My players have some recently discovered the whole "amulets" section of the magic item list. So, naturally, with a big windfall, there are a lot of Ironskin Amulets getting ordered. They'll take 288 days to arrive, but it's +3 DR for, almost everyone. Oh, and at least one is looking at Defending Weapon, for a bonus to block or parry. Salamander and Serpent's Amulets are getting ordered as well.
So pretty soon everyone will be immune to fire and poison, and have +3 DR. Given that 8 DR is low for this group, it's likely this will be DR 11 being the bottom end of basic armor. Foes with 2d attacks are going to have a hard time being a threat. Those with 1d attacks will be harmless barring a max-damage hit on an eye. I already expect to be asked about the Armor spell stacking with this - no, it does not. It probably should by a strict reading of the rules, but do I really want people chucking +3-6 DR on top of their "soft" characters to give them DR 15+?
No, I do not.
I regret not putting in a limit ala every video game - one ring on each hand maximum, one necklace. Even if I did, people would be asking about nipple rings, bracelets, anklets, pocket lucky charms they could sew into a pouch in their under-armor clothes, whatever. So I'm not sure it's worth the effort. But cash is becoming a route to flat-out immunities. It's my own fault for selling the things, true, but 15 years into the game is a bit late for deciding to restrict magic item purchases even further.
What I find interesting is that the first, second, and third priorities of most people with money is improved defense. Better armor, enchanted with Fortify and Lighten, layered with other, better armor whenever possible (Knights always do this, thanks to Armor Mastery). Better shields, with DB boosted up quite high and further enchanted with Lighten and, of course, made Balanced. Defensive-oriented magic - the above-mentioned amulets - also factor in. Thank goodness I'm not allowing people to buy Bless items or they'd all have those as a matter of course.
Offense is harder to come by. You can spend tens of thousands of dollars to get better and better defensive gear - those amulets, more armor, lighter armor, better shields. Getting a primo weapon is hard . . . and even if I allow for much more powerful weapon enchantments, people generally would rather have +1 DR than +1 or +2 damage . . . and you can buy nearly "end-game" armor - say, Fortify +2 Lighten 50% Fine Epic Plate - but the best you can get weapon-wise is just a few more points of damage. Or a specialty weapon, such as a meteoric weapon to bypass enemy defenses.
Even then, defense outsells offense.
I get the logic - this is my only guy, I don't want him to die, it's a dangerous dungeon. But from my side of the screen, if everyone has defenses that fail on 17-18 only, DR that shrugs off anything that isn't armor-bypassing or armor-dividing or very, very high damage, and immunities to very broad types of special attacks . . . what do you think comes along as a challenge? I think the answer is obvious. The arms race is real. And obviously I'll need to make foes that require more offense . . . which probably will just lead to "we need EVEN MORE DEFENSE to keep up!"
As I say, I can't blame them - it's the best use of the money in the system - but it leads to an arms race in which fun probably isn't the winner.
It's an interesting conundrum from the GM side as players get more points and more money. Obviously, the players want a challenge and without a risk of death, the game may be less fun (epic battles are epic because they're dangerous, the players are not sure if they're going to win, etc.). So the dangerousness of the dungeon has largely led to prioritizing defense because of the potential for TPKs when one or more front-liners of a small group go down, and the enemy can quickly turn the tide. (It does make sense, though, that people should also be thinking about offense more). And all of that does go to the arms race and the GM making sure that there are suitable challenges for the delvers.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, part of the meta here (and the challenge for a GM) is making sure there is a challenge knowing the delvers' equipment and abilities, while also knowing that there are some areas in the various levels/rooms that are just what's there, and may no longer be as much of a challenge. In other words, Felltower is, to be sure, not *static*, but there are some challenges that the delvers probably have not tackled where the enemies are not "leveling up" (e.g., *probably* the dragon isn't getting *harder*) and could end up as a "relative" cakewalk for the delvers. Or there are challenges that are still very hard but less hard now that delvers have the equipment that they have. That, to me, kind of makes sense. And it also makes sense that delvers being delvers, they are always looking for "easy money" whenever they can.
This last fight seemed, to be sure, potentially deadly and tough from the delvers' point of view, but there was a point when it seemed like the delvers (mostly due to skill, but in some cases due to potions and the like) could pile on deceptive attack or feint penalties and overwhelm the enemy, and it was only a matter of time before the enemy would get defeated (sometimes it has been like that for the delvers in reverse!). And you're right that from the GM side, it's sometimes hard to hit the delvers at all (been there where I have a campaign, where we now play infrequently, but where the delvers are all about 400 points). But that's also quite different from past battles in this area, so it has been a progression thing here as the delvers continue to push into these lower levels, get more skills and equipment to meet the challenge, and are then reaping the rewards for that.
All well put. This part, though:
Delete"but that's also quite different from past battles in this area, so it has been a progression thing here as the delvers continue to push into these lower levels, get more skills and equipment to meet the challenge, and are then reaping the rewards for that."
The problem is that the reward has to be commensurate with the risk . . . and yet, if defense makes the risk lower, yet the reward stays high . . . and that reward is turned to still more defense . . . you get a cycle of the game giving more rewards for increasingly less risk. Yeah, costs go up much more to give lesser and lesser rewards, but you see where it goes. Eventually, people are in maximized armor for their "build," with every conceivable purchasable item to reduce the risk from every attack, plus spell stones for every spell that covers the areas not covered by permanent enchantments. Yet because there is always a tiny chance of a critical failure, it's never seen as enough. It's the Red Queen's Paradox, but with active and passive defenses.
I think it might be a good idea for GMs starting a new campaign to seriously consider magic item limits, as you note. Whether that's by type - two rings, one necklace, etc - and then have to think through all of the other types such as toe rings, anklets, bracelets, and so on, or a flat limit like allowing characters a total number of magic items, other than expendable ones like potions or scrolls, equal to IQ, or to 10 + Magery, or IQ + Magery, or whatever. Hm, I think maybe I like Will + Magery.
ReplyDeleteI think you've hit on the beginnings of the issue with it, though - you need to start getting very specific, very quickly, and deal with a lot of cases. And the solutions can (and do) generally feel pretty gamey. Even then, you probably end up with a guy with a magic necklace, two magic rings, and two magic bracelets, and a magic belt, even without letting them toe/nose/nipple/navel/genital ring themselves and put on anklets. Stat-based limits (Will + Magery) will give pretty high numbers anyway . . . and just means a 5-point tax on magic items that comes with a very, very game-useful effect (higher Will is never a bad thing.)
DeleteI don't think you're on the wrong track, just that it ends up being a bit of a headache no matter how you end up doing it. Maybe as much of a headache as not doing it.
Yeah, it needs thinking over. A flat limit of 10 might be the best way to go, which is how The Arcanum, one of the better D&D variants, did things. Maybe just plain IQ, but that's maybe just loading one more benefit onto an already useful place to put points.
DeleteProbably should also think about what exactly happens if the limit is broken. Consider whether it's a good idea to give an effect that can potentially be leveraged by the players. That's not necessarily a bad idea, but it's important to go into it knowing that it might be deliberately invoked.
I like games that have a variety of attack/defense pairs. Take Star Frontiers for example. There are kinetic, sonic, laser, ... weapons and defenses. At least five types and a player can only have two defenses, a suit and a screen so they can be practically invulnerable to 2/5 attack types but never all. Translate that to fantasy and you get what WotC has done with physical, force, fire, lightning, cold, psychic, etc. They may be too prescriptive and have too many options for my liking but the idea is there. This is the answer to dumping everything into defense. A character can dump everything into one type of defense but then are helpless against other forms of damage. There is only so much one can wear and they end up choosing: a little of everything or a lot of a few things. Put everything in DR and you start finding more and more psionic and magical attacks become common because the monsters discover there is little defense against them. Spread out the defense and it keeps the job easy for the DM and prevents hyper-specialization by the monsters in retaliation. Plus it always sucks in D&D when one character is nearly invulnerable and the DM has no option to challenge him but use foes that are instant-death for the rest of the party...everyone starts feeling useless and like nothing more than treasure and torch bearers for the one combat king.
ReplyDeleteAnother option that occurs to me but requires more work is to impose diminishing returns. If players want to dump all their money into DR then a progressive tax might apply: at low DR it's all good, as you reach a threshold only some of that added DR counts. I don't know the numbers you are dealing with but something like after reaching 5 DR each extra point is worth 1/2 normal, and at 10 DR each point is worth 1/3 normal, etc. That's probably a bigger change than giving them more types of defenses to buy but its an option. I'd go with "you're really physically resistant but your mind is pudding, so psionic monsters are eager to move to Felltower ... your DR is unimportant since they don't try to hit you with weapons."
DeleteI did always like that about Star Frontiers. I think you a) start out too weak, b) progress too slowly, and c) don't get to play with the cool tools until too late if you follow the starting adventure . . . but man, that game is a favorite of mine. The Rock-Paper-Scissors defenses were a great idea. Everyone went Albedo Screen/Skeinsuit in my experience but that might have just been how modules pushed us.
DeleteIt's a little harder to impose in GURPS, although there are some ways to get around the abolute defenses.
Implemented a non-linear cost for DR is already in the system, but a non-linear effect would be tough. I suspect that would just push players into more layered defenses of any kind. The real issue tends to be high Active Defenses coupled with rules arguments anytime the enemy imposes a penalty other than Deceptive Attack . . . . (eyeroll here.)
Oddly, the PC's in my game stick to relatively low armor levels (highest DR is 5 for a PC iirc) and they have been shocked to congront enemies that are DR 5+ (they recently dealt with The Devil's Workshop and were flumoxed by features of some of the foes).
ReplyDeleteWhat drives that? The last time we thought DR 5 was high was in our Man-to-Man and 1st edition GURPS days, when getting 2d of damage was tough and 3d was "legendary NPC" status.
DeleteI think they are too afraid of lowering their movement rates and dodge. They also have a number of characters with access to bless but don't use that either...
ReplyDeleteI get the first part, even if I don't see that played in my game . . . but the second? It's literally a +1 to everything until you have a bad result for it to overturn . . . and it's cheap to put on another on the spot.
Delete