In the ambush we lost the cleric's cohort, my bard and his cohort, the wizard/rogue and the ranger.
The world is so low magic that there is no raise dead and our cleric cannot cast it due to his ecl. So three players are now making new characters while the survivors gain a level. To my annoyance the DM has us make characters who are two levels below the surviving party members, so our new characters are 9th level.
Not sure why but this really annoys the heck out of me. I dislike being two levels below the main party as a PC, it has a second-class feel to it; and to hammer home the annoyance the xp chart from last session showed the three new characters with the same starting XP as the cleric's new cohort - I don't want my Player Character to be on the same power level as a cohort, it drives me nuts - and to further annoy me at least one of the surviving party members is closer to 12th level than I am to 10th, so there will soon be a 3 level difference between the new characters and the surviving members.
So, I'm asking for advice - just sort of seeking opinions on whether this should bother me as much as it does. Maybe I'm making too big of a deal out of this.
Two is kind of iffy, but do-able.
Seems to me your beef is not in the two levels, it is in the idea that your 10th level PC is gone.
Perhaps the DM is saying cohort = party.
Personally, okay, I'd take it as a roleplaying challenge.
You personally know that the Cohorts are NPCs, but your in game character doesn't.
As a new character, albeit 9th level, you are joining the party in question as the FNG new guy, who has to "Earn the right."
It seems like it's jacking you off that everyone else in the party is more advanced than you in power, such that even at 9th level, you feel underpowered in comparison.
I see a few options:
- Talk to your DM and ask him why two levels, since you are now = cohort, to start.
- Formally petition the DM to reconsider the minus two levels.
- Deal, and be happy it's a tough & challenging game, the stuff of which heroes are made, and gen up the replacement.
- Bail, (or take "Time off"), and rejoin the group when the game ends.
The DM starts new characters 2 levels lower than the party's highest level characters, that's pretty much the standard in all of his games and he knows I'm not a big fan of it. As of now the three survivors are 11th level and the highest XP among them is 65,547 (with the others in the 63-64 range). After the first session with the new characters my guy now has 43,182 xp. That's a difference of 22,000 xp - I find that annoying.
My beef is not over losing my 10th level bard. I was honestly quite ready to move on to another character as my bard was not cutting it as the party's primary arcane caster.
I'm not sure what you mean by "cohort = party."
A roleplaying challenge is a roleplaying challenge, I don't think that character level really has much to do with roleplay challenges.
Yes, my character has no knowledge of cohorts or rules governing cohort levels - that's why my character doesn't have a problem with any of this, it's an out of game issue entirely and hasn't/won't affect how I RP my character.
I don't really feel like the new guy because there are three new characters who all know each other well; so roughly half the party are strangers to the other half, and half the party are 2 levels below the other half of the party.
I don't feel under-powered. We have played one session with the new characters and my character performed well.
- I've been going with your third option; just dealing with it and enjoying the game. At some point I may discuss it in depth with the DM but for now I'll just deal.
I'm taking from your response that you think I may be making too much of an issue of this, which very well might be the case.
You don't mind rolling up a new character, you just don't like that you're, through conscious acts of your DM, significantly weaker than members of your party. You may still be an effective member, but there is nothing that you do best anymore. You don't fill a niche as well. You aren't as good as everybody else. Anything that you can do is done better by another member of the party. Any character will a full BAB is going to have one whole extra attack more than you and everybody has more HP. Any wizard is going to have 6th lvl spells while you only have 5th. Rolling around with those guys is just going to rub your weakness in your face. Enjoy trying to help.
Why does a DM have to do that to you? There is no point. Two levels is too much at almost any point in the game but it gets worse at higher levels.
I would be upset. Two levels is a big difference. I know exactly what you're talking about. Etarnon doesn't get it. He's been a DM for too long.
Pffffffffffff!
Death should have consequences. PC death should be the result of PC actions, you make the wrong mistake at the wrong time, and you die. Or the dice turn against you, and you die. Or Death just has your address on his delivery schedule. But whatever the cause, death has consequences.
In the old days, you started out at 1st level. Period.
2 levels below the highest character seems pretty generous to me. Especially if you get level-appropriate loot to spend. And depending on how the other characters are optimized, there's no reason to suppose that your (n-2) level character won't be able to pull his weight.
Live with it, and have fun.
Cheers, --- Wheldrake
I think two levels is a bit excessive, especially if it is soon to be three.
The DM is the one (presumably) who decided to set the game in a low-magic world where you wouldn't have access to Raise spells. Having new characters after a death come in at two levels lower rather than one level lower seems like a double slap in the face.
However, you seem to have known about this rule for a very long time, and if nobody else seems to be complaining, then perhaps you should just endure it for a few sessions. If your DM handles experience properly, you should gain more XP for each encounter because you are lower level -- however it can still take quite a while that way if the XP isn't boosted even higher for lower-level characters.
If you are the only player with this issue, then talk to the DM privately I suppose, and make some suggestions to make things more enjoyable for you. Bring up your concerns in a calm and respectful manner and suggest some courses of action which may be a compromise. Don't suggest changes only for your character, but for his campaign as a whole, so he knows you plan to continue with it in the future as well.
Don't hit it too hard though, people will probably be more willing to compromise with a reasonable request than to "cave" to a radical request. I would start with either just one level lower rather than two, and explain how it will help you to contribute in a more appropriate fashion to the survival of the party and your new character. Perhaps you start 2 levels lower, but can gain somewhat accelerated XP so you can catch back up to your fellows and be their true "peers."
You may just have to deal with this as it is however.
The reasons:
Death has consequences. Those consequences usually require the use of expensive high powered magic to bring you back into play. (Raise Dead with a level loss or True Ress with a huge price tag associated with that spell). By choosing to stay dead and creating a PC of equal level to your old PC completely eviscerates that consequence.
Try to persuade your DM with this compromise.
If he doesn't go for that compromise and considering you apparently knew about this rule prior to the start of the game (or learned of it early on), your choices are limited. Stick with the DM's rule and play your PC that will be a few levels behind the group (and will presumably slowly and steadily catch up to the group) or quit because the rule is so bad in your opinion that it removes all the fun out of the game for you.
I have been in a campaign where there was a 3+ level difference between the top player and the bottom player, and it was difficult. The problem didn't correct itself, because the DM gave out Mxp to each player, and not basing it off of what level each person was at. When that campaign ended, we did discuss some things, and the new campaign is being run a tad differently so that that big of a gap doesn't happen again.
The 2 level difference, while great now, will shrink IF the DM does XP by the book. The Cohorts won't have the opportunity to advance, and you will outpace them and outlevel them. I would still talk to the DM about this though, and see if the difference could shrink a little bit (just enough Xp for 10th, which would mean the upper part would be 2 levels away for a period instead of 3)
This means that if the party gets 100xp a piece for their challenge, and you are 1 level behind, you get a bump. Something in the neighborhood of 10-20%. As you are two levels behind, this means you get an increased bump.
I wouldn't be suprised if you hit 11, before the cleric hits 13.
It sucks to be levels behind, but it's not as terrible as you say, especially being able to make a custom new character with specifically picked equipment, and stat allotments for a level 10 character. Not one who went from level 1-10.
Consider a level 1 druid who advances to 10. He is probably not going to put 8's in his dex and str, while pumping his wis and con through the roof. He is also going to have whatever equipment he happened to find or buy.
Now look at your level 10 druid. He can have 8 str and dex, and not suffer a bit for it ever. In addition, he can buy the exact items he wants.
-when I dm my rule is you start at the lowest XP as the current member of the party at the exact moment your character is introduced. You won't be levels lower, but you also won't be any higher. (I don't see why adventurers would keep you around if you are noticably weaker.)
...and we call it a Role-playing game?
Yep. Preferably the role of an equal contributer.
...and we call it a Role-playing game?
Hehe, it used to be, now-a-days its a Roll-playing game.
Realistically, it depends how much it will affect things campaign to campaign, but players like to feel that they are on an even playing field with other players in the party. Perceived differences in Power Levels can hurt the dynamic of the group.
And krusk, he's starting at level 9, not 10. Not that it changes what you meant in any real way, I just thought it was important to stress the 2 level reduction.
Zug is right, it won't be so much a matter of, "I'm not kicking butt anymore" and more a matter of an 11th lvl character constantly saying, "Let me do it, I have a better chance."
I'm so tired of that role/roll joke. There are two parts to this game. A social aspect and a mechanical aspect and they are not mutually exclusive. You need to have both.
Do you know what happens when you forsake the crunch?
Renaissance Fairs.
Hehe, it used to be, now-a-days its a Roll-playing game.
Realistically, it depends how much it will affect things campaign to campaign, but players like to feel that they are on an even playing field with other players in the party. Perceived differences in Power Levels can hurt the dynamic of the group.
D&D has always been a roll-playing game with role-playing on top. To say otherwise is to deny its quite simpler origins and outright lie to yourself. Heck, the game was heavily inspired by wargaming tabletop games.
I'm taking from your response that you think I may be making too much of an issue of this, which very well might be the case.
No, that's not my intent at all. Certainly it's a serious enough issue for you to post here.
I'm literally, just laying out the options as I see them / Would do:
Talk to the DM.
Deal.
Walk.
Exposed Wires Wrote:
Etarnon Doesn't Get it.
Sure I do. Likely this DM doesn't like the new fangled 3.X rule that you only lose a single level on a replacement PC.
As others have posted back in the day, your PC died, it died.
If this DM runs a game with fast leveling, losing a single level means pretty much nothing in game, when a PC suicides, and goes nova on some evil bad guy, taking him / it out for the rest of the party to scoop up treasure that normally would have been a lot tougher if the party acted in reserve.
Thus that player is leveraging HP plus potions, plus aggressive combat stance for the good of the party, then says "Oh, Rue the fact that my guy died! Oh, DM let me replace him with a PC a single level lower." (Meanwhile they clean up the hoard.)
Since this is that DMs house rule, and it was known to the player prior, it's the DMs house rule...known.
If you want a game with no penalties for death, play Warcraft, or some other online game. They exist.
So do D&D Monty Haul games with no challenge.
Oh yeah, I get it.
Then he tells me im gonna start a level behind the groups average level rounded down, with just enough xp to be that level... in other words level 2 with 1,000 xp and 900 gold. then when xp was given after a couple encounters i got 600 total xp, while everyone else got over 3K pushing the average level of the group up, the guy who just joined the game was now level 3, me who had been coming to every game for 7 weeks was still level 2.
I quit the game.... way i saw it i lost over 16K xp and about 5K gold going from the higest level character to the lowest, becuase the GM diddnt like the idea of us trying to make a deal with a dragon, then changed the character death rules just in time to ruin my fun. the guy with mummy rot eventually died from it because the potion he drank only had a 20% chance to beat the curses DC.
Pen and Paper is different. You don't play every day (although, some people might). So, you could realistically lose more time because of the fact that you only play once a week or so. I'm not saying you shouldn't penalize a player for dying, although in some ways it might not be necessary. Lets take a Paladin for example. A group of orcs are trying to charge into a home. The Paladin stands in front of the door and shields the people inside long enough for the to escape, however, the Paladin dies while doing so. Should you really penalize someone for playing their character out? Even then, it's honestly not like players (at least some) go out of their way to get themselves killed. Reduced XP is, IMO, the best way. As an example, give them half the XP the group has gained. If that isn't "excessive" enough, make them 1 level lower, but put them half-way through said level. That way, they aren't that far behind.
Sometimes bringing in a new character is necessary anyways. Lets take my current campaign as an example. We are running a Gestalt game. Level 5. We have:
Half-Dragon Warlock/Cleric
Elf Ranger/Something (don't remember what he is)
Warforged Barbarian/Fighter (i think)
Whisper Gnome Knight/Fighter (spec'd for mounted combat)
The problem, we don't have a REAL Arcane and we lack a Rogue. So, I switched characters. The DM, to be generous, started me off at the same level, but with only 75% of the XP the group has gained (since I switched for the group)
If you're gonna penalize your players, don't penalize them with something that would anger you if you were playing.
I do know about how XP works, I DM quite a bit so I know that lower level characters get more XP per battle than higher level characters, but I also know that making up 22,000 of xp will be a long, slow and gradual process and that the campaign might not go long enough for that to ever happen. Not to mention that my chances of dying against monsters with CRs geared toward the higher party levels is pretty good - which means I get to start out fresh at 2 levels below again.
I do know that at least two other players have a problem with the "two levels lower rule" but I haven't really discussed it with anyone because I'm not looking to make problems for this DM.
The idea that I should just deal with this is not needed. I am dealing with it and will continue to deal with it. I have not done anything to disrupt the game or to annoy/anger the DM. The campaign is running smoothly and at the table I am not a player that stirs up problems - I just figured I'd post here and check out the general opinion on this because I may talk with the DM about why he does this or show him this thread.
Superior types assuming that I'm challenged in the realm of role-play vs. roll play need to read more slowly or fully understand what's being said before spewing out their labels and arrogant judgements on others.
Orcho, the one sentence you've offered to this thread served really no purpose. I suppose it was an effort by you to belittle my dilemma while showing yourself as some superior role-player where as I must be some fool concerned only with dice and with the power of my character. I am regarded as one of the finer role-players among our gaming groups and a problem with one of my DM's rules doesn't change that - nor does it imply that I am more concerned with rolls than role. I suppose that you think that having a green ribbon under your name lends your words more weight than the rest of us... It doesn't, a stupid comment is still a stupid comment.
Let me clarify a few things. In this campaign new characters are not allowed to spend their starting money on magical items due to the low-magic content of the world. We can purchase potions or scrolls but that's it. To be honest that isn't a big deal to me since my new character is a sorcerer, but that would have been a major issue if I had been stuck with playing a fighter.
Are there any other relavant house rules or similar things that we should know about before giving advice? I have not been able to tap into my latent psychic powers in a while now, and so I'm gonna need these sort of things explained using words. Archaic I know, but thats what I have to work with.
In the case that you don't get to buy magic items, does this change your starting gold for instance?
That cuts you back in power some, and it does indeed suck.
As a sorcerer though, you should be ok powerwise, arcane spells are still arcane spells. And if no one else can do magic you have a pretty decent advantage. (unless there is a houserule limiting casting?)
Also as for your last post, a nicer tone might get you more helpful responses.
Thanks for the response Etarnon, I'll address a few of your points.
My beef is not over losing my 10th level bard. I was honestly quite ready to move on to another character as my bard was not cutting it as the party's primary arcane caster.
..
I don't level loss, I prefer Constitutional point loss for each death.
Of course, that means my character comes back.
I can see the point that the new character is lower level than the others effectively, or should I say, ineffectively contributing to the party.
That, of course, is perception. It's possible that the new, but lower level, character is going to make the difference in the up-n-coming adventure(s).
So, it's possible this is a good thing to be a lower level.
But, there's a flip side. You're comment about your bard just not cutting it and you wanted to move on.
As a DM, too, this may be a sore spot for the DM. There is so much time spent building adventures for the party. To have a player 'ditch' a character for a new one affects more than just a planned adventure. It affects the current party's dynamics.
Do the players get to 'ditch' their characters? Does this happen often? When someone dies, what happens to their equipment? What happens to treasure their character received AFTER the initial creation?
I can see the DM dropping the new character in levels because the party wealth didn't decrease upon the death of the character. There's the treasure split of the dead bodies.
Remember the difference between mostly dead and all dead.
I'm with Etarnon on this one: there's no particular way that you "should" feel and no particular action that you "should" take, your situation is just a matter of tolerance. Is this rule one of too many rules that you don't like? Is it balanced out by other good DMing traits? As a DM yourself and as one of several players who also don't like this rule, you may be able to persuade your DM to change it but then again you might just tick him off. I don't know the guy, so I can't say. The only real advice I can give you is: If you decide on trying to persuade your DM against this rule, be as calm and non-critical as possible. And if you decide to leave the game because of this rule, tell him why. Don't be rude about it, just say "Sorry dude, but I just can't play in a game with rules x, y and z." If you tell him why you left it might hurt his feelings but it might also make life better for the other players and for you if you ever play with the guy again.
TS
As a DM, too, this may be a sore spot for the DM. There is so much time spent building adventures for the party. To have a player 'ditch' a character for a new one affects more than just a planned adventure. It affects the current party's dynamics.
Do the players get to 'ditch' their characters? Does this happen often? When someone dies, what happens to their equipment? What happens to treasure their character received AFTER the initial creation?
Honestly, if PC continuity was a concern for this DM, he would allow there to be fairly easy access to Resurrection magics. It appears that the player in question, despite actually wanting to change characters, does not even have the option of bringing his Bard back to life.
there's no particular way that you "should" feel and no particular action that you "should" take, your situation is just a matter of tolerance. Is this rule one of too many rules that you don't like? Is it balanced out by other good DMing traits? As a DM yourself and as one of several players who also don't like this rule, you may be able to persuade your DM to change it but then again you might just tick him off. I don't know the guy, so I can't say. The only real advice I can give you is: If you decide on trying to persuade your DM against this rule, be as calm and non-critical as possible. And if you decide to leave the game because of this rule, tell him why. Don't be rude about it, just say "Sorry dude, but I just can't play in a game with rules x, y and z." If you tell him why you left it might hurt his feelings but it might also make life better for the other players and for you if you ever play with the guy again.
+1. Pretty much as if I would have written it myself, only you worded it better.
Yeah, I'm not coming down on Dag at all. It's just one of those "Is it a game breaker" type deal. For some people it would be, and that's not wrong. For me, it wouldn't be an issue...because i like gritty, hard core games. I run them myself.
If Dag posts tomorrow "I was tired of it, I left, or Yeah, I'm just gonna deal." either way, good for him.
I'd have issue with "DM needs a hammergun treatment."
Thanks for the responses, I'll just deal with the situation and not talk to the DM - it isn't all that big of a deal I suppose. If I do decide to mention it to him there would be no chance of rudeness or anything of that nature. I get along with him very well and he's a real good guy who runs a really great game that I would never think about quitting - I just dislike one of his rules.
You are making the simplest, yet the largest and most damaging of all mistakes you can make in playing D&D - failure to communicate. It doesn't matter much if you don't expect the DM to bend to your will, and you shouldn't since you agreed to play knowing this was what the DM's rule was, but DON'T REMAIN SILENT. There's no need to complain constantly and ceaselessly, but you MUST make the DM aware that this remans problem for you and IS affecting your enjoyment of the game (if it weren't a problem for you then you wouldn't have brought it up here either).
TALK TO THE DM. Don't assume he knows how you feel - TELL him. He doesn't have ESP you know. Make sure he knows. Tell him why it bothers you, or even tell him you can't figure out why it bothers you if that's the case. You don't need to demand or expect him to do anything, but he HAS to be made aware that something isn't working for someone so that he can at LEAST keep it under consideration for change whether he ever actually does change it or not. Ask him why he thinks this rule is NECESSARY.
Yes, the DM does have a certain obligation to explain his house rules to the players. Often, knowing WHY a rule is in place is more important than what the rule is - and in fact knowing the DM's motivation for this kind of rule might ELIMINATE your irritations and concerns over it.
COMMUNICATE DAMMIT.
I am not a fan of "low magic" and I am not a fan of death being such a huge penalty, either. The problem with this penalty is that the new guys are MUCH more likely to die AGAIN.
Oh, and do talk to him. You have no idea of how many DM's think that their players looooove low magic.
Certainly, if the DM runs the encounters at the higher PC's level, and doesn't distribute attacks and damage to favor the lower level PCs that could be the case.
But since all encounters, who attacks whom, and even to the point of damage rolls (for those with a screen) are up to the DM, It could easily be the case that the new PC replacements could outlast the "Elder" party members. Again, depending on the specific DM.
And I don't think most DMs think their players love low magic. I think a lot of the DMs that use low magic levels in their campaigns don't want to run Monty Haul, and have players with golf bags full of swords. Or they are looking for quasi-historical, or setting specific magic rarity.
It's not necessarily true that a preplacement PC is as likely to die again.
Certainly, if the DM runs the encounters at the higher PC's level, and doesn't distribute attacks and damage to favor the lower level PCs that could be the case.
But since all encounters, who attacks whom, and even to the point of damage rolls (for those with a screen) are up to the DM, It could easily be the case that the new PC replacements could outlast the "Elder" party members. Again, depending on the specific DM.
If I ever get the feeling that enemies are ignoring easy targets or are not fighting to their fullest against certain characters, it ruins some of the immersion. I imagine this is done to a degree by all DMs but whenever I see a really intelligent villain refrain from killing an unconscious player when he has the chance, I almost scoff out loud. Likewise, when I see a caster make a dumb move that puts him in the position to get hit half a dozen times and he miraculously only goes to -5, I get reminded that I'm sitting at a table in my buddy's kitchen.
I did change some tactics up, luckily I decided to find how Bull Rush worked, and started dumping heavily armored people off the side of the walkways into the pits of lava surrounding us. Took some AOOs, but was worth it to do something in that combat situation.
The current campaign is being watched a little closer (especially that player - the broken rules weren't intended, he's just a really poor record keeper). The DM is also allowing missing PCs not to get too far behind in xp to keep things more level. Noone has died yet since the campaign started, so that hasn't been an issue yet.
With that said, all this false counterpointing involving 'roleplaying'? Go play a level 1 commoner when your buddies are high level PC classes. No? Oops, guess you care about the mechanics of being weakened and left far behind after all.
It may seem as if my first paragraph counters my second, but it only worked for me because the only other full caster is a new player, and I'm really good at getting things to work. Fairly outlying circumstances.
Edit to the above: How are you that high a level, and doing that low a damage? '18-20 if you roll well', and you're 'doing the best of them because they can't crack it'. Um, I don't think the problem is Mr. Poor Record Keeper there. At least not the primary problem.
Edit to the above: How are you that high a level, and doing that low a damage? '18-20 if you roll well', and you're 'doing the best of them because they can't crack it'. Um, I don't think the problem is Mr. Poor Record Keeper there. At least not the primary problem.
Well, how much damage do you think a Rogue who attacks something immune to Sneak Attack(And criticals) is going to do per swing? The Rogue could (when Sneak Attack is usable) top out in the 40-56 points per swing range, but without it, 20 points was about the upper limit. I'm not sure what Uber-Gaming you're doing when the Rogue does much more than that.
The Bard was tricked out to do Whirlwind. Lots of damage when applied to many targets, but its a little here and a little there. DR 15 stopped most of it.
Two of the other three were casters. The Samurai was known for doing less than par damage. Had it not been for the Storyline, he would have swapped characters.
The poor record keeper, we found out, had bonuses applied to items he replaced so some of his stats were buffed beyond what they should have been. So his uberness should have been lower, which would have dropped the DR of the opposition and made the rest of us more effective.
Well, how much damage do you think a Rogue who attacks something immune to Sneak Attack(And criticals) is going to do per swing? The Rogue could (when Sneak Attack is usable) top out in the 40-56 points per swing range, but without it, 20 points was about the upper limit. I'm not sure what Uber-Gaming you're doing when the Rogue does much more than that.
The Bard was tricked out to do Whirlwind. Lots of damage when applied to many targets, but its a little here and a little there. DR 15 stopped most of it.
Two of the other three were casters. The Samurai was known for doing less than par damage. Had it not been for the Storyline, he would have swapped characters.
The poor record keeper, we found out, had bonuses applied to items he replaced so some of his stats were buffed beyond what they should have been. So his uberness should have been lower, which would have dropped the DR of the opposition and made the rest of us more effective.
Rogue. Good point. I thought you were a Barbarian or something. Get around the sneak attack immunity?
Whirlwind attack is pretty crappy, especially at high levels by the way.
Even without that DR 15/-, you'd still see a lot of DR 10/something and DR 15 somethings. This is the same reason why TWFers sans bonus damage fail miserably.
It's not necessarily true that a preplacement PC is as likely to die again.
Certainly, if the DM runs the encounters at the higher PC's level, and doesn't distribute attacks and damage to favor the lower level PCs that could be the case.
And I don't think most DMs think their players love low magic. I think a lot of the DMs that use low magic levels in their campaigns don't want to run Monty Haul, and have players with golf bags full of swords. Or they are looking for quasi-historical, or setting specific magic rarity.
They have 20% less HD, and lower saves (and likely lower AC also). So, yes, unless the DM metagames like crazy, they will die faster.
I have a 9th level PC, who has slightly less than 9th level wealth (which is fine as the rest of the party is 7>8th). I have one magic sword (+1), and two MW weapons- one iron, one silver. He is a Warblade, even.
I have a 16th level PC, and he has two magic swords (they are rather nice, being around +2 or +3). We have above average wealth for that level.
No golf bags.
If you play the game as per the guidelines, you do not end up with huge gamebreaking wealth until very high levels. Of course, at those levels, once the PC's can toss Wish around, the entire game changes.
The decision is not: if I do not have Low Magic we have Monty Haul. Using the guidelines in the DMG brings in acceptable levels without being Monty Haul- and I know Monty Haul, having played 1st ED with a super-Monty Haul DM, where we DID have golf bags of swords.
Quasi-Historical? Once you have spellcasters doing Fireball, "historical" is right out. Sure, you can do Iron Heroes (and I am playing in an IH game, it's fine, and it is DESIGNED for Low Magic. It works very well. We do have a few healing potions......)
Or some can say "I want limited magic like LotR". Sure, but there the PC's just had all their "wealth" concentrated into a few items- the single most powerful Greater Artifact in the world, the 3rd most powerful Greater Artifact in the world, 3 artifact/relic level weapons, one relic level suit of armour, a Wizards staff........:P
If you stick roughly to the wealth guidelines in the DMG, you are fine. If you want slightly less magic, then tone the stuff down one level, and give the PC's slightly higher stats. Eh.
They have 20% less HD, and lower saves (and likely lower AC also). So, yes, unless the DM metagames like crazy, they will die faster.
I have a 9th level PC, who has slightly less than 9th level wealth (which is fine as the rest of the party is 7>8th). I have one magic sword (+1), and two MW weapons- one iron, one silver. He is a Warblade, even.
I have a 16th level PC, and he has two magic swords (they are rather nice, being around +2 or +3). We have above average wealth for that level.
No golf bags.
I just find it funny, that in a game I recently played in that We started at 14th level, and I did pull a Warblade with 4 greatswords strapped to his back somehow to beat any possible DR we could face.
DanialWolfDen: I'll e-mail my DM a link to this thread. He doesn't post here or read anything here as far as I know, but I'm sure he'll give it a read and maybe he'll go through the process of getting himself signed on so he can add to the discussion.
I just find it funny, that in a game I recently played in that We started at 14th level, and I did pull a Warblade with 4 greatswords strapped to his back somehow to beat any possible DR we could face.
How many were magic? My Warblade has 3 weapons for the same reason, but only one is magic.
theres a +1 enchantment you can get that treats your weapon as any material when it comes to damage reduction... i just get that on a backup weapon.
Holy crap that's insane. Who needs shadow striking?
Holy crap that's insane. Who needs shadow striking?
Just materials- silver, cold iron, adamantium. Not: Good, Evil, ect