Remove Expected Wealth Levels

[Lwaxy]

I absolutely hate the way 4e handled it, and wouldn't ever have that. I like the idea of no chart at all and depending it on game type and challenges.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I recall an article in Dragon magazine during AD&D 2nd ed days about mundane magic items. Magic items that weren't all about pluses. I grabbed a handful out of that article and put them as treasure for my PCs back then.

Wish I could recall the article and the issue, but one of the all-time group favored magic items was a plain old bow that could switch to bludgeon damage when the wielder desired. That's all it did. Called "bowhammer", the version I gave the group had no pluses. As I said, the group loved it more than weapons with piles of pluses.

The entire article though was such inspiration for magic items that weren't out of this world but still innovative and flavorful.

 

[airwalkrr]

I recall an article in Dragon magazine during AD&D 2nd ed days about mundane magic items. Magic items that weren't all about pluses. I grabbed a handful out of that article and put them as treasure for my PCs back then.

Wish I could recall the article and the issue, but one of the all-time group favored magic items was a plain old bow that could switch to bludgeon damage when the wielder desired. That's all it did. Called "bowhammer", the version I gave the group had no pluses. As I said, the group loved it more than weapons with piles of pluses.

The entire article though was such inspiration for magic items that weren't out of this world but still innovative and flavorful.

Great story, Eric! The magic of bowhammer is exactly the type of magic that a magic item should convey. It should be useful and innovative, offering options. The +X type of things ought to simply be built into character development because finding yet another +1 sword is not very enthralling. But finding a sword that fires short-range bolts of fire is exciting and adds additional options to the PCs' tactics.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

"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.

Historical clarification just to make sure this is not misunderstood later. While the explicit "inherent" bonus did not occur until DMG 2, it was widely understood at launch that you could make up your own bonus to do this. Mearls even mentioned it in an article before launch, that it would take a person moderately familiar with the system all of five minutes to house rule the necessary items completely out of the game. This got called various things by various people. Most people seemed to have settled on "awesome" bonus for it, before DMG 2.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Historical clarification just to make sure this is not misunderstood later. While the explicit "inherent" bonus did not occur until DMG 2, it was widely understood at launch that you could make up your own bonus to do this. Mearls even mentioned it in an article before launch, that it would take a person moderately familiar with the system all of five minutes to house rule the necessary items completely out of the game. This got called various things by various people. Most people seemed to have settled on "awesome" bonus for it, before DMG 2.

Either way, with items or without you are still on a bonus treadmill and have to keep up in order to be of any use. How bout ditching the need for tons of tems OR 'just because' bonuses and reducing overall numbers bloat?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Either way, with items or without you are still on a bonus treadmill and have to keep up in order to be of any use. How bout ditching the need for tons of tems OR 'just because' bonuses and reducing overall numbers bloat?

I've got no problem with that. It is simply that there are enough mistaken views propagated on 4E, that I see no reason to allow more to develop.

It was trivially easy and obvious how to replace the item bonus in 4E from day 1. That it had to be replaced to make the game more or less work is sufficient reason to want a better way, without getting into DMG 2 or Dark Sun.

Though given how resilient 4E is to substandard or over-powered equipment, even it is not quite as bad as the talk would have you think. You can easily get away with being off a plus for half a tier or more. Which means that, say, 12th level characters running around with +2 weapons are not in terrible shape, and it certainly doesn't matter much up to about level 6 or 7. But it does get mathematically untenable the further you go, which of course is true of any version with +N weapons where they aren't present.

 

[billd91]

But it does get mathematically untenable the further you go, which of course is true of any version with +N weapons where they aren't present.

Not really, no. 1e and 2e both had +n weapon but neither was really set up to require a PC to have them simply to make the math work out. Rather, ACs had a cap. Nothing had an AC better than -10 save for some very special exceptions. Since characters' ability to hit better ACs improved throughout their careers, they were always gaining on the best ACs possible. So with the exception of needing certain pluses to hit for certain creatures, 1e and 2e were the editions least dependent on magic weapons for achieving the "right math" in combat.

 

[tlantl]

Historical clarification just to make sure this is not misunderstood later. While the explicit "inherent" bonus did not occur until DMG 2, it was widely understood at launch that you could make up your own bonus to do this. Mearls even mentioned it in an article before launch, that it would take a person moderately familiar with the system all of five minutes to house rule the necessary items completely out of the game. This got called various things by various people. Most people seemed to have settled on "awesome" bonus for it, before DMG 2.

I can only assume that perhaps 15-20% of the people who bought 4e even knew this.

For instance, I am the only person in my D&D group who follows these things on line. I never heard of it until now, so assuming something is widely known about a subject is a little far fetched.

As for my feelings about said tidbit of information, it's a sorry thing that the developers have to make a house rule for the entire gaming community and add it as an afterthought in a later publication, one that not everyone bought no less.

Character wealth should be decided by the guy dealing with the headaches it causes. A rule in a book that tells me to do something that not only doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but actually makes my life harder, isn't something I want or need in the game I'm trying to run.

I had this issue in 3e and I would like for it to go away.

Since not everyone had decades of experience running D&D campaigns. A really good discussion of how to run the different aspects of the game would be a useful subject in the DMG and PHB. If a GM wants to do a good job running games there are a lot of advice publications available.

 

[Li Shenron]

Emphasis mine...

"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.

...

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.

Very good food for thoughts.

But maybe the problem with the WBL chart is that it doesn't differentiate enough between different types of magic items.

A PC with a +1 magic sword, +1 cloak of resistance, and some item that grants extra HP, could be somewhat close to being 1 level higher, while another PC who has bought items that give more flexibility might be more flexible but about as effective as normal for his level. (This example might be off, don't take it strictly).

What if instead of a wealth-based chart, there was some kind of chart or formula that tried to estimate roughly a level adjustment for a PC owning certain types of magic items?

I think the whole point can be after all switched from "how much equipment a level X party should have" to a more practical and universal, "what do I (the DM) need to change in the adventure if I give the party this amount of magic?".

 

[Li Shenron]

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

I've always felt the same, both as a player and DM. Rather than +X weapons and armors, I had in mind items that grant +X to an ability score. I know that a lot of people hate them more than anything else, but for me the reason to hate them is in the fact that they are permanent and active all the time (although it's hard to design limited durations because a +X Strength item and a +X Charisma or Constitution item are used in very different ways and are useful over very different time periods). The other problem is that these items so easily become "must-have" and then even the monster design itself starts assuming the PC are going to have them.

I would also still want +X to-hit weapons in the game... Again I think they are boring because (a) the average DMs and published adventures make them way too common and (b) game design starts assuming you're going to have them. But what if they were just as rare as flaming swords? A +2 longbow could still be cool then, as a bow that is superior at striking targets than, if there is only 1 every 10.000 longbows having such bonus.

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

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

The +X minimum bonus to hit and damage as a requirement for having other enhancements to a magic weapon is definitely something that needs to go away from the game!

The bludgeoning bow is a perfect example! It doesn't need to have a +X to be cool, it's already cool. If they must have a +X before having other properties, then all +X items are inherently more boring than they could be.