D&D 4E Magics Items in 4E

[Irda Ranger]

In the latest podcast the 7th level human fighter has no magical items whatsoever.

This feeling, it is odd ....

This must be what Wormwood feels like every! day!

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I'll let my DM post here more cogently than I could (if he shows up), but suffice it to say my Iron Heroes character is 8th level and recently sacrificed the only magic item he had (a cursed blade willingly taken up for good reason), and is back to using the same longsword he started with at 1st level. It had been hanging on the wall on his office for the last couple months, but it's still sharp.

We don't need no stinkin' magical items to motivate us to go into Undermountain.

The average poster at EN World is vastly different than the average D&D player. To assume that D&D can get by without loot, when the game is synonymous with killing things and taking their stuff shows a very ivory tower disconnect to the playerbase.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Either magic items are: A. Useful or B. Useless.

<snippity snip>

You can't make a game where magic is both useful and makes no difference to a character's power. It's a contradition in terms.

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but that's not what I was inferring.

The questions isn't "Are two fighters, one with a magic sword and the other not, balanced against each other at a given level?". No. The question is "Are the PC's within a party balanced against each other at any given amount of wealth and treasure?" So, if your PC's are robbed of all their stuff, is the Fighter balanced against the Wizard? If they have 10,000,000 gp each in loot, are they balanced against each other?

If 4E can do this, allow both a "You're all taken as slaves" plot and a "Price is no object, 007" style, and make them both work, that would be really. freakin. cool.

The last piece of the puzzle would be accurate guidelines in the DMG which tell a DM "The MM assumes 'This much' magical loot when assigning levels to monsters. Adjust down "this far" if you have no items at all; adjust up "this far" according to "that chart" if your PC's have more than we thought."

 

[Irda Ranger]

The average poster at EN World is vastly different than the average D&D player. To assume that D&D can get by without loot, when the game is synonymous with killing things and taking their stuff shows a very ivory tower disconnect to the playerbase.

??? Um, no.

1/ It might be nice for you to think that you're one of the elite by posting on EN World, but I assure you, this is not true in my experience. The single best rules guru and damn fine player I know can't even answer his email properly, let alone post on EN World. He also enjoys the same style I do. He is hardly the exception.

Posting on EN World proves one thing, and one thing only: you have an EN World account. That's it.

2/ There are a lot of games out there not based on the accumulation of lucre. Perhaps you have heard of World of Darkness? Or Conan? They sell pretty well, and I'm 99.99999% sure all those sales can not be attributed to EN World posters.

3/ EN World ain't no ivory tower.

 

[Votan]

The average poster at EN World is vastly different than the average D&D player. To assume that D&D can get by without loot, when the game is synonymous with killing things and taking their stuff shows a very ivory tower disconnect to the playerbase.

Loot is fine. I have no trouble with roleplaying awards for great wealth. If you kill a dragon then you get to deal with managing a hoard. Maybe you buy land or invest or simply have the world's greatest party. Any of these options creates fun.

Taking the cash to Joe's magic store to load up on gizmos, on the other hand, doesn't drive plot at all and makes it hard to match up different players. In fact, the strong wealth to power link creates all sorts of situations (the rogue steals the wizard's spellbook) that make me enjoy the game less not more because they cripple the character's ability to participate.

If we use a real life adventure story as an example, James Bond an have advantages for being rich but his basic ability as an agent isn't hampered by a lack of loot. Money makes some times easier and opens up alternative plots, but it doesn't spell the different between the beatable and the unbeatable.

 

[Kintara]

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but that's not what I was inferring.

The questions isn't "Are two fighters, one with a magic sword and the other not, balanced against each other at a given level?". No. The question is "Are the PC's within a party balanced against each other at any given amount of wealth and treasure?" So, if your PC's are robbed of all their stuff, is the Fighter balanced against the Wizard? If they have 10,000,000 gp each in loot, are they balanced against each other?

If 4E can do this, allow both a "You're all taken as slaves" plot and a "Price is no object, 007" style, and make them both work, that would be really. freakin. cool.

The last piece of the puzzle would be accurate guidelines in the DMG which tell a DM "The MM assumes 'This much' magical loot when assigning levels to monsters. Adjust down "this far" if you have no items at all; adjust up "this far" according to "that chart" if your PC's have more than we thought."

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm inferring...and hoping it's true.

Edit: I actually like both Iron Heroes style uncommon, even dangerous, magic items and common, +5 sword-style magic items.

 

[gizmo33]

If we use a real life adventure story as an example, James Bond an have advantages for being rich but his basic ability as an agent isn't hampered by a lack of loot. Money makes some times easier and opens up alternative plots, but it doesn't spell the different between the beatable and the unbeatable.

Magic swords are better at killing things though. On one hand I can definitely see the benefits of this perspective as a game, but on the other hand if you don't have a magic sword that's better than a regular sword then it misses out on one of the basic elements of fantasy adventuring. Gandalf finds the magic sword Glamdring and says "cool, a magic sword, I'll take it." Of course there's no reason to think that Glamdring has to be anything other than a +1 sword, so power-creep might be influencing this. In any case, it's not like Glamdring had to be capable of shooting lightning bolts every other round, nor was their any indication that it's powers were proportional to the weilder's powers. Some of these other suggestions like that just don't sit right with me.

Maybe magic swords should be +1 weapons, and artifact-level swords should be +2. That way perhaps you get rid of the inflation of expectations and everything settles down.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

??? Um, no.

1/ It might be nice for you to think that you're one of the elite by posting on EN World, but I assure you, this is not true in my experience. The single best rules guru and damn fine player I know can't even answer his email properly, let alone post on EN World. He also enjoys the same style I do. He is hardly the exception.

I dont think I gave any indication that I think the average poster at ENWorld is BETTER. I said different. Its been established there are more DM's. I also think theres a lot of "RP'er than thou" posturing that goes on in message boards that represents a small fraction of how many games are played.

2/ There are a lot of games out there not based on the accumulation of lucre. Perhaps you have heard of World of Darkness? Or Conan? They sell pretty well, and I'm 99.99999% sure all those sales can not be attributed to EN World posters.

The sales of the magic item compendium must be a fluke eh? I'd wager it outsold Iron Heroes. Anyone have data?

Considering the frequent railings against magic and power that occur here, if ENworlders were representative, then why are books of magic treasure, spells, feats, etc selling to D&D players? Certainly not because D&D players want power. After all, its out of vogue on ENWorld!

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Loot is fine. I have no trouble with roleplaying awards for great wealth. If you kill a dragon then you get to deal with managing a hoard. Maybe you buy land or invest or simply have the world's greatest party. Any of these options creates fun.

Only for certain types of players. It leaves out your typical powergamer type. But hey, lets ditch Joe Average D&D player.

 

[Votan]

Magic swords are better at killing things though. On one hand I can definitely see the benefits of this perspective as a game, but on the other hand if you don't have a magic sword that's better than a regular sword then it misses out on one of the basic elements of fantasy adventuring. Gandalf finds the magic sword Glamdring and says "cool, a magic sword, I'll take it." Of course there's no reason to think that Glamdring has to be anything other than a +1 sword, so power-creep might be influencing this. In any case, it's not like Glamdring had to be capable of shooting lightning bolts every other round, nor was their any indication that it's powers were proportional to the weilder's powers. Some of these other suggestions like that just don't sit right with me.

Maybe magic swords should be +1 weapons, and artifact-level swords should be +2. That way perhaps you get rid of the inflation of expectations and everything settles down.

This is actually a very helpful example. Gandalf is happy to have a sword with a history and a meaning to it. It seems to have benefits as much in terms of intimidation as anything else given how the goblin react to it. But nobody sees Gandalf as weak and helpless when he loses the sword in Moria against the Balrog.

But making the item something that scales with the wielder is, in general, very thematic with Tolkien (see the one ring, for example, where this is explicit). Or even in Robert Jordan's work, the benefit of an Angreal is much higher for a powerful caster. Or Excalibur is the sword of kings but it can't be used by just anyone (or drawn at least).

One idea that is kind of cool would be letting a player advance an item as part of their progression. It'd have to be slightly better than no item but would tend to focus players on a special item rather than the "Christmas tree effect". Glamdring might be a +1 sword that could have been more powerful if Gandalf had focused on it . . .