Image via Pixabay.com / qimono

One of the banes of RPGs since time immemorial has been been the seemingly inevitable drift toward out-of-control character capabilities at high levels. It’s something that afflicts almost every campaign that persists for any length of time, regardless of genre, but most notably, the various incarnations of D&D.

This problem is so ubiquitous that there is more than a grain of truth in the suggestion that the number-one design priority of 5e was a solution to the problem. As a general rule, this and all related and similar problems tend to get lumped together under the heading of “game balance issues”.

One of the reasons for this, in terms of martial classes, is the stacking of bonuses from multiple magic items. I have a solution to that problem to offer – one that requires a mental shift on the part of GMs from very early in the campaign, if not from its very beginning – but on its own that solution will not be enough.

The Mage Problem

That’s because of the mage problem.

It’s long been recognized that mages are disproportionately vulnerable at lower levels, but rise to become incredibly and disproportionately powerful at higher levels. And that’s without factoring in magic items!

In order for non-mages to stand a chance against a mage character of high level, they need extreme buffs, and even then, it can be iffy.

It’s worthless to fix the martial power increment problem unless there is some sort of crimp placed on the magic-wielding classes as well.

But be warned – this involves digging deeper and making more fundamental changes to the game system than many will find comfortable.

The Martial solution

When I first started drafting this article, the intent was to do nothing more than present this solution. The rest came about as a result of attempting to place the problem into context.

The solution, ironically, is to have more magic items in the campaign of the martial-buffing variety.

It’s my contention that the problem stems, in large part, from the universality of application of the bonuses and modifiers accruing from the standard magic items of the rules. A +3 weapon confers it’s bonus to every attack, and that universality makes each increase to the bonus exponentially more effective. The same is true of armor and shields – they confer their bonuses to every attack.

(I also believe that this stems from a flawed attempt to address the mage problem I described earlier by elevating potential rivals in effectiveness rather than dealing with the real problem).

The martial problem can therefore be stemmed by adding a clause to the title and description of magic items based on the character level at the time of acquisition.

Here’s a hierarchy to contemplate:

• A specific species
• A group of related/similar species
• All species with a specific trait or common characteristic
• All species not specifically immune* i.e. universal – the current default

* (Some creatures may be functionally immune to certain types of damage; others might only be vulnerable to a weapon of greater bonus than the weapon in question).

And here’s another:

• In a specific environment
• In a specific environmental condition or circumstance, narrowly defined
• In a specific environmental condition or circumstance, broadly defined
• In any environment not explicitly defined as not supporting magic by the GM, i.e. universal – the current default

Here’s a third:

• Magic takes time to build up; in the first round, it’s +1, then +2, then +3, and so on, until achieving it’s ultimate power level as defined by the item description
• Magic is drained by use, starting at it’s maximum (say +3 for the sake of example) in the first round, then +2, then +1, then +0 for the rest of the combat.
• Magic is always on at full power – the current default

(In fact, you can further extend the number of entries in the above list by increasing the number of rounds at full power, or spacing out the number of attacks before a decline in effectiveness, or both).

Now contemplate all of the above in combination.

Each of these lists has something in common: they all make the modifier provided by the magic item conditional in some manner, declining in restriction as you advance down the list, until you end up at the current default.

A fourth list makes all of the above less painful to the PCs and the overall level of magic in the campaign controllable by the GM:

• Otherwise, treat as a normal item;
• Otherwise, treat as a +1 item;
  ….
• Otherwise, treat as a +n item (where n is full bonus -1)
• Otherwise, treat as a +n item (where n is the full bonus – i.e. the current default).

Under this schema, the first magic weapon you acquire might be a “longsword of +1 vs goblins, otherwise +0”. Then you might get a “longsword of +2 vs humanoids, otherwise +0”, then a “longsword of +2 vs underground humanoids, otherwise +1”. And so on. Each of these represents a measurable and quantifiable increase in the value and effectiveness of the magic items at the party’s disposal, while slowing the growth in effectiveness in any given situation to something more controllable.

Ignoring the last part of the list, whose number of entries is dependent on the “full bonus” and so complicates the question, there are 4?=48 combinations (more, if you add entries to the third list), with the current default as the very last of them – every other option is functionally weaker and more restricted.

This degree of nuance means that you can be more generous with magic items, not less (which is the usual advice to keeping Monty haul-ism in check), because there is a practical limit to the number of items that can be carried or at hand.

What’s more, there is an inherent logic in the items available being those that will be most useful in the current adventure. Let’s assume that you knew that you were going to be fighting giant spiders – the weapons that you would be most likely to take into such a battle (assuming you had access to them) would be the ones that gave you the biggest advantage you could find against that enemy. If that wasn’t enough, those are the weapons that will therefore be captured and cached by the enemies – leaving them there to be found when the PCs rock up to pick up where you left off. Of course, if the enemies were actually Dryders and not Giant Spiders, that might leave you in a bit of a pickle…

If the argument were presented properly to the players, you can make a reasonable argument that you are actually being more generous to them. Instead of placing martial equipment with a +1 (universal) bonus, you are giving them a limited +2 item.

The unstated key word to this concept is “containment”. You are containing the bonus in it’s applicability to circumstances that you control.

The ultimate weapon, under this paradigm, might well be a +3 (universal) weapon – which is a lot less effective than a +5 or even a +10.

Another word that comes to mind is “granularity”. You are diversifying the application of magic to ‘buff” martial traits so that there is more room in between the standard magic items with their universal bonuses.

Image via Pixabay.com / ArtsyBee,
Background by Mike

Side-benefits

There are a couple of side-benefits to this approach that are worth noting.

The first is that characters become more distinctive and specialized through the choice of magic items they make. Is a “+3 vs humanoids, +0 vs others” more valuable than a “+1 universal”? A hard choice, isn’t it – very dependent on what enemies you have encountered, and those you expect to encounter. You might be tempted to try carrying both… but then, along comes a “+4 vs reptiles, +0 vs others”, and – as a player – you might start to wonder, “is the GM dropping a hint? Which two should I keep?”

Secondly, it makes the magic items a greater conduit to the history of a location or adventure site or encounter.

Third, it makes the game world more diverse and interesting.

And fourth, it increases the scope of the tactical problems to be confronted by the players. “Hold them off while I get the more effective weapon from the packs!”

The Mage Solution

But that leaves high-level mages unchecked. As such, it’s only part of a solution to the problem.

Right now, the standard rules confer two things (of significance in terms of arcane power) to mages when they gain levels: an increase in the number of spells, and an increase in the spell level that they can cast. What if you didn’t get both by default, but had to choose which form of enhancement you gained?

What do you want: more powerful spells, or more of the spells you can already cast?

Of course, as a mage player, you want both – but you can’t have both.

Then, there’s the question of magic items. Contemplate wands whose caster level declines with the number of charges remaining, or which increase: fully charged, you might get 50 uses at minimum caster level, or 10 uses at caster level +4. Choices, choices, choices.

Choices

That’s the key to solving both problems, really. You are increasing the number of choices that the players have to make about their characters, and increasing their immersion in the game world because that’s the only guideline they have as to which choices are going to be the most useful in their future adventures.

Other Game Systems

Variations on, or combinations of, the principles of these solutions can deal with similar problems that arise in all other genres of game.

What if adding a new superpower to your repertoire required a reduction in effectiveness of all the ones you already have? It’s easy to specify “dead levels” to achieve this.

What if there was a cap to the number of improvements you could make to a skill before you had to start specifying only a limited aspect of the skill that would be enhanced by further skill improvements?

It doesn’t matter what your game system is, the general concepts can be applied to solving your problems with power creep – but you have to start early.

But I’m already In mid-campaign, and while power creep isn’t a serious problem yet….

It’s not too late, provided things are not already out of hand. You simply specify that these effects only apply to equipment/abilities/whatever in excess of the best that the party currently have access to.

It’s easiest to use D&D as the example again: if the best weapon the PCs have is a +2, then weapons are universal up to +2, but any further improvements are to be confined.

A mage’s first 5 levels might proceed as described in the rules, but from his next level onward a mage has to choose.

Remember, too, that these restrictions have to also apply to all NPCs. If you make a ruling such as the one in the previous paragraph, then ALL mages get both benefits (number of spells and spell levels castable) for their first five levels – but then the restrictions come into effect, and you have to choose.

There really is no longer an excuse for power creep to become a problem. There remain reasons why it might happen, but they are all now explicitly mistakes or choices made by the GM – and on his head be the consequences; ye reap what ye sew!