How I Stopped Worrying and Learned To Love Standard Plusses

[TwinBahamut]

Well you pretty much have to have an "Expected Wealth Chart" to make sure at the very least you're not giving out too much gold. Gold=Magic and it's about making sure your PCs aren't able to afford more than what they should for their level (including cash from selling off "useless" items).

I'm not so sure about that... With three designated primary items which are pegged to specific levels, giving out gold of any amount gets complicated. Mainly, it becomes more about open-ended minimums rather than vaguely defined assumptions (which never really worked as a proper guideline).

Assume that, for any given level, the necessary magic items needed for the math to work have value A. In fact, since we know that all magic items of a certain level share the same price, we know A = 3 x (Cost of item of the party's level), within certain tolerances. If the DM gives less than A, the PCs can't afford even the primary items. If the DM gives more than A, then the PCs have extra money to buy secondary items.

I don't know... other than the clear minimum, any further adjustment to the wealth seems to fall squarely within the realm of how many secondary items the DM want to give his players. If you just want PCs to have the basic three, then only give enough money for that (since presumably the PCs will prioritize keeping those items competitive). If you want the PCs to have a lot of secondary items, give them enough money to buy them, since as much as 3 x A or more will remain balanced so long as the level guidelines are enforced.

I guess the only important thing is developing good DM tricks to keep the level of items available to PCs under control.

Of course, I can see countless ways to modify the system already, thanks to the rules being so transparent and easy to manage. It is a huge improvement over 3E in customizability.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Well you pretty much have to have an "Expected Wealth Chart" to make sure at the very least you're not giving out too much gold. Gold=Magic and it's about making sure your PCs aren't able to afford more than what they should for their level (including cash from selling off "useless" items).

So, you're assuming there's a Ye Olde Magic Shoppe where they can sell surplus Swords +1 and spend this gold to pick up some Armor +5? IIRC, the 4E designers said quite specifically they were trying to get away from that. I can't stop you from having it in your campaign, but if the 4E design team supports my decision to not have these shops, that's good enough for me.

I don't have Swords +1 in my campaign, but if I did, and there were any surplus, I imagine the only real options the PC's would have would be tithing them to the Church, trading them to powerful Eladrin Nobles for favors (like a Get Out of Feywild Free card), and arming their elite Henchmen who guard their Keep. That or just putting it up on the wall with a nice plaque.

 

[JohnSnow]

Well you pretty much have to have an "Expected Wealth Chart" to make sure at the very least you're not giving out too much gold. Gold=Magic and it's about making sure your PCs aren't able to afford more than what they should for their level (including cash from selling off "useless" items).

Why?

The Item Levels chart tells the DM whether an individual item is unbalancing (that is, overpowered). That's pretty easy: don't give a 15th-level item to 10th-level characters, however much gold they've got. No wealth-by-level chart required.

On the other side of the scale, the "three key items" keeps the characters from being "underpowered." They need to have those items (or their equivalent in mathematical bonuses to attacks, AC, and defenses), but nothing else. Again, no wealth table required.

Suppose you decide to give them enough wealth to have 15 items? As long as they only have level-appropriate items, there's no balance issue. But as long as they have their "big three," they can be just scraping by saving their coppers and still handle any level-appropriate challenge.

 

[A'koss]

So, you're assuming there's a Ye Olde Magic Shoppe where they can sell surplus Swords +1 and spend this gold to pick up some Armor +5? IIRC, the 4E designers said quite specifically they were trying to get away from that. I can't stop you from having it in your campaign, but if the 4E design team supports my decision to not have these shops, that's good enough for me.

From the Des & Dev article...

"Fourth Edition D&D improves that useful tool by explicitly linking a magic item's level to its price. For example, all 9th-level magic items now cost the same number of gp to craft or to purchase."

*shrug*

Sounds like "Ye Olde Magic Shoppes" will be alive and well in 4e.

 

[A'koss]

Why?

The Item Levels chart tells the DM whether an individual item is unbalancing (that is, overpowered). That's pretty easy: don't give a 15th-level item to 10th-level characters, however much gold they've got. No wealth-by-level chart required.

Then all you have is a bunch of players all grumbling about why their PCs can't buy what they can afford due to nothing more than an arbitrary limitation. With purchasable magic items, I'm all but certain they'll have those wealth guideliness in. With the exception of rings, there doesn't seem to be any in-game reason to stop a PC from buying whatever he wants barring DM fiat.

On the other side of the scale, the "three key items" keeps the characters from being "underpowered." They need to have those items (or their equivalent in mathematical bonuses to attacks, AC, and defenses), but nothing else. Again, no wealth table required.

Suppose you decide to give them enough wealth to have 15 items? As long as they only have level-appropriate items, there's no balance issue. But as long as they have their "big three," they can be just scraping by saving their coppers and still handle any level-appropriate challenge.

Of course in reality, PCs are just going to want to sell off the majority of those 12 minor items in order to buy bigger, better items for their main 3 (maybe keeping a couple of the choice minor items). Now you have to explain to them why they can't do that now, but maybe in a couple more levels...

 

[Sir Brennen]

Once per day items are simply flat-out bad design, unless something prevents you from taking the item off and slipping another once per day item on in its place. Again, with this approach, the system is discounting the ability to just stockpile bonuses and go Gojira at people. It isn't safe (or good for the system) just to ignore bonuses because they aren't static.

Shifting away from unequal dependency is a good thing. But you do seem to be missing the explosive mathematical potential that remains in the magic item system.

I think more attention should be paid to the Magic Item Compendium for clues on how 4E magic will work. It's already been mentioned as one of the 4e "previews".

Items which give a sudden boost, ability or power can normally be done only one at a time, and the effects are brief. Players aren't going to be able to "stock-pile" things for a massive, single effect or attack. If they are stockpiling, they're only giving themselves a wider array of choices which still have to be used individually. This is also a choice between using an item or a class ability.

Two other things which will curb "swapping out" limited use items... available cash and DM control of item placement. With 10k in gold, a player might get 5 x/day level 1 items, or 1 x/d level 5 item. I think either choice will be valid, and neither unbalancing the system.

It's probably best to stop thinking of item "bonuses" in terms of additive power, too. There's probably more items which do things like grant an extra attack under very specific circumstances, allow rerolls, etc, without directly adding to a single attack or defense in a upward scaling fashion. The "explosive mathematical potential" is non-existent.

Again, look at the MIC, or most magic items found in the 3.5 books the last couple of years. Characters with these items are getting a broader range of abilities to choose from, not neccessarily more powerful abilities.

And yes, there are some powerful abilities which aren't numeric bonus related, like flight. Which is why flying has been bumped up a few levels magic wise, and corresponding items will be for higher level characters as well. We've been given plenty to indicate that these sorts of things have been taken into account as well, and the "new math" isn't limited to just things that apply to a d20 roll.

 

[JohnSnow]

Then all you have is a bunch of players all grumbling about why their PCs can't buy what they can afford due to nothing more than an arbitrary limitation. With purchasable magic items, I'm all but certain they'll have those wealth guideliness in. With the exception of rings, there doesn't seem to be any in-game reason to stop a PC from buying whatever he wants barring DM fiat.


Of course in reality, PCs are just going to want to sell off the majority of those 12 minor items in order to buy bigger, better items for their main 3 (maybe keeping a couple of the choice minor items). Now you have to explain to them why they can't do that now, but maybe in a couple more levels...

Emphasis mine. I'll take that bet. It's unnecessary except as a crutch for DMs who lack the cojones to tell their players "No."

Player: "Why can't I have more loot?"
DM: "Because that's all there is."
Player: "Fine, can I sell this extra stuff and put a higher bonus on my major items?"
DM: "Sorry, you don't know anybody who makes items that powerful."
Player: "Can I make them myself?"
DM: "Nope, you don't have the personal power to craft something that potent."
Player: "Oh. Well, I guess I'll wait until I find them or get powerful enough."
DM: "Very mature of you."

No rules can prevent shoddy DMing. And that's EXACTLY what you're talking about - bad DMing.

 

[A'koss]

Emphasis mine. I'll take that bet. It's unnecessary except as a crutch for DMs who lack the cojones to tell their players "No."

Heh... well, we'll see soon enough if they do or not.

However, deliberately creating a problem by putting in more wealth than you will allow the PCs to spend, one might also construe as "Bad DMing". I think WotC will have the guidelines in to try and avoid the argument altogether (PCs simply won't have the money to buy outside their level). Another reason for the wealth guidelines will be their digital games - to be "legal PCs" they will have to adhere to X amount of wealth so that PCs moving from game to game will all be on par with one another.

And just for the record, I don't agree with the idea of buying anything more than LL items with gold. I would rather mid level items on up were in their own seperate economy/market (purchased with more exotic currency) which would then free up large sums of gold for other purposes. Then the game would be a lot more tolerant with the amount of cash you handed out, because it couldn't be converted directly into personal power. But unfortunately that's not how it is.

 

[pemerton]

Well you pretty much have to have an "Expected Wealth Chart" to make sure at the very least you're not giving out too much gold. Gold=Magic and it's about making sure your PCs aren't able to afford more than what they should for their level (including cash from selling off "useless" items).

As I posted in one of the currency threads, and as John Snow is saying, there is another way of handling this, namely, stopping the PCs getting access to non-level approrpriate items. Then they can have as many level-appropriate ones as they want - it won't break the game if the Fighter can toggle between a +2 spear and a +2 sword. And this will also make it feasible for money to be spent on other things, like castles, by some players, rather than on items - as long as a castle is as useful as a similarly-priced secondary item.

Then all you have is a bunch of players all grumbling about why their PCs can't buy what they can afford due to nothing more than an arbitrary limitation.

Why does the limitation have to be arbitrary? From a metagame point of view it's not arbitrary, so all that's needed is a good in-game reason. We haven't seen the flavour text on rings yet, but I'm sure there'll be some. Whatever you imagine that being, extrapolate it to cover the availabitility of other items.

As for magic item shops, W&M expressly says that they want to get away from having mundane equipment on one price list and non-mundane on another. So expect to see Potions of Healing on the equipment list.

 

[IceFractal]

I don't see why secondary items being powerful is a problem, honestly. Yes, a character with plenty of items is more powerful than a character without items ... as they should be! Plenty of people, including myself, like having magic items and want those items to actually do useful things. If having items doesn't give you an advantage, then what's the point of them?

What's needed is not a system where having no items doesn't change your power. It's a system where having no items changes your power in a consistent way. That is, if a Fighter without items is equal to foes X levels lower, than a Wizard without items should also be equal to foes X levels lower. If that's the case, and X is easy to determine, then you can run a low or high item campaign just fine.