It's the Actions Economy, Stupid!

[Charwoman Gene]

4e represents a paradigm shift, especially if you haven't been looking at recent 3.5 products.

The fundamental balancing agent is what you can do in a round.

Magic items that are not free actions, or do not add actions are not going to matter in terms of encounter balance unless they are out of line with class powers for their level.

Ergo, why low magic campaigns with compensated bonuses are okay.

 

[Bishmon]

Magic items that are not free actions, or do not add actions are not going to matter in terms of encounter balance unless they are out of line with class powers for their level.

And that's the crux. There is virtually no way that this balance can be ensured. How do you balance a magic item that grants some sort of flying ability against a fighter's powers at any given level considering that fighters presumably won't have any powers that grant flying? How do you balance the flying from the magic item versus a new fighter power that deals a bit more damage than he could do five levels ago?

This sort of balance has been struggled with for 30+ years. I hope that the 4E designers have suddenly unlocked the secrets of magic item balance and their system works flawlessly, where character's secondary items are used for options and not power, but I'm not exactly expecting that.

 

[arscott]

But you can't just say "fighter's can't fly, so a flying item is unbalanced". You have to look at the benefits flying provides--Increased maneuverability, resistance to melee attacks, etc. While a fighter might not gain flying per se, it's entirely reasonable to believe he might gain the benefits of flying through other means.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As said in a different post:

A flying fighter may have an easier time getting to a flying enemy, but maybe it actually is not his only/best option.

Fighters can´t fly without magic. But they should know how to use a bow, or gain cover behind a tower shield. And maybe they know how to stike a flyer in the right moment with their axe to break a wing, or use a hook with a rope to get the flyer down.

Be creative.

That said: i am glad magical items are in the game, and i kind of like the implementation in general.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Flying magic items happen at "flight level" whatever level flight becomes available to anyone. Fighters with flight are nerfing themselves from melee abilities.

 

[Bishmon]

But you can't just say "fighter's can't fly, so a flying item is unbalanced".

Nor did I.

The theory behind the thread is that secondary items will be fine as long as they're balanced because they're replacing existing actions with different, equal actions. It's options, not power.

My point is, I don't think that balance is possible, let alone a reasonable expectation, considering the vast differences among powers for specific classes at specific levels and the huge amount of powers available from magic items. It only takes a couple magic items out of hundreds to be a little off to throw the 'options, not power' idea out of whack.

And, as the history of the game has shown us, it tends to be a good bit more than a couple magic items that are a little off. That's not a slight against any developers, it's just an eventual result of the problems associated with balancing magic items.

 

[Hjorimir]

I have never operated under the assumption that fighters of X-level would have the ability to fly through a magic item. If a campaign/setting doesn't include such items it is balanced by virtue that it is relative to the rest of the campaign.

Sure, if half of the characters in a campaign could get their hands on such items while the other half could not (by rule) there would be a distinct imbalance. But if a DM says I'm not going to have magic items that allow flight it won't unbalance the game.

Then again, if an encounter is more difficult because of the terrain and no ability to fly on the part of the PCs, I wouldn't describe it as unbalanced. I'd simply agree that there is a greater challenge for the PCs to overcome. So be it. Let em' roll and have at it!

 

[Rallek]

I agree with the point raised by Bishmon. I'd also like to add that the success of d20 as a rule set has created a fairly strong third party presence in the market. Now I haven't been liking most of what I've been seeing about 4e, but let's be realistic... 4e is going to be the biggest RPG out there starting from day 1 of its release. If these third party publishers want to keep the doors open, they're going to be writing for 4e, heck some of them are already shelling out 5k for the privilege. They're going to be looking to move some product as soon as possible to establish themselves as a 4e "leader", and recoup some of that initial outlay, if nothing else. That means splatbooks.



Are they all going to live up to WoTC's rigorous "magical item balance" standards? If history is any guide here, the answer is a resounding no. In addition, I imagine that WoTC will want to make some 4e dollars as well, and they'll be releasing a splatbook or two as time goes on as well. Will all of these books be rigorously playtested and scoured for potential threats to the established math and core balance? Again if we judge by history, the answer is "no".


Don't get me wrong, I think they've taken a step towards addressing some of the problems that 3e had with magical items, but I don't think that they've solved it. I think that at best they just pushed it back for the first few months after release.

 

[Irda Ranger]

My point is, I don't think that balance is possible, let alone a reasonable expectation, considering the vast differences among powers for specific classes at specific levels and the huge amount of powers available from magic items. It only takes a couple magic items out of hundreds to be a little off to throw the 'options, not power' idea out of whack.

Point taken.

As a counter-point though, it's easiest to balance a new (thing) when you have lots of example (things) to compare it to. Seeing as how Tome of Battle is a preview of 4E, I expect Fighters will have lots of possible powers to serve as good examples of what can/should be available at any given level. These examples, as well as some sound guidelines on new (thing) development should largely (not totally, but largely) mitigate your concerns. Perfect balance isn't possible; but I think "pretty good" balance certainly is.

That being said, I fully expect several things:

1. Some portion of 4E errata going forward will be tweaks to item level or power. Your point should be that it's hard to do this, but that with time we'll constantly improve.
2. Certain types of players will post constantly about "killer combos" they've found ("Boots of Springing and the Mithril Pogo-Stick +3, when combined, are broken/awesome!") that only apply in very narrow tactical settings.
3. Most people will still spend at least half of their combat actions over the course of a campaign on their bog-standard class powers, because they're pretty good and the most widely applicable.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Don't get me wrong, I think they've taken a step towards addressing some of the problems that 3e had with magical items, but I don't think that they've solved it. I think that at best they just pushed it back for the first few months after release.

So, because those books are bound to have some off items, we shouldn't even try?

Regarding magical items, 4E is a huge improvement on 3E, IMO. The fact that I (as the DM) have to keep an eye out for new rule options that screw up game balance is hardly anything new. The same could have been said for any splatbook from 3E, introducing some new spell, feat, class or PrC that was ridonkulously good.