Factoring items into balance flawed?

[frankthedm]

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).

Agreed. I'm earning XP to make myself stronger, not to level up every foe i fight. It's fine and dandy to have leveled humanoids as officers, elites and commanders, but the bulk of their forces should be in low level grunts. Great Cleave should NEVER be allowed to seem weak, which is exactly what tends to happen as the tribe of 1st level orcs fuse together and becomes a squad of barbarian3/warrior2 orcs.[sblock=humanoid organizations]Goblins: Gang (4-9), band (10-100 plus 100% noncombatants plus 1 3rd-level sergeant per 20 adults and 1 leader of 4th-6th level), warband (10-24 with worg mounts), or tribe (40-400 plus 100% noncombatants plus 1 3rd-level sergeant per 20 adults, 1 or 2 lieutenants of 4th or 5th level, 1 leader of 6th-8th level, 10-24 worgs, and 2-4 dire wolves)

Orcs: Gang (2-4), squad (11-20 plus 2 3rd-level sergeants and 1 leader of 3rd-6th level), or band (30-100 plus 150% noncombatants plus 1 3rd-level sergeant per 10 adults, 5 5th-level lieutenants, and 3 7th-level captains)

Bugbears: Solitary, gang (2-4), or band (11-20 plus 150% noncombatants plus 2 2nd-level sergeants and 1 leader of 2nd-5th level)

Gnolls: Solitary, pair, hunting party (2-5 and 1-2 hyenas), band (10-100 plus 50% noncombatants plus 1 3rd-level sergeant per 20 adults and 1 leader of 4th-6th level and 5-8 hyenas), or tribe (20-200 plus 1 3rd-level sergeant per 20 adults, 1 or 2 lieutenants of 4th or 5th level, 1 leader of 6th-8th level, and 7-12 hyenas; underground lairs also have 1-3 trolls)[/sblock]

 

[Lizard]

Agreed. I'm earning XP to make myself stronger, not to level up every foe i fight. It's fine and dandy to have leveled humanoids as officers, elites and commanders, but the bulk of their forces should be in low level grunts. Great Cleave should NEVER be allowed to seem weak, which is exactly what tends to happen as the tribe of 1st level orcs fuse together and becomes a squad of barbarian3/warrior2 orcs.

This is exactly why i'm hesitant to take Cleave/Great Cleave. Cleave MIGHT be useful in fights as I level up, but Great Cleave? By the time i'm high enough level to take it, it will be useless to me in the vast majority of fights.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

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.

He says without ever seeing 4th edition magic items. Consider this: a hypothetical warlock can use an eldritch blast at will and deal 3d6 damage at the cost of a standard action. He then gets a magic item that allows him to produce a blast of fire that deals 2d6 damage as a standard action. Now, if that 2d6 fire damage item's level is the same as the level at which the warlock's eldritch blast improves to 3d6, he's exactly as powerful as he was before, numerically. He just has the option of using fire instead, and it's not even optimal in most situations. He's a little more effective against white dragons, but not so much that you'll need to completely scrap the CR system.

It's really easy to dream up magic items that don't have a strong net effect on character power; they just need a suitable drawback. Luckily, having an item cost an action is a perfectly scaled drawback, because the item has opportunity cost built in. The character can either use a standard-action power, or she can use the item, and if the item is a little bit weaker than a standard-action power, it won't have a strong impact on balance.

The items you referenced above weren't designed to be power neutral; they were designed to compete with other magic items commonly used in those slots at those prices. They were designed for 3rd edition, a game in which all magic items are expected to increase character power, and in which all characters are expected to absolutely drip with magic items. We have no reason to think 4th edition magic items will be anything like that. In fact, the preview article we saw suggests the opposite.

 

[Fundin Strongarm]

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).

I never really understood this mentality. If you want your 15th level characters to run into 20 Ogres for the slaughter you can always do that. I'm sure you can do the same thing in 4e (or any other edition). Will it be a challenge for the players? Probably not (and that's why you get very little experience for it). But there should be times when Cleave and Great Cleave prove useful. In my campaigns the party gets use out of those Feats as I throw many different types/CR encounters at them.

 

[robertliguori]

I never really understood this mentality. If you want your 15th level characters to run into 20 Ogres for the slaughter you can always do that. I'm sure you can do the same thing in 4e (or any other edition). Will it be a challenge for the players? Probably not (and that's why you get very little experience for it). But there should be times when Cleave and Great Cleave prove useful. In my campaigns the party gets use out of those Feats as I throw many different types/CR encounters at them.

That's the problem, right there; Power Attack can mean the difference between surviving an encounter (by being able to damage something with hellacious DR) or perishing. If you're expecting to be able to hack through your foes so quickly that one blow is expected to both hit and slay, and your foes are numerous enough for you to use Cleave repeatedly, then unless you grabbed it ASAP and are surrounded by high-attack low-defense low-HP enemies, it's not a matter of survival. It's just a matter of killing 7 mooks per round instead of three.

If you're playing in a war campaign, this is a wonderful ability. But most of the time, D&D characters fight small groups of mean-ass monsters, who can't be cloven repeatedly, and most of the time, GC is not a useful feat.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

If you're playing in a war campaign, this is a wonderful ability. But most of the time, D&D characters fight small groups of mean-ass monsters, who can't be cloven repeatedly, and most of the time, GC is not a useful feat.

Given that 4e encounters are supposedly planned to include 1 monster per PC, we may see Cleave become a more popular option. It strikes me as more of a special move than a small, static bonus, though, so I suspect Cleave will become a per-encounter fighter power rather than a feat.

 

[Fundin Strongarm]

If you're playing in a war campaign, this is a wonderful ability. But most of the time, D&D characters fight small groups of mean-ass monsters, who can't be cloven repeatedly, and most of the time, GC is not a useful feat.

And neither is Still Spell or many other Feats.

My main point was that Ruin Explorer was complaining that it was somehow mandated that instead of fighting 20 Ogres at 18th level, 3.x required you fight 2 14th level Ogres.

Players get more powerful at higher levels. That's how the game works. Now, you can make the campaign be all about the killing of vanilla Orcs but after 5th level this becomes yawns-ville. Encounters are designed to be a challenge for characters of a given level but they don't have to be. There are no hard-and-fast rules about it. Mix things up to show how much power the party has gained but you've also got to throw in challenges that could defeat them as well.

 

[Stalker0]

Here's an analogy that I think covers well the shift in design paradigm.

Take an appropriate level fighter and throw him against an iron golem:

3.0 - With 50/+5 DR, any fighter that didn't have the right magical weapon was absolutely useless in this encounter. An iron golem is nigh invincible against a party without the right equipment.

3.5 - With 15/adamantine, a fighter is still in for a rough fight without the right weapon. However, he can still do enough damage to hurt it. Though it would likely be a grueling fight, with the right tactics a party might come through.

4e - (supposition) With 15/? DR, the fighter has his work cut out for him. However, with his great charge power he is able to do extra damage against the golem, breaking through its DR. Utilizing his powers, the fighter is able to overcome. While he would have had an easier time doing it with the right weapon, its not THAT much easier.


So yes, in 4e magic items will still make character more powerful, the difference is the amount. A 3e fighter with the right equipment was leagues above one who wasn't, now he will likely be just a step ahead.

 

[Counterspin]

Ruin Explorer : Since everything is on an additive xp scale, I fail to see the problem. If you want to use old baddies, they're still worth the same xp, but your apportioning more xp because the group is higher level, thus larger groups of baddies previously encountered should be easy to put together, maintaining the static outlook you want.

 

[MisterWhodat]

(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).QUOTE]

Actually there is....the DM