D&D 4E Iron Heroes for 4e?

[Dausuul]

A 3.5 level 7 fighter is assumed to have a +1 full plate, heavy steel shield, masterwork melee and distance weapons and 2.300gp in cash or assorted secondary items (or, at least, my DMG says so). So, if I wanted to get rid of magic items on my 3.5 games, I should make the oh so big effort of adding +1 to the level 7 fighter's AC and BAB.

That's what an NPC fighter is expected to have. PC fighters are expected to have considerably more (total up that list of gear, you'll see it's way less than the recommended wealth by level for a 7th-level character). NPC magic items are designed to make them a good challenge for PCs, not to let them take on PC challenges.

(Of course, the DMG lies. NPCs with the listed items are not in fact a good challenge for PCs, more of a speed bump, unless you give them crazy ability scores to make up for it. But there you are.)

 

[Felon]

And Mike Mearls' IH is also extraordinarily counterfactual in light of the easiness of my low-magic D&D games, achieved just by saying "no magic item shops" and giving two ability bonuses instead of just one at levels 4-8-12-16-20. I trust my experience more than I do his bald 288-page rulebooks

You've unplugged systems from the book and haven't been bothered by the repercussions. That's perfectly possible, since D&D has a long history of being extraordinarily poorly balanced, yet still eminently playable by the masses who don't grasp balance as a concept or even see it as a particularly desirable thing (if there's one area where modern D&D doesn't emulate MMO's, it's in not recognizing that many people's greatest joy comes from being leet, which of course means that someone else is teh suxorz).

But the fact is, that ham-fisted approach doesn't work on a broad scale. There are people who will see the shortcomings of unplugging magic items from the game right off the bat. One guy's going to play a druid and another guy's going to play a fighter, and the former is going to use his innately magical ability turn into a bear and patently outclass the latter who has been denied his panoply. The fighter's going to wonder what the heck he's doing there.

 

[hong]

You've unplugged systems from the book and haven't been bothered by the repercussions. That's perfectly possible, since D&D has a long history of being extraordinarily poorly balanced, yet still playable by the masses who don't grasp balance as a concept or even see it as a particularly desirable thing (if there's one area where modern D&D doesn't emulate MMO's, it's in recognizing that many people's greatest joy comes from being leet, which of course means that someone else is teh suxorz).

But the fact is, that ham-fisted approach doesn't work on a broad scale. There are people who will see the shortcomings of unplugging magic items from the game right off the bat. One guy's going to play a druid and another guy's going to play a fighter, and the former is going to use his innately magical ability turn into a bear and patently outclass the latter who has been denied his panoply. The fighter's going to wonder what the heck he's doing there.

See, that's why people should play Guild Wars. With Ursan Blessing, everyone can turn into bears!

 

[Pbartender]

A 3.5 level 7 fighter is assumed to have a +1 full plate, heavy steel shield, masterwork melee and distance weapons and 2.300gp in cash or assorted secondary items (or, at least, my DMG says so). So, if I wanted to get rid of magic items on my 3.5 games, I should make the oh so big effort of adding +1 to the level 7 fighter's AC and BAB.

See? 3.X is obviously designed to be played (or easily, fluffily houseruled) without magic items of any kind

As i've already stated, the same can be said about 3.x. With the exception that, in the 3.x case, I can prove just pointing to a page on the DMG. In the 4E case, it's just smoke and mirrors and a Mike Mearls' post.

I think you should re-read your DMG. It is quite clear on which magic items and which bonuses does a character of a specific class/level should have.

Please read the 3.5 DMG, 48-51 on encounters and their challenge ratings, pages 51-56 on treasure rewards (pay particular attention to, "Treasure per Encounter", "NPCs with Treasure", and "Behind the Curtain: Treasure Values"), pages 110-112 (Notably, "Gear: This column list the basic armor, generic melee and ranged weapons (mundane, masterwork or magical), and common types of magic equipment each NPC has."), and page 135 (Where it flat out states, "The baseline campaign for D&D uses this 'wealth by level' guideline as a basis for balance in adventures.")

The level 7 fighter you refer to above is a pregenerated sample NPC, not a typical Player Character. A sample NPC which the book admits is designed with a different assumed value of equipment and magic items than a PC of the same level would be... 7th NPC - 7,200 gp (pg 127) vs. 7th level PC - 19,000 (page 135).

Aside from references to the wealth by level guidelines, I can't find any place in the 3.5 DMG that says that particular magical bonuses to stats are assumed at certain levels in order to keep encounters balanced.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Betote: I might recommend reading some of the threads on ENWorld about Vow of Poverty and its potential repercussions. Even if we're just talking a replacement for numerical bonuses, things get tricky really fast when one is comparing magic item capabilities with hardwired bonuses.

And Mike Mearls' IH is also extraordinarily counterfactual in light of the easiness of my low-magic D&D games, achieved just by saying "no magic item shops" and giving two ability bonuses instead of just one at levels 4-8-12-16-20. I trust my experience more than I do his bald 288-page rulebooks

I don't. And I really think this sort of assertion is just blowing smoke.

 

[Gundark]

Yeah I suspect that IH 2.0 will have to be a very different product than what 1.0 is. Since Mearls said you could do low magic in D&D 4.0 with a little bit of tweaking. IH will have to adapt if they want to market a 2.0 version regardless of whatever version of the OGL they use.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Or they can just let the game go and not bother developing a second edition. While I greatly enjoy playing IH, I don't see the real need to create a new edition if 4e can easily be altered to accommodate a low-PC-magic game. I'll probably switch to 4e if I can resolve my issues with the skill system, which appears to lack the granularity to handle IH-style skill challenges (one of my favorite mechanics ever). As it is, it's quite easy to incorporate IH-style stunt mechanics into 3e; I have the feeling that 4e probably will have something like stunts built in anyway.

 

[Betote]

That's what an NPC fighter is expected to have. PC fighters are expected to have considerably more (total up that list of gear, you'll see it's way less than the recommended wealth by level for a 7th-level character). NPC magic items are designed to make them a good challenge for PCs, not to let them take on PC challenges.

You're right, and I'm wrong. It isn't until PHB2 when the expected equipment is explicitly stated.

 

[Betote]

You've unplugged systems from the book and haven't been bothered by the repercussions. That's perfectly possible, since D&D has a long history of being extraordinarily poorly balanced, yet still eminently playable by the masses who don't grasp balance as a concept or even see it as a particularly desirable thing (if there's one area where modern D&D doesn't emulate MMO's, it's in not recognizing that many people's greatest joy comes from being leet, which of course means that someone else is teh suxorz).

Maybe it's because I play and DM with friends who are, mostly, reasonable human beings and whose joy comes from having a good time with an interesting story and strategical/tactical challenges. If my experience came from overcompetitive munchkins, I'd probably think differently.

But seriously, it's just a matter of adjusting the CRs a bit and being watchful of what feats you adopt. And if the reason why I've had no problems in years of DMing that way is because I and my players don't know any better, I'm happy of being so stupid as to enjoy my badwrongfun, thanks

But the fact is, that ham-fisted approach doesn't work on a broad scale. There are people who will see the shortcomings of unplugging magic items from the game right off the bat. One guy's going to play a druid and another guy's going to play a fighter, and the former is going to use his innately magical ability turn into a bear and patently outclass the latter who has been denied his panoply. The fighter's going to wonder what the heck he's doing there.

I've come to believe that those minmaxing problems about power combos and such start dissapearing when you start a campaign at 1st level and PCs have to actually earn those levels/feats/powers.

 

[Christian]

Maybe it's because I play and DM with friends who are, mostly, reasonable human beings and whose joy comes from having a good time with an interesting story and strategical/tactical challenges. If my experience came from overcompetitive munchkins, I'd probably think differently.

But seriously, it's just a matter of adjusting the CRs a bit and being watchful of what feats you adopt. And if the reason why I've had no problems in years of DMing that way is because I and my players don't know any better, I'm happy of being so stupid as to enjoy my badwrongfun, thanks

It's not a question of your game being badwrongfun. It's that your system, as well as it works with your playstyle and your particular set of players, would not result in a good game for the vast majority of gaming groups, were your assumptions made part of the published ruleset.