New Monte Cook article Magic and Mystery

[Janx]

Sorry but if a DM cannot stop players from overdosing on magic items then I doubt any amount rules will help.

It was my impression that monty haulism and TPKs by virture of not guaging party strength are why the CR system and the wealth by level system was invented.

Before that, we assumed total PC levels = fair encounter in HD of monsters.

magic weapons were handed out based on level/5, such that a 2nd level PC didn't generally run around with a +4 weapon.

The objective was to have a measuring stick for munchkinism and monty-haulism.

It was also an attempt to show that PCs are balanced with each other. One PC with buttloads of gear vs. the PC who didn't have buttloads of gear.

Another means to this end, is to calculate a PC's Combat Rating much like encumbrance is calculated. Thus, the CR of the PC is used in determining encounter strength. A PC with no magic items has a lower CR, so its obvious as to what monsters to use.

I don't have a problem with +X magic items. I had plenty of them in D&D in 2e. +X to-hit/damage is simply the most obvious power to give to a weapon.

If you calculated a PCs CR, then you can detach from wealth by level, and simply pit monsters that are fair against the PC as he is.

 

[Ainamacar]

This is helpful analysis but does assume that magic is a technology that can be used by the owner, any owner. Another question about the worlds involved must be: is there a market of viable users of the items. What use is a holy avenger to a King who isn't a paladin? [1]

Equally, if the characters are one-in-a-million then it's hard to imagine who the brokers in the market are who wait to juggle king's ransoms for the few days on which the kingdom's heroes want to upgrade their smiting technology.

[1] Yes, there are lots of story answers here but I mean in the - oh here's a +5 sword way!

I'm don't think I'm assuming that a robust market for magic items exist. (I suppose I am assuming the physical gp is a liquid asset, but that's practically its raison d'être.) The whole notion is to use the concept to imagine how a game's magic item economy could work in highly liquid or illiquid markets, and then provide really simple rules of thumb to the DM to help replicate the feeling they want in their setting.

The king example is true in either case (wealth doesn't directly indicate cash in hand or assets easily convertible to it), although the final selling price, if a deal went through, of a holy avenger to a king that wanted it would probably depend a great deal on which kind of market exists for magic items. I do think it is helpful to assume a liquid market for magic items when giving their canonical "value" since the primary purpose it serves in the game is to compare the utility of items, which is what the equilibrium price should represent in an idealized market. The actual buying or selling could be easily modified to fit the setting. In one campaign all items sell for full book value, in another you can barely find a buyer and shouldn't expect to get much when you do. The absence of wealth by level requirements or assumed equipment means the game could support both types equally well.

I'm less concerned that any new version has specific guidance for GM's on giving out treasure than I am that the new version not require a certain level of treasure for the math to work. I fully expect a lot of GM'ing advice in the new version, but that advice isn't much help if I want to play a particular style of game, one which the rules simply do not support.

Thank you for the info. I'm also not too concerned about how players get their magic items. The tools I meant are those that tell the DM how to handle whatever magic items the PCs actually possess. That kind of tool is useful across a wide variety of games, much more so than wealth by level.

Me too, though I remember thinking the same thing about pre-4E when so much of the talk was of making GM prep much easier. 4E succeeded with that, but still didn't turn out to be a game I wanted to play. I hope 5E will be one that I want, but we'll see - until then, I won't get excited about it one way or the other.

I'm in the same boat. Well, I suppose I am excited, but more because this is an area of game design I find very interesting, and I want to see what they come up with. With respect to 5e itself, I am merely, as stated, encouraged.

 

[Anselyn]

I do think it is helpful to assume a liquid market for magic items when giving their canonical "value" since the primary purpose it serves in the game is to compare the utility of items, which is what the equilibrium price should represent in an idealized market.

I have no real knowledge of economics ... but I think I find it hard to imagine a idealised market (= optimised?) for products with utility for so few people - with the usual meaning of utility.

Equally, I guess there are markets that operate for extreme vintage wine and obscure roleplaying books. What happens in standard theory when a small group of people want rare items? I guess everything hinges on the efficiency of those brokers - or for the RW, now, Ebay.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I'll agree with one point - the whole "Plussed" magic weapon thing should have a gun put in its ear. That, right there, is one of the biggest sensawunda killers in the game. Wahoo, I got me a magic sword... Fantastic... great... oh, it's plus one to hit and damage... so... it's magical, wonderous and funky, and... no? ... huh.

The idea of inherent bonuses is one I really support. Then you ignore the "plus" of the weapon and focus on the rider effects. Does anyone really care if the flaming sword is +1 or +2? I'd argue a big Hell No! It's cool because it's a freaking SWORD MADE OF FIRE!

Magic items should have special effects, not just a 5% change on a die roll.

"You must spread XP..."

Exactly what I came here to say. The inherent bonus should just meld into the math of the game and magic items should do something flavorful, useful and fun.

All three of these factors are of course subjective. People seem to be demanding that "useful" = "bigger plus." Without the need for plussed items "useful" then becomes more open to interpretation.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Without the need for plussed items "useful" then becomes more open to interpretation.

Yes! And what happens then is that who a character is and what they do defines them more so than what magical equipment they carry. And thus, what a character becomes good at is in the hands of the player choosing certain abilities/power/paths for their advancing character, rather than sending stupid damn treasure wish lists to their DM/GM to put in stupid damn treasure packets!!!

And then magical items can go back to being the gravy, reward, and mysterious cherry that they should be; with the deeds, actions and achievements of the characters back at the fore. Monte has most certainly nailed my interest in what he is now doing.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Yes! And what happens then is that who a character is and what they do defines them more so than what magical equipment they carry. And thus, what a character becomes good at is in the hands of the player choosing certain abilities/power/paths for their advancing character ...

If we had to guess, what is the rough percentage of effectiveness, in the real world, granted by having the best tools over the worst (but still useful) ones?

Obviously, it varies some with the tool. A simple claw hammer that won't break in your hand can't be much improved for a short piece of work. Improvements are nearly all aimed at making it fit in your hand (fatigue over long use) and durability. Something much more complex, such as a computer, has a wider range--though still a definite cut off absent skill.

 

[devoblue]

I like this direction a lot. Players getting access to all the technology they want in 3e, 4e, and Eberron, just doesn't inspire me.

But the best part is that he is not excluding anyones play style. 5e can continue to support Eberron and Christmas Trees for those who want to play that way. 5e with FR can support mid-magic play, and they'll need to push out a low magic setting also, say Greyhawk?

 

[Ainamacar]

I have no real knowledge of economics ... but I think I find it hard to imagine a idealised market (= optimised?) for products with utility for so few people - with the usual meaning of utility.

Equally, I guess there are markets that operate for extreme vintage wine and obscure roleplaying books. What happens in standard theory when a small group of people want rare items? I guess everything hinges on the efficiency of those brokers - or for the RW, now, Ebay.

There are two levels of market in play here: the first is the market of the setting (the utility to characters), and the second is the market of game itself (utility to players). We pretty much need to make sure the relative valuation of items works well when considered as a game, otherwise the game doesn't work. It is my opinion that the valuation of items that is optimal for the game as game is basically the same valuation that would exists in an idealized market within the setting, since rational characters with the means and opportunity to optimize their equipment would do so, just as would rational players. (This doesn't impugn people who don't optimize their characters for DPS, it is just the fundamental assumption of modern economics, and very useful even when only approximate.) Since the game should work in a variety of settings, I think this is the appropriate starting point.

I'm not suggesting that we should assume our settings actually have idealized markets. Rather, the game should provide a simple rule of thumb to simulate the non-ideal factors. For example, in Dark Sun selling prices would generally be low, selling prices high, both subject to large fluctuations, and a good many items would be neither sellable nor purchasable because there is neither cash nor an equivalent item available. In Forgotten Realms these issues might be less severe, and even the most expensive items can eventually find a buyer. In Eberron many inexpensive magic items might be about as liquid as cash, but more expensive ones unavailable.

You could even extend these ideas to factions, individuals, and different geographic regions in the same setting. For example, there might be heavily regulated and/or discouraged trade of magic items in some city, so that the official channels are very illiquid. There is also a thriving black market, where you can get better money. If the characters don't think they'll just make up for the difference in their next treasure packet because the rules say they need so much money, suddenly breaking the law might seem pretty tempting.

Let me give a specific example off the top of my head that might work in 4e. Suppose we defined various levels of liquidity in markets by base selling price compared to canonical value and (if desired) price fluctuations for both buying and selling.

Liquidity     Selling (%)     Fluctuations (%)
---------     -----------     ----------------
Negligible     0              25
Low            20             20
Moderate       40             15
High           60             10
Very High      80             5
Complete       100            0

Then a faction would list a liquidity and an item level. For each additional set of levels above that given the liquidity drops by 1. When it drops below Negligible items above that level are totally unavailable.

So, perhaps a tiny village might be (Moderate, 1). It would have low liquidity for level 2 items, negligible for level 3 items, and level 4 items are straight up unable to be moved.

Sigil might be (Very high, 5). In that case, it drops to negligible at level 25. The City of Brass, the height of multiversal commerce, might be even higher.

Such a scheme would also enable some interesting haggling options, say tilting the fluctuation in the direction you want, or be the basis for rules regarding a trading caravan. The uninterested DM can just pick a level and stick with it. Regardless, if wealth by level is removed from the rules, the game should be able to tolerate any of these cases seamlessly.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Either way, a +X weapons adds 2X levels to the party for the purposes of expected attack bonus. I don't really see how this helps things; at some point, if there are magical weapons, you have to factor that into the player's power.

Most fun monsters will have ACs that are a challenge but not impossible to hit, will have hitpoints that don't disappear in one attack but don't force the players to spend all night whittling down one creature, be able to frequently but not always hit the PCs and be able to do noticeable, not insignificant or overwhelming damage to the PCs. To plan for that, you have to know what the ACs, attack bonuses, damage dealt and hit points the party will have. Ignoring magic is just burying your head in the hand.

They are not talking about ignoring magical items effects on things, but creating a base line built around +0. From here there are a lot of things they can do. One of those things is to create augmented baselines factoring in the various bonuses from magical items. From those different baselines they could then design monsters of the same level with differing levels of power. For example both a wolf and a wrymling white dragon are level 1 monsters the wolf would be designed based on the +0 line and the white dragon on the +2 line.

If you have a party armed with +5 weapons, ignoring spellcasters, you'll have a party that can take down creatures of their own level trivially. Any creatures they can attack and survive will be easier to hit then the system plans for. Any creatures they can't just chop through will just chop through them. You've totally changed the dynamics of the system against what you're planing for.

That line between "PCs can kill it easily" and "it can kill PCs easily" has always existed. Magic items just shift around where that line is.

There better not be anybody selling full plate (1,500 GP) in this world then.

In that case full plate would have a much lower sale price as well.

 

[FireLance]

How's this as a counterexample?

Kobolds have a 10% chance per hundred of having a magic item. Magic items don't have "levels" at all. The dm chooses or rolls a random item; it could be good, it could be crap.

Goblins have a 10% per twenty-five of having a magic item, as above.

Wolves don't have magic items, period.

Skeletons don't either, but might be in place guarding them.

The hobgoblin captain of the bandits is well known for having a flaming sword. Standard bandits have a 5% chance per 20 of having a magic item.

To hit 2nd level, the party must overcome 50 kobolds, 40 goblins or wolves, 30 skeletons or the bandit captain and 35 bandits.

Now- what do you expect to earn over 1st level?

The key assumption is that reward is generally commensurate with challenge. If so, you won't have a situation where monsters that pose the same level of challenge give the PCs significantly different rewards.