Next - Magic Item Frequency

LibraryLass · January 22, 2014, 09:34:55 PM

I'm a bit ambivalent about monsters needing magic to be hit... I'd sort of prefer to handle it like how 3.x handled troll regeneration-- only magic weapons do lethal damage, but you can at least beat down an opponent slowly with any old weapon. 6-8 over a 20-level career sounds slightly low to me, but only because I sort of figure a player might end up trading up for a better weapon or armor a few times, or swapping out their wand as it runs out of charges, etc.

Sommerjon · January 23, 2014, 02:16:03 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard;725654The game belongs to the participants, NOT the rules. Any expectations should be set by the ones playing the game.

When a rulebook tries to run a game played by human beings, the game suffers more.

There is an expectation of play for any rules system.

Ravenswing · January 23, 2014, 02:47:16 AM

Quote from: Sacrosanct;725522I've heard a lot of folks harp about how you have to have expected items per level because of balance, because otherwise there's no way you could balance monster level 10 without knowing what stats the PCs all have, and since most stats are impacted by magic items, there you go.

I really don't agree with that at all. These are the type of people who like to say the game is broken because a level 20 Class X has a DPS of 0.002 less than that of Class Y. The game doesn't need anywhere near that level of balance to be fun. Never has. It's a made up problem by the OCD crowd.

Followed by ...

Quote from: Sommerjon;725535WotC D&D has expectations built into the systems. When the Dm refuses to follow those expectations the game suffers.

And here I'd figured I'd have to go searching through saved posts and TBP in order to prove my point.

Whether 3.0 and successors were so tightly and ruthlessly designed that DMs were "forced" to give out X heaps of goodies to PCs of Y level has been a point hotly debated for a number of years now. But those many, many threads over many forums has proven beyond the demurrals of anyone who is paying the least degree of attention that a whole whopping lot of D&D players believe it to be true.

Me, I think it's wargaming bullshit. GMs figured out for decades, without charts or guidelines telling them how they were supposed to be doing it, what their parties could handle for opposition. Gaming circles decided for themselves, without an idiotic one-WotC-size-fits-all, how fast their groups ought to rocket through the XP tables. Those gamers didn't all suddenly turn into morons in 2000.

Plainly, though, a lot of groups believe today that they're supposed to obey the Challenge ratings, and a bunch of them like things that way. Pretending that they're only a lunatic fringe is stupid. They're not doing it that way because they're "OCD." They're doing it that way because they think those are the rules of the game.

Sacrosanct · January 23, 2014, 09:34:22 AM

Quote from: Ravenswing;725706Plainly, though, a lot of groups believe today that they're supposed to obey the Challenge ratings, and a bunch of them like things that way. Pretending that they're only a lunatic fringe is stupid. They're not doing it that way because they're "OCD." They're doing it that way because they think those are the rules of the game.[/COLOR]

My post didn't mean to imply that anyone following the rules was OCD, but rather that people who sat there calculating DPR to the thousandths place and saying the game is broken if their builds didn't balance out exactly are OCD. There's really two discussions there, only somewhat related, with quite a bit of middle ground in between. I.e., players who followed the magic item gp value guildeline because they thought it was a hard and fast rule, and those that thought following the guideline was critical because of how it integrated into the DPR values and therefore MUST be followed to figure out DPR. The second group can't conceive of optional rules because that throws off their DPR calculations. If that makes sense.

Exploderwizard · January 23, 2014, 09:42:58 AM

Quote from: Sommerjon;725700There is an expectation of play for any rules system.

A game should have well defined objectives of play. The expectations of the participants should compliment those objectives or a different game should be played.

Haffrung · January 23, 2014, 11:11:41 AM

Monsters that can only be hit with magic weapons are one of the things that make magic weapons special. However, I'm okay with making them vulnerable to non-weapon threats as well (fire, falling, sunlight, water).

Sommerjon · January 23, 2014, 12:09:45 PM

Quote from: Ravenswing;725706Followed by ...

And here I'd figured I'd have to go searching through saved posts and TBP in order to prove my point.

Whether 3.0 and successors were so tightly and ruthlessly designed that DMs were "forced" to give out X heaps of goodies to PCs of Y level has been a point hotly debated for a number of years now. But those many, many threads over many forums has proven beyond the demurrals of anyone who is paying the least degree of attention that a whole whopping lot of D&D players believe it to be true.

Me, I think it's wargaming bullshit. GMs figured out for decades, without charts or guidelines telling them how they were supposed to be doing it, what their parties could handle for opposition. Gaming circles decided for themselves, without an idiotic one-WotC-size-fits-all, how fast their groups ought to rocket through the XP tables. Those gamers didn't all suddenly turn into morons in 2000.

Plainly, though, a lot of groups believe today that they're supposed to obey the Challenge ratings, and a bunch of them like things that way. Pretending that they're only a lunatic fringe is stupid. They're not doing it that way because they're "OCD." They're doing it that way because they think those are the rules of the game.

I always love it when morons point back to one system saying, "See if you could do it there, you can do it in another system as well."

Exploderwizard · January 23, 2014, 04:17:11 PM

Quote from: Sommerjon;725793I always love it when morons point back to one system saying, "See if you could do it there, you can do it in another system as well."

Yup. When D&D stops being D&D its pretty hard to translate basic concepts such as retreat.

Mistwell · January 23, 2014, 08:54:58 PM

Quote from: RavenswingBut those many, many threads over many forums has proven beyond the demurrals of anyone who is paying the least degree of attention that a whole whopping lot of D&D players believe it to be true.

A majority of respondents right now to the WOTC poll (51%) say 6-8 magic items by 20th level, or less. That's roughly 1 every 3 levels, or less.

Of the remaining respondents, 10% have no expectations at all, making it less that 40% who think it should be higher.

So it seems like a good majority think the quantity of magic items should be reduced from 3e/4e, and do not have expectations of 3e/4e quantities of magic items.

Sommerjon · January 24, 2014, 02:32:56 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard;725861Yup. When D&D stops being D&D its pretty hard to translate basic concepts such as retreat.

Except retreat in TSR D&D was up to the DM.

Quote from: Mistwell;725962A majority of respondents right now to the WOTC poll (51%) say 6-8 magic items by 20th level, or less. That's roughly 1 every 3 levels, or less.

Of the remaining respondents, 10% have no expectations at all, making it less that 40% who think it should be higher.

So it seems like a good majority think the quantity of magic items should be reduced from 3e/4e, and do not have expectations of 3e/4e quantities of magic items.

A leading poll.

Exploderwizard · January 24, 2014, 02:49:22 PM

Quote from: Sommerjon;726184Except retreat in TSR D&D was up to the DM.

The players don't have morale scores. It is up to them to decide to retreat. The retreat of monsters and some NPC allies is determined by the DM but there are morale rules that apply based on the nature of the creature and the current circumstances.