurate because to take the mentor feat takes two feat slots (Apprentice and Mentor), that's two feats you can't spend on far more useful abilities. Especially since the Apprentice and Mentor feats (while full of flavour) aren't that useful. You can't take Mentor at level one though, because it requires 8 skill ranks.

How is it subject to DM fiat? How is it not? You encourage your apprentice to learn to craft magic items? Okay. Your apprentice blows himself up in the process. Your apprentice is arrested by the local guards for dealing with contraband (as that's what magic items essentially are in the OPs universe). Your apprentice fails to make anything useful for you. The last scenario is pretty likely considering your apprentice is lower level than you are. The apprentice is an NPC, NPCs are under the purview of the DM. And if the DM is being finicky about letting players get a hold of items they want how do you think an apprentice will get around that?


Every one of them.

More accurately, almost none of them. But that's besides the point. Your entire argument is an oberoni fallacy. If it can be fixed it isn't broken, no it's broken because it needs fixing. It doesn't matter how many "fixes" you point out that doesn't change the fact it's broken.


To be honest? I have a hard time believing someone who says "ancestral relic is the only one that could work" but also says they would Rater. What was it, dual wield inflatable chickens than take the class that gets you ancestral relic without a feat slot.

That's because you're assuming that a free feat is all that's needed to make a class worthwhile. Giving up a feat slot is less than ideal, but it's far more ideal than having to use a rather sub-standard chassis. You missed the point the hyperbole was making was that there's a lot of things that are preferable to playing a Samurai. Less maybe for the OA samurai, but as I said before it's still not an attractive option.


Why does the wizard need more spell slots? Are your wizards so bad at their job they use them all? Have you not read the comic this forum is made in the site for?

You're trying to answer a question with a question. I never said the Wizard needs more spell slots, he just needs them more than a Barbarian needs a higher int score. It's like saying a rich man needs a penny more than a bear does. Neither of them need the penny, but the rich man will probably get more mileage out of it than the bear. No I don't read the comic, I just come here because these are good forums for D&D.


Do you feel that items graft to flesh and cannot be moved around in emergencies?

Do you think that because items can be changed hands that's actually a justification for leaving them in the use of people that can't do anything with them?


Do you know what Roleplaying is? Have you never wanted to be both smart and not a wizard? Have you ever used algebra to solve a problem in game? Was it in character to do so?

Do you know what the Stormwind fallacy is? Have you never played a rogue or any other kind of skill monkey class?


Crikey. Why not just slap down a bunch of smilies and intersperse exclamation points with ones and demand I play by your one true method?


Kids these days, I swear. :smalltongue:

Ignoring the blatant snark in that last remark I'm not demanding you do anything. I'm arguing that all the OPs method of wealth distribution does is exasperate many of the problems already present in 3.5 and pushes his players away from being able to make effective characters that aren't casters. So far you haven't shown me a good argument as to why this isn't the case. If you think of one I'm still here.

[Coidzor]

My favourite explanation are planar travellers (Janni, Mercanes, Witchwyrds) who buy those magic items from Genies (who can't use their Wish ability on their own, only for others) and sell those items in the Prime in exchange for luxury wares (gems, gold, platinum, silks, spices, works of art...etc.).

Still, that doesn't explain why there are people keeping stocks of incredible expensive magic items that almost nobody can buy, so I think there are magic brokers who take orders from customers, contact the Janni/Mercanes/Witchwyrds/whatever, who write it down and buy them from the Efreets or Noble Djinns next time they visit them.

That's not doing away with Magic Mart, that's justifying it and fleshing it out. :smallconfused:

[NichG]

Debating whether the OP is a bad person and should be ashamed isn't really productive. We all agree the caster/mundane disparity here is an issue (we may debate whether it is the issue or not...) so lets talk about how to fix that rather than trying to judge the OP for running the game he wants to run.

Since caster vs mundane is always a problem, even in the normal game, I'd suggest a sort of ground rule here - the point is to adjust it so the disparity is merely as bad as it is in the normal game, not fix it entirely. The subject of how to make a Wizard T3 or a Fighter T3 belongs to a different thread.

I'll propose something that won't do it, just to get the ball rolling: no free spells at level up, all spells must be either researched or found as scrolls. Spellbooks cannot be copied, but Scribe Scroll works as normal (though NPCs will not sell scrolls as per the no-magic-mart premise of the campaign). Clerics and druids must similarly learn their spells from scrolls now, rather than getting all spells of their level automatically. Does this now mean that the no-magic-mart nature of the game penalizes full casters to the same degree that it penalizes everyone else?

[chaos_redefined]

Debating whether the OP is a bad person and should be ashamed isn't really productive. We all agree the caster/mundane disparity here is an issue (we may debate whether it is the issue or not...) so lets talk about how to fix that rather than trying to judge the OP for running the game he wants to run.

Since caster vs mundane is always a problem, even in the normal game, I'd suggest a sort of ground rule here - the point is to adjust it so the disparity is merely as bad as it is in the normal game, not fix it entirely. The subject of how to make a Wizard T3 or a Fighter T3 belongs to a different thread.

I'll propose something that won't do it, just to get the ball rolling: no free spells at level up, all spells must be either researched or found as scrolls. Spellbooks cannot be copied, but Scribe Scroll works as normal (though NPCs will not sell scrolls as per the no-magic-mart premise of the campaign). Clerics and druids must similarly learn their spells from scrolls now, rather than getting all spells of their level automatically. Does this now mean that the no-magic-mart nature of the game penalizes full casters to the same degree that it penalizes everyone else?

I'd play a T3 caster, like the beguiler or dread necro. Or a T2 like the sorcerer. And if you try to deny me the class features they get (a large list of spells known/customizable list of spells known), I'd probably drop.

I believe the general sentiment here isn't that the OP is a bad person and should be ashamed. I'll present a series of statements, and you tell me where the problem is.

1) The OP does not wish to use magic marts.
2) The players in OP's campaign are finding the lack of control over their equipment such a problem that they look forward to their character's dying, because it's a chance to gain the equipment they want.
3) #2 means that the OP's players are not having fun without magic marts.
4) The OP is playing the game with his friends.
5) The OP is therefore pushing his friends to do stuff that they find unfun.

The points of contention are #2 and #3. Simply put, some people find magicmarts (or something similar) a fun part of the game, and others find them to be unrealistic. The DM is in the former, while his players are in the latter. There is, however, potential for compromise.

OP: Get with your players. Express your concerns with the magicmart, and come to a compromise with them. A wishlist would be a good idea: Your players tell you what they wish to get, and instead of going shopping for them, you give them those items from quests and the like. This gives them control over their stuff, while removing the magicmart from the game.

[NichG]

The points of contention are #2 and #3. Simply put, some people find magicmarts (or something similar) a fun part of the game, and others find them to be unrealistic. The DM is in the former, while his players are in the latter. There is, however, potential for compromise.

OP: Get with your players. Express your concerns with the magicmart, and come to a compromise with them. A wishlist would be a good idea: Your players tell you what they wish to get, and instead of going shopping for them, you give them those items from quests and the like. This gives them control over their stuff, while removing the magicmart from the game.

If this resolves the OP's situation, then huzzah!

It may not be a realism problem though - magic marts go against a lot of old-school sensibilities, and they also do have consequences to the structure of play. It may be useful to consider other options too that don't actually involve e.g. metagaming away the Magic Mart while retaining the 'shopping' effect of item loadouts being part of the optimization structure of the game.

One suggestion I've seen for this kind of thing is, completely remove +Stat, +AC, +Saves, +hit/dmg items from the game and instead give all characters a level-based bonus to stats, AC, saves, and to-hit/damage to replace the effect of the items. Weapons and armor now only have special effects, and not the base +X bonuses.

For example, get a stat point every 2 levels instead of every 4; get +1 AC every 2 levels; get +1 to-hit and damage every 3 levels; get +1 to saves every 3 levels. That roughly takes care of the bonuses you'd get from having generic gear.

The idea then is that items are strictly about quirky, one-off, potentially useful but potentially useless effects, rather than being a core component of the character's power. So random generation shouldn't create as many inequities.

[Coidzor]

Debating whether the OP is a bad person and should be ashamed isn't really productive.

I sort of had my eyes glaze over and I might have dozed off for a moment, so maybe I missed what made that statement less hyperbole and more what actually happened, but questioning the utility of apparently deliberately going against his players' enjoyment of the game was actually entirely in keeping with the nature of such discussions and has on occasion been productive in the past, if only so that it meant that everything needed to be known was out on the table for consideration.

I suppose his subsequent failure to reappear after it was brought up could be construed as either coincidence or telling of something. *shrug*

Though, yeah, the fact that he hasn't reappeared since then makes it all so much ephemera, but, when has that ever stopped us?


We all agree the caster/mundane disparity here is an issue (we may debate whether it is the issue or not...) so lets talk about how to fix that rather than trying to judge the OP for running the game he wants to run.

Now, just hold up a moment here. So, what, we're just supposed to rubber-stamp any idea that someone cooks up rather than giving it its due? :smallconfused: :smallannoyed: If we do that then we make ourselves the poorer for the lack of feedback and improvements from said feedback.

[NichG]

I sort of had my eyes glaze over and I might have dozed off for a moment, so maybe I missed what made that statement less hyperbole and more what actually happened, but questioning the utility of apparently deliberately going against his players' enjoyment of the game was actually entirely in keeping with the nature of such discussions and has on occasion been productive in the past, if only so that it meant that everything needed to be known was out on the table for consideration.


The two comments in particular that inspired this response were:



Picking your players gear for them is a terrible idea. Not giving them some flexibility in buying their own gear is even worse. If someone told me we were starting at level X and all the gear was being rolled for (Even if you rolled multiple times) or I could have X weapon, X armor and X items, I wouldn't pay in that game.

3.5 isn't meant to a low magic item game. If you play it that way you're doing a disservice to the people that require those items the most. You don't have to give unlimited access to every magic item in the game but don't screw over your players because it requires more work on your behalf to reach the compromise.




Ignoring the blatant snark in that last remark I'm not demanding you do anything. I'm arguing that all the OPs method of wealth distribution does is exasperate many of the problems already present in 3.5 and pushes his players away from being able to make effective characters that aren't casters. So far you haven't shown me a good argument as to why this isn't the case. If you think of one I'm still here.


There were others as well along this line. Basically the conversation was going away from 'how do we help the OP do what he wants' and towards 'lets discuss why what the OP wants is bad', which was unproductive.



Now, just hold up a moment here. So, what, we're just supposed to rubber-stamp any idea that someone cooks up rather than giving it its due? :smallconfused: :smallannoyed: If we do that then we make ourselves the poorer for the lack of feedback and improvements from said feedback.

There's a difference between 'okay, here are the problems you may face and our suggestions for what to do about them' and 'no, this is impossible, its strictly a bad idea, don't do it ever'.

Trying to help the poster achieve what they're going for is constructive. Saying 'I think you have bad taste and you have no idea what you're doing' is not. When someone asks for help, the useful thing to do is to help them, not try to sit in judgement over them.

[chaos_redefined]

Sure, there may be other reasons for it, but realism is the main one people have said in this thread, and the wishlist kinda helps on that front.

As kinda touched on earlier in this thread, there is also some need for abilities like flight, true sight, initiative boosts, etc... Numbers are not the only thing that need boosting.

[Invader]

The two comments in particular that inspired this response were:





There were others as well along this line. Basically the conversation was going away from 'how do we help the OP do what he wants' and towards 'lets discuss why what the OP wants is bad', which was unproductive.



There's a difference between 'okay, here are the problems you may face and our suggestions for what to do about them' and 'no, this is impossible, its strictly a bad idea, don't do it ever'.

Trying to help the poster achieve what they're going for is constructive. Saying 'I think you have bad taste and you have no idea what you're doing' is not. When someone asks for help, the useful thing to do is to help them, not try to sit in judgement over them.

I stand by my post and for the record I wasn't even responding to the OP.

[Invader]

Also, explaining why something is bad if the target disagrees isn't unproductive at all.

Explaining to a child they shouldn't drink poison because juice tastes better is not an adequate education.

[NichG]

Also, explaining why something is bad if the target disagrees isn't unproductive at all.

Explaining to a child they shouldn't drink poison because juice tastes better is not an adequate education.

Completely over the top analogy there, and it has nothing to do with this thread. I could propose a counter analogy, and then we could go back and forth about which of our analogies is more accurate, but can we agree that that's a silly way to hold a conversation and instead actually talk about the content directly?

The OP has expressed a specific goal - he wants to run a game without magic marts, such that the players cannot choose what items they have. You may not personally like this kind of game, but whether you like it or not is irrelevant, because you are not being asked to play in it. The fact that his players do not like it is in fact relevant, but that needs to be discussed within the framework of how to make both the OP and his players happy, not 'I'm siding with the players'. The fact of the matter is, if you just say 'you need to have magic marts' then the OP will just ignore your post. Your stated position is basically saying 'I cannot/refuse to try to help you, and instead I am going to rant at you a bit'.

If you want someone to listen to you, you have to take into account what their needs are in coming to the thread. It is possible to communicate, but you have to meet the person you're communicating with half way. Simply saying 'no, your tastes are bad' ends communication - it serves no purpose, not because there is no merit to the content, but because even if there is any merit to the content, it will just be ignored.

tl;dr - Saying 'here are problems you will have, you need to come up with ways to fix them for this to work' is good. Saying 'no, your tastes are bad' is pointless.

[Invader]

Completely over the top analogy there, and it has nothing to do with this thread. I could propose a counter analogy, and then we could go back and forth about which of our analogies is more accurate, but can we agree that that's a silly way to hold a conversation and instead actually talk about the content directly?

The OP has expressed a specific goal - he wants to run a game without magic marts, such that the players cannot choose what items they have. You may not personally like this kind of game, but whether you like it or not is irrelevant, because you are not being asked to play in it. The fact that his players do not like it is in fact relevant, but that needs to be discussed within the framework of how to make both the OP and his players happy, not 'I'm siding with the players'. The fact of the matter is, if you just say 'you need to have magic marts' then the OP will just ignore your post. Your stated position is basically saying 'I cannot/refuse to try to help you, and instead I am going to rant at you a bit'.

If you want someone to listen to you, you have to take into account what their needs are in coming to the thread. It is possible to communicate, but you have to meet the person you're communicating with half way. Simply saying 'no, your tastes are bad' ends communication - it serves no purpose, not because there is no merit to the content, but because even if there is any merit to the content, it will just be ignored.


tl;dr - Saying 'here are problems you will have, you need to come up with ways to fix them for this to work' is good. Saying 'no, your tastes are bad' is pointless.

I wasn't just "ranting" at the player. I also noted what he was doing was hurting the classes that need magic items the most and said there could be a compromise.

And regardless, I still wasn't referring to the OP.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's not your call to make for other people.

It's not a "call," it's an observation. If there's no chance of loss because the DM is deliberately ensuring that the party can't lose then it's not a game. A game requires win and lose conditions but the DM is removing the lose condition. You can still put win and lose conditions in the plot but you don't need mechanics for that; at least not combat mechanics.


I feel like this is wrong. If an enemy is attacking randomly (they can have a low Int and Wis score and be in a rage and it would make perfect sense) then how is is collaborative story telling. If there is still a chance a player dies and still a chance no players dies.... then how is it not still a game?

Even if we were talking about a mindless creature or one of animal intelligence I'd have a problem with it. We weren't. We were talking about a creature whose race is, on the average, smarter than humans. It's inconceivable that such a creature, or its DM operator, would be incapable of observing the blatantly obvious consequences of its actions. Focus-firing on a single target is believable. Taking all attacks completely at random is not. The latter requires -no- thought; not doesn't require any thought but requires that the creature's operator does not think.


I agree with a Marut attacking randomly being dumb, but certainly not with your definition of collaborative storytelling. In collaborative story telling nothing the players do changes the campaign even for their characters. Stupid enemy tactics doesn't make it that, unless the tactics are so stupid there is only one possible outcome (as we know there is not).

Actually, Nich G showed that the outcome -was- statistically certain. The players would have to actively try to lose that encounter with the marut being run that way. The problem is that it's totally absurd to think that any person would run a creature like that.

Even when the creature can't think (mindless) the DM operating it does. This precludes truly random actions. An actual person will focus attacks; either selecting one target to focus on or focusing on whichever target last attacked the creature; will cycle amongst targets; either deliberately or unconsciously distributing attacks more or less evenly from one round to the next; or he'll observe and react based on what he thinks the creature would do.

In the case of a marut, however, the lightning fist's effectiveness jumps out at you the first time it hits. This demands that you either decide to use it well or deliberately decide to use it poorly. It's applicability is -too- obvious for any reasonable person not to see it.

[Rejusu]

The points of contention are #2 and #3. Simply put, some people find magicmarts (or something similar) a fun part of the game, and others find them to be unrealistic. The DM is in the former, while his players are in the latter. There is, however, potential for compromise.


Actually the point of contention for me personally is not that he's not using magic marts. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that approach if done right. Ridiculously convenient access to magic items where every shop has the MIC as its mail order catalogue can come off as somewhat contrived. I think restricting the trade of magic items is going a bit far and the in game explanation of such is also a little contrived.

But the bugbear in the room is that his characters find that the bright side of their characters dying is getting new gear and the DM wants to fix that. Ignoring that this is a red flag that the DM is playing more for his own enjoyment than his players his proposed "solution" is to start everyone off with randomly generated gear. Which is just a bridge too far by my standards.


There were others as well along this line. Basically the conversation was going away from 'how do we help the OP do what he wants' and towards 'lets discuss why what the OP wants is bad', which was unproductive.

How is telling someone that what they're about to do is a bad idea and why it's a bad idea unproductive? The OP didn't come here looking for a solution, he came looking for feedback on the solution he'd come up with. Keep in mind that the DM didn't come here asking about running a game without magic marts, he's already doing that. He came and presented the fact that his players look forward to getting new gear when they die as a problem that needed fixing.

I have little interest helping a DM actively sabotage the enjoyment of his players.

[Clistenes]

That's not doing away with Magic Mart, that's justifying it and fleshing it out. :smallconfused:

When I say that I don't like Magic Marts I'm speaking of magic shops stoked with magic items that almost nobody in the world can buy and almost nobody was able to craft.

Using a mysterious guy who can contact the janni on your behalf is much more justifiable from a world-building point of view (he doesn't keep a whole stock of expensive magic items, and those weren't crafted by mortal mages) and more satifactory from a storytelling point of view (it keeps magic as something awe-inspiring as supernatural, coming from the planes, rather that turning it into a mass produced ware).

[Rejusu]

When I say that I don't like Magic Marts I'm speaking of magic shops stoked with magic items that almost nobody in the world can buy and almost nobody was able to craft.

Using a mysterious guy who can contact the janni on your behalf is much more justifiable from a world-building point of view (he doesn't keep a whole stock of expensive magic items, and those weren't crafted by mortal mages) and more satifactory from a storytelling point of view (it keeps magic as something awe-inspiring as supernatural, coming from the planes, rather that turning it into a mass produced ware).

Honestly I think the best approach to having a setting without convenient magic suppliers is just to give your players loot that they can make use of. Sure they may never get exactly what they want but if you pick smart it should be useful to them. As for where the loot comes from? Tombs, dragon lairs, kings bounties, farmers with old keepsakes passed down that they don't even know are special. Be creative. Just because a +7 vorpal longsword costs more than a country doesn't mean any one has to know it's true value.

[NichG]

It's not a "call," it's an observation. If there's no chance of loss because the DM is deliberately ensuring that the party can't lose then it's not a game. A game requires win and lose conditions but the DM is removing the lose condition. You can still put win and lose conditions in the plot but you don't need mechanics for that; at least not combat mechanics.




If you're going to take it that far you're far better off to just switch to a free-form game already.


That's a value judgement, and its basically snark aimed at a certain style of play that you don't happen to like. But fine, I'll go out and tell those gamers that they weren't actually having fun all this time, because you said they're doing it wrong.



Actually, NichG showed that the outcome -was- statistically certain. The players would have to actively try to lose that encounter with the marut being run that way. The problem is that it's totally absurd to think that any person would run a creature like that.

Its still pretty certain even if the Marut power attacks, uses only the blinding fist, and focus-fires. All of those tactical improvements lead to something like a 15% increase in the chance of dropping one of the four fighters.

D&D, by construction, is stacked in favor of the players. Its built into the system at a very deep level. There are cracks where this construction breaks - usually in the form of damage spikes, swingy mechanics, and 'unanswerable threats' (e.g. fliers), but in general you actually have to work very very hard to cause an encounter sampled from the DMG CR guidelines to threaten PCs who are being run by players with the same level of optimization and tactical ability as the DM.

If this weren't the case, most campaigns would be 2-3 sessions long. In order for a game where the party has to deal with hundreds of combats over the length of their career, the chance of a TPK has to be about one percent per fight on average, or less. In practice, for most fights it's basically indistinguishable from zero, while for other, rarer fights its something like 5 or 10% - not always the boss fights, sometimes just the Ogres or That Damn Crab.

Tournament-style play tends to up the TPK-chance significantly, because its meant to fit all the risk of a long campaign into a small set of encounters meant to fit into a few afternoons. If you look at a Goodman Games DCC module, for example, its going to be far more lethal than your average extended campaign should be, because the timescale of play that its aiming at is inherently different.


In the case of a marut, however, the lightning fist's effectiveness jumps out at you the first time it hits. This demands that you either decide to use it well or deliberately decide to use it poorly. It's applicability is -too- obvious for any reasonable person not to see it.

It actually does not change the result of the simulations. The only attack in which there was a choice whether to use the lightning fist or not was that first AoO, so this falls within the realm of 'the DM doesn't know yet'. After that, the Marut is focus firing (in the focus-fire simulations anyhow), so using the lightning fist twice in a row against a target that auto-fails the save versus blindness doesn't actually change the results at all.

The highest chance so far of the Marut doing anything much is a 30% chance of killing one fighter using focus fire and optimal power attack. So using smarter deployment of melee ability is worth a +25% chance of dropping one fighter, but its nowhere near allowing a TPK.


But the bugbear in the room is that his characters find that the bright side of their characters dying is getting new gear and the DM wants to fix that. Ignoring that this is a red flag that the DM is playing more for his own enjoyment than his players his proposed "solution" is to start everyone off with randomly generated gear. Which is just a bridge too far by my standards.

How is telling someone that what they're about to do is a bad idea and why it's a bad idea unproductive? The OP didn't come here looking for a solution, he came looking for feedback on the solution he'd come up with. Keep in mind that the DM didn't come here asking about running a game without magic marts, he's already doing that. He came and presented the fact that his players look forward to getting new gear when they die as a problem that needed fixing.


'Why its a bad idea' is at least getting there, but its a profoundly negative way to go about things if you don't also suggest ways to resolve the problems that respect the constraints of the problem.

If I come to you for help on a problem, and you say 'you shouldn't be trying to solve that problem, just give up', then you haven't helped me. If you say 'thats a very difficult problem to solve, so you should just give up' then thats not incredibly helpful eiter. If you say 'thats a very difficult problem to solve because of X, Y, Z, so you should just give up' then I can extract some useful information at least by understanding X,Y,Z, but I'm working against your negative mood to actually get anything useful out of it.

If you say 'Thats a very difficult problem to solve because of X,Y,Z. Lets discuss why X,Y,Z are problematic, and maybe we can figure out a way to help solve the problem' then it contains the content of the previous, but its far more positive and productive. Instead of 'I am now going to tell you why you are stupid' you're saying 'this is hard, but I will work with you to understand it'.



I have little interest helping a DM actively sabotage the enjoyment of his players.

There's an expression about 'if you can't say anything nice...' These are the constraints of the OP's situation. If you want to help his players, you need to figure out a way to suggest something that both the DM and the players will enjoy. If you just say 'bad DM, no cookie', why would the OP even bother to listen to what you've said?

[Rejusu]

'Why its a bad idea' is at least getting there, but its a profoundly negative way to go about things if you don't also suggest ways to resolve the problems that respect the constraints of the problem.

I have suggested a way to resolve the "problem": don't do it, it's a bad idea. The problem is with the OPs "solution" or rather that he considers there's a problem that needs solving. I only have to respect the constraints of the problem if it's a valid problem. It's not, and I've already made my points as to why.


If I come to you for help on a problem, and you say 'you shouldn't be trying to solve that problem, just give up', then you haven't helped me. If you say 'thats a very difficult problem to solve, so you should just give up' then thats not incredibly helpful eiter. If you say 'thats a very difficult problem to solve because of X, Y, Z, so you should just give up' then I can extract some useful information at least by understanding X,Y,Z, but I'm working against your negative mood to actually get anything useful out of it.

Nope I have helped you. It's your problem if you don't want to accept that help. If you come to me with a problem that isn't a problem or one without a solution then telling you to drop it is the most help I can give. And you'd save time and effort by heeding that advice. Thus I have helped you. If you persist with the task anyway only to make things worse or waste your time. Well I did warn you.

Granted there are exceptions. Not every unsolvable problem is actually so. But this is only really the case when there are still a large number of unknowns and so it's unlikely to be the case here. At any rate you're simply mistaken in your assumption that all you need is positive thinking to arrive at a solution. Being optimistic won't magically make this into a problem or conjure up a solution.


If you say 'Thats a very difficult problem to solve because of X,Y,Z. Lets discuss why X,Y,Z are problematic, and maybe we can figure out a way to help solve the problem' then it contains the content of the previous, but its far more positive and productive. Instead of 'I am now going to tell you why you are stupid' you're saying 'this is hard, but I will work with you to understand it'.

I'm going to point this out again, with more emphasis this time:

The OP did not come here with a problem, he came here with a solution.

That is key. Before you can help anyone with their problems they need to be aware they have a problem and understand what it is. You keep trying to make the point that the discussion has moved away from helping the OP with his "problem" to criticising his solution. Ignoring the fact that the OP posted the thread to get feedback on his "solution". It may be largely negative feedback but that's exactly what we've been doing: providing feedback. Had the OP merely posed the "problem" then you might have a point. As he didn't, you don't.


There's an expression about 'if you can't say anything nice...' These are the constraints of the OP's situation. If you want to help his players, you need to figure out a way to suggest something that both the DM and the players will enjoy. If you just say 'bad DM, no cookie', why would the OP even bother to listen to what you've said?

Once again I have suggested something: almost anything other than the "solution" the DM purposed. And I see no reason to sugar coat what he's doing. I haven't said anything that he hasn't essentially admitted to, whether he realises he's doing it or not. As for something that both the DM and the players would enjoy? I think that would be an unsolvable problem as by the sounds of things what he enjoys is taking away what the players enjoy. Essentially you're proposing that we come up with a solution that satisfies mutually exclusive goals.

Anyway at this point I'm only discussing things with other posters anyway. As has been already pointed out the OP vanished from this thread pages ago. So arguing how we should be trying to help him is rather moot.

[killem2]

Another great way to do magic marts but not off the shelf type of magic marts, is to make everything done on request.

Roll random to determine when the said wizard available to do the item, and add on the number of days from that. Adventure in between.

[NichG]

Rather than get sidetracked into a meta-discussion about the correct way to have a discussion, I'm going to focus back on the actual productive stuff again.

I proposed two solutions for resolving the tendency for random gear to favor casters over mundane. Lets go back to those, since I think that was actually getting somewhere.

I think the remaining problem to address was the non-numerical factors that characters depend on items for. Specifically flight, true seeing, and initiative boosts. I agree with flight - the difference between having it and not having it is the difference between being able to engage a set of enemies at all or not. Are true seeing and initiative boosts really so critical though? I've never actually seen someone try to cover true seeing with gear in any campaign I've ever played in. And there really aren't any items that give initiative boosts unless you get outside of core.

So resolving flight (and I'll add incorporeality to that list) seem to be the strong barriers remaining. Incorporeality could be fixed by just removing the 'incorporeal creatures need magic weapons to hit them' thing, and just make incorporeality a 50% miss chance across the board. Or alternately, just make sure that some kind of magic weapon is always found before the PCs encounter incorporeals, even if it isn't the weapon type that people have specialized in.

Flight is the bigger issue though. Giving everyone flight at Lv9 seems ridiculous. What about adding certain types of mundane (ranged) weapons that can hobble flying creatures and bear them to the ground until the wounds have healed? Arrows tipped with leadfoot paste or something.

[Rejusu]

Rather than get sidetracked into a meta-discussion about the correct way to have a discussion, I'm going to focus back on the actual productive stuff again.

You're saying this like you weren't the one that sidetracked the discussion in the first place...


I proposed two solutions for resolving the tendency for random gear to favor casters over mundane. Lets go back to those, since I think that was actually getting somewhere.

*snip*


I still have to ask why we should be fixing something that shouldn't be broken in the first place. Here's my proposed solution: don't break it and you won't need to fix it. Minimal fuss, minimal effort. Clearly the optimal solution. :smallsmile:

[Oko and Qailee]

Actually, Nich G showed that the outcome -was- statistically certain. The players would have to actively try to lose that encounter with the marut being run that way. The problem is that it's totally absurd to think that any person would run a creature like that.


Actually, unless I read wrong. He showed that there is a chance a fighter may be dropped and there is a chance a fighter would not be dropped. That's two different outcomes.

Yes it is absurd for anyone to run a Marut like that I agree.

My point is that it doesn't qualify for being labeled "collaborative storytelling" because there is more than 1 outcome. Does it deserve being labeled "unrealistic levels of suspension of disbelief needed?" Yes.

[Coidzor]

When I say that I don't like Magic Marts I'm speaking of magic shops stoked with magic items that almost nobody in the world can buy and almost nobody was able to craft.

Using a mysterious guy who can contact the janni on your behalf is much more justifiable from a world-building point of view (he doesn't keep a whole stock of expensive magic items, and those weren't crafted by mortal mages) and more satifactory from a storytelling point of view (it keeps magic as something awe-inspiring as supernatural, coming from the planes, rather that turning it into a mass produced ware).

At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is if you can buy it or commission it to be made without it only becoming available after the campaign is over as far as I've ever seen. :smallconfused:

If you can buy any items other than a very limited, pre-approved list the DM pulled out of their ass, you're in Magic Mart territory, the only real thing is how it's presented and if it's a red herring to get the players to throw wealth away. The rest is just specifics.

Edit: Especially in the context of this thread, the OP's issue seems to be less being able to just walk in the street and buy anything they like instantly and more their ability to have agency in shopping around or commissioning a crafter to make something for them at all. It's the only interpretation that I can see for his apparent distaste for replacement characters being able to select their gear during character generation, at least, given what we currently have to go on.

[Hurnn]

I get the feeling there are 2 different views on "magic marts" in this thread.

One is everything under the sun that you can think of is available to buy right this minute from an artifact level weapon that has the most niche use imaginable to +5 to stat and save items to potions of cure light wounds.

The other is yeah there are some magic Items for sale in a few different shops around town and you can get most of your sub 2k gp items (maybe more depends on the size of the town) with a day of shopping around, but If you want more better commission it or make it yourselves.

I'm sure there is a variety of opinions in between.

I think that to have any semblance of "realism" with in the game rules as presented you have to have the second type. In fact I'm 99.9% certain this is even addressed in one of the core rule books (dmg i think). Beyond that not having it totally screws mundane classes while barely slowing down casters.

That said my personal preference is the second I don't think anything with up to a 8k gold cost being available if you look hard enough in a major city (ie: one of the largest cities in the known world) is campaign breaking. I know someone harped on "8k why thats 160 lbs of gold" but thats the stupidity of the d&d economy, REALLY??? a heavy horse costs 2lbs of gold.

UPDATE:

2 pounds of gold in today's dollars is 40,790.40, I checked for draft horses for sale they went up to 15,000 but there were many under 2,500 and as low as 4-500. so realistically i should be able to get about 80 horses for that 2 pounds of gold.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's a value judgement, and its basically snark aimed at a certain style of play that you don't happen to like. But fine, I'll go out and tell those gamers that they weren't actually having fun all this time, because you said they're doing it wrong.

It's not a value judgement. A scenario with no lose condition can't be said to be a game. I don't care how anyone has fun. I just object to calling a bit of story telling a game. Hell, I'm glad they're having fun. It's good for the hobby as a whole since it gives the game better exposure through word of mouth even if they're only using a small fraction of it to actually play a game and just using the lion's share as window dressing for their stories.


Its still pretty certain even if the Marut power attacks, uses only the blinding fist, and focus-fires. All of those tactical improvements lead to something like a 15% increase in the chance of dropping one of the four fighters.

And what if it doesn't? You're discarding out of hand the fact that will utterly destroy its foes unless it's deliberately played to a handful of the absolute poorest possible sets of variables.


D&D, by construction, is stacked in favor of the players. Its built into the system at a very deep level. There are cracks where this construction breaks - usually in the form of damage spikes, swingy mechanics, and 'unanswerable threats' (e.g. fliers), but in general you actually have to work very very hard to cause an encounter sampled from the DMG CR guidelines to threaten PCs who are being run by players with the same level of optimization and tactical ability as the DM.

If this weren't the case, most campaigns would be 2-3 sessions long. In order for a game where the party has to deal with hundreds of combats over the length of their career, the chance of a TPK has to be about one percent per fight on average, or less. In practice, for most fights it's basically indistinguishable from zero, while for other, rarer fights its something like 5 or 10% - not always the boss fights, sometimes just the Ogres or That Damn Crab.

Tournament-style play tends to up the TPK-chance significantly, because its meant to fit all the risk of a long campaign into a small set of encounters meant to fit into a few afternoons. If you look at a Goodman Games DCC module, for example, its going to be far more lethal than your average extended campaign should be, because the timescale of play that its aiming at is inherently different.

The example we've been discussing has a rather -dramatically- greater than one percent chance of TPK. You're deliberately choosing to ignore that fact and dressing it up with arguments for how it's probable, under nearly ideal (for the party) conditions, that the sample party will win. Played to capacity the part in our example has virtually zero chance of victory. Even being played with just a very little effort reduces their chances -very- rapidly.


It actually does not change the result of the simulations. The only attack in which there was a choice whether to use the lightning fist or not was that first AoO, so this falls within the realm of 'the DM doesn't know yet'. After that, the Marut is focus firing (in the focus-fire simulations anyhow), so using the lightning fist twice in a row against a target that auto-fails the save versus blindness doesn't actually change the results at all.

And if it's not focus firing? If it doesn't throw away its first turn because it's on open ground? Hell, if it wins initiative and just uses a total defense action on the first turn? Ignoring so -very- many variables, most of which will rapidly increase the creature's chance for victory, and saying that it has very little chance of victory is extraordinarily disingenuous. If you want to take the human element out of your calculations you need to do -all- of the calculations. If you don't you can't pretend that true randomness is a factor at all. Either way you need to weight the probability of all possible actions; not just melee attacks but movement, SLA's, defensive fighting, etc. You also need to examine various battlefields. You're showing only a very, extremely narrow band of probabilities and calling it the whole of the story.


The highest chance so far of the Marut doing anything much is a 30% chance of killing one fighter using focus fire and optimal power attack. So using smarter deployment of melee ability is worth a +25% chance of dropping one fighter, but its nowhere near allowing a TPK.

Under the extremely narrow set of variables that you're allowing for. Played just a little better, even simply not throwing away turns and refusing to stand still and be wailed on, it's a nearly guaranteed TPK. Even run in a truly, completely random manner dramatically increases its odds.

Deliberately hamstringing your calculation method to get the desired result isn't any different from deliberately throwing the fight.

[NichG]

And what if it doesn't? You're discarding out of hand the fact that will utterly destroy its foes unless it's deliberately played to a handful of the absolute poorest possible sets of variables.


What if it doesn't focus fire? Then it has a lower chance of killing one fighter (5% or something like that), and it still never actually wins the fight. Or, if it doesn't do something else? I'm not sure what you're saying here.



The example we've been discussing has a rather -dramatically- greater than one percent chance of TPK. You're deliberately choosing to ignore that fact and dressing it up with arguments for how it's probable, under nearly ideal (for the party) conditions, that the sample party will win. Played to capacity the part in our example has virtually zero chance of victory. Even being played with just a very little effort reduces their chances -very- rapidly.


Its not even arguments at this point. I just jammed the Marut's stats from the book and the fighter stats from the stat block I posted (but with Wis/etc dump-statted down to 8 to have a reasonable point buy) into a program and had them do their thing. There's no approximations anymore - every status condition, crit, etc is being tracked by the code.

This isn't me doing math wrong. This is what happens in this fight under these parameters. There's nothing to argue here. I'm not at all claiming that if the Marut is played tactically well, it won't win - I even said how it would do so: Fear is basically a 50%, area effect save or lose in this fight, and it has it at will, so it just has to spam Fear. Of course, if we're upping the optimization level, then I'll have the fighters take Indomitable Will so they can't possibly fail the save, Blind Fight so the blindness isn't such a big issue, Martial Study for Iron Heart Surge, ... but I was never trying to make a point about medium-op play, I was trying to make a point about low-op play.

But, if you really do want to play this out, why don't we make a thread - 4 optimized Lv19 fighters with only mundane gear against 4 by-the-book Maruts (no feat substitutions, etc), that you can run however you like, with anyone from the forums submitting their build and playing the four fighters. Like the E6 vs Balor thread. But fair is fair - if you get to optimize the tactics of the Marut, the Playgrounders can build their fighters specifically for the fight, at whatever optimization level they want.

My guess: the Playgrounders will find a build for the Fighters that can win reliably against any tactic that by-the-book Maruts can employ.

I'm going to stop my responses here, since I think my proposal pretty much responds to the rest of your post, if you really want to continue this particular discussion. But its so far outside of the actual hypothetical tabletop environment that started this example that this would just be for its own sake.

[TuggyNE]

What if it doesn't focus fire? Then it has a lower chance of killing one fighter (5% or something like that), and it still never actually wins the fight.

I assume "not focus firing" means "spreading blindness around to all enemies before focusing HP damage on one", which seems to make sense.

[Kelb_Panthera]

What if it doesn't focus fire? Then it has a lower chance of killing one fighter (5% or something like that), and it still never actually wins the fight. Or, if it doesn't do something else? I'm not sure what you're saying here.



Its not even arguments at this point. I just jammed the Marut's stats from the book and the fighter stats from the stat block I posted (but with Wis/etc dump-statted down to 8 to have a reasonable point buy) into a program and had them do their thing. There's no approximations anymore - every status condition, crit, etc is being tracked by the code.

This isn't me doing math wrong. This is what happens in this fight under these parameters. There's nothing to argue here. I'm not at all claiming that if the Marut is played tactically well, it won't win - I even said how it would do so: Fear is basically a 50%, area effect save or lose in this fight, and it has it at will, so it just has to spam Fear. Of course, if we're upping the optimization level, then I'll have the fighters take Indomitable Will so they can't possibly fail the save, Blind Fight so the blindness isn't such a big issue, Martial Study for Iron Heart Surge, ... but I was never trying to make a point about medium-op play, I was trying to make a point about low-op play.

But, if you really do want to play this out, why don't we make a thread - 4 optimized Lv19 fighters with only mundane gear against 4 by-the-book Maruts (no feat substitutions, etc), that you can run however you like, with anyone from the forums submitting their build and playing the four fighters. Like the E6 vs Balor thread. But fair is fair - if you get to optimize the tactics of the Marut, the Playgrounders can build their fighters specifically for the fight, at whatever optimization level they want.

My guess: the Playgrounders will find a build for the Fighters that can win reliably against any tactic that by-the-book Maruts can employ.

I'm going to stop my responses here, since I think my proposal pretty much responds to the rest of your post, if you really want to continue this particular discussion. But its so far outside of the actual hypothetical tabletop environment that started this example that this would just be for its own sake.

I find it difficult to believe your program accounts for things like movement on the grid, fighting defensively, using any or all of its SLA's, etc. What about tripping, awesome blow, various degrees of PA use? Does it, in fact, do anything at all except calculate to hit vs AC and damage with the associated effects? Though, of course, randomizing all of these factors goes well beyond even sub-optimal effort.

If we can get volunteers to operate those warriors, I'm willing to run the maruts. The only caveat I demand is -no- spellcasting of any kind be allowed for the warriors. That is, after all, my point; non-casters cannot survive at high levels without magical gear. SotAO paladins and mystic rangers are, after all, quite potent. Oh, and no leadership, naturally. Armies are also quite a bit more potent than individual or even small groups of creatures.

[Dire Panda]

I haven't seen this trick mentioned yet, so here's an option for campaigns where even small-scale Magic Marts wouldn't be thematically appropriate.

Suggesting longer periods of downtime between adventures is inevitably met with accusations of "favoring the casters." Well, let me point out a nifty item from Races of Stone that allows mundanes to be productive during downtime: the Forge of Thautam allows any dwarf to craft magic weapons and armor as though he had the appropriate feat.

Well, what if there's no dwarf in the party? Using the DMG's suggestion of a 30% price reduction for an item that only works in the hands of a specific race or class, an equal-opportunity version of the forge should cost around 21,500gp - pricey but hardly out of the question for an 8th level party of four, which is around the point where the insurmountable challenges start to appear for naked characters.

With this (and possibly a similar forge which grants Craft Wondrous Item), the Magic Mart can be almost entirely replaced by longer downtime periods. In my current post-apocalyptic campaign, magic items are generally too precious to trade for mere coin. However, months or even years might pass between adventures, giving the PCs a chance to customize their equipment - and work on rebuilding civilization - before the next problem big enough to require their direct intervention crops up.

[NichG]

If we can get volunteers to operate those warriors, I'm willing to run the maruts. The only caveat I demand is -no- spellcasting of any kind be allowed for the warriors. That is, after all, my point; non-casters cannot survive at high levels without magical gear. SotAO paladins and mystic rangers are, after all, quite potent. Oh, and no leadership, naturally. Armies are also quite a bit more potent than individual or even small groups of creatures.

Okay, I'll start the thread and we'll see what happens. Edit: Thread is called 'Inevitable Demise: ...'

[Jon_Dahl]

TBH I'm just waiting for this thread to die since it reminds me of the error I made... I'm disappointed to still see on the front page.

[Coidzor]

TBH I'm just waiting for this thread to die since it reminds me of the error I made... I'm disappointed to still see on the front page.

And to think, we were waiting with bated breath for you to come back and clarify a few things. :/

[Kelb_Panthera]

Okay, I'll start the thread and we'll see what happens. Edit: Thread is called 'Inevitable Demise: ...'

Here's a link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=330577) for anyone that would like to follow along with that.

[chaos_redefined]

Actually the point of contention for me personally is not that he's not using magic marts. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that approach if done right. Ridiculously convenient access to magic items where every shop has the MIC as its mail order catalogue can come off as somewhat contrived. I think restricting the trade of magic items is going a bit far and the in game explanation of such is also a little contrived.

But the bugbear in the room is that his characters find that the bright side of their characters dying is getting new gear and the DM wants to fix that. Ignoring that this is a red flag that the DM is playing more for his own enjoyment than his players his proposed "solution" is to start everyone off with randomly generated gear. Which is just a bridge too far by my standards.

Umm... That's kinda what I said. Point #2 was that the players thought of dying as a good thing, and point #3 was that this meant the players weren't having fun.

Put simply, magic marts aren't a good thing or a bad thing. They are just a thing. If that thing is making the game better for you and your players, then, in that particular case, they are a good thing. If that thing is making the game worse for you and your players, then, in that particular case, they are a bad thing. If they are making the game better for you, and worse for your players, then you need to come up with a compromise. Similarly, if they are making the game worse for you, and better for your players, then you need to come up with a compromise.

This is a group effort, and requires some compromise to allow everyone to have fun. Telling your players that you will decide how they have fun can easily result in your players not wanting to play with you.

[Rejusu]

I was just clarifying that it wasn't about the magic marts for me, it was about the random gear at character creation.

Are you still here OP? Please tell me you haven't decided on giving your characters random gear.

[Jon_Dahl]

Are you still here OP? Please tell me you haven't decided on giving your characters random gear.

Yes, I am.
I haven't decided to do that. Instead, I will have some form of voting before my next campaign. I will present a series of house rules and everyone can vote "yes", "no", "no - I won't play with this rule" and "undecided". I will also present the model suggested by Fouredged Sword (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16941324&postcount2=37). I will try to persuade the players that it's something that should be added to the game.

[SiuiS]

And you're forgetting that the OA Samurai isn't much better, being around on the same level as Paladin and Monk.

Of those listed, only the monk has issues of 'not interfacing well with game ever'. Unless you have objective proof that all games will be constructed by all DMs such that all items must be on the table for anyone to get anywhere – and you don't – then no one cares that you think the OA samurai is teh weakness. It solves the problem. It is literally as valuable as the fighter. If we are arguing over ways to not punish fighters, and your response to 'be a magical fighter' is that fighters were never a valid choice to begin with, them you've not been talking in good faith this entire time, you're just spouting vitriol.



What? All your parties have crafty casters or artificers? That's still pigeon-holing one person into a role which was the problem I was getting at.


Yes, in every game I've ever played, there is always a PC, a friendly NPC or an associate of. Friendly NPC that has an item creation feat somewhere in the game world we can contact. A social network isn't pigeonholing.



Oh yes, this is clearly a much better argument. Let's have the martial characters who rely heavily on feats have to waste them to shore up weaknesses that could normally be solved by gold. While the casters laugh and spend their feats on metamagic like they normally do. A very nice argument.

You're failing logic here.
1) there is no wasting a feat unless you play as you do; the billion damage attack that never hits isn't relevant. The awesome powerful feat that never hits isn't relevant. The cool spell never cast isn't relevant. Infrastructure to make those things happen? Like the "wasted" feats you're so tore up about? Aren't a waste.
2) if the game falls apart because a player is an ass ("while the casters laugh"), that has nothing to do with money and everything to do with being an ass.



How is it subject to DM fiat? How is it not?

Quote the part where I ask this question and I'll give it credence.
Otherwise leave the straw men at home.



You're trying to answer a question with a question.

I'm using basic rhetorical devices. That's not hard to grasp.


I never said the Wizard needs more spell slots, he just needs them more than a Barbarian needs a higher int score.

Neither of them need it but this guy doesn't need it more, so it's obviously going to go to him regardless of any context?



Do you know what the Stormwind fallacy is? Have you never played a rogue or any other kind of skill monkey class?

See! You do know basic rhetoric! Now assume I do too, Nd we'll be fine. :)

The Stormwind fallacy is that Roleplay and optimization are mutual exclusive... Which doesn't apply to "I am choosing to do something suboptimal because I already exceed the threshold for success and it fits my concept".

[Rejusu]

Of those listed, only the monk has issues of 'not interfacing well with game ever'. Unless you have objective proof that all games will be constructed by all DMs such that all items must be on the table for anyone to get anywhere – and you don't – then no one cares that you think the OA samurai is teh weakness. It solves the problem. It is literally as valuable as the fighter. If we are arguing over ways to not punish fighters, and your response to 'be a magical fighter' is that fighters were never a valid choice to begin with, them you've not been talking in good faith this entire time, you're just spouting vitriol.

Your entire argument is still an oberoni fallacy and you've done nothing to address that. As I said before, it doesn't matter how you try and "fix" the problem when you haven't addressed why it should even be a problem. Also I'm confused as to if you've even read the class you keep harping on about. A samurai is literally a fighter with less flexibility, explain to me how that makes them as valuable again?

What they gain over the fighter is a better will save and more skill points, they also start with a couple of masterwork weapons. That's literally the only advantages they get. As for what they give up? Heavy armour and shield proficiency and THREE feats (Samurai has eight including ancestral weapon compared to the fighters eleven). What's more they're stuck selecting those lists from a pitiful subset of feats which even if you considered all the clans selections together are less than the fighters available options. And the cherry on the cake is you get slapped with a code of conduct that a DM can use to strip you of your class features. Plus there's the fact that fighters have several attractive variants which the samurai simply lacks.

A fighter with ancestral relic is a better samurai than the samurai. He has armour proficiencies befitting a front line fighter, isn't limited in his weapon selection. Has a far greater selection when it comes to bonus feats (and more of them) and doesn't lose all his class features if he dishonours himself or loses his shiny sword. Also variants. Of course a fighter with access to magic items is even better because then he doesn't have burn a feat on Ancestral relic.

This is besides the point anyway. You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that the only mundane characters are the ones at the bottom of the pile. Ever considered the existence of Barbarians? Rogues? Swordsages? Why would I play a samurai when there are many more valid choices available.


Yes, in every game I've ever played, there is always a PC, a friendly NPC or an associate of. Friendly NPC that has an item creation feat somewhere in the game world we can contact. A social network isn't pigeonholing.

You seem to forget that the argument taking place is in the context of this game, where your social network doesn't exist.


You're failing logic here.
1) there is no wasting a feat unless you play as you do; the billion damage attack that never hits isn't relevant. The awesome powerful feat that never hits isn't relevant. The cool spell never cast isn't relevant. Infrastructure to make those things happen? Like the "wasted" feats you're so tore up about? Aren't a waste.
2) if the game falls apart because a player is an ass ("while the casters laugh"), that has nothing to do with money and everything to do with being an ass.

I think you'd have to understand logic yourself before you're qualified to grade others on it. It's a waste not because it's not useful, it's a waste because it shouldn't be required in the first place. If you break my table you can't argue that the money I spent fixing it wasn't wasted because now I have a working table again. It was wasted because I would have never had to spend that money if you hadn't broken it to begin with.

Paying any cost that provides no benefit over your current situation and that can be avoided is a waste.

You seem to have trouble understanding figurative speech. I don't mean that those playing casters are literally going to laugh in the other players faces. It's nothing to do with anyone being an ass, unless you consider the act of merely playing a caster being an ass. The point was that this kind of scenario restricts the feat selection of martial combatants while leaving casters free to build as they normally do. Hence they are "laughing". Not literally.


Quote the part where I ask this question and I'll give it credence.
Otherwise leave the straw men at home.

You also have trouble understanding paraphrasing.


I am also not sure what the problem with DM fiat is.

You asked what the problem was, I explained it. Calling it a straw man over a quibble with how I phrased it is the real straw man here.


I'm using basic rhetorical devices. That's not hard to grasp.

You're using them where they don't provide an appropriate answer. That's not hard to grasp.


Neither of them need it but this guy doesn't need it more, so it's obviously going to go to him regardless of any context?

Oh hey, finally you get that "need" is measured in degrees, and that it's not a binary concept. But since you're going to pick at this example until the end of time anyway I'll give you another to chew on. If two headbands of intellects drop who benefits more? Who loses out by not getting the items that benefit them?


See! You do know basic rhetoric! Now assume I do too, Nd we'll be fine. :)

That would be a rather foolish assumption for me to make given that you've demonstrated otherwise. About all I can safely assume is that you're aware of the concept. I can't assume you know how to use it until you can make a valid point with it.


The Stormwind fallacy is that Roleplay and optimization are mutual exclusive... Which doesn't apply to "I am choosing to do something suboptimal because I already exceed the threshold for success and it fits my concept".

It does apply because in this scenario (try to stay on track and stop stepping outside the scope of the argument, you've already done this once) it's not a choice. You are not choosing to be sub optimal by spending your barbarians WBL on a headband of intellect. That's what the random table has given you. If it was your choice then you'd have a point. As it's not you don't, so Stormwind fallacy applies.

[NichG]

Stormwind fallacy is about selection bias that creates spurious apparent statistical correlations in a pool of players - the idea that even if optimization skill and roleplay skill are inherently uncorrelated, they will appear to be negatively correlated if you exclude the set of players who are bad at both and choose not to play tabletop RPGs. Or more simply, just because someone is good at optimization doesn't mean they have to be bad at roleplay, or vice versa.

Its not about whether or not specific in-game choices are good roleplay or not.

Choosing the give up that Headband of Intellect +2 may in fact be 'bad roleplay' for a specific character at a specific circumstance, even if its an optimal choice. It depends on the character and the circumstance. Its on the player if they've chosen to make a character for which giving up that item would be strongly against-character, and doing so probably wasn't a great idea for metagame reasons, but it has nothing to do with Stormwind.

[Rejusu]

No the fallacy is claiming that the two are mutually exclusive. From the original post:


Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

In fact this claim:


Choosing the give up that Headband of Intellect +2 may in fact be 'bad roleplay' for a specific character at a specific circumstance, even if its an optimal choice.

Is also committing the Stormwind fallacy.

[Defiled Cross]

I generally like running low-magic campaigns, owing to the straight-forward and concise needs of both my group, as well as my sanity. :smallwink:

Magic weapons, armors, and items are generally used as a landmark; the signifcation of overcoming some great obstacle.

You know..

..like those gold stars we got in grade school.

:smallbiggrin:

[Suddo]

I agree with the concept of letting the player pick a bunch of items out and the roll which ones they get. Give them a Total WBL for all items (like double) then roll until they have about WBL in gear. Give the remainder in potions/scrolls and such and you are good.

[NichG]

No the fallacy is claiming that the two are mutually exclusive. From the original post:


You do realize that that is actually a weaker claim than the version I just presented, right?

[Eldest]

Yes, I am.
I haven't decided to do that. Instead, I will have some form of voting before my next campaign. I will present a series of house rules and everyone can vote "yes", "no", "no - I won't play with this rule" and "undecided". I will also present the model suggested by Fouredged Sword (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16941324&postcount2=37). I will try to persuade the players that it's something that should be added to the game.

For what it's worth, I approve that you decided to talk to your players about it. Sadly rare, from my experiences. :smallsmile:

[Kelb_Panthera]

In fact this claim:



Is also committing the Stormwind fallacy.

I disagree. Someone -may- make a suboptimal choice based on the roleplaying parameters he's set for his character. For it to be a stormwind invocation it would need to say he definitely -would- make the suboptimal choice.

As you noted, roleplaying and optimization are -not- mutually exclusive but neither do they have a fixed correlation.

A given player can be good at both, neither, one, or the other but the choices that player makes regarding either will often be interrelated in some subjective way.

[Clistenes]

SotAO paladins and mystic rangers are, after all, quite potent.

I have never used that feat. What happens if you roleplay a Cleric/Prestige Paladin who takes that feat? Are you able to prepare Wizard spells from levels 0 to 4 in your Cleric spell slots? Or you aren't able to take the feat at all?

[Vogonjeltz]

Honestly I think the best approach to having a setting without convenient magic suppliers is just to give your players loot that they can make use of. Sure they may never get exactly what they want but if you pick smart it should be useful to them. As for where the loot comes from? Tombs, dragon lairs, kings bounties, farmers with old keepsakes passed down that they don't even know are special. Be creative. Just because a +7 vorpal longsword costs more than a country doesn't mean any one has to know it's true value.

The MIC has valuable advice.

1) there are no actual magic marts except, possibly, in a planar metropolis.
2) spending a lot of time hand picking (or even randomly picking) items for characters is a boondoggle. Players will almost certainly not appreciate the same things you the DM do, and may vendor that "perfect" item asap.

Paraphrased of course.

For my money the easiest way to obviate this is to give players options. Sure, there will be treasure, but if they want specific items, let them engage in activities to acquire or make those items!

Ie gather information checks to locate the thing they want to buy (or steal!); or to locate the master crafters needed for fashioning said items.

Want that +1 Dragonbane Long Spear? Track down the best blacksmith (who for story purposes is so good he can make magical weaponry) ala the movie Dragonslayer.

[Rejusu]

I disagree. Someone -may- make a suboptimal choice based on the roleplaying parameters he's set for his character. For it to be a stormwind invocation it would need to say he definitely -would- make the suboptimal choice.

As you noted, roleplaying and optimization are -not- mutually exclusive but neither do they have a fixed correlation.

Yes a player may make a sub optimal choice for the purposes of roleplay and this would not constitute the fallacy. However implying that a player might make the sub optimal choice because choosing optimally would be "bad roleplay" is the fallacy to a tee. Saying that roleplay precludes rollplay or vice versa is what the fallacy is all about.



2) spending a lot of time hand picking (or even randomly picking) items for characters is a boondoggle. Players will almost certainly not appreciate the same things you the DM do, and may vendor that "perfect" item asap.


I think that if you've handpicked items for your players and their first reaction is to turn around and sell them then either they're really bad at playing or you're really bad at picking. Probably gave them a trident of fish command. :smalltongue:

[NichG]

Yes a player may make a sub optimal choice for the purposes of roleplay and this would not constitute the fallacy. However implying that a player might make the sub optimal choice because choosing optimally would be "bad roleplay" is the fallacy to a tee. Saying that roleplay precludes rollplay or vice versa is what the fallacy is all about.


The fallacy is about the players, not the game. It also, in the version you speak of, only ever talks about extremes. In the version as written in Stormwind's post, all it says is that being both a good roleplayer and a good optimizer is not excluded from possibility. That would still be consistent with, for example, there not existing a single person to fit that bill on the planet Earth. Its a very weak claim actually.

But even if we pretend its a strong claim, it says nothing at all about specific in-game situations. As a DM, it is in fact always possible to construct a situation that requires a player to choose whether to favor optimality or roleplay. This doesn't speak at all to the player's skill at either or both, it speaks to the possibility of there to be a conflict - and such a conflict may always be constructed.

For example, if someone says 'I am playing someone who hates elves', an I create a situation 'this elf wants to give you 10gp to fetch him a beer - do you accept?' then, at a very minor level, you have to make a choice between roleplay (10gp isn't that much wealth and you really hate elves) and optimization (10gp is greater than 0gp).

Someone can be 'good at something' and still decide to make a choice that does not favor it. This isn't an inconsistency. You can know how to optimize both ranged and melee combat, but for a specific character decide that melee is more important and neglect ranged - that doesn't make you bad at optimizing ranged, it makes you capable of making a choice where and when to apply your skills based on the situation.

[Coidzor]

I have never used that feat. What happens if you roleplay a Cleric/Prestige Paladin who takes that feat? Are you able to prepare Wizard spells from levels 0 to 4 in your Cleric spell slots? Or you aren't able to take the feat at all?

I believe the feat fairly specifically references the base classes in its prerequisites, but... IIRC, the Prestigious classes are supposed to replace the base classes entirely. It also references those classes' spell slots which might bork up the cleric or druid spell slots angle, but X class spell slots aren't well defined(or was it defined at all?), so IIRC, it could be arguable(whee).

Anyway, even if it *is* kosher, that's still, what Cleric 6/PrC Paladin 4 before one is eligible and Cleric 6/PrC Paladin 4/X 2 before they can grab the feat, which at best gives 10 levels of Cleric casting for 5th level cleric spells and 4th level Wizard spells, which isn't too shabby, I suppose. Or I guess Cleric 4/Full BAB 1/ PrC Paladin 4, which gives a 9th level character with 6 levels of casting access to 3rd level spells from the Cleric and Wizard list.

Pretty much the same deal for anyone entering PrC Ranger.

Losing 2-3 levels of casting for a lesser version of Mystic Theurge for a feat and 4 levels being locked in... Seems survivable but definitely a tradeoff.

An Archivist-gish and getting the not normally available to Clerics buffs that way seems like it would be more straightforward.

[Clistenes]

I believe the feat fairly specifically references the base classes in its prerequisites, but... IIRC, the Prestigious classes are supposed to replace the base classes entirely. It also references those classes' spell slots which might bork up the cleric or druid spell slots angle, but X class spell slots aren't well defined(or was it defined at all?), so IIRC, it could be arguable(whee).

Anyway, even if it *is* kosher, that's still, what Cleric 6/PrC Paladin 4 before one is eligible and Cleric 6/PrC Paladin 4/X 2 before they can grab the feat, which at best gives 10 levels of Cleric casting for 5th level cleric spells and 4th level Wizard spells, which isn't too shabby, I suppose. Or I guess Cleric 4/Full BAB 1/ PrC Paladin 4, which gives a 9th level character with 6 levels of casting access to 3rd level spells from the Cleric and Wizard list.

Pretty much the same deal for anyone entering PrC Ranger.

Losing 2-3 levels of casting for a lesser version of Mystic Theurge for a feat and 4 levels being locked in... Seems survivable but definitely a tradeoff.

An Archivist-gish and getting the not normally available to Clerics buffs that way seems like it would be more straightforward.

Thanks for your answer.

[Telok]

I think that if you've handpicked items for your players and their first reaction is to turn around and sell them then either they're really bad at playing or you're really bad at picking. Probably gave them a trident of fish command. :smalltongue:

Eh, I gave my playera a Keen + Ghost Touch short sword and a Necklace of Natural Armor +2 that cast Neutralize Poison onece a day at level 5. They sold them as soon as they could to buy +2 armors for a couple people. Then they hit the dungeon with the Violet Fungi and Wraiths.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I have never used that feat. What happens if you roleplay a Cleric/Prestige Paladin who takes that feat? Are you able to prepare Wizard spells from levels 0 to 4 in your Cleric spell slots? Or you aren't able to take the feat at all?

DM call.

The feat and the prestigious class variants weren't written with one another in mind. How they interact, if at all, is a function of the DM making a ruling. It's basically the same question of how SotAO and battle blessing interact.


Yes a player may make a sub optimal choice for the purposes of roleplay and this would not constitute the fallacy. However implying that a player might make the sub optimal choice because choosing optimally would be "bad roleplay" is the fallacy to a tee. Saying that roleplay precludes rollplay or vice versa is what the fallacy is all about.

If, in that particular instance, making the optimal choice would go against the motives and/or beliefs of the character, as the player has defined them, strongly enough that it would be completely unbelievable then it is, in fact, bad roleplaying. Always making the suboptimal choice because "it would be bad roleplaying, otherwise" is engaging the fallacy. Any particular instance, if properly justified in-character, is not.




I think that if you've handpicked items for your players and their first reaction is to turn around and sell them then either they're really bad at playing or you're really bad at picking. Probably gave them a trident of fish command. :smalltongue:

I think that if you've handpicked items for your players then it's rather unlikely that you would -allow- them to turn around and sell them. The players choosing to do so, if you do allow it, isn't bad playing, it's telling you to stop trying to control their characters.

[NichG]

So, the random gear thing is particularly interesting to me in part because there's actually a game system where it's the core mechanic. The game 'Numenera' basically has characters that, while they have a handful of powers on their own, they also basically have a guarantee that at any given time they have 4-6 powerful, single-use items on their person. There's a mechanic by which these items react to each others' presence, so you can't carry more than 6 at a time. Similarly, pretty much every encounter in the book can be harvested for a handful of them (randomly chosen), so you can very quickly replace lost ones.

I think its an elegant way to keep the players thinking more about 'what do I do in this situation?' rather than 'how do I build ahead for the situations I might face?'. Obviously its a different game system, so what characters are expected to deal with is different too.

[georgie_leech]

Eh, I gave my playera a Keen + Ghost Touch short sword and a Necklace of Natural Armor +2 that cast Neutralize Poison onece a day at level 5. They sold them as soon as they could to buy +2 armors for a couple people. Then they hit the dungeon with the Violet Fungi and Wraiths.

As Undead, Keen is useless against wraiths regardless of Ghost Touch. /MissingThePoint

[Rejusu]

But even if we pretend its a strong claim, it says nothing at all about specific in-game situations. As a DM, it is in fact always possible to construct a situation that requires a player to choose whether to favor optimality or roleplay. This doesn't speak at all to the player's skill at either or both, it speaks to the possibility of there to be a conflict - and such a conflict may always be constructed.

For example, if someone says 'I am playing someone who hates elves', an I create a situation 'this elf wants to give you 10gp to fetch him a beer - do you accept?' then, at a very minor level, you have to make a choice between roleplay (10gp isn't that much wealth and you really hate elves) and optimization (10gp is greater than 0gp).

I disagree. A DM can certainly try to engineer a situation where roleplay and optimisation clash but it is always possible for a creative roleplayer to work around it. They may choose not to of course but they nearly always have a choice. Roleplaying is such a flexible medium after all. When a DM tries to give you a binary choice simply take a third option.

And your example is rather weak. My elf hating character would take his gold, buy his beer, and spit in it. I'm ten gold richer, the elf ten gold poorer, and they're ingesting my bodily fluids. My character gets the money without stepping outside the parameters set. Alternate actions (depending on personality, abilities, and alignment) would be to "accidentally" spill the drink on him, replace the spit with poison, taking his money and leaving, killing him for the rest of his money, charming/dominating him, intimidating him, or conning him out of more money. After all he's obviously loaded of he's paying 10gp for a beer and since my character hates elves he'd have no qualms fleecing him for all he's worth.


Someone can be 'good at something' and still decide to make a choice that does not favor it. This isn't an inconsistency. You can know how to optimize both ranged and melee combat, but for a specific character decide that melee is more important and neglect ranged - that doesn't make you bad at optimizing ranged, it makes you capable of making a choice where and when to apply your skills based on the situation.

This example doesn't support your argument. Unlike roleplaying vs optimisation optimising for ranged vs melee IS mutually exclusive. Because you're dealing with limited resources choosing to optimise one impacts the other. Try to optimise both and you end up sub optimal overall. Unlike a situation where roleplaying and optimisation clash you are always forced to make a choice because you don't have the resources to do otherwise. It's not as flexible a system so you can't simply take a third option.

At any rate I feel we're getting rather far from the original argument now. As for that other system you mentioned it's interesting but I must point out that it was designed to work that way. 3.5 was not.


If, in that particular instance, making the optimal choice would go against the motives and/or beliefs of the character, as the player has defined them, strongly enough that it would be completely unbelievable then it is, in fact, bad roleplaying. Always making the suboptimal choice because "it would be bad roleplaying, otherwise" is engaging the fallacy. Any particular instance, if properly justified in-character, is not.

Disagree. As above. A creative player can nearly always find a third option. They don't have to make the optimal choice of course, but the choice is there and that's what's important. But if the DM is going to so much trouble to force the choice then I'd argue that the DM is deliberately trying to invoke the fallacy. If a DM is attempting to make optimisation and roleplaying mutually exclusive then that's a pretty clear invocation.


I think that if you've handpicked items for your players then it's rather unlikely that you would -allow- them to turn around and sell them. The players choosing to do so, if you do allow it, isn't bad playing, it's telling you to stop trying to control their characters.

I wasn't aware that having monsters drop loot constituted controlling their characters but whatever. You make it sound like I'm dictating what they should do with the treasure I put out for them.

[Yogibear41]

2 Options when they die:

#1. there buddy gets them raised, and life goes on

#2. they start a new character at level 1

[NichG]

I disagree. A DM can certainly try to engineer a situation where roleplay and optimisation clash but it is always possible for a creative roleplayer to work around it. They may choose not to of course but they nearly always have a choice. Roleplaying is such a flexible medium after all. When a DM tries to give you a binary choice simply take a third option.

And your example is rather weak. My elf hating character would take his gold, buy his beer, and spit in it. I'm ten gold richer, the elf ten gold poorer, and they're ingesting my bodily fluids. My character gets the money without stepping outside the parameters set. Alternate actions (depending on personality, abilities, and alignment) would be to "accidentally" spill the drink on him, replace the spit with poison, taking his money and leaving, killing him for the rest of his money, charming/dominating him, intimidating him, or conning him out of more money. After all he's obviously loaded of he's paying 10gp for a beer and since my character hates elves he'd have no qualms fleecing him for all he's worth.


While many of these do in fact satisfy the roleplay criterion, I'd argue that they're actually very suboptimal choices. Killing him or poisoning him basically ends up getting the law after you and causing all sorts of havoc you have to deal with for no real profit - hardly 'optimal'. Intimidating him basically doesn't really get you anything either. Spilling the drink means you don't get the gold. Charming/dominating him means you're wasting a spell slot for 10gp - you could have gotten more money by selling your spellcasting services with that slot!

The problem is that once you bring in the idea of optimization, that means you're assigning an ordering to possible actions based on their outcome. Aside from specific cases where there are degenerate options, that means there is a single 'best' option, which is the option at the top of that list.

Choosing any option other than that option is 'sacrificing' a little bit of optimality.

Of course, there is always the question of 'what are you optimizing'. You could optimize the degree to which your roleplay is entertaining, which means, sure, go ahead and poison the elf with a love potion and arrange for someone to mistakenly deliver a pig to the bar just about then, trading the 10gp + cost of potion + cost of pig for the entertainment value. In that sense, you are applying an optimizing principle and roleplaying at the same time. However, that is not what is generally meant by Stormwind, which refers to 'competency' or 'mechanical optimization', not the idea of 'just trying to do something as well as you possibly can'.



This example doesn't support your argument. Unlike roleplaying vs optimisation optimising for ranged vs melee IS mutually exclusive. Because you're dealing with limited resources choosing to optimise one impacts the other.

Screen time is a resource. Action economy is a resource. You're never in a situation where there isn't some limit on your 'resources' that you can put towards a various task. If you chat with your character's romantic interest for 20 minutes of table time, the DM probably won't let you spend another 20 minutes going off on your own to rob some local merchants. There are always tradeoffs.



Disagree. As above. A creative player can nearly always find a third option.They don't have to make the optimal choice of course, but the choice is there and that's what's important. But if the DM is going to so much trouble to force the choice then I'd argue that the DM is deliberately trying to invoke the fallacy. If a DM is attempting to make optimisation and roleplaying mutually exclusive then that's a pretty clear invocation.


If the fallacy as you're interpreting it actually is a fallacy (and I'd argue you're not actually talking about the same thing as the original Stormwind quote anymore) then that means that it should be impossible for the DM to succeed, whether or not they try. But in practice, yes, a DM can create tension between all sorts of different motivations. Those motivations could be different in-character motivations, or different IC/OOC motivations. Those tensions are a tool to see what someone really values when it comes down to the line - in other words, used for IC things its a very useful way to improve character definition and bring on character growth.

With the 10gp elf, I'd say its somewhat of a litmus test. The way someone reacts to an irrelevancy can be very telling about how they're going to react when there are more strenuous tests later on.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Disagree. As above. A creative player can nearly always find a third option. They don't have to make the optimal choice of course, but the choice is there and that's what's important. But if the DM is going to so much trouble to force the choice then I'd argue that the DM is deliberately trying to invoke the fallacy. If a DM is attempting to make optimisation and roleplaying mutually exclusive then that's a pretty clear invocation.

A third option isn't the optimal option. Good roleplaying -can- dictate that the most optimal option isn't an option you can choose. It doesn't always do so but it -sometimes- does. The reverse is just as true. Sometimes choosing the most optimal action goes against everything the character stands for, as the player has defined it, and in that circumstance taking the optimal action -is- bad roleplaying unless there are mitigating circumstances.

Stormwind is about absolutes. It's presuming that good roleplaying -always- demands making a suboptimal choice or that good optimizing -always- precludes good roleplaying.




I wasn't aware that having monsters drop loot constituted controlling their characters but whatever. You make it sound like I'm dictating what they should do with the treasure I put out for them.

That's not picking the characters' equipment, it's choosing what's available to them. Big difference, that. I seem to have been the victim of miscommunication. My bad.

Even so, their choosing to dump those items for cash to use as they see fit, within whatever constraints you place against them, isn't bad playing. It's their loot, it's their choice.

[justiceforall]

I'm not really sure I want to weigh into this tarpit, but I've run this both ways, generic 3.x with magic marts, and my long running campaign world which has nothing of the sort.

When the magic mart is available in a game, my players use it. In my campaign world where there is none available (and magic items are generally rarer than 3.x has an expectation of), the players simply adapt. There's no whining, or hating. The players often alter their character direction mechanically to take advantage of the magic items they find. Their character ends up going directions they didn't anticipate, and they enjoy the game more as a result since the journey has an unknown destination.

I'm aware my players don't sound like most of the people who frequent this board (indeed, most of my players would never visit a forum for purposes of building a character).

[Kelb_Panthera]

@ Justiceforall:

What levels do you and your group generally play at?

[Theomniadept]

The idea of a magic mart might not be that realistic but as a DM you shouldn't immediately just roll random magic items available in a city.

Assuming that adventurers would follow logical dominant strategies it wouldn't be strange for a wizard to decide to get rich off of making magic items.Items of increased attributes, cloaks/vests of resistance, Healing Belts, Magic Bedrolls, Everlasting Rations, mithril chain shirts (nonmagical but still the best armor for a lot of classes); these items are very common for players to buy and would sell quickly depending on the strength of the enchantment and size of the city. For items that would benefit only someone looking for a specific bonus the players could easily commission the item, and if the spell required is one that wouldn't be normally found in such an area they may incur a research cost for a wizard to learn said spell.

It wouldn't be a 'magic-mart' but it would still be a very believable system. Don't try to nullify the players' options, the most you'll do is hurt non-caster classes and thus reinforce magic supremacy.

[justiceforall]

@ Justiceforall:

What levels do you and your group generally play at?

We pretty much always start at 1st, but we do play through to higher levels. We've never reached towards 20th, games don't last that long. I think our highest was 15th?

The group in my longer running game (the one with no magic marts) are currently 9th-13th level. The game has had approximately 10 players throughout its lifespan, and no-one has ever objected to the lack of magic marts. One ex-player did constantly complain he did not receive a specific magic item (which magic mart would have solved).

EDIT:


Don't try to nullify the players' options, the most you'll do is hurt non-caster classes and thus reinforce magic supremacy.

In case it matters for the purposes of discussion, the remaining members of the group I run for consists of a Fighter/Paladin, a Ranger, a Fighter/Ranger, and a Bard (none of whom use any ACFs). The only relevant house-rule in effect is that the Paladin's mount doesn't get summoned - it's a normal horse that gets the appropriate bonuses.

[Theomniadept]

True, but the bard's got much more than the others by virtue of superior magic. Let them have their magic items, most players don't want a +10 weapon when they could instead get things like a spool of endless rope or rider's boots or something like that.

[Kelb_Panthera]

We pretty much always start at 1st, but we do play through to higher levels. We've never reached towards 20th, games don't last that long. I think our highest was 15th?

The group in my longer running game (the one with no magic marts) are currently 9th-13th level. The game has had approximately 10 players throughout its lifespan, and no-one has ever objected to the lack of magic marts. One ex-player did constantly complain he did not receive a specific magic item (which magic mart would have solved).

I'm not surprised by this. Your longer running game should be -just- getting to the point where a lack of equipment is going to start making what should otherwise be trivial challenges challenging and what should be only challenging deadly.

It should already be showing in the CR's of the creatures you're using unless you're deliberately avoiding creatures that attack their vulnerabilities.

The problem is a scaling one. It becomes increasingly prominent and problematic as level increases and it -can- be overcome by casters -supporting- the non-casters. If your mundane players are okay with being carried by your caster players then it's not a problem for your group but that doesn't mean it's not a problem that exists.


EDIT:

In case it matters for the purposes of discussion, the remaining members of the group I run for consists of a Fighter/Paladin, a Ranger, a Fighter/Ranger, and a Bard (none of whom use any ACFs). The only relevant house-rule in effect is that the Paladin's mount doesn't get summoned - it's a normal horse that gets the appropriate bonuses.

A bard is a very solid replacement for magic items. Its buffs and spells can go a -long- way toward overcoming that handicap. What do his/her typical actions in combat look like?

[justiceforall]

It doesn't bother my three other players though.

The most rules-intensive player (the fighter-ranger) recently observed that he needed a magic weapon - largely because he'd met more than one encounter with incorporeals involved and he couldn't hurt them. His observation wasn't "@#$#, there's no magic mart", it was "who can I go to in order to get my weapon enchanted and what will they ask for in return". He then decided he was going to seek out a cleric from the church he hated least to ask if they would do it for him, since he doesn't trust wizards even more than he doesn't trust clerics.

He's aware he's not simply going to be able to hand over some cash and get a magic weapon. He's expecting that *if* they will do it for him, he's going to have to do something for them (free adventure hook). But he's literally the only one to ever even ask for something more than a potion/scroll.

If it helps any of you old timers - the world this game takes place in has several hangovers from 2nd edition magic item structures (since that was where the world originally started). Eg: making a magic item is a large, complex undertaking, you can't just take a feat and make an item, the DM generally imposes a quest or oddball ingredients/etc. Our other games are much more true to the 3.x expectations.

[justiceforall]

True, but the bard's got much more than the others by virtue of superior magic. Let them have their magic items, most players don't want a +10 weapon when they could instead get things like a spool of endless rope or rider's boots or something like that.

Sorry - my post above was in response to this quote - but I got ninja'd.


I'm not surprised by this. Your longer running game should be -just- getting to the point where a lack of equipment is going to start making what should otherwise be trivial challenges challenging and what should be only challenging deadly.

It should already be showing in the CR's of the creatures you're using unless you're deliberately avoiding creatures that attack their vulnerabilities.

It was showing a long time ago, but I do not believe that's not the lack of a magic mart. Something I've noticed is missing in this thread - how many of you actually play with four 25 point characters, which are a rogue, a fighter, a healer-cleric and a blaster-wizard (eg: the expected part for the CR system)? What do CR's actually matter when you are playing optimised character with 30+ point builds? Do you simply throw CRs four times higher than normal? Conventional wisdom on this board is that reasonably optimised characters trivialise the CR system no?

So your players don't have the perfect magic items required - can't you just use lower CRs? The fight with the Brown Bear was intense in part because the player was poorly equipped to deal with it. The player still enjoyed the challenge - does it matter if it was harder than anticipated?

It's one of the reasons I decided against my better judgement to put my two cp on here - I kept reading the argument that "no magic mart breaks the game" because you can't defeat the challenges presented. This seems totally counter to the fact that many groups appear to smash the CR system as presented before they've even got near the wealth curve.

I'll accept the argument that it annoys some players to not have a magic mart - that's a matter of preference. But the argument that it breaks the game just seems to be a vast oversimplification of something a little movement on the CRs used could solve?

(Kelb just for reference - I'm not suggesting that *YOU* hold the views I just presented - I'm noting something I've observed through the rest of the thread. I'm merely responding to you directly since you did the same for me)

[Kelb_Panthera]

It was showing a long time ago, but I do not believe that's not the lack of a magic mart. Something I've noticed is missing in this thread - how many of you actually play with four 25 point characters, which are a rogue, a fighter, a healer-cleric and a blaster-wizard (eg: the expected part for the CR system)? What do CR's actually matter when you are playing optimised character with 30+ point builds? Do you simply throw CRs four times higher than normal? Conventional wisdom on this board is that reasonably optimised characters trivialise the CR system no?

So your players don't have the perfect magic items required - can't you just use lower CRs? The fight with the Brown Bear was intense in part because the player was poorly equipped to deal with it. The player still enjoyed the challenge - does it matter if it was harder than anticipated?

Oberroni. The ability to fix the problem doesn't mean there isn't a problem. I'm quite happy for you that your game is running smoothly but you cannot deny that it is doing so, in part, because you are compensating for the change you made; removing the ability to readily acquire magic items; by making further chances; reducing the CR of challenges, using creatures that play to the party's strengths and avoiding those that target their weaknesses, etc.

That is entirely my point. If all you do is randomize -all- magic item acquisition and do nothing to compensate, the game becomes empirically more and more difficult as the the party's levels progress.




It's one of the reasons I decided against my better judgement to put my two cp on here - I kept reading the argument that "no magic mart breaks the game" because you can't defeat the challenges presented. This seems totally counter to the fact that many groups appear to smash the CR system as presented before they've even got near the wealth curve.

I'll accept the argument that it annoys some players to not have a magic mart - that's a matter of preference. But the argument that it breaks the game just seems to be a vast oversimplification of something a little movement on the CRs used could solve?

It's not the lack of a "magic-mart" that breaks the game. It's the lack of access to the necessary items. You don't need to give them the "perfect" equipment for their character (whatever "perfect" means), just the level appropriate +X bonus items. Randomizing can prevent them from getting these -exceedingly- simple but nevertheless important items.


(Kelb just for reference - I'm not suggesting that *YOU* hold the views I just presented - I'm noting something I've observed through the rest of the thread. I'm merely responding to you directly since you did the same for me)

I appreciate the courtesy. :smallsmile:

[TuggyNE]

Something I've noticed is missing in this thread - how many of you actually play with four 25 point characters, which are a rogue, a fighter, a healer-cleric and a blaster-wizard (eg: the expected part for the CR system)? What do CR's actually matter when you are playing optimised character with 30+ point builds?

I often see the misconception that there is some enormous difference between 25 PB and 32 PB. There is not. At 25 point buy, a Fighter might have 16/10/14/13/10/8; at 32 points, 16/12/14/14/14/8. One more point of AC/Reflex, an additional skill point, and two more in Spot/Will is not a very substantial powerup for all the to do about it. It's even less noticeable if you're trying to increase an already high score: getting from 16 Str to 18 Str would use up all but one of those increased points right there.

And, of course, between 25 and 28, or 28 and 32, or 32 and 36, there is an even smaller difference.

[Telok]

It's not the lack of a "magic-mart" that breaks the game. It's the lack of access to the necessary items. You don't need to give them the "perfect" equipment for their character (whatever "perfect" means), just the level appropriate +X bonus items. Randomizing can prevent them from getting these -exceedingly- simple but nevertheless important items.

Amusingly I created a campaign where the characters didn't need simple +# magic items, but where items that expand thier capabilities are very useful. I've told the players this a couple of times in addition to telling them when the game started. It hasn't been untill level 10 when people started getting regular access to See Invisible abilites despite my using invisible critters where appropriate since level 5. When new characters come in they are always loaded up with +# items, never Death Ward, Flight, Ghost Touch, etc. And while they may dominate big stupid fighter type encounters, any time they face a special attack or defense they simply can't cope because they only have numbers and not options.


As Undead, Keen is useless against wraiths regardless of Ghost Touch. /MissingThePoint

That's exactly what they said. See if they ever get another Keen weapon out of me.

In related news they at one point found a mithril tower shield, it was cursed to stick to your arm but also had the benefits of automatically reflecting any gaze attack and preventing you from being turned to stone. Instead of breaking the curse they sold the shield for it's metal value. I've turned five people to stone in this game so far (only two before they found the shield) and there are still at least two encounters with advanced basilisks to go.

[NichG]

Oberroni. The ability to fix the problem doesn't mean there isn't a problem. I'm quite happy for you that your game is running smoothly but you cannot deny that it is doing so, in part, because you are compensating for the change you made; removing the ability to readily acquire magic items; by making further chances; reducing the CR of challenges, using creatures that play to the party's strengths and avoiding those that target their weaknesses, etc.

There's a difference though between 'I do not believe the system has a problem' and 'I believe it is possible to run a completely satisfying, non-disfunctional campaign using this house rule - because I have done so successfully'.

The former is Oberroni (I don't have a problem so there isn't one). The latter is just an observation that, if you want to do this particular thing and do it well, you can - you just have to take into account A and B and C and ...

Anyhow, its not the lack of +X items that cause the problem - numbers can go all over the place based on point buy and build, and its not too hard to make up a +3 bonus here or a +5 bonus there with the right feats or templates (or just considering the party to be 2 CR lower than its level would indicate). The biggest problem seems to be the potential lack of responses to 'absolute defenses' like incorporeality, flight, iron guard, regeneration, and to 'absolute attacks' like scry/die, teleportation kiting, high DC save or lose/no save just lose, etc.

[justiceforall]

There's a difference though between 'I do not believe the system has a problem' and 'I believe it is possible to run a completely satisfying, non-disfunctional campaign using this house rule - because I have done so successfully'.

I was going there but you beat me to it. Kelb I never stated what you are attributing to me, nor did I imply it by inference. Varying my CRs is also not a "house rule" by literal definition.


The biggest problem seems to be the potential lack of responses to 'absolute defenses' like incorporeality, flight, iron guard, regeneration, and to 'absolute attacks' like scry/die, teleportation kiting, high DC save or lose/no save just lose, etc.

Agreed - one of my examples of lack of correct magic items affecting my magic-mart-less game involves incorporeality and a character's inability to hurt something. But it didn't break the game, it just caused the player to make alternative decisions. In the case of my example - flee and find an alternative solution.

Most of these issues can be avoided by not railroading your players (forcing them to face something instead of giving them the choice) - is that a fair statement? If you run a game where the players have forced confrontations for progess (not uncommon), I'm aware this would cause a far more significant problem.


I often see the misconception that there is some enormous difference between 25 PB and 32 PB. There is not. At 25 point buy, a Fighter might have 16/10/14/13/10/8; at 32 points, 16/12/14/14/14/8. One more point of AC/Reflex, an additional skill point, and two more in Spot/Will is not a very substantial powerup for all the to do about it. It's even less noticeable if you're trying to increase an already high score: getting from 16 Str to 18 Str would use up all but one of those increased points right there.


Tuggy - you've skipped the important part of my quote here to focus on the (as you've pointed out) less relevant part. I assume you are doing that simply to highlight a common misconception, and my comment about balanced party composition and optimisation is valid?


I'm not surprised by this. Your longer running game should be -just- getting to the point where a lack of equipment is going to start making what should otherwise be trivial challenges challenging and what should be only challenging deadly.

So Kelb what you've said here is that lack of magic mart doesn't really matter until levels 14+?

[Kelb_Panthera]

So Kelb what you've said here is that lack of magic mart doesn't really matter until levels 14+?

No. What I was saying, or at least trying to say, is that around level 13-15 or so is the tipping point where lack of suitable items makes mundane characters unplayable without caster support. Around 7 or 8 is where it makes playing mundanes excessively difficult, again, without caster support. This issue can generally be overlooked as a non-issue before that. Once you hit epic, unless you ban or heavily modify epic casting, mundanes become unplayable, regardless.

All of that is assuming that the DM is not making other adjustments beyond limiting access to magic items.


To the variance of CR not being a houserule; variance is fine but the DMG guidlines say that 70% of the encounters faced should be at an EL equal to or higher than the party's current level and only 10% should be of an EL lower than the party's level. Moreover, the system expects that a party should be able to handle 4 encounters of an EL equal to their level on any given day. If these things aren't accurate then you -have- made a change to the system, as it was presented to you.

[TuggyNE]

Tuggy - you've skipped the important part of my quote here to focus on the (as you've pointed out) less relevant part. I assume you are doing that simply to highlight a common misconception, and my comment about balanced party composition and optimisation is valid?

To some extent, although its validity is compromised by the misconception.

Really, though, it's more accurate to say that if player optimization is increased more than DM optimization, the result will be a need for higher CRs and either considerably less or rather more dependence on magic marts*.

If, however, DM optimization keeps pace, magic marts* become increasingly necessary.

*Of the "items are generally available per settlement gp limits and other items can be found with effort" variety.

[TrollCapAmerica]

I had a DM who did things like this.He had an old school AD&D mentality and alot of the old nostalgia always tinged our games.The guy was actually pretty darn good at weaving stories together and is still one of my favorite DMs but he had a tendency to prefer random treasure or ones he particularly selected.This would occasionally be neat as he was good at creating unique magical items that were very flavorful but it was hurt because along with that old school mentality came a lack of knowledge of optimization.Examples being giving a Wu Jen a tiny fire creature as a psudo-familiar who was going to specialize in Water once he hit 6th lv or giving my Zen Archer Cleric neat little statuette that could be wound up for a round and would fly around shooting tiny arrows along with you [Which would be nice in 2nd ed but in 3.5 its a round im not casting something to win the fight or peppering our enemies with my Whatever-Bane arrows just for 1D6 extra damage a round]

Now you dont necessarily need Magic Wal-Markets but I think having ways to wheel and deal for magic items is very important and that without that PCs are going to have a very difficult time meeting appropriate challenges in game

[CrazyYanmega]

That is entirely my point. If all you do is randomize -all- magic item acquisition and do nothing to compensate, the game becomes empirically more and more difficult as the the party's levels progress.

Okay, I just had to butt in and say something at this: NO DUH!:smallfurious:

Games SHOULD get more difficult as you progress! There's a reason that Seath the Scaleless is more difficult than the Taurus Demon! Of COURSE League Champion Cynthia is going to be more difficult than Gym Leader Gardenia! And a Purple Worm is going to be more difficult than a Rust Monster.

In Dark Souls you almost never find magic weapons. You find basic weapons and get a blacksmith to enchant it for you. If you find a weapon you want to wield, but you can't wield it? Work toward increasing your stats so you CAN wield it! Want to wield a weapon but can't find it? Better hope you can find it later, and wield what you have!

I think this is an excellent and realistic example of how D&D items should work.

[Coidzor]

Okay, I just had to butt in and say something at this: NO DUH!:smallfurious:

Games SHOULD get more difficult as you progress! There's a reason that Seath the Scaleless is more difficult than the Taurus Demon! Of COURSE League Champion Cynthia is going to be more difficult than Gym Leader Gardenia! And a Purple Worm is going to be more difficult than a Rust Monster.

So you're just outright ignoring the player's character becoming better equipped and more skilled as they rise up the ranks? :smalltongue:


In Dark Souls you almost never find magic weapons. You find basic weapons and get a blacksmith to enchant it for you. If you find a weapon you want to wield, but you can't wield it? Work toward increasing your stats so you CAN wield it! Want to wield a weapon but can't find it? Better hope you can find it later, and wield what you have!

I think this is an excellent and realistic example of how D&D items should work.

If you want to use D&D to play Dark Souls. However, if you do that, then you should probably also make coming back from a TPK just as easy as in Dark Souls, otherwise, why are you playing Dark Souls using D&D? :smalltongue:

[CrazyYanmega]

So you're just outright ignoring the player's character becoming better equipped and more skilled as they rise up the ranks? :smalltongue:
As you level up, the random drops you find should be getting better. The original poster never said they weren't using magic items.

EDIT: Speed runners have shown me that good strategy and quick thinking can bypass equipment most of the time.

[Coidzor]

As you level up, the random drops you find should be getting better. The original poster never said they weren't using magic items.

EDIT: Speed runners have shown me that good strategy and quick thinking can bypass equipment most of the time.

But they're random(well, as random as a table can be, especially one that doesn't cover all possibilities). As has been well covered, this means that certain items may just not appear(and others cannot appear). :smalltongue:

So now you're saying that all players should be playing at the highest OP level possible, eh? :smallamused:

[Togo]

I've played the game well past 15th level with random magic items, and it really wasn't a problem. This was the campaign where I played a druid to 19th level and never once got hold wild armour. The casters were no more carrying the party than anyone else. I'd recommend it as a play style to try, since it stops people gravitating towards the same old tricks that they always use, and makes low level item drops at high level still useful.

Obviously the game is harder when you don't customise your equipment, but it's hardly impossible.

[Augmental]

Okay, I just had to butt in and say something at this:

This thread has been dead for a month. :smallsigh:


In Dark Souls you almost never find magic weapons. You find basic weapons and get a blacksmith to enchant it for you. If you find a weapon you want to wield, but you can't wield it? Work toward increasing your stats so you CAN wield it! Want to wield a weapon but can't find it? Better hope you can find it later, and wield what you have!

I think this is an excellent and realistic example of how D&D items should work.

Except Dark Souls was designed in a completely different manner from Dungeons and Dragons.

[NichG]

But they're random(well, as random as a table can be, especially one that doesn't cover all possibilities). As has been well covered, this means that certain items may just not appear(and others cannot appear). :smalltongue:

So now you're saying that all players should be playing at the highest OP level possible, eh? :smallamused:

I think its reasonable to consider something like this as a sort of OP challenge. Of course it has a bit of an easy answer if you just want to defeat the purpose (e.g. 'play a wizard'), but something like 'T3 game, random loot only' wouldn't be unreasonable in difficulty or be too easy to dodge the challenge I think.

[Tarlek Flamehai]

Random magic items starting off? No offense, but I wouldn't play in your campaign if those were the build rules. Personally I have individual alchemists and artificers who craft items on commission. And commonly sought (lower priced) items are dealt with by traders. Like any other commodity their availability varies by the strength of the local economy. As to the curse issue, a crafter who sells cursed items goes out of business or gets lynched. A trader will take steps to avoid acquiring cursed merchandise just as they would take steps to avoid taking illusionary gold.

Cursed items are rare because they are generally only produced for use on specific targets or as a trap for a hoard. They really shouldn't have much a place in the economy of magic items.

All of this opinion of mine is of course only useful if it would make things more fun for you and your players. Otherwise it is, of course, worthless.