So here is what our group is experimenting with: we are using the inherent bonus system and the boon system from DMG 2, and combining it with a reduced numbner of magic items in the game. For magic items that traditionally have enhancement bonuses (weapons, implements, armor), we're dropping those bonuses altogether. This allows me to introduce magic items into the campaign without having to consider combat game balance per se. Obviously, having magic items in the game -- even magic items without enhancement bonuses -- affects combat game balance, so I'll still have to keep a watchful eye on whether the party is being overloaded with goodies. But at least I won't have to worry about balancing the core attack, damage, and defense stats because that will be handled by the inherent bonus system.
If any other DMs out there are doing the same or a similar thing I'd love to hear how it works for you.
2. I'm doing something similar in my current champaign. Saves a lot of time on loot, and gold can be spent on interesting things (lands, research, men-at-arms).
3. But I do have some concerns. As the story dictates and I introduce items, they wont over time become useless. That encourages all sorts of things,but most importanlty using 3 weapon encounter powers in a fight. Prolly have to HR things to prevent abuse at some point, but not sure how.
The inherent bonus system has advantages and I'm sure it works fine, but using it to emulate "low magic" is misguided. So, just focus more on describing items as mundane yet superior and that will do far more than the inherent bonus system to make a world seem to be "low magic."
It's kind of hard to claim when my longsword bursts into flames and does ongoing fire damage that it is just a "superior-made weapon". Or when I put on a cloak that turns me invisible right in front of peoples' eyes, it's hard to pass that off as just a "really well-made cloak". I'm all for being creative and reflavoring things, but there are limits as to how far narrative license can go before it starts to smell of something sour.
It's kind of hard to claim when my longsword bursts into flames and does ongoing fire damage that it is just a "superior-made weapon".
Not all reflavoring is equally easy, but people just make it more difficult by locking themselves into particular interpretations. Nothing about a "flaming" weapon requires that it "burst" into flame, or that ongoing damage be the result of setting things on fire. If people are open to other ways of thinking about them, and what other game terms actually "look like" then there are lots of possibilities. The abstract nature of hit points really helps with this.
I have some thoughts on how to do it, but one really has to be open to them. They can be picked apart - but so can the very concept of a weapon that bursts into flames.
Or when I put on a cloak that turns me invisible right in front of peoples' eyes, it's hard to pass that off as just a "really well-made cloak".
Well, at epic tier, getting away from "high" magic is naturally going to be difficult, but I could think of ways in which a "mundane" cloak provides the benefits of invisibility without actually causing it in the traditional sense people often get locked into.
I'm all for being creative and reflavoring things, but there are limits as to how far narrative license can go before it starts to smell of something sour.
They are surprisingly broad limits, if people let them be.
Nothing about a "flaming" weapon requires that it "burst" into flame, or that ongoing damage be the result of setting things on fire. If people are open to other ways of thinking about them, and what other game terms actually "look like" then there are lots of possibilities. The abstract nature of hit points really helps with this.
I have some thoughts on how to do it, but one really has to be open to them. They can be picked apart - but so can the very concept of a weapon that bursts into flames.
The only real way to tone-down a flaming sword so that it is not seemingly magical would be to drop some of the keywords. Ongoing "fire" damage, for example. Sure, you could call it untyped ongoing damage that "burns almost as though you're on fire", but as long as the "fire" keyword is still there, there could be issues, particularly if you run across something immune to fire, or susceptible to it.
As I said before, I'm all for reflavoring to your heart's content, but when that flavor starts poking around with the actual crunch of the game, problems can arise if great care is not taken. Some of them won't even be immediate, but can crop up further down the line.
If any other DMs out there are doing the same or a similar thing I'd love to hear how it works for you.
Works a treat; the 27th level fighter can whip out his grandaddy's mediocrely made longsword and still kick ass.
If people are open to other ways of thinking about them, and what other game terms actually "look like" then there are lots of possibilities. The abstract nature of hit points really helps with this.
If you eliminate the fire keyword and fire-typed damage, you're not reflavoring. You're houseruling. As Hocus says, it interacts with lots of other things in unexpected ways.
I use the Inherent Bonuses, but still throw in the occasional weapon, armor, or neck slot item just for the useful power. I usually just say 'you find a level X item' and let the players figure out who gets it and what it is, since they won't give me a list of what they want ...
The only real way to tone-down a flaming sword so that it is not seemingly magical would be to drop some of the keywords. Ongoing "fire" damage, for example. Sure, you could call it untyped ongoing damage that "burns almost as though you're on fire", but as long as the "fire" keyword is still there, there could be issues, particularly if you run across something immune to fire, or susceptible to it.
If something isn't immune or vulnerable or resistant to fire (which, in a low-magic game why would they be?) damage types matter much, much less. Most of the time, it could be extra bleeding caused by the jagged flame motif on the weapon. Or, since HP doesn't always means wounds, it could be a variety of other things, or something different every time.
As I said before, I'm all for reflavoring to your heart's content, but when that flavor starts poking around with the actual crunch of the game, problems can arise if great care is not taken. Some of them won't even be immediate, but can crop up further down the line.
Then take the care. It's not actually that hard if one lets go of certain assumptions.
If people are open to other ways of thinking about them, and what other game terms actually "look like" then there are lots of possibilities. The abstract nature of hit points really helps with this.
If you eliminate the fire keyword and fire-typed damage, you're not reflavoring. You're houseruling.
Which is why I haven't and never would suggest eliminating keywords.
As Hocus says, it interacts with lots of other things in unexpected ways.
Many, if not most, if not all of which can be dealt with at a creative and open-minded table, without a single piece of crunch ever changing.
The only real way to tone-down a flaming sword so that it is not seemingly magical would be to drop some of the keywords. Ongoing "fire" damage, for example. Sure, you could call it untyped ongoing damage that "burns almost as though you're on fire", but as long as the "fire" keyword is still there, there could be issues, particularly if you run across something immune to fire, or susceptible to it.
If something isn't immune or vulnerable or resistant to fire (which, in a low-magic game why would they be?) damage types matter much, much less.
You made a rather severe error here. You're equating a low magic item setting with a low magic setting. This is not always the case. Furthermore, low magic (and even non-magic) doesn't mean that there aren't your classic, non-magical dangerous beasties: such as flame spewing ants, Dragons...
If something isn't immune or vulnerable or resistant to fire (which, in a low-magic game why would they be?) damage types matter much, much less.
As Timmeh said, low magic ≠ low magic item. Itemless PCs can still face dragons, archons, fire giants, hell hounds, and the like.
Plus, reflavoring is a player perogative that shouldn't step on the toes of the DM. If a player's reflavoring requires a DM to avoid using specific creatures, you've gone well past the limits of reflavoring and into a wierd houserule where my reflavoring requires the DM to agree to avoid anything that interacts with the keyword I want to ignore.
That is the equivelent of using reflavoring to delete a keyword, whuich you've already acknowledged is beyond the scope of reflavoring.
Many, if not most, if not all of which can be dealt with at a creative and open-minded table, without a single piece of crunch ever changing.
Deleting all creatures, traps, terrain, and hazards that interacts with the fire keyword definitely constitutes the changing of crunch.
He keeps referring to "assumptions" that need to be let go of before one can really grasp all of the awesome potential of a low-magic setting. I fear the "assumptions" he's referring to are actually the mechanics of the game, and that massive houseruling would be needed. Which is fine, naturally, for games he runs. If he wants to decide that a weapon with the "fire" keyword does not actually do any fire damage, and that creatures vulnerable to or immune to fire damage are not present in his world, then that's on him and his group. I really think that the amount of work needed to keep things balanced when tinkering with all those mechanics might not be worth it, but that's just me.
The only real way to tone-down a flaming sword so that it is not seemingly magical would be to drop some of the keywords. Ongoing "fire" damage, for example. Sure, you could call it untyped ongoing damage that "burns almost as though you're on fire", but as long as the "fire" keyword is still there, there could be issues, particularly if you run across something immune to fire, or susceptible to it.
If something isn't immune or vulnerable or resistant to fire (which, in a low-magic game why would they be?) damage types matter much, much less.
You made a rather severe error here. You're equating a low magic item setting with a low magic setting. This is not always the case. Furthermore, low magic (and even non-magic) doesn't mean that there aren't your classic, non-magical dangerous beasties: such as flame spewing ants, Dragons...
Ok, the parenthetical was an erroneous assumption, but the basic point still stands: if the damage type doesn't matter in a particular situation, then it can be described in a wider variety of ways in that situation.
Even if the damage type does matter, there are options.
Plus, reflavoring is a player perogative that shouldn't step on the toes of the DM. If a player's reflavoring requires a DM to avoid using specific creatures, you've gone well past the limits of reflavoring and into a wierd houserule where my reflavoring requires the DM to agree to avoid anything that interacts with the keyword I want to ignore.
That is the equivelent of using reflavoring to delete a keyword, whuich you've already acknowledged is beyond the scope of reflavoring.
Yes, which is why I have not, and would never suggest anything that requires the DM to agree to avoid anything that interacts with a given keyword which I am not and would never advocating ignoring.
Many, if not most, if not all of which can be dealt with at a creative and open-minded table, without a single piece of crunch ever changing.
Deleting all creatures, traps, terrain, and hazards that interacts with the fire keyword definitely constitutes the changing of crunch.
Then don't do that. Rethink it. Give me a situation, and I'll try to do it. You won't agree with my reflavoring, perhaps just to try to bolster your argument, but I can show you how I'd approach it. Give me an situation in which there's a weapon with a damage type interacting with something vulnerable to it, and I'll try to describe the weapon and the interaction in a non-magical way.
You might very well stump me without resorting to corner cases, but it will be better than discussing them in the abstract.
EDIT: I don't think of reflavoring as a player perogative, at least not exclusively. In fact, the whole point to this thread is that a DM might want a low-magic world. Then it's the DM who is mainly doing the reflavoring, hopefully with help from his players.
It's kind of hard to claim when my longsword bursts into flames and does ongoing fire damage that it is just a "superior-made weapon".
Not all reflavoring is equally easy, but people just make it more difficult by locking themselves into particular interpretations. Nothing about a "flaming" weapon requires that it "burst" into flame, or that ongoing damage be the result of setting things on fire. If people are open to other ways of thinking about them, and what other game terms actually "look like" then there are lots of possibilities. The abstract nature of hit points really helps with this.
A weapon of unusual quality or alloy might remain strong and sharp even when heated red-hot or dowsed with oil (pitch, naptha, whatever) and lit aflame or it might be plated with a reactive metal that burns on contact with blood (or other enemy juices)...
The inherent bonus system has advantages and I'm sure it works fine, but using it to emulate "low magic" is misguided.
I'm not using the inherent bonus system to emulate anything. I like running campaigns in which magic items aren't being given out like Pez from a Pez dispenser. I like magic items to be special and to mean something. However, by witholding magic items from my players they fall behind the "power curve" of the 4e rules. So my two choices are to tone down encounters or to compensate for the fact that the characters' attack rolls, damage rolls, and defenses are lower than they "should be" (from the perspective of the 4e ruleset). In my experience, toning down encounters gets more complex as the characters rise in level. So what I'm experimenting with now is using the inherent bonus system to be a safety net for the characters so I don't have to waste a lot of mental bandwidth trying to balance encounters and can instead focus my time and creative energy on the story.
The inherent bonus system has advantages and I'm sure it works fine, but using it to emulate "low magic" is misguided.
I'm not using the inherent bonus system to emulate anything. I like running campaigns in which magic items aren't being given out like Pez from a Pez dispenser.
Hyperbole. The baseline is 4 items per level to a group of 5 and after about 5 levels, these items will sometimes just be replacements or upgrades.
If that's still fast for you, you could give out 3 items per level and they'd still be on the "curve" for offense and defense.
I like magic items to be special and to mean something.
I give out items at approximately the recommended rate, and they are still special and meaningful because of how they're acquired and what they mean. When I play, my character has meaningful connections to each of his items. Having on-schedule items is not mutually exclusive with them being special and meaningful.
I don't have any problem with the inherent bonus system as a simplification, but I get perplexed by what I see as misconceptions about what must be handed out and how it's interpreted. No doubt I'm suffering under my own misconceptions, though.
Having on-schedule items
I think it's that sort of thing that bothers some people (expecting magic items like a monthly bill "Honey, your wand of choad-spanking has arrived.").
I think you're right, but that doesn't need to be how it occurs in-game.
Some people don't like certain expectations forced upon them (encounters a day, number of magic items etc); feels contrived.
Some people don't like certain expectations forced upon them (encounters a day, number magic items etc); feels contrived.
I agree, but I disagree that it's forced. They can step outside the assumptions the game makes, they just might have to watch a bit more carefully for issues - which isn't to say there are absolutely no issues otherwise. I step outside many of the "expectations" and don't have a problem. I imagine that if it's a trust thing, such as the players not trusting that the DM's got things under control when the item allotment is too low or too high, then out-of-game issues might rear their head, but that's a much deeper problem than the rules should be expected to deal with (and, that said, I believe the DMGs do address the issue of trust at the table.)
I play in a very high magic game, by high I mean its common, but not really weaponized in the sence that there are magic swords at every street corner, so I hand out almost no magic items. I also like the idea that a dwarf who came to the game with his family hammer and shield doesn't sell them in a few days for a +1 whocares.
Money Ive kept the same, they spend it on travel, homes, hiring help, and research, and wonderouse items are avaliable but they have to be sought out, Im not leaving them in the forest to be found.
to the origonal poster/topic, I am doing this in my game, and it works really well, and I do it for the same reasons!
I play in a very high magic game, by high I mean its common, but not really weaponized in the sence that there are magic swords at every street corner, so I hand out almost no magic items. I also like the idea that a dwarf who came to the game with his family hammer and shield doesn't sell them in a few days for a +1 whocares.
Money Ive kept the same, they spend it on travel, homes, hiring help, and research, and wonderouse items are avaliable but they have to be sought out, Im not leaving them in the forest to be found.
Cool. Thanks for sharing your experiences, Houndstooth. I have pretty high hopes for this method and what it will do for my story and for continuing game balance. As someone who has been playing and DMing since the late 70s, in general I've been extremely happy with 3rd and 4th edition D&D. The direction that the game has been moving in overall has been a very positive one, in my opinion. I just feel that these latest two editions encourage more magic items in the game than suits my taste so I'm exercising the DM's immortal right to tweak the game.
Monday's Legends & Lore came at a coincidental time for me and my long-running D&D game. Traditionally, through the years I've run low-magic campaigns. Until 4e it was never too much of an issue, but 4e seems pretty tightly balanced on the assumption of characters possessing certain magic items. That combined with my memories of playing Basic D&D and 1e games in junior high and high school and that sense of excitement of getting magic items has had me questioning some of my core decisions as a DM.
So here is what our group is experimenting with: we are using the inherent bonus system and the boon system from DMG 2, and combining it with a reduced numbner of magic items in the game. For magic items that traditionally have enhancement bonuses (weapons, implements, armor), we're dropping those bonuses altogether. This allows me to introduce magic items into the campaign without having to consider combat game balance per se. Obviously, having magic items in the game – even magic items without enhancement bonuses – affects combat game balance, so I'll still have to keep a watchful eye on whether the party is being overloaded with goodies. But at least I won't have to worry about balancing the core attack, damage, and defense stats because that will be handled by the inherent bonus system.
If any other DMs out there are doing the same or a similar thing I'd love to hear how it works for you.
I would do exactly that if I used D&D for home games. I have to play the game as written for Encounters and, since Encounter PCs never pass level 3, I doubt it would matter anyway. My campaigns are GURPS 4e or HackMaster 5e almost without exception and I've been considering doing somethin similar for HackMaster even though it assumes you'll be playing a low-magic campaign and therefore doesn't assume the PCs will have +X gear (although 4e did have monsters that required certain pluses of weapons to be hit). In HackMaster 4e (which some people call D&D 2.5), the pluses were a nice bonus so it always annoyed me that D&D 4e requires them.