Elves and things about them [Archive]

gazza666

08-06-2006, 03:17 AM

***All day and it being wasted is better than all day tied up a prisoner. I`m not a power gamer, and much prefer the survival of my wizard over his ability to outright destroy everything in his path.***

The point is that you're making a choice to waste a slot. That's a cost. What if you find yourself in a situation where one more Chain Lightning spell would rule the day, and you are stuck with a Silent Teleport?

Realistically, how bad is it going to be if you get tied up and gagged anyway? You're clearly looking at some sort of adventure that will involve an escape; I'd say that a DM that planned that sort of adventure is going to be a bit miffed if you just derail it by teleporting away.

A better example would be keeping a Silent Dispel Magic handy for battles where you get hit with a Silence spell. And that's the situation where a rod of metamagic will serve just as well.

In a low magic or rare magic campaign, every wizard won't have access to these items;

That's the whole point though, isn't it? Take the item creation feat instead of the metamagic feat, and you can make them yourself (although in the case of a metamagic rod you need help from someone that does have the feat, of course).

***The rest of what you say I have no qualms with. I
only assert that wizards SHOULD make use of the
various feats. I know my wizard with his wand of
Maximized Magic Missles from a 9th level caster will
knock the snot out of most Sorcerers...or even a
higher level character with a Maximized Fireball Wand.
But just my opinion.***

Ugh. The power gamer in me can't resist pointing out that a Wand of Maximised Magic Missiles is a horrible waste; you can get 2 Wands of Lightning Bolts for less cost. And the ruleslawyer in me notes that a Wand of Maximised Fireball is illegal; a wand is limited to only 4th level spells (a Staff of Maximised Fireballs would work, though).

gazza666

08-06-2006, 03:20 AM

Yes they are currently on "good" terms with the dwarves (well they leave each other alone - the dwarves take the underground and leave the surface to the elves).

Surely they are on no better terms with dwarves than humans; they get the social penalties against dwarves as well (according to chapter 1, that is). Perhaps they're not actively at war, but then again that's probably true of humans as well, is it not?

gazza666

08-06-2006, 03:27 AM

One observation: in the other thread (which talks about the elves vs human wars) it is observed that the elves suffered because the humans had cleared lots of their forest away.

While I certainly appreciate that the long term consequences of less forests are bad for elves, the actual tactical implications are possibly beneficial, according to the War Cards rules. Most elven units are archers to some degree or another, and the War Cards rules penalise archery in forest battles.

Granted there are strategic benefits to the elves (as they don't have to pay extra movement points to cross the forested territory), but if I were actually in control of the elven armies I suspect I would try to get the best of both worlds - use strategic movement to engage in forested provinces that had a minor terrain type of "open", and then force engagement in open terrain. Fighting in forest terrain hurts elves more than it helps them.

Just an observation. I'm not sure whether this is a good or bad idea, but perhaps units with Scout training should have a lesser penalty to archery in mass combat (the idea being that they know where all the best ambush spots are).

dalor

08-06-2006, 03:26 PM

Answers in line below.***

--- gazza666 <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:
>
>
> The point is that you`re making a choice to waste a
> slot. That`s a cost. What if you find yourself in a
> situation where one more Chain Lightning spell would
> rule the day, and you are stuck with a Silent
> Teleport?

***Then I teleport away and fight another day. You
say it is wasting a slot...but using your "what if"
theory...WHAT IF the only way your character survives
is having that teleport eh? "Dangerous it is when
trying to tell the future young Skywalker." Or some
such...***

>
> Realistically, how bad is it going to be if you get
> tied up and gagged anyway? You`re clearly looking at
> some sort of adventure that will involve an escape;
> I`d say that a DM that planned that sort of
> adventure is going to be a bit miffed if you just
> derail it by teleporting away.

***Then he can be miffed. My character has free will,
and a DM that isn`t prepared to deal with that isn`t
worth his salt. I can`t stand a rail-roading DM that
has no ability to deal with change. Nor can I play a
character that thinks the Gods are going to be so
protective of his life!***

>
> A better example would be keeping a Silent Dispel
> Magic handy for battles where you get hit with a
> Silence spell. And that`s the situation where a rod
> of metamagic will serve just as well.

***Good Item...but again not always available.***

> ------------ QUOTE ----------
>
> In a low magic or rare magic campaign, every wizard
> won`t have access to these items;
>
> -----------------------------
>
>
> That`s the whole point though, isn`t it? Take the
> item creation feat instead of the metamagic feat,
> and you can make them yourself (although in the case
> of a metamagic rod you need help from someone that
> does have the feat, of course).

***And again, wizards in Cerilia are reclusive old
coots...seldom prone to helping each other with much
at all. Even an apprentice is going to get the bare
minimum from his master.***

>
>
> Ugh. The power gamer in me can`t resist pointing out
> that a Wand of Maximised Magic Missiles is a
> horrible waste; you can get 2 Wands of Lightning
> Bolts for less cost. And the ruleslawyer in me notes
> that a Wand of Maximised Fireball is illegal; a wand
> is limited to only 4th level spells (a Staff of
> Maximised Fireballs would work, though).

***Semantics. The effect is better with the wand of
magic missles. Always going to hit for 25 damage,
where a wand of lightning bolts will average about the
same and still allow a saving throw that would reduce
the damage to about 15 pts. Especially true when you
hit an enemy wizard for 25 pts since that will be
nearly half his HP or more.

As for the Wand of Maximized Fireballs...I was on a
nigh unstoppable blabber with my mouth and had little
thought about it...so a staff it is! LOL***

Anthony Edwards

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

geeman

08-06-2006, 10:04 PM

At 08:27 PM 8/5/2006, gazza666 wrote:

>Granted there are strategic benefits to the elves (as they don`t
>have to pay extra movement points to cross the forested territory),
>but if I were actually in control of the elven armies I suspect I
>would try to get the best of both worlds - use strategic movement to
>engage in forested provinces that had a minor terrain type of
>"open", and then force engagement in open terrain. Fighting in
>forest terrain hurts elves more than it helps them.

"Special: Elves ignore all the negative effects of forested terrain."

Just a suggestion.

Gary

gazza666

08-07-2006, 12:27 AM

***Then I teleport away and fight another day. You say it is wasting a slot...but using your "what if" theory...WHAT IF the only way your character survives is having that teleport eh?

Great, we agree. So, then the question becomes one of probabilities. On average, I would say that I am more likely to find a use for Chain Lightning/Disintegrate/whatever on any given adventuring day than I am to need a Silent Teleport spell.

Then he can be miffed. My character has free will, and a DM that isn`t prepared to deal with that isn`t worth his salt.

Oh, but that's the point. He will deal with it. There'll be a Dimension Lock effect or some sort, and you'll still be stuffed.

My point is this: the number of situations that a Silent Teleport is useful do not come up often enough to justify wasting a precious prepared spell slot on. This is the case with Still spell as well. They are great for sorcerers, because there's no opportunity cost for them - but since a wizard has to predict that he will need them at some point during the day, they are much less useful.

Good Item...but again not always available.

Here again - if you have Craft Rod, you can make sure it is available.

And again, wizards in Cerilia are reclusive old coots...seldom prone to helping each other with much at all. Even an apprentice is going to get the bare minimum from his master.

Doesn't have to be another wizard. If you have a PC sorcerer in the party with the Silent Spell feat, he'll do fine. If you don't, get an appropriate cohort or something. If all else fails, pay someone for their time.

Semantics. The effect is better with the wand of magic missles. Always going to hit for 25 damage, where a wand of lightning bolts will average about the same and still allow a saving throw that would reduce the damage to about 15 pts.

You are ignoring the fact that a lightning bolt can strike multiple targets, as well as the fact that it's less than half the price.

I specifically chose lightning bolt over fireball because with the latter it is difficult to not hit multiple targets (including friends), whereas you can generally aim a lightning bolt so that it will hit one guy in a crowd if you must, but you can often tag a couple of his buddies as well.

Of course, if you're up against rogues or monks (with evasion), or any sort of lightning resistant creature, then a lightning bolt is of no use - on the other hand, a Shield spell completely blocks Magic Missile as well, and it's not an uncommon target for Spell Immunity. I'd say those cancel, and I'd still prefer the lightning bolt wands or just a plain Wand of Magic Missile @9th. The plain one averages 17.5 damage, so for four times the price you're only getting an extra 7.5 damage per charge.

dalor

08-07-2006, 01:36 AM

I`ve learned a lesson in this: never argue with a
Munchkin when game mechanics are involved! LOL

I hope you could learn however, that not all gamers go
for the overpowering or the "sure thing" that you are
proposing. I`m aware (as I`ve been playing wizards
for going on three decades now) that a lightning bolt
can hit more than one target...

What I am also aware of is that you are talking
specifics and I`m talking generality. Not every
single day of a wizards life is he going to only have
attack and defense spells memorized...you never know
what may happen on a given day; or what situation may
arise. If you are only prepared for combat, then what
happens when something else happens that is of dire
import and you don`t have time to memorize new spells
later on? He may be spying one day...and a vocal
spell is the last thing he wants. Perhaps he will be
doing battle against clerics one day...he may not know
it...but it can happen if he is constantly at odds
against them. A Silence spell will surely ruin your
day...unless you can cast spells without vocal
components. What if you are traveling with friends in
a new land...and a disease takes your voice? Ever had
a disease as a character?

So in essence...all my G.I. Joes don`t come in the
same box with the same weapons.

Anthony Edwards

P.S.- we DON`T agree; as you try to turn my general
statements and theory into fact for your own cause.
Doesn`t work with me. ;-)

--- gazza666 <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> ***Then I teleport away and fight another day. You
> say it is wasting a slot...but using your "what if"
> theory...WHAT IF the only way your character
> survives is having that teleport eh?
> -----------------------------
>
> Great, we agree. So, then the question becomes one
> of probabilities. On average, I would say that I am
> more likely to find a use for Chain
> Lightning/Disintegrate/whatever on any given
> adventuring day than I am to need a Silent Teleport
> spell.
>
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> Then he can be miffed. My character has free will,
> and a DM that isn`t prepared to deal with that isn`t
> worth his salt.
> -----------------------------
>
> Oh, but that`s the point. He will deal with it.
> There`ll be a Dimension Lock effect or some sort,
> and you`ll still be stuffed.
>
> My point is this: the number of situations that a
> Silent Teleport is useful do not come up often
> enough to justify wasting a precious prepared spell
> slot on. This is the case with Still spell as well.
> They are great for sorcerers, because there`s no
> opportunity cost for them - but since a wizard has
> to predict that he will need them at some point
> during the day, they are much less useful.
>
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> Good Item...but again not always available.
> -----------------------------
>
> Here again - if you have Craft Rod, you can make
> sure it is available.
>
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> And again, wizards in Cerilia are reclusive old
> coots...seldom prone to helping each other with much
> at all. Even an apprentice is going to get the bare
> minimum from his master.
> -----------------------------
>
> Doesn`t have to be another wizard. If you have a PC
> sorcerer in the party with the Silent Spell feat,
> he`ll do fine. If you don`t, get an appropriate
> cohort or something. If all else fails, pay someone
> for their time.
>
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> Semantics. The effect is better with the wand of
> magic missles. Always going to hit for 25 damage,
> where a wand of lightning bolts will average about
> the same and still allow a saving throw that would
> reduce the damage to about 15 pts.
> -----------------------------
>
> You are ignoring the fact that a lightning bolt can
> strike multiple targets, as well as the fact that
> it`s less than half the price.
>
> I specifically chose lightning bolt over fireball
> because with the latter it is difficult to not hit
> multiple targets (including friends), whereas you
> can generally aim a lightning bolt so that it will
> hit one guy in a crowd if you must, but you can
> often tag a couple of his buddies as well.
>
> Of course, if you`re up against rogues or monks
> (with evasion), or any sort of lightning resistant
> creature, then a lightning bolt is of no use - on
> the other hand, a Shield spell completely blocks
> Magic Missile as well, and it`s not an uncommon
> target for Spell Immunity. I`d say those cancel, and
> I`d still prefer the lightning bolt wands or just a
> plain Wand of Magic Missile @9th. The plain one
> averages 17.5 damage, so for four times the price
> you`re only getting an extra 7.5 damage per charge.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

gazza666

08-07-2006, 02:57 AM

I`ve learned a lesson in this: never argue with a
Munchkin when game mechanics are involved! LOL

I've got no problem with "power gamer", but I'm not a Munchkin. I don't cheat; that's the essential distinction.

I hope you could learn however, that not all gamers go for the overpowering or the "sure thing" that you are proposing.

If you want to talk about roleplaying, then fine - I'm all for that. But if you're talking about what the best things to use your bonus feats on are, then we're in the domain of powergaming, are we not?

Not only am I aware that what I'm saying is not a sure thing, but I even included examples where it was inferior. It's just that, on balance, you have a limited number of funds to play with.

A Wand of Maximised Magic Missile is what I call a "bad powergamer" item. It's the sort of thing someone would have because they thought it was powerful - when in actual fact, it isn't. You can find bad powergamers everywhere - they're the types who take a level of monk, paladin, and duellist to try and maximise their sorcerer's capabilities, not realising that giving up 3 spellcaster levels was actually a sub-optimal choice.

Now, if you happen to find such an item rather than buy or make it, that's different.

What I am also aware of is that you are talking specifics and I`m talking generality.

See, for me it looks like the other way around. I'm saying that generally it is better not to waste a prepared spell slot on something that will probably never be needed, while you're coming up with specific examples where it might.

I freely acknowledge that if you happen to find yourself tied up and gagged then having a Silent Teleport is nice to get you out of the jam. It's just that I don't find, in general, that PCs tend to be in this situation. On the other hand, they're quite likely to find a use for an extra Disintegrate or Greater Dispel Magic spell.

Not every single day of a wizards life is he going to only have attack and defense spells memorized...

I never said he would. Beyond the first few levels, I would recommend that all wizards have a decent escape spell memorised, as well as a utility spell or two. For example, I certainly would never take the position that a wizard should avoid memorising Teleport in order to squeeze in another Cone of Cold.

you never know what may happen on a given day; or what situation may
arise.

I agree wholeheartedly; it is the basis of my point. Because you cannot forsee what will happen to you on a given day, you are best off preparing the spells that are most likely to be useful rather than those that have a very small chance of being useful.

If you are only prepared for combat, then what happens when something else happens that is of dire import and you don`t have time to memorize new spells later on?

You use scrolls?

He may be spying one day...and a vocal spell is the last thing he wants.

If he's under 24x7 observation such that he can't risk speaking, then it's worth pointing out that a Spellcraft check will still rumble him.

Perhaps he will be doing battle against clerics one day...he may not know
it...but it can happen if he is constantly at odds against them. A Silence spell will surely ruin your day...unless you can cast spells without vocal
components.

Sure - but that's what the old Rod is for. Besides, a Silent Dispel Magic or (better yet) a custom spell that specifically destroys silence fields is a better option (there may well exist such a spell already).

What if you are traveling with friends in a new land...and a disease takes your voice? Ever had a disease as a character?

For the few moments it takes to get the Remove Disease scroll out, yes.

And frankly, that sort of argument is beginning to sound desperate.

I still maintain: wizards taking Silent Spell get much less out of it than a sorcerer does. A rod of metamagic is a core item in the DMG; of course your DM may forbid access to it, but a DM can outright forbid access to the Silent Spell feat as well - in a normal game, such items are available.

It can be argued that Birthright does not qualify as a "normal game" under this definition, of course. If the "magic rarity" becomes the standard rule such that magic items become rare and/or prohibitively expensive to make, then you might as well use the bonus feats for something (it's still a better option than Empower or Maximise, because you can't research a spell that has no components - it has to have V or S).

And pointing out that it is a suboptimal choice does not equate to "cookie cutter" characters that all look the same. Powergamers do not end up with identical characters; there are multiple routes to power in D&D. The derision that powergamers suffer from non-powergamers is something I'm used to and not particularly bothered by, because it's all based on completely ridiculous assumptions. The desire to play a powerful character does not mean that such a character is divorced of roleplaying concerns. Conan, Gandalf, Aragorn, Fafhrd, Elric - all of these are powerful characters from fantasy fiction. A powergamer merely wants to play a powerful character; we'd like our characters to be spoken of in the campaign world with the same sense of admiration or infamy that the fictional characters inspire in their own.

And we like to kill orcs. ;)

dalor

08-07-2006, 07:07 AM

I had considered writing more and debating with you;
but it seems to me others attempt to debase the
standing of another in their arguments when they
become heated...why is that?

I`m nothing if not confident in my position...and in
no way am I ever desperate.

To address one part of your reply, as it is connected
to your attempt to make me seem weak in debate:

Do your parties always contain the optimum balance of
characters? Is every party you have been in have a
sorcerer to help make your rod of silence...or a
cleric that will be able to remove disease? Have you
ever advanced to a point in a campaign (that ever so
elusive game where players don`t simply crawl around
and kill things in dungeons) that involves the party
members being alone at times? Perhaps the Wizard is
traveling in Vosgaard and contracted the disease; his
friend was killed and there are no clerics willing to
heal him...endless possibilities...

Adaptability. The thing you put forth as the strength
of the Sorcerer is actually the hallmark of the
Wizard. Wizards are the ones that are supposed to be
able to prepare for ANY situation...and taking a range
of feats making a wizard adaptable is exactly what I`m
talking about.

If you can`t see that...or simply refuse to for the
sake of argument I can accept that. But please, don`t
attack my ability to debate as a method of proving
your point. In politics its called a smear campaign;
and is actually the sign that the one smearing is the
weaker of the two parties.

Anthony Edwards

--- gazza666 <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:

> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> What if you are traveling with friends in a new
> land...and a disease takes your voice? Ever had a
> disease as a character?
> -----------------------------
>
> For the few moments it takes to get the Remove
> Disease scroll out, yes.
>
> And frankly, that sort of argument is beginning to
> sound desperate.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

gazza666

08-07-2006, 08:03 AM

I had considered writing more and debating with you; but it seems to me others attempt to debase the standing of another in their arguments when they become heated...why is that?

It is merely the argument I was suggesting was weak; there was no judgement implied upon yourself. You opened the door by calling me a munchkin, after all - I didn't take offense.

Do your parties always contain the optimum balance of characters?

I highly doubt you would ever get a good consensus of what the optimum balance of characters was, let alone always have a party that contained it.

But I'll take a shot. Do my parties always have a fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue? No. Do they always have a healer, melee guy, and arcane caster? Again, no.

But most of the time, there is someone that can cast Remove Disease, if only from a scroll. Most of the time, there are places you can find NPCs that have magic items you want for sale (or are prepared - possibly for a fee - to help you create your own).

It is absolutely not necessary to be able to handle every possible situation, and nor is it even possible. I've never suggested that there are no situations where it's useful to have the Silent Spell feat - I've merely said that the situations are rare, making it generally a suboptimal choice.

Nobody is forcing wizards to not use suboptimal choices. If you like the idea of a wizard that can cast spells without speaking, that's reason enough to create one. There's no implied "sneer" when I say that a wizard who takes Silent Spell (or Still Spell, or whatever) has made a suboptimal choice; it's simply a mechanical analysis. If you don't care about the mechanical analysis, all power to you - that doesn't invalidate it.

Have you ever advanced to a point in a campaign (that ever so elusive game where players don`t simply crawl around and kill things in dungeons) that involves the party members being alone at times?

So you're offended that I appear to have trodden close to engaging in a personal attack, and yet see no problem with implying I simply "crawl around and kill things in dungeons"? ;)

Of course I've advanced to that point in a campaign. I've been gaming for well over two decades and have run more different RPGs than many gamers would ever realise existed. These credentials mean precisely nothing, of course - there are great gamers that have been playing for only weeks, while there are gamers with a "better" heritage than mine that have never even expressed a desire to do much more than play multiplayer Diablo when they sit down each session. Which is nothing to be ashamed of, in any case.

Perhaps the Wizard is traveling in Vosgaard and contracted the disease; his friend was killed and there are no clerics willing to heal him...endless possibilities...

Of course you can construct hypothetical cases where it is useful to have the feat. Not only did I never argue otherwise, I even gave you a practical one - Dispel Magic is a useful spell to have both Stilled and Silenced, since it is applicable to a wide variety of situations that are not that uncommon (being grappled, being paralysed, being silenced, and so forth).

The fact remains, though, that sorcerers get more benefit than wizards do from these feats. A wizard that blows a 5th level slot on a Stilled Silenced Dispel Magic has wasted that slot if he never comes across a case where he needs it; a sorcerer that happens to have the feats simply benefits if he needs them, and doesn't lose anything if he doesn't.

There are worse crimes than having an uncast spell at the end of the day - it certainly isn't an unplayable character. But it's a suboptimal choice primarily because - as you pointed out - you cannot predict the future to know whether or not they are needed.

Adaptability. The thing you put forth as the strength of the Sorcerer is actually the hallmark of the Wizard. Wizards are the ones that are supposed to be able to prepare for ANY situation...and taking a range of feats making a wizard adaptable is exactly what I`m talking about.

I would argue that item creation feats make wizards more adaptable than metamagic feats. With the exception of Silent and Still spell (perhaps a couple of others), all metamagic feats do is give you, in effect, new spells. Wizards can already create new spells; taking Empower Spell is a suboptimal choice for a (non-epic level) wizard because he is essentially using a precious feat slot to duplicate something that a few days research could give him, and in most campaigns you get more "off time" for spell research than you do feat slots.

Silent and Still are special cases because they allow you to make spells that effectively have no components (either separately or together, and possibly needing Eschew Material Components as well. Incidentally the latter is a much better feat for wizards than the former two because there is no opportunity cost to use it). Most DMs will not allow you to research spells that have no components, making these feats the only way to achieve that. So if you want the means to cast spells "with a thought", then these are one way to do just that.

However, the problem is that you have to know that you need them in advance, or else you have to defensively assume that you might need them which leads to filling up spell slots with suboptimal choices; in my opinion - and obviously this is subjective - I would prefer to face occasionally unpleasant situations where I wished I had the feat, to situations where I often had useless spells prepared that ended up being unneeded.

It's really not even a case of being prepared. One possibility is that you routinely have your wizard walk around with lots of defensive and escape spells, modified by whatever metamagic feats you like, with the intention that if you encounter something that your (relatively few) offensive spells can't handle, you escape and prepare something appropriate for the next fight. That's a valid approach. Unfortunately nothing is perfect, and you will find on occasion that your carefully selected escape and defensive spells will not be sufficient to get away - there won't be "another day" to fight.

The alternative is that you take a number of offensive spells while not neglecting defense, escape, and utility spells (it is often best at higher levels to leave some spells unprepared, so that you can prepare whatever you need later in the day). You acknowledge, if you do this, that you might occasionally face uncomfortable situations that you can't handle, and can't escape from... which is exactly the same as the previous case. The difference is how often each occurs. If you're finding that you frequently need your metamagically modified spells, then quite clearly you would be at a serious disadvantage without them. On the other hand, if you're finding that you often have these spells uncast at the end of the day, and you're often reduced to firing your crossbow ineffectually at foes after you've run out of offense, then one can seriously question whether such an approach is objectively "best".

It is my experience that most campaigns are not structured in such a way that Silent Stilled spells are needed often enough to be worth preparing. Your experiences may vary; from my perspective, that's a somewhat unusual campaign, but variety is the spice of life.

On the other hand, perhaps you simply like the idea of wizards that have these abilities, and be damned whether or not they're objectively the best choices. That's absolutely fine - there's nothing in the least bit wrong with that. But it doesn't mean that the mechanical position is wrong - it just means that you don't care about it (in much the same way, for example, that I don't care about alignments in any of my campaigns - I would never attempt to suggest that alignments were irrelevant, merely that I don't care for them).

gazza666

08-07-2006, 08:05 AM

Addendum: if you have access to Complete Arcane, then the Sudden metamagic feats there are perfect for wizards. Nothing I have said "dissing" Still or Silent applies in any way to Sudden Still or Sudden Silent, as there is no opportunity cost to using these feats (other than the fact that you're missing out on taking another feat, of course).

irdeggman

08-07-2006, 09:31 AM

While all of this argument over which feats are better for a wizard (in a general setting) are well and good - how do they fit into the Birthright setting?

I mean one of the arguments being used consistently here is how characters (NPCs and PCs) will have wands and rods at their constant disposal. It reads as if the assumption is a a Forgotten Realms setting where magic item shops are as common as a Starbucks store.

This is Birthright where the core setting (not house-ruled to something else) is low on the appearance of magic items. Using the basis othat magic items cost twice as much to create in gp and xp would reduce the amount of items available. So in a world where magic items are rarer and harder to create which is the way to go?

Also note that a lot of the examples used are highly dependent on the style of play being done. In games where there is more intrigue than straight up combat things play out differently. In games that readily switch between the two things are likewise unpredictable.

gazza666

08-07-2006, 09:48 AM

While all of this argument over which feats are better for a wizard (in a general setting) are well and good - how do they fit into the Birthright setting?
This is a good point that I did sort of vaguely address. The core rules do indeed say that you can drop the requisite cash and get a rod of metamagic, but I did point out that arguably Birthright does not qualify as a "core rules" game in this sense.

It reads as if the assumption is a a Forgotten Realms setting where magic item shops are as common as a Starbucks store.

I hear you, I really do. I don't really like the idea of magic item stores any more than anyone else does.

The problem is that 3rd edition game balance pretty much requires some means to acquire magic items fairly readily. 2nd edition more or less didn't let you create items (yes, yes - the rules were there, but rarely used) and so just sort of assumed you would get some on occasion. It didn't really matter how much cash you had, since no amount was enough to buy magical items (and it wasn't awfully unrealistic to impose that restriction; some of the 2nd edition item creation ideas involved components such as the breath of a fish, which is not something any amount of cash can buy).

In 3rd edition, though, item creation feats are open to the masses, which means if you can't buy them, you're not really imposing much of a restriction (just requiring PCs to have item creation feats - which isn't much of a restriction, as they tend to be popular choices anyway). Restricting magic items hurts wizards and clerics much less than fighters and rogues - and wizards and clerics are (arguably) already more powerful than fighters and rogues, so they don't really need the latter to be reduced in relative power even more.

This is Birthright where the core setting (not house-ruled to something else) is low on the appearance of magic items. Using the basis othat magic items cost twice as much to create in gp and xp would reduce the amount of items available. So in a world where magic items are rarer and harder to create which is the way to go?

There's not really enough evidence to make an objective statement, in my opinion. I think that some players will decide that twice the price is prohibitively expensive for magical items, and others will shrug and make them anyway. In a sense item creation feats become even more valuable - you save twice as much money as you would in the normal state of affairs.

If you fall in the former camp ("4000gp for a frickin' +1 sword? Bugger that!") then you might as well use your bonus feats for metamagic instead.

Also note that a lot of the examples used are highly dependent on the style of play being done. In games where there is more intrigue than straight up combat things play out differently. In games that readily switch between the two things are likewise unpredictable.
Well, I would argue that the less predictable things are, the more the choice should swing in favour of "what will be useful most often?" For example: if I know that I'm going to be tied up and gagged at some point today (perhaps I used Contact Other Plane or something - a weird question to ask, but some DMs might allow it), then obviously preparing a Silent Teleport is going to be a pretty good idea. My argument is, in essence, that you generally don't know that - that things are not that predictable - so you're better off going with spells that are likely to be useful in a lot of circumstances. Summon Monster spells, incidentally, have quite a lot of flexibility in this regard; so do many illusion spells. Wish et al are better still.

Again, though, my counter argument is largely irrelevant if you use the feats from Complete Arcane instead. Sudden Still or Sudden Silent are solid feats that any powergaming wizard could feel proud in taking. ;)

irdeggman

08-07-2006, 10:01 AM

The problem is that 3rd edition game balance pretty much requires some means to acquire magic items fairly readily. 2nd edition more or less didn't let you create items (yes, yes - the rules were there, but rarely used) and so just sort of assumed you would get some on occasion. It didn't really matter how much cash you had, since no amount was enough to buy magical items (and it wasn't awfully unrealistic to impose that restriction; some of the 2nd edition item creation ideas involved components such as the breath of a fish, which is not something any amount of cash can buy).

Ahh but there were rules in 2nd that awarded wizards xp for creating magic items. The 3.5 rules cost them xp to create magic items. That difference is a sore spot with a lot of old time gamers (not me but several of my friends still resent that change).

gazza666

08-07-2006, 10:08 AM

Ahh but there were rules in 2nd that awarded wizards xp for creating magic items. The 3.5 rules cost them xp to create magic items. That difference is a sore spot with a lot of old time gamers (not me but several of my friends still resent that change).
Hmm.

It has been a while since I read my 2nd edition stuff, as you can probably imagine, but my recollection is that creating a permanent magical item in 2nd edition required casting the Enchant an Item spell, which cost you a full point of Con (it was only a 10% chance of losing the Con for a non-permanent item, but 100% for a permanent one). I wouldn't be prepared to swear to this - I may be hearkening back to 1st edition days here - but that's my recollection.

Now, certainly the idea that "making magical items makes you a worse spellcaster" is a somewhat silly one, but if it comes down to blowing a few XP or losing a point of Con, I know which one my wizard is going to prefer. I can always go and earn more XP, after all.

Realistically, most characters in 2nd edition just found their magical items - they didn't make them. I would not be prepared to take a guess as to whether most 3rd edition characters buy or make their items, since I don't have enough of a sample space; however, in my group, generally speaking most parties had at least one character that had item creation feats (and realise that I'm a pragmatic sort of DM that will whine about how unrealistic the idea of a magic item creation shop is whilst not actually saying that they don't exist; in other words, the only benefit to an item creation feat in my campaigns is that you get the cost break).

Doyle

08-07-2006, 10:42 AM

It has been a while since I read my 2nd edition stuff, as you can probably imagine, but my recollection is that creating a permanent magical item in 2nd edition required casting the Enchant an Item spell, which cost you a full point of Con (it was only a 10% chance of losing the Con for a non-permanent item, but 100% for a permanent one). I wouldn't be prepared to swear to this - I may be hearkening back to 1st edition days here - but that's my recollection.

P190 2nd ed. PH "Each permanancy spell lowers the wizard's Constitution by 1 point."
Makes a real good reason for magic item rarity - especially given that it's an eigth level spell, minimum caster level 16th, and only certain spells could be made permanent. I recall a 3rd ed. caster is able to build items much earlier without the damage.

Yet this is the sort of reason I didn't move my BR campaign to 3 or 3.5E. To me, one of the (many) flavour aspects of BR is the magic-rarity - the items are scarce and most of them are held by the bad guys. 3 & 3.5E IMHO seems to quickly become superheroes in a fantasy setting.

BTW, a 2nd ed. munchkin would probably build a 2 charge amulet of protection from Con drain and use that as his first target of the permanancy spell. ;)

irdeggman

08-07-2006, 11:01 AM

The 2nd ed rules had also prohibited an illusionist from creating magic items (due to prohibited schools IIRC Permanency was in a prohibited school) untill the Player's Option series and subsequently the Wizard Spell Compendium which created the Universal School of Magic.

gazza666

08-07-2006, 11:19 AM

P190 2nd ed. PH "Each permanancy spell lowers the wizard's Constitution by 1 point."

Bugger, I had the right idea but the wrong spell.

Yet this is the sort of reason I didn't move my BR campaign to 3 or 3.5E. To me, one of the (many) flavour aspects of BR is the magic-rarity - the items are scarce and most of them are held by the bad guys. 3 & 3.5E IMHO seems to quickly become superheroes in a fantasy setting.

Not an unreasonable position to take, I admit.

Perhaps my 2nd edition/1st edition experiences are atypical, but I can recall only two games I played in/ran before 3rd edition where I ever had a character of higher than 10th level; in both cases, we had created characters above 10th level to start with (one of them was when I ran the Bloodstone Pass series).

3rd edition was deliberately designed to get PCs to reasonably high levels before the common "6 month restart" syndrome kicked in. The upshot of this is that the magic item creation rules, even such as they were, didn't really get much of a workout in 2nd edition.

And to be honest, most of the issues I'm talking about with relative power levels crop up at mid-high rather than low levels. Below level 5, for example, fighters kick quite a lot of butt over wizards. This trend rapidly drops off until by about level 10 they're noticeably struggling to keep up, and by 15th level the struggle is generally well and truly over. Unfortunately, feats just aren't as powerful as magic; with Weapon Focus + Greater Weapon Focus + Weapon Specialisation + Greater Weapon Specialisation, the fighter gets a grand total of +2 to hit and +4 to damage for the investment of (effectively) 8 levels worth of class features. A 12th level wizard or cleric can cast Greater Magic Weapon on his sword and give him a better to hit bonus and barely lower damage bonus - that's for a single spell, and it will get even better every four levels. The magic can be cast on multiple weapons; the feats only apply to one. And the magic helps penetrate DR.

Reduce the availability of magic items, and I'm afraid that the poor old fighter will change from a weak party member into a liability at high levels.

irdeggman

08-07-2006, 12:08 PM

Reduce the availability of magic items, and I'm afraid that the poor old fighter will change from a weak party member into a liability at high levels.

Have you checked out the new fighter feats in PHBII yet? They were specifically designed to provide more oomph for high level fighters.

gazza666

08-07-2006, 01:10 PM

Have you checked out the new fighter feats in PHBII yet? They were specifically designed to provide more oomph for high level fighters.
Yeah, briefly. I have a couple of observations.

Firstly, the feats in PH2 for fighters are so much more powerful (in general) than comparable feats in PH that they really should consider OGLing them, because high level fighters in a PH2less game are really missing out.

With that said, though, there's nothing that really jumps out and makes me rethink my position. The odd +2 to hit and damage here and there isn't really enough to even what is already a very lopsided equation.

Begs the question, of course: what do I think would do the job? Well, if I were redesigning D&D from scratch (which surprisingly nobody's asking me to do ;) ), I'd probably use the rogue as the baseline class. That would mean giving fighter types a little more oomph, and seriously depowering high level magic. I'd give serious consideration to something like the Incarnum stuff as a replacement for the core magic system, as it has a great feature: namely, that picking up a few levels of another class isn't a terribly bad idea. With wizards, sorcerers, clerics, druids, psions, and wilders, multiclassing into anything that doesn't give full spellcasting progression is a very difficult choice, since you are (ultimately) giving up one or more 9th level spells, and there are very few class abilities that are worth that. A 10th level fighter/10th level rogue is a viable character; a 10th level wizard/10th level cleric* is much less so. It isn't clear to me that a 10th level incarnist/10th level totemist is a terrible idea, though - that looks a lot more viable.

*Yes, I know all about the mystic theurge, but the mere existence of such a prestige class is tantamount to an admission that there is a problem.

All in all, I think I'd give fighters some actual class abilities instead of just bonus feats. The real problem is that most of the obvious sorts of skills a fighter might pick up are already covered by another class, and if you just say that they get Weapon Specialisation at 4th level, and so on, then you're not really improving the fighter - you're just restricting it. But some ideas:

Perhaps fighters should get a better attack progression than anyone else. Maybe they get +4 BAB every 3 levels. If the fact that this means that they would get more attacks is a problem, then just make it an unnamed +1 bonus to all attacks every 3 levels or something - but I'm not sure that the idea of a fighter eventually getting a 5th and 6th attack at 20th level really terrifies me all that much (since we're going to be facing a -25 and a -30 on the last two attacks anyway).
Fighters could possibly have a lesser incremental penalty for multiple attacks. Maybe at level 6 it's only -4 for each subsequent attack instead of -5, going down to -3 at 12th level and -2 at 18th.
At levels 10 and 20, perhaps fighters could treat weapons as doing damage as if they were one (and then two) size categories larger.
Fighters might be able to declare a certain number of attacks per day an automatic threat.

I dunno, these are just stream of consciousness ideas. If you keep the campaign down to about level 10, there are not really any serious problems. Doesn't usually end up a problem in most of my games, but that's due in large part to the fact that we all know the issues and generally avoid playing fighters - which is kind of sad, really.

irdeggman

08-07-2006, 03:55 PM

gazza666,

Almost all of these are actual feats or feat like abilities.

Reducing the penalties for multiple attacks is actually done via the weapon focus feat chain. Greater Weapon Focus gives a +2 to hit with that weapon and is fighter bonus feat. So it puts the fighter way ahead of others in attack bonuses.

Treating weapons as a size larger. Monkey grip allows using a weapon of a size larger as if it were properly sized (albeit with a –2 penalty) comes close on this one and it is also a fighter bonus feat.

Extra attacks. The two weapon fighting chain gets you there. Greater two weapon fighting allows 3 attacks with the off hand. Every feat in this chain are bonus fighter feats.

Improved critical increases the threat range of a specific weapon and is a fighter bonus feat. Power critical gives a +4 to confirm a threat – also a fighter bonus feat.

If you (as i the general you not you specifically) are not careful then the fighter ends up being a class designed for melee alone (see the automatic threat issue) and not a class than can go in many different paths. IMO the fihgter is one of the better designed classes as far as class abilites and level progression goes. What can be gained with those bonus feats is really balanced with other character classes and can at times become overwhelming if maximized properly.

Fizz

08-07-2006, 04:29 PM

Perhaps fighters should get a better attack progression than anyone else. Maybe they get +4 BAB every 3 levels.

I've been looking through my old 2nd Ed PH lately and have been wondering about this too.

In 3E, a good BAB improves at +1 per level, while for moderate it improves at +3/4 per level. By 20th level, a warrior-type has a mere +5 on standard attacks compared to a cleric or rogue. For a full attack, it amounts to a single extra attack at +20. Not trivial, but not befitting the difference in combat that should exist at that level.

Compare that to 2nd Ed. The equivalent in 2nd Ed would have the warriors advancing at +1 per level, priests at +2/3 per level, rogues at +1/2 per level, and wizards at +1/3 per level. By 20th level, that's a difference of +7, +10 and +14 respectively. In addition, only warriors got extra attacks at higher levels.

Thus, i think a high level warrior in 2nd Ed was a significantly better combatant compared to other classes, than a warrior-type in 3E. In 2nd Ed, there is a much more clear distinction in the abilities of the warriors. Warriors really got the shaft in 3E, imo.

I've been debating modifying my own campaign to go back to the 2nd Ed combat. I've always found it much smoother and faster to run too!

-Fizz

dalor

08-07-2006, 04:32 PM

I would have to go to the storage...but I was almost
positive the loss of a Constitution Point only applied
to making spells permanent and not to making magic
items? Or some such...

Having nothing to do with Birthright; but I know of
several examples published that specifically talk
about a certain so-and-so wizard making magic items on
a regular basis.

My thought had always been that this was a broken
spell in 2nd Edition, and I ignored the Con loss at
any rate as it was stated...instead saying it was a
temporary drain.

More related to Birthright, the elves already had the
Con penalty in 2nd Edition...so this would have made
sure they didn`t have a true edge in magical items I
would think!

Anthony Edwards

--- gazza666 <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> P190 2nd ed. PH "Each permanancy spell lowers the
> wizard`s Constitution by 1 point."
> -----------------------------
>
>
> Bugger, I had the right idea but the wrong spell.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

epicsoul

08-07-2006, 06:14 PM

The Swordgaunt

08-07-2006, 06:50 PM

I have yet to see a single 20th level wizard EVER defeat a comparable level fighter in combat, unless the wizard was already buffed/prepped for battle.

The old maxim is true, in D&D as well as in the old AD&D (and most other systems, as well), "a prepared wizard is a terrible opponent". If a wizard of mid to high level gets locked in melee with a fighter of equal or higher level, well, then said wizard is a poor wizard, and thus deserving of every ounce of whoopas he gets. My two bits, anyway.

As for the old argument of silenced Teleport vs. silenced spell of death and mayhem, I can relate to the previous posters. I'll just add MHO. What to choose all depends on the type of character. Regardless, they should still be able to deal with a ju-ju-less fighter any day, if they did their homework in time.

dalor

08-07-2006, 08:19 PM

I don`t know if anyone remembers a spell called
"Rainbow Shield" from 2nd Edition; but it allowed a
3rd or lower level spell to be placed in the shield
that would attack anyone who attacked the shielded
person.

Vampiric Touch was always nice. I would let a fighter
beat on me all day and suck the life out of him.

Anthony Edwards

--- The Swordgaunt <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
>
> Then the fighter, especially if an archer type,
> kills the wizzie anyways.
>
> -----------------------------
>
>
>
> The old maxim is true, in D&D as well as in the old
> AD&D (and most other systems, as well), "a prepared
> wizard is a terrible opponent". If a wizard of mid
> to high level gets locked in melee with a fighter of
> equal or higher level, well, then said wizard is a
> poor wizard, and thus deserving of every ounce of
> whoopas he gets. My two bits, anyway.
>
> As for the old argument of silenced Teleport vs.
> silenced spell of death and mayhem, I can relate to
> the previous posters. I`ll just add MHO. What to
> choose all depends on the type of character.
> Regardless, they should still be able to deal with a
> ju-ju-less fighter any day, if they did their
> homework in time.
>
>

>
> Birthright-l Archives:
> http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to
> LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Vicente

08-07-2006, 08:51 PM

In the spanish list of DnD 3e, some time ago people did a massive munchkin
tournament. Rules were if I remember correctly:

- only the 3 core books allowed
- 10 levels (if you were playing a monster race then adjusting ECL
accordingly)
- usual money for that level for equipment, magic items,...

There were some extra rules also about spells, enchants and equipment (for
example, I think you could cast spells on you only 24 hours before the
combat, so people didn´t enter with 1000 short buffs). 3 neutral referees
were ruling the combats and it was all played through a mail list so all the
list could see the combats (there were 2 lists, one for the players and
another for the people watching the combats). The referees posted in the
observers list the results of the actions and what was happening.

The tournament lasted 1 year more or less (40 people I think, I don´t
remember exactly). All non-caster players were killed in the first 2 rounds
of the tournament. The only non-caster that was capable of trying something
instead of getting instantly humiliated by a caster was a halfling rogue
with a looooot of hide skill and some seeds to plant trees in the fighting
arena to hide.

It was very fun to see munchkin people at their best, and the most important
thing we were teached: magic rules (in spells and in spell casting magic
items). Nothing compares to them.

Greetings!

Vicente

P.D.: I think there´s another spanish person in this list that was present
in that tournament, but not sure
P.D.: the winner of the tournament tried first playing with a giant ghostly
squid that the referees ruled as ilegal :p

----- Original Message -----
From: "The Swordgaunt" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: Elves and things about them [19#3046]

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
> http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=3046
> The Swordgaunt wrote:
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
>
> Then the fighter, especially if an archer type, kills the wizzie anyways.
>
> -----------------------------
>
>
>
> The old maxim is true, in D&D as well as in the old AD&D (and most other
> systems, as well), "a prepared wizard is a terrible opponent". If a wizard
> of mid to high level gets locked in melee with a fighter of equal or
> higher level, well, then said wizard is a poor wizard, and thus deserving
> of every ounce of whoopas he gets. My two bits, anyway.
>
> As for the old argument of silenced Teleport vs. silenced spell of death
> and mayhem, I can relate to the previous posters. I`ll just add MHO. What
> to choose all depends on the type of character. Regardless, they should
> still be able to deal with a ju-ju-less fighter any day, if they did their
> homework in time.
>
>
>
> Birthright-l Archives:
> http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
>
>
>

The Swordgaunt

08-07-2006, 09:12 PM

I notice that the quote in my post (#26) has been changed. This was not intentionally, it wasn't even me. I'm using a computer at work, and it's in the common room, so any of my colleages have access to it. And up until now, it was set to remember my ID when I enter the forum.

Now, I'll go and find out who of them plays BR, or D&D, then have a word with them 'bout netiquette.

Again, sorry.

dalor

08-07-2006, 09:46 PM

Reply to my own post? yeah...

You could place a 4th or lower level spell in Rainbow
Shield...and the shield held the spell and visited the
attack on anyone that hit you for the duration.

Ahhh...walking through an orc horde was good in those
days!

Anthony Edwards

--- Anthony Edwards <dalor_darden@YAHOO.COM> wrote:

> I don`t know if anyone remembers a spell called
> "Rainbow Shield" from 2nd Edition; but it allowed a
> 3rd or lower level spell to be placed in the shield
> that would attack anyone who attacked the shielded
> person.
>
> Vampiric Touch was always nice. I would let a
> fighter
> beat on me all day and suck the life out of him.
>
>
> Anthony Edwards

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

gazza666

08-07-2006, 11:45 PM

Are you folks kidding? Wizards are overpowered at high levels in 3e? I have yet to see a single 20th level wizard EVER defeat a comparable level fighter in combat, unless the wizard was already buffed/prepped for battle.

As you can't assume the wizzie is buffed beforehand, especially considering encounter distances often, the wizard gets one spell off... then is dead.

I would counter that you almost certainly can't assume that the fighter starts at melee range with the wizard, so he doesn't get a full attack the first round. YMMV, but one-shotting a high level character is quite tricky even if they're a wizard.

So, that one spell better be a good 'un. Fly to remove the concern about melee is the one I usually see, but on occasion, I see a high level charm of some type, to try and defeat that poor will save.

Why not Time Stop, followed by Gate and Shapechange? If there's still time, Teleport to about a 1000ft distance (still within Fireball range, but a tricky shot with a bow).

Really, this is overkill - Gate by itself would often be enough, as few fighters can go mano-a-mano with a Solar while there's a wizard shapechanged into a spectre flying around giving support. Indeed, the wizard could decide he's safe enough, and then Shapechange into a black dragon to give the Solar breath weapon support (as they are immune to acid).

That's without even mentioning the surefire killer tactic: Timestop, cast the planar protection spell (name escapes me at present), and then Plane Shift to the Negative Material Plane. Once there, gate in the fighter with the command "Stand still for the next 20 rounds".

Gate is broken, admittedly. Remove that from the equation and you're still left with Shapechange. Get rid of that, and there's still Time Stop, Fly, get some height, Mord's Disjunction, Protection from Arrows - and then take your time.

But really, that wasn't my point. Classes aren't supposed to be balanced for mano-a-mano combat. What I meant was that if you are in a high level party, the wizard is a lot more useful than the fighter is. Lots of high level encounters involve magic immune or highly resistant creatures (golems, rakshasha, and so on) primarily because it gives the fighter something to do.

The Swordgaunt

08-08-2006, 11:20 AM

Lots of high level encounters involve magic immune or highly resistant creatures (golems, rakshasha, and so on) primarily because it gives the fighter something to do.

I do not agree.

These monsters are there to give depth to the setting. BR, and most conventional campaign setting are deviced to provide playability to various classes. If wizards were all-powerful, you would be blaying Ars Magica or some such game. Nothing wrong with that, but there is a distinct difference.

Even if I stated earlier that I think a prepared Wizard could and should be able to cream an equivalent level Fighter, I still wouldn't hesitate in having him lynched by the mob. Remember the European stories about vampires being put to the stake by angry villagers. A modern parallel is mass riots facing a tank. Its obviously leathal, but when an individual is pushed too far, and is engulfed in a raging mob, things like this happens.

A fireball could doubtlessly clear the town square, but what if they attacked when the poor wiz was napping, or in the wee hours before he had memorized his spells? Even if he managed to keep the peasants at bay with the fear of Arcane WMD's, he would quickly gain rep as an evil wizard tyranizing the area. I'm willing to bet my treasury that would-be heroes starts to seek him out, hoping to gain honour and glory by ridding the realm of such a nuisance.

If the guy was the ruler of the Realm, well, word would reach his neighbours, and he would be known as an evil, murderous tyrant. Never a good thing to have in your portifolio, unless you plan to enter a diplomatic exchange program with Kal-Shaitarak.

nagebenfro

08-08-2006, 02:14 PM

I would have to agree about the lynch mob. Using that wonderful assumption that one in twenty attacks is a hit, and one in twenty hits is a critical, out of a mob of 400 peasants, 20 are bound to hit, or whom one will achieve a critical strike. and that assumes they all only hit once.

And I tend to forget about the role of adventurers in Birthright. Too many of the other players assume they have excellent PR in their realm... I might be able to use that.

Even if I stated earlier that I think a prepared Wizard could and should be able to cream an equivalent level Fighter, I still wouldn't hesitate in having him lynched by the mob. Remember the European stories about vampires being put to the stake by angry villagers. ... Even if he managed to keep the peasants at bay with the fear of Arcane WMD's, he would quickly gain rep as an evil wizard tyranizing the area. I'm willing to bet my treasury that would-be heroes starts to seek him out, hoping to gain honour and glory by ridding the realm of such a nuisance.

If the guy was the ruler of the Realm, well, word would reach his neighbours, and he would be known as an evil, murderous tyrant. Never a good thing to have in your portifolio, unless you plan to enter a diplomatic exchange program with Kal-Shaitarak.

The Swordgaunt

08-08-2006, 02:35 PM

I would have to agree about the lynch mob. Using that wonderful assumption that one in twenty attacks is a hit, and one in twenty hits is a critical, out of a mob of 400 peasants, 20 are bound to hit, or whom one will achieve a critical strike. and that assumes they all only hit once.

I use a rule borrowed from Star Wars D20. Here it applies to missile combat, but I've ruled it to apply to melee as well. It sppeds up counter-insurgency and mob-control encounters immensely.

For every member of the attacking group after the first one, add +1 to the attack roll, up to +5. If there are several groups, each calculate their bonus and the attack(s) is resolved.

For melee, I do not allow more than five to attack at the same time. In the case of the rioting mob, I'd litterally throw in a liberal measure of rocks, etc. -a logical move, IMO, besides it does wonders for most protective spells. Then I'd have five plebs try to grapple the poor sod, with the appropriate synergy bonuses for the opposed roll. If this is successful, the rest is, as they say, history.

*Edit: While the wizard may escape this scenario, it most certainly puts the fear of the gods back in them*

Disclamer: This does not represent the group atttack rule from SWd20. It is a house rule.

gazza666

08-08-2006, 03:25 PM

gazza666

08-08-2006, 03:39 PM

These monsters are there to give depth to the setting.

You're reading more into that than I intended. I wasn't suggesting that DMs specifically choose magic immune creatures - merely that magic immunity (or at least resistance) tends to be a quality many high-CR creatures have. Compare this to the AC of most high CR creatures - it's not that uncommon for a fighter to have a 95% chance of hitting most "standard" monsters of equal CR at high levels, but a wizard is going to have to put up with a 30-50% chance of failing to overcome spell resistance.

This is because you can make a creature last longer against a fighter in lots of ways - bumping up the AC, giving it /- damage reduction, or just giving it lots of hit points. The former is the most frustrating method, because nobody likes to swing over and over again and miss. The latter is the most common technique; high CR monsters often have many more HD than their CR.

It doesn't work as well to protect from wizards, though, since they have spells that render hp irrelevant. (For "wizards" in the above, read "spellcasters"). Granted a large number of HD does give them better saves as well, but with the exception of creatures such as dragons, you can usually target a bad saving throw.

The entire concept of spell resistance, in my opinion, has always been a tacit admission on behalf of D&D that spellcasters get too powerful. If spellcasters were balanced, arguably, saving throws would be sufficient.

But that is, obviously, a highly subjective position.

Even if I stated earlier that I think a prepared Wizard could and should be able to cream an equivalent level Fighter, I still wouldn't hesitate in having him lynched by the mob. Remember the European stories about vampires being put to the stake by angry villagers.

Well, the storyteller can have the vampire run away to make the story sound better. Angry mobs would find it difficult to run a prepared high level spellcaster out of town, and frankly would have trouble with a high level fighter as well (Great Cleave can be brutal, though I concede they'd eventually overwhelm him).

Worst case scenario: spellcaster escapes via some means (planar travel spells are common to all spellcasters), and then annhilates the mob at their leisure later. But it is doubtful it would be necessary.

A modern parallel is mass riots facing a tank. Its obviously leathal, but when an individual is pushed too far, and is engulfed in a raging mob, things like this happens.

Technology has limitations that 9th level spells are largely free from. D&D has several absolutes that work against the mob - incorporeal subtype being one (Shapechange is capable of granting that). There might be one or two members of the mob with magic weapons, but that just means they'll be the first targets. And if you open with a Mord's Disjunction...

A fireball could doubtlessly clear the town square, but what if they attacked when the poor wiz was napping, or in the wee hours before he had memorized his spells?

It all depends on how paranoid the wizard is. I've known high level PC wizards that sleep only in extradimensional spaces (Rope Trick or Magnificent Mansion) which limits their vulnerability - and they should always be able to teleport away from an angry mob.

Which is not to say there are not defenses against this sort of thing - merely to suggest that the average group of 1000 or so 1st level commoners aren't going to have Dimensional Lock and the like available.

I'm willing to bet my treasury that would-be heroes starts to seek him out, hoping to gain honour and glory by ridding the realm of such a nuisance.

Sure - any hero has to fear other heroes (and by "hero" I simply mean "high level" rather than "good"). But D&D isn't really well constructed to simulate the "angry mob bringing down a tank" scenario.

irdeggman

08-08-2006, 03:52 PM

You're reading more into that than I intended. I wasn't suggesting that DMs specifically choose magic immune creatures - merely that magic immunity (or at least resistance) tends to be a quality many high-CR creatures have. Compare this to the AC of most high CR creatures - it's not that uncommon for a fighter to have a 95% chance of hitting most "standard" monsters of equal CR at high levels, but a wizard is going to have to put up with a 30-50% chance of failing to overcome spell resistance.

True but most encounters in Birthright will not be of the "monster" type. They will be humanoids since that is the most common "creature" around.

Now you can also use multple lower CR creatures to raise the EL. It is part of the table for mixed pairs.

Worst case scenario: spellcaster escapes via some means (planar travel spells are common to all spellcasters), and then annhilates the mob at their leisure later. But it is doubtful it would be necessary.

I assume you are refering to settings other than Birthright.

Check the variant rule in Chap 8 on limited magical transportation. While "technically" listed as a variant, IMO - it is an extremely popular opinion and used as the "default" for the game. When Ch 8 is finally finished and sanctioned we will have a poll on wheter nor not that should be the default system or not.

Sure - any hero has to fear other heroes (and by "hero" I simply mean "high level" rather than "good"). But D&D isn't really well constructed to simulate the "angry mob bringing down a tank" scenario.

Pg 59-60 of the DMG II has "rules" for mobs.

The Swordgaunt

08-08-2006, 04:17 PM

Granted, a wizard can easily get too dug in to be tackled by a mob, and I agree that D&D isn't a game where heroes have to be afraid the mob if their popularity drops.

But I always make a point of having any action made by the player(s) have an apropriate reaction from the setting. Say that Tim, the Mighty Magician, descides to set up shop in Whatsford Town in the Realm of Waddever. He starts by nuking the owner of a tower he fancies, then he moves in. A few weeks later, the city guard is reduced to one badly burned captain, and after last nights riots, the fields are pretty empty too. He has fireballed, lightningboltet and/or charmed most of the townspepole, and even been to Sigil for a day visiting a friend.

In any campaign worth its salt, Whatsford Town isn't an island. The Lord of the land will hear about it, and if he is turned into a newt, his Liege Lord, the King of Waddever, will surely know. Rumor will spread like wildfire across the Realm, making wizards in general most unpopular. The church/temple are bound to get the news as well. -Archprelate, our congregation in Whatsford are being preyed upon by an evil magician. The deacon has asked Your Holiness for help.

Now, technically, the wizard can keep the thousand inhabitants (or what's left of them by now) as his personal pets for as long as he likes. But what happens when the other mages grow tired of having the local baker soiling himself when they buy scones for their tea? When the King of Waddever makes Tim, the Mighty Magician, national security threat number one? When the Archprelate names him the greatest evil since the Nameless One?

One could base an entire campaign on Tim, the Mighty Magician, but he would hardly be the hero of the story, now would he?

irdeggman

08-08-2006, 08:27 PM

But I always make a point of having any action made by the player(s) have an apropriate reaction from the setting. Say that Tim, the Mighty Magician, descides to set up shop in Whatsford Town in the Realm of Waddever. He starts by nuking the owner of a tower he fancies, then he moves in. A few weeks later, the city guard is reduced to one badly burned captain, and after last nights riots, the fields are pretty empty too. He has fireballed, lightningboltet and/or charmed most of the townspepole, and even been to Sigil for a day visiting a friend.

Good points and in Chap 5 these things are called "Random Events". Even though there is no reason they always have to be "random".

IIRC Ian Hoskins created a much larger list of random events than the ones listed in the BRCS that can be used a while back. Maybe someone can find and post those for the masses.

The Swordgaunt

08-08-2006, 09:50 PM

Good points and in Chap 5 these things are called "Random Events". Even though there is no reason they always have to be "random".

Personally I don't like random events. I try (not always successful, though) to evaluate all encounters before they are implemented. E.g. if there are marauding goblins in the northern provinces, why are they there? If the PC's start nosing around -mine does this more often than not- I like to have thought it through first.

This especially goes for cases like the one in my previous post. I try to have the actions of the PC's influence the world around them. The risk here is that the story might digress as a result, thus I give the player(s) an out-of-character heads up before they do something that might change the story permanently. In the aforementioned case, Tim's player would be informed that there will probably be reprecussions, that is, unless Tim was created Neutral Evil. If the player decides to go ahead, well, he has a leading role in the story.

irdeggman

08-08-2006, 10:10 PM

Personally I don't like random events. I try (not always successful, though) to evaluate all encounters before they are implemented. E.g. if there are marauding goblins in the northern provinces, why are they there? If the PC's start nosing around -mine does this more often than not- I like to have thought it through first.

This especially goes for cases like the one in my previous post. I try to have the actions of the PC's influence the world around them. The risk here is that the story might digress as a result, thus I give the player(s) an out-of-character heads up before they do something that might change the story permanently. In the aforementioned case, Tim's player would be informed that there will probably be reprecussions, that is, unless Tim was created Neutral Evil. If the player decides to go ahead, well, he has a leading role in the story.

Yup - I hate random events too and really never rolled them up (don't tell my players). Random events basically weren't all that random they were the result of something else going on.

I too like to give my players a head's up on potential repurcussions. For example I had a player who was running the regent of Roesone and decided he wanted to have an elf wizard for a Lt. He did an "announcement" that he was looking for a wizard of elven blood (asically an elf or half-elf). I let him know that there rumors starting about how the regent was a changling lover and he got the hint and settled on a human wizard instead and made it public that this person was in his employ. Basically his realm had not done anything to pacify relations with the elves yet. He had thoughts of doing it but hadn't put anything into place yet.

RaspK_FOG

08-12-2006, 09:35 AM

I may have missed an explanation on the matter, but the chance of losing that point of Constitution was actually 5%; and, yes, really makes little sense in my opinion... However, I believe that the doubling in cost is a solid way to represent how items are difficult to make (another would be to double only the XP cost, but I prefer the current chosen standard [the one voted for, not the one on the BRCS]).

ThatSeanGuy

08-31-2006, 06:09 PM

This is Birthright where the core setting (not house-ruled to something else) is low on the appearance of magic items. Using the basis othat magic items cost twice as much to create in gp and xp would reduce the amount of items available. So in a world where magic items are rarer and harder to create which is the way to go?

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "low" here? Like, I generaly would try and make sure PCs had roughly the level of magic item-like power that similar-leveled regents do in the setting books-which isn't by any means /massive/, but the fighters had enchanted swords, armor, and shields, the wizards had a staff and a few potions or a robe, and so on. Is this what you're shooting for, or is it something even scarcer?

RaspK_FOG

08-31-2006, 07:32 PM

Well, I certainly wouldn't be giving so many items to typical non-scion, non-noble PCs, but that's another thing, I suppose.

Cargaroth

09-01-2006, 02:29 AM

Woldnt the availability of magic items be proportional to the amount of time spent adventuring, particularly in obscure and mythological places. Ancient artifacts are more likely to be found by medium to high level non-regent who have more time to spend crawling through crypts, investigating ancient stories of lost treasures etc. Regents may gain some experience points for their various actions, but may lack the time to pursue items not granted to them by their position.

RaspK_FOG

09-01-2006, 09:52 AM

Actually, I would avoid much thought when it comes to artifacts: they are more of a plot device than a typical magic item; secondly, there is one thing you seem to forget: most magic items most regents have tend to be reusable (like hereditary swords, suits of armour, etc.), or they can be made by the regent if expendable (wizard's staff, anyone?).

ThatSeanGuy

09-01-2006, 02:53 PM

Well, I was thinking more for scion or regent PCs, to be honest. Sorry if I was unclear!

Anyway, I don't think a magic weapon and some magic armor is entierly out of line for a group of low-mid level PCs. I guess I was just curious about what you guys define as "low"-I know some folks who flip out at the idea of someone below level 10 getting a +1 sword, y'know?

gazza666

09-01-2006, 02:58 PM

That's a pretty severe attitude even for 2nd edition. IMHO.

I mean, +5 swords exist, right? If it takes you 10 levels to get a +1, does that mean you can expect to get a +5 around level 50? ;)

RaspK_FOG

09-01-2006, 07:24 PM

Actually, things are a bit more like logarithmic: you can expect a 2nd level character to find one magic item of some little value, then better at 5th level, 9th level, 14th level, and probably at 20th level as well (that's the same item getting, better, or swapping it one way or another). Of course, a character is never expected to wander about with 20 or so magic items: that really does not fit the mood of BR; 5 to 10 items is an absolute maximum.

gazza666

09-02-2006, 01:39 AM

dalor

09-02-2006, 04:16 AM

Birthright has simply always appealed to me as more of
a role-playing experience with an excellent setting to
have as a backdrop.

Having a "magical sword" for my fighter is always
better than a non-magical one...he doesn`t know if it
has a +1 or a +5...he just knows it is valuable. :-)

Anthony Edwards

--- gazza666 <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:

> Your mileage evidently varies, but if I`m 5th level,
> a mere +1 to hit and damage isn`t really going to be
> something to write home about. I appear to be alone
> here in liking the greater prevalence of magic items
> in 3rd edition.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

RaspK_FOG

09-02-2006, 12:25 PM

Your mileage evidently varies, but if I'm 5th level, a mere +1 to hit and damage isn't really going to be something to write home about. I appear to be alone here in liking the greater prevalence of magic items in 3rd edition.
In case you didn't get it, I meant to give a +2 sword or whatever at 5th-level; pardon my pointing this out specifically, but an increase of your base combat prowess (i.e. effectively your Base Attack Bonus, since the enhancement bonus applies directly on the attack roll) ranging from 40% to 100% really is something to consider quite helpful...

And, no, we don't have a problem with magic items; we just feel that they are supposed to be special, a truly important element of Birthright (which pretty much states that every magic item has an at least baseline story behind it), and we also feel that, should each character wander around with a cartload of magic items, two very important elements of roleplaying, verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief, are lost to the advantages of magic.

ThatSeanGuy

09-02-2006, 02:01 PM

I think five to ten isn't bad for a low-magic game. Really, that's enough for the "standard" equipment that most classes are expected to eventualy get. That's usualy where I liked to keep my players back in the day-and its not like you don't have lieutenants or local heroes to give those old magic items from your third-level days to, either.

That could help get around the problem of "Well, I'd /like/ to upgrade, but this +1 short sword's been handed down through my family for generations and my grandfather's ghost would kick my ass."

"Hey, trusted lieutenant. Since you slew the hopping woman of the north fen and all, I think I'm going to trust you with the family sword for a while. May it aid you as it aided me, for if you lose it, woe and verily, I shall set you on fire."

"Y-es boss!"

Cuchulainshound

09-02-2006, 07:05 PM

Not to interrupt a perfectly good debate, but...

There is a progression of philosophy I've noticed with some RP'ers (I could characterize/stereotype them, but I won't, for several reasons.) They start out powergaming, and then, once they've mastered that to their own satisfaction, they notice that there is a joy in voluntarily adopting handicaps, less-than-optimal character builds, aka "concept characters"- the two dagger maniac, the orc bard, the goblin adept (yes, the NPC class!), the 20 Str 12 dex orcish rogue (aka "the piano thief"), the BR "magician". One of my favorites was a human bard who focused all his spells and skills towards... (wait for it)... telling stories. Not quite useless in combat, but boy, could he spin a tale around the hearth after the adventure!

Numberz is only numberz. If you enjoy the story, then a challenge of X difficulty for a "non-optimal" character is exactly the same as the same relative difficulty for a min-maxed character (not the same challenge, the same relatively difficult challenge.) A few more baddies for a strong character, or a few less for a "quirky" one- if the hero pulls it out by the skin of his teeth, it's just as enjoyable, either way.

In the words of Mark Twain- "Mountain Climbing is the most enjoyable sport of all... for those who enjoy that sort of thing."

Birthright-L

09-02-2006, 09:02 PM

What I enjoy about magical items are what Arya deemed "incidentals". They
are the things that make magical items cool or special for the characters in
some way, aside from their value to the players.

If, for example, a player routinely takes the time to describe a low creepy
crying sound coming from his magical sword each night and occasionally
otherwise reminds us that his sword is "special" in small subtle ways, I`m
much more likely to hand out magical items to that player. Logic be
damned.

Likewise, I once had a player who was hesitant to use a magical dagger,
because he wasn`t quite sure who made it or why. He always acted like it
might get him into more trouble, so of course I had no problem tacking on
more enchantments onto the thing later, even in 2nd edition. I haven`t
originally planned for that, but if the player treats a magical item as
magical... there isn`t really an upper limit.

My problem with magical items is that I feel like handing them out takes
away their "specialness". If players take it upon themselves to add that
"specialness" back in, I have no problem giving them out like babies to a
pack of starving hellhounds.

ThatSeanGuy

09-02-2006, 09:23 PM

Well, that's true. And flaws /can/ be fun to play out, as can non-optimal builds. An Orcish piano thief would be freaking hilarious to play, and if the tone of the game is that, awesome. Some folks like to play highly competitive games where you need to be practicly min-maxed to be vyable at all; I rarely see the pleasure in these games, but if I'm playing with a super-intense group, I'm not going to ruin their fun by making a gimpy character either.

On the other hand, there is a breed of gamer that seems to believe that if you do not have six crippling flaws, let alone happen to have an above average stat or two, then you are 1) A poor roleplayer, 2) A twink, and 3) A lesser form of life. The other side of the uber-munchkin's coin, if you will. And just like its not fun to get glared at because you spent more than ten minutes on your character's personality, I don't think its fun to get glared at because you want to play a fighter who's good at hitting things. Hopefuly this doesn't sound insulting, but I've always felt that relying entierly on character flaws to develop a personality was kind of cheating-sure, some people are completly defined by a physical or mental issue, but not everybody. "Slow Orc Thief" is just as one dimentional as "Strong Orc Warrior"-which is to say, a good foundation for a fully realized character that's a blast to play.

gazza666

09-03-2006, 01:13 AM

I personally utterly reject the idea that powergaming and roleplaying to a good story are in any way incompatible.

The iconic fantasy heroes that brought many of us to the game in the first place are such characters as Conan, Aragorn, Elric, and perhaps Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. None of these characters are weak; all of them are arguably Wolverine-like (ie "the best at what they do"). Yet that does not diminish their interest.

Now, low fantasy games can be a lot of fun. One of my all time favourite games (certainly more so than any variant of D&D) is RuneQuest, which is pretty much the low fantasy RPG. Games where the PCs are (perhaps) skilled soldiers rather than mighty warriors; gifted priests rather than mighty clerics; and so on. Games where even the mightiest of heroes is pretty much doomed facing more than 2 competent swordsmen, and he'll struggle with only 2.

But D&D simulates such games poorly, if at all. D&D is best suited to high fantasy rather than low fantasy. And powerful magic is an integral part of the D&D setting.

To bring this (somewhat) back on topic - if the idea of having PCs with powerful magic items (aka a normal D&D setting) is anathema to Birthright, then perhaps the D&D ruleset is not the ideal one to simulate the setting. I note that others have already pointed out that they use other rulesets to play.

geeman

09-03-2006, 02:35 AM

At 06:13 PM 9/2/2006, gazza666 wrote:

>I personally utterly reject the idea that powergaming and
>roleplaying to a good story are in any way incompatible.

I works in superhero RPGs... and I`d suggest that it works in an
aspect or two of other settings. For example, one of the metaphors I
use to describe awn-/ersheghlien in BR is that they are the setting`s
equivalent of superheros. In many ways they are what might be
described in comic books as characters that are powered by some
particular event in a thematic way. Where BR characters might have a
bloodline that is corrupted by the taint of Azrai, another character
in a different setting is bitten by a radioactive spider, infused
with gamma rays or simply mutated into a being that has a sort of
mythic power or abilities.

The idea extends in two directions in BR. First, scions are
themselves related to awn-/ershegh in their abilities. That aren`t
as extremely themed, but as characters "bitten by the blood of the
gods" they have a similar role. Generally, they are more like Batman
or Daredevil but the idea is similar.

The other direction the idea extends into in BR is that of elves (and
is also more on topic for this thread.) The sidhe are much more
directly themed than typical D&D elves, they have a background that
is more determinate, can have bloodline and--perhaps, most
importantly--they are immortal. That immortality itself is like a
superpower. Their other abilities and themes are in many ways
analogous to the abilities of various "alien races" in comic books
whose abilities and powers are beyond that of humans. Culturally
they differ, of course, but I wouldn`t be the first person to point
out that many aliens in sci-fi are derived from concepts of the
fae. Vulcans, Yoda, etc. are all reinterpretations of mythic fairy
creatures. The kidnapping and experimentation stories told about
various, bug-eyed "Grey" aliens equate to the disappearance and time
lost faery tales in which someone spends a night with fairies and
loses time or Snow White.

If examined like that we can see several ways to role-play such
characters (and possibly how they might be developed with more of a
"Powergaming" attitude in mind.)

Gary

Doyle

09-03-2006, 08:10 AM

Unfortunately I can still see Geeman's point as well as Gazza'a, and having played superhero and similar games at conventions and the roleplay has often been very good.

It does come down to your groups playing style, and / or possibly your GM's flexibility. I could write a game where the PC's are the 6 most powerful heroes in the realm and pit them against a major awnsheigh each month until they have gained enough levels to take down the remaining gods. I could see it getting stale real fast and could not turn this into a campaign without some challenges that have nothing to do with the powers they have - if the players are all powerful, that doesn't leave me much to work with.

My campaigns do focus on the PC's and their struggles to reach (and retain) hero status. The attitude I feel they should have towards the baddies of the game is more Cthulhu than Superhero. The Gorgon, despite having a hand in half the court intrigue's of Anuire, should not have reason to even note the PC's existence until they are at least level 10. The best the PC's should hope to be able to do at this level is thwart one of the Gorgon's plans and then hope he never finds out who dropped the spanner in the works.

I feel its true that the current version of DnD is better geared to power-gaming / high fantasy, but any system is what you make of it. The original BR rulebook did crimp the powerplaying of 2nd Ed intentionally with restrictions to spells and even banning access to clerical spells (Sidhe) and most magic schools (un-blooded), all of psionics and a number of other things. Playing to the 'spirit' of the setting rather than the system is what keeps the campaign flavour rather than it just being another 3e hack'n'slash (IMHO ;-)

ThatSeanGuy

09-03-2006, 03:10 PM

I feel its true that the current version of DnD is better geared to power-gaming / high fantasy, but any system is what you make of it. The original BR rulebook did crimp the powerplaying of 2nd Ed intentionally with restrictions to spells and even banning access to clerical spells (Sidhe) and most magic schools (un-blooded), all of psionics and a number of other things. Playing to the 'spirit' of the setting rather than the system is what keeps the campaign flavour rather than it just being another 3e hack'n'slash (IMHO ;-)

I really feel that was more of a way to balance out the /huge/ power boost you get from Blood Abilities and ruling a bloody kingdom, more than anything. I mean, lets not forget that regent heroes start out with, unless your rolls sucked, usualy two to three blood abilities, ten extra hit points, a whole load of followers and henchmen, a magical item or whatever equipment they wanted and whatever resources their domain happened to have.

I mean...that's a pretty good deal, no?

Personaly, I'm always for assuming that the DM knows what level of power he or she wants in a campaign. In other words, go for setting flavor, but leave the question of power open-suguest, instead of mandage. BRCS does this, I think-it doesn't tell me "You are a shitty DM if you give your players some magic bling early.", it tells me, "Birthright, as a setting, wants magic items to have histories-like in the stories, where kings all had some unique geegaw that was stolen from a fairy their ancestors had an affair with or whatever.", and I'm cool with that, whereas the former would just make me want to Monty Haul it out of spite.