PDA

View Full Version : [Magic Items] Why the shift to a system-hardwired item "economy"?



Pages : [1] 2

Kiero
2007-09-05, 05:05 AM
In AD&D 2nd edition, magic items were granted through either random tables or GM fiat. There were no guides as to what was appropriate for any character of a given level, you couldn't buy magic items and it was pretty difficult to make them. You got what you were given, and you liked it. Magic items could largely be treated as optional extras that gave you all some bizarre results from time to time, as you found a way to use whatever odd object the tables threw at you.

In D&D 3.x, magic items are an integral part of how the system works, and factored into the Wealth By Level equations. Remove them from the game, and things start to break down and classes get nerfed; it's not merely expected that characters have magic items, it's required. To support this, it's assumed that as long as you have the money and are in a big enough settlement, you can buy whatever magical gear you need.

So why the change? And to bring it into relevant focus, what do we think the situation in 4e will be with regards to magic items? Will they remain integral, or will they be moved again towards the direction of optional?

Zincorium
2007-09-05, 05:16 AM
One of WotC's reps has said somewhere that they really, really want to get away from magic items being necessary for game balance, and they want them to be occasional rewards rather than standard equipment. Finding magic items ceased to be exciting in 3.x unless they were way overpowered, and it makes sense they want to bring the excitement back and balance the game in their absence.

I support that idea, and hope it's done well. Mostly the magic item dependency of the game seemed like a crutch for 3.x, and while the item creation of 2nd ed was pretty much 'make it up' for wizards and 'do you like them?' for clerics, I don't know that the modular system was developed enough to really replace it.

Journey
2007-09-05, 05:18 AM
In a word: MMORPGS.

The change is essentially a marketing decision. The third edition was designed during an era when computer RPGs were the Big Deal, and MMOGs such as UO and EverQuest were extremely popular. The WoTC people were hedging their bets on the next generation of table-top gamers.

Kids of the age range that usually first begin to play table-top role-playing games were used to this computerized style of "RP" gaming, and expected to see things in their table-top games that reflected their expectations in what a "RP" game should be. Hence the Attribute Bonus inflation, power inflation of all classes (some much more so than others), and magic item inflation.

The took essentially the worst elements from these games and codified them into a set of rules that were then branded with the D&D label because of its market credibility.

This trend seems like it will continue with the 4th edition. Magic-users getting "at will" spell abilities seems to be taken for granted. If that's the case, it will be one of the worst developments in the D&D brand for table-top gaming since TSR screwed things up so badly with the Players Option series and WoTC basically turned the game into a caricature of itself with 3.0.

I don't see how replacing the magic item inflation of 3.x with class/race abilities that essentially mimic magic item abilities makes things any better.

Kiero
2007-09-05, 05:29 AM
I don't see how replacing the magic item inflation of 3.x with class/race abilities that essentially mimic magic item abilities makes things any better.

If nothing else, that a character's "cool" comes from who they are, not what stuff they have.

ChrisMcDee
2007-09-05, 05:43 AM
Of course, a lot of it is down to the DM, but at the moment the system is heavily weighted towards players getting given a standard number/type of magic items at each level. I'd like to see support for both types of play so that there's a certain level of balance whether the DM gives each player one item over 20 levels or allows them to pick and choose at the magic shop every level.

I do feel that something's lost with magic items being bought at a shop, though. This strip is exactly how magic items should be given to the party.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0130.html

Roderick_BR
2007-09-05, 06:06 AM
Two reasons:
First, to give players the chance to make their own itens.
Second, so high level players have something to do with those huge sums of money they earn.

In 2nd edition, magic itens were rare treasure. In 3.x, it turned into tools you can buy in most big cities.

Kioran
2007-09-05, 06:40 AM
If there wasnīt so much emphasis on "cool", things would work a lot better - the MIC is (just like ToB for Melee actually) a stopgap used to fix an imbalance in the current Items without revising more basic rules and the underlying problematic:

They are necessesary for survival or even power, so without them, youīre screwed. That also means that highly situational items (a Cube of Force for example, or a cape of the mountebank) get the raw end of the deal, even though they might be flavorful or interesting. Giving such items to your players either means gimping them in many situations if they count against WBL, or giving them a big situational advantage if you donīt. Making character power and Magic items inseperable makes it difficult for the DM to give out items and keep power balanced at the same time.......
So most of the items need to ba what is called one of the "big six": a stat booster, an AC booster, a magic weapon, a Save booster, magic armor or a wand of CLW 8because itīs incredibly cheap). That makes magic both dull and predictable.

If WotC restore that seperation, magic items are freed from the necessity of always being useful (or, l,ike the current designers say, "sexy"......*shudder*) and can return being flavorful and interesting. But, if things are going like they are and have been, like with the ToB, this is just a means of making many interesting or situational items redundant, scaling up the power of class Features further (a big mistake! Further invalidating HD as a source of power actually narrows the possibilities.), instead of, maybe, removing situations and mechanics that make specific kinds of boni necessesary.
Now, the overpoweredness or dependency on magic gear would be replaced by a dependence on a specific set of class features, which is worse: The DM could, maybe, regulate or reduce your gear. You, as a player could change it. But you cannot, retroactively, change your build. Depending on how they pull this off, they could pigeonhole characters and party roles worse than ever......

Journey
2007-09-05, 06:53 AM
If nothing else, that a character's "cool" comes from who they are, not what stuff they have.
Part of the problem is that the "cool" you're referring to: a) isn't "cool" if everybody has access to it anyway and b) still creates ridiculous, overpowered caricatures.

Tormsskull
2007-09-05, 07:05 AM
Yeah, I think this is one of several reasons that D&D has been going down the tubes over the last decadeish. Though I must admit, I am interested to see how 4e turns out.

I'd be really interesting in seeing WotC put out a low-magic world by design. One where Damage Reduction is rare, opponents can be defeated by mundane ways, magic items are rare treasures, etc.

As for why the initial change occured, I tend to agree with Journey, a well-calculated marketing decision. Snag in the next generation of gamers with things that appeal to them (I fear that soon the "Leet Speaker" PrC will be added), and watch the cash flow roll in.

Dausuul
2007-09-05, 07:40 AM
In AD&D 2nd edition, magic items were granted through either random tables or GM fiat. There were no guides as to what was appropriate for any character of a given level, you couldn't buy magic items and it was pretty difficult to make them. You got what you were given, and you liked it. Magic items could largely be treated as optional extras that gave you all some bizarre results from time to time, as you found a way to use whatever odd object the tables threw at you.

In D&D 3.x, magic items are an integral part of how the system works, and factored into the Wealth By Level equations. Remove them from the game, and things start to break down and classes get nerfed; it's not merely expected that characters have magic items, it's required. To support this, it's assumed that as long as you have the money and are in a big enough settlement, you can buy whatever magical gear you need.

So why the change? And to bring it into relevant focus, what do we think the situation in 4e will be with regards to magic items? Will they remain integral, or will they be moved again towards the direction of optional?

Well, here's how I read it.

One of the big changes in 3E was an attempt to get everything nailed down and make sure that the rulebooks would offer clear and explicit guidance on pretty much every point, instead of requiring the DM to make everything up on the fly. So Secondary Skills and Nonweapon Proficiencies, both of which were broad-based and vague, got taken out and replaced with a detailed and specific skill system; monsters were given Challenge Ratings to make it easy to figure out what your party could and could not handle; and so on.

One of the big areas of vagueness in the 2E rules was magic items. When you find a +5 sword, that has a major impact on the party fighter's combat prowess. But there weren't really any guidelines for when the party fighter ought to get a +5 sword in order to keep the classes balanced (cue laughter). And the rules for creating magic items were, well, nonexistent.

Therefore, 3E set out to make a set of explicit guidelines for how much gear you ought to have at any given point, and they allowed buying and selling of magic items--partly for realism (it does make sense that there would be a trade in such things, albeit an extremely low-volume and high-margin trade, as reflected by the extravagant prices), and partly so that characters would be guaranteed to be able to get equipment appropriate to their class and level. This also gave high-level characters a way to spend their plunder.

Unfortunately, due to the way they set prices, a handful of items quickly came to dominate--the Big Six, plus certain utility items like Heward's handy haversack and metamagic rods. And the wealth guidelines were such that items were, as you say, required for characters to be able to perform effectively at their level.

With 4E, it looks like items will be getting scaled back. My hope is that 4E items will be much more about giving you special abilities and less about giving you power boosts; from what the designers have said, and given that Mike Mearls (of Iron Heroes fame) was one of the main 4E designers, I think that's likely to be the case.

What I do wonder is how they'll address the "magic item shop" question. What I'd like to see in that area would be a system where, instead of having all items of a given price range available to buy, you roll a few times on a treasure table to see what items are for sale in a given town or city. That way, while there's still some trade in magic items, you can't just walk into the Magic Mart and find whatever you want sitting on the shelves. Finding a +5 flaming greatsword for sale would be almost as rare and exciting an event as finding one in a dungeon.

spotmarkedx
2007-09-05, 08:03 AM
Just as long as we don't go back down the route where after every battle the wizards pull out their knives, saws, and jars again. I so do not miss that aspect of 2nd Edition where if you had a GM that liked to have magic item creation include monster bits (want a potion of healing? Troll blood is a good ingredient. How about Enlarge? Better go hunt yourself a giant or two...), it wasn't long before PCs started being proactive.

GM: Having saved the family of travellers from the displacer beast, the father limps up to you, smiling in gratitude. "Thank you! Thank you! How can I ever repay you?"
PCs: "You're welcome. Nor epayment necessesary." Can I make a monster lore check to see what displacer beast parts are good for magic items? I imagine the hide would be good for a cloak, but can the blood, teeth or tentacles be used for anything? How about internal organs?

Or if they required a "bottled spring breeze and the breath of a bumblebee" for that sword+1 it ended up that magic items were never made.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-05, 08:08 AM
I don't see how replacing the magic item inflation of 3.x with class/race abilities that essentially mimic magic item abilities makes things any better.

It means you can't mix-and-match everything you like, and reduces the scope for munchkinism - in addition to making the races more divergent. It's not a silver bullet but it is an improvement.

I believe the lack of "magic item markets" follows from the "points of light" campaign setting.

Kioran
2007-09-05, 08:13 AM
It means you can't mix-and-match everything you like, and reduces the scope for munchkinism - in addition to making the races more divergent. It's not a silver bullet but it is an improvement.

I believe the lack of "magic item markets" follows from the "points of light" campaign setting.

The problem is that it puts an overemphasis on class features, which are too important already - itīs going to be less about the gear, but more about the build, which is no improvement......

Journey
2007-09-05, 08:18 AM
One of the big changes in 3E was an attempt to get everything nailed down and make sure that the rulebooks would offer clear and explicit guidance on pretty much every point, instead of requiring the DM to make everything up on the fly. So Secondary Skills and Nonweapon Proficiencies, both of which were broad-based and vague, got taken out and replaced with a detailed and specific skill system; monsters were given Challenge Ratings to make it easy to figure out what your party could and could not handle; and so on.

One of the big areas of vagueness in the 2E rules was magic items. When you find a +5 sword, that has a major impact on the party fighter's combat prowess. But there weren't really any guidelines for when the party fighter ought to get a +5 sword in order to keep the classes balanced (cue laughter). And the rules for creating magic items were, well, nonexistent.

With 4E, it looks like items will be getting scaled back. My hope is that 4E items will be much more about giving you special abilities and less about giving you power boosts; from what the designers have said, and given that Mike Mearls (of Iron Heroes fame) was one of the main 4E designers, I think that's likely to be the case.

The cost of the heavy codification of rules in 3.x is, of course, DM and player creativity. Why be creative when the computational algorithms are already provided by the rules? DMs and players alike are relegated to the status of human computers in 3.x.

The guidelines for the creation of magic items were quite explicit--they required the caster give something meaningful of himself (a point of his Constitution score) by casting a Permanency spell with the spell he would also otherwise enchant an item with. Charges were imbued on an item by repeated casting of the spell over a course of time, and so forth. DMs were free to add to these requirements and mix things up a bit, of course. (Note: I don't have my 2nd ed. PHB and DMG in front of me right at the moment, so some minor details may be off.)

And again, how is it less bad to have a character do superhero things by "special ability" rather than by having an item? It's even worse than ubiquitous magic items, really, because then basically every character is a magic-user. It's just the "magic" part is disguised by other flavor text.



It means you can't mix-and-match everything you like, and reduces the scope for munchkinism - in addition to making the races more divergent. It's not a silver bullet but it is an improvement.I don't see how further mimicking the MMOG "class" design scheme has anything to do with munchkinism. My concern isn't so much munchkinism as it is this ridiculous trend toward every player having some magic or magic-like ability. The resulting power inflation is just terrible.

Dausuul
2007-09-05, 08:24 AM
It means you can't mix-and-match everything you like, and reduces the scope for munchkinism - in addition to making the races more divergent. It's not a silver bullet but it is an improvement.

It also means magic items can return to being cool specialty items rather than mandatory power-ups.


The cost of the heavy codification of rules in 3.x is, of course, DM and player creativity. Why be creative when the computational algorithms are already provided by the rules? DMs and players alike are relegated to the status of human computers in 3.x.

I do think 3.X went too far in trying to lay down rules for absolutely everything, but it hardly reduced DMs and players to "human computers." There's still plenty of scope for role-playing and plot development. There's just less flexibility in the system.


The guidelines for the creation of magic items were quite explicit--they required the caster give something meaningful of himself (a point of his Constitution score) by casting a Permanency spell with the spell he would also otherwise enchant an item with. Charges were imbued on an item by repeated casting of the spell over a course of time, and so forth. DMs were free to add to these requirements and mix things up a bit, of course. (Note: I don't have my 2nd ed. PHB and DMG in front of me right at the moment, so some minor details may be off.)

That works if you're making a +1 sword or a scroll. What about the vast majority of items which didn't duplicate a spell effect?


And again, how is it less bad to have a character do superhero things by "special ability" rather than by having an item? It's even worse than ubiquitous magic items, really, because then basically every character is a magic-user. It's just the "magic" part is disguised by other flavor text.

If everybody is in fact doing magic-like superhero things in 4E, you may have a point. I don't see where you're getting this from, though.


I don't see how further mimicking the MMOG "class" design scheme has anything to do with munchkinism. My concern isn't so much munchkinism as it is this ridiculous trend toward every player having some magic or magic-like ability. The resulting power inflation is just terrible.

...Okay, what on earth does reducing magic item dependency have to do with MMOGs? Every computer RPG I've ever seen has been so item-dependent as to make a D&D character look like a Vow of Poverty monk. I realize that 3E 3.5E 4E is going to ruin D&D and turn it into a video game, but I fail to see what this particular change has to do with it.

Zim
2007-09-05, 08:47 AM
I think the shift away from magic items driving character power is a good thing. In a campaign where the DM is a little tight-fisted with the loot bag, a fighter or other non-primary spellcaster can quickly fall behind. Nothing is more fun than watching the warlock/wizard/CoDzilla spanks the BBEG while you stand idly because your +1 longsword can't overcome it's DR 20/your stuff doesn't suck.

With the change of focus WotC is planning, a fighter 15 armed with naught but a rusty spoon could be a credible threat again. As it stands, I'm not even considering playing another martial type until 4E comes out.

Chris_Chandler
2007-09-05, 08:57 AM
I never understood that part of the culture, actually, where magic items are just an automatic expense. I really like the creation rules as a guideline, but it explicitly states that the GP cost is reflected in materials, not gold itself. Actually earning the components for items makes the creation/aquisition of said items much more worthwhile. It's nothing punitive, and that simple mitigating factor makes the whole process a lot less contrived and meaninful.

The "Magic Shop" mentality is a direct result of computer gaming, though BGII had the right idea with the relic-building, but take that statement for what it is. Yes, that game was absolutely flooded with high-powered items, but the concept of looking for a pommel, blade, and hilt for a weapon, or for a particular shaft for a polearm makes actually finally obtaining that weapon a big event, not just an expected part of the character build.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-05, 09:15 AM
The cost of the heavy codification of rules in 3.x is, of course, DM and player creativity. Why be creative when the computational algorithms are already provided by the rules?

QFT. In 2E you could use strategies like disarming, tripping or bullrushing when appropriate in the situations; in 3E there are "one trick pony" builds that focus solely on repeating one maneuver ad nauseam, as well as people that think that you can not use these maneuvers if you don't possess the proper feat (or, cannot use them effectively, which boils down to the same).

Person_Man
2007-09-05, 09:16 AM
The change is essentially a marketing decision.

Does anyone else remember Darth Maul? He single handedly injected retarded double weapons into D&D, because he popularized the idea of a double blade. Who cares that there's no basis for it in history or literature, or that using one would probably get you killed the first time you tried to swing it at someone.

Grrrr.

Back on topic: I hope that they seriously nerf magic items and destroy the magic item store. When a player builds a PC, they already have a million different things to consider. Class, race, feats, skills, alignment, back story, appearance, etc. Having to pick out equipment creates another barrier to playing. At low levels its pretty easy - you basically need camping gear, a weapon, and maybe armor. But for higher level campaigns, you need to spend a considerable amount of time picking out items, and in some cases the items are more powerful then you are.

And the entire idea of a magic item store is absolutely ludicrous to me. How does he keep tens of thousands of gold pieces on hand just in case someone stops by to offload a dragon's treasure? And why would anyone go adventuring - Just rob the magic item store, and you're set for life!

Obviously they're going to keep magic items in some form, because magic items are cool, can be hugely fun, and have always been a part of fantasy roleplaying. But in my opinion they should be rare and interesting, like Excalibur, Aladdin's lamp and ring, the Golden Fleece, etc. Not something you can buy at the Wal-Mart on sale for 20% off sticker price.

Then if they then want to build optional magic items on top of the core rules, so be it. But it should be a nice extra perk that some DMs allow, not an integral part of the game.

ColdBrew
2007-09-05, 09:19 AM
Does anyone else remember Darth Maul? He single handedly injected retarded double weapons into D&D, because he popularized the idea of a double blade. Who cares that there's no basis for it in history or literature, or that using one would probably get you killed the first time you tried to swing it at someone.
Because everything else in D&D is so historically accurate, right?

factotum
2007-09-05, 09:29 AM
Part of the problem is that the "cool" you're referring to: a) isn't "cool" if everybody has access to it anyway and b) still creates ridiculous, overpowered caricatures.

They're only overpowered if the opposition that they face is weak in comparison. Sure, 3rd edition characters could steamroll 2nd edition monsters without much effort, which is why 3rd edition monsters are generally tougher.

Kiero
2007-09-05, 09:42 AM
Does anyone else remember Darth Maul? He single handedly injected retarded double weapons into D&D, because he popularized the idea of a double blade. Who cares that there's no basis for it in history or literature, or that using one would probably get you killed the first time you tried to swing it at someone.

Like the traditional Thai weapon used in krabi krabong, which is a double-bladed spear to be used from the back of an elephant? It's also a style which features a lot of twin-weapon usage (twin swords being favoured), and was used in actual warfare, not simply for display.

Counterspin
2007-09-05, 09:52 AM
Monsters have always been ranked in power, and that ranking has always been based on a presumption about how many magic items a party has. I fail to see why making the presumptions public so players can understand how the monsters are designed is a bad thing.

Journey
2007-09-05, 09:56 AM
They're only overpowered if the opposition that they face is weak in comparison. Sure, 3rd edition characters could steamroll 2nd edition monsters without much effort, which is why 3rd edition monsters are generally tougher.
Yes. Hence, "ridiculous, overpowered caricatures." Monsters aren't immune from this absurdity.

Telonius
2007-09-05, 10:10 AM
I suppose it does depend a little bit on the style of game you're doing. If you're in a storyline-based, time-sensitive quest ("You must save the world before the third moon ..."), for example. Time spent hunting around for the Ogre Mage's left toenail that you need to get anything better than a Masterwork item, is time not spent saving the world. In a case like that, Ye Olde Magic Shoppe has its place.

But if you're in more of a sandbox-style campaign, where the characters are free to go off hunting for a Dire Walrus tusk without putting the future of the gaming world in jeopardy, hunting for items could be an enjoyable plot element.

In either case, it's really up to the DM, even in 3.5. The DM only becomes a human computer if he chooses to be one. He can throw the WBL guidelines out the window and still not end up with a TPK, if he's willing to re-jigger the monsters' DR and challenge ratings. It's certainly true that 3.5 doesn't make this easy; but it can be done if the DM wants to badly enough.

Jerthanis
2007-09-05, 10:39 AM
In D&D 2nd ed, there was an entire section in the DMG about dealing with players gaining access to a magic item way beyond their power capacity, and having to take it away, or mitigate its power, and how much that annoys players, so you have to keep a laser-sharp eye on the treasure you give out. (I'm pretty sure that section is still in 3rd somewhere actually) In 3rd, DMs have a good idea of the relative power of the items, and a built in guideline for a person's total GP value worth of items. This is a useful tool, and not a straitjacket.

Here's a question... what exactly did you do with money in 2nd edition? If an adventurer can't buy magic junk, and they get enough money to drown a donkey, what do they DO with it? Innrooms and booze only cost so much. Bribing government officials for one purpose or another, paying henchmen to carry your stuff, and buying/upkeeping a stronghold is all I can think of. Doesn't seem like reason enough for the single minded devotion to the almighty gold piece that I remember from my 2nd ed games.

In 2nd Edition, I always ended up ad hoc-ing a GP value for all the items the PCs grew out of, and for them to actually have something to spend money on.

Morty
2007-09-05, 10:41 AM
Yes. Hence, "ridiculous, overpowered caricatures." Monsters aren't immune from this absurdity.

If monsters are overpowered just as players are, then what do you compare them to?
Anyway, reducing magic item dependency is a good things for both mechanical and flavor reasons. It'll remove wholesale trade of discount +1 longswords and cloaks of resistance +1 and will make character matter more than character's gear. Look at 3.x edition: take high level fighter's gear and he's screwed. Magic items are fun as long as they are rare and they aren't bought in shops. Wielding magic weapons is part of being a warrior in high fantasy, but this weapon should be found or won in combat, not bought in shop or on market. Hopefully, in 4ed warrior without his gear but instead with some mundane weapon and armor won't be so screwed against monsters with appropriate CR.


The "Magic Shop" mentality is a direct result of computer gaming, though BGII had the right idea with the relic-building, but take that statement for what it is. Yes, that game was absolutely flooded with high-powered items, but the concept of looking for a pommel, blade, and hilt for a weapon, or for a particular shaft for a polearm makes actually finally obtaining that weapon a big event, not just an expected part of the character build.

Exactly. Not to mention that all weapons above +2 has had an unique story and unique name, and wasn't just +1 sword of something.
And BTW, it's funny how people can connect every thing from 4ed with D&D turning into videogame.

stainboy
2007-09-05, 10:56 AM
Magic items were integral to the system in 2e as well as 3e.

My favorite example of this is that attack bonus (or THAC0, since we're talking 2e) increases with level, and AC doesn't. Take two human fighters and equip them each with a longsword, full plate, and a shield, all nonmagical. If they're both level 1, they'll hit each other 5% of the time. If they're level 20, they'll hit each other 95% of the time.

The counter to that kind of silliness is magic items. A typical character only has one item that boosts his attack bonus (his weapon), but there are 7 different "item slots" that commonly include items with AC bonuses (ringx2, amulet, bracers, boots, armor, shield). Most high-level melee types are going to have 2-3 items that provide stacking AC increases.

3e inherited this idiosyncracy from 2e. The problem was arguably worse in 2e because of the lack of restrictions on stacking AC buffs and 2e's system for multiple attacks (basically, fighters got fewer attacks, but they were all at full bonus). The only difference is that 3e expressly tells you to load the PCs down with magic items, and 2e let you figure it out for yourself.

Overlard
2007-09-05, 11:31 AM
Magic items have always seemed like a reward to me. With an adventurer going out and putting his life on the line, most of them are going to want something for it. And adventure itself is rarely seen as reward enough.

So there's money. But what can you spend money on? Luxuries, I guess. Land. Maybe some servants. But considering how much money you should be pulling in from raiding the dragon's hoard, most people would do go on one big adventure and then retire.

Magic items provide another layer to the economy, which gives the adventurers something to work for. Something to earn gold for.

There is an overdependance on them though, and an overabundance too. We need somewhere in between, where they're not so rare that they may as well not be there, but you can't just buy them off the rack either.

I'd prefer the more interesting items to be more inviting too. In a campaign I decided to introduce items that people rarely buy, rather than the dull stat-increasing items. I was disappointed when the players generally just wrote them down on the loot list, with the expected sell-price when they get back to town. And as that went on, they started struggling against the challenges, as the quirky items were only useful if I introduced encounters tailored for them.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-05, 11:33 AM
I'm all for the magic item toning down expected in 4e. If you have your players going up against NPC's with class levels, as I frequently do since they rarely want to trapse off into the woods, then situations like this happen:

Player 2: I cast identify on the gold hilted sword that hums when swung.
DM: It's a +1 longsword.
Player 1: Ug. Another one. Well, throw it on the pile along with the cloaks of resistance +1 and the boots of elvenkind.
Player 2: Are we ever going to sell all that junk?
Player 1: I dunno man but we are going to need another Bag of Holding soon...

I don't have any problem at all with players having the sorts of abilities granted by magical items but when the items themselves are common then the value of them, even if in GP terms is a fair amount of money, is extremeley limited. I look at it this way, if x character gets the bonuses and abilities a +2 wounding dagger grants as class features then when you actually give them a +2 dagger (making the total something like +4 wounding) they will be way more psyched because they now have something not everyone in their class would have. As it stands now, if they had a +2 wounding and then they found a +4 wounding dagger the reaction would be more like 'oh, that's a little better. I guess I'll sell the old one then.'

Eldritch_Ent
2007-09-05, 11:34 AM
I don't understand where all this hatred for Magic Items is coming from. The fact that they're unbalanced or way too present is an understandable annoyance, but the fact players have access to and can buy or create the items they want with reasonable guidelines? Why is THAT making people annoyed?

I agree with the "if I don't have useful items or equipment to spend my money on, what AM I going to do with it?" problem. Once you have your solid-gold castle and harem of beautiful people of whatever gender, age, and species you prefer, what else is there to spend money on? I suppose it'd be time to comission that Wizard to track down Werewolf fangs and make you that quiver of +5 Arrows.

If you think the concept of having a literal store selling magic items is ridiculous, perhaps you're not trying hard enough. Perhaps you're paying someone to track down or conjure the proper ingredients. (Quality swords- AKA Masterwork- were rarely mass produced- each one is usually custom-built to an extent for the person who will recieve it. This should include magic ones.)

Then again, some people hold the Fluff "prepackaged" in the books as Sacrosanct as the Crunch, and refuse to change either. :smallconfused:

I suppose the best solution would be to reduce WBL, but not eliminate it- And to reduce monster power appropriately. Money would still matter, but much like Class, or Race, it shouldn't be crippling if you're not optimal. (Though a Fighter without his weapon will always be a bit gimped, but so is a wizard without his funny stick.)

I, for one, like the modular system for creating magic items. Wether you don't like it or not is up to you, but there's my two bits.

Dausuul
2007-09-05, 11:44 AM
I agree with the "if I don't have useful items or equipment to spend my money on, what AM I going to do with it?" problem. Once you have your solid-gold castle and harem of beautiful people of whatever gender, age, and species you prefer, what else is there to spend money on? I suppose it'd be time to comission that Wizard to track down Werewolf fangs and make you that quiver of +5 Arrows.

Actually, I'd rather see magic items come primarily from plunder and adventures, and provide other things to spend the money on, like castles, titles, land, and followers. It's always more fun when your magic items come with a story behind them, instead of "I went to the shop, plunked down 50,000 gold, and got a +5 sword."


I suppose the best solution would be to reduce WBL, but not eliminate it- And to reduce monster power appropriately. Money would still matter, but much like Class, or Race, it shouldn't be crippling if you're not optimal. (Though a Fighter without his weapon will always be a bit gimped, but so is a wizard without his funny stick.)

A mid- to high-level fighter without magic gear is more than "a bit" gimped, he's crippled nigh unto death. A wizard without magic gear just has to be a little more careful with his spell slots and rely less on save-or-lose effects. The two are in no way comparable.

Reducing WBL is a start, but you also have to rebalance the classes, since some are more item-dependent than others.

Journey
2007-09-05, 12:26 PM
Magic items were integral to the system in 2e as well as 3e.
Your entire post only applies if your sole focus is mechanical superiority.


If monsters are overpowered just as players are, then what do you compare them to?Other games, previous editions, and in the specific case of 3.x, comic books and anime-style superheroes (since that's basically what 3.x characters are).


I look at it this way, if x character gets the bonuses and abilities a +2 wounding dagger grants as class features then when you actually give them a +2 dagger (making the total something like +4 wounding) they will be way more psyched because they now have something not everyone in their class would have.This doesn't make any sense. Why would he care about a +2 dagger since he already has the +2 dagger ability as a class feature? The only difference in your two cases is that in one case our comic-book superhero has superman powers innately, while in the other he has to wield an item to get them.

Morty
2007-09-05, 12:37 PM
Other games, previous editions, and in the specific case of 3.x, comic books and anime-style superheroes (since that's basically what 3.x characters are).

:smallconfused: Why on earth are you calling 3.x character "comic-book superheroes"? Seriously, there's nothing in the system, especially on low-levels, that would imply it. And the only two things that may be called anime-like are monks and ToB characters. Except that the latter really aren't anime at all. There have been numerous discussions about it.
Besides, that does not mean 3.x characters are "overpowered" at all. They're stronger because what they face is stronger. Comparing them to previous editions and other systems makes so sense, as it's only a matter of scale.


This doesn't make any sense. Why would he care about a +2 dagger since he already has the +2 dagger ability as a class feature? The only difference in your two cases is that in one case our comic-book superhero has superman powers innately, while in the other he has to wield an item to get them.

And where do you gather that anyone will have +2 dagger "as class feature", whatever would that mean? AKA_bait used an example, but there is nothing that'd imply this example is in any way relevant to actual class features in 4ed.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-05, 12:39 PM
the fact players have access to and can buy or create the items they want with reasonable guidelines? Why is THAT making people annoyed?
Because not everybody considers the guidelines to be reasonable. Also, one might argue they're too simple - it may be fun to have to track down, say, a unicorn because you need a unicorn hair for your magical Gizmo of Protection - rather than simply go (1) gizmo, (2) cast protection, (3) profit.

ColdBrew
2007-09-05, 12:54 PM
Other games, previous editions, and in the specific case of 3.x, comic books and anime-style superheroes (since that's basically what 3.x characters are).
Unless you're pitting your 3.x party against creatures from other games, previous editions, or comic book and anime-style superheroes, you're making a pointless comparison. My Shadowrun mage would nearly kill himself trying to cast the fireball a 3.x wizard tosses off with a twitch of his finger. That doesn't mean either one is under- or overpowered. They each fit into the niche of their system just fine.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-05, 01:00 PM
This doesn't make any sense. Why would he care about a +2 dagger since he already has the +2 dagger ability as a class feature? The only difference in your two cases is that in one case our comic-book superhero has superman powers innately, while in the other he has to wield an item to get them.

Because they stack silly. Making the items more rare and less required makes having one a true advantage over other characters (NPC's, villians, etc.) rather than another trinket tossed their way of which there are a million others (and there have to be or else the way everything is balanced breaks down).

Also, this allows for better RP in my view. If the characters know they can sell any magical item they come across and buy something that's optimal for their current character development plan then decisions about items become somewhat inconsequential. If however, +4 swords are incredibly rare and powerful, then the character has to decide if they might just want to keep it anyway and learn how to use it, even though they had previously planned to take another level in something else that's not focused on using a sword.

Finally, it allows more plot hooks for the DM. If magical items are not common place then there will be other NPCs who want to get their grubby little hands on the ones the PC's have found. This is much more plausable when there is only one Vorpal weapon known to exist than if you can raid a dragons' horde and then just comission Billy-Bob the wizard to make it for you.



Other games, previous editions, and in the specific case of 3.x, comic books and anime-style superheroes (since that's basically what 3.x characters are).


Yeesh. You would think that all comic book heros are alike for a statement like that. Batman, Punisher, and Dr. Strange all had no innate powers. If they had power they needed to study for it, buy it or steal it. To be honest, I've never even understood this critisim. What heroes are we supposed to base the game off? Ulysses was not that diffrent from Batman really, except more flawed as a character, physically stronger and (most of the time) with less access to items and gadgets. Beowulf was no pip squeak. Merlin had a fair number of very powerful spells in D&D terms.

Or would you prefer to have a game without the PC's being iconic heros? We can play Harvest Moon...

Rex Blunder
2007-09-05, 01:05 PM
Journey, you seem to dislike the d20 system. I'm wondering what you get out of frequenting a message board that is primarily devoted to d&d d20.

Journey
2007-09-05, 01:12 PM
Ah, dismissing people for munchkinism without any real reason for it. What a great way to contribute to discussion.

:smallconfused: Why on earth are you calling 3.x character "comic-book superheroes"? Seriously, there's nothing in the system, especially on low-levels, that would imply it. And the only two things that may be called anime-like are monks and ToB characters. Except that the latter really aren't anime at all. There have been numerous discussions about it.You keep using that word "munchkin." I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Munchkinism" is almost entirely independent of any system. A "munchkin" seeks to exploit whatever rules exist to get as much benefit with as little risk as he possibly can. "Munchkins" have been around since before 1e.

Focusing on mechanics doesn't make one a munchkin or a powergamer (although it is most often the latter that do so). It just means one focuses on mechanics.

The "feats" that exist as things characters have simply by dint of existence turn them into gimmicky superhero actions, that's why. Let's not even touch upon the various magical abilities various classes (actually, pretty much every class) has. The entire Feats and Skills (but especially the Feats) system of 3.x screams "superhero caricature characters."



And where do you gather that anyone will have +2 dagger "as class feature", whatever would that mean? AKA_bait used an example, but there is nothing that'd imply this example is in any way relevant to actual class features in 4ed.
I think perhaps you should re-read the post I was responding to.


Unless you're pitting your 3.x party against creatures from other games, previous editions, or comic book and anime-style superheroes, you're making a pointless comparison.I don't think it's pointless to compare a system (3.x) to its former incarnations (2.5e and prior).


Journey, you seem to dislike the d20 system. I'm wondering what you get out of frequenting a message board that is primarily devoted to d&d d20.Probably the same things other people do: a (hopefully) fun discussion about something that we all actually have an interest in (table-top gaming).

Dausuul
2007-09-05, 01:19 PM
The "feats" that exist as things characters have simply by dint of existence turn them into gimmicky superhero actions, that's why. Let's not even touch upon the various magical abilities various classes (actually, pretty much every class) has. The entire Feats and Skills (but especially the Feats) system of 3.x screams "superhero caricature characters."

Um... what?

Please explain. What precisely makes a character a superhero caricature, and how does the feat and skill system produce such characters? I really have no clue what you're talking about here.


I don't think it's pointless to compare a system (3.x) to its former incarnations (2.5e and prior).

It is not pointless to compare the systems, but it is pointless to compare two numbers that don't mean the same thing. Stuff has more hit points in 3E. Stuff also does more damage in 3E. What this means is that a 3E hit point is worth less than a 2E hit point, so it's pointless to make direct comparisons between 2E and 3E hit points. The same applies to every other number on a character sheet or a monster stat block.

ColdBrew
2007-09-05, 01:19 PM
The "feats" that exist as things characters have simply by dint of existence turn them into gimmicky superhero actions, that's why. Let's not even touch upon the various magical abilities various classes (actually, pretty much every class) has. The entire Feats and Skills (but especially the Feats) system of 3.x screams "superhero caricature characters."
Really? I always thought they screamed "abilities derived from training, life experience, or heritage that help differentiate characters."


I don't think it's pointless to compare a system (3.x) to its former incarnations (2.5e and prior).
It is when deciding whether parts of that system are overpowered. Power is relative to the rest of the system. If the average adventurer can do X, and in previous systems he could only do .5X, he's not overpowered if everyone else can do X too.

Morty
2007-09-05, 01:21 PM
You keep using that word "munchkin." I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Munchkinism" is almost entirely independent of any system. A "munchkin" seeks to exploit whatever rules exist to get as much benefit with as little risk as he possibly can. "Munchkins" have been around since before 1e.

Focusing on mechanics doesn't make one a munchkin or a powergamer (although it is most often the latter that do so). It just means one focuses on mechanics.

Well, regardless of the word I used, dismissing someone because one cares about mechanical optimization is preety low. There's nothing wrong in caring about that, and caring about mechanic does not prevent caring about roleplaying.


The "feats" that exist as things characters have simply by dint of existence turn them into gimmicky superhero actions, that's why. Let's not even touch upon the various magical abilities various classes (actually, pretty much every class) has. The entire Feats and Skills (but especially the Feats) system of 3.x screams "superhero caricature characters."

Ummm... no, it doesn't. It really doesn't. Feat system may be flawed, but it just reperesents things character learned duing their adventures. What skills have to do with being comicbook superhero, I don't know. People get better at things. Wow. That's really straight from comic-book. And every class having magical abilities is just not true. Barbarians, fighters and rogues have no magical abilities at all. Out of core, swashbucklers, knights, samurai and scouts are perfectly magic-free. Rangers and paladins have extremely small magical abilities that don't come up on lowest levels. And having some spark of magical ability don't make character comicbook character anyway.


I think perhaps you should re-read the post I was responding to.

I've read it quite fine, thank you. And all I see is that AKA_bait used an abstract example.


I don't think it's pointless to compare a system (3.x) to its former incarnations (2.5e and prior).

In case of power-level, it is. D&D 3.x isn't overpowered compared to 2ed, as the power scale is just different.

horseboy
2007-09-05, 01:31 PM
Does anyone else remember Darth Maul? He single handedly injected retarded double weapons into D&D, because he popularized the idea of a double blade. Who cares that there's no basis for it in history or literature, or that using one would probably get you killed the first time you tried to swing it at someone.

Grrrr.


Gee, and here I thought I got it from ... (http://www.toonarific.com/show_pics.php?show_id=1389) Not to mention Timmoth Eyesbrite from back in 1st edition.

Eh, I don't mind if things like potions are purchasable. That always struck me as odd back in the day. Why weren't those more common? Stuff like the enchanted armour I understood. Those whole -1 con penalties ment nobody wanted to make permanent items. Course, then the problem became, what kind of a **** would waste 1 con to make a cursed item?

Does 3.x still have cursed items? You never hear about those anymore.

Journey
2007-09-05, 01:31 PM
Really? I always thought they screamed "abilities derived from training, life experience, or heritage that help differentiate characters."Some (e.g. Improved Initiative, Weapon Proficiencies) are, and some are basically superpowers (e.g. "Diehard," "Manyshot) writ in D&D. If they weren't Feats--that is, if they were things that happened once or twice in a character's lifetime by virtue of good luck and/or planning--they wouldn't be. As it is, they are.


It is when deciding whether parts of that system are overpowered. Power is relative to the rest of the system. If the average adventurer can do X, and in previous systems he could only do .5X, he's not overpowered if everyone else can do X too.
But if the jump from "0.5X" to "X" is the same as the jump from "tough hero doing deeds by sheer determination and will" to "average Joe who has the same powers and abilities everybody else does doing average Joe things," I see that as a problem of inflation.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-05, 01:42 PM
But if the jump from "0.5X" to "X" is the same as the jump from "tough hero doing deeds by sheer determination and will" to "average Joe who has the same powers and abilities everybody else does doing average Joe things," I see that as a problem of inflation.

Do you really think the earlier D&D games were examples of 'average Joe who has the same powers and abilities everybody else does doing average Joe things'? I don't know about you, but average Joe does NOT go out monster slaying. Beowulf does (diehard feat probably). Robin Hood does, human monsters anyway (manyshot feat probably). Guys who are tough heroes accomplishing things by training, skill forged in many battles, innate talents and incredible determination and will.

Dausuul
2007-09-05, 01:50 PM
Gee, and here I thought I got it from ... (http://www.toonarific.com/show_pics.php?show_id=1389) Not to mention Timmoth Eyesbrite from back in 1st edition.

Eh, I don't mind if things like potions are purchasable. That always struck me as odd back in the day. Why weren't those more common? Stuff like the enchanted armour I understood. Those whole -1 con penalties ment nobody wanted to make permanent items. Course, then the problem became, what kind of a **** would waste 1 con to make a cursed item?

Does 3.x still have cursed items? You never hear about those anymore.

As I recall, 2E cursed items were usually the result of accidents while crafting items--people didn't make them deliberately. (Although I'd have given up a point of Con to make a scarab of death. Those things were terrifying.)

There is a list of cursed items in the 3.5E DMG, but they don't see much use, probably because 3E DMs have so much number-crunching to do that they don't want to be bothered worrying about curses.

Serenity
2007-09-05, 01:51 PM
Journey, you seem to have a problem with the concept of the PCs being heroes. Heroes have capabilities beyond normal people. Heroes do things like make incredible trick shots, or keep going in spite of what would otherwise be crippling wounds. That's not just comic book or anime. That's mythology. That's legends. That's epic fantasy.

Journey
2007-09-05, 01:53 PM
Do you really think the earlier D&D games were examples of 'average Joe who has the same powers and abilities everybody else does doing average Joe things'?
No, you inverted my point. In 3.x formerly "heroic" feats and abilities are relatively mundane. That's what I mean by overpowered/inflation, and that's why having magic items "hardwired" into the game economy is indicative of more than just the "ooo pretty magic toys" effect.


Journey, you seem to have a problem with the concept of the PCs being heroes. Heroes have capabilities beyond normal people.I have zero problems with the concept of PCs being heroes. I have a huge problem with the notion that 3.x PCs actually are heroes, considering that just about every other creature has similar abilities, or at least versions of them.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-05, 01:53 PM
There is a list of cursed items in the 3.5E DMG, but they don't see much use, probably because 3E DMs have so much number-crunching to do that they don't want to be bothered worrying about curses.

This is somewhat true. I know I throw in few cursed items although I have from time to time, usually as a deliberate trap. Also, part of the reason for that is that most of the cursed items don't look like really fantastically awesome not cursed items, so characters that have a wealth of items to choose from are just as likley to stuff it in a bag and sell it later than ever actually use it and activate the curse.

Jayabalard
2007-09-05, 01:54 PM
Journey, you seem to have a problem with the concept of the PCs being heroes. You have a very very narrow definition of a "hero"

Some Heroes have capabilities beyond normal people.

Some Heroes do things like make incredible trick shots, or keep going in spite of what would otherwise be crippling wounds.

and Some Heroes are just ordinary people, with ordinary abilities who do extraordinary things due to chance, luck, strength of character, etc.

Reinboom
2007-09-05, 01:56 PM
Does 3.x still have cursed items? You never hear about those anymore.

Yes, and I've seen them used for much "hilarity". Look in, I think, the furthest back part of the magic item section of the DMG.


For the magic item discussion vs power discussion vs inflation vs... blah... did anyone play Forgotten Realms back in 2e? :smallconfused:

For the hero thing... when i was 2 I had consumed a large dose of an assassin's poison my father's medicine. My wizard prince riding a pearly white unicorn brother found me passing out and casted time stop rushed over to me and threw me in a bag of holding scooped me up. He then teleported to the high cleric of pelor rushed me to my parents who immediately took me to the doctor. He was only 110 10 and managed to carry my burden. He's my hero.

Heroes can come in many sizes and scales of power.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-05, 02:03 PM
No, you inverted my point. In 3.x formerly "heroic" feats and abilities are relatively mundane. That's what I mean by overpowered/inflation, and that's why having magic items "hardwired" into the game economy is indicative of more than just the "ooo pretty magic toys" effect.

In what way are they relativley mundane? I'm beginning to wonder if your play experience is one where your characters don't really have to interact with PC's that are 'normal' people. Folks who when they get feats spend them on things like Skill Focus: Profession (Farmer) and Skill focus: Craft (x).

PC's are supposed to be a very, very tiny percentage of the population. Think professional athletes, rock stars and rocket scientists.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-05, 02:05 PM
and Some Heroes are just ordinary people, with ordinary abilities who do extraordinary things due to their strength of character.
These are heroes that you're going to have a certain amount of trouble playing, though. Because ordinary people with ordinary abilities doing extraordinary things, in context of the generally dangerous activities D&D centers around, are succeeding and surviving (if they do either) in no small part by luck.

And if you try to make the game system account for exceptional luck, so that you don't 'use up' a PC every time there's an important roll under 15 (or 19, possibly...), you're effectively granting them powers well beyond the norm.

D&D PCs aren't actually very heroic, when you get down to it. A CR +4 encounter, known in layman's terms as a 'fair fight', is something most parties aren't going to be dealing with often. Because, quite naturally, in a fair fight you have a good chance of losing and a very good chance of getting someone killed.

horseboy
2007-09-05, 02:07 PM
and Some Heroes are just ordinary people, with ordinary abilities who do extraordinary things due to chance, luck, strength of character, etc.

Didn't Bruce Willis have a line like this in his last movie? Something like "I'm not a hero, I'm just the only one who can do something about this."

It's like my history teacher used to say: "Some men are great, others have greatness thrust upon them."

Dausuul
2007-09-05, 02:11 PM
D&D PCs aren't actually very heroic, when you get down to it. A CR +4 encounter, known in layman's terms as a 'fair fight', is something most parties aren't going to be dealing with often. Because, quite naturally, in a fair fight you have a good chance of losing and a very good chance of getting someone killed.

Eh, depends on your DM. I'm infamous among my players for throwing CR +3 or +4 stuff at them on a regular basis. Of course, I also fudge the numbers a bit from time to time.

Serenity
2007-09-05, 02:12 PM
I'd say the vast majority of heroes are, at the least, in incredible physical condition, or have an indominable will/unwavering purity/other mental strength beyond what a normal could hope to possess. Beowulf killed a monster with his bare hands by ripping off its arm. The heroes of Greek mythology hardly need a description to show their power. Legolas pretty clearly had Manyshot and Boromir demonstrated Diehard fighting the orcs despite being an arrow pincushion. Even the hobbits were said to have an innate purity which made it difficult for the Ring to corrupt them. eck, even in Firefly, with its notoriously lethal combat, Mal keeps going for quite a bit after being gutshot.

So, yes, gritty characters surviving by the skin of their teeth can be heroes. But, especially in epic fantasy and the myths its meant to emulate, the heroes are very frequently a cut above the average human at the very least. If Journey's claim is that feats are 'superpowers' that make you 'comic book caricatures' because they allow you to do extraordinary things, than I'd say his definition is the narrower one.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-05, 02:16 PM
You have a very very narrow definition of a "hero"

Some Heroes have capabilities beyond normal people.

Some Heroes do things like make incredible trick shots, or keep going in spite of what would otherwise be crippling wounds.

and Some Heroes are just ordinary people, with ordinary abilities who do extraordinary things due to chance, luck, strength of character, etc.

Yes, but this is a game with Dragons and Trolls. That means the type of heroes we are going to be dealing with are the kind that fight and slay Dragons and Trolls. Mythological style heroes, not firefighter type heroes.

I don't know the 2e mechanics very well (thaco drove me away from the system quite fast) but I'd be very surprised if it was such that a low level commoner equivalent stood a chance in heck against even a little bitty dragon without a ton of luck (see many nat 20's).



D&D PCs aren't actually very heroic, when you get down to it. A CR +4 encounter, known in layman's terms as a 'fair fight', is something most parties aren't going to be dealing with often. Because, quite naturally, in a fair fight you have a good chance of losing and a very good chance of getting someone killed.

Well, my parties frequently do... but then I'm a jerk. Also, I throw few encounters per day at them.


Of course, I also fudge the numbers a bit from time to time.

Yeah... I do that too.

Journey
2007-09-05, 02:25 PM
In what way are they relativley mundane?

PC's are supposed to be a very, very tiny percentage of the population. Think professional athletes, rock stars and rocket scientists.
But in 3.x, or really any system where magic item shops abound, even the commoners have the same kinds of heroic athletic or mental powers as the PCs.

PCs don't have to be hulking, spell-tossing brutes to be relatively more powerful than Average Joe who can cast up to 2nd level spells and has various magic feats.

Serenity
2007-09-05, 02:28 PM
Except for the fact that they don't, and I have no idea why you would possibly think that they would. If that's happening, that's the fault of the DM, not the rules.

Jayabalard
2007-09-05, 02:44 PM
Yes, but this is a game with Dragons and Trolls. That means the type of heroes we are going to be dealing with are the kind that fight and slay Dragons and Trolls. Mythological style heroes, not firefighter type heroes. Not necessarily.

That may be your playstyle, or the majority playstyle, but that doesn't make it the only playstyle.

There are certainly people who play low level D&D specifically to play those fairly ordinary heroes...


Except for the fact that they don't, and I have no idea why you would possibly think that they would. If that's happening, that's the fault of the DM, not the rules.If there are magic shops in most towns available to the PCs, then they must obviously be doing decent business, or they wouldn't be in business. That means that fairly common people have access to those items too, and certainly aristocrats do.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-05, 02:45 PM
But in 3.x, or really any system where magic item shops abound, even the commoners have the same kinds of heroic athletic or mental powers as the PCs.

PCs don't have to be hulking, spell-tossing brutes to be relatively more powerful than Average Joe who can cast up to 2nd level spells and has various magic feats.

Average Joe has NO magical items. Consider:

Boots of Elvenkind (a pretty weak magical item) cost 2,500 g.p.

A trained hireling costs 3sp a day, making their yearly wage (if they work 7 days a week) 109 gold and 5 silver.

Heck, a potion of cure light wounds costs 50 gold and that is nearly 1/2 their yearly income. They need to do things like eat too.

Regarding magic shops abounding, I agree with you, they shouldn't be all over the place and in games I DM they aren't. Really expensive magical stuff the PC's can't even sell because no one other than a pretty well to do noble can afford to buy it. I dislike them being around all the time because as a function of game play it makes items that ought to be neat and 'magical' seem pretty mundane not because the PC's don't outclass commoners by a wide margin.


Not necessarily.

That may be your playstyle, or the majority playstyle, but that doesn't make it the only playstyle.

There are certainly people who play low level D&D specifically to play those fairly ordinary heroes...


Dude, I hate to break it to you, but even a low level game has exactly those kinds of Heroes. They might be Patrocolus rather than Achillies but ordinary they ain't.



If there are magic shops in most towns available to the PCs, then they must obviously be doing decent business, or they wouldn't be in business. That means that fairly common people have access to those items too, and certainly aristocrats do.

Here is my thing... why is there this assumption that there would be magical item shops all over the place anyway? It might be a common playstyle but I don't remember their being anything in the rules saying that there are magic item shops aboud.

Also, if they are, they don't have to do a decent business to stay in business. There are plenty of specialty shops that only cater to the extremely wealthy (check out some SoHo art gallerys sometime if you are in NY) that need to make only 1 or 2 sales a month to make a profit.

Dausuul
2007-09-05, 02:53 PM
Not necessarily.

That may be your playstyle, or the majority playstyle, but that doesn't make it the only playstyle.

There are certainly people who play low level D&D specifically to play those fairly ordinary heroes...

If there are magic shops in most towns available to the PCs, then they must obviously be doing decent business, or they wouldn't be in business. That means that fairly common people have access to those items too, and certainly aristocrats do.

As I think I mentioned earlier--low volume, high margins. The prices magic items go for, you could sell one a year and stay in business.

Of course, where it breaks down is the huge variety of items available. The "by the book" magic shop has access to every item in the town's price range, where realistically it would carry only a handful of the most generally useful items, and everything else would have to be custom-made by the proprietor or his wizard contacts.

SPoD
2007-09-05, 02:56 PM
If there are magic shops in most towns available to the PCs, then they must obviously be doing decent business, or they wouldn't be in business. That means that fairly common people have access to those items too, and certainly aristocrats do.

No, it means no such thing. A magic item seller needs to sell only one minor magic item a year to support himself and his 17 children in relative luxury. If they sell two magic items, then the cost of the second one is devoted to security (mercenaries, magic defenses, etc.). They don't need to do "decent business" at all, they need to do SOME business, because the items they sell are priced so far above the cost of living that volume doesn't matter at all.

In fact, the very existence of a Magic Item Shop is not spelled out in the rules, so if it exists in your game, it's because the DM put it there. Being able to get a magic item can just as easily mean using connections in the local underworld to set up a risky backalley meeting where a mage of dubious legitimacy brings that one single item that you're looking for and you bring the cash, and you both hope neither one of you is looking for a fight. And even if it goes well, your enemies have heard about your latest magic acquisition because you had to spread the word around about what you were looking for.

Unless someone can quote me where it says in the DMG that there are actual physical magic shops in every town.

Rex Blunder
2007-09-05, 02:58 PM
Speaking of cursed items, 1e is amusingly full of cursed items that kill you and there's nothing you can do about it. For instance, the Necklace of Strangulation. Undetectable from any other magical necklace by any means except to put it on. Once you put it on, it starts to strangle you, doing 1d6 damage a round. It can only be removed by a wish, limited wish, or alter reality spell. Once it has killed you, it can't be removed until you are a skeleton.

The way I see it, this is a bad magical item. Putting one into magical treasure seems like the equivalent of the DM saying "Rocks fall on you, you die." Your death is totally arbitrary and unavoidable, unless you have access to wish spells. (pretty unlikely; I think few 1e games had a lot of 16th level, or whatever they'd have to be, magic-users running around.

This illustrates a different attitude towards magical treasure in 1ed than in 3rd. Magic items are powerful, but to balance that out, every once in a while you'll die for no reason and have to start at level 1.

Not a better or worse system, just different. OK, maybe a little worse.

Journey
2007-09-05, 03:01 PM
Average Joe has NO magical items. Consider:I think I haven't made myself clear. It's not just that magic abounds and even commoners have access to it (except when explicitly ruled against by the DM). It's that even the PC's abilities are caricatures of heroic abilities. They're at one extreme (superhero), and thus the "average PC" is no longer heroic--he's just average.


Unless someone can quote me where it says in the DMG that there are actual physical magic shops in every town.I'm pretty sure the wealth-by-level guidelines in the DMG incorporate an assumed quantity of magic items. While this isn't the "magic shop in every town" rule you're after, it does indicate that the rules themselves are designed to assume ubiquitous access to magic items.


I had magic shoppes all over my 1st and 2nd edition D&D worlds. It is in the rules.Not for 1st and 2nd edition. If you had them there you put them there because you played in high-magic worlds--the kind 3.x is designed to actually be (well, relatively higher magic, at least, than prior editions).

BlueWizard
2007-09-05, 03:01 PM
I had magic shoppes all over my 1st and 2nd edition D&D worlds. It is in the rules.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-05, 03:10 PM
I think I haven't made myself clear. It's not just that magic abounds and even commoners have access to it (except when explicitly ruled against by the DM). It's that even the PC's abilities are caricatures of heroic abilities. They're at one extreme (superhero), and thus the "average PC" is no longer heroic--he's just average.
Commoners, again, don't have access to it. They don't have that kind of money (50 GP first level potions are already serious money to a commoner, even a low-end professional). Nobles and rich merchants do, of course...if they didn't they wouldn't retain any power long if their was a moderately greedy magic-user about.

You've not at all illustrated what's 'superhero' about PC abilities...but the 'average PC' doesn't become average unless being compared against lots of other PCs or PC classes. You can make it so, but it certainly isn't implied by the DMG demographics...

Journey
2007-09-05, 03:13 PM
Commoners, again, don't have access to it. They don't have that kind of money (50 GP first level potions are already serious money to a commoner, even a low-end professional). Nobles and rich merchants do, of course...if they didn't they wouldn't retain any power long if their was a moderately greedy magic-user about.This really wasn't an issue by default in editions prior to 3.x; thanks for helping to make my point.


You've not at all illustrated what's 'superhero' about PC abilities...but the 'average PC' doesn't become average unless being compared against lots of other PCs or PC classes. You can make it so, but it certainly isn't implied by the DMG demographics...Sure I have. The ability to burn things to a crisp in less than 6 seconds, the ability to perform heroic feats at will, ubiquitous magic in the form of items and magic-like abilities are all "superhero" abilities.

Dausuul
2007-09-05, 03:15 PM
I think I haven't made myself clear. It's not just that magic abounds and even commoners have access to it (except when explicitly ruled against by the DM). It's that even the PC's abilities are caricatures of heroic abilities. They're at one extreme (superhero), and thus the "average PC" is no longer heroic--he's just average.

So, a hero isn't a hero because when you compare him to other heroes, he's just average for a hero?

Again, I don't understand your point here.

SPoD
2007-09-05, 03:17 PM
I think I haven't made myself clear. It's not just that magic abounds and even commoners have access to it (except when explicitly ruled against by the DM). It's that even the PC's abilities are caricatures of heroic abilities. They're at one extreme (superhero), and thus the "average PC" is no longer heroic--he's just average.

And I think most people here disagree with that assertion.

Nothing about low-level D&D characters is superheroic, in my mind. Not until you start getting to around 10th level or so. Since you haven't yet said what about them makes them superheroic, I can't really argue the point beyond, "I don't see it." It's not self-evident.

Further, in ANY game system, all of the PCs need to be around the same power level, or else there are balance issues. So of course the average PC is going to be around the same power level as other PCs. Unless you're complaining that the commoners aren't weak enough compared to the heroes, in which case I still disagree.

Please, in all seriousness: Can you explain how an average PC is not heroic? What would be your example of a heroic PC? One that is far underpowered compared to the monsters? Or the peasants? One that is more powerful than other PCs? What is it that makes you think that 3E PCs are somehow closer to the game system's average than those of 2E PCs?

Because really, I don't understand what you're arguing unless your point is, "I just don't like the style of 3E." In which case, that's aesthetics, and all of us arguing personal aesthetics is a waste of everyone's time.

Journey
2007-09-05, 03:17 PM
So, a hero isn't a hero because when you compare him to other heroes, he's just average for a hero?

Again, I don't understand your point here.
No, that's not at all what I've been saying. When the level of power is as high as it is in default 3.x, the word "heroic" becomes meaningless, because the basic abilities of the PCs are at a "superhero" level of power already.

Jayabalard
2007-09-05, 03:17 PM
Average Joe has NO magical items. Consider:

Boots of Elvenkind (a pretty weak magical item) cost 2,500 g.p.

A trained hireling costs 3sp a day, making their yearly wage (if they work 7 days a week) 109 gold and 5 silver.

Heck, a potion of cure light wounds costs 50 gold and that is nearly 1/2 their yearly income. They need to do things like eat too.The nobility would certainly be able to afford them; well to do non-nobles (merchants, certain tradesmen, etc) probably would be able to as well.

Common people in the real world spend as much or more than their yearly earnings on a single purchase sometimes. I just recently made a purchase for nearly 6x my annual salary.


Dude, I hate to break it to you, but even a low level game has may have exactly those kinds of Heroes. Fixed.

Like I said... this is a play style thing. Some people have those sort of people, and some don't. Some people play absolutely average, or even weak characters, some play comic book superhero caricatures, and most play something in between.


Here is my thing... why is there this assumption that there would be magical item shops all over the place anyway? It might be a common playstyle but I don't remember their being anything in the rules saying that there are magic item shops aboud.It is indeed a playstyle thing; it seems to be more common in 3.x ed than I remember it in 1ed, and the most likely theory that I've seen has been about the effects of the WBL guidelines


Also, if they are, they don't have to do a decent business to stay in business. There are plenty of specialty shops that only cater to the extremely wealthy (check out some SoHo art gallerys sometime if you are in NY) that need to make only 1 or 2 sales a month to make a profit.Note that I said "If there are magic shops in most towns"... there are not specialty shops like that in most towns.

And while it's not explicitly laid out as to how they are available, aren't there guidelines on what sort of items are available in towns, based on the size of the town? If they're available for the PCs to buy, then they're available for NPCs to buy.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-05, 03:18 PM
Sure I have. The ability to burn things to a crisp in less than 6 seconds, the ability to perform heroic feats at will, ubiquitous magic in the form of items and magic-like abilities are all "superhero" abilities.

Er? Wasn't the spell burning hands in 2nd ed?

It's not ubiquitous if less than 1 in 98 or so can afford to have even one...

SPoD
2007-09-05, 03:19 PM
No, that's not at all what I've been saying. When the level of power is as high as it is in default 3.x, the word "heroic" becomes meaningless, because the basic abilities of the PCs are at a "superhero" level of power already.

You responded while I was typing, but I still don't see it.

What is it about a 5th level fighter, rogue, or even wizard in 3E that you consider "superhero" level of power that wasn't ALSO available in 1E and 2E?

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-05, 03:21 PM
This really wasn't an issue by default in editions prior to 3.x; thanks for helping to make my point.
:smallconfused: Unless your point is that the rules do state that magical items can be bought...which they do...

Sure I have. The ability to burn things to a crisp in less than 6 seconds, the ability to perform heroic feats at will, ubiquitous magic in the form of items and magic-like abilities are all "superhero" abilities.
Magic, even fast-acting magic, need not imply super-heroism...

I don't know what you mean by heroic feats at will. Are you misinterpreting the meaning of Feats as a mechanical term?

Possessing magic (not ubiquitous, since you are exceptional) occurs in many contexts not normally termed 'superhero'.

Journey
2007-09-05, 03:24 PM
You responded while I was typing, but I still don't see it.
What is it about a 5th level fighter, rogue, or even wizard that you consider "superhero" level of power?
The sneak attack system, various feats (toughness, endurance/diehard), any metamagic feat, etc.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-05, 03:24 PM
Fixed.

Like I said... this is a play style thing. Some people have those sort of people, and some don't. Some people play absolutely average, or even weak characters, some play comic book superhero caricatures, and most play something in between.


So... you know people who play games where everyone is a commoner or an expert? I don't... I know people who madeplayed one or two characters like that for a lark...


The sneak attack system, various feats (toughness, endurance/diehard), any metamagic feat, etc.

I'm afraid I have to disagree there. Metamagic aside (since there is no magic at all in the real world to compare it to), people can have those things and not be superheroes.

Guys in Marine Recon may have all of them (except diehard... no way to know really... although there are stories) and as much as they are trained butt kickers they are not superheroes.

Dausuul
2007-09-05, 03:28 PM
The sneak attack system, various feats (toughness, endurance/diehard), any metamagic feat, etc.

Toughness is superheroic?

You can take a bit more punishment than the average guy, and that makes you a superhero?

...Okay, you have a really bizarre definition of superheroics. And sneak attack? You're good at stabbing people when they aren't looking? What's superheroic about that?

And while it can be argued that any spellcaster is by definition superheroic, I don't see how metamagic feats make them any more so.

Jayabalard
2007-09-05, 03:30 PM
What is it about a 5th level fighter, rogue, or even wizard in 3E that you consider "superhero" level of power that wasn't ALSO available in 1E and 2E?
Rogue: Evasion of a fireball in a sealed, smooth walled 10x10 room.
Rogue & wizard: a utility belt that puts batman to shame (ie, magic items)

SPoD
2007-09-05, 03:33 PM
The sneak attack system, various feats (toughness, endurance/diehard), any metamagic feat, etc.

You're kidding, right?

Toughness? That's your big example of superheroics, 3 extra hit points? It's one of the weakest, least selected feats in the game!

Or Endurance? Because no hero in the history of literature other than a costumed crimefighter has ever been described as being in better shape than the average person, right? I mean, I could totally run as far as a marathon runner, so yeah, it's stupid to have anything that differentiates two characters' ability to persevere.

Likewise Diehard...Are you saying you've never read a novel or seen a movie where a character struggles to hold on to consciousness while losing blood? Ever? I can think of a few the top of my head: Sean Connery in The Untouchables, or the real-world story of how they had to kill Rasputin.

Or metamagic? So, the ability to hurl fire is fine, but the ability to hurl slightly better fire at a specific cost is "superhero"?

And for sneak attack, 1E and 2E had backstab, which was poorly defined. It's the same concept, just with tighter mechanics.

I'm sorry, now that you've spelled out things you think are superheroic, I can honestly say that your point makes no sense at all.

Rex Blunder
2007-09-05, 03:36 PM
What is it about a 5th level fighter, rogue, or even wizard in 3E that you consider "superhero" level of power that wasn't ALSO available in 1E and 2E?



Fighter: The most normal... but the level of hp they have at that level is a superhero ability in and of itself.
Rogue: Evasion of a fireball in a sealed, smooth walled 10x10 room.
Wizard 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells.
Rogue & wizard: a utility belt that puts batman to shame (ie, magic items)

I do long for the simpler days of 2e where fighter's didn't have d10 HP/level, and wizards didn't have spell levels 1, 2, and 3.

Jayabalard
2007-09-05, 03:37 PM
I do long for the simpler days of 2e where fighter's didn't have d10 HP/level, and wizards didn't have spell levels 1, 2, and 3.
bah... that's what I get for reading part of that post and not all of it.


So... you know people who play games where everyone is a commoner or an expert? I don't... I know people who madeplayed one or two characters like that for a lark...I have played 0 level characters from 1ed unearthed arcana; you know, where you play through 3 levels before you get to be a 1st level character. I think there were generalized rules for that for all classes

Draz74
2007-09-05, 03:39 PM
The sneak attack system, various feats (toughness, endurance/diehard), any metamagic feat, etc.

Toughness?!? That makes someone a superhero? Wait. A hypothetical 2nd-level Wizard with Toughness in 3E still has less HP than a 2nd-level Fighter (in 2E or 3E). I don't understand that at all.

And Diehard is one of the best feats in the game, in terms of the precedent it has in (non-Superhero) fantasy literature. Even though it's a weak feat in D&D. Ever watch Boromir go down fighting the Uruks?

The sneak attack system is really not that different from the Backstab ability in 2E, flavor-wise. It's just adapted to a system that doesn't have the annoying requirement of Facing rules.

How is metamagic any more "superhero" than casting spells in the first place? I mean, yes, you're casting spells, and then doing something extra with them. But only with your weaker spells!

SPoD
2007-09-05, 03:39 PM
Fighter: The most normal... but the level of hp they have at that level is a superhero ability in and of itself.

No it's not, it's the nature of the system that they've chosen. You're thinking of hit points as being physical sturdiness only, and they make it clear that it's not. It's also luck, skill, perseverence, the will to carry on when others quit. That's why they say stuff like, "a dagger to the throat is still a dagger to the throat," because hit points don't represent supernatural resistance to wounds.


Rogue: Evasion of a fireball in a sealed, smooth walled 10x10 room.

Except that if the definition of hit points is abstract, then the definition of not losing hit points must ALSO be abstract. Which means that the rogue might be singed around the edges and smoking, but he didn't lose any of his ability to stay conscious. Maybe he Stopped, Dropped, and Rolled, maybe he ducked behind the fighter, who cares? Maybe he's just lucky.


Wizard 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells.

Wizards had the same spells in previous editions.


Rogue & wizard: a utility belt that puts batman to shame (ie, magic items)

I don't know how any 5th level character could get any such thing.

Jayabalard
2007-09-05, 03:47 PM
No it's not, it's the nature of the system that they've chosen. You're thinking of hit points as being physical sturdiness only, and they make it clear that it's not. It's also luck, skill, perseverence, the will to carry on when others quit. That's why they say stuff like, "a dagger to the throat is still a dagger to the throat," because hit points don't represent supernatural resistance to wounds.If a 5th level fighter get's coup de graced by someone of average strength using a dagger (a knife in the throat), they still have a pretty decent chance of survival compared to the real world.

ColdBrew
2007-09-05, 03:49 PM
If a 5th level fighter get's coup de graced by someone of average strength using a dagger (a knife in the throat), they still have a pretty decent chance of survival compared to the real world.
A CDG is a full-round action, representing a rushed attempt to finish a helpless foe. If you weren't under time pressure and simply said "I saw through his throat until I reach bone" a reasonable DM would just kill the sod.

By the way, that dagger's only doing 5 damage on average. A 5th level fighter with 14 con has a fort save of +7, meaning he needs a 13 or better to not die immediately. That's a 65% chance to kick it.

SPoD
2007-09-05, 03:51 PM
If a 5th level fighter get's coup de graced by someone of average strength using a dagger (a knife in the throat), they still have a pretty decent chance of survival compared to the real world.

Except that a coup de grace attack is not necessarily a dagger to the throat. It's an attack made against a helpless enemy, but if there's a combat going on, then it might not be exactly at their throat. It could be an ATTEMPT to slice a throat, but if it fails, then oops, they missed and stabbed him in the jaw.

If there is no combat going on, and there is a coup de grace, it just happens and the fighter dies.

horseboy
2007-09-05, 03:59 PM
I don't know how any 5th level character could get any such thing.

Somebody may want to link to her that whole "Aragorn is 5th level" BS article. You know, the one that explains how D&D breaks reality past then.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-05, 04:01 PM
I have played 0 level characters from 1ed unearthed arcana; you know, where you play through 3 levels before you get to be a 1st level character.

I have not read 1e unearthed arcana and am not familiar with the rules variant you are referring to, so no, I actually don't know. You had stats of 10 across the board, were working with a 0 point buy, or less? (average to weak for a human) also? You were saving children from fires rather than battling monsters your DM had reduced to appropriate CR?





I don't know how any 5th level character could get any such thing.

Somebody may want to link to her that whole "Aragorn is 5th level" BS article. You know, the one that explains how D&D breaks reality past then.

Quite honestly, please do. I have some trouble seeing how on earth that is relevant to the discussion.

SPoD
2007-09-05, 04:03 PM
Common people in the real world spend as much or more than their yearly earnings on a single purchase sometimes. I just recently made a purchase for nearly 6x my annual salary.

Yes, because Joe the Medieval Farmer can pop down to his local bank, have them check his credit report to determine that he has been paying the balance on his credit card regularly, and issue him a 2500 gp loan for a magic sword where he will regularly make payments back to the bank. It will only take him...say...a few hundred years to pay it back.

There are a lot of things that can happen in the modern world that don't happen in a D&D world. This is one of them. Considering most magic items are combat-related, it would be like the well-to-do of the area loaning submachine guns to the poor and disenfranchised. As in, it ain't gonna happen.

SPoD
2007-09-05, 04:07 PM
Somebody may want to link to her that whole "Aragorn is 5th level" BS article. You know, the one that explains how D&D breaks reality past then.

Sure, go ahead and link it. It won't actually solve anything, because Aragorn doesn't have a utility belt at all.

If someone can show me how a 5th level character can afford a "utility belt that puts Batman to shame" in addition to their normal sword/armor/shield, I will concede the point. Mind you, I've read a lot of Batman comics, so I expect that what you will instead be proving is, "I think this character has more magic items than they should."

Matthew
2007-09-05, 04:08 PM
Quite honestly, please do. I have some trouble seeing how on earth that is relevant to the discussion.

D&D Calibrating your Expectations (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)


If there is no combat going on, and there is a coup de grace, it just happens and the fighter dies.

Are you sure about that? I can't see it in the SRD, 3.0/3.5 PHB or DMG. I know that was the rule in AD&D.

Jayabalard
2007-09-05, 04:08 PM
A CDG is a full-round action, representing a rushed attempt to finish a helpless foe. If you weren't under time pressure and simply said "I saw through his throat until I reach bone" a reasonable DM would just kill the sod.A round is 6 seconds, no? that's hardly being rushed.

By the way, that dagger's only doing 5 damage on average. A 5th level fighter with 14 con has a fort save of +7, meaning he needs a 13 or better to not die immediately. That's a 65% chance to kick it.The save is 10+ damage dealt, no? The average damage dealt is (1d4 x2 = 2.5 x2) 5 so the save would be a 15, right? To roll a 15 or higher, with a +6 bonus (I think you're off by one: +2 con, +4 from level 5 fighter), so that's a 45% chance to kick it.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-05, 04:11 PM
I actually don't see the problem with someone surviving a 6 second exercise in throat-slitting. They've got a sizeable chance to drop dead, and take a substantial amount of damage unless you have both limited strength and very bad luck. What gives me more trouble is that afterwards, they're in no further danger.

But that's really just an extreme case of a fairly common medical simplification issue. A single heal check guarantees that unless some further injury is done, the subject will eventually recover from any wound that doesn't kill them instantly, unless poison is involved. No one ever dies slowly, despite the efforts of healers, unless disease is brought in (and magic kept out). Never mind that that can happen even with modern medicine.

Somebody may want to link to her that whole "Aragorn is 5th level" BS article. You know, the one that explains how D&D breaks reality past then.
Or, more exactly, how D&D breaks with the competence level of real people past then... This one here (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)?

horseboy
2007-09-05, 04:14 PM
D&D Calibrating your Expectations (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)

Are you sure about that? I can't see it in the SRD or 3.5 PHB. I know that was the rule in AD&D.

Thanks Matt and Ulz.

That article explains how anything over level 5 is considered tier 2 or "Superhuman" level of the game. I think Journey is debating that it starts much sooner than that.

Arbitrarity
2007-09-05, 04:15 PM
Are you sure about that? I can't see it in the SRD.


Hmmm... not quite legal, but in the event that someone was helpless, and attempting a CDG repeatedly was an option, I'd give them 2 minutes to do that, maximum. (Discounting Steadfast Determination).

On the other hand, if you suck so much at dealing damage that that's necessary, that's not too funny.

"The wizard feebly lifts the dagger, struggling to hold it upright. He staggers over to you, and begins to slowly pick at your neck with the dagger. You resist his frail blows, until he finally manages to pierce your skin, striking a major artery. You bleed on him. You resist that as well. He continues to stab weakly at your neck, carefully aiming his blows, but his shaking hands, and inability to hold the dagger easily, make them clumsy, and mostly ineffective."

*A few minutes later*

"Having spent 3 minutes piercing your neck with a dagger, he finally makes you DIE. See! Natural 1! Dead! Dead! Gaaaah!"

ColdBrew
2007-09-05, 04:15 PM
A round is 6 seconds, no? that's hardly being rushed.
The save is 10+ damage dealt, no? The average damage dealt is (1d4 x2 = 2.5 x2) 5 so the save would be a 15, right? To roll a 15 or higher, with a +6 bonus (I think you're off by one: +2 con, +4 from level 5 fighter), so that's a 45% chance to kick it.
Yeah, I had 15+. Regardless, a round being 6 seconds doesn't mean a full-round action takes 6 seconds to complete. See the magic section of the PHB for the distinction between full-round and 1-round cast times, for example. You're lining up a nasty blow which is why you automatically hit and crit and the victim has to make a save. By no means are you guaranteeing damage to a vital part of their body.

Dausuul
2007-09-05, 04:16 PM
Yes, because Joe the Medieval Farmer can pop down to his local bank, have them check his credit report to determine that he has been paying the balance on his credit card regularly, and issue him a 2500 gp loan for a magic sword where he will regularly make payments back to the bank. It will only take him...say...a few hundred years to pay it back.

Indeed. For the aforementioned farmer making roughly 100 gp a year, a +1 sword is twenty-three times his yearly wages for something that will do him no good whatsoever. That's like me, making $30K a year, taking out God knows what kind of adjustable-rate subprime loan in order to buy $690,000 worth of anti-tank missiles. It's highly unlikely that anybody would loan me that much money to begin with; I have no earthly use for the weaponry and no way to pay the loan back; and the local authorities will have a whole lot of questions about what exactly I plan to do with all that firepower.

Even a simple potion of cure light wounds is half the farmer's pay--the equivalent of a $15,000 medical treatment for modern-day me.

Jayabalard
2007-09-05, 04:20 PM
I have not read 1e unearthed arcana and am not familiar with the rules variant you are referring to, so no, I actually don't know. You had stats of 10 across the board, were working with a 0 point buy, or less? (average to weak for a human) also? You were saving children from fires rather than battling monsters your DM had reduced to appropriate CR?Hmm. those were the standard rules for cavaliers unless you rolled a high enough rank to jump straight into 1st level. While it's not a "core" class for 1ed (I never heard that term until 3.x ed by the way), it's not really a variant rule.

The standard rules when I started playing was "roll 3d6, in order, no re-rolling" so yes, I've played characters that were equivalent to 10s across the board or worse. Point buy didn't exist, as far as I know.

CR is a 3e concept (I don't believe that it existed in 1ed); if you mean "Was the GM smart enough to tailor the game to the players playing it" the answer is "yes" ... which doesn't mean that we were "saving children from fires"


Yes, because Joe the Medieval Farmer can pop down to his local bank, have them check his credit report to determine that he has been paying the balance on his credit card regularly, and issue him a 2500 gp loan for a magic sword where he will regularly make payments back to the bank. It will only take him...say...a few hundred years to pay it back.

There are a lot of things that can happen in the modern world that don't happen in a D&D world. This is one of them. Considering most magic items are combat-related, it would be like the well-to-do of the area loaning submachine guns to the poor and disenfranchised. As in, it ain't gonna happen.I don't recall saying that I got a loan; what makes you so sure that I didn't pay cash from my savings?

There are plenty of non-combat related magic items. And while a farmer doesn't have much use for a magic weapon, a town guard would.

Matthew
2007-09-05, 04:20 PM
Yeah, maybe, but a Sailor can make considerably more money via a Profession Check. Something like 400 GP a year if he has Skill Focus and 4 Ranks.

horseboy
2007-09-05, 04:21 PM
I have no earthly use for the weaponry

There's always room for HEAP. :smallwink:
Like

uh

uh

Taking out tree stumps, yeah, tree stumps

and

uhm...

Those pesky F-16's that keep buzzing my cattle.

Arbitrarity
2007-09-05, 04:24 PM
Yeah, maybe, but a Sailor can make considerably more money via a Profession Check. Something like 400 GP a year if he has Skill Focus and 4 Ranks.

Yeah, the multiplier is odd. The commoner with skill focus, and a 10 in wisdom, can get 884 gp/year, which isn't too shabby. Decrease by 52 gp/-1 to skill check.

Skills: Important stuff.

SPoD
2007-09-05, 04:24 PM
Thanks Matt and Ulz.

That article explains how anything over level 5 is considered tier 2 or "Superhuman" level of the game. I think Journey is debating that it starts much sooner than that.

OK...after reading that, I have absolutely no idea how that implies that a 5th level rogue or wizard would have a utility belt that shames Batman's.

And at any rate, that article only proves my point. The average D&D PC does exceed 5th level, and therefore is not "average" at all, so Journey's assertions make no sense. "Superhuman" does not equal "superhero". As the article says, Gandalf may be a virtual demigod, but based on the abilities he actually displayed, he would get his ass kicked by the Justice League's second string.

If you want to argue that 15th-30th level characters are superheroes, I won't dispute it. That's part of the point. If you want to argue that 2nd level characters are superheroes, then I will.

Dausuul
2007-09-05, 04:25 PM
Hmm. those were the standard rules for cavaliers unless you rolled a high enough rank to jump straight into 1st level. While it's not a "core" class for 1ed (I never heard that term until 3.x ed by the way), it's not really a variant rule.

The standard rules when I started playing was "roll 3d6, in order, no re-rolling" so yes, I've played characters that were equivalent to 10s across the board or worse. Point buy didn't exist, as far as I know.

CR is a 3e concept (I don't believe that it existed in 1ed); if you mean "Was the GM smart enough to tailor the game to the players playing it" the answer is "yes" ... which doesn't mean that we were "saving children from fires"

I don't recall saying that I got a loan; what makes you so sure that I didn't pay cash from my savings?

Then congratulations on your spending discipline, since most people don't manage to save that much. However, you paid the equivalent of 600 gold pieces. Not exactly big money in magic item terms. And I'll bet that was a big investment for you, something that will make a substantial difference in your life--not something you could go out and buy every day, or every year, or every five years even. What item is the farmer going to buy for his six hundred gold? How many farmers are going to go to that much trouble and expense to do so?

Nightgaunt
2007-09-05, 04:27 PM
Wow, this thread is all over the place... A few thoughts

I'm not getting in to a PC's are super-heroes because I don't see either term defined too well in here. But the RAW (that is rules as written) states Elite characters (PCs or not) have above average ability scores and automatically get maximum hit points from their first Hit Die. Average characters, on the other hand, have average abilities (3d6) and don't get maximum hit points. Similarly rules exist for making monsters elite.

So, PC's get 4d6 drop the lowest roll and max HP at 1st level. Normal people roll HP for first level and get 3d6 straight. The Rules as Written are very clear that a PC is better then an average person. You can change the rules if you want, and of course modify your style of play to whatever you like. But that doesn't change the rules, which keeps it a system based question...


Magic Items.
it is true the DMG never states you "must" have a magical item shop. It also doesn't say you "must" have a farm, but both are logical extentions of the rules and nature of the world. Magical Item creation, as has been pointed out, in 2nd edition was difficult. It cost a point of Con. The big question in 2nd edition was always, why the hell would a mage lose a point of Con to make a Longsword +1? I answered that question in my campaign world by not having any. Magic was rare, and what existed was powerful. That made sense within the "physics" of the game.Physics is the term I use for how the rules would seem to the people within the gaming world.

In 3rd edition Feats that cost money and a small amount of XP made creation of magical items much more viable as a source of income. You can bet in a world like this someone would have opened a magical item shop. And if they don't your PC's will. The rules support it quite a bit as well. The rules show you the Wealth Limit of a town, and the most expensive item you can purchase given the town size. The rules also give the "market value" of the magical items. It makes sense combining those two rules that magic would be, if not readily available, far more available then it would have been in 2nd edition. This is because th physics has changed. A world created using the rules from 3rd edition should not appear the same as a world created using the rules from 2nd edition. The rules are just too different.

Modification and DM fiat can go a long way to create any changes you want, and as far as I know rule 0 still exists. I personally have modified the crap out of the rules for magical item creation. That is because, as a DM, I want my Physics to match the world. I have a hard time justifying the current Magical Item creation process and not having a magical shop. To do so seems to break the premise of the rules to suit the game. Better to just change the rules to make the game I want..

But it isn't RAW, and if a debate is taking place, it is better to stick to RAW or there is nothing to debate but opinions.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-05, 04:28 PM
I don't recall saying that I got a loan; what makes you so sure that I didn't pay cash from my savings?
Whatever you may have done, I find it very improbably that Joe farmer is sitting on over a thousand gold pieces. At least, if we're talking about a peasant. Joe farm-owner, lord of the manor in all but titles of nobility, sure.

Yeah, maybe, but a Sailor can make considerably more money via a Profession Check. Something like 400 GP a year if he has Skill Focus and 4 Ranks.
Making the profession incomes not break any semblance of economic coherency takes a little work. Particularly given the DMG mentioning profession (farmer).

My preferred explanation for this is that such professions are not for (and probably not possessed by) the general run of laborers. Someone with that much Profession (Sailor) would be fairly well qualified to captain a ship...for which that's a much more reasonable pay scale. A sailor with any profession (sailor) is at least an able seaman, possibly a petty officer to this perspective, and even then they may well not have 4 ranks.

SPoD
2007-09-05, 04:29 PM
I don't recall saying that I got a loan; what makes you so sure that I didn't pay cash from my savings?

*Sigh* I don't really care how you did it, that's not the point. The point is, there isn't the economic security necessary for a peasant to make a purchase of six times his salary. Whether that's because there isn't a system that will loan it to him or because there isn't a bank to keep it safe in doesn't matter.

You know what the name of a 1st level commoner with six times his yearly salary saved under his mattress is?

Rob Meenow.

Jayabalard
2007-09-05, 04:30 PM
Whatever you may have done, I find it very improbably that Joe farmer is sitting on over a thousand gold pieces. At least, if we're talking about a peasant. Joe farm-owner, lord of the manor in all but titles of nobility, sure.Sorry, is there some rule that makes D&D fall into a fuduel society where the farmers don't own thier land? If so, I've missed it.


Making the profession incomes not break any semblance of economic coherency takes a little work. Particularly given the DMG mentioning profession (farmer).it's as valid as any other method.


*Sigh* I don't really care how you did it, that's not the point. The point is, there isn't the economic security necessary for a peasant to make a purchase of six times his salary. Whether that's because there isn't a system that will loan it to him or because there isn't a bank to keep it safe in doesn't matter.

You know what the name of a 1st level commoner with six times his yearly salary saved under his mattress is?

Rob Meenow.banking has existed for thousands of years: "The first banks were probably the religious temples of the ancient world, and were probably established sometime during the 3rd millennium B.C."

that commoner has options to deposit their money, and to secure loans.


Ancient Greece holds further evidence of banking. Greek temples, as well as private and civic entities, conducted financial transactions such as loans, deposits, currency exchange, and validation of coinage. There is evidence too of credit, whereby in return for a payment from a client, a moneylender in one Greek port would write a credit note for the client who could "cash" the note in another city, saving the client the danger of carting coinage with him on his journey. Pythius, who operated as a merchant banker throughout Asia Minor at the beginning of the 5th century B.C., is the first individual banker of whom we have records. Many of the early bankers in Greek city-states were “metics” or foreign residents. Around 371 B.C., Pasion, a slave, became the wealthiest and most famous Greek banker, gaining his freedom and Athenian citizenship in the process.

SPoD
2007-09-05, 04:34 PM
This:


it is true the DMG never states you "must" have a magical item shop. It also doesn't say you "must" have a farm, but both are logical extentions of the rules and nature of the world.

and this:


But it isn't RAW, and if a debate is taking place, it is better to stick to RAW or there is nothing to debate but opinions.

are direct contradictions of one another. If all we can debate is the RAW, then the point stands that the RAW does not demand or proscribe the existence of magic item shops. It's all in the campaign setting, in the same way as I can create a campaign where the entire world is frozen over and only one city survives by eating the neverending supply of meat from a handful of half-troll cattle. I.E., a world without farms.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-05, 04:34 PM
Hmm. those were the standard rules for cavaliers unless you rolled a high enough rank to jump straight into 1st level. While it's not a "core" class for 1ed (I never heard that term until 3.x ed by the way), it's not really a variant rule.

The standard rules when I started playing was "roll 3d6, in order, no re-rolling" so yes, I've played characters that were equivalent to 10s across the board or worse. Point buy didn't exist, as far as I know.

CR is a 3e concept (I don't believe that it existed in 1ed); if you mean "Was the GM smart enough to tailor the game to the players playing it" the answer is "yes" ... which doesn't mean that we were "saving children from fires"


Wait, so this is a 1st ed game... I thought we were talking about 3rd ed. with regard to the heroic concept in play?

SPoD
2007-09-05, 04:39 PM
banking has existed for thousands of years: "The first banks were probably the religious temples of the ancient world, and were probably established sometime during the 3rd millennium B.C."

Except that in the real world, there weren't dragons that lusted after gold. A bank in a D&D world might as well have an "All-U-Can-Pillage" sign on the roof, written in Draconic.

The fact is, ANY scenario we, as DMs, want to enforce is no more or less logical than any other. So it comes down to aesthetics and what the system will allow, mechanically. And it allows there to not be magic item shops, so if you have them, it must be because someone wanted them there.

Kioran
2007-09-05, 04:39 PM
The problem with the "superheroics" in D&D isnīt necessesary something in comparison with earlier editions - itīs the fact that 3.5 PCs of lvl 10+ can waltz over any given amount of lvl 1-3 NPCs without so much as a scratch or being in real danger - and not in the sense of "high-lvl vs. low-lvl" , but in how powerful that one difference makes you.
In 2nd Edition, for example, youīd need 50 minutes to prepare the Teleport that can get you out of that mess, or 40 for the dimension door. The healing you use actually hurts your ressources or time-planning. Elminster didnīt zap in and do them over himself because heīd need a day (10 minutes per spell level does that to you!) just recovering from it. 3.5?

Not so much. And thanks to ubiquitous magic items, itīs theoretically not even limited to mages.

Itīs not that PCs shouldnīt be extraordinary and the 1-2% with the most potential - Itīs just the differnce between those with wealth and those without is crass in an item heavy setting. So these items alone present an almost impassable gulf between heroes and the populace.

And, post ToB (which means semi-casting for everyone), donīt even get me started on the gulf between people with class features and those without, cause itīs even bigger, and Wizards doesnīt even seem to mind. The "Superhero" feeling comes up when that 4000-heads Hobgoblin army doesnīt even pose a credible threat anymore (to a 10th lvl party). A 2nd Edition party? Would have "drowned" and gone under due to attrition, or, in the least, would have had to retreat and lick their wounds for a day or two. Now, the next morning, theyīre fresh as bed linens and ready to kick ass, that is, if they have to retreat at all.......

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-05, 04:41 PM
Sorry, is there some rule that makes D&D fall into a fuduel society where the farmers don't own thier land? If so, I've missed it.
Nothing at all. Owning their own land may make them not legally peasants...they can still very possibly live like them.

it's as valid as any other method.
Of breaking coherency? Or of calculating incomes such that we can readily determine that a single peasant produces several tons of grain a year? Remember that 2000 lb of raw grain is only worth 20 gp...

banking institutions have existed for thousands of years: "The first banks were probably the religious temples of the ancient world, and were probably established sometime during the 3rd millennium B.C."
Er, yeah. In fact, Rome had some serious issues due to consumption loans to the poor, according to one source. And as you point out, mercantile loans have been around for a while (though both had issues in the early medieval period that D&D most mimics). But lending several years income for a completely non-productive purchase?

Jayabalard
2007-09-05, 04:41 PM
Wait, so this is a 1st ed game... I thought we were talking about 3rd ed. with regard to the heroic concept in play?There are some people arguing that specifically. I don't happen to be one of those people.

The point is: Characters being out of the ordinary is a playstyle thing; regardless of the D&D edition, there are people who play at all power levels, from the weak to the mighty, and everywhere in between.


Nothing at all. Owning their own land may make them not legally peasants...they can still very possibly live like them.

Of breaking coherency? Or of calculating incomes such that we can readily determine that a single peasant produces several tons of grain a year?

Er, yeah. In fact, Rome had some serious issues due to consumption loans to the poor, according to one source. And as you point out, mercantile loans have been around for a while (though both had issues in the early medieval period that D&D most mimics). But lending several years income for a completely non-productive purchase?Like I said before, it's not a non-productive purchase for all "average joes"; soldiers and town guards would certainly get some use out of it.

I'm sure that there are also non-combat items that would be useful for even a farmer.

ColdBrew
2007-09-05, 04:46 PM
The problem with the "superheroics" in D&D isnīt necessesary something in comparison with earlier editions - itīs the fact that 3.5 PCs of lvl 10+ can waltz over any given amount of lvl 1-3 NPCs without so much as a scratch or being in real danger - and not in the sense of "high-lvl vs. low-lvl" , but in how powerful that one difference makes you.
...
The "Superhero" feeling comes up when that 4000-heads Hobgoblin army doesnīt even pose a credible threat anymore (to a 10th lvl party).
I can only assume you're talking about the Red Hand of Doom. Did you ever read the thread on the CharOp forums about taking on that army? No 10th level PC can just wade in and go to town. Every random factor works against the PCs, since there are so many more NPCs. They can afford some unlucky rolls, and will get those 20s eventually. You can't.

Tweekinator
2007-09-05, 04:47 PM
But lending several years income for a completely non-productive purchase?

Farmer Joe has the awesome business plan of going into someone's home, killing them, and taking their stuff. Unfortunately, because he is a commoner, he can't go after the greenskins and is thus relegated to killing weaker things. Like other commoners.

Arbitrarity
2007-09-05, 04:53 PM
Farmer Joe has the awesome business plan of going into someone's home, killing them, and taking their stuff. Unfortunately, because he is a commoner, he can't go after the greenskins and is thus relegated to killing weaker things. Like other commoners.

This sounds oddly familiar, somehow.

Matthew
2007-09-05, 04:58 PM
It is no seceret that the D&D economy is borked, as far as I know. Magic Items for sale just bork it up more. Treating D&D mechanics as though they can really model the workings of a fictional world is what causes the problem, in my opinion.

Limited Magic Item production is one way of reducing the problems of the D&D economy, as it reduces the number of variables and exceptions. In the long run, though, the economy of a fantasy world is something that cannot be boiled down to some very brief mechanics.

The D20 supplement A Magical Medieval Society - Western Europe (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=10) by Expeditious Retreat Press, however, does contain a pretty good D&D economic simulator.

Kioran
2007-09-05, 04:59 PM
I can only assume you're talking about the Red Hand of Doom. Did you ever read the thread on the CharOp forums about taking on that army? No 10th level PC can just wade in and go to town. Every random factor works against the PCs, since there are so many more NPCs. They can afford some unlucky rolls, and will get those 20s eventually. You can't.

Iīm not referring to that module, specifically. But if you will, imagine the carnage some widened burning hands, Great Cleave and the Rogues normal attacks can inflict. I think the PCs can take down a few hundred Soldiers before theyīre in any sort of threat. Protection from arrows menas they can pretty much ignore most of the ranged attacks for the first rounds, and stoneskin or armor of invulnerability can take care of the damage from other sources as well. The Cleric can only cast CCW, granted, and so they wonīt last forever. But theyīll kill several hundred NPCs before retreating in relative safety.
The main difference is that in 2nd ed, such tactics would have been more difficult to pull of (Defensive casting? Casting in around in which youīve received damage? Bwahahaha!), or you would have had to rest maybe 2 days to replenish your spells and ressources. 3.5?
You teleport out, report to the king, drink his wine cellar, ravish his daughter and return in the morning, finishing those Goblins who didnīt flee in abject terror the first time, which is easy since you have new spells, and, more importantly, your magical tiems have recharged. And itīs going to get worse with ressources-per-encounter, where itīs more like a MMORPG. Binary. Either youīre dead or ready to rock in less than 3 minutes.

horseboy
2007-09-05, 05:08 PM
mbat items that would be useful for even a farmer.
True that, in fact I'd be surprised if every hamlet in 3.x hadn't pooled their money together to buy some sort of Orb of Weather Control. That way it would rain when the crops needed it, be sunny for town functions and keep winters from being too harsh. Since they'd be in every town, they wouldn't be rare enough to be worth stealing.

Arbitrarity
2007-09-05, 05:17 PM
Pricing: Please wait.

Interesting. A 1/week orb of Control Weather is 5.2K.

Size: Hamlet (assuming competent population, making 1 gp/day, with a DC 14 profession check, i.e. take 10, 4 ranks). Population: 40. Earnings/day: 40 gp. Total time needed: 130 days. Note: Food not accounted for.

horseboy
2007-09-05, 05:27 PM
Pricing: Please wait.

Interesting. A 1/week orb of Control Weather is 5.2K.

Size: Hamlet (assuming competent population, making 1 gp/day, with a DC 14 profession check, i.e. take 10, 4 ranks). Population: 40. Earnings/day: 40 gp. Total time needed: 130 days. Note: Food not accounted for.

Which would put it well within a civic budget. Even financed with a 3 year bond.

Dausuul
2007-09-05, 05:50 PM
Pricing: Please wait.

Interesting. A 1/week orb of Control Weather is 5.2K.

Size: Hamlet (assuming competent population, making 1 gp/day, with a DC 14 profession check, i.e. take 10, 4 ranks). Population: 40. Earnings/day: 40 gp. Total time needed: 130 days. Note: Food not accounted for.

Once a week? How are you pricing that? As far as I know, the pricing guidelines don't cover per-week stuff. You can't just take the price of a 1/day item and divide by 7. Otherwise everybody would be making 1/month items and using them instead of scrolls, since they'd cost less than half as much.

A 1/day, command word-activated item would cost 32,760 gp by the guidelines. Or we could look at the one SRD item which actually does this: The orb of storms, priced at 48,000 gp. However, that includes a once-monthly storm of vengeance as well as the daily control weather.

Now, you could perhaps have seven hamlets pool their money and buy a single orb which they would then pass around, each of them taking it for a day at a time. However, that orb would then be a prime target for thieves... not to mention the fights that would break out when people wanted to hold onto it for more than a day. One control weather a week is enough to break a drought, but not to stave off a cold winter or a wet summer.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-05, 05:51 PM
Pricing: Please wait.

Interesting. A 1/week orb of Control Weather is 5.2K.

Size: Hamlet (assuming competent population, making 1 gp/day, with a DC 14 profession check, i.e. take 10, 4 ranks). Population: 40. Earnings/day: 40 gp. Total time needed: 130 days. Note: Food not accounted for.
I don't think that 1 gp/person/day is a reasonable assumption...

Actually, that makes all the difference. If that's the income level, then the item is a fairly affordable investment for a smallish village, anyway. If we take the average income down to 1-3 silver (of which a much larger portion goes to subsistence), suddenly it flies into the realm of city budgets rather than hamlet.

There's no convincing reason for a city not to have one of these, if magic items that require level 13 casters are available, though.

Like I said before, it's not a non-productive purchase for all "average joes"; soldiers and town guards would certainly get some use out of it.
Useful and productive aren't the same thing. A big loan like that for a capital purchase like a shop, a ship, or land makes a lot of sense, or to cover cashflow issues with a profitable venture of some kind. The sword isn't useless to all 'average' people, but it isn't something that produces money either. A level 1 warrior would love to have a +1 sword, but it isn't likely to help him earn back that 2k+ by working guard duty.

Journey
2007-09-05, 06:17 PM
Thanks Matt and Ulz.

That article explains how anything over level 5 is considered tier 2 or "Superhuman" level of the game. I think Journey is debating that it starts much sooner than that.
It's certainly visible much sooner than that, but I wouldn't argue that your "average" first level PC is necessarily a superhero, although I suppose it can be done.

Furthermore, it's not any one or two feats, spells, or abilities alone that produce the superhero feel. It's the accumulated effects of all of them, over the whole system. Kioran explained this quite well already.

Kiero
2007-09-05, 06:41 PM
Here's a question... what exactly did you do with money in 2nd edition? If an adventurer can't buy magic junk, and they get enough money to drown a donkey, what do they DO with it? Innrooms and booze only cost so much. Bribing government officials for one purpose or another, paying henchmen to carry your stuff, and buying/upkeeping a stronghold is all I can think of. Doesn't seem like reason enough for the single minded devotion to the almighty gold piece that I remember from my 2nd ed games.

Off the top of my head...raise an army, finance a political campaign, buy into the thieves guild, start a mercenary company, found a temple or school, build a wizard's tower/conclave somewhere, start a circus or travelling menagerie, create a monster petting zoo. And countless other things that just take a little imagination on the part of the player.

Serenity
2007-09-05, 07:38 PM
At which point, you're not adventuring anymore, you're managing something...

Arbitrarity
2007-09-05, 07:54 PM
Excellent points. Dividing by 7 wouldn't seem to be accurate, but that I seemed to recall a precedent somewhere. Ummm...

Apparently I'm smoking something. Damn :smallbiggrin:

Ok, so... huh. Clearly, I need to find some appropriate magic item to get precedent from. Quite a few items use 1/week abilities, but most also have unpricable and other annoying characteristics. Example: Rod of security. Gate 1/week, but the limitations, and the effects of the "paradise" make it much harder to price.

Nor is 1gp/day/person actually reasonable, seeing as NPC's are worthless idiots. Seriously, if they put a single rank in any profession skill, they make 5.5gp/day. :smallannoyed:

Curse this non-adherence to logic. What do commoners put ranks in, anyways? Spot? Listen? :smallyuk:

horseboy
2007-09-05, 07:57 PM
At which point, you're not adventuring anymore, you're managing something...

They're still adventuring. No you're not wading through the endless dungeons slapping creatures around constantly. Now you've got to worry about Baron duDipsctick on the other side of the river sending in spies and infiltrating your kingdom. Still an adventure.

PMDM
2007-09-05, 08:03 PM
It seems to me that we all get stuck into the CR mind set. We take XP presendence over GP presendence.

Example: If group A is at lvl 10, then they should be able to take on CR 10 monsters? Right? What if they don't have the proper gear? Can't we just change the encounters to CR 8, or lower if necessary? We don't have to make the CR equal the party lvl. Sure, the adventurers will gain levels slower, but they also have a bigger chance of finding more magic items until later.

The only problem that I see with this is class imbalancing, but that's almost another problem.

horseboy
2007-09-05, 08:05 PM
Curse this non-adherence to logic. What do commoners put ranks in, anyways? Spot? Listen? :smallyuk:

After an especially bad day at retail I asked myself that too. The best I could come up with was that "5 steps to Kevin Bacon" game.

Kiero
2007-09-05, 08:07 PM
At which point, you're not adventuring anymore, you're managing something...

Nonsense. Not only is there adventure a-plenty attached to keeping those concerns going ("this merc company needs to eat, which means we need to find a war to hire ourselves out in"), but your character doesn't even necessarily have to manage them on a day-to-day basis. Lack of imagination again.

Matthew
2007-09-05, 09:03 PM
Nor is 1gp/day/person actually reasonable, seeing as NPC's are worthless idiots. Seriously, if they put a single rank in any profession skill, they make 5.5gp/day. :smallannoyed:

Per week. But they don't need any ranks in Craft to make 5 GP per Week. D&D Economics, it's not worth worrying about.

Mewtarthio
2007-09-05, 09:10 PM
Nonsense. Not only is there adventure a-plenty attached to keeping those concerns going ("this merc company needs to eat, which means we need to find a war to hire ourselves out in"), but your character doesn't even necessarily have to manage them on a day-to-day basis. Lack of imagination again.

So they're just throwing money at something to get a pretty description later. They might as well pour all their gold into a furnace and request that the DM describe the results as vividly as possible.

Matthew
2007-09-05, 09:12 PM
If you're not interested in using Gold for political type adventures, then you're not interested. Just use the money to buy pretty shiney magic objects and face down the next CR of creature. Kiero is just suggesting an alternative use for Gold in D&D (and a time honoured one).

Journey
2007-09-05, 09:12 PM
So they're just throwing money at something to get a pretty description later. They might as well pour all their gold into a furnace and request that the DM describe the results as vividly as possible.
You could say the same thing about pouring gold into the newest magitech gadget that is the style of adventure in 3.x. Actually, you'd be more accurate then.

Dausuul
2007-09-05, 09:41 PM
You could say the same thing about pouring gold into the newest magitech gadget that is the style of adventure in 3.x. Actually, you'd be more accurate then.

In Classic D&D (the old red box/blue box/cyan box/black box version), you were actually expected to dump money into castles, lands, and followers as you gained levels, and the rules included prices for such things. Made for an interesting shift in the game dynamic, changing the characters' role in the game world over the course of the storyline.

Unfortunately, even if 3E had a detailed price structure for such things, the nature of the system would force PCs to choose between that and having the magic items they need to remain effective at their level. One of the many reasons I'm looking forward to 4E reducing item dependence is to see the "lord of the manor" approach become viable again within the system as written.

Shatteredtower
2007-09-05, 09:58 PM
I sit here, communicating with the world on a device that gives me access to more information than I can process, and read lamentations about how magic items should be rare or they're not special.

Think about that. You're reading this on a tool that the average wizard would sink continents to possess. Its communication abilities far surpass such spells as message or sending. Its divination abilities generally more reliable (and less risky) than commune or contact other plane. The majority of you have a machine that can summon help to you from one of several teams of experts -- and some of you have portable versions of that tool that you can carry around town (or even around the world) with you. Most of you have seen, in your lifetimes, thousands of people flying through the air on a more secure, comfortable, and quicker version of the flying carpet. Your world's weaponry is capable of destroying buildings, cities, and even cultures in the blink of an eye.

It takes a very specialized kind of insanity to treat any of these things as mundane, regardless of how common they are. The effects are most readily discerned by an outsider examining interactions within an entitled group.

In D&D, your PCs are part of that entitled group, used to limiting their most meaningful interactions to other members of that entitled group. Your 2nd level party has access to materials most people simply cannot afford. They're less likely to notice it because they spend a lot of their time associating with the upper tiers of personal power. They'll look for the "big ticket" items and, because they have the means to find and afford them, they assume the items must be commonplace. Those content to let transactions involving magic items occur offscreen are assumed to have picked them up at a "magic shop" because it's the simplest explanation. However, it's not the most likely. Your PC is as likely to have:

1. Spent a few days asking around about a particular item, checking leads (some false), until some caretaker/collector/descendant/fence/veteran turns up with the item in question. (Whether or not the individual had the item at the time of your initial inquiry is another story.)
2. Tracked down someone able to make you the item, then convinced her or him to do so for the generous fee you're offering.
3. Won an item in a high stakes game of chance in which you'd lost a significant amount of wealth before this opportunity fell in your lap.
4. Received the item as a gift from an admirer, patron, or other party -- at about the same time you donated a generous sum to one or more causes you support.

All four such possibilities are possible in 1st to 3rd Edition, but here's where recommended wealth by guidelines works to your advantage: You are not bound to the item's standard price. Perhaps the caretaker of the sword only needs you to demonstrate your worthiness to wield "Cookiecutter" (a +1 longsword with a name is no longer just a +1 longsword) and it costs you only a few dozen gold pieces, or perhaps the fence haggles a remarkably good deal out of you (all the while leaving you thinking you ripped him off). Perhaps your search discovers a wizard that wants something you have (information, another item, some tidbit you picked up along the way, or even something that is part of you) and would be willing to knock a bit off the price in exchange for it. (Or perhaps you need the wizard's help to "reawaken" Cookiecutter, now that it's finally found a worthy wielder again. And maybe you'll have to come back for "refitting" every so often, as your legend grows.) Taxes, tithes, debts, wagers, and whatnot need have no direct correlation to your newest piece of equipment's worth.

Each and every one of them is more "heroic" than, "Oh, I bought this thing at Swords R Us," and none of them conflict with the DMG's guidelines for handling treasure. If anything, they provide the easiest method of rebalancing treasure without leaving your players feeling ripped off. Whether or not you want to handle such situations as backdrop information or rp encounters is up to your group. (You might prefer the latterer when it keeps one player hogging game time, the latter when it's something that might get them all involved -- or you can comfortably juggle two or three separate events at once.)

Now what about resale? "Yeah, just dump the +1 longswords there and we'll take them back to Mallwart's Stroll of Merchandise," seems to be how that's playing out for a lot of people, but is that all there really has to be to it? Here's where the skill and bardic knowledge checks could come in really handy. Without them, you're unlikely to find anyone likely to pay full market value, but with them? Appraise, bardic knowledge, or one of the bardic knowledge skills could get you reactions like this to what would otherwise be "just another longsword":

"Hey, this is a genuine Goldman-era Montoya! I know a guy in Florin willing to pay a fortune for one of these!"
"My goodness. For a moment, I thought we'd recovered Schecroun itself! I'm afraid it's just one of de Hory's forgeries, though. Still a marvellous piece of work, but their reputation can make it difficult to find a buyer -- at least a human one. Some of the elves prefer de Hory's design, I hear. Then again... we could always try to pass it off as Schecroun..."
"Hey, look here! No way he'd let this go if he was still alive. We get this hammer back to Sir Paul and we can be swimming in ale 'til sunrise."
"What we're looking at boys, is the blade of the Golden Troglodyte. How much do you think we can get for the sword that killed half the royal family at the Battle of Fort Malia?"

Fluff turns "just another longsword" into a potential hook or other opportunity.

I've seen the lamentation about the fact that every player, given a choice, selects only the Big Six items, but the only solution I've seen proposed to that involves not giving the players a choice. That was the case in 1st Ed, but the usual result didn't make the item players got more special to them. Now, if you want more variety from them, make research and preparation in advance of an adventure critical. Scenarios in which your team could wind up in two or more places at once (voluntarily or otherwise) are times the buffing items might not be your best investment. Potions and pre-cast spells might help you with a little bit, but the former are quite easy to dispel, and the time limits of the latter sometimes cut things awfully close. There are times you might appreciate the fact that your ring of free action or cloak of fire resistance only shut down for 1d4 rounds.

Then there's the matter of the ease with which high level characters can overcome low level ones in this edition. The point is valid, but the solution is obvious: change the goalposts. Take a look at the Leadership feat. Most people who select it do so only for the cohort, as the followers are often considered too weak by the time you get them. See where I'm going with this? Low level hordes might not be a threat to your player characters, but they can still pose a threat to everything and everyone those players hold dear. It's no good single-handedly killing hundreds in a single battle if you weren't able to preven the hospital and orphanage from being overrun by the hundreds of hobgoblins you couldn't reach. This isn't such a big deal if you consider everyone on both sides of the battlefield expendable, but it does play havoc on finding (reliable) allies in the future.

"Lack of imagination," indeed.

Fhaolan
2007-09-05, 10:31 PM
:smallbiggrin:

ShatteredTower, that's more like the games I like to participate in. And they can happen in any edition, any system. The mechanics of the system means less than what the players put into the game.

However, bringing this all back to what I *think* is the original point of this thread (I'm probably wrong), is whether shifting the magical abilites from the items into the classes is a good thing or not?

In my mind, it's what is defined as 'numbers creep'. This is a normal thing in game design. The first version of a game has the numbers (to hit, to defend, whatever) set and the challenges are set to match it. As suppliments come out new abilities and options are added which give more and more power to the players (Power Creep. Not quite the same thing as numbers creep.) New challenges are created to match. At a certain point it is decided that the original material is no longer viable with relation to the new material.

So, a new edition is produced. The original material is all re-written, using the top-end of the suppliments as the top of the scale. The effective power of the 'core' material is rebalanced on this new scale. The numbers are higher (higher level limits for non-humans, to use the 1st to 2nd edition AD&D updates for example), but relative to the challenges presented the power levels are still the same. A 5th tier character in the first edition of this theoretical game is roughly equivalent to a 5th tier character in the second edition, despite the fact that all the stats are half again larger because *all* the stats are half again as large, including stats for the challenges. This is numbers creep.

Where the problem comes in, is that it becomes noticable when the 'normal' non-adventurer NPC remains at the bottom of the scale.

Over edition after edition, the numbers creep continues. And the poor non-adventurer at the bottom of the scale looks worse and worse in relation to the Heroes that are the PCs. The PCs are in the same power range as the appropriate challenges in each edition, but they are climbing farther and farther away from the non-Heroes.

I believe there is a concern that moving the 'effect' of magic items into the classes is just another example of numbers creep. It doesn't actually affect the characters themselves relative to the challenges they should be facing, but it does affect their relationship with the base non-Hero.

Dausuul
2007-09-05, 11:09 PM
Where the problem comes in, is that it becomes noticable when the 'normal' non-adventurer NPC remains at the bottom of the scale.

Over edition after edition, the numbers creep continues. And the poor non-adventurer at the bottom of the scale looks worse and worse in relation to the Heroes that are the PCs. The PCs are in the same power range as the appropriate challenges in each edition, but they are climbing farther and farther away from the non-Heroes.

I believe there is a concern that moving the 'effect' of magic items into the classes is just another example of numbers creep. It doesn't actually affect the characters themselves relative to the challenges they should be facing, but it does affect their relationship with the base non-Hero.

While I won't argue with your basic point about numbers creep, I don't see how that relates to the question at hand. Currently, you get +X from your magic items and +Y from your class. In 4E, perhaps you get +X/2 from your magic items and +Y+(X/2) from your class. How have the numbers "crept" here? Your total numbers are still the same, it's just the source of them that's changed.

Dervag
2007-09-05, 11:41 PM
At which point, you're not adventuring anymore, you're managing something...You can also use your money to hire someone to run things for you. Or you can have adventures related to management, such as dealing with monsters and enemies that threaten your castle.


So they're just throwing money at something to get a pretty description later. They might as well pour all their gold into a furnace and request that the DM describe the results as vividly as possible.How is it a waste of money to spend it on purposes other than obtaining personal equipment? Do you apply this standard to real-life people and institutions?


Think about that. You're reading this on a tool that the average wizard would sink continents to possess. Its communication abilities far surpass such spells as message or sending. Its divination abilities generally more reliable (and less risky) than commune or contact other plane. The majority of you have a machine that can summon help to you from one of several teams of experts -- and some of you have portable versions of that tool that you can carry around town (or even around the world) with you. Most of you have seen, in your lifetimes, thousands of people flying through the air on a more secure, comfortable, and quicker version of the flying carpet. Your world's weaponry is capable of destroying buildings, cities, and even cultures in the blink of an eye.Yes, but all these technological marvels are part of a massive interlocking infrastructure that makes the real world an impossible place for most of us to have exciting and heroic adventures in. The real world is so full of powerful tools that those tools have come to dominate the character of our civilization.

The purpose of those fantasy RPGs is to construct a world where this is not the case, where tools that grant you powers dramatically beyond what you can achieve with your bare hands and your own mind are rare and precious. In such a world, the most powerful weapons commonly available are sharp pieces of metal- weapons which are weak enough that you can consciously move in time to block them (unlike bullets or shrapnel). Average people can't telephone animal control, the police station, or failing that the state militia to subdue a dangerous beast. And so it goes.

Making magical tools that can duplicate or exceed the functions of real-world technology common undermines this. It becomes hard to explain why any village would ever suffer a famine, why anyone would ever die of injury or disease, why the world isn't interconnected by circles of teleportation, and so forth. That creates cognitive dissonance for some people, making the game less fun for them.

That's why your suggestion about avoiding the 'Magic R Us' feel is so important. But since so many DMs don't feel like creating a backstory for every magic item, and since magic items and money are widely treated as totally interchangeable in most of the D&D 3.x product literature, the 'Magic R Us' feel is hard to escape within Third Edition.


"Hey, this is a genuine Goldman-era Montoya! I know a guy in Florin willing to pay a fortune for one of these!"I thought all the Montoyas got passed off as Yentes... :smallfrown:

Fhaolan
2007-09-06, 03:02 AM
While I won't argue with your basic point about numbers creep, I don't see how that relates to the question at hand. Currently, you get +X from your magic items and +Y from your class. In 4E, perhaps you get +X/2 from your magic items and +Y+(X/2) from your class. How have the numbers "crept" here? Your total numbers are still the same, it's just the source of them that's changed.

Ah. I was unclear. I apologize.

I think the problem that some people are seeing is that number creep has already happened. The proposal to shift the power from one feature to another isn't actually going to solve what they think the real issue is, which is PCs having much higher overall 'numbers' in the *current* game than used to be necessary.

The difference between a +1 and a +2 sword in OD&D was actually quite big. The difference between those same swords in 3rd edition is almost trivial because the average numbers are bigger now. At a certain level, the Fighter is *required* to have a +5 Vorpal Sword or equivalent to be able to face up to the appropriate challenges in 3rd edition. Moving the power of the sword into the class features may reduce the character's need for magic items, but it doesn't answer the question of why did the Fighter *have* to have the sword in the first place? The answer is; because the challenges were balanced assuming that the Fighter would have a sword of that level of power. Why that assumption? Because the overall numbers have crept up, and most of that appears to be due to the increased availability of magic items in general. That appearance may be wrong, but it is still how it appears none-the-less.

So, if I interpret the discussions so far, the question is: Since effort is going into reducing the power of magic items, why not downgrade the challenges to match rather than adding that power back into the classes? Add variety and options, sure, but why add more 'power'? Try scaling back those overall numbers, and I think you'll end up with the same effect. It seems much easier to raise the power level from a low basis for those who like to play Epic-level games, than it is to lower the power level from a high basis for those who like to play Low-level games.

Kiero
2007-09-06, 04:52 AM
I sit here, communicating with the world on a device that gives me access to more information than I can process, and read lamentations about how magic items should be rare or they're not special.

Think about that. You're reading this on a tool that the average wizard would sink continents to possess. Its communication abilities far surpass such spells as message or sending. Its divination abilities generally more reliable (and less risky) than commune or contact other plane. The majority of you have a machine that can summon help to you from one of several teams of experts -- and some of you have portable versions of that tool that you can carry around town (or even around the world) with you. Most of you have seen, in your lifetimes, thousands of people flying through the air on a more secure, comfortable, and quicker version of the flying carpet. Your world's weaponry is capable of destroying buildings, cities, and even cultures in the blink of an eye.

It takes a very specialized kind of insanity to treat any of these things as mundane, regardless of how common they are. The effects are most readily discerned by an outsider examining interactions within an entitled group.

I fail to see the relevance. Roleplaying games are not real life, and real life is not a roleplaying game. What happens in reality bears no significance to what I choose to do in imaginary games of make-believe.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-06, 06:48 AM
Currently, you get +X from your magic items and +Y from your class. In 4E, perhaps you get +X/2 from your magic items and +Y+(X/2) from your class. How have the numbers "crept" here?

The problem would lie in assuming that player characters are going to get less magical items simply because the book says so. I expect that many players (and DMs) who have gotten used to the plethora of magical things in 3E will keep asking for them (or giving them out) in 4E. This effectively rises the numbers to +3X/2 from items and +Y+X/2 from your class, or 2X+Y in total.

Either that or we'll get players who complain that 3E was so much better because their character had all these kickass magical items.

Dausuul
2007-09-06, 07:31 AM
The problem would lie in assuming that player characters are going to get less magical items simply because the book says so. I expect that many players (and DMs) who have gotten used to the plethora of magical things in 3E will keep asking for them (or giving them out) in 4E. This effectively rises the numbers to +3X/2 from items and +Y+X/2 from your class, or 2X+Y in total.

Either that or we'll get players who complain that 3E was so much better because their character had all these kickass magical items.

I hate using this argument, because it so often gets misused, but... isn't that the fault of the DM? I mean, if you agree that 3E was too generous with the loot and item bonuses, and if you want 4E to fix that--then the designers have to scale back the items in 4E. (Well, either that or scale everything else up relative to the items.) And if DMs ignore the new wealth and loot guidelines and keep handing out items the way they did in 3E, characters will be overpowered, regardless of whether the characters were boosted to compensate for the reduction in item power. Not much the designers can do about that.

Personally, I don't think it'll be that much of a problem, particularly if one of the changes is to reduce the number of bonus types available (and Wizards has indicated that this will be the case). If there are only two types of AC bonus, then even if DMs give out the same number of +AC items as before, people won't be able to stack them as high.


I think the problem that some people are seeing is that number creep has already happened. The proposal to shift the power from one feature to another isn't actually going to solve what they think the real issue is, which is PCs having much higher overall 'numbers' in the *current* game than used to be necessary.

Ahh, okay. I see what you mean.


So, if I interpret the discussions so far, the question is: Since effort is going into reducing the power of magic items, why not downgrade the challenges to match rather than adding that power back into the classes? Add variety and options, sure, but why add more 'power'? Try scaling back those overall numbers, and I think you'll end up with the same effect. It seems much easier to raise the power level from a low basis for those who like to play Epic-level games, than it is to lower the power level from a high basis for those who like to play Low-level games.

For all we know, that might be what they're doing. Actually, my guess would be a little of each; items will be scaled back, while innate abilities are scaled up, but the innate abilities won't be scaled up by as much as the items were scaled back.

Journey
2007-09-06, 07:49 AM
For all we know, that might be what they're doing. Actually, my guess would be a little of each; items will be scaled back, while innate abilities are scaled up, but the innate abilities won't be scaled up by as much as the items were scaled back.
Scaling back items would be good, but if they're replaced even by a modest scaling up of innate abilities then nothing meaningful will have been accomplished, and the continued path toward making superhero caricatures of D&D PCs will have continued and been made worse.

Matthew
2007-09-06, 07:54 AM
Yeah, it's the power disparity between a Level 1 Character and Level 20 Character that is one of the core problem of 3e D&D. I could swear that the designers said in one of those interviews that they were going to make the incremental power shifts smaller for 4e. That means either lowering the upper range or raising the lower range of power.

i.e.

Current Level 10 becomes new Level 30

or

Current Level 5 becomes new Level 1

I think a lot of people suspect that the latter is going to be the case.


If they aren't doing that and instead are making the old Level 20 the New Level 30, increasing innate powers and reducing magic item reliance, then, as Journey says, nothing will really have been changed in terms of power levels. The reduction in magic items will be interesting, but will still be 'hard wired' into the game; I don't really see that changing, either (and arguably, it was the case in previous editions, just to a lesser degree).

nagora
2007-09-06, 07:57 AM
In AD&D 2nd edition, magic items were granted through either random tables or GM fiat. There were no guides as to what was appropriate for any character of a given level, you couldn't buy magic items and it was pretty difficult to make them. You got what you were given, and you liked it. Magic items could largely be treated as optional extras that gave you all some bizarre results from time to time, as you found a way to use whatever odd object the tables threw at you.

In D&D 3.x, magic items are an integral part of how the system works, and factored into the Wealth By Level equations. Remove them from the game, and things start to break down and classes get nerfed; it's not merely expected that characters have magic items, it's required. To support this, it's assumed that as long as you have the money and are in a big enough settlement, you can buy whatever magical gear you need.

So why the change? And to bring it into relevant focus, what do we think the situation in 4e will be with regards to magic items? Will they remain integral, or will they be moved again towards the direction of optional?

As I understand it, Skip Williams is/was a DM devoid of spontaneity and he wanted "his" D&D to be a set of hard and fast rules that governed everything without having the DM do anything much more than control the NPCs and above all without having to wing anything. Thus the clockwork combat system, the 4-encounters per day rule, the x sessions to level up, the CL rules, and the this number of magic-items per character per level rules. These are all attempts to prescribe things which, as a DM, Williams found difficult to decide himself.

It is fair to say that many DMs, especially inexperienced ones, share this difficulty and it's nice to have something for them to fall back as a guide on but 3ed lost sight of the golden rule of role-playing: If the DM has a better idea of how to play his scenario with his players than the rulebook does, the rulebook loses all arguments.

4ed might, just might, be reacting against this sterile and generally second-rate type of DMing and putting some heart back into the DM's role. Certainly, the notion of the DM as a CPU is something which is offensive to many older role-players who know how much better a DM can be than a computer game or any set of rigid rules.

The DM decides what treasure is in the game, the DM decides how rare magic (items, casters, and spells) are, the DM decides if magic shops exist, the DM decides if any particular weapon type exists. The DM places monsters and decides how powerful they are, and even decides how much XP to give out for a given encounter. The DMG should offer plenty of guidance in these areas but it is totally out of line giving rules on such topics and should be ignored when it does so.

Dausuul
2007-09-06, 08:02 AM
Scaling back items would be good, but if they're replaced even by a modest scaling up of innate abilities then nothing meaningful will have been accomplished, and the continued path toward making superhero caricatures of D&D PCs will have continued and been made worse.

I'm sorry, but the idea that nothing meaningful will be accomplished by this is just silly. It may not fix the numbers creep Fhaolan was talking about, and it may not address your concerns about "superhero caricatures," but it will remove most of the need for the DMs to moonlight as wealth-by-level accountants, and it will facilitate low-magic campaigns where magic items are rare and special even for the PCs. Those are quite meaningful changes.


Yeah, it's the power disparity between a Level 1 Character and Level 20 Character that is one of the core problem of 3e D&D. I could swear that the designers said in one of those interviews that they were going to make the incremental power shifts smaller for 4e. That means either lowering the upper range or raising the lower range of power.

I think that was said in the context of monsters, actually--that +1 CR would mean less in 4E than it does in 3E--but, of course, if monster power increments are reduced, that means PC power increments have to be reduced as well. Which is all to the good IMO.

Matthew
2007-09-06, 08:03 AM
Heh, there's a lot of bad mouthing old Skip. Personally, I suspect he relied less on the written rules than he expected others to. That said, 3e's explicit rules were clearly a reaction to the vague rules of previous editions, we're all still free to ignore large sections (and by all accounts, many people do). However, I agree with the general thrust of what you are saying here, there ought to have been a lot more emphasis on DM spontaneity and the flexible nature of RPG Rule Sets.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-06, 08:06 AM
the continued path toward making superhero caricatures of D&D PCs will have continued and been made worse.
Emphasis mine.

This is actually the point I'm having trouble with. Why does a character with superhuman abilities have to be a caricature? Beowulf, Merlin, Ulysses, and heck, even straight from the comic superheroes like The Sandman and Dr. Strange aren't caricatures. They are characters of their own right, despite being more powerful than any normal human. They retain their human flaws and behaviors. Heck, even the Gods, of Greek and Norse myth are basically superheroes deluxe with human personalities.

If the issue is characters being essentially demigods after level 8 or 10 (I have some issues with the math in the link above which is why I place it a few levels later than the author, but that is for another thread) then your issue with the power level in the game is not going to be fixed in 4.0.

Which makes the pertinent question: would you rather it be less than ideal with the powers being innate or less than ideal with the powers coming from items they can buy and sell like stocks. I prefer the former, if only because it's more fitting with myth. Most epic heroes weren't positively covered with magical items from head to toe. They had one or two signature items, Excalibur, armor made by Hephaestus, etc.

Matthew
2007-09-06, 08:07 AM
I'm sorry, but the idea that nothing meaningful will be accomplished by this is just silly. It may not fix the numbers creep Fhaolan was talking about, and it may not address your concerns about "superhero caricatures," but it will remove most of the need for the DMs to moonlight as wealth-by-level accountants, and it will facilitate low-magic campaigns where magic items are rare and special even for the PCs. Those are quite meaningful changes.

I think you guys are talking at cross purposes. Journey is talking about overall power level, whilst you are talking about the expression of that power level.


This is actually the point I'm having trouble with. Why does a character with superhuman abilities have to be a caricature? Beowulf, Merlin, Ulysses, and heck, even straight from the comic superheroes like The Sandman and Dr. Strange aren't caricatures. They are characters of their own right, despite being more powerful than any normal human. They retain their human flaws and behaviors. Heck, even the Gods, of Greek and Norse myth are basically superheroes deluxe with human personalities.

If the issue is characters being essentially demigods after level 8 or 10 (I have some issues with the math in the link above which is why I place it a few levels later than the author, but that is for another thread) then your issue with the power level in the game is not going to be fixed in 4.0.

Which makes the pertinent question: would you rather it be less than ideal with the powers being innate or less than ideal with the powers coming from items they can buy and sell like stocks. I prefer the former, if only because it's more fitting with myth. Most epic heroes weren't positively covered with magical items from head to toe. They had one or two signature items, Excalibur, armor made by Hephaestus, etc.

Aw man, this has the potential to be a long discussion because I think I disagree strongly with a lot of what you're saying here. Beowulf and other mythological Characters may be 'super' in the sense of greater than human, but they don't become thirty times more powerful over the course of their careers. They start off good and they may get slightly better.

Interestingly, Arthur appears to have had no supernatural powers, but he was covered from head to toe in magic gear (in Wace, I think, maybe in Monmouth as well, I would have to check).

Point is, if the abilities are hard wired even more into the Classes, you no longer have any chance of playing a low powered game and minimising the effect of advancing levels. On the other hand, Wizards and Clerics already have that effect, so are we just seeing everybody raised up to that level?

Journey
2007-09-06, 08:10 AM
I have no idea if what you say about Skip Williams is true or not. I do know that it's hardly likely to matter much. "Talent trees" and the like strike as me as being even more MMOG-ish than 3.x already is.

Dausuul
2007-09-06, 08:15 AM
I think you guys are talking at cross purposes. Journey is talking about overall power level, whilst you are talking about the expression of that power level.

What I'm getting at is that addressing one problem (the current clunky expression of power level) is a meaningful improvement, even if it leaves another problem (the power level as a whole) unchanged.

Oh, and here's a source for that comment about the level increments shrinking. At least, I'm guessing this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070827a) is what you were talking about:


Even better, the difference between a level X monster and a level X + 1 monster is much smaller. You can create an encounter using monsters that are three or four levels above the party without much fear.

If the difference between a level X monster and a level X+1 monster has been reduced, I have to assume the difference between a level X character and a level X+1 character has been reduced as well. Unless character levels don't sync up with monster levels, and that seems unlikely.

Matthew
2007-09-06, 08:17 AM
Oh, and here's a source for that comment about the level increments shrinking. At least, I'm guessing this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070827a) is what you were talking about:

It was in an interview with GamerZero, I think, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, I'm not really seeing how hard wiring the power levels into the Classes isn't going to still be clunky. It's only going to support one style of play, as far as I can see. I'm still wondering what that style of play will be or if there will be ways to modify power levels. I'm getting the vibe that low level stuff is going up in power level to reduce the distance between high and low and that power levels are going to be increasingly 'fixed', which may all make for a better balanced game, even if it's not to my taste.

Journey
2007-09-06, 08:24 AM
Finer granularity in power gain presents its own problems, because it tends to reinforce the mudflation that 3.x introduced, except instead of inflating equipment we're inflating character attributes.

The more I think about a talent system, the more I think it is potentially far worse than the problems with 3.x, because under a talent tree system with fine granularity, the Attributes attached to the Talents become even more important. The absurdity of the Feat mechanic is bad enough; extending this through a plethora of Talents can't be good for reigning in power.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-06, 08:28 AM
Aw man, this has the potential to be a long discussion because I think I disagree strongly with a lot of what you're saying here. Beowulf and other mythological Characters may be 'super' in the sense of greater than human, but they don't become thirty times more powerful over the course of their careers. They start off good and they may may get slightly better.

And they tend to be martial classes, where the huge power gaps bettween one level or another are not as pronounced. We also can't tell, in D&D terms, how many 'levels' a character advances over the course of an epic. Did Ulysses get an xp award for thinking up the Trojan Horse? This was more to the point of the possibility of having real, fleshed out, believeable characters that are, in fact, 'super'. I take some umbridge at the notion that a superhuman character must be a caricature or even would be most of the time.

The power progression issue is a separate one from why I made that comment. Personally, I am quite hopeful that the move to more class levels means slicing thinner so that the power increase level by level is not so huge and that the power of the really high levels, 15+, is nerfed quite a bit.




Point is, if the abilities are hard wired even more into the Classes, you no longer have any chance of playing a low powered game and minimising the effect of advancing levels. On the other hand, Wizards and Clerics already have that effect, so are we just seeing everybody raised up to that level?

I think that is part of what we are going to see. What I gleaned from the articles on the WotC website is that the martial classes are going to get more ToB type stuff and the spell casters are going to get (a) nerfed a little and (b) power spread out over more spell levels. How exactly they spread it out (uniformly or with gigantic spikes over more levels) I don't think anyone can really say at this point, probably not even the designers themselves.

Dausuul
2007-09-06, 08:35 AM
It was in an interview with GamerZero, I think, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, I'm not really seeing how hard wiring the power levels into the Classes isn't going to still be clunky. It's only going to support one style of play, as far as I can see. I'm still wondering what that style of play will be or if there will be ways to modify power levels. I'm getting the vibe that low level stuff is going up in power level to reduce the distance between high and low and that power levels are going to be increasingly 'fixed', which may all make for a better balanced game, even if it's not to my taste.

It definitely seems as if 4E's level 1 will be equivalent to 3E's level 3 or 4. Of course, the question then is whether the rest of the world (that is to say, Joe NPC Peasant Farmer) will be scaled up to match. I hope so. I hate starting at level 1 in 3E, but that's not so much because my character is weak as because the mechanics just don't work well at that low level--too much time spent on "I swing and miss. The monster swings and misses. I swing and miss. The monster swings and misses..."

As far as fixing power levels, is that necessarily a problem? I mean, your preferred power level is what it is. Maybe you want a high-powered game, maybe you want a low-powered one, maybe you want to start low and end high. Whatever your preference, it would surely be better to have a clear, well-established idea of how powerful a character is at any given level? That way you can pick your starting level and set your advancement rate, confident that where you set the power level is in fact where you wanted to set it. Problems only crop up if the power level you want is lower than that of the new level 1.

Artemician
2007-09-06, 08:35 AM
Finer granularity in power gain presents its own problems, because it tends to reinforce the mudflation that 3.x introduced, except instead of inflating equipment we're inflating character attributes.

The more I think about a talent system, the more I think it is potentially far worse than the problems with 3.x, because under a talent tree system with fine granularity, the Attributes attached to the Talents become even more important. The absurdity of the Feat mechanic is bad enough; extending this through a plethora of Talents can't be good for reigning in power.

There's one good way to rein in character power, if you so desire. It's not the removal of a talent tree system. It's not a reduction in the power level of Magic Items. It is you, that is, the DM, deciding that you want to rein in character power.

There are a plethora of ways you can try to do so, and some of them are easier than others. Screwing around with Wealth By Level is hard, and makes the already perilous balance situation already worse. Telling your PCs "Hey, we're playing with reduced XP, kay?" is a lot easier.

I would think that hard-wiring power into only one variable, that of Class Level makes it easier for the DM to do such things, than if power were distributed into two distinct variables, as it is currently.

Matthew
2007-09-06, 08:36 AM
And they tend to be martial classes, where the huge power gaps bettween one level or another are not as pronounced. We also can't tell, in D&D terms, how many 'levels' a character advances over the course of an epic. Did Ulysses get an xp award for thinking up the Trojan Horse? This was more to the point of the possibility of having real, fleshed out, believeable characters that are, in fact, 'super'. I take some umbridge at the notion that a superhuman character must be a caricature or even would be most of the time.

Well, obviously tracking the levels and experience is pointless, because they don't actually advance any levels at all. However, the point is that Mythological Characters don't appear to 'improve' on the scale that D&D currently presents. The 'caricature' element is surely the 'computer game style' level increase. It's not that they are superhuman, it's that they progress from 'House Cat' to 'Balor', usually in the space of a year or so of game time (by all accounts). That is a caricature of how level progression once worked, which I think was the idea Journey was expressing.


The power progression issue is a separate one from why I made that comment. Personally, I am quite hopeful that the move to more class levels means slicing thinner so that the power increase level by level is not so huge and that the power of the really high levels, 15+, is nerfed quite a bit.

I don't think it's separate at all, I think it's very closely tied to the problem. Maybe I am misinterpreting what Journey is saying, but it seems to me that the caricature is the degree of change via level advancement, not the Character himself at any given point.


I think that is part of what we are going to see. What I gleaned from the articles on the WotC website is that the martial classes are going to get more ToB type stuff and the spell casters are going to get (a) nerfed a little and (b) power spread out over more spell levels. How exactly they spread it out (uniformly or with gigantic spikes over more levels) I don't think anyone can really say at this point, probably not even the designers themselves.
Indeed, and I have no idea how 4e will really work. It should be interesting, if nothing else.


It definitely seems as if 4E's level 1 will be equivalent to 3E's level 3 or 4. Of course, the question then is whether the rest of the world (that is to say, Joe NPC Peasant Farmer) will be scaled up to match. I hope so.

God, I hope not! If you up the scale of the rest of the world, there was no point in upping the Characters. As far as I understand it, the Player Characters are being uped so that they can take on greater challenges at lower levels (hence the whole 1 Troll to 6 Trolls thing)


As far as fixing power levels, is that necessarily a problem? I mean, your preferred power level is what it is. Maybe you want a high-powered game, maybe you want a low-powered one, maybe you want to start low and end high. Whatever your preference, it would surely be better to have a clear, well-established idea of how powerful a character is at any given level? That way you can pick your starting level and set your advancement rate, confident that where you set the power level is in fact where you wanted to set it. Problems only crop up if the power level you want is lower than that of the new level 1.

Yeah, it's a huge problem. I want to be able to alter power levels and incremental power levels. I want D&D to be the adaptable tool box game, not the 'one true way'. I want Level 5 to be relative, not absolute.

That said, the game has to advance and change. I won't shed any tears if 4e ends up narrowly defined.

Journey
2007-09-06, 08:50 AM
There's one good way to rein in character power, if you so desire. It's not the removal of a talent tree system. It's not a reduction in the power level of Magic Items. It is you, that is, the DM, deciding that you want to rein in character power.

There are a plethora of ways you can try to do so, and some of them are easier than others. Screwing around with Wealth By Level is hard, and makes the already perilous balance situation already worse. Telling your PCs "Hey, we're playing with reduced XP, kay?" is a lot easier.

I would think that hard-wiring power into only one variable, that of Class Level makes it easier for the DM to do such things, than if power were distributed into two distinct variables, as it is currently.
At some point house ruling the mechanics in this fashion essentially means you're playing a different game altogether. Even ignoring house ruling, there is the matter of effort to consider. The way 3.x is structured, for example, playing a low powered game takes more DM effort than playing a high-powered game took in previous, lower-power editions of D&D. it's always easier to just add more of the same, or more of the superior than it is to contract and maintain a semblance of balance within the same rule system. You note this yourself.

"Hard coding" the higher power into Talents under a class system would be much harder to reign in than even 3.x, because it's no longer just a matter of slower advancement--the substance of the classes themselves have to be tweaked.

Dausuul
2007-09-06, 08:52 AM
God, I hope not! If you up the scale of the rest of the world, there was no point in upping the Characters.

Not at all. As I said, my big problem with level 1 in 3E has nothing to do with power levels and everything to do with the mechanics just not working very well. That's why I always start my games at level 3 or above. If scaling up the characters to the equivalent of 3E's level 3 or 4 will fix the mechanical issues, then I'd be fine with everything else being scaled up to match. (At least, everything else that isn't a friggin' housecat.)


Yeah, it's a huge problem. I want to be able to alter power levels and incremental power levels. I want D&D to be the adaptable tool box game, not the 'one true way'.

But what I'm getting at is that if you want to start at power level X, it's surely helpful if you know exactly where on the level chart X lies. And if you think the standard advancement rate is too fast or slow, you can adjust your XP awards to match. In 3E, you constantly have to worry about how WBL is stacking up to character level, and the impact of changing their relative values is unpredictable and wonky; in 4E, you have two simple controls to set the power level of your game--to wit, Starting Level and XP Gain. Doesn't the latter make customization easier?

Zincorium
2007-09-06, 08:54 AM
Finer granularity in power gain presents its own problems, because it tends to reinforce the mudflation that 3.x introduced, except instead of inflating equipment we're inflating character attributes.

The more I think about a talent system, the more I think it is potentially far worse than the problems with 3.x, because under a talent tree system with fine granularity, the Attributes attached to the Talents become even more important. The absurdity of the Feat mechanic is bad enough; extending this through a plethora of Talents can't be good for reigning in power.

We get it.

You absolutely hate everything that has happened to the game recently and think we're a bunch of neanderthals for having fun when the game is about having characters who won't fall over and die when they get picked on by old, sickly goblins armed with pruning shears. [/sarcasm]

And you (apparently) think that everything that's been stated as a goal for 4th edition is going to make the game suck. Because everything they've every mentioned goes against your playstyle.

That's okay. But I wonder why you're still posting excitedly about how they're ruining the game on you. It's pretty much a foregone conclusion given how they have gotten positive feedback on the main suggestions.


Anyway, I'm all for the replacement of the majority of magic item niches, basic protections and so on, being subsumed by abilities while flavorful stuff (bag of tricks FTW!) is doled out as campaign rewards and makes the game more interesting without overpowering whoever the item comes to rest with.

Fhaolan
2007-09-06, 09:01 AM
Personally, I don't think it'll be that much of a problem, particularly if one of the changes is to reduce the number of bonus types available (and Wizards has indicated that this will be the case). If there are only two types of AC bonus, then even if DMs give out the same number of +AC items as before, people won't be able to stack them as high.


That is of course dependant on Wizards retaining the 'no stacking the same bonus types' rule. I hope they do, but it is possible that they will do away with it. We'll have to see when more concrete rules are made public.


Ahh, okay. I see what you mean.

*blink* You know, I think this is the first time in a forum that I've actually seen someone on the opposite side of a discussion actually understand my expressed position. Interesting. :smallsmile:


For all we know, that might be what they're doing. Actually, my guess would be a little of each; items will be scaled back, while innate abilities are scaled up, but the innate abilities won't be scaled up by as much as the items were scaled back.

Unfortunately, I don't have that confidence. I'm fairly certain that the magic items will be scaled back less than the abilites are boosted. Or more likely that the first several splatbooks that come after core will have magic items of the same power level, if not more, than what was in previous editions. Not because of anything Wizards has said in their 4th ed articles, but because of my previous experiences in edition revisions. I'm an old codger, and I don't trust people much. :smallwink:

At this point, I think we're actually done, and it's not because we're too upset with each other to continue the discussion. We both understand each other's position, and I believe we see no real problems with each other's logic. The remaining disagreement is a simple difference in level of pessimism as to the how Wizards will precisely handle this. Which we won't have enough data around until stuff gets officially published.

Weird. I don't think this has happened to me before on a forum. I'm not sure what to do with myself... *twiddles thumbs*

Matthew
2007-09-06, 09:02 AM
Not at all. As I said, my big problem with level 1 in 3E has nothing to do with power levels and everything to do with the mechanics just not working very well. That's why I always start my games at level 3 or above. If scaling up the characters to the equivalent of 3E's level 3 or 4 will fix the mechanical issues, then I'd be fine with everything else being scaled up to match. (At least, everything else that isn't a friggin' housecat.)

Well, then, we're not going to agree on much. I find the mechanics work fine at Level 1 (with some notable exceptions, such as the House Cat).


But what I'm getting at is that if you want to start at power level X, it's surely helpful if you know exactly where on the level chart X lies. And if you think the standard advancement rate is too fast or slow, you can adjust your XP awards to match. In 3E, you constantly have to worry about how WBL is stacking up to character level, and the impact of changing their relative values is unpredictable and wonky; in 4E, you have two simple controls to set the power level of your game--to wit, Starting Level and XP Gain. Doesn't the latter make customization easier?

You appear to be equating Power Level with Character Level. I don't want Character Level X to equal Power Level Y. I want Character Level X to be a relative value, depending on what kind of game I'm seeking to run. I haven't ever had to worry about WBL or CR, it's just not a real concern for me. [Edit] I don't really play above Level 10, which may be part of the reason.

Dausuul
2007-09-06, 09:16 AM
At this point, I think we're actually done, and it's not because we're too upset with each other to continue the discussion. We both understand each other's position, and I believe we see no real problems with each other's logic. The remaining disagreement is a simple difference in level of pessimism as to the how Wizards will precisely handle this. Which we won't have enough data around until stuff gets officially published.

Yup. I suppose we could have a knock-down-drag-out fight over whose assessment is more probable, but that seems kinda silly.


You appear to be equating Power Level with Character Level.

Well... yes. Isn't that the whole point of character level?


I don't want Character Level X to equal Power Level Y. I want Character Level X to be a relative value, depending on what kind of game I'm seeking to run. I haven't ever had to worry about WBL or CR, it's just not a real concern for me. [Edit] I don't really play above Level 10, which may be part of the reason.

I don't quite understand the point of this. You want character level 6 to mean a different power level in different games? What for? Why not just start at level 6 when you want a game at the power level indicated by character level 6, and start at level 3 when you want a game at the power level indicated by CL 3?

Sebastian
2007-09-06, 09:25 AM
They're only overpowered if the opposition that they face is weak in comparison. Sure, 3rd edition characters could steamroll 2nd edition monsters without much effort, which is why 3rd edition monsters are generally tougher.

I've never been a fan of the "arms race" approach to game balance. It tend to ruin the world credibility to me.

nagora
2007-09-06, 09:26 AM
I don't quite understand the point of this. You want character level 6 to mean a different power level in different games? What for? Why not just start at level 6 when you want a game at the power level indicated by character level 6, and start at level 3 when you want a game at the power level indicated by CL 3?

Surely a 6th level fighter with +5 plate and shield and a +5 holy avenger is a totally different power level from one in chainmail with a normal battle axe? The latter is a perfectly acceptable heroic character in a "real world" setting, while the former is possible in a cartoon-style game. I think that's what Matthew is getting at.

Journey
2007-09-06, 09:27 AM
Well, then, we're not going to agree on much. I find the mechanics work fine at Level 1 (with some notable exceptions, such as the House Cat).

You appear to be equating Power Level with Character Level. I don't want Character Level X to equal Power Level Y. I want Character Level X to be a relative value, depending on what kind of game I'm seeking to run. I haven't ever had to worry about WBL or CR, it's just not a real concern for me. [Edit] I don't really play above Level 10, which may be part of the reason.
But isn't the whole point behind a class and level based system to associate Level with Power?

Matthew
2007-09-06, 09:28 AM
I think we have pretty much reached a point that is commonly referred to as an impasse.

Several things determine power level. Character Level currently is a relative indication of Power Level, not an absolute value.

1) If you alter the amount of Magical Gear available to some Classes you alter their Power Level.
2) If you keep a tight reign on what Spells are available in the game, you alter the Power Level.
3) If you are more or less generous with starting Attributes you alter the Power Level.
4) If you allow only certain Feats, Classes and Prestige Classes, you alter the Power Level.
5) If you use House Rules, you alter the Power Level.
6) If you have more or less competent players, they alter the Power Level.

The 'end' is that you alter the atmosphere of the game to suit your tastes. CR and WBL are already unreliable, but I don't see that as a weakness, I see that as a natural result of a game with so much potential diversity.


But isn't the whole point behind a class and level based system to associate Level with Power?

Associate, yes, absolutely determine, no. A Level 20 Fighter with a Long Sword and Shield is more powerful than a Level 1 Fighter with a Long Sword and Shield, but Character Level is only one aspect of their Power Level.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-06, 09:30 AM
Well, obviously tracking the levels and experience is pointless, because they don't actually advance any levels at all. However, the point is that Mythological Characters don't appear to 'improve' on the scale that D&D currently presents. The 'caricature' element is surely the 'computer game style' level increase. It's not that they are superhuman, it's that they progress from 'House Cat' to 'Balor', usually in the space of a year or so of game time (by all accounts). That is a caricature of how level progression once worked, which I think was the idea Journey was expressing.


That's not really the impression I got from his post but then I could be misunderstanding. I got the idea that the general powerlevel of the game dictates a caricatured superhero style of play. That I take umbridge with.

If what he meant is that the scaling of power progression in 3.x is a caricature of the scaling of power progression in 2.0 then I really ought to bow out. I don't know enough about the 2.x mechanics to speak to that point and frankly, I'd prefer it if 3.x had a more uniform and slower power progression rather than some of the absurd jumps in ability that the system does have.

I just don't have the problem with the overall power level of the game being mythic in scale.



I don't think it's separate at all, I think it's very closely tied to the problem. Maybe I am misinterpreting what Journey is saying, but it seems to me that the caricature is the degree of change via level advancement, not the Character himself at any given point.


See above.

Regardless though I'm not so sure why it's closely tied to the problem if Journey was indeed talking about power scaling. The huge jumps in character power from level to level are, imho, less driven by the magical items as by some of the class features (like new spells aquired per level), although the items help. Those jumps can be minimized somewhat by cutting the accessibility of items, or balancing items for their cost a bit better. Subsuming item powers into the classes (or class trees, or whatever) themselves, although it limits options, also provides a better framework for keeping powerlevels across diffrent classes balanced. Of course, doing that also somewhat ties the hands of the DM who wants a very flexible system. See below.



That said, the game has to advance and change. I won't shed any tears if 4e ends up narrowly defined.

I expect it will be. Flexibility isn't what WotC has been aiming for (they are aiming for 'cool'), and that's good and bad. It's good in that it makes the game itself pretty stable and playable with the core mechanics. It's easier for new player and DM to just pick up the game and start playing if the rules are cut and dry rather than leaving tons of room for customization. For more experienced players, I can see how this is less than ideal.

Of course, no matter what 4.x has, everyone is going to houserule, run variants and homebrew the spit out of it anyway. So, honestly, that's not so big a deal imho.

Artemician
2007-09-06, 09:38 AM
"Hard coding" the higher power into Talents under a class system would be much harder to reign in than even 3.x, because it's no longer just a matter of slower advancement--the substance of the classes themselves have to be tweaked.

I can certainly see how it is hard.. but I still feel that it would be easier than in 3.x. Because, as Dausuul said, having to control fewer variables will make it easier to mess around with Power level. It may still be hard, but it's easier.

Matthew
2007-09-06, 09:38 AM
That's not really the impression I got from his post but then I could be misunderstanding. I got the idea that the general powerlevel of the game dictates a caricatured superhero style of play. That I take umbridge with.

Okay, probably best to leave it to Journey to indicate what he meant.


Regardless though I'm not so sure why it's closely tied to the problem if Journey was indeed talking about power scaling. The huge jumps in character power from level to level are, imho, less driven by the magical items as by some of the class features (like new spells aquired per level), although the items help. Those jumps can be minimized somewhat by cutting the accessibility of items, or balancing items for their cost a bit better. Subsuming item powers into the classes (or class trees, or whatever) themselves, although it limits options, also provides a better framework for keeping powerlevels across diffrent classes balanced. Of course, doing that also somewhat ties the hands of the DM who wants a very flexible system.

Items make a huge difference, particularly Attribute increasing ones, but, yeah, Spells also have a huge effect on play. I wouldn't suggest altering one aspect of the game will fix all the other problems. They all play their parts.


I expect it will be. Flexibility isn't what WotC has been aiming for (they are aiming for 'cool'), and that's good and bad. It's good in that it makes the game itself pretty stable and playable with the core mechanics. It's easier for new player and DM to just pick up the game and start playing if the rules are cut and dry rather than leaving tons of room for customization. For more experienced players, I can see how this is less than ideal.

Of course, no matter what 4.x has, everyone is going to houserule, run variants and homebrew the spit out of it anyway. So, honestly, that's not so big a deal imho.

Sure, and I'm not talking about what is best for the game in terms of sales or anything else of that nature (as what is 'best' is relative to opinion). I'm only talking about my preferences for D&D.

Journey
2007-09-06, 10:00 AM
I can certainly see how it is hard.. but I still feel that it would be easier than in 3.x. Because, as Dausuul said, having to control fewer variables will make it easier to mess around with Power level. It may still be hard, but it's easier.
I'm not seeing how having multiple trees within a given class reduces the variables to control. Of course this is all speculation, so don't get me wrong; I'm just not confident that Wizards' designers are actually capable of designing a system intelligently, regardless of the details.


That's not really the impression I got from his post but then I could be misunderstanding. I got the idea that the general powerlevel of the game dictates a caricatured superhero style of play. That I take umbridge with.Yes and no. At sufficiently low levels the issue isn't there. With certain bits of house ruling and parsimonious interpretation of the RAW the default high-magic interpretation can be worked around even at higher levels.

The default rules with what seems to be the most commonly used interpretation of the RAW, however, characters aren't just heroic, they're superheroic. "Normal" (for characters) Feats and Attribute scores that grant relatively large bonuses on finely grained scales move the characters from being "about" a single standard deviation from the average NPC to an area where they're the absolute best-of-the-best. In such a game the characters aren't just heroes who are a little better than the best of the rest and, with guile and will, become much better; they're much better as a matter of course. So instead of "marginally better -> heroic" style advancement, we have "heroic -> godly" instead.

My rhetoric on this has been perhaps a bit strong, but that's because I enjoy the game enough that I feel strongly about it.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-06, 10:27 AM
I'm only talking about my preferences for D&D.

I think that's pretty much what this entire thread has been. :-)


I'm not just not confident that Wizards' designers are actually capable of designing a system intelligently, regardless of the details.


Well... I'd love to disagree with you there... this is actually why I plan to wait at least a year before starting to play 4E and let other people spend the $ first.


The default rules with what seems to be the most commonly used interpretation of the RAW, however, characters aren't just heroic, they're superheroic. "Normal" (for characters) Feats and Attribute scores that grant relatively large bonuses on finely grained scales move the characters from being "about" a single standard deviation from the average NPC to an area where they're the absolute best-of-the-best. In such a game the characters aren't just heroes who are a little better than the best of the rest and, with guile and will, become much better; they're much better as a matter of course. So instead of "marginally better -> heroic" style advancement, we have "heroic -> godly" instead.

True. It's the more Mythic style heroes than Marine Corp. style heroes. I just don't really see the problem with that or why it's fair to call it caricatureish. I can understand that difference in gameplay styles might lead a person to prefer one power level to the other, but I don't think it's fair for one style or the other to presume the other to be inferior (caricatureish implies that to me) on the basis of what they like more.


My rhetoric on this has been perhaps a bit strong, but that's because I enjoy the game enough that I feel strongly about it.

No worries. Just a friendly discussion on the boards. My retoric hasn't exactly been kittens and marshmellows either. We all care... or are really bored at the office. :smallwink:

hewhosaysfish
2007-09-06, 10:34 AM
All this talk of Character Level and "Power Level" makes me think: Wouldn't it be great if 4th Ed included the idea of some sort of "Wealth Level" which would influence what CR of monsters the party could face?
The DM would set the WL of the campaign when it started and that would determine the Wealth By (Character) Level guidelines that would be used.

Then people who go "Aargh! Magic Shops! Nooo!" can play at WL 1-2 (Note: these numbers are pulled entirely out of my rear and shouldbe considered more illustrative than consistent), people who go "Ooh! Shiny toys!" can Monty Haul at WL 9-10 and everyone who is happy with the system as it stands can play at WL 6-7. The first group would faces monsters of CR=CL - 3; the second at CR=CL+2; and the third at CR=CL. (And obviously, the xp tables would be arranged such that it was the combined CL and WL that one compared to CR to determine xp awards.)
As an added bonus, if one group should suddenly increase their liquid assets (e.g. by slaying a dragon and nicking its hoard), it won't throw the CR system out of kilter - the DM just counts the party as being one WL higher (instead of, for example, blowing up the inn they're in).

Thus, everyone could be happy. Hurrah! Except the developers, of corse, who would have to ensure the system was balanced at all combinations of Class Level and Wealth Level, increasing their workload by a factor of #(Wealth Levels). Which is why I don't think it will happen. But it would be great if it did.

Now, many people may be saying "That's exactly how I run my games anyway!" but that's exactly my point, exactly! Rather than you house-ruling to fix the inevitable bugs in the game, house-ruling to tailor the play-style then house-ruling to fix your previos house-rules, the tailoring has been built into the system -saving you you from having to do it and allowing you to fix both sets of bugs at the same time (as they have collapsed into a single set of bugs!).
Which is why I think it would be great if it did happen. But I don't think it will.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-06, 10:50 AM
All this talk of Character Level and "Power Level" makes me think: Wouldn't it be great if 4th Ed included the idea of some sort of "Wealth Level" which would influence what CR of monsters the party could face?
The DM would set the WL of the campaign when it started and that would determine the Wealth By (Character) Level guidelines that would be used.


Honestly, I think that would be best included in a suppliment or posted on the wotc site rather than the initial game. Remeber that WotC is trying to make a game that will sell to more people than folks like us who already play the old version. the bigger and more complex looking you make the tables, the more likley it is to scare off new players.

Something like that is a good idea, it just shouldn't be in the base books, or at least, not outside of an appendix therein.

hewhosaysfish
2007-09-06, 11:14 AM
Honestly, I think that would be best included in a suppliment or posted on the wotc site rather than the initial game. Remeber that WotC is trying to make a game that will sell to more people than folks like us who already play the old version. the bigger and more complex looking you make the tables, the more likley it is to scare off new players.

Something like that is a good idea, it just shouldn't be in the base books, or at least, not outside of an appendix therein.

I see your point about complexity; it would put of newbies. But if class balance is to be independent of wealth then these sorts of rules would have to be designed into the system from the beginning, meaning it would be an optional rule in an appendix rather than a splatbook. Unless, of course, WotC wanted material to pad out ream after ream of supplemental material and, really, I can't see why they's ever do that :smallwink:
Hmm.... would it be in an Unearthed Arcana-style book of variants, do you think, or a book dedicated to fat stacks of cash: Wealth Level rules, new magic items (including stupidly expensive ones), rules for all the castle-building stuff what people have been saying went on previous editions after a certain level, a discussion of fantasy economics (if it makes sense the book may be worth it just for that).
Then there's the Epic Wealth Level Handbook, for people who want to go beyond Monty Haul....

AKA_Bait
2007-09-06, 11:21 AM
I see your point about complexity; it would put of newbies. But if class balance is to be independent of wealth then these sorts of rules would have to be designed into the system from the beginning, meaning it would be an optional rule in an appendix rather than a splatbook. Unless, of course, WotC wanted material to pad out ream after ream of supplemental material and, really, I can't see why they's ever do that :smallwink:
Hmm.... would it be in an Unearthed Arcana-style book of variants, do you think, or a book dedicated to fat stacks of cash: Wealth Level rules, new magic items (including stupidly expensive ones), rules for all the castle-building stuff what people have been saying went on previous editions after a certain level, a discussion of fantasy economics (if it makes sense the book may be worth it just for that).
Then there's the Epic Wealth Level Handbook, for people who want to go beyond Monty Haul....

I can see the cover art now... Lidda waist deep in a Dragon's horde tossing the gold up over her head as Tordek reclines aginst a treasure chest.

Call it: Complete Shiny

Edit: hey... wait a moment... I was an Orc before... when did I go back to being a Barbarian?

Journey
2007-09-06, 11:39 AM
True. It's the more Mythic style heroes than Marine Corp. style heroes. I just don't really see the problem with that or why it's fair to call it caricatureish. I can understand that difference in gameplay styles might lead a person to prefer one power level to the other, but I don't think it's fair for one style or the other to presume the other to be inferior (caricatureish implies that to me) on the basis of what they like more.It's a caricature in the same way that caricature pictures are--D&D 3.x is to fantasy gaming as cartoons are to the real world. I'd say that on the whole--not singling out any single feat, ability, or even level range--D&D 3.x characters go even beyond the various heroes from myth that have been mentioned here. Factoring in magic items just makes it that much worse.


Moreover, it's much easier to simply expand the top-end to have a game where we have "above average -> heroic -> superheroic" advancement than it is to shoe-horn in fixes to start with "above average" and work up the ladder in a game where the default, out-of-the-box PC is already on the border between "heroic" and "superheroic."

There is plenty of room in the middle between "killed by a rat bite" and "able to cackle madly while slaughtering thousands single-handedly with little effort." I think 3.x is far too close to the latter end.

Edit: And, just to be fair, I find systems with character generation that provide for "killed by a rat" out-of-the-box PCs to be just as much a caricature (but obviously in a different way).

AKA_Bait
2007-09-06, 11:59 AM
It's a caricature in the same way that caricature pictures are--D&D 3.x is to fantasy gaming as cartoons are to the real world. I'd say that on the whole--not singling out any single feat, ability, or even level range--D&D 3.x characters go even beyond the various heroes from myth that have been mentioned here. Factoring in magic items just makes it that much worse.

So, yeah, you were saying what I thought you were saying. You have a picture of what 'real fantasy gaming' is and the 3.x power style is 'a caricature' because you prefer the other system where characters are less mythic.

For the record, 3.x can go beyond the mythic heroes we have mentioned or it can include them. At low levels, with limited spell availability and wealth (all DM perrogative) you can play a game where the characters are merely exceptional and not mythic. And, imho, that 3.x can accomidate both is a feather in its cap. Does it do it perfectly? Obviously not. It does it pretty well though.

If a player wants to play a fighter who can take Gilgamesh out behind the woodshed and beat him then they should be able to go right ahead and do that without other gamers telling him that he's not doing 'real fantasy gaming', only a caricature. If a player wants to play a gritty cop who survives only by his wits and slightly better than average reflexes then he should be able to play that game without getting told he's the 'silent film' of gaming or some such. There is no 'right way' so long as everyone is having fun. Please don't assert that there is and de facto insult those who play a diffrent way.

Journey
2007-09-06, 12:07 PM
So, yeah, you were saying what I thought you were saying. You have a picture of what 'real fantasy gaming' is and the 3.x power style is 'a caricature' because you prefer the other system where characters are less mythic.

You're free to interpret as you wish, of course, but you're just flat-out wrong, because you're choosing to see a very harsh meaning behind the word "caricature" rather than what, based on the context of my posts, I actually mean by it.

Consider this example: "big sword" anime. Swords in that style are caricatures of swords. By saying this I'm not implying that people who enjoy this style of anime are "inferior" nor that the style itself is.

nagora
2007-09-06, 12:10 PM
All this talk of Character Level and "Power Level" makes me think: Wouldn't it be great if 4th Ed included the idea of some sort of "Wealth Level" which would influence what CR of monsters the party could face?

Wouldn't be better if the DM just designed the scenarios around the party's ability and his/her vision of their own flaming gameworld!?

AKA_Bait
2007-09-06, 12:12 PM
You're free to interpret as you wish, of course, but you're just flat-out wrong, because you're choosing to see a very harsh meaning behind the word "caricature" rather than what, based on the context of my posts, I actually mean by it.

Consider this example: "big sword" anime. Swords in that style are caricatures of swords. By saying this I'm not implying that people who enjoy this style of anime are "inferior" nor that the style itself is.

Um... no. I'm not. Feel free to familiarize yourself with the definition of the word. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Caricature) Perhaps you want to use diffrent vocabulary if your meaning is not intended to be pejorative. Calling something a caricature, when it is not actually intended to be so, such as a funny drawing or the big sword anime, is almost always meant to degrade the thing.

Journey
2007-09-06, 12:15 PM
Um... no. I'm not. Feel free to familiarize yourself with the definition of the word. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Caricature)
I am familiar with it, thanks. See my previous post, as it still stands.

Telonius
2007-09-06, 12:23 PM
That sort of "caricature" has been part of American myth for quite awhile now. Almost all of our heroes are supposed to have done things that even a level 20 D&D character would have found difficult. Throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac like George Washington is supposed to have done? Good luck, even for a 20 Barbarian in rage. Some of the stuff Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, and the rest were supposed to have done is equally ridiculous.

Granted, none of that really came from the medieval period. But it is at least a couple hundred years old. I'm sure you could find a few more folk heroes like that from the Middle Ages if you looked hard enough. Siegfried would probably come close. Utterly invulnerable (except for that one spot), magic sword, owns a magic stack of gold, goes around slaying dragons. He's about as close to a superhero as it gets, for a non-demigod.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-06, 12:23 PM
I am familiar with it, thanks. See my previous post, as it still stands.

I respectuflly sumbit that one ought to avoid using terminology that is typically pejorative when not intending to refer to something in such a manner. Not doing so is akin to a white guy calling a black person a word starting with N and then saying 'oh, but I didn't mean it that way.' It is illadvised, the person is already insulted, and post facto defenses of using the word ring hollow.

And now I'm going to drop this because it's bordering on silly.

horseboy
2007-09-06, 12:56 PM
; I'm not just not confident that Wizards' designers are actually capable of designing a system intelligently, regardless of the details.


Seconded..

Dausuul
2007-09-06, 01:27 PM
Granted, none of that really came from the medieval period. But it is at least a couple hundred years old. I'm sure you could find a few more folk heroes like that from the Middle Ages if you looked hard enough.

Hercules/Heracles. Singlehandedly diverting a river to clean out the Augean Stables, and holding up the sky while Atlas took a lunch break. 'Nuff said.

Matthew
2007-09-06, 01:45 PM
Uh, Hercules was the son of Zeus. Not exactly a mortal man, to say the least. That said, there are folk heroes who are capable of virtually supernatural things without being of divine descent.

What kind of mythology you want for D&D, though, is another question. There is a D&D mythology visible in the novels that support the game. There's no need to emulate those, but they do create a default 'level of reality'.

Personally, I couldn't care less how other people want to play or whether I would consider their style to be a caricature of mine, but I do have a fairly strong idea of how I generally want to play D&D. Of course, that doesn't preclude the occasional crazy adventure or short campaign.

Jayabalard
2007-09-06, 02:17 PM
I respectuflly sumbit that one ought to avoid using terminology that is typically pejorative when not intending to refer to something in such a manner. Not doing so is akin to a white guy calling a black person a word starting with N and then saying 'oh, but I didn't mean it that way.' It is illadvised, the person is already insulted, and post facto defenses of using the word ring hollow.I didn't notice anything particularly pejorative about the word, based on the definition that you linked. Perhaps you should stop attributing things to the word that aren't there?

AKA_Bait
2007-09-06, 02:25 PM
I didn't notice anything particularly pejorative about the word, based on the definition that you linked. Perhaps you should stop attributing things to the word that aren't there?

Mutter...


car·i·ca·ture /ˈkærɪkətʃər, -ˌtʃʊər/
Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kar-i-kuh-cher, -choor]
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.
–noun
1. a picture, description, etc., ludicrously exaggerating the peculiarities or defects of persons or things: His caricature of the mayor in this morning's paper is the best he's ever drawn.
2. the art or process of producing such pictures, descriptions, etc.
3. any imitation or copy so distorted or inferior as to be ludicrous.


So, calling something ludicrous or inferior isn't pejorative? Ok then. You got me. Totally.

Arbitrarity
2007-09-06, 02:30 PM
Clearly not. Those are simply terms which you seem to think are perjorative. Your bias in identifying those words as perjorative seems to imply that you have an insufficiently open mind, as it is only the meaning you assign to them.

Is not the meaning of the word only that which you assign to it? Intrinsically therefore, all terms are meaningless, except in the context of one who assigns meaning to them.

:smallbiggrin:

I must be very bored. Hopefully this is slightly amusing.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-06, 02:33 PM
Clearly not. Those are simply terms which you seem to think are perjorative. Your bias in identifying those words as perjorative seems to imply that you have an insufficiently open mind, as it is only the meaning you assign to them.

Is not the meaning of the word only that which you assign to it? Intrinsically therefore, all terms are meaningless, except in the context of one who assigns meaning to them.

:smallbiggrin:

I must be very bored. Hopefully this is slightly amusing.

Darn you philosophers of language!

:smallwink:

Jayabalard
2007-09-06, 02:44 PM
So, calling something ludicrous or inferior isn't pejorative? Correct, it's not pejorative.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-06, 02:59 PM
Correct, it's not pejorative.

Huh. Well, in that case, I must say that I find your understanding of the english language inferior and your distorted vocabulary ludicrous.

Good to know that wasn't belittling, derogatory or pejorative (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pejorative)in any way. :smalltongue:

Dausuul
2007-09-06, 03:09 PM
Can we maybe skip the debate over the meaning of the word "caricature" and return to discussing the magic item economy in 4E? Or has everyone said pretty much all they have to say on that topic?

AKA_Bait
2007-09-06, 03:15 PM
Can we maybe skip the debate over the meaning of the word "caricature" and return to discussing the magic item economy in 4E? Or has everyone said pretty much all they have to say on that topic?

Gladly.

Basically, I think it gives the DM more meaningful options for treasure if there isn't a magical item availability all over the place. Even if the powers now associated with some items get rolled into the classes themselves the scarcity of magical loot will make it more of a possible adventure hook and more of a 'oh neat' when players actually get one. It's not really a power level thing in this regard, it's a player psychology thing.

Arbitrarity
2007-09-06, 03:18 PM
Semantics are key to accurate and meaningful debate. Without a common consensus, there is no basis for the meaning of terms as used in the debate, and so there is no inherent meaning which may be used. By defining words utilizing simpler terms, the meaning of which is clear and already defined clearly by society, one is able to define their terms. If such terms vary amongst people, their arguments will be distorted, and address incorrect points.

Example: If Journey considers "caricature" to be a term which is not perjorative, and uses it in such a manner (or so he thinks), AKA Bait then interpreted it as being perjorative, when it was not meant to be (unless this is a manipulatory attempt by Journey to make those who read the thread subconsciously take an attitude similar to his, and his non-editing of his posts is an attempt to preserve the terms, while his defense of having a different definition is to make his non-editing valid), and attacks it as being biased and perjorative. At this point, AKA is attacking a non-existent argument, which is then explained by Journey. Then, they must agree upon a common definition of the term "caricature", to avoid such conflicts in future. However, since there are many terms in the language, this sort of issue comes up quite often, and is never entirely resolved.

I'm really bored.

On the other hand, you may just not care, and use your own definition :smallbiggrin: . That's fine as well. Just be prepared for some strange language and term usage.

Hmm... there should be an initiative to clearly define terms and their common usage with commonly agreed upon terms, then have the ability to add a hyperlink into online discussions for a set of definitions. Wait... I bet that already exists in some simple manner that I'm missing.

"This debate shall use the ICDL for terms. All terms contained within are intended to conform to the definitions contained within the above document."

Matthew
2007-09-06, 03:24 PM
I dunno, just because something is a ludricous caricature of something else doesn't make it inherently bad, does it? It just means that compared to the original it is ludricous.

Anyway, yeah, I would prefer less emphasis on magic and special powers in 4e overall.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-06, 03:27 PM
As I recall, 2E cursed items were usually the result of accidents while crafting items--people didn't make them deliberately. (Although I'd have given up a point of Con to make a scarab of death. Those things were terrifying.)

There is a list of cursed items in the 3.5E DMG, but they don't see much use, probably because 3E DMs have so much number-crunching to do that they don't want to be bothered worrying about curses.

This is looking a long ways back, and is probably covering already-trod turf, but I'd like a crack at it.

I've missed Cursed items, really. They were a fun aspect of the 1e and 2e game. "Woohoo! I have a magic sword! Wait ... why do I keep missing?" Once the curse was sorted out, we could get rid of it, but it added an extra risk into the game. Everyone loved getting magic items, but it wasn't just monsters that'd bite you (or claw/claw/bite you). Sometimes a lucky find wasn't so lucky.

3rd Edition, I saw a dramatic reduction of Cursed items. By 3.5 they were gone. Personally, I saw it as the overuse of the "Identify" spell. At least it took a long time in 3e, but still, all magic items were cached away and no one was allowed to use them until the mage could get his Identify on them. 3.5e just made it all the more ridiculous by dramatically cutting down casting time. There were a few things that added to the ease of the spell's use.

The material component, a black pearl, was rare, but since one pearl would allow multiple identifications, one could purchase a pearl in a metropolitan center and easily make a profit. Without arbitrary DM controls on black pearl availability, a large number of items could be identified with no monetary loss. With a brisk trade in magic items going on in 3.Xe, even a disappointing handful of Daggers +1 results in a profit.

A DM could impose the concept of 'Cursed Items that Read One Thing But Act Another', but the bait-and-switch tactic could get tiresome if overused. The only other method of successful use of cursed items I've seen has been in the "Intelligent Magic Item" category, and those necessarily aren't cursed so much as having their own agenda.

I'd like to see a return to ambiguity. Remove "Identify" from the spell list. The primarily Magic Item locator should remain "Detect Magic". Knowledge skills could perhaps glean some specifics, but the definitive results should come from practical use. That way, we can bring back what was for me, a fun aspect of the game.

horseboy
2007-09-06, 03:39 PM
I think one of the key problems with adventurers and the economy is that they live off of gross income. In 3.x magical items were the only well defined "cash sinks" in the game. Out of curiosity, how many of us actually make our players pay taxes?
How many of our players have ever actually "invested" in something? I know some of the players from prior editions have, what with buying inns in favorite towns, shops, vineyards and what-have-you's.
Anyone else remember when paladins actually tithed?
If there were more "cash sinks" than just ale and whores then you wouldn't really have to worry so much about Wealth by Levels.

Morty
2007-09-06, 03:46 PM
I think one of the key problems with adventurers and the economy is that they live off of gross income. In 3.x magical items were the only well defined "cash sinks" in the game. Out of curiosity, how many of us actually make our players pay taxes?


To whom? If the players are citizens of any nation and are servants of some noble, and the laws of nation/noble treat loot as taxable income, it'd be reasonable. Which isn't bad idea actually...

AKA_Bait
2007-09-06, 03:48 PM
I'd like to see a return to ambiguity. Remove "Identify" from the spell list. The primarily Magic Item locator should remain "Detect Magic". Knowledge skills could perhaps glean some specifics, but the definitive results should come from practical use. That way, we can bring back what was for me, a fun aspect of the game.

I agree here. Although identify doesn't detect a cursed item 100% of the time, I don't remember the actual percentage off the top of my head, it did effectivley nix the use of cursed items. Also, the proliferation of magic items around made it less and less likley that the party would ever actually use the cursed item they found rather than just shoving it in a sack and selling it to some hapless magic shop owner next time they were in town.


I think one of the key problems with adventurers and the economy is that they live off of gross income. In 3.x magical items were the only well defined "cash sinks" in the game. Out of curiosity, how many of us actually make our players pay taxes?
How many of our players have ever actually "invested" in something? I know some of the players from prior editions have, what with buying inns in favorite towns, shops, vineyards and what-have-you's.
Anyone else remember when paladins actually tithed?
If there were more "cash sinks" than just ale and whores then you wouldn't really have to worry so much about Wealth by Levels.

I've had and played characters that have invested in things but it's pretty unusual and does tend to make the party a little internally unbalanced. A cleric I play regularly drops hundreds to thousands of gold on attempts to convert people or spread the good word about his god (Sharess) and as a consequence he has quite a bit less in the useful magical stuff department than the rest of the party.

The thing is also that the availability of cash sinks doesn't mean that players will actually take advantage of them. Lots of players, if they have the option of spending 10k on buying an inn or saving another 12k and buying that spiffy item they want will continue to sit on the money. At least, in my exp.

Matthew
2007-09-06, 03:51 PM
I make 'em pay taxes. Ever since I read the Forgotten Realms supplement Cities of Mystery (I think I overlooked any mention in the DMG). The FRPG supplement Middenheim - City of the White Wolf was my introduction to City Based Adventuring; a great supplement. A Magical Medieval Society - Western Europe and the 3e Stronghold Builder's Guide are my main D20 resources.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-06, 03:51 PM
I would see that just a tad differently.

I find players are less likely to invest in a stronghold, inn, tower, or somesuch place because they are more interested in storing away cash for a largely-powerful magic item they wish to buy or have created per request. In a sense, it creates a circular pattern. The players want and need more powerful items -- as it helps them overcome more powerful foes -- thus they have less to spend on other things. Because they aren't spending on other things, magic items become the primary money sink.

horseboy
2007-09-06, 04:19 PM
I would see that just a tad differently.

I find players are less likely to invest in a stronghold, inn, tower, or somesuch place because they are more interested in storing away cash for a largely-powerful magic item they wish to buy or have created per request. In a sense, it creates a circular pattern. The players want and need more powerful items -- as it helps them overcome more powerful foes -- thus they have less to spend on other things. Because they aren't spending on other things, magic items become the primary money sink.

That's because 3.x (and the WBL) encourage a linear progression. Where as other systems, and prior editions, encouraged a horizontal progression.

Kiero
2007-09-06, 06:47 PM
Semantics are key to accurate and meaningful debate.

More accurately, "every argument on the internet is a definitional one".

Bassetking
2007-09-06, 09:03 PM
This is looking a long ways back, and is probably covering already-trod turf, but I'd like a crack at it.

I've missed Cursed items, really. They were a fun aspect of the 1e and 2e game. "Woohoo! I have a magic sword! Wait ... why do I keep missing?" Once the curse was sorted out, we could get rid of it, but it added an extra risk into the game. Everyone loved getting magic items, but it wasn't just monsters that'd bite you (or claw/claw/bite you). Sometimes a lucky find wasn't so lucky.

Yeah, nothing more enjoyable than the elation of discovering that the prized, cherished reward you've earned from tireless hard work and heroic endeavor is actually the thing making you cough up points of CON Damage. Really. And you can't let go of it. Ever. Isn't this a fun plot arc? Eh? Better hurry and find a cure, or you'll die due to thinking you might have actually gotten something nice! Boy, isn't it a joy that we've got so much more creative control over the storyline? By the way, you're all beset by Ettins.

Right. I miss cursed gear. The same way I miss awkward vocal cracks and the Seventh Grade.



3rd Edition, I saw a dramatic reduction of Cursed items. By 3.5 they were gone. Personally, I saw it as the overuse of the "Identify" spell. At least it took a long time in 3e, but still, all magic items were cached away and no one was allowed to use them until the mage could get his Identify on them. 3.5e just made it all the more ridiculous by dramatically cutting down casting time. There were a few things that added to the ease of the spell's use.

Overuse? Right. I forgot, it's FUN to pick up a sword, and kill your team-mate, because it's Cursed. Or pick up a staff, and free a demon, that kills you and your team mate. Because it's Cursed. Or find some magic gloves. That cut off your hands. Because they're cursed. Or a magic hat, that makes you look so much like something fiendish that the town guard kills you. Because it's cursed.

Can you FEEL the Creativity and options pouring off of this? Can you see how heavily this free-wheeling creative spirit has been crushed by filthy game-systems that allow means for individuals NOT to have these things occur?



The material component, a black pearl, was rare, but since one pearl would allow multiple identifications, one could purchase a pearl in a metropolitan center and easily make a profit. Without arbitrary DM controls on black pearl availability, a large number of items could be identified with no monetary loss. With a brisk trade in magic items going on in 3.Xe, even a disappointing handful of Daggers +1 results in a profit.

Yes! That disappointing handful of +1 Daggers can be turned into something the party may actually CARE about! Something actually... rewarding! Few things have frustrated me over the years more than the Random Treasure table, and the ability to sell off a Vorpal Gnomish Hooked Hammer for something, ANYTHING that my character may actually be capable of using in a meaningful manner is a boon and a blessing.



A DM could impose the concept of 'Cursed Items that Read One Thing But Act Another', but the bait-and-switch tactic could get tiresome if overused. The only other method of successful use of cursed items I've seen has been in the "Intelligent Magic Item" category, and those necessarily aren't cursed so much as having their own agenda.

I'd like to see a return to ambiguity. Remove "Identify" from the spell list. The primarily Magic Item locator should remain "Detect Magic". Knowledge skills could perhaps glean some specifics, but the definitive results should come from practical use. That way, we can bring back what was for me, a fun aspect of the game.

I'd like to see an implementation of total visibility. Cursed Items are lazy story-telling; and using the players ability to contribute to the game-play as the plot-hook is reprehensible.

Jayabalard
2007-09-06, 10:07 PM
Yeah, nothing more enjoyable than the elation of discovering that the prized, cherished reward you've earned from tireless hard work and heroic endeavor is actually the thing making you cough up points of CON Damage. Really. And you can't let go of it. Ever. Isn't this a fun plot arc? Eh? Better hurry and find a cure, or you'll die due to thinking you might have actually gotten something nice! Boy, isn't it a joy that we've got so much more creative control over the storyline? By the way, you're all beset by Ettins.

Right. I miss cursed gear. The same way I miss awkward vocal cracks and the Seventh Grade. Sounds like you have had some pretty bad GMs.


I'd like to see an implementation of total visibility. Cursed Items are lazy story-telling; and using the players ability to contribute to the game-play as the plot-hook is reprehensible.How so? I see no difference between using them as plot hooks vs any other sort of plot hooks.

Bassetking
2007-09-06, 10:53 PM
How so? I see no difference between using them as plot hooks vs any other sort of plot hooks.

Plot Hook 1:
"The king has decided that you and your friends are going to go off and retrieve his crown from the devious kobolds Over there that stole it. If you have not accomplished this task in one week, he will use his magical king powers, and have your fighter slain."

Plot Hook 2:
"You've slain the terrible dragon! After five levels, your fighter finally has been rewarded with a shiny new sword for his hard work and persistence. Oops, the sword's cursed, and our dear friend, Fighter, will die , unless, in less than one week, we go and get the Remedy from those Devious Kobolds over there.

Same plot, same adventure.

One of these adventures is the party racing against the clock to save their fighter's life.

One of them is racing against the clock to save their fighter's life, while the fighter rapidly suffers mechanically for the sake of plot.

I would draw the analogy with cursed items to a "Carrot and Stick" mindset. The carrot (Items) Is my reward as a player for having circumnavigated the stick(Monsters/encounter/voyage/dungeon). When there is poison in my carrot, issues develop.

1) I am resentful towards the person who provided me with the poisoned carrot. Regardless of how much more interesting my poisoning has made things for everyone else involved, It didn't make things more interesting for me. I still had to eat a poisoned carrot(or go carrotless), and now have nothing but stained pants and a queasy tummy to show for it.

2) All future carrots are cheapened. I've been poisoned once, I'll not trust future carrots. Regardless of how, to me, they are presented, they are forever tainted. I can't just enjoy my carrot for being a carrot; every carrot holds the potential for more poison, and more frustration.

3) Without carrots, why the hell am I bothering with this stick? If the only incentive I'm being provided is "I need to find a cure for this poisoned carrot" Then the stick I must endure to reach my carrot is all the more onerous. I don't care about the stick, I don't care about the work. I care about seeing to it I never, EVER encounter another poisoned carrot as long as I draw breath.

Which leads me to the point I'm certain will be drawn from this. "D&D Isn't about carrots and sticks! There is SO MUCH MORE to the game than killing things and taking their stuff!"

Yes. Yes there is. There's endless possibilities in investigating the character you've produced, and the manners in which they interact with the world surrounding them.

Which, to me, is utterly shattered and hindered by the inclusion of cursed items.

"Well, Bob, it's a shame that your charismatic, fast-talking sheep salesman picked up that lute, because now his face looks like curdled milk, and he can't stop coughing up blood."( Cursed item, Charisma and Constitution damage. )

At that point, I can't focus on Bob, his interests in selling sheep, or his love of bargaining and a deep-seated fascination in the local livestock markets... Bob is focused on getting rid of this damn lute!

To those who claim "No, see, the intrigue here is discovering how Bob will react as an individual, and seeing how he will, as a person, deal with his new afflictions"... I'd be willing to bet good sums of money that you don't currently have a chronic Illness. People who suddenly are afflicted with terrible, horrible things Have one overriding, psyche-shredding thought run through their minds.

"Make this not be happening."

The ability, however presented, to actually MAKE this not be happening would consume and devour my characters minds. They would be singly and solely focused on the individual goal of "Make this not be" and truthfully, would view the entire exercise of "Making this not be happening" as both connected to the original occurrence of the curse, and a gross and grevious imposition upon their time and life.

Bob doesn't CARE about learning how to cope with his curse, Bob cares about his LIFE, and getting back to it.

That's why I feel cursed items are lazy.

Dervag
2007-09-07, 02:03 AM
I think we've got two fundamentally different styles here.

One style gets a thrill out of the possibility that their carrot is poisoned, out of taking precautions to escape poisoning by carrots, and out of having to go out of their way once in a while to find an antidote to carrot-poison.

The other wants a clear distinction between carrots and sticks, with no poisonous carrots, so that they can always rely on the carrot to be the good news.

Neither system is wrong; the only real wrong is to impose poison carrots on a player who hates them. Which no DM has to do if they don't want to. Having the cursed items in the book is fine because some people like having to worry about them, but those who don't like it shouldn't have to worry about gratuitious random death.

D&D used to be a very random-death heavy game. It has evolved into something less heavy in random death, but some people miss the sense that failing to take precautions even when not in an encounter could get you killed.

And of course some people are masochists, and miss even the random deaths that precautions could not avoid.

Kiero
2007-09-07, 04:41 AM
I've had and played characters that have invested in things but it's pretty unusual and does tend to make the party a little internally unbalanced. A cleric I play regularly drops hundreds to thousands of gold on attempts to convert people or spread the good word about his god (Sharess) and as a consequence he has quite a bit less in the useful magical stuff department than the rest of the party.

Which sounds to me like poor GMing. If they are able to get some benefit from their choice of expenditure, you should be getting something from yours. Especially if it's actually in keeping with what the character would do.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-07, 08:07 AM
Bob doesn't CARE about learning how to cope with his curse, Bob cares about his LIFE, and getting back to it.

That's why I feel cursed items are lazy.

I take it you think using disease and poison are lazy as well if the person must quest to find a cure/antidote? Or having the chracters family be slain and his goal be to raise the 6k to have his parents, wife, brother and two kids be resurrected. This would be a penalty of sorts in a world where 6k could buy you one, maybe two, pretty nifty magical dodads.


I think we've got two fundamentally different styles here.

Yeah. Each has it's merits. I've played in games without any cursed items and I've played in games with them. Both have been enjoyable. Like everything else, make sure you know the game you are playing in and it won't be a problem. I like cursed items in the same way I like smart villians. They make the world a more dangerous place for our adventurers. Maybe that makes me a maschocist but I find it hard to have the game be all that thrilling as a PC if there is not a real chance of my character dying or getting severly beat up as he goes about his heroic deeds.


Which sounds to me like poor GMing. If they are able to get some benefit from their choice of expenditure, you should be getting something from yours. Especially if it's actually in keeping with what the character would do.

Well, yeah, I suppose but I can also understand why I'm not. This is a pretty new GM (her first campagin even though it's been running for over a year) and my character was much more powerful than the rest of the group just because I was a cleric with a pretty good build. I've nerfed him myself a few times in other ways to keep on a relative power par with the party so her not giving me stuff to keep the party closer to balance is not a huge deal or even a big mistake in my book. Of course, if I was the sort of player to get peeved about that then it might be (of course, if I was that sort of player I wouldn't be nerfing him myself either...)

Starbuck_II
2007-09-07, 08:38 AM
I take it you think using disease and poison are lazy as well if the person must quest to find a cure/antidote? Or having the chracters family be slain and his goal be to raise the 6k to have his parents, wife, brother and two kids be resurrected. This would be a penalty of sorts in a world where 6k could buy you one, maybe two, pretty nifty magical dodads.

Ah, but that isn't as carrot.

See, family slaim/diseased is the world doing stuff to youfor living in it. Stuff happens.

But poisoned carrot is the DM/world punishing you for doing your job: being a hero. After a bit of that: you go postal (like the mailman).

See, I'd have no trouble with questing to help someone in my family who is sick: unless, the magic item I found was the one that did it. That cheapens my fun.



Yeah. Each has it's merits. I've played in games without any cursed items and I've played in games with them. Both have been enjoyable. Like everything else, make sure you know the game you are playing in and it won't be a problem. I like cursed items in the same way I like smart villians. They make the world a more dangerous place for our adventurers. Maybe that makes me a maschocist but I find it hard to have the game be all that thrilling as a PC if there is not a real chance of my character dying or getting severly beat up as he goes about his heroic deeds.

Wait, you like poisoned carrots?
You like inanimate objects beating you up for being a hero: who needs ememies when you have treasure doing their job for them!

PinkysBrain
2007-09-07, 08:43 AM
Magic can do everything ... magic items let mundane classes do a little more than just mundane things. Being purely mundane in a world of teleporting and flying casters is just plain annoying.

Overlard
2007-09-07, 09:00 AM
Which sounds to me like poor GMing. If they are able to get some benefit from their choice of expenditure, you should be getting something from yours. Especially if it's actually in keeping with what the character would do.
So if a character chooses to gamble all his money on a horserace, should the DM make sure he wins? It may be in-character for that character, but that doesn't mean it's a wise investment that should be rewarded in a material way.

Jayabalard
2007-09-07, 09:00 AM
Same plot, same adventure. Yup... Sounds like you agree with me, there isn't any difference between those types of plot hooks. Neither is lazier than the other.

You just happen to not like one of them.

Morty
2007-09-07, 09:05 AM
Magic can do everything ... magic items let mundane classes do a little more than just mundane things. Being purely mundane in a world of teleporting and flying casters is just plain annoying.

If teleporting and flying weren't so disgustingly easy for casters, problem would be smaller.
Besides, it's not about getting rid of magical toys items overall, but limiting their quantity and characters' dependence on them.
As for cursed items, that's one of the numerous situations where sticking to WBL screws up plot, and yet another reason to ditch it. Giving players cursed item as part of their "by-the-table" loot is unfair, as it won't help them. If you give them cursed item as extra, they'll get suspicious.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-07, 10:11 AM
If teleporting and flying weren't so disgustingly easy for casters, problem would be smaller.
Besides, it's not about getting rid of magical toys items overall, but limiting their quantity and characters' dependence on them.
As for cursed items, that's one of the numerous situations where sticking to WBL screws up plot, and yet another reason to ditch it. Giving players cursed item as part of their "by-the-table" loot is unfair, as it won't help them. If you give them cursed item as extra, they'll get suspicious.

Not so sure that this is an in game problem unless your players are very familiar with the WBL table and prone to metagaming. Just because the players know that x level means y wealth doesn't mean that their characters are aware of that. Presumably, they aren't, there aren't any signposts in town saying "If you are a fighter of limited prowess you may only possess x amount of total appraised value of goods and liquid capital."

Journey
2007-09-07, 10:35 AM
Not so sure that this is an in game problem unless your players are very familiar with the WBL table and prone to metagaming. Just because the players know that x level means y wealth doesn't mean that their characters are aware of that. Presumably, they aren't, there aren't any signposts in town saying "If you are a fighter of limited prowess you may only possess x amount of total appraised value of goods and liquid capital."
The entire feat/skill and multiclass system in 3.x fosters metagaming, though, so why exclude the wealth-by-level guidelines from this?

Dausuul
2007-09-07, 10:41 AM
If teleporting and flying weren't so disgustingly easy for casters, problem would be smaller.
Besides, it's not about getting rid of magical toys items overall, but limiting their quantity and characters' dependence on them.
As for cursed items, that's one of the numerous situations where sticking to WBL screws up plot, and yet another reason to ditch it. Giving players cursed item as part of their "by-the-table" loot is unfair, as it won't help them. If you give them cursed item as extra, they'll get suspicious.

First of all, I don't think I've ever known players to keep track of loot so closely as to notice a single encounter exceeding Wealth By Level. Even if they did, it's well-established that not every encounter will provide exactly the standard loot; some will be high and some will be low. It would take a very close observation of the party's plunder over a long time to notice a consistent increase in the amount of treasure, and by the time you spotted the increase the cursed item would have kicked in already, making the point moot.

Moreover, many cursed items are actually quite useful once you know what they do. See the aforementioned scarab of death. It's an extremely dangerous item, and could well cost some hapless PC his life if the characters are careless. However, once you understand how it works and the importance of keeping it in a metal or bone container, it's a hideously lethal assassin's weapon. Likewise, a flask of curses can be used as a clever trap. Cursed items are priced on their potential utility.

My general attitude on cursed items is that one shouldn't just drop them into treasure arbitrarily; they should show up for a reason. For instance, undead might be known for having cursed treasure, so PCs should be extra careful of anything they get from an undead's tomb. Done well, I think this adds flavor to the game and provides an extra challenge for the PCs.

Cursed items are really just a form of trap, and like any trap they can improve the game or bog it down depending on how you use them. If you throw in traps arbitrarily and senselessly, then your game will soon degenerate into the PCs taking 20 to search every 5-foot square of ground before they set foot on it. On the other hand, if you restrict yourself to putting traps in places where they would logically be, and you set up the traps so that they provide more of a challenge than simply "The rogue makes a Disable Device check," they can make a dungeon seem much more vivid and frightening. Likewise, the occasional cursed item, if done well, can make players see magic items as more than just money in the bank.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-07, 10:49 AM
My general attitude on cursed items is that one shouldn't just drop them into treasure arbitrarily; they should show up for a reason. For instance, undead might be known for having cursed treasure, so PCs should be extra careful of anything they get from an undead's tomb. Done well, I think this adds flavor to the game and provides an extra challenge for the PCs.


I agree although I'd extend that to include any magical item. Whatever they find in a treasure pile of an intelegent creature at least ought to have had some use to the creature, otherwise why would they have it in the first place?


The entire feat/skill and multiclass system in 3.x fosters metagaming, though, so why exclude the wealth-by-level guidelines from this?

Well, for the exact same reason I crack down on the ones you mentioned. Players need a good in character reason for taking a skill/feat that doesn't make a bunch of sense for their character at the time. Imho, "I'm aiming for x obscure prestige class" is generally not good enough. There is nothing in the 3.5 rules that says 'metagaming should always be allowed'.

Morty
2007-09-07, 10:57 AM
Not so sure that this is an in game problem unless your players are very familiar with the WBL table and prone to metagaming. Just because the players know that x level means y wealth doesn't mean that their characters are aware of that. Presumably, they aren't, there aren't any signposts in town saying "If you are a fighter of limited prowess you may only possess x amount of total appraised value of goods and liquid capital."

Well, there's a possibility that at least one of the players have been DMing at least once. And one of my players is unfortunaetly very prone to metagaming, we're lucky he doesn't know the rules very well.


First of all, I don't think I've ever known players to keep track of loot so closely as to notice a single encounter exceeding Wealth By Level. Even if they did, it's well-established that not every encounter will provide exactly the standard loot; some will be high and some will be low. It would take a very close observation of the party's plunder over a long time to notice a consistent increase in the amount of treasure, and by the time you spotted the increase the cursed item would have kicked in already, making the point moot.

I don't care for WBL either, nor do I use it. Cursed items are just one of the reasons why it doesn't work. Though yes, it wasn't really good example.


Moreover, many cursed items are actually quite useful once you know what they do. See the aforementioned scarab of death. It's an extremely dangerous item, and could well cost some hapless PC his life if the characters are careless. However, once you understand how it works and the importance of keeping it in a metal or bone container, it's a hideously lethal assassin's weapon. Likewise, a flask of curses can be used as a clever trap. Cursed items are priced on their potential utility.

Though on the other hand, Boots of Dancing are nothing more but a hindrance.


My general attitude on cursed items is that one shouldn't just drop them into treasure arbitrarily; they should show up for a reason. For instance, undead might be known for having cursed treasure, so PCs should be extra careful of anything they get from an undead's tomb. Done well, I think this adds flavor to the game and provides an extra challenge for the PCs.

Cursed items are really just a form of trap, and like any trap they can improve the game or bog it down depending on how you use them. If you throw in traps arbitrarily and senselessly, then your game will soon degenerate into the PCs taking 20 to search every 5-foot square of ground before they set foot on it. On the other hand, if you restrict yourself to putting traps in places where they would logically be, and you set up the traps so that they provide more of a challenge than simply "The rogue makes a Disable Device check," they can make a dungeon seem much more vivid and frightening. Likewise, the occasional cursed item, if done well, can make players see magic items as more than just money in the bank.

Can't disagree here.

Journey
2007-09-07, 11:03 AM
Well, for the exact same reason I crack down on the ones you mentioned. Players need a good in character reason for taking a skill/feat that doesn't make a bunch of sense for their character at the time. Imho, "I'm aiming for x obscure prestige class" is generally not good enough. There is nothing in the 3.5 rules that says 'metagaming should always be allowed'.
Short of divining their intentions or railroading, there's nothing a DM can do to keep players from trying to guide their character within the bounds of the campaign toward these feats and classes, though.

Obviously a good group will have a tacit understanding whether or not this is frowned upon, and metagaming isn't restricted to this particular mechanic or even this edition. Let's not pretend otherwise; but at the same time let's not pretend that the particular metagaming behavior related to class/character advancement isn't actively promoted by the system, either.

I'd like to see the 4th edition return to a system in which metagaming of character advancement isn't actively promoted.

Dausuul
2007-09-07, 11:05 AM
Though on the other hand, Boots of Dancing are nothing more but a hindrance.

Until the rogue sneaks into the BBEG's fortress at night, swipes the BBEG's normal boots from his wardrobe, and substitutes a pair of boots of dancing disguised to resemble the normal ones. Cursed items are all about finding clever ways to trick your enemies into using them.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-07, 11:07 AM
Yeah, nothing more enjoyable than the elation of discovering that the prized, cherished reward you've earned from tireless hard work and heroic endeavor is actually the thing making you cough up points of CON Damage. Really. And you can't let go of it. Ever. Isn't this a fun plot arc? Eh? Better hurry and find a cure, or you'll die due to thinking you might have actually gotten something nice! Boy, isn't it a joy that we've got so much more creative control over the storyline? By the way, you're all beset by Ettins.

Right. I miss cursed gear. The same way I miss awkward vocal cracks and the Seventh Grade.

Overuse? Right. I forgot, it's FUN to pick up a sword, and kill your team-mate, because it's Cursed. Or pick up a staff, and free a demon, that kills you and your team mate. Because it's Cursed. Or find some magic gloves. That cut off your hands. Because they're cursed. Or a magic hat, that makes you look so much like something fiendish that the town guard kills you. Because it's cursed.

Can you FEEL the Creativity and options pouring off of this? Can you see how heavily this free-wheeling creative spirit has been crushed by filthy game-systems that allow means for individuals NOT to have these things occur?

Yes! That disappointing handful of +1 Daggers can be turned into something the party may actually CARE about! Something actually... rewarding! Few things have frustrated me over the years more than the Random Treasure table, and the ability to sell off a Vorpal Gnomish Hooked Hammer for something, ANYTHING that my character may actually be capable of using in a meaningful manner is a boon and a blessing.

I'd like to see an implementation of total visibility. Cursed Items are lazy story-telling; and using the players ability to contribute to the game-play as the plot-hook is reprehensible.

Turn down the sarcasmostat down some. It's a bit high! In any case, as others state, it's a bit of differences in play preferences. For me, cursed items are another factor in the game, an additional risk in a world of risks. Used judiciously, they're fun for me, even as a player. They shouldn't turn up often, nor should they all be (as in your examples) deadly and/or debilitating. A Sword -1 just makes the fighter's job a bit harder, just as a Sword +1 makes his job a bit easier. Even considering that, I can count the number of -1 weapons I've found in years of 1e and 2e play on one hand, whereas I lose count of the number of +1 weapons.

Yes, I have played in games where we've even received a debilitating curse from an item. Yet we played through, even removed the curse, and in doing so cursed item became a rather sweet magic item which was better than originally hoped.

It is the plot, not the hook that matters. Whether it's a witch that curses my bard with low charisma or a ill-enchanted lute that does so the end result is the same, and the plot will advance no matter how I managed to get into the plot. Overcoming adversity, including that of disappointment, is a part of any story.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-07, 11:13 AM
Short of divining their intentions or railroading, there's nothing a DM can do to keep players from trying to guide their character within the bounds of the campaign toward these feats and classes, though.


Divining their intentions is easy enough... ask them. I frequently talk to my players about metagame issues if they have a type of character they eventually want to play at a particular level. I will then work with them to help craft a story where it makes some sense for them to have started learning the skills/feats they would need without their character seeming to do so for no good reason. The latter is metagaming, the former is being open and flexiable with your players about what everyone wants to get out of your collective gaming experience.



Obviously a good group will have a tacit understanding whether or not this is frowned upon, and metagaming isn't restricted to this particular mechanic or even this edition. Let's not pretend otherwise; but at the same time let's not pretend that the particular metagaming behavior related to class/character advancement isn't actively promoted by the system, either.

I'd like to see the 4th edition return to a system in which metagaming of character advancement isn't actively promoted.

Kindly explain to me how it is actively (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=actively) promoted (http://http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promoted)by the system.

Morty
2007-09-07, 11:17 AM
Until the rogue sneaks into the BBEG's fortress at night, swipes the BBEG's normal boots from his wardrobe, and substitutes a pair of boots of dancing disguised to resemble the normal ones. Cursed items are all about finding clever ways to trick your enemies into using them.

Hm. I haven't thought of that. Though really, apart from invention players need luck to find themselves in situation where cursed item they've found may prove itself useful. Unless they craft those in advance, but I was talking more about DM giving players cursed items as part of their "reward".

Dausuul
2007-09-07, 11:21 AM
Kindly explain to me how it is actively (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=actively) promoted (http://http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promoted)by the system.

Oh, boy. Please, please, let's not have another argument over the precise definition of some random word. While it is important in any debate to make sure everyone agrees on the meaning of the terms being used, the goal should be to get everybody on the same page about the topic under discussion, not to wage war over somebody's injudicious use of a word that doesn't mean quite what s/he thinks it means.

D&D doesn't "actively promote" metagaming in the sense of the books explicitly telling people to metagame. However, the system does strongly encourage metagaming, in that players who metagame are rewarded with much more powerful characters than those who do not.


Hm. I haven't thought of that. Though really, apart from invention players need luck to find themselves in situation where cursed item they've found may prove itself useful. Unless they craft those in advance, but I was talking more about DM giving players cursed items as part of their "reward".

Certainly, it's not easy to find an opportunity to put boots of dancing to use, which is why they're cheaper than some of the other "deathtrap" items (such as the necklace of strangulation). But then, that's why the DM should place cursed items with some forethought. If you're going to dump boots of dancing on the PCs and count it against WBL, there should be a situation where the boots could come in handy--or, at least, an opportunity to sell them.

Journey
2007-09-07, 11:27 AM
Kindly explain to me how it is actively (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=actively) promoted (http://http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promoted)by the system.
Let's be clear, here. "Metagaming" is something a player does. A player knows the rules of the game (even if he has to look them up in the allowed books and references), but there is no de facto reason a character inside a world does. A player planning on using a given set of rules for his character's benefit (or, for the oddball, sometimes detriment) is metagaming.

To answer your question:
Feat chains require that in order to obtain Feat X one must first have Feats Y and Z (for example). A player planning to have his character obtain Y and Z so that the character can have X is metagaming. Thus, the existence of Feat chains "actively promotes" metagaming.

The existence of "Prestige Classes" that require minimums of Feats, Skills, Class levels, and Attributes require these things to be met. A player planning to have his character obtain these necessary minimums so that he can take the Prestige Class as a second (or nth) class is metagaming. The existence of these as a core rule promotes metagaming.

The scant-penalty, any-class-you-like multi-class system supports both the Feat chain and the Prestige Class system (indeed, Prestige Classes would simply not be possible, as implemented, without the multi-class system, as implemented). Therefore, as written, this system promotes metagaming.

These things that otherwise might flow "naturally" from advancement and experience in a given setting are instead cobbled into the rules themselves. That's the mechanism by which these rules promote metagaming.

Of course, all of the above assume the Player has at least the level of freedom implied by the reference material to govern the advancement of his character. If the DM restricts certain things (even by, e.g., discussing before hand), this changes things--but it requires the action of the DM and cooperation of the player to do so.

Edit: For the record, "actively promote" is quite precise enough for the meaning I intended (see definitions 9 and 1 in the links you gave, respectively). One shouldn't attempt to engage in a semantics argument if one isn't equipped to do so.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-07, 11:40 AM
Back in the day, gold aquired added to one's experience. Thus, defeating 20 orcs with 10 coppers on them yielded less experience points than 20 orcs with 3,000 gold pieces. All magic items had a monetary value to factor in this 'gold experience', but magic items were not for trade. Thus I do understand the 'sting' of getting a dud when wanting a sweet magic sword. But, I still found them entertaining when used judiciously.

Putting magic items on the open market changed all that. By making them ubiquitous and relatively easier to obtain, the sting of getting a cursed item went from getting sold a Pinto when expecting a Porsche to getting sold a bad apple when expecting a good. However, the Identify spell's ease of use made it so that there are no bad apples ever. In a sense, though we've taken many steps in the proper direction, we've perhaps gone a bit far.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-07, 11:57 AM
D&D doesn't "actively promote" metagaming in the sense of the books explicitly telling people to metagame. However, the system does strongly encourage metagaming, in that players who metagame are rewarded with much more powerful characters than those who do not.


That seems only to be the case if their DM lets them get away with it and was doubtlessly true in other editions as well. I'm of the school that metagaming almost always is bad and my group knows that I frown on it heavily. Other groups don't have a problem with metagaming, that's fine too. I only see an issue here if the group is not clear on if it is encouraged by the DM or not.


Let's be clear, here. "Metagaming" is something a player does. A player knows the rules of the game (even if he has to look them up in the allowed books and references), but there is no de facto reason a character inside a world does. A player planning on using a given set of rules for his character's benefit (or, for the oddball, sometimes detriment) is metagaming.


Nonsense. A character may not know the grappling rules, just as I don't know all of the physics involved in the real world, but they can certianly figure out that grabbing a guy is going to keep them from doing stuff. By that definition, any time, any player plans to use any set of rules (say running) they are metagaming.



To answer your question:
Feat chains require that in order to obtain Feat X one must first have Feats Y and Z (for example). A player planning to have his character obtain Y and Z so that the character can have X is metagaming. Thus, the existence of Feat chains "actively promotes" metagaming.


Again, there is a difference bettween character planning and metagaming. A player can plan what he want's his character to be but then he and the DM must discuss how his character is going to get there without the character utilizing out of game knowledge.



These things that otherwise might flow "naturally" from advancement and experience in a given setting are instead cobbled into the rules themselves. That's the mechanism by which these rules promote metagaming.

They flow just fine naturally if the DM and players take the time to work on creating those parts of the story as a group, which, to me at least, is the point of playing.


Of course, all of the above assume the Player has at least the level of freedom implied by the reference material to govern the advancement of his character. If the DM restricts certain things (even by, e.g., discussing before hand), this changes things--but it requires the action of the DM and cooperation of the player to do so.

I think we have a diffrent notion of what the level of freedom implied by the reference material is. PRC's for example are explicitly only around to get into if they are in the campagin setting the DM designs (hence regarding CORE material, why they are in the DMG and not the PHB). Every action requires the cooperation of the players and the DM, on both sides.


Oh, boy. Please, please, let's not have another argument over the precise definition of some random word. While it is important in any debate to make sure everyone agrees on the meaning of the terms being used, the goal should be to get everybody on the same page about the topic under discussion, not to wage war over somebody's injudicious use of a word that doesn't mean quite what s/he thinks it means.

I'll try to be more patient about this, but it does get under my skin when people overstate an accusation.



Edit: For the record, "actively promote" is quite precise enough for the meaning I intended (see definitions 9 and 1 in the links you gave, respectively). One shouldn't attempt to engage in a semantics argument if one isn't equipped to do so.

I said above I'm going to try not to derail threads with these type arguments from this point forward. I'll keep my word.

Serenity
2007-09-07, 12:00 PM
The sort of metagaming you describe, Journey, is inherent in basically any non-freeform RPG. In any such game, players design their characters, using the rules to benefit their characters, so they can use the abilities they want to use. A player who plans out his character's advancement to take certain feats and skills to enter a certain prestige class is metagaming, yes, but no more than someone in a point-buy system who invests their points in attributes and skills that will better allow them to develop as a magic user. This sort of metagaming is not necessarily a bad thing, unless it is indicative that the player in question only cares about achieving Real Ultimate Power(TM), not playing an engaging character.

Kiero
2007-09-07, 12:43 PM
So if a character chooses to gamble all his money on a horserace, should the DM make sure he wins? It may be in-character for that character, but that doesn't mean it's a wise investment that should be rewarded in a material way.

What was described was investing funds in character-appropriate activities, to the exclusion of mere combat effectiveness. Not just gambling money.

Some of that money should have come back with results, whether that's NPC followers, recognition and favours from higher-ups, whatever, but there should have been some return.

Jayabalard
2007-09-07, 01:29 PM
Let's be clear, here. "Metagaming" is something a player does. A player knows the rules of the game (even if he has to look them up in the allowed books and references), but there is no de facto reason a character inside a world does. A player planning on using a given set of rules for his character's benefit (or, for the oddball, sometimes detriment) is metagaming.

To answer your question:
Feat chains require that in order to obtain Feat X one must first have Feats Y and Z (for example). A player planning to have his character obtain Y and Z so that the character can have X is metagaming. Thus, the existence of Feat chains "actively promotes" metagaming.It's not metagaming... it's just gaming.

It's the same as moving your pawn, then the knight, then the bishop, all with the intention of castling at some point in the future... it's just playing the game.

ColdBrew
2007-09-07, 03:10 PM
Kindly explain to me how it is actively (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=actively) promoted (http://http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promoted)by the system.
I coined this on the WotC board, but I'm going to restate it now:


Boaz's Law
The first person to resort to quoting (or linking to) the dictionary in a rules debate immediately loses said debate.

Why is this law necessary? Because this behavior is almost always used to point out some obscure definition in support of a fallacious point. The definition quoted is often obviously not the intent of the writer, in the case of a direct quote of the rule in question.

Simply put, if you see someone pull out the dictionary, expect shenanigans.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-07, 03:20 PM
What was described was investing funds in character-appropriate activities, to the exclusion of mere combat effectiveness. Not just gambling money.

Some of that money should have come back with results, whether that's NPC followers, recognition and favours from higher-ups, whatever, but there should have been some return.

Eh. The character got an extra bright smile from Sharess. :-)

The point there really was though that I think in practice the benifit from dropping a bunch of money on some RP cause (whatever it may be) would rarely be compensated in the amount equal to the benifit of if the PC had just bought a continous use item (for example, if I dropped 4k on service to Sharess I wouldn't expect a +2 Enhancement Bonus to wisdom back, or it's mechanical equivalent, enven though I could have gotten one for the same price.)


Why is this law necessary? Because this behavior is almost always used to point out some obscure definition in support of a fallacious point. The definition quoted is often obviously not the intent of the writer, in the case of a direct quote of the rule in question.

Simply put, if you see someone pull out the dictionary, expect shenanigans.

Showing restraint...

my_evil_twin
2007-09-07, 03:35 PM
On the subject of magic items in general, it seems to me that WotC's plan to scale back magic leaves a lot of mechanical open space. I hope they use it wisely.

What I mean is that most of the customization of a character's equipment in 3.5 has been a matter of deciding what kind of magic it should have. Without magic, a sword basically comes in two flavors: regular or masterwork. Or, if you please: 1st-level equipment and 2nd-level equipment. There are very few degrees of quality underneath magic, almost like the non-magical part of the world is an afterthought.

IRL of course there were many degrees of craftsmanship for all sorts of things. One thing that would make me inordinately happy in 4th Ed. would be to see more levels of quality for non-magical equipment. We already have common, average, good, and superior locks in D&D--I would like to see mechanics where a PC can be as proud of his armor crafted by a legendary dwarven smith as another PC is of his of his armor, enchanted by the mysterious wizard "+2".

ColdBrew
2007-09-07, 03:37 PM
Showing restraint...
By all means, express thyself. I thought it was obvious Journey intended the first definition of "caricature" from your quote, or perhaps this one from Wikipedia:


A caricature is either a portrait that exaggerates or distorts the essence of a person or thing to create an easily identifiable visual likeness, or in literature, a description of a person using exaggeration of some characteristics and oversimplification of others.
You, of course, seized upon the third definition, conveniently loaded with pejorative terms like "inferior" and "degraded". The argument steamrolled along from there. It created the appearance that you were selectively misinterpreting his words to support your argument that he's using pejorative terms, which implies he's simply a cranky old grognard whose opinion can be discounted offhand.

Don't get me wrong; I disagree with just about everything Journey says. In that instance, however, I have to believe the misunderstanding was a ruse in support of your rhetoric.

ColdBrew
2007-09-07, 03:41 PM
IRL of course there were many degrees of craftsmanship for all sorts of things. One thing that would make me inordinately happy in 4th Ed. would be to see more levels of quality for non-magical equipment. We already have common, average, good, and superior locks in D&D--I would like to see mechanics where a PC can be as proud of his armor crafted by a legendary dwarven smith as another PC is of his of his armor, enchanted by the mysterious wizard "+2".
Indeed, I'd like the option when crafting to emphasize certain aspects of the equipment. Perhaps I can raise the DC to make this a particularly sharp sword, or a very well balanced one. Maybe I can make this blade perform at the average level using only half the metal, and thus half the weight, etc.

Something like the customization options found in the KOTOR games would be nice, and in fact my current DM is running a low magic campaign with those sorts of options. Crafting is the major, equipment-based method of power growth.

edit: Sorry to make two posts in a row, but they were unrelated.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-07, 04:01 PM
There are very few degrees of quality underneath magic, almost like the non-magical part of the world is an afterthought.

IRL of course there were many degrees of craftsmanship for all sorts of things. One thing that would make me inordinately happy in 4th Ed. would be to see more levels of quality for non-magical equipment. We already have common, average, good, and superior locks in D&D--I would like to see mechanics where a PC can be as proud of his armor crafted by a legendary dwarven smith as another PC is of his of his armor, enchanted by the mysterious wizard "+2".

Although on one level I'd really like to see this, on another I'm not so sure. The +1 descriptions, although not really flavorful, do make it much easier for new players to deal with getting and using new 'stuff'. Having gradations like, poor (-1), average (+0), fine (+1), excellent, amazing, legendary etc. are apt to confuse people and turn them off. I doubt that mechanic will change, it's been around for a long time now, but who knows? Personally, it wouldn't bother me but it probably would bother several of my players.

A change you might be suggesting in there is to have +1 stuff not need to be magical in creation but just made by a master whatever. That I'm all for. I've always thought that for base enchantments, and things like keen, there's no reason it had to be magical at all, just really, really good.


By all means, express thyself.

No, thanks. Dausuul is right and it's a silly waste of words.One thing to note though: take heed of when Wikipedia puts a 'this article may require clean up' box on its articles.

Irreverent Fool
2007-09-07, 04:29 PM
On the subject of magic items in general, it seems to me that WotC's plan to scale back magic leaves a lot of mechanical open space. I hope they use it wisely.

What I mean is that most of the customization of a character's equipment in 3.5 has been a matter of deciding what kind of magic it should have. Without magic, a sword basically comes in two flavors: regular or masterwork. Or, if you please: 1st-level equipment and 2nd-level equipment. There are very few degrees of quality underneath magic, almost like the non-magical part of the world is an afterthought.

IRL of course there were many degrees of craftsmanship for all sorts of things. One thing that would make me inordinately happy in 4th Ed. would be to see more levels of quality for non-magical equipment. We already have common, average, good, and superior locks in D&D--I would like to see mechanics where a PC can be as proud of his armor crafted by a legendary dwarven smith as another PC is of his of his armor, enchanted by the mysterious wizard "+2".

Eh, there was a recent Dragon magazine that included rules for smiths to add qualities to weapons but they generally had the effect of increasing the hardness or certain limited-use checks.

Kiero
2007-09-07, 04:36 PM
Eh. The character got an extra bright smile from Sharess. :-)

The point there really was though that I think in practice the benifit from dropping a bunch of money on some RP cause (whatever it may be) would rarely be compensated in the amount equal to the benifit of if the PC had just bought a continous use item (for example, if I dropped 4k on service to Sharess I wouldn't expect a +2 Enhancement Bonus to wisdom back, or it's mechanical equivalent, enven though I could have gotten one for the same price.)

I'm not even saying it should be equal. Just that there should be some measure of consideration at all. Doesn't sound like you got squat for it.

ColdBrew
2007-09-07, 04:45 PM
I'm not even saying it should be equal. Just that there should be some measure of consideration at all. Doesn't sound like you got squat for it.
At that point you're relying on the DM to provide some intangible compensation. Maybe word of your generosity gets out and people of your faith become extremely helpful. Perhaps the next shopkeeper you come across appreciates your donation so much he offers you a substantial discount. Heck, maybe your next ressurection is free, or you can leverage your reputation to convince a priest to cast Atonement on your friend after he slips. There are plenty of ways the DM can provide realistic IC consequences that also provide an appropriate game benefit for the resource expenditure.

Green Bean
2007-09-07, 04:54 PM
At that point you're relying on the DM to provide some intangible compensation. Maybe word of your generosity gets out and people of your faith become extremely helpful. Perhaps the next shopkeeper you come across appreciates your donation so much he offers you a substantial discount. Heck, maybe your next ressurection is free, or you can leverage your reputation to convince a priest to cast Atonement on your friend after he slips. There are plenty of ways the DM can provide realistic IC consequences that also provide an appropriate game benefit for the resource expenditure.

Alas, not every DM is as awesome as yours apparently is. I mean, with the amount of money PCs throw around, you're looking at potentially dozens of mini-sidequests to somehow work into a game. If your DM has time to whip up a sidequest every time a PC buys a non-adventure related item, that's great, but I'm pretty sure that people willing to do this on a regular basis are the exception rather than the rule.

Starbuck_II
2007-09-07, 05:46 PM
I coined this on the WotC board, but I'm going to restate it now:



Why is this law necessary? Because this behavior is almost always used to point out some obscure definition in support of a fallacious point. The definition quoted is often obviously not the intent of the writer, in the case of a direct quote of the rule in question.

Simply put, if you see someone pull out the dictionary, expect shenanigans.

I disagree: the Paladin debate on gross violation: the definition won the debate.

Bassetking
2007-09-07, 05:52 PM
Yup... Sounds like you agree with me, there isn't any difference between those types of plot hooks. Neither is lazier than the other.

You just happen to not like one of them.

... Alrighty, I'm going to try to clarify my comparison without turning the Sarcasmotron back on.

Let's say, after a long day of work, you decide to play a few rounds of Wii Bowling once you get home.

Now, you can stand in front of your screen, actively mimicing the bowling stance and actions, perhaps lifting a foot up after you bowl in some vain attempt to encourage your ball to move in a certain manner....

Or you can sit on your couch, and flick your wrist back and forth.

Both efforts will accomplish the same actions, both require the same motions to cause the same result.

One is active, involved, and requires interaction.

The other is the player being a complete Toolbox. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/11/13)

Just so we're clear, Jaya? The Cursed Item? Toolboxery.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-08, 03:04 AM
The other is the player being a complete Toolbox. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/11/13)

Just so we're clear, Jaya? The Cursed Item? Toolboxery.

So, just to be clear, is any time the PC's get totally bufmucked outside of their ability to deal with it except for extraordinary RP and decisions an example of toolboxery?

Personally, I don't think so. The PC's ought to realize that just like us nonuberfolk that sometimes things that are out of their control will screw up their plans and lives. They will, just like that peasant, or even noble they mocked, have to accept the universe being a certian way and just deal with it.

This is the crux reason why I'm for the occasional cursed item. PC's ought to be aware that if Hercules can die from (or commit suicide as a result of) a poisened cloak, so can they and be ready to deal with bad things happening to good people for not much reason. Such is life and even in an artifical game like D&D it adds to the experience of really being there if the PC's don't always get a just reward.

Bassetking
2007-09-08, 09:08 AM
So, just to be clear, is any time the PC's get totally bufmucked outside of their ability to deal with it except for extraordinary RP and decisions an example of toolboxery?

No. Not in the slightest. In the words of Beloq, "There is nothing you have, Dr. Jones, that I cannot take away." I've got NO ISSUE with the PC's being strung out to dry by a corrupt Duke.

I've got no issue with the PC's having risked life and limb to progress through a dungeon, only to have a great big dragon show up at the end, and inform the PC's that the Hoard they just freed now belongs to the Dragon.

Sailing the high seas, and finding out that the boat they've hired is taking them off to slave in dark, toiling Mithril mines, Being falely accused of assassinating a town's Mayor, Being pursued by ravening dark hordes just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

No issue.

All of the above examples? Out of their control, Things screwing up their plans and lives, such that they just have to "deal with it."



Personally, I don't think so. The PC's ought to realize that just like us nonuberfolk that sometimes things that are out of their control will screw up their plans and lives.

Sometimes people get Cancer. It ravages their bodies, they become horribly ill, and die in unspeakable pain.



They will, just like that peasant, or even noble they mocked, have to accept the universe being a certian way and just deal with it.

Yeah. They do. Funny thing is... I've already been through that. I'm a type 1 Insulin Dependant Diabetic. The kind of diabetic where your body's own immune system turns towards the insulin-producing beta cells in your pancreas, and kills them. All of them.

So, yeah. Every day I get up, and I look at the Vials, and tubes, and needles, and lancets, and infusion sites, and tape, and the plastic cannula in my side, providing a constant insulin basal rate 24/7... I deal with it.

I'll likely lose a foot before I'm 60. I'm vastly more likely to die from a heart attack, kidney failure, or liver failure than non-diabetics. I'm 50% more likely to go Blind. Constant, unmitigateable nerve pain is something I've got to look forward to. And for the last thirteen years of my life, I've dealt with it.

You'll excuse me if I think that the process of "Dealing with it" is so very far from anything that should be included in the game, that I'm willing to expose personal information like this.



This is the crux reason why I'm for the occasional cursed item. PC's ought to be aware that if Hercules can die from (or commit suicide as a result of) a poisened cloak, so can they and be ready to deal with bad things happening to good people for not much reason. Such is life and even in an artifical game like D&D it adds to the experience of really being there if the PC's don't always get a just reward.

I really, sincerly hope that you never, in your lifetime, get to have something like this "add to your experience of being there."

There's no sarcasm there. No anger or biting intention in that statement. I truly hope that.

And I hope you see why I feel that they're a poor; a lazy mechanic. They accomplish nothing that cannot be accomplished in a thousand other ways, and they accomplish what they do through directly harming the players, in an unfeeling uncaring, and entirely impersonal manner. There is no over-power against which they can fight, no force acting against them towards which they can rail. There is cold, unfeeling, existence; and that's got no place in my games.