Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5058995" data-attributes="member: 2011">There are several in game reasons why it is relevant to me (and yes, thanks for sharing that it is irrelevant to you, that does not make it a fact that it is irrelevant):1) The designers have to hork the magic items so that low level items cannot be used at high level, otherwise, the high level PC carries around the bag of magic items. Examples where the designers succeeded and failed at this:Potion of Clarity. Failed. "Drink this potion and spend a healing surge. You do not regain hit points as normal. Instead, once during this encounter as a free action, you can reroll a d20 roll you just made, gaining a +2 bonus on the reroll. You must use the result of the reroll." At 200 GP, every PC can be quaffing one of these every single major encounter from levels 15 on and in many n+4 encounters from levels 5 on. This effectively gives an average bonus of +5 (+2 for bonus, +3 on average for reroll) to many Daily powers and is relatively cheap at the price of a healing surge. It is definitely worth a feat at high level to get 2 bonus healing surges, just so that Potions of Clarity can be used day in and day out when a Daily power is needed.Elixir of Accuracy. Partially succeeded, partially failed. "Use this power after your drink the elixir. Once during this encounter, you can use a free action to gain a power bonus to a single attack roll equal to 5 minus one-half your level.Special: Consuming this elixir counts as a use of a magic item daily power." It succeeded in that the item becomes worthless at higher levels, but it also failed in that the item is still basically worthless at lower levels (it's really only helpful at levels 1 to 3 and at that, it is a major part of a parcel, but it is costly to use because it take a magic item daily slot). By the time the PCs can craft one of these, the bonus is +1 and it is basically worthless.With such a steep slope, the designers have to go way out of their way to make low level magic items like potions and some wondrous items unappealing, otherwise, high level PCs carry around the "golfbag of items". When the slope is less steep, players have to pick and choose more wisely what they want to craft/buy because although the lower level items can be more useful, they also represent a greater percentage of a PC's wealth.2) Selling / disenchanting items. Players don't want to do this at a 20% return. They feel like they are getting cheated. They are disincentivized to sell or disenchant items. And eventually, they cannot even sell them anymore in a reasonable campaign because nobody can afford to buy them.And, they are really disincentivized to sell old items (let alone currently found items). When the PC at level 8 finds a +3 and sells the old +2 one, they get 360 GP for it. That's about 25% of a parcel at that level. It's hardly anything. This wonderful item that was good for 4 levels is now relegated to the pocket change.So the 4E solution is to have "wish lists" so that the game campaign totally revolves around the PCs and items they find should be ones appropriate for them.As a DM, I find this unpalatable. It just seems wrong that the treasures of the world should revolve around the PCs and if they don't, the PCs cannot even acquire the basic "big 3" sufficiently to adventure because of the sell and craft rules.3) Purchasing / enchanting items. I haven't seen players do this in 4E since it is so expensive.With a less steep magic item cost slope and with a higher sell price (like 50%), I can as a DM hand out more items that the PCs can sell or disenchant. The PCs can, if so desired, craft more magic items. As is, it seems cost prohibitive to have PCs purchase or craft magic items. An entire aspect of the game that we used to have fun doing sometimes is now relegated to a side thought at best.For example, the average first through third level PC gains 600 GP (assuming just gold was handed out and not things like potions). He can craft a single level 1 item at level 4, possibly a single level 2 item if he did not gain potions and did not have many normal expenses. At level 4 when PCs are acquiring level 5 through 8 items, level 1 and 2 items look fairly weak. Now, this does improve as the PCs gain levels.Granted, they do get to the point in Paragon where they can craft a same level item, just using the money they have gained at the current level. So at lower levels, the PCs can rarely enchant. At higher levels, they can carry around golfbags full of lower level magic items. Course, they wouldn't carry the worthless ones around (see potions above), they would carry around boatloads of the worthwhile ones (e.g. bag of holding).4) Plausibility. This is a major thing for me. The game has to flow. It has to feel quasi-realistic. Implausibility jars the game. Having low level items that are totally worthless (not even including bonus items) at moderate levels feels implausible. Having items worth so much that no merchant could ever afford them, but the monsters have them in their back pockets and in their lairs feels implausible. I have no problem with a Dragon having a major treasure hoard. This creature has been plundering merchant trains, towns, other smaller dragons and other creatures for decades or even centuries. But why exactly does the Ogre have 5000 GP in his lair? Who the heck could he have gotten that from way out in the wilderness? I have no fricking clue.To me, this is an unbalanced aspect of the game system. The designers have to use a lot of due diligence, just to make sure magic items are balanced. As is, not even including bonus items, many low level items are pretty much useless at even moderate levels.If the slope of magic items was lowered, it would make the designer's job a lot easier to both make items worthwhile for more levels, to allow for magic item crafting easier (especially at heroic levels where many games are played), and to balance the magic item system and to more easily explain why the monsters have so much fricking treasure.The slope cannot be too low, but an 8700 to 1 ratio is too high.</blockquote>

Verification