Design & Development: Magic Item Levels

[Andor]

Instead, what is needed is for magic items to be grouped into roles, in exactly the same way that classes and monsters have been. You then ditch the Wealth by Level guidelines, and instead suggest that characters can have any number of items appropriate to their level (or below), but no more than one item for each role. A 9th level Fighter can have a +2 Lightning Sword and a Rope of Climbing without being significantly more powerful than a 9th level Fighter with a +2 lightning sword alone... the problem comes in when he can trade in the rope for some other item more focussed to his role.

You speak truth.

 

[GlassJaw]

Why do you think the devs aren't using some sort of algorithm to provide the basic structure for classes and monsters?

Based on what we've seen, what makes you think they are?

I agree they haven't talked about it much, but that's likely because of they're assuming most people would be bored by a Design & Development article about the matter.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I would argue that's exactly what people want to see. Show us some numbers!

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Why do you think the devs aren't using some sort of algorithm to provide the basic structure for classes and monsters?

On the contrary, I am sure they are.

For years they tell us, for example, that designing balanced monsters and assigning them the proper CR is an art. Then Mike Mearls arrives and starts to actually dig into the guts of the design-- how many abilities does the monster really need? how long does an encounter last? what role is the monster supposed to fill? how does the monster overlap with others in the same level range or niche? And so on.

Is there any doubt at all that the changes to monsters in 4e is more science than art?

One thing true of Game Design is that it continues to evolve away from Art into quantifiable Science. This is an ongoing process.

But again, I read, "It's more an Art than a Science," as indicative of an incompletely-understood game design. No mechanical aspect of game design should properly be considered Art.

A watchmaker should not be placing springs and sprockets based on his artistic inclinations. But close the case and feel free to filigree the exterior.

 

[nerfherder]

By itself, assigning levels to magic items doesn't accomplish any of the above. That being said, some reading between the lines leads me to believe that they're headed in the right direction.

Very true - it's an enabler, rather than a solution in its own right.

 

[Warbringer]

Two issues for me

1) Price equals cost ... that'll bring item creation to halt
2) More art than science. WoTC will defacto set the appropriate level fot the item, and I'm sorry, but from gp value on items, to CR and EL, they've clearly demonstarted this is something that is not a strong point.

This change towards simplicity is starting to turn me of 4e and I was really excited

 

[BryonD]

If the new rules encourage the magic item count from MIC, I'd be pretty happy. IIRC, that's only about six for a 20th level PC. If I'm wrong, then I hope it encourages the NPC magic item count from MIC.

I think MIC is 2 per item level. So a 20th level character would have 40. Granted only the first 10 or so items would be significant.

 

[Sir Brennen]

But the problem I've seen so far with the 4E design is that the devs aren't even trying to use "science" for things in which it absolutely can (and should) be used.

Things like class balance, controlling the power curve, encounter design (especially for mixed groups of opponents), etc CAN be determined with science (just ask Wulf).

Honestly, I don't want a ruleset that's based on "art". I want to know the numbers mean something and are what they for a reason that's not "because it looked right".

Sure, there's lots of things that can be boiled down to an exercise in statistics. But tell me, can you demonstrate numerically the more powerful item between something that lets you levitate for 10 minutes and an item that lets you breath underwater for 10 minutes?

You could simply base the math off of the numeric level for corresponding the spells, and call it "science". But is it really? Spell levels themselves are somewhat arbitrary once you get away those which have a very specific impact on combat. Many are where they're at because "they look right". Flying for example. So your base assumptions for magic items (spells) are not 100% science to begin with. Add the portability/accessibility/frequency of use aspects of turning them into magic items (usable by any class, unlike spells), and this causes it to be even harder to pin down. So yeah, it is more art than science for many magic items. I don't see any problem with stating it as such.

But where do you get that many other aspects of the game are being treated the same way? I've seen this from the 4E alarmists quite often; taking a single statement about one small aspect of the game and assume it exemplifies the designer's approach to the entire system.

In fact, I see much more "science" with things like the power curve and class abilities than we have in 3E. The approach is, however, another complaint from certain corners: balancing classes based on combat effectiveness. But this is where you can have hard numbers to balance against. The prime example in 3E is the bard; weak in combat, but excels in non-combat/social situations. But can you numerically, scientifically demonstrate how his non-combat abilities balanced against, say, the fighter's combat ones? No, you can't.

Again, this is something 4E looks like it'll be addressing by making social interactions more like combat, i.e. giving you a system with numeric assumptions so you can actually have some sort of baseline to gauge the effectiveness of a class like the bard outside of battle.

Encounter design can be a "science", but again, only if you stick to creatures with well established CR's and abilities which have predictable effects on combat. Just like magic items, though, once you start having monsters with abilities which aren't adding a straight modifier to AC, Attack, Damage or Saves, it starts drifting back into the realm of art. For example, how much of a bump is a levitating creature's CR? Is it the same for a 1 HD creature as it is for a 15 HD creature? What about one that can teleport at will to the nearest corpse in sight, but the corpse is destroyed. Do you adjust the CR if it's all alone in a stone room or if it's standing in the middle of a battlefield full of bodies?

Yes, having explicit formulas that were always accurate would be a beootiful thing, but in a game where anything can happen, even more so than real life, you're never going to be able to pin everything down.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Ok.

I'd prefer the finer indications of power.

Not to mention that I'm very skeptical of the ability to actually place every magic item on a 30 level scale with consistency and accuracy. Right now everyone is just assuming it will work.

Not everyone - you don't, and you're certainly not alone. And there also people (like me) that retain some skepticismn in this regard, but are giving them the benefit of the doubt. I mean, come on, if we can see the obvious flaws, why shouldn't they be able to do it?
That's generally my attitude on these questions. If a flaw is obvious enough that people pick it up quickly, then so should have the designers. That might turn out to optimistic, but, well, then I am just too optimistic.

 

[BryonD]

That's fair enough. I think some of the changes come down to preference.

agreed

I'm even more skeptical of the ability of designers to place every magical item on a 100,000 gp scale

It is far easier to be "close enough" when you have more shades of grey.

Again that's a personal opinion/preference thing - I think the gains are worth it, you don't. One or both of us might change our minds after we've used the rules - or we might not.

agreed. Except the part about gains. What were those again?

 

[Stoat]

A potential benefit:

Assigning "levels" to magic items makes it easier in theory to divorce game balance from game economics. I might want to DM a game where the players have magic items, but magic items are not generally for sale.

The 3E method of using gold piece value as the only indication of item power obscures the baseline set by the designers. When did Monte Cook expect a fighter to get a +3 weapon? What about a Ring of the Ram? When will throwing those items into the game conflict with the assumptions used by the designers in creating monsters and assigning CR's? In 3E, you can kinda look at the NPC tables in the DMG, or you can look at the wealth by level tables and sorta guesstimate, or you can wait until the PH II is released in 2007 and check those tables.

In 4E, if all goes according to what we're told is the plan, the base assumptions are more visible. Mearls thinks that 9th level characters should have +2 lightning swords, and (one hopes) the monsters are designed around that assumption. This ought to make it easier for me to determine how closely my game is adhering to the base assumptions.