Post/Author/DateTime	Post
aotrscommander 10-20-07, 08:49 AM	I am toying with the idea of trying to reduce the reliance of having magical equipment, especially to the melee characters. My new campaign world is trying to be a little less heavy on magical items (no magic item shops at all, for instance), but what would be even better would be to go along and try to eliminate the need for so much magical kit. Particularly in our group, most magical items get sold for straight-foward +items (usually weapons and armour). I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm trying to eliminate the need for wealth-by-level and making magical items more 'special'. So a party should have less flat '+' items and more a few interesting magical gizmos, but retain their combnat effectiveness. The most obvious solution that has occurred so far is to give all characters a bonus to their Armour bonus of +1/ four or five character levels when wearing armour (supplementing and/or replacing armour enhancement bonuses) and a bonus to attack and damage of +1 every 4 levels (or possibly every 5 points of BAB) when wielding weapons (supplementing enhancement bonuses. This allows some room for magical kit (especially magical weapons!) I'm vaguely aware that there's an option in Unearthed Arcana that suggests something like this, and I'm thinking of swiping some ideas from SW Saga (when 4th eventually comes out, I will almost certainly pinch some ideas from that even if I don't convert from 3.5) like maybe having two bonus stat points every 4 levels (to two different stats). On the other hand, most of my games start with much higher stats in the first place. The issue is slightly complicated by the presence of nonhumanoid characters. After some thought, I made their role be more 'tankish' I.e. their advantage of being nonhumanoid (aside from their generally higher stat boost across monster class levels) was they would have higher ACs (i.e. instead or armour they get bonus to natural and to dodge AC). I think I've about balanced that out (but interestingly, the problem is down to high Dex). I'm at the moment unsure as to whether I should apply the attack/damage bonus to creatures wielding natural weapons or not. I'm tempted to say not, citing that only creatures with 'manufactured' weapons (in this I include martial arts, i.e. Improved Unarmed Strike) have the flexibility to gain more skill out of it (basically in the same way that only they get iterative attacks). So, what I'm asking is, has anyone else tried something like this or have any suggestions about how I could improve this.
EvilVegan 10-20-07, 09:40 AM	Most people tend to buy these: Weapon Bumps Armor Bonus Ability bumps Save bumps Natural Armor bumps Deflection bumps You could just build varying degrees of improvement into the classes. Fighters get a +1 enhancement bonus/4 levels to weapon and armor. Barbarians get +1 enhancement bonus/4 levels to weapon and natural armor. Abjurist Wizards get +1 armor and deflection bonus/4 levels And so on. . . Or just have standard 'across the board' improvements. That's just the most obvious way, but its just close to vow of poverty benefits.
wordserpent 10-20-07, 10:42 AM	Consider allowing a +1 parry or dodge bonus every few levels to each character class which would reflect the character's increased skill at avoiding damage. These bonuses would stack with armor and protection bonuses. Also consider allowing a helmet to add +1 to a character's AC. The helmet is a vital piece of armor and is often overlooked in many games. But in the real world, helmets are quite universal. You can make a simple skullcap offer no bonus to AC, while an open faced helm that covers most of the head would give a +1 and a close faced helm or great helm could grant a +2 bonust that would stack with armor. These would of course be house rules. But you could apply them to monsters as well as PC's. If you use the above bonuses you could increase the cost of heavy armors to compensate for the helmet bonuses thet PC's would recieve at lower levels. Finally there are feats already in the game that help a PC with armor class namely, dodge, combat expertise and two-weapon parry. The game mechanics almost require that pc's have magical stuff to beat monster sof the correct challenge rating, Having spellcasters in the party who can give armor class buffs through Mage armor, barkskin and stoneskin should be encouraged.
Hochiu 10-20-07, 10:42 AM	Overhaul the entire 3.5 Challenge rating, wealth-by-level, and magic rules. The reliance on magic items as one levels is built into the very foundations of the 3.5 core game. They're used to balance out the significant power differences of full casters and non-casters/partial casters, and Wizards thinks that giving characters stuff makes up for a lack of inherent ability. But since that's not generally feesible, follow the aforementioned suggestions.
zzo38computer 10-20-07, 12:16 PM	I have never needed magic items (other than maybe a magic chest that always floats, but even without that I could still survive) and I can still win the game. But, if you want to, you can make all magic items cursed I have suggested this to the DM but he doesn't like that.
aotrscommander 10-20-07, 12:26 PM	Okay. How about something like: 1) Creatures using and proficient with manufactured weapons (or manufactured attack forms, e.g. martial arts) gain a +1 bonus to weapon attack and damage rolls for every 5 points of Base Attack Bonus. 2) Creatures wearing and proficient with armour gain a +1 Dodge bonus to armour class for every 5 character levels.1 Creatures wearing and proficient shields gain a +1 bonus to AC for every 5 character levels.2 3) Creatures with Class levels (including Monster Class levels?) gain a +1 resistance bonus to saves for every 6 levels (or make this ability a feat if it seems to much on top of the rest). 4) Maybe modify Dodge and maybe some other feats to give you a scaling AC bonus (again, probably 1 +1/5 class levels) to effectively 'replace' deflection bonuses to AC in terms of numbers. Alternatively, make 2 into a +2 Dodge bonus to AC every 5 character levels. 5) Make magical bonus kit much rarer (i.e. drop the effective bonuses by about +2 so a magical +1 deflection rings is really considered as good as a +3). An additional effect of making magic weapons rarer is that DR/Magic might actually mean something again... Ability score boosts I'm not sure about yet. Either use the Saga method (+2 points/4 levels) or have them at their current rates (in our games, their doesn't tend to be many ability score-boosters). Overhaul the entire 3.5 Challenge rating, wealth-by-level, and magic rules. The reliance on magic items as one levels is built into the very foundations of the 3.5 core game. They're used to balance out the significant power differences of full casters and non-casters/partial casters, and Wizards thinks that giving characters stuff makes up for a lack of inherent ability. But since that's not generally feesible, follow the aforementioned suggestions. Sort of doing that anyway. I've tweaked the magic system a little and I have never used CR as anything other than a 'how-much-XP-do-they-get' score (I balance encounters by eye, like I've always done pre-3.x). I've never used the wealth-by-level anyway, so this is just the next logical step so that characters don't have to rely on magical items. (And also meaning the NPCs don't have to be laden with +this and +that and Rings of Deflection like they were in my conversion of Dragon Mountain, just so they stand a chance against the PCs!) 1I have already made some adjustment to armour, expanding the types to cover a wider range of types (considering that Roman-stlye armour will be common!) and at the upper end heavy types you get slightly more out of them than D&D armour anyway. 2Yeah, that's quite good, but let's face it sword-and-board isn't one of the best styles availble, so a little help won't hurt, right?
Fireclave 10-20-07, 03:11 PM	Particularly in our group, most magical items get sold for straight-foward +items (usually weapons and armour). I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm trying to eliminate the need for wealth-by-level and making magical items more 'special'. So a party should have less flat '+' items and more a few interesting magical gizmos, but retain their combnat effectiveness. Ironicly, if you want to make magic items more special, you might want to check out the Magic Item Compendium. Many of the items were (re)balanced to make them more appealing and useful to PCs. You might find the developer articles (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070302a) an interesting read. The most obvious solution that has occurred so far is to give all characters a bonus to their Armour bonus of +1/ four or five character levels when wearing armour (supplementing and/or replacing armour enhancement bonuses) and a bonus to attack and damage of +1 every 4 levels (or possibly every 5 points of BAB) when wielding weapons (supplementing enhancement bonuses. This allows some room for magical kit (especially magical weapons!) I'm vaguely aware that there's an option in Unearthed Arcana that suggests something like this, and I'm thinking of swiping some ideas from SW Saga (when 4th eventually comes out, I will almost certainly pinch some ideas from that even if I don't convert from 3.5) like maybe having two bonus stat points every 4 levels (to two different stats). On the other hand, most of my games start with much higher stats in the first place. The Legendry Item (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/legendaryWeapons.htm) and Item Familiar (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/itemFamiliars.htm) variants are probably what you are thinking of. You might also want to look to the Vow of Poverty feat, which forces a character to forgo all wealth in exchange for powerful bonuses, and the Kensai Prc models for what you are trying to accomplish.
Nadaka 10-21-07, 01:50 PM	How about an "item creation feat" that does not create items? Personal Training Benefit: Allows a character to spend time, gold and xp to train themselves. The effects are as craft wondrous item. Except that the items can not be lost, stolen, sold or permanently disjoined. These effects are typically tied to ones "chakra" points. Every item slot on the body is tied to one of these chakra points. One can not benefit from an item and an effect tied to its associated chakra at the same time. Slotless items follow the normal costing methods. Unlike wondrous items, some of these effects can be trained as extraordinary abilities. This generally costs twice the normal GP/XP/Time and renders the effect immune to dispelling/antimagic. Examples Ability Inherent Bonuses (already extraordinary and slotless, no mods needed) XP: 5100/bonus GP: 1250 Time: 1 day / 500gp Ability Enhancement bonuses (x2 for slotless, x2 for extraordinary) GP: bonus^2*500 XP: bonus^2*40 Time: 1 day / 500gp etc. This way, it is the personal abilities of the character rather than the items they wear that makes the difference. It least for those who use this feat.
Hochiu 10-21-07, 04:05 PM	Sort of doing that anyway. I've tweaked the magic system a little and I have never used CR as anything other than a 'how-much-XP-do-they-get' score (I balance encounters by eye, like I've always done pre-3.x). I've never used the wealth-by-level anyway, so this is just the next logical step so that characters don't have to rely on magical items. (And also meaning the NPCs don't have to be laden with +this and +that and Rings of Deflection like they were in my conversion of Dragon Mountain, just so they stand a chance against the PCs!) Well, I mean, one could just as easily update the non-spellcasting melee characters to make greater use of their abilities at higher levels so they're not as reliant on magical gear. For instance, I was toying around with a fighter (back when there was a rash of fighter rewrite threads on the forums) that gets reduced penalties for sleeping in armour, the ability to ignore weight in regards to skills, letting them move faster in armor, giving them a lesser amount of DR/- than the Barbarian, more skills/points, bonus to initative, and a myriad of fighting techniques (based off of the Rogue's Special Technique) that increase as they level, granting them better battlefield superiority and control. Likewise, take away the spellcasting from the Paladin and Ranger, and give them better martial abilities. Depending on your flavor, you can combine the concepts from the Occult Slayer PrC with the Paladin, keying everything to fight against "evil" and "Chaos" as opposed to all arcane abilities. Could be used as a witch-hunting/demon hunting paladin in grimmer settings. You can easily increase the damage dealing capabilities of these martial classes to replace the benefits of magic items and weapons, just as long as you alter the encounter and level and stuff.
deathbane 10-22-07, 12:01 PM	I am toying with the idea of trying to reduce the reliance of having magical equipment, especially to the melee characters. My new campaign world is trying to be a little less heavy on magical items (no magic item shops at all, for instance), but what would be even better would be to go along and try to eliminate the need for so much magical kit. Particularly in our group, most magical items get sold for straight-foward +items (usually weapons and armour). I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm trying to eliminate the need for wealth-by-level and making magical items more 'special'. So a party should have less flat '+' items and more a few interesting magical gizmos, but retain their combnat effectiveness. The most obvious solution that has occurred so far is to give all characters a bonus to their Armour bonus of +1/ four or five character levels when wearing armour (supplementing and/or replacing armour enhancement bonuses) and a bonus to attack and damage of +1 every 4 levels (or possibly every 5 points of BAB) when wielding weapons (supplementing enhancement bonuses. This allows some room for magical kit (especially magical weapons!) I'm vaguely aware that there's an option in Unearthed Arcana that suggests something like this, and I'm thinking of swiping some ideas from SW Saga (when 4th eventually comes out, I will almost certainly pinch some ideas from that even if I don't convert from 3.5) like maybe having two bonus stat points every 4 levels (to two different stats). On the other hand, most of my games start with much higher stats in the first place. The issue is slightly complicated by the presence of nonhumanoid characters. After some thought, I made their role be more 'tankish' I.e. their advantage of being nonhumanoid (aside from their generally higher stat boost across monster class levels) was they would have higher ACs (i.e. instead or armour they get bonus to natural and to dodge AC). I think I've about balanced that out (but interestingly, the problem is down to high Dex). I'm at the moment unsure as to whether I should apply the attack/damage bonus to creatures wielding natural weapons or not. I'm tempted to say not, citing that only creatures with 'manufactured' weapons (in this I include martial arts, i.e. Improved Unarmed Strike) have the flexibility to gain more skill out of it (basically in the same way that only they get iterative attacks). So, what I'm asking is, has anyone else tried something like this or have any suggestions about how I could improve this. Iron heroes is very similar to D&D, and is very low magic. If you have that or know someone who has the campaign book for it you should use that.
DreamerInsane 10-22-07, 01:38 PM	Tome of Battle helps. Great book.
Hochiu 10-22-07, 03:50 PM	Iron heroes is very similar to D&D, and is very low magic. If you have that or know someone who has the campaign book for it you should use that. Iron heros is an utter piece of garbage, though. Tome of Battle helps. Great book. Tome of Battle effectively gives melee fighters flashy spells or spell-like maneuvers and stances. While it is an excellent, great book, I don't know if its what the OP is looking for in style and function. If it is, then the search is largely over, and if not, well, then we'll figure something out.
strenoth 10-23-07, 10:10 AM	a last thought.. this was suggested by a WotC author too. Ifyou reduce the amunt of wealth in yrou game, increase the number of feats and ability boosts, say, 1/2 weath for 1feat/level and +1 to an ability every 2 levels. that balance may not be what the author reccomended, I don't remember where that web article was.
DreamerInsane 10-23-07, 01:20 PM	Tome of Battle effectively gives melee fighters flashy spells or spell-like maneuvers and stances. While it is an excellent, great book, I don't know if its what the OP is looking for in style and function. If it is, then the search is largely over, and if not, well, then we'll figure something out. The usage may be spell-like, yes, but many maneuvers resemble feats. Shadow Hand and Desert Wind are magic through and through, tho.
Elendur 10-23-07, 02:20 PM	You could try giving them the benefits of the Vow of Poverty, since that was designed to compensate for a lack of magic items. Just ignore the roleplay restrictions and make the exalted bonus feats any feats. That should in theory keep them in line with the challenge ratings. Of course any equipment they use on top of that puts them ahead of the curve.
Hochiu 10-23-07, 04:29 PM	The usage may be spell-like, yes, but many maneuvers resemble feats. Shadow Hand and Desert Wind are magic through and through, tho. I'll admit that I interpret "reducing reliance on magic items" to something along the lines of making aspects of magic "less flashy". So you're right, they would work, I'm sorry. Also, I'm not going to lie: I don't generally agree with forcing ToB to be implemented as a replacement to melee classes in every instance. That's just my personal opinion, though. I won't judge anyone that does, until they tell me that I have to. :D
MortonStromgal 10-23-07, 05:48 PM	Several ideas 1. Tome of Battle (add more flash to the fighter types) 2. Weapons of Legecy (items gain levels like players) 3. Limit the Spell Casting lvls (monster will be tougher but oh well) So I'll talk a bit about #3. Back in the early days of Dragonlance there were no divine spells (that means clerics got no spells) and Arcane casters could only cast lvl 1 and 2 spells unless they went to the tower of high sorcery and joined up. They could go higher than lvl 2 without joining but they were concidered outlaws and hunted down. Take that and change it to suit what you need. Maybe everyone starts at lvl 2 but your caster level can never go higher than your non caster level. This would force all your casters to be multi-classed and not get the huge spells they would get otherwise.
aotrscommander 10-24-07, 07:34 AM	Thanks for the input folks; I'm still lurking around, so keep making suggestions! (I'm just a bit short of time this week, as I actually have to write an adventure for the world in question (I'm just limping along with the current system at the moment.)) To clarify: I already use ToB and MiC. I'm looking mainly at dealing with the numerical effect magical items have (i.e. the static bonuses), rather than the more esoteric stuff (which can be left alone). What I'm trying to go for is a setting where magic is a bit more 'special'. For the most part of the campaign world, magic (and by extension, psionics) is extremely uncommon1. So, by extension, no magic item shops. And rather than have the PCs reliant on treasure found (or gear the NPCs have mysteriously aquired), I want to find a way to reduce the nessecity of the melee/noncaster (and I include the Adepts in this too, becasue they need bonus weapons too) of having to have bonus items, requiring me to have magic everywhere. At the same time, following reading through one of K's posts, I'm attempting to do away with the idea that money is necessary for game balance at all. I'm trying to make it more irrevant, if you will, so it doesn't (mechanically) matter if the PCs have a million sesterii, since they can't unbalance the game with it mechanically. I'm trying to make wealth more of a roleplay-ey sort of issue, as opposed to a mechanical one. In addition, while magic is versimilitudilly (yes, I am making up words) rarer, it will be stupidly awesome when used. Unlike the magic in LotR, whose rarity I'm comparing to, which was more subtle, Dreemaenhyll's magic/psionics (and variably maneuvers) are more overblown, closer to Final Fantasy (and yes, Naruto too!) The main drive for this particular problem comes, though, from my conversion of Dragon Mountain to 3.5 for a party of 14-21st level characters. I found, for the NPCs to present anything close to a credible threat, they needed to be festooned with magic weapons and armour, rings of deflection and so on; most of it was flat, uninteresting numerical stuff just to get the number up. Thus I can easily see, by the time the PCs have done (since they have Plane Shift and a base of operation in Sigil after the Vecna Lives!/Vecna Reborn/Die Vecna Die! campaign), they will have more cash - or more correctly, more kit that I can throw a stick at. While for this campaign, it won't be a problem, I'm trying to prevent the nessecity of this occuring in the future. (I'm heartened by the news that 4E is suppoedly doing something similar. While it's still up in the air as to whether we'll convert, there is a near certainty I'll be swiping huge chuncks of 4E and retrofitting it to 3.5, so all this may eventually just be a fill-in.) I've never been to struck with the idea of legacy weapons, personally, as they do kind of limit the character to one weapon. (Especially since my boost to Fighters now meaning they can actually be good at more than one weapon if they desire. The specifics - of both the modifed magic and the modifed Fighter are in links in my sig, if anyone is interested.) And again, it doesn't really solve the problem of NPCs. One other solution I have toyed with is simply replacing bonus weapons and armour with non-magical enhancement bonuses (basically like graded masterwork). That, while simple, doesn't really get around much of the issue, except it makes DR/Magic worthwhile again (another of my sub-objectives). 1Also in the same areas, designated Low Magic areas, the recharge rate of magic/pp is halved. That reduction in power is countered to some extent that magic has been converted to Mana rather than vancian, and there is a slow recharge. This basically emulates as far as possible the best elements of balancing per day vrs per encounter without actually having to rewrite any actual spells.
Slapstick87 10-24-07, 09:26 AM	I must admit that I haven't read the whole thing but this is what I do: Magical weapons: Really rare, and they do something else than just add 2 to-hit and damage. To make up for it, I use the Weapon Mastery from OD&D, the one described in the Rules Cyclopedia (I love that book). It's very cool, see if you can find it somewhere, or PM me and I can give you the high-lights if you're interested. - Slapstick
Cantankerous 10-24-07, 09:27 AM	I am toying with the idea of trying to reduce the reliance of having magical equipment, especially to the melee characters. My new campaign world is trying to be a little less heavy on magical items (no magic item shops at all, for instance), but what would be even better would be to go along and try to eliminate the need for so much magical kit. Particularly in our group, most magical items get sold for straight-foward +items (usually weapons and armour). I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm trying to eliminate the need for wealth-by-level and making magical items more 'special'. So a party should have less flat '+' items and more a few interesting magical gizmos, but retain their combnat effectiveness. The most obvious solution that has occurred so far is to give all characters a bonus to their Armour bonus of +1/ four or five character levels when wearing armour (supplementing and/or replacing armour enhancement bonuses) and a bonus to attack and damage of +1 every 4 levels (or possibly every 5 points of BAB) when wielding weapons (supplementing enhancement bonuses. This allows some room for magical kit (especially magical weapons!) I'm vaguely aware that there's an option in Unearthed Arcana that suggests something like this, and I'm thinking of swiping some ideas from SW Saga (when 4th eventually comes out, I will almost certainly pinch some ideas from that even if I don't convert from 3.5) like maybe having two bonus stat points every 4 levels (to two different stats). On the other hand, most of my games start with much higher stats in the first place. The issue is slightly complicated by the presence of nonhumanoid characters. After some thought, I made their role be more 'tankish' I.e. their advantage of being nonhumanoid (aside from their generally higher stat boost across monster class levels) was they would have higher ACs (i.e. instead or armour they get bonus to natural and to dodge AC). I think I've about balanced that out (but interestingly, the problem is down to high Dex). I'm at the moment unsure as to whether I should apply the attack/damage bonus to creatures wielding natural weapons or not. I'm tempted to say not, citing that only creatures with 'manufactured' weapons (in this I include martial arts, i.e. Improved Unarmed Strike) have the flexibility to gain more skill out of it (basically in the same way that only they get iterative attacks). So, what I'm asking is, has anyone else tried something like this or have any suggestions about how I could improve this. The simple and effective method that I've used in the past ... (the PCs found themselves basically without any magic at all, having to cross through a field that permanently drained any magic items that went through it...the PCs unloaded themselves of ALL of their magical gear before crossing it and found themselves, for several sessions, in another and definitively low magic world) ... was simply to reduce the EL of the characters commensurate to the reduction in their gear. In this instance the then eighth level characters, built on a 32 PB and so normally at level +1 EL, were effectively limited to an EL of 6 instead and I used IT to determine CRs of their opponents. Isshia
Jutter 10-24-07, 10:03 AM	In my current campaign, I banned all items that grant an enhancement bonus to ability scores. Every second level, players get an ability point on top of what they would normally get. So 1 point at 2nd level, 2 points at 4th, 1 point at 6th, 2 points at 8th, etc. Every 4th level they get a total of two ability points, but they're not allowed to spend both on the same ability. As a result I'll drop the estimated character wealth/level. ------------------------------------------------------------------ OFF TOPIC NOTE ABOUT CONSEQUENCES I encountered a few consequences I never thought of when I introduced this system to my players. - One of my players mentioned that hypothetically, at lvl 20, this system would give him +10 to his primary ability, while core rules would get him +11 (+5 from levels and +6 enhancement). He also mentioned that, under normal circumstances, he could get that +6 enhancement long before he reached lvl 20. So they would stay behind on the power curve from about level 10 to 20. Besides, his character would probably wear a few +2's and +4's as well. - Another player countered this by saying that enhancement bonuses from spells will still be available. This would overcompensate a bit from lvl 10 to 20, when lvl 2 spells are widely expendable. This of course requires careful planning, preparation and teamwork.
Hochiu 10-24-07, 11:07 AM	- One of my players mentioned that hypothetically, at lvl 20, this system would give him +10 to his primary ability, while core rules would get him +11 (+5 from levels and +6 enhancement). He also mentioned that, under normal circumstances, he could get that +6 enhancement long before he reached lvl 20. So they would stay behind on the power curve from about level 10 to 20. Besides, his character would probably wear a few +2's and +4's as well. Interesting note: In a reduction of CR and EL for encounters though, one basically rewrites the entire power curve. In comparison to core D&D, yes, he'd be behind in the power curve, but taking out magic items invalidates the notion core. :)
Jutter 10-25-07, 03:51 AM	Interesting note: In a reduction of CR and EL for encounters though, one basically rewrites the entire power curve. In comparison to core D&D, yes, he'd be behind in the power curve, but taking out magic items invalidates the notion core. :) That's true. If you want to remove all or most magic items, you'll have to make changes to CR and EL anyway. So you don't have to worry about it. But since the houserule I described is our only deviation from core, both remarks from my players are very relevant. I don't think the consequences are big enough to justify changing the CR and EL system though.
mod5000 10-25-07, 02:40 PM	Haven't read all the previous posts but all in all, it's not really D&D if you don't follow the Character Wealth By Level chart--the whole system is based on that, and while you can remove it and still enjoy a fun game--it's not D&D. That said, take a look at Iron Heroes, an awesome system (also D20) by Malhavoc Press. There, a fighter could have a masterwork weapon all his career--and be satisfied with it, since the focus is on the characters being cool, not their equipment.
Hochiu 10-25-07, 03:20 PM	Haven't read all the previous posts but all in all, it's not really D&D if you don't follow the Character Wealth By Level chart--the whole system is based on that, and while you can remove it and still enjoy a fun game--it's not D&D. That said, take a look at Iron Heroes, an awesome system (also D20) by Malhavoc Press. There, a fighter could have a masterwork weapon all his career--and be satisfied with it, since the focus is on the characters being cool, not their equipment. Its funny how you say, "OMG, If you take away the Character Wealth by Level chart its not D&D!" and then you say "OMG Go play Iron Heroes!" since we all know Iron Heroes is the best damned thing in the world for low level play and is not utter garbage. Because, you know, if a Fighter has a masterwork sword all his career, he's absolutely continuing to follow the Character Weath/Level rules and is still playing D&D.
EvilVegan 10-25-07, 03:44 PM	Give everyone the vow of poverty bonuses (sans feats) and a free weapon of legacy/ancestral relic/item familiar, that upgrades whenever they level.
Paladin's Pride 10-25-07, 05:06 PM	I just instituted the idea of "advancement points" (AP) for my group. They get three at every leve after the level 1, and can purchase the following things with them. 4AP= +2 to a single ability score (up to +10 bonus to a single ability) 2AP= +1 to AC (up to +10 bonus) 1AP= +1 to saves (up to +5 bonus) 1AP= +1 to all skill checks (up to +5 bonus) There's also a minimum level for each level of bonus, so that a person couldn't, for example, reach level 8 and have spent 20 of their 21 AP for +10 to AC. In exchange for this, I count the players as one level lower on the "wealth by level" table, which turns out to be quite significant. Using this system eliminates all items that grant a bonus to AC except for items that grant an armor bonus and enhancements to armor and shields. It eliminates items that grant bonuses to saving throws, skill checks, and ability scores (including inherent bonuses). It doesn't eliminate magical weapons, however. So far my group has taken to this new system with much gusto, and it does seem to reduce the need for magical gear substantially. It's also fairly simple and straightforward and eliminates having to recalculate as many statistics in an antimagic field. Perhaps a similar system would work for you.
aotrscommander 10-25-07, 06:03 PM	Haven't read all the previous posts but all in all, it's not really D&D if you don't follow the Character Wealth By Level chart--the whole system is based on that, and while you can remove it and still enjoy a fun game--it's not D&D. Something of an odd thing to say on the house rule boards, no? Considering kind of the point of this board is the assumption that the D&D rules are not set in stone and sometimes needs a tiny to large adjustment...? I have never used the wealth by level in the last seven years (except as a rough guide to the amount for starting kit - sometimes) and I don't plan to start now. Even if I had never though about this particular issue and left magical kit as it stands, I still wouldn't have been using wealth by level guidelines. I have looked at Iron Heroes, but the main problem is it is sufficently different in set-up that it eliminates one one my primary goals, which is to use all of my 3.5 stuff. I don't think it's necessary to throw whole system out because of one or two - or even several flaws. D&D 3.5 still is the best set of roleplaying rules I've encountered, even though it is by no means perfect. Right, I've had a long think about this. Aotrs Gear Replacement System Mark I Building on Nadaka's suggestion, give every creature with class levels craft points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/craftPoints.htm) every level-up, which go specifically towards the following: 1) Enhancement bonus to manufactured weapon attack and damage rolls (including improved unarmed strike) at normal weapon costs 2) Enhancement bonus to natural weapon attack and damage rolls at Amulet of Mighty Fists costs. 3) Enhancement bonus to armour bonus (when the creature has an armour bonus of +1 or more) at normal armour cost 4) Enhancement bonus to shield bonus (when the creature has a shield bonus of +1 or more) at normal armour cost 5) Enhancement bonus to natural armour bonus (when the creature has a natural armour bonus of +1 or more) at Amulet of Natural Armour costs 6) Resistance bonus to saving throws (at Cloak of Resistance cost) 7) Dodge bonus to Armour Class (at Ring of Deflection cost) 8) Enhancement bonus to ability scores (at ability booster cost) Effectively Effect 'Craft' Points +1 enhancement to Armour bonus 100 +2 enhancement to Armour bonus 400 +3 enhancement to Armour bonus 900 +4 enhancement to Armour bonus 1600 +5 enhancement to Armour bonus 2500 +1 enhancement to Natural Armour bonus 200 +2 enhancement to Natural Armour bonus 800 +3 enhancement to Natural Armour bonus 1800 +4 enhancement to Natural Armour bonus 3200 +5 enhancement to Natural Armour bonus 5000 +1 enhancement to Shield bonus 100 +2 enhancement to Shield bonus 400 +3 enhancement to Shield bonus 900 +4 enhancement to Shield bonus 1600 +5 enhancement to Shield bonus 2500 +1 enhancement to weapon attack and damage 200 +2 enhancement to weapon attack and damage 800 +3 enhancement to weapon attack and damage 1800 +4 enhancement to weapon attack and damage 3200 +5 enhancement to weapon attack and damage 5000 +1 enhancement to natural weapon attack and damage 600 +2 enhancement to natural weapon attack and damage 2400 +3 enhancement to natural weapon attack and damage 5400 +4 enhancement to natural weapon attack and damage 9600 +5 enhancement to natural weapon attack and damage 15000 +1 bonus to AC 200 +1 bonus to AC 800 +1 bonus to AC 1800 +1 bonus to AC 3200 +1 bonus to AC 5000 +1 resistance bonus to saving throws 100 +2 resistance bonus to saving throws 400 +3 resistance bonus to saving throws 900 +4 resistance bonus to saving throws 1600 +5 resistance bonus to saving throws 2500 +2 enhancement to ability score 400 +4 enhancement to ability score 1600 +6 enhancement to ability score 3600 This will give the characters the same numerical bonuses as a regular character. I can probably reduce all the relevant number by another factor of 100. Note that 'enchancement' bonus are not always magical (e.g. masterwork) Magic weapons will instead of granting enhancement bonuses, grant flat bonuses, in addition to being Magic (which means DR/Magic actually means something again!) Now, my first thought, despite the wealth by level guidelines indicating otherwise, that seems too high, especially since there will be additional gear added on top of that. Should I adjust the 'craft' reserve down either 50% or75%, do you reckon? Suggestions, folks? Edit: I see I'm thinking along similar lines to Paladin's Pride...
Gabriel Dian 10-26-07, 01:33 PM	4AP= +2 to a single ability score (up to +10 bonus to a single ability) 2AP= +1 to AC (up to +10 bonus) 1AP= +1 to saves (up to +5 bonus) 1AP= +1 to all skill checks (up to +5 bonus) There's also a minimum level for each level of bonus, so that a person couldn't, for example, reach level 8 and have spent 20 of their 21 AP for +10 to AC. This sounds great, but I do have a few questions: What type of bonus is this AC bonus? As you know, all AC bonuses are equal, but some are more equal than others...;) What's the "minimum level for each bonus" that you instituted? Also, doesn't it make your characters more powerful than average characters? I mean, at 7th level, a character has 18 AP. That means he can buy (even with level based restrictions): 8 AP for +4 to one ability score (a +2 bonus) 6 AP for +3 to AC 2 AP for +2 to all saves 2 AP for +2 to all skills And he still has 13,000 gp to spend on weapons, armor and whatever. I think your idea is right, but perhaps the number of AP you get per level should be lowered a bit. Maybe level X 2, with first level characters restricted from using AP? That would allow for: 8 AP for +4 to one ability score (a +2 bonus) 6 AP for +3 to AC Which is more reasonable, and still makes for slightly more powerful characters.
Paladin's Pride 10-26-07, 07:20 PM	I think you are correct in that it does make characters a little more powerful at the lower levels. At higher levels I think it starts to even out more, though I haven't crunched all the numbers. If I moved it down to 2 AP per level, at level 20 if a character purchased +10 AC and +5 saves, they'd only have 13 points left, which could get one +6 to attribute scores and have one point left over for +1 to skills. That seems significantly weaker to me. Perhaps giving 2 AP at even levels and 3 at odd levels would work. I think that some difference in power is going to occur at some level regardless of how many AP I give out because I'm using a linear advancement instead of the exponential progression. A direct comparison between the bonuses granted and the gp value those bonuses would've cost as magic treasure doesn't always work out in this system. A +4 to an ability score costs 16,000 normally, but two +2 ability score increases to different attributes only cost 8,000, whereas in this system they are both equal at 8 AP (btw, this also means MAD is more problematic under this system, and abilities like the monk's wisdom to AC and a paladin's charisma to saves are weakened). The bonuses are untyped for now, which necessitates alterations to buff spells. If you don't want to go through that, I'd make every odd point of AC increase natural armor, and every even point of AC increase deflection (don't allow items that grant AC of other types though). Minimum levels are kinda low, because as I said the advancement in this system is much more linear, but here goes. Ability Score Advancements Rank 1: none Rank 2: level 4 Rank 3: Level 9 Rank 4: Level 13 Rank 5: Level 17 AC Advancements Rank 1: none Rank 2: Level 3 Rank 3: Level 5 Rank 4: Level 7 Rank 5: Level 8 Rank 6: Level 10 Rank 7: Level 12 Rank 8: Level 13 Rank 9: Level 15 Rank 10: Level 17 Saving Throw Advancements Rank 1: None Rank 2: Level 3 Rank 3: Level 6 Rank 4: Level 9 Rank 5: Level 12 Skill Advancements Rank 1: None Rank 2: Level 3 Rank 3: Level 6 Rank 4: Level 9 Rank 5: Level 12 (y'know, I really do have to up these minimum levels some. Any suggestions?)
Gabriel Dian 10-27-07, 03:54 AM	Perhaps giving 2 AP at even levels and 3 at odd levels would work. That brings us to: 1st level: -AP 2nd level: 2AP 3rd level: 5AP 4th level: 7AP 5th level: 10AP 6th level: 12AP 7th level: 15AP 8th level: 17AP 9th level: 20AP 10th level: 22AP 11th level: 25AP 12th level: 27AP 13th level: 30AP 14th level: 32AP 15th level: 35AP 16th level: 37AP 17th level: 40AP 18th level: 42AP 19th level: 45AP 20th level: 47AP I think that's about right. It makes sure that your characters think before spending their AP, and it's still pretty simple to manage. As for MAD, that's true, but consider that very few players (I think) will want to spend much AP on increasing skill checks, and your armor improvement is vastly cheaper than buying the equivalent magic items that will grant you +3 to natural armor and +2 to deflection. Also take into account that some pretty valuable item slots are left open for those characters that use MAD, such as your paladin. The bonuses are untyped for now, which necessitates alterations to buff spells. If you don't want to go through that, I'd make every odd point of AC increase natural armor, and every even point of AC increase deflection (don't allow items that grant AC of other types though). The AC bonuses *must* be typed, so your characters will know which AC bonuses apply to their touch AC and which to their flat-footed AC. And bonuses that increase their touch AC should be more expensive than those that increase their FF AC. I think your even/odd idea is very good - simple and effective. Minimum levels are kinda low, because as I said the advancement in this system is much more linear, but here goes. Ability Score Advancements Rank 1: none Rank 2: level 4 Rank 3: Level 9 Rank 4: Level 13 Rank 5: Level 17 AC Advancements Rank 1: none Rank 2: Level 3 Rank 3: Level 5 Rank 4: Level 7 Rank 5: Level 8 Rank 6: Level 10 Rank 7: Level 12 Rank 8: Level 13 Rank 9: Level 15 Rank 10: Level 17 Saving Throw Advancements Rank 1: None Rank 2: Level 3 Rank 3: Level 6 Rank 4: Level 9 Rank 5: Level 12 Skill Advancements Rank 1: None Rank 2: Level 3 Rank 3: Level 6 Rank 4: Level 9 Rank 5: Level 12 (y'know, I really do have to up these minimum levels some. Any suggestions?) I thought this would be pretty simple to manage, and should be in the range of what a character with normal wealth should be getting at these levels: You can increase an ability score only up to half your character level, rounded up. You can increase you AC up to half your character level, rounded up. You can increase your saving throws up to a fifth of your character level, rounded down. You can increase your skill checks up to a fifth of your character level, rounded down. What do you think? I find this system is not only very simple to manage, but it will also cut down on the really boring shopping time, and make sure that your characters will take more interest and keep a larger percentage of the magic items that you place in their loot. The downside is that you have to think a bit more about what you place in the said loot in the first place, and more importantly, what items you have your villains use. They will have to be less dependent on boring magic items too, ya know. Also, I'm not sure how these numbers would work in epic levels - but I think that's carrying this idea too far too soon anyway, so I won't bother to do the math.
Paladin's Pride 10-27-07, 05:29 PM	A formulaic approach might be nice Gabriel, but my concern with the formulas listed is that you won't be able to max out any area until level 20. I want the players to be able to hit the maximum before level 20, since that's how it works when these bonuses came from treasure (no one waits until level 20 to get a cloak of resistance +5). My minimum levels might need to be raised by a level or two, but I don't think I want the bonuses to accrue quite as slowly as those formulas would indicate.
aotrscommander 10-28-07, 10:17 AM	Right. I've spent the moring slaving away! I took the craft point idea and had a go at spending up, level by level. I came out with a progression that ended up being +5 weapon, +5 armour, +5 save bonus, +6 ability boost, +4 'deflection' and +4 natural armour. Level Init 'craft' Total spent running points points this total this gained level lvl 1st +1 arm 0 +1 1 -1 0 2nd +1 wpn 0 +2 2 -2 0 3rd +1 sh, +1 sv 0 +3 3 -1-1 1 4th +1 AC, +2 arm 1 +4 5 -2-3 0 5th +2 sh 0 +5 5 -3 2 6th +2 wpn 2 +6 8 -6 2 7th +2 ability, +3 arm 2 +7 9 -4-5 0 8th +3 sh, +2 sv 0 +8 8 -5-3 0 9th +2 AC 0 +9 9 -6 3 10th +3 wpn 3 +10 13 -10 3 11th +4 arm, +4 sh 3 +11 14 -7-7 0 12th +3 sv 0 +12 12 -5 7 13th +3 AC 7 +13 20 -10 10 14th +4 wpn, +5 arm 10 +14 24 -14-9 1 15th +5 sh, +4 sv 1 +15 16 -9-7 0 16th +4 ability 0 +16 16 -12 4 17th +4 AC 4 +17 21 -14 7 18th +5 wpn 7 +18 25 -18 7 19th +6 ability 7 +19 26 -20 6 20th +5 AC 6 +20 26 -18 8 Total: +5 arm, +5 sh, +5 AC, +5 wpn, +5 sv +6 ability 'craft' points are quoted in hundreds (i.e., I divided all the totals by 100). This was a good starting point. From here, I rationalised the gaps to make it simpler. After much thought, I did away with 'deflection' and Natural Armour bonuses, and decided to add a Level bonus to AC every odd level (starting at 1st as it just made it easier - the difference will be minimal considering the generally high stats we play with). Half of the level bonus applies to Touch AC, all of it to regular and flat-footed (essentially mimicking Natural and Deflection bonuses, but making it easier to deal with)1. I also decided that armour and shield bonuses could lumped together (heck, shield users need some help). I have thus come up with the following, which I will addend to the level-dependant benefits tables: Level AC: At 1st level (or 1 HD) and every odd level thereafter, a creature gains a +1 Level bonus to Armour Class. Level bonuses apply to your touch and flat-footed armour class. You apply half (rounded down) your Level bonus to your touch AC. Weapons: Starting at 2nd level and every 4th level thereafter, creatures proficient with and wielding manufactured weapons (including unarmed strikes) gain a cumulative +1 enchancement bonus to their weapon attack and damage rolls. Natural Weapons: Every 6th level and every 6 levels thereafter, a creature proficient with natural weapons (not including unarmed strike) gains a cumulative +1 enchancement bonus to thier natural weapon attack and damage rolls. Secondary Natural weapons recieve half this bonus. Armour and Shields: Starting at 2nd level and every 4th level thereafter, creatures proficient with and armour or using a shield gain a cumulative +1 enchancement bonus to their armour and/or shield. Resistance: Every 5th level, a creature gains a cumulative +1 resistance bonus to saving throws. Ability score enchancement: Every 6th level and every 6 levels thereafter, a creature gains a +2 enhancement bonus to any of one it’s ability scores. This bonus may either applied as a cumulative bonus to the same ability score or applied to a new ability score. Note that this is an enhancement bonus, not an increase to the actual score (albeit a permenant one) and does not, for example, grant additional skill points. Armour/ Shield/ Level Resistance Ability Natural Weapon AC Save Bonus Weapon Level Bonus Bonus Bonus Bonus 1st - +1 - - - 2nd +1 - - - - 3rd - +2 - - - 4th - - +1 - - 5th - +3 - - - 6th +2 - - +2 +1 7th - +4 - - - 8th - - +2 - - 9th - +5 - - - 10th +3 - - - - 11th - +6 - - - 12th - - +3 +4 +2 13th - +7 - - - 14th +4 - - - - 15th - +8 - - - 16th - - +4 - - 17th - +9 - - - 18th +5 - - +6 +3 19th - +10 - - - 20th - - +5 - - 21st - +11 - - - 22nd +6 - - - - 23rd - +12 - - - 24th - - +6 +8 +4 25th - +13 - - - 26th +7 - - - - 27th - +14 - - - 28th - - +7 - - 29th - +15 - - - 30th +8 - - +10 +5 +1 +1 +1 every +1 per 4 lvls +2 per +1 per every odd lvl 6 lvls 6 lvls 4 lvls A point to note is that in general, the net bonuses granted by wearing armour are slightly higher due to my custom armour tweaks, so there is a little play for overlap (like masterwork weapons and low bonus magic weapons given out at higher levels). In addition, I will be making all magical weapons and armour that grant enhancement bonuses give uptyped bonuses instead (which makes them always useful). I forsee +1 and +2 kit being the 'average' (coming in much later) with +3 being basically nearly artifact level. As the enhancement bonuses are not magical (like masterwork's) DR/Magic actually matters. It also solves another problem, too, i.e how to boost monster and animals in particular to being danagerous again. Let's face it, since ToB, animals get a pretty bum rap. My bestiary is entirely re-worked from the ground up, so adding the relevant boosts is not a problem anyway. I think that's good enough to run with, or at least have a stab at play-testing. (If any one has any other comments or if I've missed something obvious, please let me know!) 1This creates a potential problem with deflection bonuses (which I would have had anyway) and natural armour bonuses. Item that grant such bonuses will be drastically reduced in availability, thus dealing with that half of the equation; the other half - spells - might potentially be abusive, but I do think there's all that many spells that increase AC with Deflection or natural armour (Shield of Faith and Barkskin are the only two that spring to mind). If they are a problem, it will be simple to reduce the rate these bonuses acrue (i.e change Barkskin to say, +1 enhancement, +4 every 4 or 5 caster levels instead of +2 +1/3 lvls).
Gabriel Dian 11-01-07, 08:21 PM	aotrscommander, how do your wealth-by-level guidelines look with your new system? Also, what about creatures only vulnerable to certain types of damage (acid, fire, holy, etc.)? DMs should consider this carefully before choosing which monsters to put up against their players. BTW - any chance of fixing the table you posted on your last post? It's pretty unclear. Other than that, I'm going to play-test some of the ideas here, using 7th level characters. Really useful thread, this.
aotrscommander 11-05-07, 05:23 PM	aotrscommander, how do your wealth-by-level guidelines look with your new system? Point being, they kind of don't. With the nessecity for game balance bonus items being taken out of the equation, magic items can just be things that do stuff (like rings of invisibility). They give you a more options, but their lack doesn't really negate your ability to contribute. (Mind you, I've always balanced stuff by eye in the first place). You need to keep only a broad scope on what magic items the PCs get, since you don't need to micromanage them anymore. Moreover, in concert with No (or Precious Few) Magic Shops, you can effectively release money from being a mechanical issue at all (meaning your PCs get find that dragon with a genuine bed of gold or spend it on a fortress/stronghold without negatively affecting their mechanical efficiency.) Also, what about creatures only vulnerable to certain types of damage (acid, fire, holy, etc.)? DMs should consider this carefully before choosing which monsters to put up against their players. What about them? In my experience, magic items generally weren't the way the PCs dealt with those sorts of creatures, it tended to be spells. But, your +0 Magic Sword can be a +0 Flaming Magic sword (which is indeed what one of the BBEGs in the first quest I ran through was carrying). BTW - any chance of fixing the table you posted on your last post? It's pretty unclear. How is it unclear? I'm not sure what you mean. It is displaying columns improperly spaced for you or you find it difficult to read across1 or do you mean you don't understand the information as presented? Other than that, I'm going to play-test some of the ideas here, using 7th level characters. Really useful thread, this. I ran the first play-test of the system on Saturday. I took a party of 6th level PCs who had originally been given WBL to start off with (since that was their starting level) and when they levelled up two levels (two year in-game gap between the two adventures) I just swiped the bonus gear and left the miscellanous stuff as is. Worked pretty nicely, if I do say so myself (though it should be noted that the characters started with stats roughly equivilent to about 36-38 in 3.5 points-buy). I was concerned to start with that the NPCs might be too much in the final encounter, but as it turned out, I could have made them a touch more powerful and still got away with it. I'm watching the AC issue closely, though. That may need to be ramped back a bit, as suddenly level becomes very important to AC. As it was, it didn't cause too many problems, but certainly the 8th-level Swordsage was having quite a bit of difficulty hitting the 12th-level Spirit Shaman. Further playtesting should bear this out, but it may mean the Level bonus to AC needs to be dropped by about half (+5 at level 20) or to three-quarters (+7 at level 20). This would mean some variation of, say, +1 at 1st and every 4 levels thereafter (1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21 etc) or +1 at 1st and every 3 levels thereafter (1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22 etc). 1Without a way of colouring the lines, there's no much I can do about that, really.
CryoSilver 11-05-07, 09:25 PM	For cutting magical stuff out of the game, the Vow Of Poverty is a good benchmark. I hear tell it's slightly less powerful than actually having stuff, and obviously less versatile, but it's a good reference for the total power of the extras you're handing out.
aotrscommander 11-05-07, 09:31 PM	For cutting magical stuff out of the game, the Vow Of Poverty is a good benchmark. I hear tell it's slightly less powerful than actually having stuff, and obviously less versatile, but it's a good reference for the total power of the extras you're handing out. I looked at it, and decided that, really, it wasn't very helpful on account of it having stuff like DR, aligned attacks, sustenance, and, most of all, no logical progression of bonuses.
CCS 11-06-07, 01:20 AM	Personally I don't think you really need to give extra bonuses to AC or stats or whatever just because you've scaled back the abundance of magic items. You may consider having a few different levels of master-work though. Not all MW items need to be exactly the same. It may well be that the elves of ___ make even better swords than the best human smiths in ____. I say this a verten of a long running, REALLY low-magic item, semi-historical, 1st ed AD&D game. Beyond the martial & thief types, we've got all kinds of non-humans, druids, roman/greek pantheon worshiping clerics, wizard types etc. And we've fought our fair share of demons/devils & other classic D&D monsters. But we've done so largely with MW & blessed weapons/items, cold iron, and a few - very few - actual magic items (weapons or otherwise). Not counting scrolls & potions. But our best weapons? Creativity & improvisation. So if we can fight demons without true magic items in 1st ed, there should be little problem in 3.5 characters doing so.....
aotrscommander 11-06-07, 08:20 AM	Personally I don't think you really need to give extra bonuses to AC or stats or whatever just because you've scaled back the abundance of magic items. You may consider having a few different levels of master-work though. Not all MW items need to be exactly the same. It may well be that the elves of ___ make even better swords than the best human smiths in ____. I say this a verten of a long running, REALLY low-magic item, semi-historical, 1st ed AD&D game. Beyond the martial & thief types, we've got all kinds of non-humans, druids, roman/greek pantheon worshiping clerics, wizard types etc. And we've fought our fair share of demons/devils & other classic D&D monsters. But we've done so largely with MW & blessed weapons/items, cold iron, and a few - very few - actual magic items (weapons or otherwise). Not counting scrolls & potions. But our best weapons? Creativity & improvisation. So if we can fight demons without true magic items in 1st ed, there should be little problem in 3.5 characters doing so..... I think the bonus are necessary to maintain the mechanical balance - especially of the noncaster/melee classes. A wizard, without any magic items, suffers from negliable decrease to ability to contribute, but a fighter tends to be well-shafted without his +5 armour/weapon at 20th level. With the extra bonuses, fighters and animals remain numerically a threat while not requiring crap loads of gear (magical or otherwise). I do intend to have masterwork of sorts (probably involving various materials), but simultaneously, I'm trying to eliminate the requirement for money to have anything at all to do with mechanics. In essence, I'm making money less 'useful' to have since you can't use it to buy better mechanical effectiveness; shifting it to a more roleplaying-based resource. Replacing magic with masterwork just brings you back to square one, but with DR/Magic actually not being worthless.
Gabriel Dian 11-07-07, 12:24 AM	How is it unclear? I'm not sure what you mean. It is displaying columns improperly spaced for you or you find it difficult to read across1 or do you mean you don't understand the information as presented? 1Without a way of colouring the lines, there's no much I can do about that, really. I mean that you seem to be missing a closing ']' in the closing code of the table in your first code section, so it ends up looking like this: lvl 1st +1 arm 0 +1 1 -1 0 2nd +1 wpn 0 +2 2 -2 0 3rd +1 sh, +1 sv 0 +3 3 -1-1 1 4th +1 AC, +2 arm 1 +4 5 -2-3 0 5th +2 sh 0 +5 5 -3 2 6th +2 wpn 2 +6 8 -6 2 7th +2 ability, +3 arm 2 +7 9 -4-5 0 8th +3 sh, +2 sv 0 +8 8 -5-3 0 9th +2 AC 0 +9 9 -6 3 10th +3 wpn 3 +10 13 -10 3 11th +4 arm, +4 sh 3 +11 14 -7-7 0 12th +3 sv 0 +12 12 -5 7 13th +3 AC 7 +13 20 -10 10 14th +4 wpn, +5 arm 10 +14 24 -14-9 1 15th +5 sh, +4 sv 1 +15 16 -9-7 0 16th +4 ability 0 +16 16 -12 4 17th +4 AC 4 +17 21 -14 7 18th +5 wpn 7 +18 25 -18 7 19th +6 ability 7 +19 26 -20 6 20th +5 AC 6 +20 26 -18 8
aotrscommander 11-07-07, 07:28 AM	I mean that you seem to be missing a closing ']' in the closing code of the table in your first code section, so it ends up looking like this: Oh crap, I forgot about that table! (I was looking at the other one and thinking "keh?") Whoops. Fixin' right now. Edit. Done.
Zyrusticae 11-09-07, 03:27 PM	Hmmm. Personally, I'd like to keep AC and saves progressing at a rate whereby the attacker is roughly even with the defender. This varies, obviously, depending on whether or not the character in question is a caster or what-not. Thus, a fighter would have a base AC of 30 vs. a typical fighter's BAB of 20, and so on and so forth. It's very easy and shows a clear division between classes. You just need to figure out how much of the AC applies to touch AC and how much of it applies to flatfooted AC (in Saga, at least, flatfooted AC is normal AC minus the Dex bonus).
EvilVegan 11-18-07, 02:18 PM	OK, here's my take on item dependency removal. I did some calculations and if you combine the resistance bonus (typically from items) with the standard save bonuses you get numbers close to what the standard Good, Average, and Poor BAB saves look like (+1/-3 variance). (Poor saves + resistance items = Poor BAB, average save + resistance item = average BAB progression, Good save + resistance items = good BAB). Also, when I did the math on using magical weapons the basic bonuses to hit worked out to bumping each attack progression up a step (poor becomes average, average becomes good). When it came to "Good" progressions increasing, though, I didn't have a new progression to work with, so I made one called "Great" which goes from +1 to +27 in 20 levels (bonuses go +1, +2, +1, +1, +2, +1, +1, . . .) just to keep some semblance of fluidity (rather than jumping some levels and not increasing after certain levels). If you want to keep it balanced, you can simply say that this BAB progression incorporates weapon focus and greater focus and simply set BAB requirements for feats dependent on WF and GWF. So we get the following: Great Good Average Poor 1 1 1 0 0 2 3 2 1 1 3 4 3 2 1 4 5 4 3 2 5 7 5 3 2 6 8 6 4 3 7 9 7 5 3 8 11 8 6 4 9 12 9 6 4 10 13 10 7 5 11 15 11 8 5 12 16 12 9 6 13 17 13 9 6 14 19 14 10 7 15 20 15 11 7 16 21 16 12 8 17 23 17 12 8 18 24 18 13 9 19 25 19 14 9 20 27 20 15 10 It's a pretty straight forward chart, and it works for BAB and Saves. Multifunctional is good IMO. I would also recommend adding 1/2 BAB to damage (similar to SW: Saga edition). And now for armor: A 20th level fighter (and any class really) is expected to have about +20 bonus to his armor class from magical various sources (+5 deflection, +5 Natural Armor Enhancement, +5 Armor Enhancement, +5 Shield Enhancement for fighter). So you can just give him a "Good" BAC (Yes, Base Armor Class) progression. To keep it in line with other types of armor bonuses you can introduce a cap, such as 1/4 level rounded up (so before 5th level you can only have +1 in each category). Each class would get different caps and ways to distribute armor bonuses (For instance: A rogue might get dodge, deflection, and armor bonuses, with a cap of 1/2 level for dodge, 1/4 level for armor and deflection; A wizard would get deflection at 1/2 level, 1/4 for armor, and 1/4 for dodge). Using this variant I would be moving shield bonuses to 'touch ac' and consider them more as an active block (parry/block bonus). You can't effectively use your shield if flat-footed, so it shouldn't count, and it can block your body against rays better than armor does (electricty would bypass metal shields). So since everyone is assumed to have some form of armor bonus, typically adding up to 20, you just say that everyone gets to add their level to AC, but it is divided among various bonuses (dependant on class). And all of this stacks with standard armor, shield, and natural armor bonuses, so armored and bestial warriors still have an AC edge. For ability scores I simply said at you get +1 to one at 2nd and every 4th after that, and +1 to two at 4th and every 4th. +1 +1/+1 +1 +1/+1 +1 +1/+1 +1 +1/+1 +1 +1/+1
Ander00 11-20-07, 06:53 AM	I have something similar in mind for my next campaign. I am considering to get rid of the standard items that grant flat bonuses (making those level-dependent benefits of the characters themselves), but keeping consumables and items that actually do something, and shifting the focus from buying magic items to finding them. For example, you might find a Flaming Longsword, but you aren't likely to find a +2 Longsword. Of course, as it stands now (barring boosted caster levels and such), Magic Vestment is pretty much obsolete, spells like Barkskin and Shield of Faith are less effective, and the only advantages of Greater Magic Weapon are the increased duration and making it harder for the weapon to be sundered. Also, sword & board and two-weapon fighters effectively get more bonuses, but given the prevalence of two-handed weapons, that isn't all bad. Here's how it looks right now, though it's still subject to change: In addition to the normal increases to ability scores every 4 levels, a character gains enhancement bonuses to his ability scores. Starting at 6th level and every even-numbered level thereafter he gains a +2 enhancement bonus to an ability score or increases an existing bonus by +2, to a maximum of +6 for any given ability score. As a character gains levels, he becomes more adept at dodging and deflecting blows, even when caught off guard, and better able to shrug off minor injuries. He gains a deflection bonus to AC and enhancement bonuses to his armor (an outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for this purpose), shield (if applicable) and natural armor (a creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0), as given on the table below. In addition, he gains a resistance bonus on saving throws, starting at 3rd level. Level Armor Shield Natural Def Resistance 1st 2nd +1 3rd +1 +1 4th +1 5th +1 6th +2 7th +2 +2 8th +2 9th +2 10th +3 11th +3 +3 12th +3 13th +3 14th +4 15th +4 +4 16th +4 17th +4 18th +5 19th +5 +5 20th +5 A character gains non-magical enhancement bonuses to weapon attack and damage rolls, depending on his Base Attack Bonus, as given in the table below. These bonuses apply only to weapons the wielder is proficient with, and primary natural weapons. Offhand weapons only gain bonuses as if the character was of half his actual level. Attack and Damage Bonuses: BAB Bonus(atk/dmg) +1 +2 +1/+0 +3 +4 +1/+1 +5 +6 +2/+1 +7 +8 +2/+2 +9 +10 +3/+2 +11 +12 +3/+3 +13 +14 +4/+3 +15 +16 +4/+4 +17 +18 +5/+4 +19 +20 +5/+5 cheers
ManusNigrum 11-20-07, 04:42 PM	The old maxim 'less is more' really comes front and center in this conversation. Giving players additional stuff to alleviate their reliance on magical items is not really going to solve for your problem, it just redirects the gradual power creep into your game in an entirely different fashion. First off, this problem is something that is integral to D&D, always has been, from 1st Ed. up to the current 3.5 rules and will probably still persist into the new 4th ed. rules. The reason for this is the way XP is calculated, not in the abilities the characters have or the items they posses. XP calculation has always been determined by the creatures the players have defeated but not necessarily in the ingenuity used in that defeat. The way to resolve this is to offer xp rewards for players doing things without tools. By using the XP system that rewards Self Reliance you don't have to figure out something to replace the loss with. Also, it encourages your players to make their own magic items emphasizing the use of item creation feats as opposed to metamagic feats. I myself do this by requiring players to spend game time researching the production of various magic items. Occasionally I have provided them with formulas and schematics for things that I wanted them to create, but I freely admit that I give out very few magic items in the game. Most of the items they do come across are single use or charged items that are used by the antagonists. Magic wands, enchanted weapons, potions, scrolls and the various miscellaneous magic items are an integral part of D&D. The trick is to find a way to make those items special and therefore memorable instead of just being part of the background. Whats more exciting, find a really bad ass sword that the DM arbitrarily dropped into the game or having an entire quest to find it. There is no shortage of inspiration for weapons like this. The Lance used by Huma to bring about the defeat of the Queen of Darkness, the sword used by Kas to bring about the end of the reign of Vecna. You can go outside of D&D cannon as well, and prehaps that is easier to find inspration in. There is Excalibur from Arthurian Legend, the skin of the Nemean Lion from Greek mythology, the Book of Thoth from Egyptian mythology. Magic items should be just that. Magic. By making them common place they lose anything that makes them or the characters that bare them special. In the mind of the player there is a huge difference between the Wizard that spends the time and resources necessary to make a new Wands every three or four levels and the character that finds half a dozen at a time in the local magic shop where he can trade it in for a newer model when he upgrades from Magic Missles to Acid Arrows. Well, there's my two cents :twocents: on the subject.
Captain_Redbeard 11-20-07, 09:52 PM	So, after reading this topic I was wondering; why we are going out of our way to make an entire new system to confer the magic item bonuses on our PC's? That is to say, we already have a perfectly good system that actually works and is balanced (supposedly at least ;)) with most of the monsters in the Monster Manual. I know this might seem crazy, but just hear me out. The DMG already has a table for wealth by Character Level, so why not use that as our guideline for determining how many + type items a PC can have at what level. For flavor's sake, we'll just call this the Ability Points by Character Level instead (since we have already used AP a couple of times in this topic). Now at this point, we need only look up the equivalent magic items in whatever source book they might be from and use them as a price guideline for the bonus conferred. For example, a +1 longsword costs 2000gp, therefore we will consider a +1 enhancement bonus to attack rolls to cost 2000AP in this system. A Ring of Protection +1 confers a +1 deflection bonus to AC and costs 2000gp. We will consider a +1 deflection bonus to AC to cost 2000AP, and so on and so forth. Finally, there remains but one question to be answered: How do we award AP to our PC's? Well, that system is also prebuilt into the game in the form of the Wealth per Encounter table in the DMG. When your PC's complete an encounter, they get the listed amount of gold reward in AP. Let them spend the points between each session and you're good to go. This also has the added benefit of taking care of many of the headaches in dividing treasure since there is less of that all across the board now. So, in conclusion, we just use the wealth by level guidelines and call it something different. Of course, don't forget to use common sense with this system as well. I just know I'll be accused of allowing for a PC to have the "Flaming" property if I don't say anything about it now. As hilarious a concept as that is (I might consider it if only for the comedic value :rolleyes:), obviously I would never allow a PC to actually buy such a quality for themselves. We'd be restricting this solid numerical bonuses only and adjusting the amount of points they get ourselves (although I don't see a pressing need for that as even I tend to stick almost exclusively to + items along with most any other person I know). Hope I was able to contribute something, as I would love to see a solid system to remove lot of the treasure calculations from the game on the DM's side of things. That, as they say, would be my :twocents: on this issue.
aotrscommander 11-21-07, 10:52 AM	So, after reading this topic I was wondering; why we are going out of our way to make an entire new system to confer the magic item bonuses on our PC's? That is to say, we already have a perfectly good system that actually works and is balanced (supposedly at least ;)) with most of the monsters in the Monster Manual. I know this might seem crazy, but just hear me out. The DMG already has a table for wealth by Character Level, so why not use that as our guideline for determining how many + type items a PC can have at what level. For flavor's sake, we'll just call this the Ability Points by Character Level instead (since we have already used AP a couple of times in this topic). Now at this point, we need only look up the equivalent magic items in whatever source book they might be from and use them as a price guideline for the bonus conferred. For example, a +1 longsword costs 2000gp, therefore we will consider a +1 enhancement bonus to attack rolls to cost 2000AP in this system. A Ring of Protection +1 confers a +1 deflection bonus to AC and costs 2000gp. We will consider a +1 deflection bonus to AC to cost 2000AP, and so on and so forth. That's roughly what I based my system on (or at least the deriviative from the craft points in UA in the SRD); that got me to the right order of magnitude. Then I just tweaked the number a bit to make a steady (and therefore easier to remember) progression. I think that I may well drop the AC bonuses a bit still, but I think at least one more playtest is due before I redo my entire bestiary again! I have never found a monster straight out of the MM to be anything other than a light nonboss battle excepting the case of things with significant casting capablilty (e.g. Beholders, upper-to-top-end outsiders). Everything else just falls like scythed wheat. My parties are not, and are never likely to be; four 25-point buy characters; I don't use the CR system as anything more than amount of XP earned and I gave up even glancing at EL once I realised it effectively means nothing as far as XP is concerned. The old maxim 'less is more' really comes front and center in this conversation. Giving players additional stuff to alleviate their reliance on magical items is not really going to solve for your problem, it just redirects the gradual power creep into your game in an entirely different fashion. First off, this problem is something that is integral to D&D, always has been, from 1st Ed. up to the current 3.5 rules and will probably still persist into the new 4th ed. rules. Actually, the designers have said that 4th will move the emphasis away from magic items being part of the balance and more toward being useful, but not mandatory, extras and effectively eliminating the wealth-by-level system (which I thought was a really bad idea in the first place.) The way to resolve this is to offer xp rewards for players doing things without tools. By using the XP system that rewards Self Reliance you don't have to figure out something to replace the loss with. Also, it encourages your players to make their own magic items emphasizing the use of item creation feats as opposed to metamagic feats. I myself do this by requiring players to spend game time researching the production of various magic items. Occasionally I have provided them with formulas and schematics for things that I wanted them to create, but I freely admit that I give out very few magic items in the game. Most of the items they do come across are single use or charged items that are used by the antagonists. A huge number of our games don't have significant downtime and magic item creation has always been something that has never been a major factor in any of our games in any system. Heck, I've only just got around to excepting the fact that in order to make magic item you have to spend XP and a good chunk of our players are still struggling (actually, it was only someone pointing out you don't actually lose and can in fact get a net bonus to XP that swung us.) So, I'm not hugely inclined to want to make magic item creation feats a necessity. I will be lightly encouraging the PCs to do this on the campaign world in question, but I don't want to have to make it effectively mandatory. I don't know how you stand on the matter, but I am firmly in the camp that noncasters - especially Fighters - are decidedly at a huge disadvantage without their gear - since it's part of the balance numbers (and they're still way weaker even with it, but at least the numbers are closer). Since noncasters rely of their 'tools' so much, making them go short numerically strikes me personally as unfair and biases the casters even more. (Not only that, but I also feel that often quoted method of 'balancing' the casters by running them out of spells and not letting them rest is a heavy-handed and an equally unfun thing to do. I generally think that anything that makes the players have less fun because of what their character is (like standing around like pillocks because they can't do anything useful) is a really bad idea.) I don't mind the power creep, really, since it unilaterally effects everyone. Animals, for instance, are actually really crap opposition. In the post-ToB environment, they suck even worse. Which I don't like. When the PCs run into a pack of Phorusrhacos or an Arctodus, I don't want them to laugh it off at any level past about 3rd, I want them to worry a little1 (Heck, I've seriously considered making animals D12 HD and full BAB); my new rules tweaks mean that they don't suck quite as much (that's the beauty of it). (I'll be interested to see what they do in 4th with animals, which I am almost positive I'll be stealing quite a lot from even if I don't actually use it in whole.) I don't generally award full XP for anything aside from boss battles (when the PCs come out of it full of holes and rather shakey and almost out of resources) anyway; the rest is rolpelaying or quest-based XP. 1To the point I errata'd Ray of Stupidity Harm-style so it can't reduce Int below 1, so no more "I win" button for animal encounters.
ManusNigrum 11-22-07, 05:15 PM	I don't know how you stand on the matter, but I am firmly in the camp that noncasters - especially Fighters - are decidedly at a huge disadvantage without their gear - since it's part of the balance numbers (and they're still way weaker even with it, but at least the numbers are closer). Since noncasters rely of their 'tools' so much, making them go short numerically strikes me personally as unfair and biases the casters even more. (Not only that, but I also feel that often quoted method of 'balancing' the casters by running them out of spells and not letting them rest is a heavy-handed and an equally unfun thing to do. I generally think that anything that makes the players have less fun because of what their character is (like standing around like pillocks because they can't do anything useful) is a really bad idea.) The disad factor of not having equipment and running out of spells is something that you, as the DM, have available to work into the story line. One of the most challenging, as well as rewarding, aspects of being a DM is the ability to put your players through an obstacle course that will make the adrenalin rush. Ironically the best way I have found to do this is to try and create as many encounters that put them in situations were they have to try and figure out how not to fight. This is where creatures that are only vulnerable to equipment the party does not have available comes into play. Wights and Wraiths becomes a whole lot scarier when you can't hurt them directly so the players have to figure out ways to hurt them indirectly. This is actually when you start getting players to really shine. I ran one game were the players collapsed support beams in a temple structure to crush an evil priest they were too weak to touch, another where they detonated greek fire by the barrel load in a silver mine that was haunted in order to clear out all of the fodder creatures that prevented them from getting to an ancient alter some long forgotten god (Tharzidune) and one of my favorite games, which was like a D&D version of Red Dawn, involved my players setting up an elaborate series of traps hidden in forest paths and lead the orcs, goblins, trolls and such that were what ever through a gauntlet until they were sufficiently weak enough to be handled by the local militia. The trick to doing this is to add little clues along the way to make sure that they understand that there is a way out that doesn't involve suicide. Low level games should be fairly easy and require nothing more strenuous then picking up a sword and waking something with it. Beyond level five though the difficulty needs to be consistently amped up. The important thing is to make sure that the encounters you set up are tailor made to the skill sets your players have. Once you have started them down this path they will begin using skill points in areas that you want them too and you don't even have to tell them to do so, all you have to do is just have create encounters that force them to make checks on abilities that they may not have a lot of points in. By having them focus more on skills then feats you can push them to higher and higher difficulty levels and they'll love it. Granted it requires a hell of a lot more work on the part of the DM but in the end it usually pays off pretty will. You can also use this tactic to break power games and gumbys from their own bad habits because the game is not just about killing things. Granted, combat is a part of it, but it shouldn't be the biggest part of the game. The d20 combat system rarely can stand against a 360 or PS3 controller in terms of sheer excitement. I don't mind the power creep, really, since it unilaterally effects everyone. Animals, for instance, are actually really crap opposition. In the post-ToB environment, they suck even worse. Which I don't like. When the PCs run into a pack of Phorusrhacos or an Arctodus, I don't want them to laugh it off at any level past about 3rd, I want them to worry a little1 (Heck, I've seriously considered making animals D12 HD and full BAB); my new rules tweaks mean that they don't suck quite as much (that's the beauty of it). (I'll be interested to see what they do in 4th with animals, which I am almost positive I'll be stealing quite a lot from even if I don't actually use it in whole.) Animals (normal, real world animals) don't have to be reserved for the piddly no-nothing encounters that they typically are used for. Real animals can be just as deadly as some of their more fantastic counterparts, sometimes more so when you take into account the fact that many players will initially underestimate them. Again, the trick here is strategy, not the direct, charge the front gates in broad daylight kind of mentality that they are typically displayed as having. For anyone that says animals don't think strategically, I suggest you go watch Animal Planet for a little while, or perhaps the next PBS special on wolves. Actually wolves are a great example of how to use normal animals in a threatening fashion. First off, wolves don't just rush headlong into battle. They're hunters, not berserkers. By splitting the pack in half and the first round attacking from one side and then retreating on the second, then having the second half attack from the other side of the battle field and thus attacking the players from their unprotected rear flank, you'll keep them on their toes. The really neat thing here is when the players catch on to this and instead of rushing off to chase them down they hold their ground to keep from falling victim to the second wave, when the wolves have in fact retreated, this preserving the pack to be used as a recurring villian as opposed to a one off encounter. I myself also apply the team work benefits introduced in the PHB II for packs of animals. Wolves are one of my favorite "normal" creatures to throw into the mix and the first ones I played around using these rules with, but they can be used for any encounter with pack animals, natural or otherwise. The rules for the team work benefits say that the group has to spend significant amounts of time training togeather to use the benefit and I think that a pack that constantly hunts togeather complies with this requirement. Having the Parties Druid or Ranger tell the party that they are being followed by a pack of wolves is one thing. Having the party be disconcerted by this is another and that is the goal here. There are also rules for monster levels although I am not really familiar with them but they may apply here. White Wolf put out an excellent source book a few years ago, Tribe Book: Red Talon, which detailed the Red Talon tribe and how the view humans. For those of you unfamiliar with the Werewolf RPG, the Red Talons were a tribe of Werewolves that were entirely birthed from wolves, this giving them a unique perspective on the rest of werewolf society. Unfortunately it is now OOP but you could probably find it on Amazon or eBay.
aotrscommander 11-22-07, 07:19 PM	The disad factor of not having equipment and running out of spells is something that you, as the DM, have available to work into the story line. *snip* You can also use this tactic to break power games and gumbys from their own bad habits because the game is not just about killing things. Granted, combat is a part of it, but it shouldn't be the biggest part of the game. No, the entire game isn't, but as far as I'm concerned the combat damn well should be. You have a different playstyle to us. My players - and me - like to get in and stab stuff with sharp objects in combat. That doesn't mean we won't occasionally do something clever in combat, but in the main it's stabbing things and setting them on fire in as inappropriately pyrotechnical way as possible. Of course, most of our groups are wargamers, which does bias us too. What I personally want out of combat is to shout Fwakoom! as many times as possible and blow stuff up or slice it bodily in half in an overly dramatic way as possible. You just don't get the same satisfaction dropping the temple on the guy, for me, as you do slicing him from crown to groin or blowing his head off personally. So what I want to do with this system is keep up that high-octane intensity while removing the need for the bad guys to have magic gear soley so that they manage to actually hurt the PCs. All the tactics in the world don't help if you can't actually ever do any damage. By the same token, it frees up the having to prat about with falt bonues item kit that everybody always has and makes magic items more special because they can afford to be rarer without me having to change the way the campaign combats run to account for sub-optimal gear. Animals (normal, real world animals) don't have to be reserved for the piddly no-nothing encounters that they typically are used for. Real animals can be just as deadly as some of their more fantastic counterparts, sometimes more so when you take into account the fact that many players will initially underestimate them. Again, the trick here is strategy, not the direct, charge the front gates in broad daylight kind of mentality that they are typically displayed as having. For anyone that says animals don't think strategically, I suggest you go watch Animal Planet for a little while, or perhaps the next PBS special on wolves. Oh yes, I know. Natural history is the only other area of interest for me aside from the aforementioned Blowing Stuff Up/Slicing Stuff In Twain With Pyrotechics. Stratagy only goes so far once you reach the stage where the animals, despite their tactics (remembering that in general my players are good to superlative tacticans themselves) can't actually hurt the PCs with any degree of reliability.
navar100 11-24-07, 11:44 AM	The disad factor of not having equipment and running out of spells is something that you, as the DM, have available to work into the story line. One of the most challenging, as well as rewarding, aspects of being a DM is the ability to put your players through an obstacle course that will make the adrenalin rush. Ironically the best way I have found to do this is to try and create as many encounters that put them in situations were they have to try and figure out how not to fight. This is where creatures that are only vulnerable to equipment the party does not have available comes into play. Wights and Wraiths becomes a whole lot scarier when you can't hurt them directly so the players have to figure out ways to hurt them indirectly. This is actually when you start getting players to really shine. I ran one game were the players collapsed support beams in a temple structure to crush an evil priest they were too weak to touch, another where they detonated greek fire by the barrel load in a silver mine that was haunted in order to clear out all of the fodder creatures that prevented them from getting to an ancient alter some long forgotten god (Tharzidune) and one of my favorite games, which was like a D&D version of Red Dawn, involved my players setting up an elaborate series of traps hidden in forest paths and lead the orcs, goblins, trolls and such that were what ever through a gauntlet until they were sufficiently weak enough to be handled by the local militia. The trick to doing this is to add little clues along the way to make sure that they understand that there is a way out that doesn't involve suicide. Low level games should be fairly easy and require nothing more strenuous then picking up a sword and waking something with it. Beyond level five though the difficulty needs to be consistently amped up. The important thing is to make sure that the encounters you set up are tailor made to the skill sets your players have. Once you have started them down this path they will begin using skill points in areas that you want them too and you don't even have to tell them to do so, all you have to do is just have create encounters that force them to make checks on abilities that they may not have a lot of points in. By having them focus more on skills then feats you can push them to higher and higher difficulty levels and they'll love it. Granted it requires a hell of a lot more work on the part of the DM but in the end it usually pays off pretty will. You can also use this tactic to break power games and gumbys from their own bad habits because the game is not just about killing things. Granted, combat is a part of it, but it shouldn't be the biggest part of the game. The d20 combat system rarely can stand against a 360 or PS3 controller in terms of sheer excitement. Animals (normal, real world animals) don't have to be reserved for the piddly no-nothing encounters that they typically are used for. Real animals can be just as deadly as some of their more fantastic counterparts, sometimes more so when you take into account the fact that many players will initially underestimate them. Again, the trick here is strategy, not the direct, charge the front gates in broad daylight kind of mentality that they are typically displayed as having. For anyone that says animals don't think strategically, I suggest you go watch Animal Planet for a little while, or perhaps the next PBS special on wolves. Actually wolves are a great example of how to use normal animals in a threatening fashion. First off, wolves don't just rush headlong into battle. They're hunters, not berserkers. By splitting the pack in half and the first round attacking from one side and then retreating on the second, then having the second half attack from the other side of the battle field and thus attacking the players from their unprotected rear flank, you'll keep them on their toes. The really neat thing here is when the players catch on to this and instead of rushing off to chase them down they hold their ground to keep from falling victim to the second wave, when the wolves have in fact retreated, this preserving the pack to be used as a recurring villian as opposed to a one off encounter. I myself also apply the team work benefits introduced in the PHB II for packs of animals. Wolves are one of my favorite "normal" creatures to throw into the mix and the first ones I played around using these rules with, but they can be used for any encounter with pack animals, natural or otherwise. The rules for the team work benefits say that the group has to spend significant amounts of time training togeather to use the benefit and I think that a pack that constantly hunts togeather complies with this requirement. Having the Parties Druid or Ranger tell the party that they are being followed by a pack of wolves is one thing. Having the party be disconcerted by this is another and that is the goal here. There are also rules for monster levels although I am not really familiar with them but they may apply here. White Wolf put out an excellent source book a few years ago, Tribe Book: Red Talon, which detailed the Red Talon tribe and how the view humans. For those of you unfamiliar with the Werewolf RPG, the Red Talons were a tribe of Werewolves that were entirely birthed from wolves, this giving them a unique perspective on the rest of werewolf society. Unfortunately it is now OOP but you could probably find it on Amazon or eBay. But if dedicated warriors never fight and spellcasters never cast spells because the bad guys are too tough to attack directly, then what's the point? One or two adventures, sure, but every one? Encouraging skill use is good, but they shouldn't trump everything.
Owlperson2007 11-24-07, 06:57 PM	I don't do modern D&D, having not played since 1979, but I can help out with a few ideas. Tolkien's own Middle Earth was a low- or no-magic world, so reducing the level of magic in the world at large after some kind of cataclysm might not be a bad idea. I am toying with the idea of trying to reduce the reliance of having magical equipment, especially to the melee characters. My new campaign world is trying to be a little less heavy on magical items (no magic item shops at all, for instance), but what would be even better would be to go along and try to eliminate the need for so much magical kit. Particularly in our group, most magical items get sold for straight-foward +items (usually weapons and armour). I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm trying to eliminate the need for wealth-by-level and making magical items more 'special'. So a party should have less flat '+' items and more a few interesting magical gizmos, but retain their combnat effectiveness. You can make the characters immediately less dependent on magic by having a clever thief half-inch some of their items while they are asleep. Granted, if they are high-level, they may have wards against this, but some occurrences around me over the last few summers have convinced me that psychokinetic theft is possible and once I learned what was happening - and how my pen-disk could go missing from my key-ring in the space of one evening with no-one else in the house, for example - I could take steps to prevent it (the occult is second-nature to someone from an orthodox Eastern European Jewish background; you only have to say the words "gypsy" and "Transylvania" to get the idea of how I grew up). So an adventure where the items are stolen and the party have to figure out who took them, how they took them, and how they get them back (though it might just turn out that an innocent civil servant posted them during a postal strike and thus they got lost in the post...!!) might be an idea to liven up a stale campaign. Also shops can run out of swords+1 (the most any of my characters ever had) and potions of giant strength, so the availability of such can be precipitated by a dwarf strike or something to take care of the idea they can just buy more. The most obvious solution that has occurred so far is to give all characters a bonus to their Armour bonus of +1/ four or five character levels when wearing armour (supplementing and/or replacing armour enhancement bonuses) and a bonus to attack and damage of +1 every 4 levels (or possibly every 5 points of BAB) when wielding weapons (supplementing enhancement bonuses. This allows some room for magical kit (especially magical weapons!) Tweaking the game rules is no substitute for making the campaign more stimulating as a whole. Perhaps a more political route is called for where armour and swords are not as effective as role-playing your way out of a situation. I'm vaguely aware that there's an option in Unearthed Arcana that suggests something like this, and I'm thinking of swiping some ideas from SW Saga (when 4th eventually comes out, I will almost certainly pinch some ideas from that even if I don't convert from 3.5) like maybe having two bonus stat points every 4 levels (to two different stats). On the other hand, most of my games start with much higher stats in the first place. The issue is slightly complicated by the presence of nonhumanoid characters. After some thought, I made their role be more 'tankish' I.e. their advantage of being nonhumanoid (aside from their generally higher stat boost across monster class levels) was they would have higher ACs (i.e. instead or armour they get bonus to natural and to dodge AC). I think I've about balanced that out (but interestingly, the problem is down to high Dex). ...can the players play these? how would these have an impact on magical weaponry in use? If they are facing monsters which are impervious to normal combat techniques and the players need magic items to be effective in combat against them, then perhaps focussing less on killing them and more on interplay ("Hello Mr Goblin, perhaps we can discuss a little bargain - I don't kill you now but you tell us where the dragon lives and we'll let you and your goblin friends have a cut of Smaug's hoard?") is called for here. Making combat less effective as a means of play is probably a good thing for a change of pace; there are times when diplomacy is more the "nice doggie" approach and less of the "looking for a big stick". I'm at the moment unsure as to whether I should apply the attack/damage bonus to creatures wielding natural weapons or not. I'm tempted to say not, citing that only creatures with 'manufactured' weapons (in this I include martial arts, i.e. Improved Unarmed Strike) have the flexibility to gain more skill out of it (basically in the same way that only they get iterative attacks). So, what I'm asking is, has anyone else tried something like this or have any suggestions about how I could improve this. That would be an interesting idea to encourage your players to develop unarmed combat to such a degree where they can take out enemies in places, again, where weapons won't be allowed. (I wish I'd trained in martial arts before I went into politics; we still have sword ribbons in the cloak-rooms at Parliament but getting them past security past-9/11 is a NIGHTMARE...!...and Volp and his colleagues still manage to get their flick-knives in under "diplomatic immunity" and jump me in the corridor occasionally.) Encouraging a creative solution is better probably than changing the rules half-way through a game, even in the name of balance. If one policy doesn't work to steer the opinion polls in my way, I don't rip it up and try a new one that's radically different. Rather I say "I remain to be persuaded on this", go back and do some more research - mainly by mupping on a forum and saying "Owlperson's policy STINKS and costs too much" and then read the professionals griping to me about yes, how it will keep them awake all night worrying about how to implement it. Then I go back and revise it slightly saying I've consulted my policy wonks and it turns out that I was wrong. That usually convinces people that you know what you are doing and are flexible, not so fond of doing complete U-turns that you give the impression that you don't know what time of day it is. Therefore slowly turning down the magical volume of the campaign and adjusting the storylines to fit the slight changes in mechanical rules is better than saying, "Right, from now on, all monsters will get +2 to attacks because you all have so many items of magical kit that they don't get a fair fight any more and I have to fling the Tarrasque at you to get anywhere". (Don't laugh, Owlperson still reads the books for nostalgia value ;):);) and knows what a Tarrasque is...)
Voran 11-25-07, 02:36 AM	I might be mistaken, but it seems to me that in order to reduce reliance on external magic items, the substitute is to effectively give them superpowers so they don't need actual items? Yknow, in a weird way, earlier versions of DnD (1st or 2nd eds) promoted a form of less magical lewt than 3.0+. Odd yes, because 1st ed and 2nd ed published adventures were notorious about monty haul situations with lots and lots of lewt, but your overall options were much smaller compared to now. Back in the day when Legends and Lore had a writeup for King Arthur and Excalibur was a L33T +5 sword of sharpness with a few other goodies, nowadays, that's tame compared to what you can pull out with Magic Compendium etc. Anyway, I'm sure others have said this before, but the setup of the game makes it rough to tone down the magic without re-tooling the encounter systems and spellcasting system at the same time.
aotrscommander 11-27-07, 08:07 AM	You can make the characters immediately less dependent on magic by having a clever thief half-inch some of their items while they are asleep. I think you've slightly misunderstood my problem Owlperson2007. The problem is purely a rules-mechanical one inherent in 3.5 D&D's (current) mechanical system. In order to Not Suck at higher levels, noncasters are reliant on flat bonus magical gear (e.g. +5 plate, +5 weapons) in order to even start to approach casters in parity; indeed faulty as 3.5's CR system is, it to assumes a certain level of wealth in gear a PC should have at any level in order to be of the correct strength. This is roleplaying-independant issue; while the plan for the new world is to make it more Tolkien-ish - in places - the power level of the characters - especially the caster vrs noncaster dynamic (skewed enough as it is) needs to remain the same. Simply removing magical items without making up the numbers would skew the game further out of whack. I'd be doing the noncaster players a diservice. It also unhooks wealth from being a character advancement requirement (which is how it should be). Besides, diplomacy is not something any of our group are really that interested in in the main. While we're not exactly hack-and-slash to the exclusion of all else, we fall heavily on that side of the divide. (Not that 'divide' is the best word, because it implies the two are incompatanle which is patently untrue, but you get the idea.) I might be mistaken, but it seems to me that in order to reduce reliance on external magic items, the substitute is to effectively give them superpowers so they don't need actual items? Well, the substitute is actually to is give everyone (PC, NPC, animal and otherwise) the bonus. What I'm looking to do is not drop the Fighter's effectiveness at all, but merely eliminate the plethora of magic-items (making magic flavourfully more 'special' and not merely being a collection of +numbers, which is generally in our group what it turns out to be - and needs to be, given 3.5 reliance on it providing the mechanical bonus to noncaster effectiveness) AND mean that chaff NPCs/animals remain a passable threat at mid-to-high levels. In essence, trying to make it more "it's you, not your gear." The effect on casters is not significant, but it will keep the Fighters as they are and reduce the amount of magical kit purely for the numbers I have to dole out to the NPCs just so they stand a cat in hell's chance of not being slaughtered whoelsale. Anyway, I'm sure others have said this before, but the setup of the game makes it rough to tone down the magic without re-tooling the encounter systems and spellcasting system at the same time. Less hassle than you'd think since I am tweaking the spellcasting system moderately heavily and am basically throwing away the Monster Manual and designing the entire Bestiary from scratch, starting from the original mythology! This is specifically for this one game world - where we've only had a couple of adventurers - including the one above mentioned being the first set of playtest. I don't intend on altering any of our other campaigns, where magic-item shopping is the norm.