4e Level 30 Magic Items. Who makes these things?

[hamishspence]

Ye Olde High Empires

Is the most common justification for finding Big Magic: it takes a whole empire for people to rise to the power and wealth needed to make the items. As for why, big empires attract big enemies: all the way up to ancient dragons and abominations. when empire falls, a few of its great treasures might be lost.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Who springs for that upgrade?

Player characters.

 

[zoroaster100]

I prefer the 4e approach. I don't want magic items to generally be made, bought and sold as part of an economy. I want them to wondrous rare things which are mostly obtained through heroic quests and discovered in ancient ruins of civilizations with greater knowledge of magic than now remains in the world.

 

[Mercule]

No one buys/sells of that potence. The numbers are there for other mechanical reasons (residuum, rituals, etc.).

The main reason the numbers at the lower levels work as market values isn't because the +1 bow is as common as the warhorse, but because most of the people in the market for one or the other do a comparitive value assessment.

The bow helps you fight battles better. Despite bravado and bullying, most people are just as happy to ambush better than to battle better, especially with regularity. Battles get you killed. The warhorse, on the other hand, helps you battle better, lets you get around better, looks status-y without having to actually attack someone with it, helps you carry stuff, and (if worse comes to worse) can be used to plow fields or eaten.

The only people who think it's a fair trade off are people mentally unhinged enough to willingly venture into holes in the ground that hold ghosts, unseelie, aberrations, and the boogey man.

 

[cangrejoide]

F-22 cost = US$137.5 million

Now imagine how many level 1 soldiers could have been hired and armed with m16+1, 2 sets of medical kits, gear and short change to spend on booze and whores.

Of course in D&D I just say those are gifts from the gods or artifacts fo relics from earlier times when the gold piece was worth so much more.

 

[tomBitonti]

F-22 cost = US$137.5 million

Now imagine how many level 1 soldiers could have been hired and armed with m16+1, 2 sets of medical kits, gear and short change to spend on booze and whores.

Of course in D&D I just say those are gifts from the gods or artifacts fo relics from earlier times when the gold piece was worth so much more.

Now ... that is an interesting question. What is the cost of a trained and equipped soldier? I think it is a whole lot more than the cost of a M16 and kit.

But a F-22 is a bad example: Having air power vs. not having air power is huge difference, and having the best air forces may mean that you can decimate the enemies air power and achieve overall dominance.

Kindof a thread-jack, but I'm trying to figure how long manned planes last. Drones and unmanned missile platforms seem way more cost effective.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

4e Level 30 Magic Items. Who makes these things?

Seriously. I don't mean from a "Who's powerful enough to craft this?" standpoint but from a purely economic one.

Economics doesn't work with DnD.

Let's consider the Holy Avenger. It only comes in 2 flavors +5 and +6. Now the +5 version costs 625,000 gp. That's a lot, I'm going to guess and say that's about the net worth of your average county, but it's not obscene. The +6 Holy Avenger however costs 3,125,000gp. Who springs for that upgrade? If Joe Paladin wants to go from a +5 to a +6 Holy Avenger he needs to shell out 2.5 million gp. (Actually it's worse than that due to the 20% trade-in value, but let's pretend you can just pay the difference.)

Now for that same money Our Hero can outfit a Legion of 1st lvl Paladins with Dwarven Plate +1, A Flaming Sword +1, A Heavy Warhorse, 2 healing potions and have enough left over to spring for ale and whores for everyone.

Now who really thinks his God and Country are benefiting more from his getting an extra +1 than from having 1000 Paladins properly outfitted for duty?

It's cool for some people. I do not play World of Warcraft, but still follow the lore, so I know about a character (a paladin) and weapon known as the Ashbringer. The weapon was basically an uber-powerful holy avenger that turned undead into dust on contact. For some people, this is really cool.

Also, a legion of 1st-level paladins won't be able to take on the kinds of threats high level paladins can take on. It might be better to give the big guy the better weapon. (True, it's only a +1 difference, though.)

 

[The Little Raven]

I think this is just another case of the fact that 4e rules in no way simulate a world that is self-consistent.

"Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the latter as the game-school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school...As a realistic simulation of the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure.... Those who desire to creature and populate imaginary worlds.... who seek relaxation with fascinating game, and who generally believe that games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste."

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[Shemeska]

I disagree. 4E has returned to the old way of DnD. That means the DM decides who makes these things.

I think there's a big difference between a system being intentionally designed to foster DM creativity in such things, and a system just not bothering to consider the topic at all. It's the same way in how there's a big difference between intentional mystery and just being poorly detailed.

I don't think 4e is remotely concerned with many of the non-gamist aspects of a campaign, and while it would seem to cater well to its default playstyle, it fails when you try to use it counter to that design.

 

[Hussar]

I think there's a big difference between a system being intentionally designed to foster DM creativity in such things, and a system just not bothering to consider the topic at all. It's the same way in how there's a big difference between intentional mystery and just being poorly detailed.

I don't think 4e is remotely concerned with many of the non-gamist aspects of a campaign, and while it would seem to cater well to its default playstyle, it fails when you try to use it counter to that design.

I think you're revising history here.

There was no intention to foster DM creativity in the economic rules of any edition. In 1st edition, after about 4th level, there was pretty much nothing to spend your money on, so, we got training rules that meant that every adventurer should retire as soon as he could and simply train others. The profit was WAY beyond what you could get out of a dungeon.

2e made even less sense in that you were forbidden to buy or sell magic items. What? How does that make any sense?

3e's economics was hard wired into the level system, which made for all sorts of wonkiness.

I'm not seeing how the economics of D&D has ever been there to inspire DM's. In 4e, it's entirely left to the DM to design his setting. Who made that +6 Holy Avenger? Well, the same guy that did it in every other edition - whoeverthehell the DM says did it.