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

[Lizard]

I'd take a Legion of soldiers led by a dozen low level Paladins over an extra plus to my weapon any day. Even against level 30's, the soldiers will still provide more benefit than an extra + would on a weapon. I agree they wouldn't be able to do much harm to a level appropriate opponent, however the bonuses they give to allies due to flanking, aid another, blocking the enemy, etc, far outweighs a measly +1.

For the first round. Then they are incinerated by an AE attack (again, this works for any version of D&D...the main question for me, in 4e, is are the rank-and-file rabble Minions or Soldiers? If the latter, some might survive the first round of combat. Unfortunately, the 4e answer seems to be "Whatever they need to be for the sake of the PCs", which makes worldbuilding exercises difficult...).

The extreme abilities of high level characters in any version of D&D is one of the conceits which drive the implied setting. They're why someone pays 100K gold for a golem to guard their tomb instead of hiring a huge army to do it -- because a high level rogue can slip past that army, a high level wizard can incinerate them, or a high level fighter can just kill them all.

Are there scenarios where an army is more useful than a single high level character? Of course. But there's also cases where investing a million gold in an army and investing a million gold in outfitting one hero is not a simple no-brainer. An army of low-level types against an epic threat -- elder dragon, demon prince, whatever -- is almost certain to simply die, and that's a million gold you COULD have been spending on teleport circles to get the hell out of the way. OTOH, that high level single character just might win.

(It's interesting to see how the rules changes alter this. In 4e, the army is a somewhat better investment because each flunky has a 1-in-20 chance of doing damage and doesn't need to overcome DR; in 3x, it was literally impossible, even on a critical, for a 1st level warrior with a longsword to do ANY damage to some high level foes. Branching out, in Rolemaster, an army is very useful, because if you throw enough mooks at a problem, one of them will roll an open-ended result and get an 'E' critical and that'll be all she wrote...Of course, in classic Runequest, 5% of your army will slice off their own leg in each round of combat. )

 

[Vocenoctum]

The treasure parcel system and the 20% rule plus the breakdown of the tiers insues this.

A PC can relatively easily have level-appropriate gear which gives them the fun of choosing magic items.

The PC's don't choose the treasure, so how do they have the fun of it? The treasure system now is totally arbitrary DM with a huge penalty if a player wants direct control.

At the same time, the higher level appropriate items allows me to surprise players with unique items and encourage the PCs to use them. If they really don't want the magic item, they can easily change it into an item that WILL be useful for their level.

They can easily change it into an item that WAS useful, 5 levels ago. The 20% rule insures that. This assuming that they make the new item, rather than pay a 10-40% markup for it from someone else. (And, Enchant Item/ Disenchant Item being a ritual, there's no reason not to have it.)

You've avoided the Magic Item Walmart by simply allowing PC's to make whatever they want in an hour. They don't even have to go shopping.

Just carry a few blank swords around with you and once you find out what you're facing, the mage can make the sword appropriate to the monster.

 

[AllisterH]

Don't you hate it when you lose a post in mid-reply?

The PC's don't choose the treasure, so how do they have the fun of it? The treasure system now is totally arbitrary DM with a huge penalty if a player wants direct control.

Keep in mind, the system explicitly has some give.

1. THe only NEEDED magic items are the static plus items. This is the only items that are absolutely factored into the math of the system. Everything else is considered a bonus. Nice but non-essential.

2. Each character only needs 3 slots filled with these static items. Total party requires 15 items to fill these slots.

3. Each level, a 5 person party gains at least double your level in monetary cash. Meaning PCs can gain 2 items per level.

4. The math HAS some give. Namely, the DMG explicitly mentions that there is a +/-2 in terms of what makes an item effective for a character of level X.

Thus, by the rules themselves, a PC NEEDS a +1 sword (note NEED is different from WANT) only by level 11. BY level 11, however, you already HAVE this filled out JUST by using cash alone. You don't NEED the magical treasure at ALL.

They can easily change it into an item that WAS useful, 5 levels ago. The 20% rule insures that. This assuming that they make the new item, rather than pay a 10-40% markup for it from someone else. (And, Enchant Item/ Disenchant Item being a ritual, there's no reason not to have it.).

Again, you're assuming that a level 12 fighter is borked when facing a level 12 monster and has only a +1 sword. The system explicitly says you're not going to see much of a difference at the table. What probably makes a more important decision is the tactical aspect of how you play your character. A level 30 characer using a +1 sword though...Now even the use of good tactics can't make up the difference there.


.The enchant magic item ritual combined with the treasure system accomplished what its goal is.

1. Allow PCs to customize via magic items without a magic shop.
2. Allow DM to actually make treasure special again.

If say for example, I have a 10th party and has no warlock and they find a +3 pactblade, they can actally trade it in get a +6th level item that SOMEBODY in the party will want.

Conversely, if they find an item like say a Decanter of Endless Water which for conversation sake, is a 12th level item, there's a strong incentive to actually hold onto to the item and use it in the adventures.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Don't you hate it when you lose a post in mid-reply?

EN2 won't allow me more then 3 minutes at a time between crashes.

Keep in mind, the system explicitly has some give.

1. THe only NEEDED magic items are the static plus items. This is the only items that are absolutely factored into the math of the system. Everything else is considered a bonus. Nice but non-essential.

I"m pretty sure that's how 3e started also. 4e may be more forgiving, but any player will see trading "12th level item" for "7th level item" as a loss.

Thus, by the rules themselves, a PC NEEDS a +1 sword (note NEED is different from WANT) only by level 11. BY level 11, however, you already HAVE this filled out JUST by using cash alone. You don't NEED the magical treasure at ALL.

Rewards are a part of the game experience though, so even aside from just "character effectiveness", you still want the best you can get.

Again, you're assuming that a level 12 fighter is borked when facing a level 12 monster and has only a +1 sword.

Not really, I'm assuming that having to trade 5 (or more) for 1 is not a "fun experience" for me. 4e has less emphasis on required magic items, sure, but as I said, it places that choice squarely in the hands of the DM.

The enchant magic item ritual combined with the treasure system accomplished what its goal is.

1. Allow PCs to customize via magic items without a magic shop.

By losing lots and lots to try to get what you want... it penalizes a player more than 3e did by far.

2. Allow DM to actually make treasure special again.

No, it penalizes players to the point they have to accept what the DM gives them. And, as I said before, 3e even in core had a method for upgrading a treasured possession, 4e doesn't. (I assume they'll add something at some point, and we'll see how it compares to WoL and Ancestral Relic, but core vs core, 4e lacks.)

I don't see how this makes magic items "special" to anyone but the DM.

If say for example, I have a 10th party and has no warlock and they find a +3 pactblade, they can actally trade it in get a +6th level item that SOMEBODY in the party will want.

Not a very special pact blade

Conversely, if they find an item like say a Decanter of Endless Water which for conversation sake, is a 12th level item, there's a strong incentive to actually hold onto to the item and use it in the adventures.

By forcing them to hold onto it...

The system now assumes that a DM knows his players and what they want enough to cater to them, and I find this less mood setting than 3e's "magical market".

 

[Scribble]

Who made that +6 Holy Avenger? Well, the same guy that did it in every other edition - whoeverthehell the DM says did it.

Crud... My players killd that guy a few sessions ago... What the heck do I do now???

 

[AllisterH]

I"m pretty sure that's how 3e started also. 4e may be more forgiving, but any player will see trading "12th level item" for "7th level item" as a loss.".

Actually, 3E didn't start with ANY assumptions. You can see this when you look at the prices of items compared to the Big Six and also the early iconics. The Big Six in 3.x were a "response" to what the magic items were available and not the impetus.

Rewards are a part of the game experience though, so even aside from just "character effectiveness", you still want the best you can get.

So? The players always WANT the best they can get, but there's a huge difference between a WANT and a NEED. More importantly, there's nothing preventing a DM from doing both in the treasure parcel system.

What I mean is, going from level x to level x+1, you find one item of level +1, one item of level +2 , one item of level +3 and one item of level+4 PLUS a monetary reward = 2x$ of a magic item of level X.

If you for example, say "ok, the level +4 item is going to be a random reward/DM treasure" and the rest of the items are going to be the PCs wishlist, EVERYONE wins (the players and the DM)

Not really, I'm assuming that having to trade 5 (or more) for 1 is not a "fun experience" for me. 4e has less emphasis on required magic items, sure, but as I said, it places that choice squarely in the hands of the DM..".

Incorrect. It places the choice SQUARELY in your hands.

It doesn't make it easy but it makes it FAIR. If you're a level 7 character, say a heavy blade specialist and you end up with a level 9 light blade weapon, you have to make a choice.

You don't NEED the level 9 light blade of course. You're good to go as you are with EVEN just a normal sword, but presumably the level 9 blade's power are enticing enough to keep it. Even if you decide to trade it in, you STILL end up with a level 4 magic item which is STILL a reward for a level 7 character.

THIS is choice, not when the obvious choice is "trade it in and get EXACTLY what I want". Why even bother putting non-artifact magical treasure in such a system.

The system now assumes that a DM knows his players and what they want enough to cater to them, and I find this less mood setting than 3e's "magical market".

Again, it does nothing of the sort.

You ignore the fact that a player just using the regular monetary treasure will keep up with the monsters and even if they do trade in, the level of the new item will STILL be worthwhile to the character.

You're focusing on the fact that a level X character is only worthwhile if they have exactly level X+1 gear. Which frankly, I don't understand.

This is another aspect I find of 4E that matches novels more closely. If a hero finds an item, he's not going to trade it for exactly what he wants. But he will adjust to use said item.

4E is slightly less forgiving in that you can actually trade it in but at a cost so you don't get the more powerful exact item.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Actually, 3E didn't start with ANY assumptions. You can see this when you look at the prices of items compared to the Big Six and also the early iconics. The Big Six in 3.x were a "response" to what the magic items were available and not the impetus.

Right, thus my point that we don't know where 4e will lead it, given time.

Incorrect. It places the choice SQUARELY in your hands.

It doesn't make it easy but it makes it FAIR. If you're a level 7 character, say a heavy blade specialist and you end up with a level 9 light blade weapon, you have to make a choice.

That's the opposite of what I was discussing. Saying "you have a choice, you can give up a good object for a bad object" isn't much of a choice. Either way, you're still subject to DM Whim, either you get the item you want, or you can get the item you want at less power.

You don't NEED the level 9 light blade of course. You're good to go as you are with EVEN just a normal sword, but presumably the level 9 blade's power are enticing enough to keep it. Even if you decide to trade it in, you STILL end up with a level 4 magic item which is STILL a reward for a level 7 character.

As a level 7 character, you're going from thunderburst +2 to thunderburst +1, half the bonus. All because your DM gave you a dagger instead of a longsword.

Again, it does nothing of the sort.

You ignore the fact that a player just using the regular monetary treasure will keep up with the monsters and even if they do trade in, the level of the new item will STILL be worthwhile to the character.

You're focusing on the fact that a level X character is only worthwhile if they have exactly level X+1 gear. Which frankly, I don't understand.

Nope, I'm focusing on the fact that trading an item is a more noticeable penalty as compared to 3e, and that 4e has removed the option of upgrading a current item. I don't find this to add "mystery" or "uniqueness" to magic items, I think it just penalizes someone that doesn't take what the DM arbitrarily assigns.

This is another aspect I find of 4E that matches novels more closely. If a hero finds an item, he's not going to trade it for exactly what he wants. But he will adjust to use said item.

Sure, but that's not how D&D works now, or ever. The items you find will be replaced by newer and better gear and the old discarded. Whether you get retained value out of them (selling/ disenchanting) is not the issue, it's the severity of the penalty.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Nope, I'm focusing on the fact that trading an item is a more noticeable penalty as compared to 3e, and that 4e has removed the option of upgrading a current item. I don't find this to add "mystery" or "uniqueness" to magic items, I think it just penalizes someone that doesn't take what the DM arbitrarily assigns.

Just poking in for a moment here..

In 3x, there was zero incentive to adapt your character to the 'random' magic item that the DM dropped into the treasure. There really was not a choice since trading up had no real penalty.

In 4e, there is a penalty to trading in and thereby an incentive to weild the new +2 Thunderburst dagger even tho you are a longsword specialist. There could even be an incentive to adapt your character, through feat choice and power selection, to emphasis the new magic item. {and with the retraining rules, this isn't difficult...}

And at the end of the day, trading in for a +1 Thunderburst longsword still does not seriously impact on the characters 'need' for a magic plus to attacks, as AllisterH points out.

Its a paradigm shift in the way characters and players should treat magic items. IMO, its a shift that lends more to organic character growth and better game play. YMMV.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Just poking in for a moment here..

In 3x, there was zero incentive to adapt your character to the 'random' magic item that the DM dropped into the treasure. There really was not a choice since trading up had no real penalty.

In 4e, there is a penalty to trading in and thereby an incentive to weild the new +2 Thunderburst dagger even tho you are a longsword specialist. There could even be an incentive to adapt your character, through feat choice and power selection, to emphasis the new magic item. {and with the retraining rules, this isn't difficult...}

I agree with you, and I don't debate what it does. My problem is that it means the random treasure (whether through dice roll, DM fiat or pregen adventure) is now a serious hurdle to playing a character concept that you may have developed. As an example, the 3e samurai with his ancestral daisho.

(That said, I fully expect there to be a Weapon of Legacy style supplement at SOME point, but comparing core to core, 3e allows this, 4e does not. Even if you can't do it yourself you could pay someone to enchant.)

And at the end of the day, trading in for a +1 Thunderburst longsword still does not seriously impact on the characters 'need' for a magic plus to attacks, as AllisterH points out.

Its a paradigm shift in the way characters and players should treat magic items. IMO, its a shift that lends more to organic character growth and better game play. YMMV.

I don't even think it's much of a paradigm shift. It keeps magic items as a commodity, it just increases the penalty. 3e had a 1 for 2 penalty, 4e has a 1 for 5 penalty. It's just more penalty to get what you want.

Whether that stuff is good or not is up to the individual campaign though.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I"m pretty sure that's how 3e started also. 4e may be more forgiving, but any player will see trading "12th level item" for "7th level item" as a loss.

There is a fundamental difference here:
3E had ability score enhancements, various armor class boosters, weapon enhancements and save enhancements. I don't know how - if at all (wealth by level doesn't tell me what kind of item I own) - they were factored into the math, but they were there right from the start.

4E only has defense enhancements (one type of enhancement only), armor enhancements (and only specifically for armor, nothing else) and weapon enhancements. That's it. The consequences on the math of the system are pretty easy to recognize this way. There is no "Big Six" hiding behind wealth by level. These are the "Big Three", in your face, in the PHB, for everyone to see and understand.
On top of that, it also limits the amount of daily magic item powers you can gain per day, meaning a much tighter control on how much "bling" you an effectively use. (Though this part is far more abusable then the rest - daily powers are not the only type of power granted by items. I hope there will be some stronger guidelines for magical items eventually, at the moment, we don't have much to go by...)