New Monte Cook article Magic and Mystery

[FireLance]

I don't think there is any question that magic items have an effect on the power of the PCs and that powerful magic items can have a large effect on the power of the PCs. That's not the issue.

The problem with 4e is that assumes a certain level of magic item power for a given PC level and that the math doesn't work if you violate that assumption. A heavily under-equipped party will miss all the time (slowing down combat) and the encounter building guidelines won't generate balanced encounters.

Monte isn't suggesting that magic items be removed from the power structure. He is suggesting making them optional. In other words, the encounter guidelines would include a method of measuring how the amount of magic held by the PCs affects their "effective level" for purposes of building xp budgets for encounters.

Also, because hitting your opponent is a crucial part of the game, the to hit (and defense) bonus granted by magic items shouldn't exceed the adjustment magic items provide to the party's effective level.

IMO, you don't have to jump through hoops to adjust 4E for lower levels of equipment. My quick and dirty rule of thumb for adjusting challenges to under-equipped characters is this:

Effective PC level = 4/5 of actual PC level (round up) + magic item plus

A 17th-level character with just a +1 magic weapon would thus be considered a 15th-level character for the purpose of determining appropriate combat encounters.

Seriously, if the game assumes that he will be having an attack bonus 2 points higher than he actually has, just have him fight monsters 2 levels lower (and thus with defenses 2 points lower) instead.

 

[prosfilaes]

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.

It's not a line. Arm a party of 1st level, 3.5 fighters (because I don't know 4e well enough to do this) with +10 weapons. All of a sudden they have no problem hitting CR appropriate enemies. They can even hit stuff like a CR 8 behir better than an 8th level PC, and do about as much damage. But since their ACs and HPs haven't been raised correspondingly*, the behir can kill one PC each attack. There are creatures the PCs can kill without problem, creatures that can kill the PCs without problem, and creatures where the victor goes to who hits first. There are few to no standard monsters that provide a challenging but survivable (= fun) battle anymore.

* Magical AC boosters can be given to the party, but at least in 3.5 magical HP boosts are much less available. Even if you add HP boosters, you still need to balance them.

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

If you can buy and sell full plate armor, then you can probably buy and sell +1 weapons; you should at least be able to trade them for full plate. You've just made high-end weapons and armor cheaper. Furthermore, if the kingdom is so cash-strapped, it's likely that anyone in need of money or just not wanting a magical weapon would see if they could unload it on the PCs.

 

[LostSoul]

It's not a line. Arm a party of 1st level, 3.5 fighters (because I don't know 4e well enough to do this) with +10 weapons. All of a sudden they have no problem hitting CR appropriate enemies. They can even hit stuff like a CR 8 behir better than an 8th level PC, and do about as much damage. But since their ACs and HPs haven't been raised correspondingly*, the behir can kill one PC each attack. There are creatures the PCs can kill without problem, creatures that can kill the PCs without problem, and creatures where the victor goes to who hits first. There are few to no standard monsters that provide a challenging but survivable (= fun) battle anymore.

I think that would be a challenging but survivable - and fun - battle. The players would have to figure out a way to keep away from the behir while still dealing damage to it. I can see that working:

The PCs discover that a behir lives in the nearby warm hills; they hire a guide to help them scout out the area; they pool their cash to buy at least one horse; then they lure the behir into the place they've scouted - where they can attack it but keep out of range of its attacks. (1st level PCs with standard equipment could potentially do this, too.)

If they meet the behir before they are ready - damned random encounter checks! - they will have to flee, most likely losing some PCs.

Multiple low-level monsters would also be a threat.

 

[prosfilaes]

I think that would be a challenging but survivable - and fun - battle.

Sure. But you've seriously changed the types of challenging but survivable battles you can have, not just moved the line. I stand by my position that designing monsters for a non-magical party and expecting adding magical items to just work isn't going to work great.

 

[LostSoul]

Sure. But you've seriously changed the types of challenging but survivable battles you can have, not just moved the line. I stand by my position that designing monsters for a non-magical party and expecting adding magical items to just work isn't going to work great.

Isn't that (seriously changing the types of challenges) the whole point? It provides a nice flow and it keeps you off the "level 30 orc" treadmill:

• PCs select a challenge based on their capabilities, the circumstances of the setting, and how the PCs want those to change;
• PCs overcome challenge (if not, repeat step 1);
• PCs are rewarded;
• When enough rewards have been accrued, the capabilities of the PCs and the circumstances of the setting change;
• PCs select a new challenge based on how they changed their own capabilities and the circumstances of the setting.

This is pretty simple:
"We have a number of options. We could deal with the goblin tribes, the haunted tomb, the lizardmen in the dread marsh, or the (very deadly) dungeon of despair. Let's go into the haunted tomb because rumour has it there's a magic sword of great power in the tomb and the undead are keeping trade away."
PCs explore the tomb and fight monsters.
Through their adventure they get XP, that sweet magic sword, and open up the trade route.
Now that there's more trade, the lizardmen in the dread marsh start trading for steel weapons, the goblins have increased their numbers, and the dungeon of despair is less dangerous to the PCs with their new magic sword.

Without magic items you'll just cycle through the first three points more times before hitting the point where the rewards change the types of battles the PCs face.

You'll have to design monsters of different power levels, but that's nothing new.

 

[Kraydak]

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.

A sword that is made of fire, if it doesn't have a mechanical effect, is irrelevant. Special effects that don't do anything... are a waste of page-count, like most items in most magic-item compendiums. If the sword just converts its physical damage to fire damage, I'll be hard pressed to give a damn. If it adds 1d6 fire damage frequently, I'll start to care (but that is just another form of a +X item). For a sword, rider effects are about hurting the foe (or possible protecting oneself), aka +X, +Xd6 damage, +X defenses. And if the conditions to trigger the riders are uncommon, people either ignore them, or go the golf-bag route.

"Cool" effects that trigger once in a blue moon blow chunks. "Cool" effects that trigger often, are business-as-usual-completely-not-cool. I can understand why you might want to change the state of affairs, but without divine intervention, you will fail, probably causing damage in the process.

Take a lesson from MMORPGs: the only wonder in magic loot is in the looting. Once loot-in-potentia has become loot-in-fact, it becomes boring with the same speed that a wrapped present under a christmas tree becomes forgotten junk on the bedroom floor. So emphasize the process of looting, and avoid trying to convince people that a sucky item is somehow "cool" because of its riders.

 

[Anselyn]

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.

I'd suggest writnig the rules so the canonical values are clearly stated as the City of Brass values. So, Yes! - Somewhere in the multiverse you could sell your sword for X or swap that enormous diamond for Y. But, here in Hommlet ...

 

[Balesir]

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.

I am defined more by what I (can) do than by the clothes that I wear, and yet there are those who would define me by the clothes I wear. At the same time, who I am defines the clothes I wear.

A character's gear is (or should be) a reflection of who the character is, and if that defines them in the mind of others that is not necessarily a reflection of reality.

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 rather than depending upon what the dratted GM deigns to chuck into a treasure chest for them?

I agree that players should be in control of their character's nature and capabilities (as limited by the world and/or the rules). I don't see why equipment - much less one arbitrarily defined segment of equipment - should be an exception to this.

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.

Magic items being "mysterious" in a world where wizards cast fireballs, priests raise people from the dead and important people die only when they run out of "hit points" seems bizzarre, to me. "Hey - that stick created a ball of fire just like Old Theophilus does!" "Oooooohhhhh!! Spooky!! how can this be?!?!?"...

Um, Old Theophilus made it?? Tsk.

• PCs select a challenge based on their capabilities, the circumstances of the setting, and how the PCs want those to change;
• PCs overcome challenge (if not, repeat step 1);
• PCs are rewarded;
• When enough rewards have been accrued, the capabilities of the PCs and the circumstances of the setting change;
• PCs select a new challenge based on how they changed their own capabilities and the circumstances of the setting.

Apart from point 1, have you not just described the process of "levelling up"?

The first item is one major way in which I think the "infrastructure" of D&D might be improved, but other than that it's just what is already there.

I personally like Magic Items as an element of that "levelling up" process because they represent character design/development resources that are in the hands of the party, rather than a specific player. They give scope to "optimise the party", enhancing the party interdependence alongside the "roles" in 4E. They also help identify weaknesses in specific character roles or builds; if all the players agree that one specific role or character needs "extra help" from a disproportionate allocation of magic items, it can be indicative of an issue that could do with addressing.

 

[Guest 85555]

I see magic items as coming from the setting/environment. Somehow the whole 4E approach, as I understand it, disrupts this for me. This is why I never liked player wish lists either. To me that disrupts the "reality" of the setting. As a player I want a setting that feels objective, not one that I help build. And I want the objects I acquire to come from that setting (not my "vision" of my character). This is just preference of course. There isn't a right or wrong way to approach these things.

 

[Hussar]

I see magic items as coming from the setting/environment. Somehow the whole 4E approach, as I understand it, disrupts this for me. This is why I never liked player wish lists either. To me that disrupts the "reality" of the setting. As a player I want a setting that feels objective, not one that I help build. And I want the objects I acquire to come from that setting (not my "vision" of my character). This is just preference of course. There isn't a right or wrong way to approach these things.

Out of curiousity, why jump on 4e for this one? 3e allowed you (and certainly carried a pretty strong expectation) to buy whatever magic item you could afford/want. It was pretty easy to just give the PC's whatever treasure and then let them customize from there.

I get that it's a playstyle thing. But, why specifically call out 4e here for something that was common to other editions?