So, basically, the system is broken, has to be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up on order to make sure that it makes sense and is balanced, but before the article is up, they mention that its still guess work and an "art" to pricing magic items . . .
Hm.
(For what its worth, I'm not opposed to magic item levels. I kind of like them, especially if they remain "guidelines" instead of "you can't use these until you are level X." I'm just saying that it struck me as odd that they still don't sound too confident about magic item pricing)
Why would you even need magic items in 4th Edition? I thought they were getting rid of the "Christmas Tree" effect, and just making every class damn super ninjas ala Naruto ("Ok, you'll be the stabbing ninja, and you'll be the healing ninja, and you'll be the flying ninja...").
I kind of like them, especially if they remain "guidelines" instead of "you can't use these until you are level X."
Oooh. Yuck. I just got that. When they say leveled items, I thought they meant that like an orc is a 1st level foe, then you give him, say a 2nd level potion and he becomes a 3rd level encounter.
I still think this is what they mean--but man I hope there's nothing like the video-gamey "red item you can't use yet" anywhere in 4e's book of tricks or I'm just gonna' cry...
Eh . . . the article seemed pretty clear that you could give a magic item out of whack to someone's level to them, and it would still work fine, so I don't think they are quite going that far.
I do wonder though, if monsters are designed to "do what they are suppose to do" for an encounter, how magic items fit in. For example, the acid spitting orc shaman, if he has a "2nd level item" as part of his treasure that he could, possibly, use, then how does this fit with the "designed for the encounter" approach?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I do wonder though, if monsters are designed to "do what they are suppose to do" for an encounter, how magic items fit in. For example, the acid spitting orc shaman, if he has a "2nd level item" as part of his treasure that he could, possibly, use, then how does this fit with the "designed for the encounter" approach?
I would expect that the encounter calculator will assume a certain level of treasure, just as it does now.
I'm ambivalent on this issue. It does sound damn damn damn convenient. The gp cost has always been a weird proxy for power level. I really do like having that power level stated in a more direct manner.
But, as with every other 4e change, it will all depend on implementation. What is the power level if you have 2 2nd level items and a 5th level item? Will there be an EL style chart for making the determination? If so, a lot of the value added by transparency would be lost.
The other potential pitfall that gives me pause is the granularity of such a sytem. All 9th level items can't possibly be the same power level, and will there be enough levels to make for meaningful items? I would hate to see a system where you have the equivalent of magic missile or 3e haste - a spell that is clearly the best for its level and is (almost) always taken. If items span the full 30 levels, there probably is sufficient granularity, but who knows.
Anyway, I'm willing to hear more on this subject.
|
Why would you even need magic items in 4th Edition? I thought they were getting rid of the "Christmas Tree" effect, and just making every class damn super ninjas ala Naruto ("Ok, you'll be the stabbing ninja, and you'll be the healing ninja, and you'll be the flying ninja...").
In 4E the "Christmas Tree" will be Pre-lit with the LED lights built in.
I am trying to understand why a Rope of Climbing is a 10th level item?
I have always considered it a basic item that Commoners would use impress each other.
First, I'm going entirely off rumor. No access to the D&D Insider because it hates me. I basically have to panhandle folks around here to even know what's going on. Fun fun.
Second I'm feeling a little woozy from Sebastian's post. I had no idea that transparent granulated magic items were any different than other items. I think I'm going to lie down and have a bit of a nap.
Gulhuk! Wow...I feel dumb....
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
First, I'm going entirely off rumor. No access to the D&D Insider because it hates me. I basically have to panhandle folks around here to even know what's going on. Fun fun.
Second I'm feeling a little woozy from Sebastian's post. I had no idea that transparent granulated magic items were any different than other items. I think I'm going to lie down and have a bit of a nap.
Gulhuk! Wow...I feel dumb....
That's the beauty of making s~%! up to try and sound smart - if you do it well enough, you can shut down those with opposing viewpoints by forcing them to accept some of your b&+%&*+@ in order to even formulate a response. Combine with controversial assumptions that needle at those who may disagree with you (e.g., magic missile is an auto-choose spell) and the chances that someone will bother challenging your convoluted logic are driven down to nothing.
Anyway, this info slots somewhere between smiting-heals-your-friends (do not like) and schools-of-magic-are-dead (like). It could make determining magic item power much easier, or it could just be a clunky overuse of the term level.
|
Contributor
|
Ooh, is it finally my turn?
Fourth Edition D&D improves that useful tool by explicitly linking a magic item's level to its price. For example, all 9th-level magic items now cost the same number of gp to craft or to purchase. This makes it even easier to gauge a magic item's appropriateness for your game at a glance. Don't know if it's OK to drop a flying carpet into the hands of your 9th-level PCs? Well, the fact that the carpet's listed as an 18th-level item should clue you in that it'd have an enormous impact on your 9th-level game.
Does that mean that all magic items of the same level will be equal in power? Well, yes and no.
It's true that the designer of two different 9th-level magic items imagines that they'd have a roughly equivalent impact on gameplay. A +2 thundering mace and a +2 staff of the war mage, if designed and developed properly, should be equally useful in combat. That comparison generally isn't too hard, since the basic functions and utility of combat-based effects remain relative regardless of the weapon or implement. How much extra damage does the mace deal compared to the staff? If damage isn't involved, how useful and potent are the items' effects against foes? And so on.
However, that comparison quickly becomes more art than science when comparing magic items of different purposes. (This, by the way, is why relying on hard-and-fast pricing rules for magic items is troublesome at best, and actively bad for your game at worst.) After all, most magic items only "compete" with other items in a narrow category for a character's attention, so comparing their values can be quite tricky.
For example, if a rope of climbing and a +2 flaming longsword are both 10th-level magic items (and thus both cost the same number of gold pieces), that's not quite the same thing as saying that a rope of climbing is as powerful as that weapon. After all, it's unlikely that a character has to decide between those two items -- they serve fundamentally different purposes.
It's much more likely that a character interested in a rope of climbing will compare its price to other items that let him overcome similar obstacles (such as the 7th-level slippers of spider climbing or the 13th-level boots of levitation).
Alternatively, if he's in the market for a new weapon, he would compare the value of that +2 flaming sword with the more expensive +3 vicious sword (12th level), or the slightly cheaper +2 lightning sword (9th level).
What the designer is saying, rather, is that he imagines that the effect of both the rope of climbing and the +2 flaming sword are appropriate for characters around 10th level. A few levels before that, either item would have a much more significant impact on gameplay (possibly by making certain spells or powers of the characters obsolete). More than a few levels after that, either item will have lost a lot of its luster -- maybe because more characters have easy access to levitation, flight, or even short-range teleportation effects, in the case of the rope of climbing, or because they're all toting around +3 or better weapons, making the flaming sword seem underpowered.
Ultimately, assigning levels to magic items sends a message to players and DMs: Here's when this item is most appropriate for your game. Once that information is in your hands, of course, it's up to you to use it as best befits your game!
I cannot see how this fits with abolishing the Christmas tree effect. Won't I get new items every level? Isn't that exactly what the article suggests? I just don;t see how I get less items this way...
From past blog entries we've learned that levelling your character is fun, so levels should come faster. I recall reading once per session.
Today we learned when a magic item is good for. It's listed level, and maybe two levels beyond.
Many groups get together weekly. I know my group does.
Which means your magic items expire in three weeks.
Tops.
Kinda like milk.
Huh.
Huh. I dunno. I still like the idea that magic items can increase or decrease ECL of encounters the same as elite status or various terrain. I don't know if they've talked about that angle yet. Seriously it would be cool to have the items that a creature has access to factor into the formula.
Hobgoblin (1)+ Elite (3)+ Rope bridge over lava (2)+ Boots of flying (4) = 10, or an encounter balanced for 5 2nd level characters.
There's something elegant about that. I really kind of like it.
I think it'd be fun for PCs too.
Group of PC's are running an AP, say (yeah, I know Pathfinder will probably stay 3.5, but let's just stay with this for a minute). The characters aren't leveling fast enough to keep up with the level spread of the AP? Just give them enough items to bump their ECL by however much you have to. I like that. So you have characters who are like 3rd level--but because of their gear they can go ahead and take on the Stone Giants because now they're the equivalent of a 10th level character. Smooth.
Well then you'll be interested in a couple of things. There's a book, Weapons of Legacy, that's all about that. Basically the weapons--from what little I've gleaned flipping through it, more or less level with their user like a familiar or cohort, becoming bigger and cooler over time.
Another thing to look out for is relics. More or less a D&D relic (as detailed in the Magic Item Compendium) is a religious weapon whose powers slowly unlock as the faith of the wielder increases--based on levels in certain divine classes hitting certain levels. So you get special abilities from the weapon almost like a class: one at 1st, one at 3rd, one at 5th, etc. etc.
I think you'd really dig those two books. The latter, the Magic Item Compendium has become an indispensible favorite of mine, whose secrets I have only recently begun to draw upon. Love it.
So, basically, the system is broken, has to be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up on order to make sure that it makes sense and is balanced, but before the article is up, they mention that its still guess work and an "art" to pricing magic items . . .
Hm.
(For what its worth, I'm not opposed to magic item levels. I kind of like them, especially if they remain "guidelines" instead of "you can't use these until you are level X." I'm just saying that it struck me as odd that they still don't sound too confident about magic item pricing)
In my own opinion - and mind you, this is something that's bugged the crap out of me for a while - D&D will never have a firm pricing scheme for magic items because it suffers a host of problems:
* Too many effects (feats, class abilities, spells, monster abilities...)
* Too many creative uses/abuses/loopholes
* System isn't broken down into a mathmatical point scheme
* D&D design has always been, and still is, guesswork and playtesting.
While these aren't exactly problems in all ways, they make a mess of coming up with a formula for pricing. Maybe chaos theory and fuzzy math might be able to make sense of the spaghetti-pile that is D&D, but how do you account for the sauce?
I like item levels; using character level for a gauge on what's appropriate is, honestly, the very core of the system - encounters, feats, abilities... Everything else goes off that, and the whole wealth scheme and item pricing in 3e was just another method to simulate that. Here, they're taking out the middleman, so to speak, and being more honest about who should have what.
And since someone's already brought it up... I don't care what they /say/ about item level vs character level, there's no way they could enforce a hard rule on when someone can equip something. If they did put it in print, I'd laugh at them and equip my 9th level sword on my 7th level fighter. Hah! Take THAT! :)
I keep wondering what they did to a rope of climbing?
Under the current rules a rope of climbing is 3000gp and a +2 flaming longsword is worth 18,000gp. I know its not the same edition but... huh? They will in the future (edition) cost the same?
Rope of Climbing
A 60-foot-long rope of climbing is no thicker than a wand, but it is strong enough to support 3,000 pounds. Upon command, the rope snakes forward, upward, downward, or in any other direction at 10 feet per round, attaching itself securely wherever its owner desires. It can unfasten itself and return in the same manner.
A rope of climbing can be commanded to knot or unknot itself. This causes large knots to appear at 1-foot intervals along the rope. Knotting shortens the rope to a 50-foot length until the knots are untied but lowers the DC of Climb checks while using it by 10. A creature must hold one end of the rope when its magic is invoked.
Faint transmutation; CL 3rd; Craft Wondrous Item, animate rope; Price 3,000 gp; Weight 3 lb.
In my own opinion - and mind you, this is something that's bugged the crap out of me for a while - D&D will never have a firm pricing scheme for magic items because it suffers a host of problems:
* Too many effects (feats, class abilities, spells, monster abilities...)
* Too many creative uses/abuses/loopholes
* System isn't broken down into a mathmatical point scheme
* D&D design has always been, and still is, guesswork and playtesting.
Couldn't agree more. I know that as DM, I will need to look carefully at every magic item I wish allow into the playing field and discern the impact it might have. This means adjusting its fair market value (usually up) or disallowing it altogether.
I like the idea of grouping magic items into levels by how powerful they are and I think this is why they still say that it is as much an art as a science. I imagine that if I grouped all of the items into different levels of power it would look a little differently than if someone else did it since we would probably value certain attributes or factors above others. Add to this the magic levels of individual campaigns and I can see why they suggest it is as much art as science but at least the basic principle of grouping items by power makes good sense to me. If I have a low magic campaign I can simply make what would typically be 3rd level magic items into 5th level magic items. I really like this idea.
The magic item pricing system was, IMO, one of the best parts of 3.x. By explicitly defining a cost structure to magical effects, it made it relatively simple to design new magic items. In conjuction with the suggested wealth by level rules, it provided a baseline for the power level of a campaign at each stage of the PCs' advancement.
In previous editions, costs were either undefined or given only loose guidelines. It sounds like 4e is going back to a loosely defined structure where the method for determing where a magical item falls is outside the RAW. How will the determination be made on what "level" the magic item will be at? If you want to design a unique magic item for your campaign, will there be a way to calculate its level beyond eyeballing and guesswork?
This sounds like another bunch of "expanded options" that actually limit the ability of the players and DMs. I'm sure that they have a bunch of "Magic Item Compendiums" planned for those who want more than the "core" items. Of course, "magical item design is hard and should be left to the game designers; you don't really want to design your own items, anyway; trust us." (heavy sarcasm)
Of course, "magical item design is hard and should be left to the game designers; you don't really want to design your own items, anyway; trust us." (heavy sarcasm)
And yetm, there are the Superstar magic item entires, which are as good as most of the stuff I get from WotC...
If they start taking away my tools to customize the game, so I have to play something closer to what they envision, I just won'ty switch. period. Game balance is not important enough to take away all individulity
|
|
Huh. I dunno. I still like the idea that magic items can increase or decrease ECL of encounters the same as elite status or various terrain. I don't know if they've talked about that angle yet. Seriously it would be cool to have the items that a creature has access to factor into the formula.
Hobgoblin (1)+ Elite (3)+ Rope bridge over lava (2)+ Boots of flying (4) = 10, or an encounter balanced for 5 2nd level characters.
There's something elegant about that. I really kind of like it.
I think it'd be fun for PCs too.
Hmm, only if the PCc are somehow weak in ranged combat. Otherwise they blast the Hobgoblin form the sky.
I concede that it is elegant, but it still is an art to balance encounters.Group of PC's are running an AP, say (yeah, I know Pathfinder will probably stay 3.5, but let's just stay with this for a minute). The characters aren't leveling fast enough to keep up with the level spread of the AP? Just give them enough items to bump their ECL by however much you have to. I like that. So you have characters who are like 3rd level--but because of their gear they can go ahead and take on the Stone Giants because now they're the equivalent of a 10th level character. Smooth.
But then we are back to the christmas tree effect. If magic items make the PCs more powerful and if magic items are available (to create, to buy or as loot) the PCs will want to have them and use them.
So, to stop christmas tree PCs the only way is to make magic items scarce. But if they are scarce, you can not use them to fine tune every other encounter or power up the PCs.|
|
I keep wondering what they did to a rope of climbing?
Under the current rules a rope of climbing is 3000gp and a +2 flaming longsword is worth 18,000gp. I know its not the same edition but... huh? They will in the future (edition) cost the same?
** spoiler omitted **
Yeah, I can imagine the face of the rogue player who gets the rope of climbing while the fighter gets the +2 flaming longsword...
I hope, nay I pray that they used the utility factor as a "pricing" method for levels.
Rope of climbing only makes sense if the players do not have access to levitate or fly or have a good climber in the group. Otherwise he could go up first and tie a simple rope for the other players to climb up.
In3.5 a rope of climbing looses its utility as soon as the wiz/sorc gets "fly".
On the other hand, slippers of spider climb never use their utility to a rogue because he can always use them AND there is no chance for a botched climb check.
Does this mean that 4th Ed. 9th level PCs do not have access to spider climb, levitate or fly spells?
Or is my reasoning flawed?
I kind of like them, especially if they remain "guidelines" instead of "you can't use these until you are level X."Oooh. Yuck. I just got that. When they say leveled items, I thought they meant that like an orc is a 1st level foe, then you give him, say a 2nd level potion and he becomes a 3rd level encounter.
I still think this is what they mean--but man I hope there's nothing like the video-gamey "red item you can't use yet" anywhere in 4e's book of tricks or I'm just gonna' cry...
I'm thinking that it will be your worst fears confirmed on this one. Does all of this not scream out "Diablo 2/Titan Quest" in its execution? Skill trees, level-blocked items, wizards who never run out of spells?
Now if you've always wanted "Titan Quest the role-playing game," then you're good, but if you want D&D, gonna have to stick with Paizo. I love games and I love D&D, but not as a hybrid fusion of one another. Long live the golem...
Even with the 3E guidelines, pricing some types of item was an art. Calculating the relative usefullness of Slippers of Spider Climbing, a Rope of Climbing, and Boots of Levitation is pretty difficult since they're all capable of doing some of the same things yet also have different advantages. I think their claim that magic item pricing is as much art as science is accurate.
Compared to previous editions it was a vast improvement. The pricing of most items is easy to calculate in 3.x.
And yetm, there are the Superstar magic item entires, which are as good as most of the stuff I get from WotC...
If they start taking away my tools to customize the game, so I have to play something closer to what they envision, I just won'ty switch. period. Game balance is not important enough to take away all individulity
But if they make it easy for gamers to design their own magic items, how will they market the collectable magic item cards for each "core" rulebook and supplement? ;-P
I was encouraged by the greater differentiation between a lightning sword and a fire sword. I have always thought it was kind of bland that items of that ilk only did a little extra damage. I want to see special effects like a lightning sword hit requiring a successful save (DC wielder's character level, give or take) or be dazed.
That's easy enough to do: Just add a use activated daze to a shock weapon for a low-powered version. That's one of the strengths of 3.x: You can easily define and price most magic items using the system in the DMG. It's not perfect, but unless 4e also provides a method for categorizing player/DM-created items, it will be a huge step backward.
I had a horrible thought: What if the reason they went with this system is to "simplify" the treasure ("drop") tables for encounters (Xgp + Y-level item)? Instead of the current organization by type (armor, weapon, etc.), the 4e organization may be by level. Also, considering how "roles" are going to be a central consideration, will the magic items be sub-divided by role (a Z-level archer item)?
I hope I'm wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if I'm right.
Although I can't say I'm sticking around for D&D 4e (in truth, I'm already a D&D Dungeonmaster casualty), If I WERE to jump on board with 4e and its Digital Initiative, it would be nice to see a treasure generator based on the creature.
I have something like that for an older fantasy game that works like a charm.
I've stopped trying to guess what's going on inside the developers minds at this point. They've clearly demonstrated to my satisfaction that they are math phobes. The 'art' of magic item creation is the same as their 'art' of monster creation. This isn't anything new, D&D has never really had a game balanced based on mathematical calculations, or at least good formulas. It's just sad to see the trend continue and even seemingly reverse itself, hiding the feeble numbers behind the developers curtain instead of putting the out front like 3e did.
By doing that they can create whatever new table formats they want because it's not going to matter. We'll have to play their game like we played 2nd Edition. Any house content will have be made on guess work and reverse engineering pricing formulas that don't even exist. It's why you've never seen rules from WotC on 'crafting your own custom construct' because there weren't any generalized roles for it 3e. I see this same kind of avoidance tactic in the new magic item system they're purposing.