How I Stopped Worrying and Learned To Love Standard Plusses

[Lizard]

I'm not missing that point, I merely don't think it's relevant. Not giving rings to heroic characters isn't a balance issue. The powers rings have followed from the decision that they shouldn't be used by heroic characters, not vice-versa.

This implies there's some sort of quantum jump between 10th and 11th level, and I've seen nothing else which indicates this. I'd assume a 10th level character and an 11th level character, in a fight, would be CLOSE to evenly matched, and all it would take would be a bit of luck to let the weaker beat the stronger.

Otherwise, things start looking really artificial and odd. Like the characters were suddenly too high level to enter an instance.

 

[TwoSix]

This implies there's some sort of quantum jump between 10th and 11th level, and I've seen nothing else which indicates this. I'd assume a 10th level character and an 11th level character, in a fight, would be CLOSE to evenly matched, and all it would take would be a bit of luck to let the weaker beat the stronger.

Otherwise, things start looking really artificial and odd. Like the characters were suddenly too high level to enter an instance.

On the contrary, I think that emphasis that has been put on the tiers shows that they are supposed to represent a step up. Getting to 11th level is a BIG DEAL. That's why things like paragon paths, take paragon-level feats, and the ability to master the awesome power of a ring begin there. I, personally, plan on making that transition a big deal, narratively speaking.

 

[Cadfan]

Sounds like "Ye Olde Magic Shoppes" will be alive and well in 4e.

The game rules don't dictate the presence of magic shops. Not very much, at least. The fact that items have prices does not imply that there are stores where you can buy them wholesale. The prices might be the amounts you would have to pay an obscure collector and purveyor of magical rarities for the one and only Boots of Bountiful Buckles in existence. Or not. That's really setting dependent, and up to the individual game.

Everyone claims that 3e created a magic item shop effect, but it really didn't. At least not much.

The only way the rules encourage magic item shops is this (and this is edition independent as long as all the following is true):

1: PCs need a certain amount of magical gear to fight battles of the level they typically encounter. (True in 4e, though less than it was in 3e.)

2: PCs obtain a significant portion of their magical gear from random monster drops generated from a table and a percentage dice. (This is a very DM specific thing. Some DMs use the treasure tables, others ignore them. This is probably equally true in 4e as it was in 3e.)

3: Not all magical gear is equal, or at least not all of it is equal in the eyes of the PCs. (This is probably true in 4e. Magical wizard implements do no good if you haven't got a wizard.)

4: A large portion of the character's power level is in consumable magical items, which must be replenished. This can be potions, or even arrows. (I expect this to be less true in 4e than it was in 3e, due to the desire to avoid too much bonus stacking.)

This creates a situation where the characters have plenty of magical items, but they don't have the right ones. If you want them to function, there has to be a way to convert magical items they don't want into magical items they do want. Enter Ye Old Magick Shoppe, stage left.

As long as the above is true, you will find the need for magic item shops. Change the above, and you need them a lot less. Stop doing random drops, for example, and start customizing magical item rewards, and there's suddenly no major need for a magic item shop. Find a way to handle between-combat healing, and suddenly there's less need for potion shops. Et cetera.

 

[Aristotle]

So, in your world, merely being "Evil" -- without regard to what ACTUAL DEEDS HAVE BEEN DONE -- is a capital offense? "What ho! That bartender is watering the booze, short-changing the drunks, and pressuing the barmaid for sex if she wants to keep her job! He shall DIE!"

We have done "little e evil and big E Evil" debates to death. The person in your example is little e evil at best. If you are playing with the 3.5 rules it is important that you look at what the prerequisites are for an Evil alignment. Your guy is slipping towards the role of oppressor, but (in my campaign) he wouldn't be evil until he had forced himself on the waitress, gotten her to comply, or fired her for not doing so. Until then he is a dirtbag for sure, maybe thought of as "evil" by those who know him, but he is not "Evil".

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

 

[Wolfwood2]

This implies there's some sort of quantum jump between 10th and 11th level, and I've seen nothing else which indicates this. I'd assume a 10th level character and an 11th level character, in a fight, would be CLOSE to evenly matched, and all it would take would be a bit of luck to let the weaker beat the stronger.

I have to disagree. At 11th level, you get to start picking feats (and most likely powers) from a new (and better) list. At 11th level you get to start taking paragon paths. The ability to use a type of magic item you couldn't master before sounds like more of the same.

It's like moving form 20th level to 21st in 3.5. Sure the difference in power of one epic feat isn't insurmountable, but becoming epic is a big deal.

Honestly, I hope none of my DMs try to house rule the magic ring thing. I just know I'd resent them for it.

 

[Lizard]

It's like moving form 20th level to 21st in 3.5. Sure the difference in power of one epic feat isn't insurmountable, but becoming epic is a big deal.
.

Counterpoint -- it's well known the Epic Level rules are broken, and one of the key fixes of 4e was to integrate 'epic' play into the main leveling scheme. (And based on the math they're using, play might well go beyond 30 without breaking -- give them serious props if it works. We might see play extended to level 40 ("Avatar") or beyond in a future book, probably suffering less strain than 3e did with the ELH.

The Epic rules were designed because the normal class scheme didn't advance well past 20, so pointing to them to justify large jumps in power between tiers seems counter-intuitive. The current level scheme fixed the problem the epic rules were created to (poorly) fix.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Re Monopoly: a minor tangent, but the pricing on the properties in that game were not arbitrarily assigned their prices. They 1) increase in value as you progress around the board, and 2) are often named for RW properties, mostly around Atlantic City (Marven Gardens is the sole exception).

In contrast, despite legends of weak and powerful potions, weak and powerful swords...really, weak and powerful magic items of all kinds, only rings seem to be getting the level limitation- that's virtually the definition of arbitrary. Unlike all other items possible, DMs face a rules restricton for making rings as minor magic items for their campaign.

 

[Rhiarion]

While I either really like, or will get used to changes to Magic Items in 4e, I have a question.

I was thinking about running Dragons of Autumn, and introducing the new rules with this adventure. One of the pre-gens, Sturm Brightblade starts with his fathers sword, A +3 axiomatic bastard sword.

Does he 1) only get the benefit of his low level and has to learn to use the weapon over time, bonding with it, to reveal its powers when he is able to use to its full capacity?

or 2) starts with the weapon in all its glory, and gets looks of awe and respect from his companions, as he cleaves his foes in a far more effortless fashion until they level up.


Now before I'm told bastard swords or the axiomatic quality is not featured in 4e, bear in mind the 'Brightblade' is just an example for my question.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

From the Des & Dev article...

"Fourth Edition D&D improves that useful tool by explicitly linking a magic item's level to its price. For example, all 9th-level magic items now cost the same number of gp to craft or to purchase."

*shrug*

Sounds like "Ye Olde Magic Shoppes" will be alive and well in 4e.

Not in MY game they wont!

My players get magic items deus-ex-machina style (meaning: when its convenient to the plot), and I was having a really hard time reverse-engineering the wealth-by-level chart and the magic items in the 3.5 core rules, in order to make sure that they were getting stuff appropiate to their level. So this change is wholly welcome.

And even more welcome is Mike Mearls comment that there will be instructions for adding bonuses to characters in a magic item-light or even magic item-free world, so that they are still "par for the course"

Then all you have is a bunch of players all grumbling about why their PCs can't buy what they can afford due to nothing more than an arbitrary limitation. With purchasable magic items, I'm all but certain they'll have those wealth guideliness in. With the exception of rings, there doesn't seem to be any in-game reason to stop a PC from buying whatever he wants barring DM fiat.


Of course in reality, PCs are just going to want to sell off the majority of those 12 minor items in order to buy bigger, better items for their main 3 (maybe keeping a couple of the choice minor items). Now you have to explain to them why they can't do that now, but maybe in a couple more levels...

Again, this assumes that there are "magick iteme shoppes" throughout the world, and that they have huge inventories of +5 armor in all styles, colors and sizes... "Sorry, do you have this in a size 11?"... "I am sorry sire, we are currently out of Holy, Thundering Falchions +2, do you want to take a look at our selection of Holy, Thundering Greataxes +2?"

To fix this, just make sure that the rare wizard who is willing to sells some items to the party only has available the items you want the party to have. And even then, an items cost might be in gold+favors (again, pushing the plot forward)

If players complain, then mock them as the crybaby munchkins they are...

 

[rkanodia]

Not in MY game they wont!

My players get magic items deus-ex-machina style (meaning: when its convenient to the plot), and I was having a really hard time reverse-engineering the wealth-by-level chart and the magic items in the 3.5 core rules, in order to make sure that they were getting stuff appropiate to their level. So this change is wholly welcome.

As a DM, I hate being responsible for making sure that the players are keeping up with the Joneses. Many in my group feel the same one - for instance, there's one guy who loves giving out the oddball, bizarro special effect items (his Wand of Wonder chart is about six pages long) and he hates having to figure out when to dole out the +2 longswords and whatnot. The change to "Big Three: required, and explicit guidelines for when they 'should' show up. Everything else: optional, special-effects only, no static bonuses allowed" is going to make life a lot easier for both of us.