It's the Actions Economy, Stupid!

[Bishmon]

Another stumbling block:

Let's say as a 1st level fighter I learned a power that gave me 1/day minor action that let's me increase my AC by 1 for one encounter. Later, at 10th level, I learned a power that gave me another 1/day minor action that let's me boost my strength by four for one encounter.

Seems normal enough. Tough fights I'll buff myself with my strength boost right away and then in the next round I'll buff myself with my little AC boost.

But let's say at 10th level, I get a magic item that gives me a power 1/day to increase my dexterity by four for one encounter. That seems very reasonably balanced against the power I got from my fighter class at 10th level, right?

But look what happens when I fight. Just like before, I use my minor action in the first round to boost my strength for that encounter. In the second round, instead of using my minor action to boost my AC by one, I use my magic item to boost my dexterity by four.

What seemed on the surface to be very balanced has quickly become out of whack. Instead of that 10th level magic item power that was very balanced against my 10th level fighter power actually replacing that 10th level power, it has replaced one of my weaker 1st level fighter powers and has therefore become very unbalanced.

I'd imagine something like this will be commonplace unless there's gamist restrictions on the item that say "this item can only be used in place of a 10th level or higher power" which seems impossible to enforce. This is just another tough, tough stumbling block if you're banking on the 'options, not power' design.

 

[Rallek]

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.

Not at all, please go ahead and try away... just don't try to sell it to me as "mission accomplished". I myself think that (and said that) this seems to be a step towards their goal, BUT I don't think that their goal is necessarily worthwhile.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I myself think that (and said that) this seems to be a step towards their goal, BUT I don't think that their goal is necessarily worthwhile.

What? What's not worthwhile? Trying to reduce item dependence? Trying to make a system of items that's balanced? Are you suggesting that we should just make items with powers willy-nilly and let DM's sort it out?

I'm really trying to grasp what your point is here.

 

[Rallek]

Trying to make a system of items that's balanced is not worthwhile in my opinion, true. You yourself said, "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." So what has this new "system of items that's balanced" given us that we didn't have before?


I learned the art of DMing way back in the days of 2e. My early games were moderately horrible... you know every DM I've ever spoken with agrees that their early games were also moderately horrible? I guess that's how you know you've gotten better at it. At any rate, magic items were in no respect "balanced" and it never seemed to kill the game. In all honesty, it never even seemed to hurt the game. When the players found magic loot they used what they could, or saved it for a rainy day, a future retainer, a possible bribe, whatever. When they really wanted a specific kind of item they researched some legends to see if they could track down a suitable whatsits, and if that proved unworkable, they would locate a powerful mage and bargain to have one made. When they were powerful enough, the PC wizard researched the relevant components, spells needed, and proper rituals to craft items themselves, and that was a good source of a quest or two.


Over the many years we played 2e hundreds of magic items were encountered, many more were made by PC mages, all without benefit of a "balanced item system". Now we all agree that creating a balanced system of magic items is extremely difficult. Further I think that we agree that with the presence of third party materials, and the inevitable series of splatbooks from WoTC itself, it is likely an impossible standard to meet. So what is our situation? The developers spend a great deal of time and energy and (one would assume at least some) page count on something that is both likely impossible and largely unnecessary. This does not seem the course of wisdom to me.


I think the game would be better served by allowing fledgling DMs to find their own balance, and learn their art at the table, rather than trying to hardwire an impossible standard of "balance" into the core rules.


Just one DM's opinion, and hopefully a clarification of where I'm coming from on this issue.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

But let's say at 10th level, I get a magic item that gives me a power 1/encounter to increase my dexterity by four for one encounter. That seems very reasonably balanced against the power I got from my fighter class at 10th level, right?

I will pay you $20 dollars US if you see any power or magic item that is a straight stat bonus in the 4e PHB, DMG or the Magic Item Book.

They are removing non-permanent ability modification.

So Wands of Fireball are unbalanced because they aren't balanced against Magic Missile?
The 10th level fighter will have many abillities that outstrip the level 1 ability.

 

[Xethreau]

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?

Well, if you assume class powers are balanced against each other, then you compair the flight giving item against the powers of the class that bestows flight powers. IE, the wizard. "Would this item, in terms of both the action required to use it and the power it gives, be balanced against the Wizard's powers at X level?" If so, BOOM, you got a new magic item. Not as fast as that, but it is the basic thought process.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I think the game would be better served by allowing fledgling DMs to find their own balance, and learn their art at the table, rather than trying to hardwire an impossible standard of "balance" into the core rules.

First: that was a great post. Thanks for taking the time to lay it out clearly.

To address the above point though, I think both 3E and 4E have a system (each with strengths and weaknesses) for addressing this point. I'll address the 4E system, since it's both the forum topic and the future.

First, let's assume that 30th level PC's, who have fully embraced their Epic Destiny, are really badass. Whatever it is they do, they do it like it's going out of style. No magic item in the world can make a 5th level PC as badass as they are without any items at all.

So fine. Now we have a scale. Everything in the game is somewhere between a 0th level, pre-teen commoner, and Ultimate Badassery. We'll assign this scale a series of numéraires between 0 and 30.

When a new item is introduced we can assume it has an applicable numéraire between 0 and 30. Unless it's just ridiculously, laugh-inducing powerful, it's somewhere on the scale. And the only question, really, is: Where?

That score is a helpful "Based on our experience, this (thing) is (this) powerful. It will have (this) effect on your game." It's not really "balance." It's a series of guideposts. It's a received wisdom from DM's that have come before. 3E used gp cost to simulate that instead of a purely abstract numéraire, which was unfortunate, but it served the same purpose.

Frankly, I don't have the time to make all the possible mistakes DMing offers all by myself. If Mearls et. al. can make some mistakes for me, and then share the wisdom of playtests, I'm all for it. We'll find out that some Yrrsilary Sword is more 15th level than 12th level, or that the Fire Burst ability is a little too good for 12th level (and can be tweaked "just so"), and I'm thankful for that.

It's an ongoing process of learning where things are on the scale, not "balance". Nothing's "Mission Accomplished", but both experience DM's and "newbs" can benefit from the item level suggestions.

 

[Bishmon]

I will pay you $20 dollars US if you see any power or magic item that is a straight stat bonus in the 4e PHB, DMG or the Magic Item Book.

They are removing non-permanent ability modification.

I meant for my examples to be 1/day powers that would last for one encounter. I'll edit that post.

The general point, though, still stands.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I meant for my examples to be 1/day powers that would last for one encounter. I'll edit that post.

The general point, though, still stands.

As does my rebuttal.

 

[Rallek]

When a new item is introduced we can assume it has an applicable numéraire between 0 and 30. Unless it's just ridiculously, laugh-inducing powerful, it's somewhere on the scale. And the only question, really, is: Where?

That score is a helpful "Based on our experience, this (thing) is (this) powerful. It will have (this) effect on your game." It's not really "balance." It's a series of guideposts. It's a received wisdom from DM's that have come before. 3E used gp cost to simulate that instead of a purely abstract numéraire, which was unfortunate, but it served the same purpose.

Guideposts are certainly useful, but I question their ability to apply across all of the varied ground that has, up to this point, been D&D. I'm not saying that this is a worthless thing to have, merely that given the limited time and resources of the development team, this is effort best spent elsewhere. I do agree that 3e's system of using Wealth by level assumptions tied to GP value of magic items as a guidepost was a terrible idea. It was, in my opinion, worse than nothing because it lead directly to the much decried "magic WalMart".



Less on the main topic I want to address this for a minute;

Frankly, I don't have the time to make all the possible mistakes DMing offers all by myself. If Mearls et. al. can make some mistakes for me, and then share the wisdom of playtests, I'm all for it.

It's always useful to learn from those with more experience, but this is something of a two edged sword. If you (and by "you" I mean the "universal" DM here) learn from Mearls mistakes largely in place of your own, you'll be learning how to play his game, not yours. It sounds strange to say, but the strength of D&D has always, in my opinion, been the relationship between the DM and the players. You really need to learn what works for your group and what doesn't. You have to run those terrible games once or twice to learn what not to do. You have to get a feel for what your player's expectations are at the table, and then you need to flesh out those expectations through actual play. You learn to adapt the game to the way that you play as a unique group, and you tweak the play experience to really make the game your own. When it really works you get an experience that is social, creative, dynamic, and most of all extremely entertaining. In my opinion the ability of groups to come together and find "their" game is being diminished, and that's a slow death for the hobby, or at least for the aspect of the hobby that keeps my group coming back to the table.



Hmmm.... bit of a long walk from magic item rules, huh?



Just one DM's Opinion.