Making magical bling

[Hicks]

Elennsar, you are advocating a position you can't support. And furthermore you are being deliberitly obtuse about the nature of "options" vs. "bonuses". And lets not forget: the wizard has all the options of the "fighter", and adds all his options on top of all that:

• There is no ammount of whup-ass a "fighter" can pull out of his ass to ever get past a 17th level wizard in a prismatic sphere
  
  There is no ammount of whup-ass a "fighter" can pull out of his ass to ever stop a 15th level wizard's telekintetic sphere
  
  There is no ammount of whup-ass a "fighter" can pull out of his ass to ever find a 13th level wizard's magnificent mansion. to say nothing about getting out of an enclosed force cage and yet another cas after he expends his cloak of the montebank.
  
  There is no ammount of whup-ass a "fighter" can pull out of his ass to ever survive 2 castings a 11th level wizard's acid fog, to say nothing of the fact that without an 11th level wizird, there is no way for a "fighter" to enter the wish economy.
  
  There is no ammount of whup-ass a "fighter" can pull out of his ass to ever survive a single casting a 9th level wizard's telekinesis, tossing around 9 ranged touch attacks woth of colossal acid/alchemist fire flasks currently under the effect of greater magic weapon, and shrink item.
  
  There is no ammount of whup-ass a "fighter" can pull out of his ass to stop a 7th level wizard with 2 prepared solid fog spells and a wand of fireball.
  
  There is no ammount of whup-ass a "fighter" can pull out of his ass to stop a 5th level wizard from casting web followed by stinking cloud .
  
  There is no ammount of whup-ass a "fighter" can pull out of his ass to stop a 3ed level wizard from casting command undead on the first Zombie Ogre he sees and then casting invisibility.
  
  There is no ammount of whup-ass a "fighter" can pull out of his ass to not fail his will save against a 1st level wizard's sleep, cast from the other side of an opaque silent image.

The "figthter" has 3 options:

1. Charge up to it and stab it in the face
2. Stay put and shoot an arrow at it
3. Run the fvck away

If a fighter is prevented from doing any of those 3 things, he just fvckin' dies. Against monsters with "options", he just fvckin' dies. Against monsters with bonuses, he just fvckin' dies. There is no ammount of whup-ass a "fighter" can pull out of his ass, he just fvckin' dies.

[Talisman]

Can we keep the fighter-vs-wizard shit out of here please?

This thread is deliberately system-neutral. I'm looking at D&D as well as Savage Worlds and a couple of others. Fighter-vs-wizard has nothing to do with the topic.

[Elennsar]

Hicks: If a fighter is a guy who can do archery really well, and there isn't a magical equivalant, the fighter is able to do the "attack from a distance" thing well enough that the wizard doesn't compete with him here.

As for options vs. bonuses: My position in regards to the classes is this.

There is nothing at all wrong with "if you aren't a weather mage, you can't call the wind."

There is a lot wrong with "if you're not a wizard, you can't use any effective area of effect powers or survive them."

So, the fighter should be able to do some things really well, some things decently, and some things poorly. Wizards should have a different list. Not a longer list. Having one class only able to do melee and unable to succeed on a roll for anything else is as stupid as having any (or all) classes being able to do anything you can imagine a character ever using.

As for magic items: Talisman, I'm standing by "need special stuff and skills". Its not perfect, but it at least means that only people who put a lot of effort into it get them.

Or are friends with/allies with/able to trade with those who are so interested.

[PhoneLobster]

I never stated that "additional special benefits (had) nothing to do with what (I) want." I stated that I did not want D&D's "you are your gear" paradigm, where a magical swordsman AUTOMATICALLY beats a nonmagical swordsman. I also stated that I did not like or what flat plusses to attack and damage (i.e., +1 weapons).

My use of the Mudane Swordsman vs the +1 Swordsman was a logical device known as an example. I did not mean a literal +1 bonus, but I didn't feel like typing out "a minor but significant benefit, such as an unbreakable sword or a sword that's on fire, that can only be achieved through magic." Silly me.

Well that right there is clearly part of why you are having a communication problem, in two paragraphs you go from stating you always didn't want +1s to saying you said you wanted +1s but just didn't mean, you know, +1s.

But really you used +1 as short hand for +"stacking abilities" like +"on fire" because it really is very similar and really is a bit of a +1. And we know how and where that is a problem.

AND that was in fact an example I produced that you dismissed as being all 3.5 and not anything to do with what you want before declaring it to be exactly what you want.

And really I don't see what crafting scenario is going to help you there. If magic items are just better then everyone wants them. Then you are either cruelly starving them or creating a glut. There really aren't many choices in that scenario.

But until it you actually resolve exactly what the hell you think magic items really should be doing you have no place dismissing it with contradictory hand waves and trying to figure out their availability.

Hell right now you seem to have the stated goals...

Magic items should be strictly better and super glamorous.

Magic items should only be better by tiny margins like +1 swords or no rust stainless fucking steel.

Magic item availability should probably be a complex scheme to limit availability and kick players in the shins while running away giggling.

I don't see that adding up in a good way.

I don't see that adding up at all.

[Elennsar]

Limiting magic item availability does not necessarily kick anyone in the shins. It only does if you need magic items to survive.

As for the wizard vs. fighter issue? At least on my end, count it as dropped.

In my opinion, what you need is to figure out how much of an advantage over standard equipment magic items are, and make it about that difficult and maybe a little more to obtain them.

Exactly what method is not quite so important. But if they're a big advantage, they ought to be about as affordable as any other big advantage.

[Hicks]

"fighter" de-railment is dropped.

[Bigode]

Not really. If you MUST fill all your equipment slots with magic equipment then crafting goals are clearly different. You aren't about limiting availability (which most of the examples in the original are) You are about making damn sure everyone fills all their slots almost all the time.

Sure, but you aren't going to talk about that crap is made?

Are you new to the idea that being able to do something that no one else can do does not automatically translate into "able to beat things no one else can beat"?

I'm too. Because it does.

[Manxome]

I think that first, you should decide how you want to measure character power, and along how many axes.

If you want to know how powerful someone is just by looking at their character level, then any equipment that meaningfully changes your power must be a feature that you picked up as part of a level somewhere. You can't get better by finding or crafting a new item, unless you gain a level in the process. And every advantage you gain from your magical equipment costs character resources (though possibly those resources can only be spent on items, if you want everyone getting about the same fraction of their power from items).

There are lots of possible mechanics for that. Magic item class features (e.g. ancestral weapon), wealth-by-level (if strictly enforced somehow), spending feats to "attune" yourself to items, putting limits on the number of items you can benefit from that are vastly lower than the number of items you can easily obtain, etc.


On the other hand, if you want a system where you can just pull a sword out of a stone or craft a magic cloak in your downtime and have that be an actual combat advantage (without it being a plot device or DM fiat), then you have wealth = power. It does not matter, fundamentally, whether that's a one-of-a-kind artifact or you can go down to the Magic Mart, dump a pile of coin, and walk out with a dozen of them--the important point is that your material possessions are now a measure of character power that has nothing in particular to do with your level. Your "wealth" may be measured in wands or artifact-swords rather than gold pieces, but you still have wealth = power.


You can have any two, but not all three, of the following:

• Your magic sword is meaningfully better than a non-magic sword.
• You can get a magic sword without paying limited character resources to do so.
• Level is an accurate measure of power.

If you need a mechanical reason why a fighter who spent his points on brute strength can't loot and use the magical sword of his slain opponent, there's no shortage of options:

• He doesn't know how to tap the magical power (though he can learn when he next gains a level, if he wants)
• Magic items drain power from their wielder, which is represented game-mechanically as giving up character power (e.g. a feat) for as long as you want to use them
• Magic items need to be crafted for a specific person (or maybe a small group, like a bloodline) and don't work for anyone else
• Magic items don't work if taken by force; only if they're voluntarily given away (which involves transferring a level from the giver to the recipient)
• Powerful magic items are super-rare and only show up as quest rewards; completing the quest causes you to gain a level and requires you to spend some of your new character resources on the item.

[Talisman]

Okay, I'm now ignoring PL since he's resorted to assigning opinions to me.

Hicks and Elennsar: Thank you.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

My preference:

Magic items:
-Obtained through completing quests.
--(relatively rare)
-No ability to directly increase your killing power.
-Nothing adds a plus # bonus.
-Pc's don't create them.
--(Npc's might not be able to create them either, they could be eternal charms, like god-made artifacts)

Some examples of good magic items: A magic fortress, a charm which controls a flock of intelligent and supernaturally fast messenger birds, a decapitated head that 1/day answers any question, etc.

The key is that your badass nature is defined by what you personally do (your class). You are not a badass because you happen to hold an artifact sword.

This doesn't mean that Pc's can't have awesome people-killing nice things. This just means those nice things are inherent in the classes themselves. There is no need to create a needlessly complicated system in order to have awesome abilities. The Magma Adept immolates people with his attacks because of who he is, not because his sword is magic. The Constructor has golems because that is the power of his class. There are no costs, these are not "magic items".

[baduin]

"You can have any two, but not all three, of the following:

* Your magic sword is meaningfully better than a non-magic sword.
* You can get a magic sword without paying limited character resources to do so.
* Level is an accurate measure of power."

You can get all of those, and quite easily. Simply make the level a prerequisite for using items of given power (A bit like 4e, but from the other side). So, to use +5 sword you must be 15 level. To use cape of mountebank you must be X level. Of course, there is a limited number of items you can carry with you.

After you do that the actual way a given character gets his bonuses is a matter of taste. One character - in the same game - can get an artifact sword which is always level-appropriate (using Tome rules, eg), and the other must beg and scrape every gold piece to enchant his sword, and the third finds ever better swords dropped by killed hell-wasp swarms or whatever. The fourth gets his bonuses without any items at all.

In the end, they are equally powerful.

Also, it would be a good idea to have all character get an equal amount of "spell-points", "spell-slots", fatigue or whatever. The wizard would use them to power his spells, and the fighter to activate his items (not standard plusses, but the things like cape of mountebank etc). This gets rid of the "once per day" items.

Provided that 10 level items are as powerful as 10 level spells, both classes will be able to do the same thing, but in a different way.

[Manxome]

You can get all of those, and quite easily.

OK, technicality. First one should read "...meaningfully better than the weapons other people of your level use."

The details of your articulated plan don't actually work out, though. You'd need a floor on item power as well as a ceiling, and getting a bonus without an item is better than getting a bonus from an item if your total number of items is limited (or if there's any way to be disarmed of your items that's worth worrying about).

[Talisman]

"You can have any two, but not all three, of the following:

* Your magic sword is meaningfully better than a non-magic sword.
* You can get a magic sword without paying limited character resources to do so.
* Level is an accurate measure of power."

Hmm...

What about this (keeping in mind, this is setting neutral):

Significant magic items (ignoring potions) offer only a modest benefit. HOWEVER, if the wielder spends a feat / ka points / whatever on "item bond," he unlocks sweeter abilities of the weapon.

So, you and I might use identical flaming swords, and each have a chance to set people on fire. I spend a feat on Item Bond and can now blind people and shoot bolts of fire. You can't do that, but you spend a feat on Improved Chop-Your-Head-Off.

I'm probably more powerful against cold creatures, but you're better against fire creatures. Against everything else it's a toss-up...I have (slightly) more options, while you have (slightly) more raw power.

Edit: Sphere, your opinion is noted and I don't necessarily disagree, but I am looking for a system in which PCs can make magic bling...although the vast majority of awesome should always come from who you are, not what you own.

Edit2: Damn spelling.

[baduin]

The details of your articulated plan don't actually work out, though. You'd need a floor on item power as well as a ceiling, and getting a bonus without an item is better than getting a bonus from an item if your total number of items is limited (or if there's any way to be disarmed of your items that's worth worrying about).

Obviously, everything must be well designed to work. The class/character with inherent bonuses must limit the amount of magical items he can use (so, if you have inherent bonuses equal to 4 items, you can use only 4 items; if you have 6 bonuses, you can use 2 items).

For a class/character which needs to gather gold to have level-adequate bonuses to work, there must be enough gold in the game. Of course, it cannot work in the D&D style where your characters must spend 90% of the gold it ever sees on permanent equipment. If you CAN spend at most 20% of gold on your equipment (because there is a limited number of items you can use at the same time, and the power of items is limited by your level), you will have enough gold to buy necessary equipment, backups and replacements. More powerful items will cost more, but the gold won't be the limiting factor from the mechanical point of view; it won't be scarce. It will be something mostly for roleplaying.

If the item-dependent characters (which can - only rarely - get disarmed) are to work alongside item independent characters, they must get some minor bonuses to balance it. You can look up Mutants&Masterminds, it has a lot of rules for such things. Eg - you get an action point when suffering a complication.

Some other ideas (not from M&M): - unarmed character can get poisoned or infected by the things he touches. Or - the unarmed character must spend a feat, a weapon dependent character can spend it instead to have a guardian spirit who offers him advice and alerts him to danger, or something of the kind (certainly not on feats giving him numerical stacking bonuses).

In general, some characters can work a bit better in some circumstances and other a bit worse - but only if such circumstances are only occasional, and the benefitting characters change. From time to time (but only very rarely) a character can suffer some real disadvantage (killed, disarmed, weapon destroyed, etc). Every game is more interesting if you can lose.

[PhoneLobster]

Okay, I'm now ignoring PL since he's resorted to assigning opinions to me.

Really?

Hell right now you seem to have the stated goals...

Magic items should be strictly better and super glamorous.

Wow, your players are a lot easier to please than mine. Magic needs to feel special, and if the only difference is that your sword is blue while mine is plain ol' silver, it becomes utterly pointless. Why the hell would you climb the Mountains of Nevermore, fight the Gargoyle King, seduce the Muse of the Twelve Winds and steal the Claw of the Silver King to forge a damn sword that's objectively no better than the one you can buy for ten gold from Honest Bob's Sword-Mart?

Magic items should only be better by tiny margins like +1 swords or no rust stainless fucking steel.

Consider a fight between two equally-skilled swordsmen. One has a +1 bonus from magic; the other does not. This looks like a pretty even match, but the magical swordsman has a slight edge - not enough for a sure win, but over the course of 260 individual encounters, enough to notice. Importantly, though, the nonmagical swordsman is still useful and valuable; he doesn't have to buy up his gear just to stay competitive. Sure, a magic sword is great - it gives him more options and slightly more power - but he's not Joe the Lead Weight without it.

That's the level I'm looking for...

... I did not mean a literal +1 bonus, but I didn't feel like typing out "a minor but significant benefit, such as an unbreakable sword

Magic item availability should probably be a complex scheme to limit availability and kick players in the shins while running away giggling.

Lets just say your entire original post.


So in conclusion, fuck you for being a dishonest idiot who can't have a conversation because he doesn't even seem to keep track of what he is saying himself.

[Elennsar]

Well, the problem is, if having a magic sword is basically just trading power that you could get from feats (or whatever) into power from the sword...

Why would you bother getting a magic sword as a rule?

Personally, I'm for magic weapons generally being a modest boost to character power, but not having character power set up so that all characters are identically powerful at equal points but different situations.

Being wealthy should not limit your ability to personally kick ass, nor should having a magic sword that you want to use well enough that it matters if your sword is magical or not.

Otherwise, I'm fine with the "item bond" idea. I just mind the idea of it coming from the same pool as "Improved Chop-Your-Head-Off.", because that basically means that you can't be both a master swordsman and have an impressive sword with spending lots of points.

Mind, as a low magic kind of guy, I'd say that the magic sword might well be the "base" level and that's it (and I'd be fine with that). But that's not setting general, so let's not get into a discussion on that.

[Draco_Argentum]

The whole magic vs non-magic thing is a load of shit.

Lets imagine we're playing Space Marine! the epic game of Battle Brotherly Action! What stops my techmarine character from just making flamers and storm bolters for everyone? Non-magical PC created gear can get just as interesting.

If crafted kit is better then the PCs craft it and are better. This is only a problem if you expect the PCs to care about items they loot. Theres a solution, just assume the PCs will craft the best gear they can and balance around that.

[Elennsar]

The fact that makes characters more powerful (even if balanced next to each other) than desired?

As for non-magic: Storm bolters are technology that might as well be magic at this point.

[JonSetanta]

although the vast majority of awesome should always come from who you are, not what you own.

Good for RPGs, bad for MMOs.

4e = MMO on paper, and as direct result must be item-favored.

For D&D in general though I suspect nothing more than overwhelming greed drove the desire, creation, and hording of Yet More Magical Items stretching back to the dawn of 1e (I have a copy open right now. Bless "Xom's Champion" on /tg/)
Have cool shit is what differentiates the naked, slobbering, hairy monsters of RPGs from the otherwise defenseless yet with opposable thumb humanoid PCs.

On the other hand, while not a materialistic person personally, it is nice to have that interchangeable powers shared among your party.
Put a spell on an item and pass it around the party, and you effectively have a floating class role that can be exchanged even mid-battle with a single action (to pass item).
It does go too far in its current incarnation though.


In comparison games such as Exalted and Anima have it better than 3e as far as inborn or trained powers far better than anything items can grant.
I'm not sure if I like that; something seems lacking.
There is a middle ground but I don't know how to go about that.

[Ice9]

The problem is that if having magic items is not ultimately an advantage, there's no reason to go looting through deadly ruins to find them. Now maybe those kind of plots aren't a part of your personal campaign, but with some of the systems proposed they pretty much chop that option off at the roots.

Besides, honestly - should a character who doesn't use items be just as powerful? That's a question that depends on the setting. I'll tell you one thing - in a future setting like Shadowrun, I wouldn't expect a luddite who refuses to use anything post-medieval to be on even footing with a fully-equipped agent - and in fact, I would find it pretty damn stupid if they were. In a setting where magic is prevalent, refusing to use magic items seems about as smart as being that luddite.

And while removing the gold -> magic items link may be an essential step to a more solid system, it needs to be replaced with something. Gold should be exciting, and once you pass a certain point, not everyone will find drinking even more expensive wine and throwing even bigger parties to be exciting. Hirelings, bribes, utility items that don't add to raw power, information networks - gold has a lot of purposes that need to be emphasized when the direct link to magic power is removed.

[Draco_Argentum]

The fact that makes characters more powerful (even if balanced next to each other) than desired?

Thats why I said to balance around the PCs having top of the line gear. Its a workable idea in Space Marine! where you really are the most elite and best equipped people around. Obviously its a crap idea for a survival horror game.

[Elennsar]

The problem is that it means that there's no advantageous gear.

Personally, one thing that came to mind while musing...

Give each character a pool of Specialness points.

Specialness points are basically there for a variety of "better than the norm" stuff. If you want a magic sword and to be able to put up with the sun without difficulty and to be immune (or close enough) to fear and to be really lucky, you probably will run out of specialness points.

Average typical people do not get any. People who discuss things like this have a couple. People who do RL's form of Dangerous Journeys probably have s everal.

PCs are among (but by no means whatsoever) the people with these. So if you want a magic sword, since if magic swords are rare and advantageous going to be special, its going to limit the number of other special things you can "buy" as part of "I'm able to do special things because while 90% of the population isn't varying significantly from each other, I'm in the 10% that varies from that."

That doesn't address how you make magic swords in the first place, but it means that you don't have the situation which annoyed me that you have to spend the "become a better swordsman" resource on "have a better sword" while keeping "I have a better sword" costing some kind of "you have an advantage, we need to keep you from having too many advantages or you're too powerful".

Its imperfect, but its something.

As for gold should be exciting: Um, why? Sure, gold needs to have uses worth the trouble if you seek it out, but seeking out wealth as "all characters should do this" is a bit crazy.

Personally, the ideal system would not force you to seek power or suck. Sure, powerful people have an advantage, but you could do just fine staying level 6 all your life (though don't go giant hunting if you want to do this and live).

Seperate discussion, however.

[baduin]

The problem is that if having magic items is not ultimately an advantage, there's no reason to go looting through deadly ruins to find them. Now maybe those kind of plots aren't a part of your personal campaign, but with some of the systems proposed they pretty much chop that option off at the roots.

Besides, honestly - should a character who doesn't use items be just as powerful? That's a question that depends on the setting. I'll tell you one thing - in a future setting like Shadowrun, I wouldn't expect a luddite who refuses to use anything post-medieval to be on even footing with a fully-equipped agent - and in fact, I would find it pretty damn stupid if they were. In a setting where magic is prevalent, refusing to use magic items seems about as smart as being that luddite.

In my system YOU can chose. IE - some classes/characters depend on loot and MUST kill things for it. If they do not they will fall behind and will be underpowered. But since the maximum power of items is limited by levels they can never become overpowered.

But - what will happen if they do not find enough loot? The answer is simple - DM must put enough of it into the world; it is the task of players to find it. If they cannot- that's their problem.

On the other hand, if DM and players do not want to grub for loot the solution is simple- DM allows them to find an artifact sword or other item with the power depending on level and the problem is solved. Or they take some special feats (DM's approval necessary) and can live without loot.

And no matter which option you chose, you can use the exact same adventures.

Since people want different things, the best solution is to have robust systems, which will allow different options.

[Username17]

Really what I would want is a system like unto the Bat Cave or James Bond. Batman doesn't carry around his mining laser because it's heavy and he doesn't want to do it. Not because he is in any meaningful way limited in the number of mining lasers and communication satellites that he can own but because those things are bulky and take up space that could be used for batarangs and grapnels.

The fact is that most systems based on limited ownership are failures. The Runequest style soul-burning system just encourages you to retire characters and leave your swag to the team. Frankly arbitrary production limits of any kind encourage characters to max out their limits and retire, which is fucked.

The thing is that if the limits on how many spy gadgets you can possibly own is in any way meaningful, then people are going to loot every super spy gizmo from every enemy they ever fight - and then you can't fight mirror matches against hostile adventuring parties without getting straight swag doublage, which is bad if you care about that. Usage limits are much better than ownership limits. The limitation on Wizards preparing spells is meaningful and the limitation on Wizards knowing spells is not.

-Username17

[Gelare]

HERO has a system where if you're a superhero and you want to have a new toy - say, a gun with which to shoot folks in the face or a radar device to see through walls with - you have to pay for it with the same character points you have to use to generate the rest of your character, because some other superhero is spending those points to buy energy rays they can shoot from their hands and bat-like echolocation. That sounds somewhat like the "specialness" that Elennsar was describing. I also think that Frank's idea with gearing up in the Batcave, presumably at the start of an adventure or at some other important point, is a good one - possibly better, possibly worse, I'm not sure, if the Wizard can just Teleport there on command.