Parties screwed without an Int-based PC?

[ForbidenMaster]

Earned.


That is a basic flaw with 4E. The concept that players MUST be given x number of items of y levels of power so that the game remains in balance. The DM has limited choice in the matter. There are very few non-stacking spells or powers to make up the deficit if this does not occur for some reason.

Doesnt the DMG state something about for a scarce magic item game a DM can simply substitute the need for magic items by giving the PCs a bonus to their AC, defenses, attack, damage, etc. by 1 at every tier and half-tier?

That way you can have magic items be about their properties and powers, instead of about how much function they will add to balance the math. In fact, if you really want to limit the amount of magic items, but at the same time make them at the very least as useful as a character who had a relative "abundant" amount of magic items, you could simply increase the amount of times per day that you could use a specific magic item.

Maybe instead of a different magic item every milestone you could use any magic item that you had, whether it had been used previously or not. That way your flaming longsword, your most prized possession and only magic weapon, isnt a one day wonder.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

I thought any character could automatically determine the properties of a magical item during a short rest?

Identifying Magic Items
Most of the time, you can determine the properties
and powers of a magic item during a short rest. In the
course of handling the item for a few minutes, you
discover what the item is and what it does. You can
identify one magic item per short rest.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

PS if you play past heroic tier without the right magical items, you pretty much get destroyed by monsters. Tactics won't really help when you get hit on a 4 or higher.

 

[FireLance]

Earned.

Such an interesting word.

That is a basic flaw with 4E. The concept that players MUST be given x number of items of y levels of power so that the game remains in balance. The DM has limited choice in the matter. There are very few non-stacking spells or powers to make up the deficit if this does not occur for some reason.

...

That way, they "actually earn" what they get as opposed to having cool stuff always spoon fed to them. There is less of an entitlement of "I opened the vault door or I killed the Ogre, where is my special reward?".

I think there is only a disconnect if you see the process of earning treasure as separate and distinct from the process of earning XP. While it is certainly possible to separate the two (and many do), it is just as possible to bundle the two together so that the PCs "earn" treasure by doing whatever they do to "earn" XP, e.g. fighting monsters, succeeding at skill challenges, completing quests, etc.

In a way, I find it to be an interesting inversion of the 1 gp = 1 XP rule in BD&D. In one of the later sets (either Companion or Master) the DM was even advised to give out treasure based on how fast he wants the PCs to advance in his campaign!

 

[KarinsDad]

Doesnt the DMG state something about for a scarce magic item game a DM can simply substitute the need for magic items by giving the PCs a bonus to their AC, defenses, attack, damage, etc. by 1 at every tier and half-tier?

This sounds reasonable, but I could not find it in the DMG.

That way you can have magic items be about their properties and powers, instead of about how much function they will add to balance the math. In fact, if you really want to limit the amount of magic items, but at the same time make them at the very least as useful as a character who had a relative "abundant" amount of magic items, you could simply increase the amount of times per day that you could use a specific magic item.

Maybe instead of a different magic item every milestone you could use any magic item that you had, whether it had been used previously or not. That way your flaming longsword, your most prized possession and only magic weapon, isnt a one day wonder.

We do something slightly different.

For items that PCs really like, we set it up so that the PC can use the Enchant Magic Item ritual (as per Adventurer's Vault) to improve the to hit bonus (and possibly increased power if the item does that) of that item.

That way, the PC Rogue can use his +1 Inescapable Dagger at higher level as a +2 Inescapable Dagger, +3, etc. In our game, the player of the Rogue really enjoys having a cool item that grows with the PC.

Our previous DM did this automatically for some items (i.e. the item just got more powerful and the PC did not find the same level item that he was supposed to find), but I don't do that.


Plus, the DM does not have to hand out as much magical treasure this way. The DM hands out more mundane treasure and the PCs use the Enchant Magic Items ritual to either craft their own items, or to boost their current items.

Note: The Craft Magic Items ritual is limited to PC level. The DMG states that the reason this was done was to make finding higher level items cool for the players and CMI was supposed to be for the uncool lower level stuff that was just needed for balance. If one were to use CMI to hand out fewer magical items, it might make sense to not put a level cap on CMI so that the PCs could actually make or boost items above their level.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think there is only a disconnect if you see the process of earning treasure as separate and distinct from the process of earning XP. While it is certainly possible to separate the two (and many do), it is just as possible to bundle the two together so that the PCs "earn" treasure by doing whatever they do to "earn" XP, e.g. fighting monsters, succeeding at skill challenges, completing quests, etc.

I see the process of treasure as a plausible outcome of certain opponents.

Some opponents should have nothing. In fact, faced with 100 undead over a 5 day span, it's plausible that the guy who raised the undead took all of their treasure and the undead have none. If the PCs never encounter that guy or he gets away, it's plausible that they never acquire the treasure. On the walk home, finding a treasure chest in the middle of the road to make up for that isn't plausible (or finding it in an Ogre lair or whatever).

It's like watching a movie in a theater and suddenly realizing that you are in a theater instead of engrossed with the movie. The "gain the treasure anyway later" concept makes it feel like a Monopoly game instead of a smoothly flowing FRPG story.


The way it is set up, magical treasure is a game mechanic, not a plot device. If the plot says there should be no magical items, the game mechanics disagree and say that there should.

If the DM wants to run a low magic world, he has to adjust the game because the game is set up for a high magic world where the PCs acquire 24 magic items each over 30 levels. This is not a flexible part of the game design, it's a rigid one.

 

[webrunner]

Some opponents should have nothing. In fact, faced with 100 undead over a 5 day span, it's plausible that the guy who raised the undead took all of their treasure and the undead have none. If the PCs never encounter that guy or he gets away, it's plausible that they never acquire the treasure. On the walk home, finding a treasure chest in the middle of the road to make up for that isn't plausible (or finding it in an Ogre lair or whatever).

This guy must a) be very good at finding treasure to be able take ALL of the treasure hidden in these places, b) be very good at moving treasure if there's so much treasure that he's carrying with him and c) very unoriginal (or more accurately, the DM is unoriginal) to be sending just waves of undead against the party over five days.

It seems to me that the scenario you're presenting is just as implausible as finding a treasure chest in the middle of the road..

 

[KarinsDad]

This guy must a) be very good at finding treasure to be able take ALL of the treasure hidden in these places, b) be very good at moving treasure if there's so much treasure that he's carrying with him and c) very unoriginal (or more accurately, the DM is unoriginal) to be sending just waves of undead against the party over five days.

Maybe he converted it to gems, sold off the magic items he couldn't use, and is wearing the rest.

Like an intelligent person would do. Heaven forbid we play the NPCs as intelligent instead of cannon fodder for the encounters du jour.

As for being unoriginal, that's a pretty uninformed thing to say. You have no clue what else such a DM has in store for the players or why the story has a massive number of undead. And, that was just an example. One could replace that with any type of creature or have a wide variety of types of creatures without treasure.

It seems to me that the scenario you're presenting is just as implausible as finding a treasure chest in the middle of the road..

It seems to me that people who do not expand beyond the "way WotC wants you to play the game" are missing out on a lot of other possibilities.

If you just want to kill things and take their stuff and 40% of them have magical stuff like WotC suggests, have at it for your game.

Me, I like more variety than that.

 

[Nail]

I thought any character could automatically determine the properties of a magical item during a short rest?

Hee, hee, hee!

Yer a bit late t' th' party, Old Gumphrey........

 

[FireLance]

I see the process of treasure as a plausible outcome of certain opponents.

Some opponents should have nothing. In fact, faced with 100 undead over a 5 day span, it's plausible that the guy who raised the undead took all of their treasure and the undead have none. If the PCs never encounter that guy or he gets away, it's plausible that they never acquire the treasure. On the walk home, finding a treasure chest in the middle of the road to make up for that isn't plausible (or finding it in an Ogre lair or whatever).

It's like watching a movie in a theater and suddenly realizing that you are in a theater instead of engrossed with the movie. The "gain the treasure anyway later" concept makes it feel like a Monopoly game instead of a smoothly flowing FRPG story.

My main point was that "earning" treasure need not be a separate process from "earning" XP. How a DM chooses to insert additional treasure into a campaign after several encounters with opponents who did not carry any is another matter entirely. With a little thought, I'm fairly sure that he will be able to find ways to do so plausibly and seamlessly, e.g. gifts, rewards, a chance encounter with trolls carrying two powerful magic longswords and a magic dagger, etc.