Making magical bling

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:33 am

Sadly, the wish economy breaks down here, because it is inherently based around magic stuff and we're trying to get away from always needing magic anyway.

But i see no good way of preserving access to weapons without letting you buy them, except maybe getting the ability to locate a master smith who is willing to make you a level-appropriate sword as a class feature.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:38 am

I'm assuming (don't know about anyone else) that you never need a new weapon just to become level appropriate.

The axe you used at level 1 is fine at level 10.

Or however the game handles "the begining" vs. "mid-high power level".

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:52 am

The wish economy actually has nothing to do with magic vs. mundane - it has to do with the repetitive piling of worthless crap not converting into character power. I.e. with our RPGs not being MMO.

zeruslord · Post by **zeruslord** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:56 am

On this board, Wish Economy refers to the highest of the three economic tiers laid out in the Economicon and the Tome of Fiends. Basically, the wish loopholes are fixed; although they still allow you to have infinite +2 swords, a +3 sword cannot be bought with gold or any number of +2 swords. It takes some kind of upper level currency that is not exchangeable for gold, although prices are still given in gp. What form this actually takes is unimportant for balance discussions as long as it is hard to get, can't be made with wish, and is sufficiently cool.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:04 am

Elennsar wrote:I'm assuming (don't know about anyone else) that you never need a new weapon just to become level appropriate.

The axe you used at level 1 is fine at level 10.

Or however the game handles "the beginning" vs. "mid-high power level".

But you do. Monster stats are calculated on the assumption that you have a more awesome axe at level 10 than level 1.

Otherwise, getting a more awesome axe makes you stop being level appropriate

It doesn't matter how it is more awesome as long as it gives a bonus, it makes you no longer in line with someone who doesn't have as awesome an axe. There is only a clean way to compensate for that if it actually pushes you up enough by itself to make you level appropriate for the next level, and even then you'll probably have some weaker stats and some stronger stats than you should.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:07 am

So you can never do better than "normal".

That's somewhere between totally fucked up and boring as hell.

Besides, wasn't this for games (or including games) that may or may not involve levels and monster sbeing set up like in D&D?

If all level X characters must be equal in power in all ways, then you might as well have a +X bonus per level, where X is equal to anything you like, and that applies to every roll you make.

Simple but boring.

Hell, you can't even get something like say, a horse that would make you move faster than if you were on foot if you carry this far enough.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:12 am

name_here wrote:But you do. Monster stats are calculated on the assumption that you have a more awesome axe at level 10 than level 1.

Otherwise, getting a more awesome axe makes you stop being level appropriate

It doesn't matter how it is more awesome as long as it gives a bonus, it makes you no longer in line with someone who doesn't have as awesome an axe. There is only a clean way to compensate for that if it actually pushes you up enough by itself to make you level appropriate for the next level, and even then you'll probably have some weaker stats and some stronger stats than you should.

Mostly true, but people have been discussing an alternative right here: making it more magical's an alternative that'll make it worse at something else.

zeruslord · Post by **zeruslord** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:20 am

Elennsar wrote:If all level X characters must be equal in power in all ways, then you might as well have a +X bonus per level, where X is equal to anything you like, and that applies to every roll you make.

If you look at TNE, that was the decision that was reached. The differences come in interesting abilities, not raw numbers, because raw numbers are boring as purgatory. The fact that my fighter can trip giants and my friend's rogue can climb onto dragons and 'hamstring' their wings is really cool, but my fighter getting +9000 bonus damage against ogres and the rogue getting +1,000,000 attack against dragons is just numbers, which don't let me make any more decisions.

@ Bigode: my sources inform me that name_here is discussing net awesomeness of the axe, whatever the source. If characters' power before items is equal, all item loadouts must be equal.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:26 am

However, it does mean that you do better vs. ogres than otherwise.

I'm all for abilities as cooler than numbers and granted whenever possible, but eliminating numbers isn't appealing.

Even if we both slay ogres equally well, I'd like to have something I do better than you do, so that when we need someone to do (something), you ask me to do it, or you ask you do it if its your area.

What's the point of being a medic if there's no benefit I can provide that your sniper can't?

In fact, what's the purpose of having either?

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:31 am

Elennsar wrote:However, it does mean that you do better vs. ogres than otherwise.

I'm all for abilities as cooler than numbers and granted whenever possible, but eliminating numbers isn't appealing.

Even if we both slay ogres equally well, I'd like to have something I do better than you do, so that when we need someone to do (something), you ask me to do it, or you ask you do it if its your area.

What's the point of being a medic if there's no benefit I can provide that your sniper can't?

In fact, what's the purpose of having either?

The non-numeric ability list, perhaps? Though I find the claim of TNE having dropped numerical variation entirely hilarious.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:38 am

That still means I have to be able to do "medic stuff" better than you can, even if we both have the same bonus to First Aid.

And you have to do sniper stuff better than I can.

Whether that's better represented by you being able to stop bleeding and me being able to stop bleeding, cure poison, and speed fatigue recovery as opposed to a higher bonus is another story, but I do need to be able to do it better.

zeruslord · Post by **zeruslord** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:55 am

I don't like having a medic role, because then you get the whole healbot issue and everybody complains. The discussion applies more to offensive abilities. In particular, the highest non-situational attack bonus of all characters needs to be equal, as long as all defenses scale in a uniform manner.

bigode: it wasn't totally gone, but it did remove the magic christmas tree, weapon focus, and similar bonuses.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:59 am

Personally, I think that having a medic is fine as long as the medic gets to do stuff other than "Okay, I guess I apply a bandaid."

Just like the fighter needs "Okay, I guess I swing a sword." to be less than the only thing he does.

But that's a discussion of classes, not items.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:01 am

Splitting up the parts of your job that can be done by a voice-recognition program and an if statment with five if-else statments and a character name variable doesn't make them less boring.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:06 am

Well, if you think being a medic is always boring, then don't be a medic.

"If: Undead. Then: Use Undead Pulverizing Strike." is not necessarily cooler than "Then: Draw mace."

Anyway, can't we discuss this elsewhere?

The question on magic items, I think, is too much tied to what the magic element is doing.

It makes sense that a magic sword that does fire damage would have different requirements than one that allows a "parry roll".

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:10 am

Elennsar wrote:Anyway, can't we discuss this elsewhere?

Since you don't act like you care for balance, could you fvck off this forum instead?

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:12 am

I'm fine with balance. I'm not fine with "all options that you can pick are equal with all other options that you can pick".

As stated, I -could- pick up a sword and swing it with my offhand (hell, since I'm nonproficient, with either hand for purposes of this statement).

I'd suck at it.

Does that mean that PCs should not have an off hand? No.

You could tap dance towards your opponents, assuming you knew how to tap dance, but that doesn't mean its a good idea.

Etc, etc.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:18 am

Do you have any ability to discern between building and playing? All characters should be equal - which idiocy the player does while playing isn't my problem.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am

Do you have any ability to recognize that some races may be designed so that they have fewer playable options or different playable options (with no one having "all classes") without making being a half elf or an orc or whatever "just plain suck"?

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:53 am

Elennsar, Bigode: Get this debate the hell off my thread. This is about making magical bling.

I've tried to be civil with almost everyone about this, but this thread is valuable to me and I won't see it bogged down in Iteration #568 of this same old debate.

In other news, I like the idea of tying drawbacks to major magic items...not potions and single-use crap, but anything that's permanent and scales with level (as 90% of the permanent items should).

And I agree 100% that managing numbers =/= fun. It's a necessary part of an RPG and it will never go away, but there you go. If one PC has bigger numbers than another, that should be because the player allocated their resources differently...maybe I got a giantslaying sword and you got a spear made of ice; maybe I put more ponts in Fightin' and you put more in Sneakin'. Stuff like that is fine because we have identical amounts of "wealth" to draw from; the only difference is player choice and build skill.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:57 am

In other news, I like the idea of tying drawbacks to major magic items...not potions and single-use crap, but anything that's permanent and scales with level (as 90% of the permanent items should).

Let's go for an example, because examples are cool.

I have a sword that allows me to strike ghosts as if they were solid.

What kind of drawback would I get?

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:05 am

Could be damn near anything. Without throwing out specific numbers, here are a few ideas:

You take X damage each time you hit a ghost, as the chill of the grave seeps into your flesh.
The howls of lost souls sound in your ears whenever you hold this blade, imposing a penalty on Perception-style checks.
Your flesh becomes pale and translucent when you hold the blade, as you are half in the ghost-world.
The ancestral spirit in the blade tries to force/persuade you to accomplish certain tasks.
The demon spirit in the blade tries to corrupt you to EVAL!

Stuff like that...and if the benefit improves with level (assuming a leveled game), the drawback should as well. Both should always be meaningful, but neither crippling nor overpowering.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:09 am

So my ghost hunting sword is probably slightly more advantageous than not (there is a reason I don't discard it other than "you can't"), but the disadvantage is serious enough that I might well be tempted to.

I think I'd go for a sword with one of those disadvantages. At least in theory (The "corrupt you towards EVAL" I might just avoid), but you know what I mean.

Remind me to check for the next spot in any game you DM that I can access. : )

Would you use "cursed" magic items at all, as in items that are say, "You find that you have -4 to hit with this sword."?

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:58 am

Elennsar wrote:So my ghost hunting sword is probably slightly more advantageous than not (there is a reason I don't discard it other than "you can't"), but the disadvantage is serious enough that I might well be tempted to.

That's what I'm looking for. It increases your options, but there's a non-crippling price.

Remind me to check for the next spot in any game you DM that I can access. : )

If you're ever near Louisville, KY, drop me a line. 8)

Would you use "cursed" magic items at all, as in items that are say, "You find that you have -4 to hit with this sword."?

As a flat penalty: no.

I would consider using cursed items only in one of three ways:

1) It's not cursed; it just doesn't do what you want. A weapon that autokills elves is terrible if you're an elf or an elf-friendly human. It's great for the orcs, though...

2) The disadvantages are profound. The classic "berserker sword" that drives you into a blood frenzy is an example. In this case you xan probably just get rid of it...but it is a magic sword that does cool stuff!

3) The price is just too high. Say your ghost-hunting sword had no apparent drawbacks...until you found that every spirit you defeated with it was still trapped inside the blade, unable to pass on to the afterlife, trapped in a hellish limbo.

Actually, I guess #2 and #3 are the same thing. So only two ways.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 6:04 am

If you're ever near Louisville, KY, drop me a line.

Will do, if only to exchange greetings and have coffee (or whatever). Afraid that as I live in California, that's not going to happen any time soon, but if it ever comes up, expect a strange not-so-well-groomed geek saying "Hey. Are you Talisman from TGD? You want to have coffee or something?"

: )

Actually, I guess #2 and #3 are the same thing. So only two ways.

#2 sounds like "you get a bigger disadvantage than the item is worth."

#3 sounds like "the item costs more than you thought it did, even though YOU aren't penalized."

Maybe that's a variant of #1, then.

And sounds good. You get a price that may or may not be worth it (but always comes up as something you pay to use it) and get a bonus that is not readily (if at all) available elsewhere.

Awesome. Seriously.