Where Has All the Magic Gone?

[Staffan]

A big chunk of the lack of "wonder" in 4e items comes via 3e and its item costs. Assigning a gp value to every item is essentially turning the items into a point-based system, and point-based systems tend to have a lot less flavor in them.

For example, look at the ring of shooting stars in 3e. It's a pretty cool item, letting you cast dancing lights or light with varying frequencies as well as a pair of cool offensive powers (ball lightning and shooting star). But it costs 50,000 gp, making it the kind of thing you find at 15th to 20th level. At that level, lightning balls that hit for a total of 4 to 6 d6es once per night and what's essentialy a 7d6 fireball (DC 13 for half) paired with 3d6 impact damage (except they're both static values) twice per week just isn't that exciting. From a power level point of view, the +5 to AC you'd get from a ring of protection +5 is way better. Hell, the +4 you can get from little over half the price is also better, or the defensive benefits of a ring of evasion. So, you won't be seeing many 3e characters with a ring of shooting stars.

This is also the same reasoning that probably makes wands of cure light wounds the most common magic item in the D&D universe - they are so dirt cheap for what they do that not using them to get back on your feet after a fight makes no sense at all.

I think this is the same thing that happens when you compare point-based and class-based systems. Class-based systems allow, to a greater degree, that you include some nice flavor or situational abilities as well, that in a point-based system would get eschewed in favor of greater ability in your area of specialization.

For example, take my Warlock character in WoW. Her focus is on spells that inflict lots of ongoing damage, life-draining spells, and summoning a demon that keeps enemies away from her. But she also has a couple of utility spells, like Water Breathing, or summoning a demonic eye that she can send out to scout on the surrounding area. If I had built the character with a point-based system, I would never have chosen abilities like these, but since I have them anyway I might as well use them, and I feel they add quite a bit of flavor.

I think they were on the right track with things like these when they talked about "siloing" abilities in 4e design, but the implementation seemed only to extend to turning a bunch of stuff into rituals, and to some extent separating utility powers from attack powers (though most utility powers are still combat powers).

 

[billd91]

A big chunk of the lack of "wonder" in 4e items comes via 3e and its item costs. Assigning a gp value to every item is essentially turning the items into a point-based system, and point-based systems tend to have a lot less flavor in them.

For example, look at the ring of shooting stars in 3e. It's a pretty cool item, letting you cast dancing lights or light with varying frequencies as well as a pair of cool offensive powers (ball lightning and shooting star). But it costs 50,000 gp, making it the kind of thing you find at 15th to 20th level. At that level, lightning balls that hit for a total of 4 to 6 d6es once per night and what's essentialy a 7d6 fireball (DC 13 for half) paired with 3d6 impact damage (except they're both static values) twice per week just isn't that exciting. From a power level point of view, the +5 to AC you'd get from a ring of protection +5 is way better. Hell, the +4 you can get from little over half the price is also better, or the defensive benefits of a ring of evasion. So, you won't be seeing many 3e characters with a ring of shooting stars.

I think you're close to the right track. Prices on magic items wasn't new since they were there in 1e. But the pricing of items then was intended to be reasonable for selling the item, primarily, rather than buying or making the item. So, in at least some respects, there was a lot less need for rampant item value inflation and that ring of shooting stars could be more reasonably priced at 15,000 (rather than 50,000) and a vorpal sword at 50,000 (rather than 128,000).

Plus, though there were implied level/wealth guidelines with respect to power of magic weapons and the requirement to buy your way out of your current level with cash, there were no other really explicit guidelines about placement of magic treasure other than the admonition to be generally stingy and make challenges reasonably appropriate to the treasure find. The random treasure tables could lead to some quirky placements even though they tended to favor weaker items, but the DM was fully expected to overrule them as necessary.

3e magical treasure placement and wealth values were tremendously affected by the ease with which items could be made. That had the two effects of skewing interesting and quirky items into the "so expensive and marginal in use, why would I make (keep) it?" category and promoting the strategy of making stuff that was useful in 90% or more of the cases in which you want magic items. And that's the Big 6 right there.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It *is* the responsibility of the DM--in my view, anyways--to design or adjuducate randomly rolled encounters--to be reasonably balanced--in that the party has a decent chance of emerging victorious, but also has a reasonable chance of experiencing defeat. Last time I checked...that's the goodness of providing a *Challenge*.

SHARK, always nice to hear from you.

Consider, if you will, the original concept of a megadungeon. PCs of any level can attempt any level of the dungeon, but as the dungeon descends, the challenges become harder. The DM does not determine whether or not the PCs have a decent chance of emerging victorious from any encounter. The players do, and they do so based upon where they choose to go.

It is relatively easy to map the same philosophy onto the world at large. So long as the players have a reasonable means to guage the "threat level" of various regions, they determine what level of risk they want to accept. Knowing, of course, that greater risk often (but not always) leads to greater reward.

If the players know that Smaug lives on the Lonely Mountain, and they decide to go and attack Smaug at 1st level, I don't feel at all bad about letting them encounter Smaug. And I don't care what their chances of survival are.

Likewise, if the players know of a local kobold nest, and decide to wipe it out at 10th level, I don't feel at all bad about letting them mop up the joint easily for a few copper pieces and trinkets.

IMHO, player decision-driven campaigns make for the best RPG experiences. YMMV.

Q wrote a very well-researched thread about this, and since it doesn't match some peoples' experiences (but does match others'), it's controversial, and this argument has spread outwards to every single thread that so much as mentions either advancement or treasure in 1e.

Q wrote an excellent article that listed what was available (i.e., what was in the module), but it didn't provide anything in the way of research re: how "available" the treasure actually was (i.e., what was required to actually get the listed treasure).

I offered some very specific guidelines about what would demonstrate me wrong. Time required to search is extremely simple to determine.

It isn't about who "played the game right".


RC

 

[SHARK]

SHARK, always nice to hear from you.

Consider, if you will, the original concept of a megadungeon. PCs of any level can attempt any level of the dungeon, but as the dungeon descends, the challenges become harder. The DM does not determine whether or not the PCs have a decent chance of emerging victorious from any encounter. The players do, and they do so based upon where they choose to go.

It is relatively easy to map the same philosophy onto the world at large. So long as the players have a reasonable means to guage the "threat level" of various regions, they determine what level of risk they want to accept. Knowing, of course, that greater risk often (but not always) leads to greater reward.

If the players know that Smaug lives on the Lonely Mountain, and they decide to go and attack Smaug at 1st level, I don't feel at all bad about letting them encounter Smaug. And I don't care what their chances of survival are.

Likewise, if the players know of a local kobold nest, and decide to wipe it out at 10th level, I don't feel at all bad about letting them mop up the joint easily for a few copper pieces and trinkets.

IMHO, player decision-driven campaigns make for the best RPG experiences.

Greetings!

Hail, my friend! Well, of course! I use many such encounters--I forgot what the DMG calls them at the moment--"Fixed" and "Tailored" or something like that. Indeed, I have many areas that the PC's would die swiftly in if they were foolish enough to go there!

I suppose I should have been more specific.

My comments were meant with the line of reasoning...the PC's are traveling in an area reasonably expected to be equal with them...they've been fighting Kobolds, bandits and goblins--or maybe if somewhat higher, say, in a cavern system--they are fighting Orcs, Ogres, and Trolls. Within that *context*--the DM has the responsibility of providing balanced encounters. They wouldn't expect to run into a room of four Lvl 60 dragons, or if they encountered something less grand, but clearly much more powerful--then they should have a reasonable chance of escape.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Rel]

Folks if there are old arguments to be rehashed, then please let the the hasher state their position for themselves rather than do it for them. That will lead to a much more productive discussion.

 

[Andor]

Not every person who picks up the game wants Mystery and Wonder. And it is easier for a DM who wants it to put it back than it is for a DM who doesn't to remove it.

If they don't want mystery and wonder they don't want Dungeons & Dragons, they want Papers & Paychecks.

 

[billd91]

If they don't want mystery and wonder they don't want Dungeons & Dragons, they want Papers & Paychecks.

I dunno. I often wonder where my paycheck goes and why it goes so fast. And that's not even mentioning the 401K contribution being thrown in to the great black hole...

 

[malraux]

I think another area ripe for interesting effects could be the rituals section. If you want a weird power that the PCs can use but that isn't a weapon or the like, why not make it a ritual scroll?

 

[The Little Raven]

If they don't want mystery and wonder they don't want Dungeons & Dragons, they want Papers & Paychecks.

Thanks for dictating to other people what they want. That's useful in a discussion.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I am not sure if this has been brought up yet, but the sheer number of magic items I think has a impact. No matter how interesting a magic item it is if you know there is whole lot more powerful ones out there or you already got a ton then it loses some of its luster.

In a way it is sorta funny a low-magic game would probably help even simple magic items like a +5 flaming longsword look/feel much more interesting then a campaign with many magical items.