Design & Development: Magic Item Levels

[BryonD]

You can do most of this in 3E with the cost and wealth per level table, but it should be quicker and more intuitive with levels (in a game system where characters have levels). A 5th level character having a 5th level magic item is more intuitive than him having 27,000gp (or whatever the number is) worth of magic items.

The whole idea of having classes, spells, and now magic items be divided up into levels rather than have finer indications of power is, I would contend, a common theme in D&D.

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. That seems to be a blind leap of faith that flies in the face of all precendent.

And these prices are paid for a very minimal gain in reduced mental energy.

 

[olshanski]

Most items only go up to 30. Most fighters, you know, will be using a sword at 30. You're on 30 here, all the way up... you're at 30 on your sword... where can you go from there? Where? Nowhere. What do you do if you need that extra push over the cliff? This sword is Level 31.

 

[GlassJaw]

Well, I continue to believe what I believed when that ridiculous statement was originally made. That It's wild marketing hyperbole or designer arrogance. Possibly both.

The statement "it's an art, not a science," generally implies that there are aspects of the subject that are like a science. Enough so that it straddles the line between the two. The trick is in mastering both the "science" and the "art" to get the end result you want.

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".

 

[vagabundo]

Most items only go up to 30. Most fighters, you know, will be using a sword at 30. You're on 30 here, all the way up... you're at 30 on your sword... where can you go from there? Where? Nowhere. What do you do if you need that extra push over the cliff? This sword is Level 31.

Next step is retring the character. In the core you retire at lv 30, game over, you have won. Character becomes and NPC God or something, it depends on what destiny you have picked when you hit the 20s...

 

[Arnwyn]

I'm a huge fan of the concept of item levels (ie. a nice easy number given to show when an item is appropriate for a party), so it's very nice to see that being integrated from Day 1.

DM tools like that are always good, and magic item levels are a biggie for me. Good stuff.

 

[Mercule]

That's it?

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.

 

[nerfherder]

Ok.

I'd prefer the finer indications of power.

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

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. That seems to be a blind leap of faith that flies in the face of all precendent.

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

And these prices are paid for a very minimal gain in reduced mental energy.

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.

 

[helium3]

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".

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

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.

 

[helium3]

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.

I think it all depends on whether or not the changes they make significantly improve on the way magic items currently work. What sorts of improvements would make it worth it?

Making it easier to select magic items for NPC's and monsters.

Making it easier to eyeball the price for an item that's not listed in the core books.

Making encounter balance less dependent on an assumption about how much bling the characters happen to be wearing.

If the designers can accomplish these things than good for them. 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.

 

[delericho]

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.

If that's the case then it's very unfortunate. That is precisely the sort of thing I want to know about, both to be reassured that it's being done, and also to get some sort of feel as to how it's being done.