Why average wealth by level is a good thing.

[Dausuul]

How would I be supposed to use those in comparison to normal level dependent items? For example, a 6th level Wizard with none of the items you mention would supposedly be weaker than the "assumed" 6th level wizard in the tables.

For 4E: Inherent bonuses, or just take the properties listed above and add them to normal magic items. So instead of a flame tongue sword, you'd have a +2 flame tongue sword.
For 3E: You could just assume "naked" PCs, but as Tequila Sunrise points out, you run into big problems there. Were it me, I'd hammer out some kind of inherent bonus equivalent for 3E, the way Tequila and Ainamacar did. Most likely I'd take "snapshots" at several levels (something like 1, 5, 10, 15, 20), and trick the characters out in reasonably optimal gear using the wealth by level rules. Then I'd use that as a basis.

Edited to add: Or, actually, I might go the opposite direction. Instead of taking snapshots and trying to create a model of how 3E characters progress "by the book," I'd create a model of how 3E characters ought to progress and then adjust the classes' stats to fit the model.

 

[Corathon]

In D&D 3.0 they introduced the average wealth by level tables, meant for assigning value to the possessions and assets of PC's and NPC's above 1st character level.

They continued in 3.5, and probably in 4e but I'm not a big 4e person so I don't know.

This was in some ways one of the best design innovations of the edition. I base this on my AD&D playing experience.

The AD&D game was quietly designed to assume that higher level characters would have access to magic items and weapons. So many monsters being completely immune to nonmagical weapons without a specified number of "plusses" being the big one. Remember, normal elementals required a +4 weapon. No amount of damage with a lesser weapon could hurt it. Also don't forget that the AD&D version of Magic Weapon was not a combat buff: it took so long to cast and had such a short duration it was really just for magic item creation.

In my experience, in AD&D, many DM's were so afraid of campaigns becoming "Monty Haul" that they handed out magic items extremely sparingly. In one case, a year-long Planescape/Forgotten Realms crossover campaign (two high magic settings) meeting weekly, lead to my Half-Elf Mage 13/Cleric 12 ending the campaign with only a Pearl of Power, a few Quall's Feather Tokens, a handful of potions and some low-level scrolls, and that's it. In another long-running game of AD&D under a different DM, my Half-Elf Cleric 11 (in a game where most PC's were around 17th level but my PC had long since hit the level limit for their race/class combo) ended up the campaign with no magic weapons or armor, and just a handful of potions, a couple of scrolls, and a plot-device xylophone that could cast Plane Shift depending on the notes played.

Magic-to-hit monsters like elementals and powerful undead were treated as nigh-invincible to fighters, you'd have to let the clerics and wizards deal with them, unless you just happened to have a magic weapon. . .then hope you have enough plusses on that weapon to count.

If a character was created to join these campaigns, even if they were coming in at 1 level below the party average, would have only starting gear. Playing a 14th or 15th level Fighter with only starting gear in any edition is quite a challenge. I always heard of AC 10 jokingly referred to as "Armor Class Mage" since wizards couldn't wear armor and magic AC boosting items were incredibly rare.

From playing through some of the "Gold Box" computer games like Pool of Radiance, by the time a character reaches 6th level a Fighter or Cleric could quite believably have a +1 suit of Plate Mail, a +2 weapon, a +1 shield, and maybe a displacer cloak or +1 ring of protection. A wizard by 6th level may have some Bracers of Defense AC 4, a +1 ring of protection, and a +1 dagger and probably a wand of magic missiles or lightning bolt. Definitely not overpowering, but definitely more powerful than any tabletop character I ever saw of that level.

Besides overreaction to avoid Monty Haul, the justification I always heard for this is that under the AD&D rules you didn't spent XP to create items, you lost permanent Constitution to do so. How many 11th+ level wizards (the point where they could be high enough level to make permanent magic items like swords and armor) are there in a setting, then how many of them would want to start losing CON points permanently to make a +1 sword or +1 shield they won't even use. Strange magic weapons like a +1 Khopesh would have the implied question of "who the heck even made this thing?"

The 3.0 and later rules at least set a guideline for how much equipment a character should have as they level up, and a yardstick for DM's to see if their game was Monty Haul, or more skid row.

Unfortunately I don't have the time to read the whole thread; I apologize if everything I'm about to write has already been written.

First, a couple of nitpicks. One needed a +2 sword to hit an elemental, not +4. Almost nothing needed a +4 weapon - not even demon princes or archdevils. And creating a magic item had only a 5% chance to cost a point of Constitution; it was not a guaranteed loss.

To the main point - all I can say is that wingandsword's experience was nothing like mine. I did once have a 9th level cleric with no permanent magic items - but that's because my stuff kept getting destroyed when I failed saves vs. damage spells. In general, high level PCs (and 9th was roughly the threshold for "high level" as far as we were concerned) had several permanent magic items. Even lower-level characters did. Magic users often had rings, cloaks, or bracers to improve armor class. I have literally never seen a situation like the ones descibed in the OP in 30+ years of gaming in a couple of different states.

An interesting example of the diversity of peoples' experiences with the game I suppose.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

There are other ways to handle such creatures too. Summoned/charmed monsters and druid/ranger animal companions can handle them quite nicely.

 

[Dyir]

I abandoned 3E's WBL guidelines when I realized a few things. Firstly, that most interesting magic items were often those that had nothing to do with combat, but that the "offending" magic items that had to be deliberately parceled out where by-and-large combat related. Also, until the Magic Item Compendium came out, the issue was usually having a few more powerful magic items instead of a bunch of lower powered ones...but both situations could have the same total cost. And, honestly, I found the level in the game where the bonus items became most prevalent was when the game had already become extraordinarily "swingy," so the items themselves only added to a problem that already existed.

I still run a house-ruled 3E game, but I've removed all bonus items from the game entirely. I reworked a lot of the math to make it possible, so that the attack vs AC and save vs DC issues are gone. It took a lot of work, but I think it was worth it.

 

[Ainamacar]

I'm much more generous than your current rule is.

My assumption is that, by 20th level, PCs are supposed to have a slew of +5 items, plus a couple stat boosters and have read a couple tomes/manuals. So I wrote a chart kinda like the VoP chart, to give those enhancement bonuses directly to the characters. Except, of course, that you don't have to spend a feat or be Good to benefit. Like you say, it has the added benefit of making NPCs formidable without weighing them down with magical trinkets.

Ha, so it would seem! In my campaign, and across the various PCs I played in 3.5, my observation was that most PCs found it worthwhile to use items to boost two ability scores, one primary and one secondary. Additional bonuses would be gravy, but not expected or particularly pursued. By way of comparison, you give +30 worth of ability boosts over 20 levels, while I give +15, and RAW gives +5 (but obviously keeps stat-boosting items). I don't care for the flavor of giving bonuses that are as large as yours, nor that they remain enhancement bonuses even though they are treated as inherent to the character. Of course, since you treated your ability score boosts as enhancement bonuses, with buffs the levels of the highest ability scores in your game and mine are very similar across the various levels.

Part of this may be that I dislike the expectation of getting tomes or using Wish to increase ability scores, and really don't treat that as an assumed part of the game. (My opinion is that the game's math does not either, certainly not to the extent of Belts of Strength, etc.) This preference of mine is true independent of the other changes we're discussing. Thus, in any campaign I'd run tomes would pretty much only be found very rarely as treasure or as part of a quest, but certainly not be purchasable or craftable. Similarly with Wish, a Ring of Three Wishes or Deck of Many Things could boost ability scores, but a high level Wizard could not on its own. For some players of Wizards that might be contentious point.

As for the rest of your bonuses, they seem mostly reasonable to me. The resistance bonus is fine. I think the save progression as a whole should have been done differently in 3.5, and I might want to do that as part of removing items that grant a resistance bonus, but that's certainly more complicated. I'd also want to think about the prices for armor, shields, and weapons (and certainly limit their special abilities to +5) because the numerical bonus is only part of their typical utility.

The only other major change I would make to your system is that I'd grant a deflection bonus but not a natural armor bonus, although I might leave some items for that purpose in the game, and priced accordingly. My basic rationale is that a character can not have an Amulet of Health and an Amulet of Natural Armor. Even though every character could clearly benefit from both, I feel both are secondary bonuses to any given character. Deflection bonuses, however, come from all over the place, and the most typical source leaves an identical body slot open so most players didn't have to worry about it. The other major item conflict, Cloak of Resistance vs. Cloak of Charisma, I treat as satisfactorily resolved in standard 3.5 with the Vest of Resistance. The difference compared to the first conflict is that a resistance bonus is definitely critical to everyone, and for a good many characters Charisma is their primary ability score.

In any case, it was a very interesting to see what you did. As tinkering with other people's tinkerings is a time-honored tradition in D&D, I have plenty to think about. There are some parts of 3.5 I really miss.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Part of this may be that I dislike the expectation of getting tomes or using Wish to increase ability scores, and really don't treat that as an assumed part of the game.

Honestly, I don't like wish type spells or inherent bonuses. Wishing should be a plot device, and inherent bonuses work differently than all other game bonuses -- which is a big annoyance. I don't think inherent bonuses are really necessary either, but I decided to err on the side of generosity.

I suppose I could ban wish type spells and cap stat enhancements at +5. (To make it fit neatly into my chart. I'm a bit compulsive that way. ) Well, you've given me something to think about.

The only other major change I would make to your system is that I'd grant a deflection bonus but not a natural armor bonus, although I might leave some items for that purpose in the game, and priced accordingly. My basic rationale is that a character can not have an Amulet of Health and an Amulet of Natural Armor. Even though every character could clearly benefit from both, I feel both are secondary bonuses to any given character. Deflection bonuses, however, come from all over the place, and the most typical source leaves an identical body slot open so most players didn't have to worry about it. The other major item conflict, Cloak of Resistance vs. Cloak of Charisma, I treat as satisfactorily resolved in standard 3.5 with the Vest of Resistance. The difference compared to the first conflict is that a resistance bonus is definitely critical to everyone, and for a good many characters Charisma is their primary ability score.

I think that using item slots and the DMG overprice rules as a measuring stick for balance is a tenuous proposition at best. Balance may have been, back in the early days of 3e, the rationale for putting several useful items in the same slot. For example, the Charisma booster may have been put in the same slot as the saves booster to help balance spontaneous casters and prep casters. Or maybe they ended up in the same slot just because somebody thought it sounded cool. (As I understand it, that's how a great many D&D traditions started -- Dave or Gary thought it sounded cool, and gamers who came after treated it as gospel.)

In any case, we all know how that turned out. Spontaneous casting turned out to be not nearly as game-breaking as prep casting, and many other assumptions about game balance were changed. So much so that the MIC came out and said "Screw the overprice rules. Combine different bonuses in one item at-cost, and have at it!" And that's why I'm generous with bonuses to different stats, even if some characters would have to overpay for their bonuses or go without them in a core game.