Weakness by Edition

[thedungeondelver]

I just warn my players: "If you min/max, I will min/max. And I can make up the rules". They usually get the messaage

As we used to say when we'd play MECHWARRIOR : "There's never a problem so great that the players can create that I, the GM, can't bring enough ATLASes to deal with."

 

[Storm Raven]

Was 3E that much of an improvement in this regard, though? Giving a lump sum of money isn't that much help if you don't know what it's expected to be spent on or distributed, just as in the HERO System, a lump sum of character points can be problematic if you don't establish ranges for character abilities as well.
Did 3E ever fix this problem?

Going from no guidance at all (or at best guidance that has to be inferred by going through a labor intensive process of cataloguing supplemental material and comparing the results to the levels the characters are expected to achieve in those supplements) to some guidance is definitely an improvement.

It gives the DM an idea of the relative power PCs are expected to be at by the designers. If the DM modifies from this baseline, he will have at least some idea of what to expect. This is also what I consider to be a misunderstood issue - the baseline is not a hard-coded requirement (although some DMs seem to have taken it as such). It is an indication of what the designers assumed when they crafted the system. That way, a DM will know that if he is giving out half as much treasure as they designers assumed he would be, then the PCs won't be as powerful as the baseline and can make adjustments to the encounters he prepares accordingly (I also note that DMs who like to give out twice as much treasure as "expected" never seem to think the baseline being spelled out is a problem, only those who want to run a "low-magic" game do).

Of course, now with 4e, the entire decision has been removed from the DMs purview. Instead of magic items, players have powers hard-coded into their class levels. In 4e, a character isn't dependant upon having a selection of magic items - he is dependant upon a collection of innate abilities that happen to work like magic items would. So now you can run a "low magic-item" game and feel virtuous without having to run a low magic-item game, because WotC cleverly hid where the magic items are. What an improvement!

 

[firesnakearies]

So now you can run a "low magic-item" game and feel virtuous without having to run a low magic-item game, because WotC cleverly hid where the magic items are. What an improvement!

I don't get this statement. It seems untrue to me, on the surface. Perhaps if you explain it further, I'd understand what you're saying here.

 

[billd91]

Of course, now with 4e, the entire decision has been removed from the DMs purview. Instead of magic items, players have powers hard-coded into their class levels. In 4e, a character isn't dependant upon having a selection of magic items - he is dependant upon a collection of innate abilities that happen to work like magic items would. So now you can run a "low magic-item" game and feel virtuous without having to run a low magic-item game, because WotC cleverly hid where the magic items are. What an improvement!

Not entirely. 4e characters are still quite dependent on magical weapons and armor of appropriate level to keep up with challenges they are expected to fight. And since the defenses of the monsters rise at about the same rate as their own attack bonuses, I'd argue they're even more dependent than in 3e, in which a fighter's attack bonus and a spell-caster's bonus against touch attacks tended to rise faster than monster defenses.
4e just changes the assumptions about how the magical goods are distributed - doling out magic a bit higher than the PC's levels in anticipation of future needs and encouraging DMs to take the player wish list into account.

 

[Obryn]

You can pretty effectively eliminate 90% of the 'need' for magic items in 4e by giving +1 to all defenses, attacks, and damage at levels 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, and 28.

More or less, 4e has a "big 3" as opposed to 3e's "big 6" or what have you. A character with only 3 magic items will likely want a magic weapon or implement, magic armor, and an amulet of some sort. This covers the bases I mentioned above, and will probably be more than sufficient.

But no, 4e does not completely remove magic item dependence. At low levels, the differences are pretty minor (5%-10%), but they become more pronounced at high levels, much like in 3e. Mathematically, the system 'expects' a character to have the above items. From playing both it and 3e, though, I would argue that there's a much lower need, overall.

-O

 

[Storm Raven]

I don't get this statement. It seems untrue to me, on the surface. Perhaps if you explain it further, I'd understand what you're saying here.

In 3e, many people complain that characters are too dependent upon magic items, and thus, a DM is "forced" to hand out the guideline amount of magic to make the game work. DMs who want to play "low-magic" games are irked by this, and many feel that it is superior, or more virtuous to play in a game in which the characters "matter more than they magic items".

In 4e, the need for as many magic items is supposedly reduced. But the game accomplishes this by handing out a pile of special abilties tied to the character class that essentially replace the magic items that are no longer needed. In a sleight of hand, D&D became less "magic item dependant" by simply taking the expedient measure of hard-coding what would otherwise have been magic item produced effects into the character classes.

Now, those people who wanted a "low-magic" campaign get what they want - less magic items. Of course, it doesn't really change things other than to make people feel good about not having magic items, since they keep most of the types of effects that items had in previous editions.

In other words, little has changed except semantics, and the insertion of reduced flexibility.