Factoring items into balance flawed?

[Kzach]

I was disappointed to read in one of the design and development articles that magical items of a certain power are 'expected' and that encounters and monsters are balanced accordingly.

In my opinion this is flawed design. For one thing, it means they're no longer a bonus. Having +2 armour isn't, "Oh cool! I am indestructible... ish!", it's now, "Ok, I've got my standard gear for this level that I require, let's move on..."

For another thing, it puts the players and the DM in the situation where those items are now required for a balanced encounter. I had thought they'd done away with this thinking in their claims that they were reducing item dependence.

I've always loved throwing players in prison and watching them try to escape. It's practically a sacred-cow. First thing they always do is try to find their gear. And of course, in previous editions it was pretty much required that you give 'em a good shot at getting it fairly soon after escaping. After all, they needed it.

I had hoped I could run an encounter where all that lovely loot was sent off to His Most Puissant Uberness and the PC's be left to contend with whatever they could pick off the bodies of their captors (at least until they got revenge on HMPU and got their orginal gear back).

Doesn't look like that will be the case...

 

[Lizard]

I was disappointed to read in one of the design and development articles that magical items of a certain power are 'expected' and that encounters and monsters are balanced accordingly.

This is as it was in 3x, and probalby implicitly in 2x and 1x as well. If combat was balanced for "naked" (or mundanely equipped) characters, you would overrun any level-appropriate challenges with a typical party. An 8th level party with only mundane equipment would be very badly hurt in a CR 8 encounter, and would not survive the expected 4 per day of such.

My hope is that 4e makes equipment as important to wizards as it is to fighters, or vice-versa, so that there's some equity when fighting naked.

 

[Shieldhaven]

You still can. You just have to understand what's going on with the game's math clearly enough to scale down the NPCs' attack bonuses, resists, and ACs. The transparency of expected gear levels (in comparison to 3.x, but even more so to editions prior) makes this a lot easier.

Describing gear bonuses of various sorts as anything other than "expected" and "planned around" would be either fiction or folly. If the game's math didn't take your magic items into account, how could you expect encounters to remain balanced?

Haven

 

[Dragonblade]

Per Mike Mearls, one of the designers of 4e, the specific bonuses of magic items PCs are expected to have will be clearly outlined in the DMG.

He estimated about 30 minutes for even a newbie DM to remove all magic item dependence from the game by simply giving PCs bonuses at the levels they would ordinarily be expected to get those bonuses from items.

Also only 3 types of items even provide bonuses at all. Most 4e items will not provide bonuses and thus can be removed or added from the game without really adversely affecting the power level of the PCs.

I think the scenario you outline will be very easy to run in 4e. Especially given that you will have much more flexibility in tailoring encounters and monsters to the PCs.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I was disappointed to read in one of the design and development articles that magical items of a certain power are 'expected' and that encounters and monsters are balanced accordingly.

In my opinion this is flawed design. For one thing, it means they're no longer a bonus. Having +2 armour isn't, "Oh cool! I am indestructible... ish!", it's now, "Ok, I've got my standard gear for this level that I require, let's move on..."

Unfortunately, that's what happens if the game is supposed to be balanced. But you could also say: "What's the point of gaining levels is the foes I take on now are also stronger?"

On the other hand, what's the point of using items so that you become unbeatable per default? Or gaining levels to do so?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If the game's math didn't take your magic items into account, how could you expect encounters to remain balanced?

By having magic items, y'know, REDUCE the difficult of encounters instead of not having magic items INCREASE it? It's not a terribly difficult concept, and it's how it used to work.

Mearls' suggestion doesn't really account for that way of doing things, though I guess if you stacked magic items on top of giving PCs the "expected" bonus, it might.

Unfortunately, that's what happens if the game is supposed to be balanced. But you could also say: "What's the point of gaining levels is the foes I take on now are also stronger?"

This is actually a serious problem, for me, particularly with 3E. With 1E/2E the "point" was clear. Monsters were largely static, and thus an increase in power meant you could deal with more/tougher monsters. With 3E and everything advancing and so on, it suddenly meant that you could end up taking on types of monster you were "more powerful than" but which had been advanced to the point where they'd caught up, which could feel a little dumb and computer-game-ish (Oh, look it's the Blue Imps, they have 3x as much HP as the Green Imps).

I mean, obviously there is a point, but I think you can go too far, and I think 3E did, with some of the perfectly CR-level-matching in pregen adventures, to the point where things got a little predictable and dull. I know 4E has it's minions, normal monsters, elites and bosses, and I hope at a certain stage, elites become like normal monsters, or even minions, and there are some guidelines as to when that might be, and thus we might find that the PCs can defeat 20 Ogres at once when before 2 was a challenge (rather than, yawn, fighting 2 really ADVANCED Ogres).

 

[Shroomy]

By having magic items, y'know, REDUCE the difficult of encounters instead of not having magic items INCREASE it? It's not a terribly difficult concept, and it's how it used to work.

How so? In pre-3.x D&D, you often needed magical weapons to even hurt many of the higher level monsters, as there was no powering through DR.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

And if you believe that, Mearls has a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Anyone who has played 3.x (or any other edition) for a significant length of time can confirm that there is a noticable difference in power level between a character who has roughly the expected +X gear (and talk about a boring way to distribute magic items if every PC of level X has +Y gear--for my part, I prefer the freedom to vary which gear gets the bigger pluses) and a character who has roughly the expected +X gear AND a 1/day heal item and a cape of the montebank, and an anklet of translocation and a two lesser clasps of energy resistance , seven pearls of power I, three pearls of power II, and a rod of empower spell. Anyone who has played 3.x extensively will also know that the single item that contributes most to an ordinary warrior type character's damage output doesn't grant a bonus at all: it's boots of speed.

I for one have noticed a marked increase in the capabilities of PCs with the influx of new MIC style "non bonus" items into Living Greyhawk. The anklet of translocation, healing belt, and boots of big stepping are all very significant and have all changed the game (particularly the anklet of translocation). The belt of battle is positively broken and has a similar effect on combats to 3.0 haste or boots of speed. (I'd say it has that effect on only one combat per day, but nothing prevents a player from buying as many belts as he can afford and emulating Hennet).

Any magic item that is worth having will increase a PC's power whether it gives additional options or grants a consistent numerical bonus. Anyone who tells you otherwise is blowing smoke.

Also only 3 types of items even provide bonuses at all. Most 4e items will not provide bonuses and thus can be removed or added from the game without really adversely affecting the power level of the PCs.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

By having magic items, y'know, REDUCE the difficult of encounters instead of not having magic items INCREASE it? It's not a terribly difficult concept, and it's how it used to work.

Under your regime, the 1e/2e regime, the DM has to eyeball encounters to see if the PCs can handle them. That regime sucks; a transparent system that defines what equipment PCs are expected to have is superior. The whole point of CR, or monster levels in 4e, is that the system's assumptions become more visible to the DM, rather than relying on DM experience to judge what constitutes a balanced encounter.

I mean, obviously there is a point, but I think you can go too far, and I think 3E did, with some of the perfectly CR-level-matching in pregen adventures, to the point where things got a little predictable and dull. I know 4E has it's minions, normal monsters, elites and bosses, and I hope at a certain stage, elites become like normal monsters, or even minions, and there are some guidelines as to when that might be, and thus we might find that the PCs can defeat 20 Ogres at once when before 2 was a challenge (rather than, yawn, fighting 2 really ADVANCED Ogres).

If your DM only ever sent perfectly balanced encounters at you, and they were always just sacks of hit points waiting to be killed, then it can be boring. That just means you've got an unimaginative DM, though--in 3e, it's completely possible, even encouraged in the DMG, to present encounters that are way too difficult for the party to face, or that are an utter cakewalk.

I don't know which published adventures you're talking about, but the few I've run had great possibilities for TPK if the party bit off more than they could chew. Perhaps your DM never considered monsters from adjoining rooms hearing the battle and joining the fray, or never thought about having intelligent monsters retreat and get backup. But if you think 3rd edition was a cakewalk by default, your DM was probably either babying you or just not trying.

Really, that's the whole point of making a transparent system of CRs and expected treasure values. Do that, and a clever DM can make encounters that are easy, balanced or difficult at will without too much prep work. Nothing in the system locks you into fighting monsters that are precisely balanced for your level every session.

 

[tomBitonti]

Per Mike Mearls, one of the designers of 4e, the specific bonuses of magic items PCs are expected to have will be clearly outlined in the DMG.

He estimated about 30 minutes for even a newbie DM to remove all magic item dependence from the game by simply giving PCs bonuses at the levels they would ordinarily be expected to get those bonuses from items.

This is directed to Mike's comment, not Dragonblade's.

I hope that this is not the way to remove magic items. My preference is that it is possible to throw slightly less powerful monsters at the players if they don't have the expected gear. Mike's suggestion doesn't work when the gear varies per player, or where the lack of gear is temporary.

This relates to a deficiency in 3.5E, which is the failure of players to "size up" opponents. This is a use of Sense Motive which is wildly underused.