If anyone is interested in a chapter by chapter review and analysis of the 4e PHB, I've been doing one on my blog. I'm through Chapter 7 so far.
Honestly? WAY too many comparisons to WoW. I know they're similar, but chill. Pretend WoW doesn't exist for a second (or well any CRPG for that matter) and think "How is this a good thing?"
Then go play it. But not with a group of reluctant people. Nobody's gonna have fun if nobody wants to.
So... I get the feeling you don't like it? :D
Anything you do like there?
Read on through the posts, there are definitely things I do like. If they had restrained themselves in the changes it might have been good. The changes to the core mechanic, for example, are a step forward just as hit table to THACO to BAB in 1e->2e->3e was an improvement. I like the comboed skills, and some other things. If they hadn't decided to massively change the race/class/spell trappings and make all the classes too identical and add a bunch of ultra fiddly stuff... So there's definitely one step forward in there, among the two steps back.
As to "too many WoW comparisons," well, I play WoW too and I know similarities when I see 'em. Also, I don't think it's spurious. In the recent podcast by Chris Pramas and Erik Mona (also linked to on my blog) one of them, forget which one, says something to the effect of "claiming there's not substantial WoW influence on 4e is disingenuous; I know all the 4e designers and know how much WoW they play!" IMO it's certainly intentional, MMORPGs have a million times the popularity of RPGs and it's a deliberate if misguided change to try to capture that.
Also, I'm not saying that "like WoW" is bad per se, but the changes to that effect aren't just like WoW, they harm the game - like the retarded "sell for 20%" economic system and the disenchant-to-magic-dust from WoW that is a corollary of that. I don't mind a talent tree model in general, but in this case it's limiting the raw number of builds and making all the classes too similar.
You know, I would actually give more respect for people if they actually identified the proper game-style that 4E emulates.
Japanese Tactical RPGs like Disgaea and Final Fantasy Tactics are the closest match for 4e. WoW is a HORRIBLE comparison as you could never translate 4E into a real-time game of any close approximation.
Ironically, the earlier editions are much easier to convert to a real-time game than 4E (or even 3E for that matter).
Funny, through Final Fantasy Tactics is a close match, 4E seems more similar to another tactical RPG game called "Brigandine". On Brigandine:
- Characters and monsters cap at level 30- Character get access to "advanced" classes at level 11 and 21. These advanced classes give extra abilities rather than replacing your older abilities (equivalent to paragon paths and epic destinies?)
- Characters don't get "twice" more powerful when they reach level 2. Instead, they get about 10% more powerful - power progression by level is, thus, smoother
- All monsters have levels. Monsters of same level aren't equal in power (equivalent to solo, elite and minion monsters?)
- Some monsters and classes have the ability of moving after attacking (equivalent to powers that allow you to shift after attacking?)
- All 4E monster roles seem to be represented on Brigandine classes and monsters:
Artillery - archer, centaur, genie
Brute - berserker, giant, mandrake, hydra
Soldier - fighter, lizard man, golem
Skirmisher - monk, ninja, hell hound
Controller - wizard, demon, vampire lord
Minion - ghoul, scorpion
Leader - valkyre, faerie, angel, unicorn
Too bad that 4E doesn't have full progressions for monsters from level 1 to level 30, like Brigandine. It would be really neat - to be able to use any monster at any level.
Running through Age of Worms, my players sold virtually everything they found since it was either a weapon that didnt synchronize with the warblade's feats/maneuvers, or was inferior to what they bought by selling all the crap in previous adventures.
At this point, loot is basically money in a different shape, waiting to be pawned off with a generous helping of the Diplomacy skill to haggle up the price a bit (the bard can hit a DC 30+ without even trying) so that they can upgrade their existing gear, or just get something thats useful...at all.
Reducing sale prices to 20% is not only more realistic, but I think it will also encourage players to use the item, or break it and make something more relevant to their tastes. As has been said an billion times, artificers were doing this gig in Eberron already.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Reducing sale prices to 20% is not only more realistic
It isn't "realistic" to sell only be able to sell a magic item (that has lost none of its utility or durability whatsoever) for only 20%. It is decidedly not realistic that with no one paying anywhere near the market cost of an item, you can't just end-run the merchants and buy items from OTHER adventurers for a generous 30% of market value. It is also decidely not realistic that with this strange crash in price (even lower than used book stores pay!) for a slightly used item (yet still fully functional), you can't find a single used weapon - even a non-magical one - going for less than list.
Really, the 4E economy has taken the never-that-great D&D economy to an all time low in terms of realism.
And remember, with the 10-40% markup on list price, you're actually selling for between 14 and 18%, not 20%.
By hard-restricting the limit on how much you can sell, a DM can actually use higher level items without worrying about the players simply selling the item.
You know, there is a section (with tables!) in the 3.X DMG that gives a DM guidance on the amount of free capital within a given community or environ. It also gives guidance on how often that capital is replenished. Amazing!
What makes for a good game != slavish attendance to economics.
You say slavish attendance to economics, I say verisimilitude.
Chief Technical Officer
|
...WOTC's original RPG Ars Magica...
There are two ways that could be read, and neither is correct.
If you're saying that Ars Magica was "an original WotC product," you'd be off by two companies. It was created by Lion Rampant, and later published by White Wolf before Wizards got it. (Atlas Games picked it up from Wizards.)
If you're saying that Ars Magica was Wizards' first published RPG, you'd be mistaken in that case, too. Talislanta was the first RPG published by Wizards; it had originally been published by Bard Games; it changed publishers a few times before winding up with Morrigan Press.
It isn't "realistic" to sell only be able to sell a magic item (that has lost none of its utility or durability whatsoever) for only 20%. It is decidedly not realistic that with no one paying anywhere near the market cost of an item, you can't just end-run the merchants and buy items from OTHER adventurers for a generous 30% of market value. It is also decidely not realistic that with this strange crash in price (even lower than used book stores pay!) for a slightly used item (yet still fully functional), you can't find a single used weapon - even a non-magical one - going for less than list.
Really, the 4E economy has taken the never-that-great D&D economy to an all time low in terms of realism.
And remember, with the 10-40% markup on list price, you're actually selling for between 14 and 18%, not 20%.
In 4E though, the assumption doesn't seem to be that there are that many adventurers wandering the world, and especially not that many buying/selling items. Sure, IF the DM lets you find another adventurer interested in some of your phat lewtz then maybe you can sell/trade at closer to the real items value. But based on how buying/selling of magical gear works according to the books, the best you can generally find is a traveling merchant. This merchant has no guarantee he'll find someone interested (or even capable!) of buying the item he is taking off of you anytime in the near future. Hell, he may never find an interested buyer, and it could be stolen long before that.
So he's betting one day he'll manage to find someone willing to pay full price, and you're betting you can unload your stuff at a steep discount to get something nice in response. I'll grant you that it isn't real world economics, but it's about as close as DnD ever comes (which is, of course, not even freaking close at all). I don't feel it's any further off though.
Cheers! :)
In 4E though, the assumption doesn't seem to be that there are that many adventurers wandering the world, and especially not that many buying/selling items. Sure, IF the DM lets you find another adventurer interested in some of your phat lewtz then maybe you can sell/trade at closer to the real items value. But based on how buying/selling of magical gear works according to the books, the best you can generally find is a traveling merchant. This merchant has no guarantee he'll find someone interested (or even capable!) of buying the item he is taking off of you anytime in the near future. Hell, he may never find an interested buyer, and it could be stolen long before that.
So he's betting one day he'll manage to find someone willing to pay full price, and you're betting you can unload your stuff at a steep discount to get something nice in response. I'll grant you that it isn't real world economics, but it's about as close as DnD ever comes (which is, of course, not even freaking close at all). I don't feel it's any further off though.
Cheers! :)
Interestingly, I find that the 4E concept that "adventurers are rare" is what differentiates it from MMORPGs. In MMORPGs, adventurers are ridiculously common (since every player is an adventurer), and many of them actually allow you to set up a shop and sell items to other adventurers.
On 4E, adventurers are assumed to be rare, thus PCs have few hopes of selling their magic items - except to travelling merchants who will buy them at a lower price.
I agree with the OP that D&D 4E imitated MMORPGs in many aspects - but the economy is just not a good example.
Curiously, on my view, the assumption that adventurers is rare is a way to attract MMORPG players to D&D. On D&D, if you defeats hundreds of a monsters, you are a hero of legend, a champion. On a MMORPG, if you do the same thing, you are just another of the millions of players who also defeated hundreds of monsters.
If D&D can offer something to MMORPG players that they currently don't have - it's the immersion and the capacity of making their characters feel special.
|
20% resell seems pretty lame to me. I've never had a problem with the way selling loot is handled in 3.5, but I see it all as arbitrary: if the DM thinks the PCs are too rich or too poor, the DM has a lot of tools to remedy that. Too rich? Drop them in a pit of rust monsters and disenchanters. Have a pixie rogue 20 steal their bag of holding. Oh wait, none of those critters are in the 4e MM.... ;^)
Also, really, who wasn't selling and buying magic items in editions 1-2? The old computer games (Pool of Radiance, Azure Bonds) had that.
20% resell seems pretty lame to me. I've never had a problem with the way selling loot is handled in 3.5, but I see it all as arbitrary: if the DM thinks the PCs are too rich or too poor, the DM has a lot of tools to remedy that. Too rich? Drop them in a pit of rust monsters and disenchanters. Have a pixie rogue 20 steal their bag of holding. Oh wait, none of those critters are in the 4e MM.... ;^)
Also, really, who wasn't selling and buying magic items in editions 1-2? The old computer games (Pool of Radiance, Azure Bonds) had that.
The problem was back in 1/2E days, magic items didn't come with anything suggesting how much they'd be worth. So while I'm sure some people bought/sold them (my groups never did) there was really no way to gauge their worth, except perhaps relative to other items.
If you check out the math, you'll see the 20% resell lets you essentially swap out an equivalent property on an item for the cost of a plus. That is, if you have a +3 Flaming Sword but your character would be better with a Frost Axe, the money you get from selling the sword will pay for a +2 Frost Axe. So, use what your DM gives you, or trade it out at the cost of one plus (and for the bonus of having precisely what you want)
Cheers! :)
|
Reducing sale prices to 20% is not only more realistic, but I think it will also encourage players to use the item, or break it and make something more relevant to their tastes.
<sarcasm> I'm not sure 'realistic' means what you think it does. </sarcasm>
Seriously, this feels more like a putative punishment to railroad players into a certain play style (like much of the crunch changes that were made to enforce the official points of light feel). There is no reason that players would recoup so little on a magic item sale in game. Assuming that the two main sources of magic items supplied to shops are wizards who manufacture them sporadically, or adventurers providing what amounts to "salvage" operations, 3.x's approach of 1/2 value makes perfect sense. The players operate in a market as essentially wholesalers providing retail outlets with goods.
There is no "realistic" reason for the 20% rule. THere are, however, plenty of metagaming reasons. Several have already been mentioned. Some people don't want players to sell magic items. Some DMS want more control over what items players acquire. Some object to the feel of magic items in an "ebay" environment.
So I think its clear this is a rule intended to enforce a specific play/DMing style. The rule really can't be supported by claiming it as a logical rule, but must be seen from a metagaming "I don't want item sale" viewpoint.
my 2 cents
<sarcasm> I'm not sure 'realistic' means what you think it does. </sarcasm>Seriously, this feels more like a putative punishment to railroad players into a certain play style (like much of the crunch changes that were made to enforce the official points of light feel). There is no reason that players would recoup so little on a magic item sale in game. Assuming that the two main sources of magic items supplied to shops are wizards who manufacture them sporadically, or adventurers providing what amounts to "salvage" operations, 3.x's approach of 1/2 value makes perfect sense. The players operate in a market as essentially wholesalers providing retail outlets with goods.
There is no "realistic" reason for the 20% rule. THere are, however, plenty of metagaming reasons. Several have already been mentioned. Some people don't want players to sell magic items. Some DMS want more control over what items players acquire. Some object to the feel of magic items in an "ebay" environment.
So I think its clear this is a rule intended to enforce a specific play/DMing style. The rule really can't be supported by claiming it as a logical rule, but must be seen from a metagaming "I don't want item sale" viewpoint.
my 2 cents
Certainly true 'Ling, but the same could be said of the assumed 50% sellback of 3E. Each one is an assumption that at its heart is more about the campaign world the sale is taking place in and less about the mechanics themselves. 4E simply chooses a different route than 3E did, but in both cases there are reasons behind the choices.
Cheers! :)
|
|
If you check out the math, you'll see the 20% resell lets you essentially swap out an equivalent property on an item for the cost of a plus.
From a gamist perspective, the 20% is easily understandable and the value of the magic items were determined solely in order to work this way.
From my perspective though, the fact that the math is so well done is not necessarily a great selling point. I like a little more flexibility.
From a gamist perspective, the 20% is easily understandable and the value of the magic items were determined solely in order to work this way.From my perspective though, the fact that the math is so well done is not necessarily a great selling point. I like a little more flexibility.
I'd say you're welcome to adjust the prices up and down as you see fit. But the actual worth of the item does need to be stated somewhere, and it's nice to have a standardized system to set the price. 4E essentially takes the system from 3E and standardizes it across all items simply by item level. All level 1 items cost X. All level 5 items cost Y.
Whether or not you can really find those items at those prices is, as always, up to the DM.
Cheers! :)
|
Really, the 4E economy has taken the never-that-great D&D economy to an all time low in terms of realism.
And remember, with the 10-40% markup on list price, you're actually selling for between 14 and 18%, not 20%.
In terms of game balance, I think the 4E system is quite reasonable.
In terms of realism, or suspension of disbelief, I think the 4E system is one of many places where they took a great concept and somehow managed to find an utterly atrocious way to implement it.
At the point it is at, why not just eliminate gp altogether, and have all score kept in residuum?
Yes, a bit is lost every time you buy a mundane item, but that can be handwaved off by allowing either full resale of such items.
Or, given how irrelevant 99% of such trade is, including most consumables and support, just handwave it all away, give PCs free standard equipment, reloads, and ordinary equipment, and upgrade anything else, including the no longer existent alchemical items, to "magic" items, and leave it at that. Yes, paying bribes or for luxury lifestyle would still drain residuum reserves from PCs, but it would be a suitable expenditure within the game structure.
And I am using "score" there deliberately, as that is all that the "economic" system of 4E is, a method of tracking your score, parallel to xp. And with tying the 3 "mandatory" items into character power, and alleging that other items are not relevant to direct character power (a declaration I find highly inaccurate looking at the items and the range of constant powers they provide), linking the two completely and letting players spend residuum for new character levels or new equipment as they see fit is the next step.
Of course, that just describes a point based system like Hero, or something like GURPS.
Hmmmm . . .
In terms of game balance, I think the 4E system is quite reasonable.
In terms of realism, or suspension of disbelief, I think the 4E system is one of many places where they took a great concept and somehow managed to find an utterly atrocious way to implement it.
At the point it is at, why not just eliminate gp altogether, and have all score kept in residuum?
Yes, a bit is lost every time you buy a mundane item, but that can be handwaved off by allowing either full resale of such items.
Or, given how irrelevant 99% of such trade is, including most consumables and support, just handwave it all away, give PCs free standard equipment, reloads, and ordinary equipment, and upgrade anything else, including the no longer existent alchemical items, to "magic" items, and leave it at that. Yes, paying bribes or for luxury lifestyle would still drain residuum reserves from PCs, but it would be a suitable expenditure within the game structure.And I am using "score" there deliberately, as that is all that the "economic" system of 4E is, a method of tracking your score, parallel to xp. And with tying the 3 "mandatory" items into character power, and alleging that other items are not relevant to direct character power (a declaration I find highly inaccurate looking at the items and the range of constant powers they provide), linking the two completely and letting players spend residuum for new character levels or new equipment as they see fit is the next step.
Of course, that just describes a point based system like Hero, or something like GURPS.
Hmmmm . . .
I'm almost certain that one of the suggestions I got from the books WAS to drop buying/selling magic items entirely and just use the disenchant/enchant ritual, since as you say, the rituals obtain the same result. If I decide to go that route, I'll likely do as you say and allow the extraneous costs for said rituals to be ignored completely.
As for the standard gear stuff, in my experience my group generally discounts buying/selling that kind of stuff after 1st anyway. It's rare we really both to account for things like food/water/ammunition, unless the adventure we're playing is specifically meant to challenge the characters in those areas (lost in the desert, trapped on an island, etc, etc ...)
If they had gone that route though, the howls of the simulationists would be even louder though! :P
Edit: In both 3E and 4E, a character's wealth is measured and the appropriate amount is qualified by level. Both systems assume the majority (ok, all) of this wealth is sunk into gear to aid in adventuring. This is something of a departure from earlier editions where (since items were generally not purchasable) PCs were left to figure out what to do with their giant piles of gold, like setting up stronghold, hiring henchmen, and generally trying to have more of an affect on the world (at least, IMO ... some characters liked to just do the Scrooge McDuck of course, and backstroked in their vaults full of gold!)
Whether this change is good or bad depends. I kind of like it, but removing buying/selling of items and replacing it with enchant/disenchant lets you add it back in since all of that gold is less useful now.
Really, the 4E economy has taken the never-that-great D&D economy to an all time low in terms of realism.In terms of game balance, I think the 4E system is quite reasonable.
In terms of realism, or suspension of disbelief, I think the 4E system is one of many places where they took a great concept and somehow managed to find an utterly atrocious way to implement it.
I agree with both.
Now, there's two things about my posts getting confused.
1. The disenchanting items into magic dust that's carried about and then used for enchanting new stuff - pure WoW.
2. The horrid 20% resell economy in general - just bad. I don't blame WoW for that, certainly, because even WoW does crafting and economics way, way better than 4e does.
Sure, both of these might "make a fine game." But it makes a fine boardgame, not a fine role-playing game. I don't think it's "slavish devotion to real-world economics" that you can't make a new item and sell it for the same amount some NPC vendor is.
Yes, earlier D&D versions (1e/2e) were bad as well - I'm confused when people use this as a selling point of some of the bad 4e changes. 3e finally came up with a semi-sensical crafting (though too inexpensive and way too time inexpensive) and economic model. I never said 4e was worse than any game in the history of the world, or worse than any other edition of D&D - but it's worse than 3e, which is a problem when you're trying to advance a version.
And my core point is that it's stupid. Chasing gamism in a RPG is stupid. Thinking that a) you're going to do pure gamism better than a computer and b) that you're somehow going to attract those kinds of gamers off WoW to tabletop by shifting 10% their direction is stupid.
What do tabletop RPGs have in terms of a potential advantage over the MMORPGs of the world? The total flexibility, the ability to make a game world that "makes sense" (verisimilitude, simulationism, whatever you want to call it). Those are the things a CRPG doesn't have, and they would have been much better served by playing to those strengths rather than trying to make the retard half-brother of a board/computer game. Instead, they specifically attacked flexibility (named monsters, prescribed resell, etc.) and an immersive world (cookie cutter classes, daily powerz, etc.) to make D&D more cookie-cutter and "just game rules, don't worry about it."
|
|
Your assumption doesn't actually affect the problem. Namely the PCs selling the magic item treasure for exactly what they want. That's what the 20% rule is intended to counter.
I didn't realize it was a problem that players could buy items they want.
I thought 4e was all about "fun, fun, fun." Selling loot for a good price is fun. Maxxing out one's Diplomacy skill in order to make more money when doing so is fun too. Buying cool stuff is fun.
I agree with both.Now, there's two things about my posts getting confused.
1. The disenchanting items into magic dust that's carried about and then used for enchanting new stuff - pure WoW.
2. The horrid 20% resell economy in general - just bad. I don't blame WoW for that, certainly, because even WoW does crafting and economics way, way better than 4e does.Sure, both of these might "make a fine game." But it makes a fine boardgame, not a fine role-playing game. I don't think it's "slavish devotion to real-world economics" that you can't make a new item and sell it for the same amount some NPC vendor is.
Yes, earlier D&D versions (1e/2e) were bad as well - I'm confused when people use this as a selling point of some of the bad 4e changes. 3e finally came up with a semi-sensical crafting (though too inexpensive and way too time inexpensive) and economic model. I never said 4e was worse than any game in the history of the world, or worse than any other edition of D&D - but it's worse than 3e, which is a problem when you're trying to advance a version.
And my core point is that it's stupid. Chasing gamism in a RPG is stupid. Thinking that a) you're going to do pure gamism better than a computer and b) that you're somehow going to attract those kinds of gamers off WoW to tabletop by shifting 10% their direction is stupid.
What do tabletop RPGs have in terms of a potential advantage over the MMORPGs of the world? The total flexibility, the ability to make a game world that "makes sense" (verisimilitude, simulationism, whatever you want to call it)....
I disagree with you on the disenchantment rituals, but if you're set in your opinion I'll assume there is nothing that can be done to sway you.
I also disagree with your assertion that the system isn't realistic though (or at least, as realistic as you can get when dealing with the buying/selling of magically enchanted items). For the system to make sense from a simulationist PoV, however, requires certain world assumptions that 4E makes. Adventurers are rare in 4E, as is magical gear. Low level magical items don't litter dungeons, and those few willing/able to plumb their depths don't cart out piles of magical stuff to sell in the civilized world.
Many say their characters would seek out other adventurers and sell it directly to them, at the price a traveling merchant would charge, but seeking out said individuals is no easy task (and likely an adventure in its own right.) Most merchants buy magical items on the hope that they will someday be able to sell them to another interested buyer at a large markup, but these occurences would be rare in a PoL world.
In regards to the selling of mundane items, keep in mind that 4E has no rules for crafting of non-magical items. Obviously the rule has in mind that gear found while adventuring, picked off of the dead bodies of enemies (and possibly allies). Why this stuff isn't highly sought after should be obvious. If a PC truly wanted to forge their own gear and open a shop somewhere, then yes they should be able to sell their produce, but of course by that point you are already far into house rule territory, so house ruling the selling of mundane gear shouldn't be that hard to do.
I'll say again that I don't (and never have) seen the comparison others claim between 4E and WoW, but (as with so, so many arguments here) I don't expect to change anyone's mind.
Cheers! :)
|
|
I agree with both.
Now, there's two things about my posts getting confused.
1. The disenchanting items into magic dust that's carried about and then used for enchanting new stuff - pure WoW.
2. The horrid 20% resell economy in general - just bad. I don't blame WoW for that, certainly, because even WoW does crafting and economics way, way better than 4e does.Sure, both of these might "make a fine game." But it makes a fine boardgame, not a fine role-playing game. I don't think it's "slavish devotion to real-world economics" that you can't make a new item and sell it for the same amount some NPC vendor is.
Heh.
Indeed, and that is why I separate them as I did.I agree, that would be great for a boardgame. For my D&D RPG . . . not so great.
And my core point is that it's stupid. Chasing gamism in a RPG is stupid. Thinking that a) you're going to do pure gamism better than a computer and b) that you're somehow going to attract those kinds of gamers off WoW to tabletop by shifting 10% their direction is stupid.
Yep.
Although I would rather call it a wasted effort or hopeless cause to forestall it becoming harsh or personal.
I disagree with you on the disenchantment rituals, but if you're set in your opinion I'll assume there is nothing that can be done to sway you.I also disagree with your assertion that the system isn't realistic though (or at least, as realistic as you can get when dealing with the buying/selling of magically enchanted items). For the system to make sense from a simulationist PoV, however,...
On the disenchanting, I know disenchanting's been done before, don't mind it per se, it's the whole dust thing that makes it WoWey. Artificers didn't do that, I've played Eberron. Not sure how to "disagree" with that. Ten million WoW players know what time it is.
As for the realism of economics - no. In the real world there's highly valuable items that there's limited buyers for. Art from the old masters, etc. They don't sell at pennies on the dollar unless being fenced illegally or unloaded at the nearest pawnshop. (And in the pawnshop model, they then turn around and sell it at 50%, not 100%.)
If magic is that rare, then nobles and powerful people want it. They have networks of brokers etc. to try to get some to them. Besides, the PHB goes ahead and says that an adventurer "might have to do some searching, but in general you can buy any item you can afford." Doesn't sound like a "Oh God only two people in the world are transacting magic" scenario to me.
Sure, I'd buy 20% sale price for stuff copped from a dungeon if you just want to sell it to the first guy you see.
Furthermore, the "cost" of the item is the creation cost. So there's zero markup? I mean, there's just so much retardation packed into this one bit of rules it's hard to get one's mind around.
Of course some of the issue is also the Godawful cost of magic items. 25,000 gp for a potion that heals 50 hp. 100,000 gp for a ring that will let you fly for one round only, once per day or turn invisible one round only, once per day. In general, I'd spend my money on an army instead.
In general there's no way to have anyone try to think for more than 30 seconds about these rules and then still believe they are part of a real, living, breathing, campaign world. Sure, if it's just a board game you can make whatever rules you want, it doesn't matter. Settlers of Catan lets you trade 4:1 brick for wheat for iron, whatever. But my campaign worlds are not static "WoW towns" where NPCs exist only to either directly serve adventurers or be pointless noninteractive scenery. And players in the gaming groups I'm involved in want to be able to become part of the world, to sell and trade, to fix up a keep, to interact with people and get results beyond "reputation grinding". It's what roleplaying games are about.
On the disenchanting, I know disenchanting's been done before, don't mind it per se, it's the whole dust thing that makes it WoWey. Artificers didn't do that, I've played Eberron. Not sure how to "disagree" with that. Ten million WoW players know what time it is.
As for the realism of economics - no. In the real world there's highly valuable items that there's limited buyers for. Art from the old masters, etc. They don't sell at pennies on the dollar unless being fenced illegally or unloaded at the nearest pawnshop. (And in the pawnshop model, they then turn around and sell it at 50%, not 100%.)
If magic is that rare, then nobles and powerful people want it. They have networks of brokers etc. to try to get some to them. Besides, the PHB goes ahead and says that an adventurer "might have to do some searching, but in general you can buy any item you can afford." Doesn't sound like a "Oh God only two people in the world are transacting magic" scenario to me.
Sure, I'd buy 20% sale price for stuff copped from a dungeon if you just want to sell it to the first guy you see.
Furthermore, the "cost" of the item is the creation cost. So there's zero markup? I mean, there's just so much retardation packed into this one bit of rules it's hard to get one's mind around.
Of course some of the issue is also the Godawful cost of magic items. 25,000 gp for a potion that heals 50 hp. 100,000 gp for a ring that will let you fly for one round only, once per day or turn invisible one round only, once per day. In general, I'd spend my money on an army instead.
In general...
I've played other games that allowed you to disenchant your items and receive a magical dust in return (some MMORPG, some not) that predated WoW. And if the only thing you're claiming they appropriated is the form of the disenchantment rituals result, I'd say that isn't much appropriation going on at all.
As for the economics of the issue and nobles, I think you answered your own question. A noble is going to have money better spent on buying an army, building a castle, etc ...
These items are really only useful to the lonesome individuals out there delving dungeons, fighting monsters. If you're more worried about the noble house next door trying to move in on your territories, a Ring of Flying just ain't gonna help you out (nor would a powerful weapon or suit of armor). A nice sized army (or even a few units of elite mercenaries) would be way more useful.
In general, I believe the assumption is that those selling the items are not the original makers, and that the makers produced the items for their own use, not for sale. I guess if your characters wanted to start making their own items and selling them at an even greater markup they could, but again finding buyers would likely be an adventure in its own right (and you could probably account for their profits as the "treasure" earned for the adventure!)
Admittedly, the ability to find pretty much whatever they want is pretty blatant gamism, but they come out and admit that. It isn't that ANYTHING they want is available ... they're just lucky enough that when they go looking for something, they end up finding it (presumably things they aren't looking for aren't around for finding). If that's too high a level of gamism I'm sure you could devise some random chance of finding whatever they wanted (in 3E, when my players were looking to buy magical loot, I'd generally roll percentage dice with some arbitrary amount based on how expensive the item they're looking for is/whether it is in the DMG or is some custom creation they made up)
Cheers! :)
"Look, Jumbles! It's the Horn of Truth, fabled for its ability to discern lies! I feel like I'm holding a piece of history itself."
"Truly, tis something to be treasured, Gruff. However, it only affects elves, and since we're in kobold country, we won't get much use out of it. Maybe we should sell it?"
"You can't sell something this precious! This is something to be treasured, to be passed from father to son!"
"You're right, I couldn't possibly sell it. >smash< Now I can make that Belt of Weightloss I've been dreaming about. Help me gather up this here magic dust, friend."
"Now you're talkin'!"
Also, really, who wasn't selling and buying magic items in editions 1-2? The old computer games (Pool of Radiance, Azure Bonds) had that.
Its from the computer games that we get the buying and selling model of 3.x. In 1st and 2nd you basically did not buy or sell items except maybe potions. There might be exceptional circumstances (usually resulting from your fairly high level party gaining 12 long swords +1 off the BBEGs minions) but it was not common.
By hard-restricting the limit on how much you can sell, a DM can actually use higher level items without worrying about the players simply selling the item.
You know, there is a section (with tables!) in the 3.X DMG that gives a DM guidance on the amount of free capital within a given community or environ. It also gives guidance on how often that capital is replenished. Amazing!
Trying for the snark:)
Nice idea but that doesn't actually solve the problem Exactly what happens if you oh,I don't know, just move to the larger metropolis?
Let's say you have a 3rd level party and finds a 5th level item (DM thinks it would be cool and not too overpowering for their level). Many of the population centers that can safely afford a 3rd level item ALSO tend to be able to afford 5th level items.
If you want to deviate from the wealth by level table, that's your business. I honestly expect most parties to "vendor" the loot they find/receive/recover after a certain point (generally levels 3-5, depending on the campaign) and in turn use that gold to drive item crafting they do for themselves or otherwise commission. In my opinion, the DMG 3.5, pages 135 - 139 addresses all of these concerns. The pages dedicated to 4e "treasure parcels" in the 4e DMG are, in my opinion, wasted space.
Now, I realize that the 4e designers feel that most 3.x DM's are incompetent ("Or else I can just do what most DMs do: trust that it’s all going to balance out, and end up with characters that are under-equipped (nine times out of ten) for their level.") and thus need to have all the math worked out and fully derived for them, but I (and many, many DMs I have played with) am quite capable of taking the basic formula presented in the "Character Power Levels" and "World Building" sections in the 3.5 DMG and working the rest out for myself.
A noble is going to have money better spent on buying an army,I question this as being true in the world of 4e. I get the feeling that most large units of advesaries (like armies) are actually collections of minions.
:)
Lol!
If you want to deviate from the wealth by level table, that's your business. I honestly expect most parties to "vendor" the loot they find/receive/recover after a certain point (generally levels 3-5, depending on the campaign) and in turn use that gold to drive item crafting they do for themselves or otherwise commission. In my opinion, the DMG 3.5, pages 135 - 139 addresses all of these concerns. The pages dedicated to 4e "treasure parcels" in the 4e DMG are, in my opinion, wasted space.Now, I realize that the 4e designers feel that most 3.x DM's are incompetent ("Or else I can just do what most DMs do: trust that it’s all going to balance out, and end up with characters that are under-equipped (nine times out of ten) for their level.") and thus need to have all the math worked out and fully derived for them, but I (and many, many DMs I have played with) am quite capable of taking the basic formula presented in the "Character Power Levels" and "World Building" sections in the 3.5 DMG and working the rest out for myself.
Maybe you're just one out of ten? In the games I've run, I've generally assumed it will all work out alright. Sometimes it has, sometimes it hasn't. Ditto for the games I've played in. 3Es method was functional, sure, but it DID require a lot of work. 4Es is easier to pull off, so I'm in favor of it.
I haven't put too much thought into it, but how hard would it be to reduce the parcels back into a simple gp total per level? Since magic item costs are standardized it seems like it'd be pretty simple addition right?
Cheers! :)
D&D 4E = Disenchanting
Disenchanting = Magical Dust
Magical Dust = D&D the Movie
D&D 4E = D&D the Movie
There's reason right enough right there not to play it. Case closed.
I'll have you know magic dust have been around for quite a while. I remember getting pouches of the stuff back in 2E and wondering how I got exactly X uses out of the stuff.
Also, the ability to melodramatically cry out "Snaaaaaaillllllssssss!" at the death of an ally is an opportunity not to be missed, at least once.
;P
I haven't put too much thought into it, but how hard would it be to reduce the parcels back into a simple gp total per level? Since magic item costs are standardized it seems like it'd be pretty simple addition right?Cheers! :)
I don't think it would be terribly difficult. My take, after a first pass at the new rules, is WotC just eliminated a table or two. On one hand, this is understandable. Many people have trouble with three or four column tables. On the other hand, the point of a table is represent a large amount of data succinctly. The Treasure and XP excerpt linked in my second post also provides a roadmap for this kind of work.
The more I look at 4e, the more convinced I become that 4e is not novel, but rather represents large scale borrowing from existing 3.x content (specifically, UA and D20 Modern) as well as attempts to refine that borrowed content. This view certainly gives ammo to the crowd that likes to argue that 4e is a natural extension of D&D. Personally, I wonder how much of the new GSL will stand up in the face of prior art (in the form of OGL found in 3.X, UA and Modern.)
D&D 4E = Disenchanting
Disenchanting = Magical Dust
Magical Dust = D&D the Movie
D&D 4E = D&D the Movie
There's reason right enough right there not to play it. Case closed.
Yeah, ipso facto right there.
Or not.
If you want to deviate from the wealth by level table, that's your business. I honestly expect most parties to "vendor" the loot they find/receive/recover after a certain point (generally levels 3-5, depending on the campaign) and in turn use that gold to drive item crafting they do for themselves or otherwise commission. In my opinion, the DMG 3.5, pages 135 - 139 addresses all of these concerns. The pages dedicated to 4e "treasure parcels" in the 4e DMG are, in my opinion, wasted space.Now, I realize that the 4e designers feel that most 3.x DM's are incompetent ("Or else I can just do what most DMs do: trust that it’s all going to balance out, and end up with characters that are under-equipped (nine times out of ten) for their level.") and thus need to have all the math worked out and fully derived for them, but I (and many, many DMs I have played with) am quite capable of taking the basic formula presented in the "Character Power Levels" and "World Building" sections in the 3.5 DMG and working the rest out for myself.
The goal of the 4E system is to try and mix the two competing views of treasure we normally see in a 3.5 game. My experience on 3.5 threads regarding magic treasure is that DMs tend to fall into two categories.
Some are just fine with the 3.5 system and couldn't care less if the players sell all the magic loot they find and then go shopping for the stuff they really want.
Other DMs become frustrated that the players sell just about all the magic loot they come upon so they can buy whatever it is they really want at from the magic item section of their local Magic-Mart. If your this type of DM then you've probably instituted some kind of significant restrictions on the players getting access to magic items. Probably your of the opinion magic items should be special and your players should be excited when they find magic items instead of just treating them as weird shaped GP.
The second option tends to actually frustrate the players since they usually like shopping for magic items - its fun!
Thus one often gets a dichotomy between what the players want (to go shopping for cool magical gear with their lucre) and what the DM wants (for magic items to be objects of of wonder and treasured by the players lucky enough to find them).
Whats being done here is an attempt to split the difference. The players still get to buy magic items and they'll enjoy that but the DM now gets to hand out some special loot - stuff that the players will probably go gaga over (because its powerful and they can't just buy it or trade it in for something of equal power). Hence, hopefully anyway, both the players and the DM get what they want out of the magic system.
---
The reason your players end up below their wealth by level targets in 3.5 is because the charts don't actually work at keeping you at the correct wealth by level. What the charts don't take into account is that magic items sell for 1/2 price. Since your players are going to be constantly trading in old magic for more powerful stuff and will usually sell whatever magic item shows up their constantly dropping below their wealth by level guidelines. Essentially the DM is going to have to supplement the 3.5 system with extra lootage. This is made more difficult because the players are not acting in concert. Wizards usually don't trade items in as often as fighters - so the DM that tries to keep the fighter at the correct wealth by level by adding more treasure ends up raising the wizards above their wealth by level. Some classes just need to upgrade their magic items more often then others.
What you're forgetting is that many DMs LIKE giving out magic items and seeing how their players react to said items. That's what I think 3E tended to forget at times. That the DM's goals are not necessarily the same as the players.With regard to the realism of selling magical loot, anyone want to point out a non D&D novel where there's a brisk trade of magical items a la 3e?
The 1e/2e structure where magical items were well, "magical" and not seen as "mundane equipment with pluses" is one many DMs prefer. As I have said, the 4E rules split the difference between 1e/2e and 3E.
"On a Pale Horse" (in fact, the whole Incarnations of Immmortality series) by Piers Anthony.
Anyway, I tend to agree with this design goal - I also would like it if PCs didn't just vendor everything and then get their own. However, this is the worst way to implement that (if it'll work at all). "You can sell/dise it, just at a loss." As others have mentioned, there's better ways, ways that exist in 3e. Locales have a gp buy/sell cap, etc. Those could stand some tweaking, but their new approach is faulty. It's at more of a loss, but getting rid of a magic item is still just a "vendor click" away. Not exactly the awe-inspiring stuff of legend.
I reacted positively to the 20% rate when I read about it in the preview, and I still think it's a good idea. It's essentially a pawnshop rate, which I think is appropriate for most circumstances. After all, the PCs are mostly selling essentially stolen goods in cities that are small by modern standards. I know that most population figures in adventure supplements are suspect, but last I read, the City of Greyhawk has a population of just under 70,000. Waterdeep is 132,000 large. I live in not-so-large Toledo, Ohio, which is still 2-3 times the size of Waterdeep, and if I had to get rid of a laptop, electric guitar or piece of jewelry quickly, I don't flatter myself by thinking I'd get any more than 20% of the market rate for it.
Maybe my campaigns are abnormal, but in them, the PCs don't hang on to their magical items for weeks or months while they search for and negotiate with a buyer. Instead, they expect to get rid of the item in 1-4 hours. Thus, they're going to get pawnshop rates. It's just not worth it to hang on to the items, as long as there's adventures to be had. Adventuring pays off at much higher rates than being a merchant, and you gain experience, which allows you to go on even more lucrative adventures.
Plus, although this is addressed by other changes in 4th edition, I've developed a personal pet peeve about the PCs ghoulishly scraping all the equipment off their opponents. Hopefully the reduced sell rate will mean that they no longer bother stripping each dead kobold or orc of its filthy leather armor to sell.
I've developed a personal pet peeve about the PCs ghoulishly scraping all the equipment off their opponents. Hopefully the reduced sell rate will mean that they no longer bother stripping each dead kobold or orc of its filthy leather armor to sell.
I'd not count on that. I bet they still show up with waggons in order to extract every last gp from the dungeon.
PC: Hey guy's - make sure you don't forget the furniture. I bet those doors are worth something.