Excerpt: Economies [merged]

[Fallen Seraph]

What's really funny is a good "Bind On Pickup" rule would help eliminate the PCs reselling the items that you don't want them to resell. Which is very funny.

Already planning something of the sort, in my first 4e game. Got to love sentient revolvers that will grasp onto your hand if you try to release it to anywhere but its holster (the revolver is slightly organic too, which makes it more disturbing, w00t shooting bone-bullets that are quickly grown inside the revolver).

 

[Torchlyte]

The problem with this new system is that it's difficult to play around with the parcel system. Let's say I want to give each of the PCs a +1 silver dagger in preparation for a Werewolf fight; how do I get that to match up with the 6th/7th/8th/9th array?

I would probably have to convert the worth of everything involved to gold and go from there. The obvious question then is, why can't I just get the values in gold in the first place? The 3e system had its flaws, but there are some clear advantages to gold-based treasure.

This problem would be mainly solved if they also included a table of the total gold value (including the worth of the four magic items) that goes to the party at each level. Whether they actually did that... we'll just have to wait and see. Regardless, it's definitely something I could see jotting down on a DM screen.

 

[Voss]

Allow me to instruct.

Weak Weapons are useful to the more common man and more agreeable to a lord to arm his men with (no one gets more powerful than a king, etc). They have a higher utility because their cost makes them a more efficient purchase for an army, than a purchase one super sword for a soldier.

If Items could never be broken down into Radium, there would be a trend to having a +1 sword in every home after enough time. Not because they grow on trees, but that the Demand is comparable to Supply.

However because there is a possibility to combine a roomful of smaller swords into a single Super Sword so as to slay the dragon when you really, really need to, there is a sink to the supply of low-magic swords.

And considering that there is a cap to supply (only so many wizards working on magic swords in the world), the items would be rare in spite of their high demand.

Sorry, I didn't phrase it quite right. What I meant was, if, as he posited, the weak items don't grow on trees, there aren't enough of them to break down into handwavium and meet larger handwavium requirements that (presumably) the mega-items have. If there is a little supply of weak items, the strong items, using the same resource, are going to be even rarer. It would be fairly hard for the Evil Merchant Monopoly to have +10 swords of godslaying if there aren't a lot of +1 swords of disposable handwavium to break down.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Just to point out, none of this is in any way new to fourth edition. These exact same arguments were had about the assumed economics of third edition at one point or another. The only change for 4E is to provide a means to break down magic items and use them to build other items, so that PCs can get some value out of stuff even if they can't sell it.

 

[Intense_Interest]

Sorry, I didn't phrase it quite right. What I meant was, if, as he posited, the weak items don't grow on trees, there aren't enough of them to break down into handwavium and meet larger handwavium requirements that (presumably) the mega-items have. If there is a little supply of weak items, the strong items, using the same resource, are going to be even rarer. It would be fairly hard for the Evil Merchant Monopoly to have +10 swords of godslaying if there aren't a lot of +1 swords of disposable handwavium to break down.

You only have to make the +10 sword of godslaying once. It'll last the test of time.

You'll always have some new lord wanting some +1 swords for his pug army. The +1 swords also don't fade away, and you could use the surplus of +1 swords (looting a battlefield, say, in which you have more swords than soldiers). Those swords are the ones you break down, or else you would have +1 swords in every household and you start running on a magic-sword economy. A surplus of +1 swords (caused by war, death, famine, plague) gets turned into better swords because you have a surplus.

And there will be a massive strain on the construction of new +1 swords because of the limited supply of able wizards. You'll always have a good amount of +1 swords, because the scale of demand versus supply, but those swords have to be made for someone and by someone instead of popping up out of the ground.

You'll never have a +5 sword surplus because the demand isn't there in comparison to the limited supply of +1 sword surplus, but those +5 swords don't get commonly broken down, leaving you with a more even spread of magic items instead of vaults full of +1 longswords.

EDIT:

Also, it should be noted that limited supply =/= rare.

Limited supply means that you can't purchase 10,000 +1 swords in one day. You can buy 100 +1 swords every week for 100 weeks. Its a supply curve issue.

And because Magic Items don't wear down, after a while you could flood the world with +1 swords if there wasn't a sink in the other direction, such as Radiuum and Super Swords.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Sorry, I didn't phrase it quite right. What I meant was, if, as he posited, the weak items don't grow on trees, there aren't enough of them to break down into handwavium and meet larger handwavium requirements that (presumably) the mega-items have. If there is a little supply of weak items, the strong items, using the same resource, are going to be even rarer. It would be fairly hard for the Evil Merchant Monopoly to have +10 swords of godslaying if there aren't a lot of +1 swords of disposable handwavium to break down.

One has to assume that handwavium comes from somewhere in the first place...

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Honestly? It depends on if the villain pre-existed.

If I've established that the evil blackguard uses a +2 Orc Double Axe (and it just so happens a PC is a half-orc), and then that character dies and is replaced by an elf, the blackguard doesn't get a +2 longbow instead.

But an evil bandit lord with a magic bow might appear...

One of my inspirations is J. Michael Strazcynski, even if I can't spell his last name. He talked a lot about the concept of trap doors, of ways to change the overarching plot going forward without changing what's already happened or introducing gross inconsistencies. He was dealing with actors and contracts and the variability of conducting an ongoing series; I (and every DM) is dealing with random rolls and the chaos known as "the PCs". You've got to be flexible.

I just think there's a difference between the DM altering the world, and the rules saying the world has no form.

God can work miracles, but when he's not paying attention, the world has natural laws which keep things going as they should.

Ultimately, a real problem for me is the way the current 4e rules seem to box me in. The 3e MM wasn't just a book of Things For PCs To Kill -- it was a book of starting points. The rules allowed me to staple any class, template, or level to damn near anything. Anything with an Int score could be an NPC, and have any skills, feats, classes, or powers I needed it to have. Kobold manservant? Hobgoblin bodyguard to an elf prince? Orc wizard? Ogre shaman? Half-silver-dragon artist/dilettante? Half-troll/half-green-dragon bandit chieftain? Half-fiend medusa rogue pretending to be a mind flayer? I've statted 'em all up.

4e, it's "Lurker, brute, controller". It exists to appear, beat up the PCs for five rounds, and vanish. It's boring and constraining and limits my creativity to deciding what combat role something should have -- as opposed to building a creature FIRST and then seeing where its abilities and powers naturally place it, if it even is SUPPOSED to be in combat. I've had a lot of fun with NPCs who wouldn't last five seconds in a straight-up fight, but 4e doesn't have any place for them as mechanically distinct creatures. Every ability in the game is centered around combat; anything outside of the battlemat is pure handwaving. Looking at the sample characters, and now we've seen a lot of them, I don't see a single feat or power which is intended to improve performance in "skill challenges" -- the system seems to be an afterthought. You can't, from what we've seen, build a scholar or a diplomat who is actually focused on those abilities; you are Trained in a skill, and that's it.

Oh dear lord, thank you.

 

[hong]

Kobold manservant? Hobgoblin bodyguard to an elf prince? Orc wizard? Ogre shaman? Half-silver-dragon artist/dilettante? Half-troll/half-green-dragon bandit chieftain? Half-fiend medusa rogue pretending to be a mind flayer? I've statted 'em all up.

And you can continue statting them up. Well, if your distaste with D&D doesn't cause you to go back to GURPS and/or HERO first, that is.

I've had a lot of fun with NPCs who wouldn't last five seconds in a straight-up fight,

So have I.

but 4e doesn't have any place for them as mechanically distinct creatures.

Of course it does. Nothing stops you making an incompetent striker, for instance. Just halve their hp, and they will look mean but go down like a sack of spuds.

You can't, from what we've seen, build a scholar or a diplomat who is actually focused on those abilities; you are Trained in a skill, and that's it.

Just as you can't build a character who is focused on combat, this is a feature, not a bug.

Yes, you read that right.

 

[Fanaelialae]

One of the biggest assumptions people are making on this thread is that PCs will WANT to sell low level items just because they've upgraded to better ones.

When I was playing my 13th level Wizard, I was festooned with +1 Orbs, Wands, and Staves even though I had a +3 Staff of the Warmage. Those little trinkets had value over and above their +1 to hit and damage.

What value is that?

I get the impression that cdrcjsn is a playtester who has to be careful answering your questions without violating the NDA.

We've seen from the magic items from DDXP (at least I think that's where they're from- I'm just looking at the Pre-Release Rules Compilation) that magic items do more than just grant a +1 or +2. That +3 Staff of the Warmage might grant him the effect of Enlarge Spell 1/day, but his +1 Orb of Extendospell might grant Extend Spell 1/day. The staff is obviously the weapon of choice (because it's +3 rather than +1) but you'd want to use the orb instead if an enemy was beyond the normal range of one of your spells. Having the staff doesn't render the orb useless. If the other implements have various useful effects, keeping them around might well be better than getting 20% or even 100% of their value.

It's similar to how in 3.x a Flaming Sword +2 is better than a Dragon Bane Sword +1, but if you know your DM likes to throw a few good dragon fights into his campaigns, that Dragon Bane sword is worth holding on to. In 4e, however, I imagine this is more generally applicable.

Selling magical items just won't be a common occurance and adventurers will want to keep their stuff. Even if everyone in the party is already using their neck slot and nobody can use another +2 amulet of protection, there is little incentive to sell the item and quite a lot to do other things with it...and there are indeed other things you can do with it.

...such as?

Your +2 Cloak of Resistance (grants resist all 5 for 1 round 1/day) might be your default neck piece, but swapping it for you +1 Amulet of Health (resist 5 poison) might be a very good idea if you're attacked by a giant cobra.

 

[Lizard]

How does the 4e MM's Roles prevent you from making NPCs instead of normal Monsters?

Because the starting point is "Role" and everything follows from there. Role+level determines basic stats, hit points, etc. You don't think "Wouldn't this be a nifty concept...", stat it out, and then see where the stats take you; you start with "I need a level 15 lurker".

Perhaps i'm wrong and when we see the full rules, I'll apologize. But based on what we've seen, combat role is the primary definer of a character or an NPC, and all else is secondary and done via handwaving.