Remove Expected Wealth Levels

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, 4E mechanics are not suited for depicting a cohesive world. A world in which PCs may often have hireling soldiers or even a freindly stone giant as allies. I want game rules to help determine the outcomes of interactions between things in the world not dictate which limited interactions actually work and to handwave the rest.



Then why give them out? If every hard won advantage a PC mananges to win is to be simply cancelled out by adjusting the math on the other end then magic items are utterly worthless.

I much prefer magic items to be treasure rather than gear.

There's a need for the DM to be rolling dice against himself? Besides, you always hit on a 20. So if you actually calculate the results of 100 ordinary guys fighting a level 20 giant the results are hardly a massacre. You'll get 5 hits on average per round, which means what, 5d8+something damage. A standard level 20 monster has a couple hundred hit points, so it will last around 10 rounds vs your 100 ordinary guys, then die. Of course if said monster were something with a nasty area attack, deadly aura, etc, then things might go the other way, unless of course your 100 guys are armed with bows. High level monsters REALLY should stay away from masses of low level opponents with bows, lol. Really though, there's little point to having the DM rolling dice for NPCs fighting each other unless the PCs have some very direct input somehow, in which case it is probably a normal encounter.

Given that concepts like 'hitting' and 'damage' are fairly abstract, and especially abstract in this kind of situation, I don't see anything really bad about the giant being hard to 'hit'. Fine, you can't easily MISS with your attacks perhaps, but getting an effective shot against some huge 50' tall monster is not going to be easy, your guys barely come up to its ankle. Mostly they're probably spending their time avoiding getting stepped on.

IMHO there's a necessity for items to make you more powerful in some absolute sense. After all what's the point of 'treasure'? Its fun and all, but if you can't get anything that adds materially to your character then it isn't going to be interesting for long. In every edition there's a certain degree of 'treadmill' involved. The curve may be steeper or shallower in certain editions, but it still exists.

The size of bonuses doesn't mean much IMHO either. Is +29 somehow bad, but +15 isn't? The size of a d20 is irrelevant. Your average level 1 fighter can barely hit plate+shield (AC2 means 19+ to hit), so it isn't like bonuses aren't pretty much mandatory in order to be effective against even mundane opponents.

 

[ExploderWizard]

There's a need for the DM to be rolling dice against himself?

Nope. I specifically mentioned allies because it implied that PCs might be running them. In a non-PC involved NPC conflict I agree that the DM can just judge the outcome.

IMHO there's a necessity for items to make you more powerful in some absolute sense. After all what's the point of 'treasure'? Its fun and all, but if you can't get anything that adds materially to your character then it isn't going to be interesting for long. In every edition there's a certain degree of 'treadmill' involved. The curve may be steeper or shallower in certain editions, but it still exists.

I understand and agree. Magic items should increase character power. When the math just keeps getting adjusted on the other end to account for said accumulation of power then the power is effectively negated.

The size of bonuses doesn't mean much IMHO either. Is +29 somehow bad, but +15 isn't? The size of a d20 is irrelevant. Your average level 1 fighter can barely hit plate+shield (AC2 means 19+ to hit), so it isn't like bonuses aren't pretty much mandatory in order to be effective against even mundane opponents.

In AD&D a level 1 fighter hits AC2 on an 18. In Basic D&D he would hit on a 17 sans bonuses.

Also remember that AC tops out. That level 1 fighter can hit AC 0 to -5 on an unmodified 20.

Plate and shield (AC2) also represents the best non magical armor in the game (pre UA). The typical humanoid will rarely have AC 2 or better.

AD&D Numbers:

Kobold AC 7 hit on a 13
Orc AC 6 hit on a 14
Gnoll AC 5 hit on a 15

An Ogre (a very deadly opponent to a L 1 fighter) is still AC 5 and a hill giant ( a crap your pants encounter) is only AC 4 which is far from unhittable.

These numbers are completely without a bonus of any kind. The hill giant isn't a suicidal proposition because it can't be hit, rather its because it has 36 hit points on average compared to the fighters 5 or 6, it can hit our plate and shield equipped fighter on a 10 and when it does, scores 2-16 points of damage.

Lets say our fighter is equipped with a +3 sword, but now the giant is AC 1 for whatever reason. We have taken a great deal of the advantage of having a magic weapon away from the fighter.

Basically when a bonus becomes mandatory then it is no longer actually a bonus.

 

[Mattachine]

Basically when a bonus becomes mandatory then it is no longer actually a bonus.

This, I agree with. Mind you, my comment above said I think there should be EWL if there is an assumption about characters having a particular amount of magic items.

I prefer characters have little magic at all. In my current campaign, the first time single-use items have appeared is about level 4, and I don't expect minor, permanent items to make an appearance until characters are level 8. This requires me to adjust monsters, or simply make my own, since the game was written with EWL.


So, I want a new DMG to provide a set of specific guidelines:

1. An explicit statement about the monsters and characters, as written, expecting a particular amount of magic
2. An specific discussion of how monsters/encounters will be tougher without that much magic
3. Specific guidelines for running games that use more or less magic/wealth

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Basically when a bonus becomes mandatory then it is no longer actually a bonus.

I totally sympathize with you, I just don't think that +X items were ever actually bonuses (aka treasure, as you say). It's just that before 4e, nobody bothered to explain the +X item treadmill in print. For reasons that have already been mentioned, it's clear to me that D&D characters have always been expected to walk the treadmill.

Tougher monsters were given higher damage output, hit dice and hit points to account for their prowess. Defenses were served by having better saving throws. Making higher levels harder to hit AND ramping up the hit points to infinity was just a formula for gind.

Actually the formula for grind is an actual formula. And that formula can easily be tweaked to get rid of grind, even with escalating AC -- all you gotta do is reduce hit points per level and/or increase damage output.

I still don't understand this idea that other combat stats should escalate with level, but AC should be singled out due to some vague notion of "realism." Honestly D&D has never been realistic when it comes to combat -- just consider how big dumb creatures have stronger wills by virtue of having more HD. How does that make any sense, other than "Well this creature is supposed to be a challenge for high level PCs, so it needs better saves all around"?

Anyway I'll be happy to see 5e return to static ACs and letting DMs assume that +X items aren't expected; I just don't see the appeal.

 

[Zireael]

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

Love the idea.

On topic: I'd use the above type of chart or use gp/xp interchangeably, as in 1e.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I totally sympathize with you, I just don't think that +X items were ever actually bonuses (aka treasure, as you say). It's just that before 4e, nobody bothered to explain the +X item treadmill in print. For reasons that have already been mentioned, it's clear to me that D&D characters have always been expected to walk the treadmill.


Actually the formula for grind is an actual formula. And that formula can easily be tweaked to get rid of grind, even with escalating AC -- all you gotta do is reduce hit points per level and/or increase damage output.

I still don't understand this idea that other combat stats should escalate with level, but AC should be singled out due to some vague notion of "realism." Honestly D&D has never been realistic when it comes to combat -- just consider how big dumb creatures have stronger wills by virtue of having more HD. How does that make any sense, other than "Well this creature is supposed to be a challenge for high level PCs, so it needs better saves all around"?

Anyway I'll be happy to see 5e return to static ACs and letting DMs assume that +X items aren't expected; I just don't see the appeal.

Exactly. There is always and always will be a 'treadmill'. The idea that just because one number might not increase exactly in step with others the treadmill goes away doesn't make much sense to me.

Look at it this way. Sure, your level 9 fighter taking on Hill Giants can hit them without a +3 sword, but he isn't going to be nearly as effective. Even more important are going to be his giant/ogre strength item (unless he happens to have a high % STR already, unlikely), etc.

It is to some extent true that AD&D monsters are fightable over a greater range of the game. Sure, 1st level PCs can sort of fight a Hill Giant (a weak one can be a decent capstone fight). OTOH the same Hill Giant's saves and hit dice make it much harder for the wizard to affect with low level spells that are designed to work on low level monsters. I'd also note that since AD&D was really only playable in the normal sense over about 12 levels it is hard to compare.

You can actually have a group of level 1 PCs interact with a 4e hill giant for instance and fight it. This will be quite tough, but not hopeless (AC 25, quite hard to hit, though REF 23 is probably a bit easier to crack). You'd be better off making it a level 8 Elite hill giant instead, but you'll get the "this is incredibly hard to beat but can be defeated if you use clever tactics" that you'd also get in 1e. It is just that 4e has 30 levels of monsters to throw out there, so yeah, a lot of upper level ones are just about untouchable. Then again a lot of 1e upper level monsters are pretty much untouchable too (if not literally so).

As the 5e designers have already stated, they're considering a shallower power curve for 5e. I don't know what the level range will be, but with 30 levels this makes sense. If they go back to 20 levels, maybe less so, but probably still some.

The real issue with AD&D was the vast range of numbers that would come up within a party and within an adventure or even encounter. You could easily need a 10 to hit one foe and a 19 to hit another. That made it pretty much impossible to give encounter guidelines. Of course if you don't expect too much from said guidelines, then the whole qustion of wealth and items by level is pretty moot. The DM makes up whatever encounters he makes up and if you can't handle them, well oops...

 

[FireLance]

Then why give them out? If every hard won advantage a PC mananges to win is to be simply cancelled out by adjusting the math on the other end then magic items are utterly worthless.

I much prefer magic items to be treasure rather than gear.

I think you are mixing up two or three different objectives. The first is the logical (perhaps simulationist?) objective that magic items make a character more powerful. All other things being equal, he will be able to take on all challenges more easily. If there is a "standard" level of difficulty, "normal" challenges would now be below that standard, while tougher challenges would now be at the standard.

The second is the (perhaps gamist?) objective of ensuring there is an enjoyable level of challenge, making sure the game is neither too easy (and boring) or too hard (and frustrating). This is what generally causes the challenges faced by the PCs to scale with their level of power. The (perhaps narrative?) way to unify these two objectives is to describe the PCs as being able to handle the more powerful challenges because of their more powerful equipment.

What might run counter to the narration is the perhaps third objective of simplicity. By stating the character power, magic item power and monster power relationship as something along the lines of "a 12th-level party with 12th-level gear can take on a 12th-level encounter at standard difficulty", it gives the impression that the gear becomes an integral part of character progression (although it's not, really). Perhaps what was missing is another statement along the lines of "a 12th-level party with no magic items can take on a 9th-level encounter at standard difficulty".

Perhaps it might even be better to re-base the monster numbers, so that the former 9th-level monster becomes a 12th-level monster and the former 12th-level monster becomes a 15th-level monster, and the statements now become, "a 12th-level party with no magic items can take on a 12th-level encounter at standard difficulty. A 12th-level party with +3 magic items can take on a 15th-level encounter at standard difficulty".

 

[Tallifer]

First of all, it has been my experience that players will calculate their wealth on their own far more than the DM does and get disgruntled if the DM is not giving them "their fair share." This is not only problem players. Even good players do it from time to time out of curiosity. And if that number is not at or above the expected wealth level, they both respond to it negatively. Problem players go so far as to whine or even outright quit the game because of it. The better players will simply get a little discouraged or at worst, bring up the issue with the DM privately. But what is even more problematic here is that the players in a game with characters whose wealth is not at the "expected" level perceive that any challenges the DM has designed are going to be inherently unfair. It might be subconscious, or it might be something openly discussed, but any player who knows about the expected wealth tables and his own character's relative standing thereupon (and it seems there are many players like this) is going to react to it.

I think the Fifth Edition should put much less pressure on the players to get magical items for their characters in order to be effective.

I vehemently object to players being called "problem players" because they object to a dungeon master starving them of the rules-as-written rewards for each level in any edition which requires magical weapons and large bonuses to hit or damage the higher level monsters. I would say that the dungeon master is the problem in that case. And yes, I would definitely lose interest quickly in a campaign where the players stumble around in studded leather with +1 swords for ten levels. Even if the dungeon master gives them all sorts of "neat" items (but useless of course).

 

[Hassassin]

Really though, there's little point to having the DM rolling dice for NPCs fighting each other unless the PCs have some very direct input somehow, in which case it is probably a normal encounter.

IMC it is relatively common to have opposing NPCs in an encounter fighting each other. They can be allies, indifferent NPCs (like commoners or neutral non-humans) or enemies. I still would like to resolve their actions without pure fiat when the party is involved in the encounter. Otherwise it may seem like a deus ex machina when enemies start dropping just as the party gets into trouble.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

IMC it is relatively common to have opposing NPCs in an encounter fighting each other. They can be allies, indifferent NPCs (like commoners or neutral non-humans) or enemies. I still would like to resolve their actions without pure fiat when the party is involved in the encounter. Otherwise it may seem like a deus ex machina when enemies start dropping just as the party gets into trouble.

Well, if it is a couple NPCs that are henchmen or companions of the PCs, then I'd call that a 'normal encounter'. I'd expect that situation would usually be one where the NPCs are controlled (mostly at least) by the players. I'm more talking about situations where you might have NPCs that are perhaps 'on stage' but are either entirely ephemeral bit players (a few soldiers fighting some enemy mooks while the PCs happen to be there) or something like that. Maybe there's some possibility that their actions could spill over depending on what choices the PCs make, but fundamentally they're more set dressing than important NPCs or character resources.

I had a situation where some NPCs that were PC allies were fighting a monster. The monster would kill one now and then, and part of the PCs goals was to get to where they could intervene ASAP. I didn't play out this fight with the rules. An NPC just died every round and whenever the PCs fought the monster whatever its hit points were was whatever they had to deal with. Whatever damage the NPCs did before that was show.