Remove Expected Wealth Levels

[Ainamacar]

As I see it, there should be no "shoulds" at all with respect to what characters have besides their bones (i.e. character abilities) and any mundane equipment necessary for them to function.

In the end magic items are just character abilities obtained by other means, so if they have an impact I think it should be on that level. I mean, what is the value of a flaming sword? The answer to that is pretty close to what it would be worth to a monk to make sure his fists were on fire. The common ways we measure character power are levels, or depending on the design of 5e perhaps closer to feats. Either way, those are the scales on which magic items have value for characters, so that's how I'd assign value to them.

So perhaps magic items could be valued by "quarter-levels" or similar. The value of a level is not constant, which suggests items should scale appropriately for the user. This is a concept already desired by some for other reasons. Should a +5 sword be a +5 sword in the hands of a villager? Maybe for them it's a +1 sword because that's all they can handle. (Items with pluses are the worst offenders, but the point stands for all sorts of other things.)

Many items would probably be 0 levels, especially if the primary benefit is an additional option rather than raw power. (For example, a ring that lets one change fire damage to electricity damage. Useful, but it doesn't really change the raw power of the group.) If the DM feels a certain mass of 0 level items is really making a difference to the PCs he can feel free to bump things up a bit, just like he's always judged such things.

You could also handle things like consumables, rituals, and other items that make a big difference when used, but almost no difference by possessing. Maybe a potion of Storm Giant Strength counts as +1 levels for a character that uses it before a combat. The DM might count it for the purposes of distributing XP after the fight. The point is, however, the amount of stuff a party has is quite a bit different than what it benefits from. Wealth-by-level using gold can't handle this at all. It also makes players reluctant to spend gold on anything but more items.

Finally, one can think of extending the same idea to other unrelated areas of the game. For example, the ideal for most modules is probably to leave game balance essentially unchanged. However, some modules inevitably will not do so. The party might still be on the same footing with respect to one another, but in some cases might change how powerful they are with respect to monsters. Well, if a module makes the party a little hardier at all levels (say more hit points and generous death-and-dying rules) the game can give some advice about how this affects the strength of the party. The DM can use that information in the same we he might consider magic items.

Another possibility is attrition as the day goes on. Guidelines for measuring party strength usually take no consideration of whether the party is fresh or worn down. An appropriate challenge at the start of the day might be deadly after 3 fights. If the purpose of such systems is to help the DM set up fights that challenge characters the way she wants them to be challenged, that should be a goal. And if XP takes into consideration the challenge overcome, there might be a small incentive for players to press on rather than rest up. In a 4e context, for example, one might count how many daily powers and healing surges have been spent, and reduce the effective party level by a bit for future encounters that day. That's book work, but one might design 5e so that information could be gathered quickly or simply estimated well-enough to give the DM something to go on besides their "gut."

 

[Li Shenron]

Towards that end, there needs to be a real effort on the part of the designers to create magic items that do not simply add +X to a certain stat or ability, but rather give the players tricks and tactics not formerly available to them. I might even advocate getting rid of things like gauntlets of ogre power altogether or replacing their mechanics with things that let the PCs accomplish feats of great strength (like forcing down doors, carrying heavier loads, or wielding bigger weapons with less effort) without necessarily increasing stats.

I totally agree on everything else you say, but I would still want +X items from previous editions (of course, they are also very easy to just put back into the game as "custom" magic items...). I think their problem was more that they are permanently active, but they could be also given some severe limitations (e.g. short duration of the effect per day, or limited number of activations and then only usable for 1 action each).

 

[Boarstorm]

I totally agree on everything else you say, but I would still want +X items from previous editions

(Apologies to Li Shenron for taking his quote out of context to use as a springboard for my own post.)

While a +2 sword is cool (I grew up on AD&D back in the day), a flaming sword is more cool.

I think if we moved the mindset behind magic item design away from numerical bonuses and into additional options and neat effects, we'd be better off.

Does a Dagger of Returning need a +1 to be cool?

Would a Mace of Disruption be useless without a +2?

I submit that they would not, provided the player's mindset moved away from 3E/4E's focus on creeping to-hit numbers.

You introduce the narrative control problem Dragonblade mentions at the bottom of page 1 of this thread, but as the DM you get to make the decision of what narrative knobs you're allowing your players to turn by dictating what items they discover in the course of their adventures.

I, for one, can live with that.

 

[drothgery]

I cannot for the life of me understand why so many people are stuck on wealth guidelines as a way to calculate the effect of magic items on PC combat prowess. 3E should have taught anyone that WBL is an incredibly, abysmally bad tool for that.

4e's implementation (with magic items all having an explicit level and pretty much all characters* needing three +N items) is much, much better at this, since you don't have to look up the most cash-efficient way to raise your AC on a spreadsheet.

* Excepting characters who need both weapons and implements, characters who use multiple weapons and can't use Ki Focuses, and lazy warlords

 

[triqui]

This concept was explored a bit with respect to magic items in this thread. But I think there is a more important issue at the center of this discussion. When D&D was first created, there was no expected level of wealth X for a character of level Y. If I recall correctly, this was a concept introduced to the core rules as part of 3e, along with the standardization of magic item market values and creation rules

It's not exactly true. While there was not a wealth by level table, you earned XP with goldcoins. So rich characters were high level, and viceversa.

 

[LostSoul]

If you allow the players to choose the encounter levels they are going to face you don't have to worry about it.

e.g. "We have no good loot; just one +1 dagger. Let's avoid exploring the rumours about that werewolf-haunted temple." And: "Even though we are just 2nd level, we've got a Staff of Flames; let's blow away those ice demons."

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

D&D Next ought to be designed and balanced independent of character wealth or expected magic items. To do that, they are first going to have to get rid of the idea of expected wealth.

To make the "no expected wealth" thing really work, they're going to have to axe +X items too. This is why every edition has had some form of expected wealth, even if the writers didn't bother to think out the math or write the fact down.

 

[FireLance]

Writing a post that advocates dropping wealth-by-level seems like a sure way to get some XP

Why don't you run an experiment? Start a thread that advocates retaining wealth-by-level guidelines.

 

[D'karr]

4e's implementation (with magic items all having an explicit level and pretty much all characters* needing three +N items) is much, much better at this, since you don't have to look up the most cash-efficient way to raise your AC on a spreadsheet.

* Excepting characters who need both weapons and implements, characters who use multiple weapons and can't use Ki Focuses, and lazy warlords

I agree they got the "math" right but man do I hate the implementation. It simply feels "dry."

For my game what I've done is use inherent bonuses for the math fix, grant a free expertise feat to each player, and all magical items are uniquely crafted to the PC's stories. Heirloom weapons that get better as the PCs get better, lore items, wacky animal pelts that speak (intelligent item), etc.

It does take more work on my part for the magic items but they feel magical. In addition the players get invested in those that they find as they are like no other magical item.

 

[airwalkrr]

I will address a few general points that have been brought up below:

"WBL already existed in AD&D because earned gold equaled XP."
This is not the same thing. In the first place, not every DM ran the game that way. Second of all, there was a large amount of variance in how the DM chose to run the game. If the PCs faced monsters with relatively low levels of treasure, then they could earn most of their XP by defeating monsters and doing other tasks. If the PCs faced monsters with lots of treasure, then they could earn most of their XP from treasure alone. Finally, even if the rudimentary or understated assumption was there that PCs of a certain level would have a certain amount of wealth, that did not assure that the PCs were properly equipped for challenges. The PCs could still be under or over-equipped. The point is, the system of judging character power even in part by wealth is fundamentally flawed because wealth can be used for many different things and acquired in different proportions.

"4e allowed for inherent bonuses so you did not need +X magic items in your game if you did not want them."
I think this sort of misses the point of the thread. Let us put aside for the moment that inherent bonuses was an option in the DMG2 (and primarily intended for use in Dark Sun) and not the DMG. A +X to hit or a +X to defense or whatever was still a necessary part of the calculation to "balance" things out. A +1 to hit and damage, whether it comes from a sword or a system designed to compensate for a missing sword, should not be built-in to the expectations for the game. It should be a BONUS. That is, it should be a treasure, a reward, a magical tool of great importance on top of your character's already heroic ability. And PCs and DMs alike should treat it with the wonder and respect it deserves. It should be a merry occasion when one is found, and a great tragedy when one is lost. It should be a tool that gives PCs an edge against their foes, not an expected part of their adventuring experience.

"So how do you balance items like this anyway if there is not a WBL guideline?"
My whole point is that you do not need a WBL guideline at all, and such a chart is misleading in the first place. What there needs to be instead is an extensive discussion in the DMG of appropriate treasure rewards for appropriate challenges, the effects of certain magic items on the game, and ways to manage PC inventory so that magic items remain both cool and impressive, but not something that is going to throw game balance out of whack. Several side-bars from designers who have run games themselves should describe experiences which taught the designers lessons in their own games about the things to avoid and things that worked well in wealth distribution. But the designers need to avoid a "one-size fits all" chart that gives the perception that a certain amount of wealth equals a certain amount of power and that only that amount of wealth is fair. If there even is a chart at all (and I am not sold on the idea that there needs to be one in this regard), it should be less specific and give very broad guidelines. As an example:

Level 1 - no magic items, just mundane equipment, possibly one masterkwork or exceptional item
Level 2 - 0-1 minor magic items and 0-1 pieces of masterwork or exceptional equipment
Level 3 - 0-2 minor magic items and 1-2 pieces of masterwork or exceptional equipment
Level 4 - 1-2 minor magic items and 1-3 pieces of masterwork or exceptional equipment

Something along these lines would be much better as a guideline for DMs than a WBL chart and would be much less misleading. It would offer the perception that there is a wide variety of what is acceptable and expected in a game. But I still do not like the whole idea of a chart in the first place because 1) you cannot keep it away from the eyes of players forever and 2) when the players do see it, they will (intentionally or not) judge the "fairness" of your game based on how closely you follow that chart.

So truthfully, I say ditch the chart in favor of a more candid discussion on treasure awards in a chapter of the DMG devoted to rewards. An oversimplified chart gives false impressions and has the potential to delude player and DM alike into thinking there is balance in the game. Give the DM some helpful guidelines on how to manage treasure and then let the DM decide what is appropriate from there.