D&D General Passive Power Budget: Balancing Magic Item Attunement, Concentration and Everything Else Properly (or Die Trying)

[Zardnaar]

You can see it in the books. It's based around wealth by level and the magic item compendium, coupled with the NPCs magic items per level in the DMG, you can see the stuff match up. You can also look at the MM recommendations for AC by CR, which are high for PCs unless they have magic weapons.

A CR 8 creature should have an AC of 21. Lower if it's harder in other areas, and higher if it's easier in other areas or you want a hard encounter. An 8th level fighter has +8, around a 16-18 strength for +11 or +12 to hit on his first attack, and +6 to +7 on his second attack. He probably has another +1 from feats, but without a magic weapon he's still going to have a high miss chance for his first attack and will probably miss his second attack.

If we assume +13 to hit at 8th level(BAB, Str and feat), he's going to miss 35% of the time with his first swing, and 60% of the time with his second swing. And remember, AC goes up by one per CR, so even though BAB matches that increase and you get the occasional strength boost every 8 levels, the third and fourth attacks will be worthless if you don't periodically increase to a +2, then +3, then +4, and finally +5 weapon. Again, look at the NPCs and item level charts in the Magic Item Compendium.

This stuff is baked into the math. It's just not as front and center as the 4e math which is told to you more directly.

MIC is a later book. I remember they were thinking about things like that leading into 4E.

Its not in the DMG, MM and they revisions to monsters were sanding down 3.0s rough edges eg DC 50 fort saves vs poison. 3.0 they often took 2E monsters and slapped on ability scores.

Late 3.5 they were thinking about it. MMIV onwards the prototype 4E books.

The ones with small print ones and obscure even then (check out the prices on various late 3.5 books now).

 

[Maxperson]

MIC is a later book. I remember they were thinking about things like that leading into 4E.

Its not in the DMG, MM and they revisions to monsters were sanding down 3.0s rough edges eg DC 50 fort saves vs poison. 3.0 they often took 2E monsters and slapped on ability scores.

Late 3.5 they were thinking about it. MMIV onwards the prototype 4E books.

The ones with small print ones and obscure even then (check out the prices on various late 3.5 books now).

Dude. It matches up in all three books. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Zardnaar]

Dude. It matches up in all three books. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

Can you find a table saying you should gave a +X weapon or this power level buy xyz level?

Not some obscure developer quote 3 years after release?

They may have had a rough template for monster design. I dont recall it being tied to specific bonuses.

I do recall developers talking about players (online) prioritizing the big 5 or 6 magic items .
That was more a consequence of online theory crafting though.

There was also a big disconnect between online assumptions and the casuals. Developers messed up there.

Can you find any specific you should have xyz by ABC in any early 3.5 material or lead up to 3.5 release? Page number in a book? Late 3.5 is different they were thinking about it by then and 4E design started 2006 and early release in 2007 with SWSE.

 

[Maxperson]

Can you find a table saying you should gave a +X weapon or this power level buy xyz level?

Not some obscure developer quote 3 years after release?

They may have had a rough template for monster design. I dont recall it being tied to specific bonuses.

I do recall developers talking about players (online) prioritizing the big 5 or 6 magic items .
That was more a consequence of online theory crafting though.

There was also a big disconnect between online assumptions and the casuals. Developers messed up there.

I showed them to you. Tables are in the 3.5e DMG and Magic Item Compendium, and the expected ACs by CR in the MM. They are all in the same general ballpark as wealth by level, which 3.5e is balanced around. Those all ballpark the levels you are expected to have +1 weapons by in the same ballpark.

 

[Zardnaar]

I showed them to you. Tables are in the 3.5e DMG and Magic Item Compendium, and the expected ACs by CR in the MM. They are all in the same general ballpark as wealth by level, which 3.5e is balanced around. Those all ballpark the levels you are expected to have +1 weapons by in the same ballpark.

MIC isnt a core book and came later. And they were thinking this by then.

I'm talking where it tells you that you need xyz or ABC numbers by level XYZ.
4E they level gated magic items in phb and they were basic +1 to hit or whatever.

3.5 a lot of players imho didnt read the magic item tables. Online assumes that everyone was using wands of CLW. Real life don't see it outside my group.

4E the added feats that scald to patch the hit rates.

Wealth by level was used but you coukd theoretically by what you like. There was no real buy this now expectations. Meta play was lots of little items vs the expensive ones. Sure you might miss out on +1 to hit (+2 weapon was 8k vs 2k +1 iirc).

You were better iff not buying the +2 weapon vs a +1 item, wand of clw. +1 armor etc.

Thats what im taking about. Its not hard coded. If the developers intended that they never sign posted it. If the did intend that ther assumption was wrong in any event.

NPCs only had a fraction of NPC wealth. They couldnt afford the best equipment which leads back to either buy it or lots of little items vs the right math items.

We did use wealth by level mostly and 3.5 monsters weren't that hard unless they had nasty abilities like energy drain. Late 3.5 dumped it and just handed out whatever.

3.5 and 4E (espicially 4E) were wrong in magic items for sale in general and 4E treadmill effect in particular. 3.5 didnt have the treadmill effect.

 

[Maxperson]

MIC isnt a core book and came later. And they were thinking this by then.

I'm talking where it tells you that you need xyz or ABC numbers by level XYZ.
4E they level gated magic items in phb and they were basic +1 to hit or whatever.

You're dodging. I already said that 4e made it front and center and that 3.5e didn't. I've also already shown you RAW and the charts that support RAW that 3.5e accounted for magic items in the encounter math.

I'm really not sure why it's so important for you to think the designers were lying and they didn't really mean it when they wrote it clear as day, but they did write it. There's a reason why the treadmill of needing +x weapons and armor to keep pace started with 3e/3.5e and was something spoken about all over the place and accepted as truth. You're the only one I've seen who thinks that it didn't happen.

 

[Zardnaar]

You're dodging. I already said that 4e made it front and center and that 3.5e didn't. I've also already shown you RAW and the charts that support RAW that 3.5e accounted for magic items in the encounter math.

I'm really not sure why it's so important for you to think the designers were lying and they didn't really mean it when they wrote it clear as day, but they did write it. There's a reason why the treadmill of needing +x weapons and armor to keep pace started with 3e/3.5e and was something spoken about all over the place and accepted as truth. You're the only one I've seen who thinks that it didn't happen.

Got a specific page number then from a core book presumably DMG that says sonething like

"We expect you to have this by XYZ". Or even 4E

Theres wealth by level guidelines sure. By xyz level you can afford some weapons but its usually not worth buying them vs multiple other items. Ergo not expected.

Page number please. I played a lot of 3.5 and still own the DMG. And MIC but that came later.

Its not saying you need to buy them strict RAW (if DM follows them, few did imho) you can buy them. You're actually an idiot if you do buy them if you blow all your cash on them.

Thats not should though. What you should do is buy multiple items from a power gaming perspective who cares if you miss out on a +1 to hit.

Very different from 4E.

 

[billd91]

You could just as easily write the fiction to throw non-casters a bone rather than yet more rich get richer caster fest.

The lingering magical energies from attuning magic items interfere with the casting process making it harder for the magic to flow through the caster. Boom, done.

Non-casters can attune 5 items, half casters can attune 4, full casters can attune 3.

I think it's a good answer (5 attunement slots for non-casters, 4 for half, 3 for full caster), but I'm not sure I'd rationalize it based on magical energies getting in the way. Better to just come out and say that martial characters, lacking the versatility of spells, need to rely on gear to accomplish some of the same adventurous feats and so are allotted more attunement slots.

 

[Maxperson]

Got a specific page number then from a core book presumably DMG that says sonething like

"We expect you to have this by XYZ". Or even 4E

I already provided you with the information on where to look, but I don't even need that. Why? Because YOU'RE the one whose argument is founded on the premise that the designers are lying with the quote I provided to you earlier(with page number) from the 3.5e DMG. Unless you can show the kind of specificity you are asking for above showing that they were lying, all I have to do is keep pointing at that quote to be correct.

Can you prove that they were lying in the 3.5e DMG? Do you have a specific page out of a core book or even an official article stating that they lied? If not, then you have failed to prove your position and overcome my argument.

 

[Zardnaar]

I already provided you with the information on where to look, but I don't even need that. Why? Because YOU'RE the one whose argument is founded on the premise that the designers are lying with the quote I provided to you earlier(with page number) from the 3.5e DMG. Unless you can show the kind of specificity you are asking for above showing that they were lying, all I have to do is keep pointing at that quote to be correct.

Can you prove that they were lying in the 3.5e DMG? Do you have a specific page out of a core book or even an official article stating that they lied? If not, then you have failed to prove your position and overcome my argument.

You provided treasure tables page numbers.

Theres a lot of leeway there in numbers. As I said we played a lot if 3.5. 6-8 hour sessions.

You don't really need +4 or whatever weapons. You would usually have +1 with +3 worth of enhancements built in. +1 holy or +1 keen etc. There wasn't much point paying for +2 or whatever. Accuracy was more a 4E thing.

Thats not exactly what you're claiming about math.

Yes you generally needed some form of magic item. There was no assumptions over what those items would be ergo not built into the math. Thats what I'm saying.

Buffs being very good in 3.5 is also why. Hell we had a bard granting +8 to hit and damage. Could have been +16 we missed some things.

Thats a separate issue over exact magic item claims.

I'm not claiming the designers are lying but they probably didn't play their own game that much or made the wrong assumptions. They used those assumptions late 3.5 and tanked the game with 4E. They were very wrong. Thats a separate issue.

Ive read the page numbers you referenced. Not a sausage in there about assumed bonuses. Its just how much treasure you get. Page 212 assumes you have magic items not specific ones. Once again no sausages.

3E invented the magic mart, 4E invented the tread mill both are gone by 5E (it didn't work very well).

Page 135 right above table 5-1. Guidelines only. No adventure will assume for example a 7th level characters will require a 20000gp magic item.

No treadmill anywhere explicitly says you dont require specific items.

Quite interesting rereading things after 20 odd years.