Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (
More info?)
"David Serhienko" <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
news:114mosg13kau75@corp.supernews.com...
> > You want to have a bit more fun? Tone down the magic. It seems to me
that
> > your biggest problem is one of your own making: your 5th level
characters
> > are munchkinized to within an inch of their lives, it sounds.
>
> Respectfully disagree, but, then, definitions differ.
Well, I guess it's just a difference of style. In my game, magic is VERY
limited. In most 3E campaigns that I've heard of, the term "munchkin"
doesn't even come close to describing how prevalent magic is, from my point
of view.
For reference, the wizard in our party has one wand of magic missile(3
charges), 2 scrolls(spells too high for him to cast or transfer to spell
book), 2 potions(healing and fire resistance), a ring (protection +1) and
bracers of defense. He's 6th level. He's got the most magic in the party.
The fighter that hangs around with the party(my character for when I play
instead of DM), has 20 magical arrows +1, a ring(safety) and a potion of
extra healing, at 6th level.
All characters have magical primary weapons(+1), none have magical armor,
and they don't have enough money to buy it, either. They have enough to buy
extra healing potions, but that's about it(magic is more expensive in my
game than by the book in 3E). A few have some varied misc items, but none
are what one might refer to as "magic heavy".
So far, it's been working out splendidly. Recently, I've noticed that I
haven't been giving them enough money, so I'm going to remedy that, but
other than that, it's been working just fine.
> > unarmored mystic alive that much longer). That's pretty much it. And
our
> > guys are 6th/7th level.
>
> Low for a 3e game, in my experience.
Low for *any* game, but it's worked out quite well.
> > "Wands", plural, at 5th level? Not in my game.
>
> Wands, plural, as in a selection of three wands, all with fewer than 10
> charges).
Our wizard had two wands at one point. He sold one for a buttload of money
and bought other magic items.
😉
> > You're awfully nice to them! All that free healing magic, AND they
never
> > actually NEED their potions of extra healing? Have those NPC clerics
sit
> > out next time, watch em flail. I mean, if you're gonna give them all
that
> > magic, you might want to make em actually USE it.
😉
>
> heh.
Seriously, send that cleric on sabbatical or something. Then just sit back
and watch em squirm.
> > Necessity is the mother of invention. You want your players to actually
> > start THINKING, have them play a game or two without a token wizard to
back
> > them up. Have them play without the ubiquitous NPC cleric to bind their
> > wounds. Geez, I would have thought that would be step one. One
character
> > per player, no NPC's to fill the holes. NOW you player characters can
try
> > to get around in the world...
>
> The token wizard is my PC (pout).
But... if you're DMing, can't he just sit on the sidelines("I have research
to do *slam door in face*")?
Well, then, barring getting rid of the wizard, get rid of that token cleric.
It's a great way to force some money out of their pockets, too, if that's a
problem(they'd have to load up on Xheal potions or something).
> > "But, they NEEEEEED a cleric!"
> > Nope, give em limited numbers potions of healing, and force them to
decide
> > if a fight is worth getting into.
>
> That can be arranged. The Cleric has travelled with them out of
> friendship for a while now. But, his skills have increased to the point
> where either the party begins going on missions assigned to the Cleric
> by the Church, or say fond farewells.
Yep, at first I thought a party of our large size(at the time) needed 2
clerics, so I brought one in to augment the existing PC cleric. Bad move.
Eventually we all moved to single characters as a solution, instead of
playing multiple characters, one primary, the rest filler... We are now a
party of 5, instead of a party of 9.
> > "But, they NEEEEEED a wizard!"
> > Nope, it just makes fighting that much easier to win.
>
> The wizard is my PC. The sorceress is another player PC. I won't give
> up my chance to play once in a while with a character that I want to
> play. I can't easily just nuke the other, without being a jerk.
Well, just sideline him for the adventures you DM. No biggie.
> Since posting, I've spoken with each player individually about the game,
> and asked if they were happy and enjoying themselves, and they seem to
> be... both the Barbarians player and the Fighter's player asked if it
> would be possible to increase the frequency of sessions, so I believe
them.
Of course they enjoy it. You're reinforcing the only thing they enjoy:
more power.
😉
I'm sure this is just a style difference, but my game would probably
frustrate every single 3E player here, simply out of lack of tangible
rewards for the party's efforts(at least in comparison to what they are used
to).
> > Nah, let him do the all-orc thing, and have the party run into some
rangers
> > with a hate-on for orcs. Problem solved, new character please!
>
> Heh.
It's cruel, it's unnecessary, but gosh, you know, sometimes it's just plain
fun to kill off PC's...
😉
--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram