PDA

View Full Version : 4th Edition: Magic Item Levels



Dizlag
2007-12-03, 11:55 PM
Here's the article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071203).

I tend to miss the mark sometimes with handing out magic items in my campaigns. I really like what the Magic Item Compendium has done and this article gives me a warmer, fuzzier feeling about 4th Edition.

How about the rest of ya?

Dizlag

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-04, 12:10 AM
No warm fuzzy feelings here. No cold angry feelings either. More of a solid "meh".

I wonder why a +2 flaming sword is higher level than a +2 lightning sword? Traditionally, flame is the weakest energy type.

Lord Tataraus
2007-12-04, 12:13 AM
No warm fuzzy feelings here. No cold angry feelings either. More of a solid "meh".

I wonder why a +2 flaming sword is higher level than a +2 lightning sword? Traditionally, flame is the weakest energy type.

Maybe the lightning isn't really damage but some other effect? Or just a typo. Anyway, ditto on the "meh" reaction. I kind of liked the MIC item level stuff but it didn't really effect much for me.

Dragonmuncher
2007-12-04, 12:13 AM
For the Lazy:

The Magic Item Compendium introduced the concept of levels for magic items. This primarily served to help DMs determine what magic items to place in a treasure hoard (or to give to his NPCs). Since we built that level system around the existing magic item prices, it was an imperfect solution (for instance, a few non-epic magic items exceeded the pricing scheme for level 1-20 items).

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!

About the Author

Andy Collins works as the system design and development manager for D&D at Wizards of the Coast. His development credits include the Player's Handbook v.3.5, Races of Eberron, and Dungeon Master's Guide II. He is also one of the lead designers for 4th Edition D&D, along with Rob Heinsoo and James Wyatt.


It's not a particularly groundbreaking article, but I like the idea. Still sounds like any new custom magic items are still going to be at least partially guesswork, a "See what else is comparable to it" kind of thing. But now that things are in a 30-level band, that should allow for more fine-tuning of magic item power- no more 1st level Hat of Disguise or whatever.

Human Paragon 3
2007-12-04, 12:13 AM
Waiting for somebody to spoiler this. I signed up for the stupid insider thing, but now it won't recognize my login and I'm not about to sign up again when some very kind forumite always spoilers it for us.

EDIT: Ninja'd with the quickness.

Cybren
2007-12-04, 12:15 AM
I'm not too fond of the idea but I don't think it will hurt much.

brian c
2007-12-04, 12:19 AM
Looks pretty good. I know a lot of people will think that it's dumbing down the game, but honestly I'm sure there are lots of new DMs that have trouble deciding what kind of treasure is appropriate for their groups. I also love how they tied it in to crafting; now if you want to craft something, look up what level that item is (or at worst, they'll have some guidelines for figuring out the item level) and it takes that much gold/time/whatever to craft it.

Darkxarth
2007-12-04, 12:23 AM
I am glad they tied it to crafting, my players generally like a very simple game (lots of Fighters, Sorcerers, Rogues, etc.) but maybe making the Magical Crafting rules a little less intimidating will encourage them to play more Wizards and Clerics.

tyckspoon
2007-12-04, 12:32 AM
Waiting for somebody to spoiler this. I signed up for the stupid insider thing, but now it won't recognize my login and I'm not about to sign up again when some very kind forumite always spoilers it for us.

EDIT: Ninja'd with the quickness.

Oddly enough I never created an account, and now I am being recognized as logged in. Perhaps I stole yours.

To me, it looks like they're just further extending on the idea of minor/medium/major items. Doesn't appear to be a real change in the game, just a clarification of an idea that was already there in the magic item tables. The big change in magic items is going to be how many of them a character is assumed to have; nothing about that in this article.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-04, 12:33 AM
You can click on the printer friendly button, and you can see it w/o being logged in.

TheOOB
2007-12-04, 12:35 AM
It could be a useful tool for deciding if you want to give your party a specific item, but if the CR system has taught me anything it's that numbers like that in the book are at best a loose guideline and at worst something to be outright ignored.

horseboy
2007-12-04, 12:41 AM
It could be a useful tool for deciding if you want to give your party a specific item, but if the CR system has taught me anything it's that numbers like that in the book are at best a loose guideline and at worst something to be outright ignored.

Seconded..

reorith
2007-12-04, 12:45 AM
i missed out on the mic. do the item levels still have a place with wealth by level?

Snooder
2007-12-04, 12:47 AM
It could be a useful tool for deciding if you want to give your party a specific item, but if the CR system has taught me anything it's that numbers like that in the book are at best a loose guideline and at worst something to be outright ignored.

Well yeah, the author of the article is saying that it's a loose guideline. And personally, i've found the CR system to be generally useful in calculating encounters. It's not perfect and power creep tends to throw it off, but for most things of a certain CR, you can kinda know what level party to throw at it.

Kaelik
2007-12-04, 12:56 AM
Oddly enough I never created an account, and now I am being recognized as logged in. Perhaps I stole yours.

Me too. It's been like that for a couple weeks. I'm not complaining though.

Lord Tataraus
2007-12-04, 12:58 AM
Waiting for somebody to spoiler this. I signed up for the stupid insider thing, but now it won't recognize my login and I'm not about to sign up again when some very kind forumite always spoilers it for us.

EDIT: Ninja'd with the quickness.

I signed up for it and couldn't get in until a month and a half later when it suddenly recognized me. So just wait it out :smallmad:

Mewtarthio
2007-12-04, 01:22 AM
I kind of like this new system. It's simple, flexible, and based entirely on DM fiat. DMs no longer have to worry about WBL and can simply keep the number of useful magic items constant. Once players and DMs become experienced enough to assign levels to items, they'll be able to eyeball custom magic items without worrying about precise gp values (or looking up those nasty tables). As an added plus, they'll be no more of these builds that assume you can create a custom +20 diplomacy amulet because the estimated gp value falls in your WBL any more than they can assume you're running around with levels in a homebrew class.

Hario
2007-12-04, 01:53 AM
I wonder if its gonna change starting WBL, I'm sure DMs are going to change a bit from 30k in gold spend it how you want, nothing more than 15k on one item to 10k gold and 5 levels of magic items, so 5 level 1s or 1 level 5, etc. Sort of interresting. Though it does seem to make people crunch best items per level just like everything else, though they were already doing that with items like wands of CLW which got upgraded to wands of vigor lessor, now with the MiC, healing belts.

herrhauptmann
2007-12-04, 02:15 AM
I've had DM's say, 8th level, wealth by level. Have fun, don't go overboard, and had no problems.

Also had DM's say, 8th level warrior, ok, wealth by level, no one item costs more than 1500 gold. Well, that's a +1 weapon for me, or a cloak of resistance, some low level boots, and ring of jumping 5. Wow. Get into the campaign, and everyone else has got weapons and items that cost minimum 4k.

So yeah, I don't think this will have much effect on anyone besides the crappy DM's. The good ones will be unaffected.

Jayabalard
2007-12-04, 02:49 AM
a solid "meh".+1

though it seems likely that people are going to view the item levels are some sort of hard and fast rule rather than a guideline... and I've always preferred guidelines to hard and fast rules, especially where magic items are concerned.

Swooper
2007-12-04, 07:25 AM
The part about that article I like best is the picture.

new1965
2007-12-04, 07:36 AM
No warm fuzzy feelings here. No cold angry feelings either. More of a solid "meh".

I wonder why a +2 flaming sword is higher level than a +2 lightning sword? Traditionally, flame is the weakest energy type.

Its probably because of secondary effects as it is with the Greater Weapon Augment Crystals in MIC

Flame sets things on fire for 1 round for 1d6 and electricity dazzle creatures

hamlet
2007-12-04, 08:36 AM
I'm not entirely sure what this gets anybody, though to be honest, I've never been sure what CR and WBL got anybody worth noting.

So this is some way of delineating the relative power/utility of magical items across the 1-30 level spectrum as broken out by the wiz kids at WOTC who brought you such fine mechanics as the grapple rules.

Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick with how I learned it: common sense judgment. That's what a DM's for and, IMO, a decent DM (or even a poor one) doesn't need some nebulous chart which may or may not be worth the ink it's printed with depending on the nature of my campaign.

Jarlax
2007-12-04, 08:51 AM
i like this change, setting a base price for all items of a set level is a great system and also seems like it would speed up weapon and armor creation for treasure on the fly, if a +1 weapon is a base level 6 item and flaming is a +2 level increase i know right away from a single table that a +1 flaming weapon is a level 8 item and i know what price that is AND in a general sense what level the item is appropriate for as treasure.

for those against item levels based on the fact they no longer trust wizards judgment calls. it feels like it will encourage houserules on items as well. for example the decanter of endless water is a level 2 item supposed to remove the need for PCs to carry and fill waterskins. after a campaign riddled with monsters failing swim checks, the DM bumps up the item level to 4 where monsters are more likely to pass a swim check. there was no need to decide on an arbitrary increase in the item cost from 50g to 223g.

my group also tend to declare WBL and state a cap on item cost at the beginning of a campaign(to prevend spending a PCs entire wealth on 1 item that will break them game and claim victory for the PC), so i might say a 4th level game with 5400 starting gold with no item greater than 2700g. now i say 5400g and no item above level 5.

Roderick_BR
2007-12-04, 10:07 AM
They are just getting the "treasure by level", and applying it directly on itens, instead of just saying "roll on minor woundrous itens table".
I like it. It's a helping hand for DMs that want to distribute treasure without needing to worry about giving the 10th level group a Stone of Controlling Earth Elementals by accident (happened to my friend, he didn't knew it was so powerful since no one in the group used summonings much, and to avoid problems we agreed to just sell it).

Kaelik
2007-12-04, 10:21 AM
Also had DM's say, 8th level warrior, ok, wealth by level, no one item costs more than 1500 gold. Well, that's a +1 weapon for me, or a cloak of resistance, some low level boots, and ring of jumping 5. Wow. Get into the campaign, and everyone else has got weapons and items that cost minimum 4k.

Well you broke the rules so why can't they?

Hint: +1 Weapons cost 2300gp+base cost. Greater then 1500gp

Kurald Galain
2007-12-04, 11:46 AM
I second the "meh".

Wanna bet that some time soon somebody'll think up the idea that 3rd-level characters are unable to use a 4th-level item? Because, you know, it magically repels them, and stuff.

Cuddly
2007-12-04, 12:01 PM
Wow, it's exactly like WoW.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-04, 12:09 PM
Wow, it's exactly like WoW.

...according to what, exactly? The level limits aren't hard-and-fast "level requirements" like you'd see on an item in WoW or D2; they're a DM's tool to help determine appropriate gear for their PCs. It's a guideline and a baseline similar to the CR system: "I don't want to throw this vastly powerful monster at them because it'll mop the floor with them" is the same statement as "I don't want to give them this vastly powerful magical item because they'll mop the floor with me."

Trog
2007-12-04, 12:26 PM
About time. Perhaps now interesting little items that don't serve much use to the party will be within their grasp. Plus this can help you keep the overpowered stuff out of the player's hands. Especially if they are cross referencing an items usefulness vs. spell progression. Just like ELs, though, a DM must tailor it to each group. Some groups run one or two levels above the EL depending on stats, party size, & strict tactical logic vs. "I wanna roleplay my character to death by having him charge into the fray. He's got a low WIS & INT afterall." :smalltongue:

Having WotC create this progression saves each DM lot of time and/or frustration figuring it out the hard way. Thumbs up, I say.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-12-04, 12:43 PM
From a personal standpoint I gotta go with the Mehs. However I do agree that this will be quite beneficial for the many people that have difficulty with item/level balance.

Dausuul
2007-12-04, 12:48 PM
This was deserving of a three-sentence post on the Gleemax forums, not a whole Design and Development column.

"We've decided to move away from WBL. Instead we'll be putting levels on items. That way, it's clear what sorts of items are suitable for your players at a given level."

Not that it's a bad idea, I quite approve, but... yeah. That article was 95% sizzle and 5% steak.

Artanis
2007-12-04, 12:53 PM
I don't see any mention of them getting rid of WBL. If anything, they're simply making WBL easier to use by making prices and usefulness more consistent, and helping a DM know when an item might be too powerful (even if the party can afford it).

Roderick_BR
2007-12-04, 01:16 PM
For the "meh" people: That table seems to be just a slightly better version than this http://www.d20srd.org/srd/treasure.htm
It's as useless as those "ready NPCs by level" found in the DMG. A experienced DM with enough time can whip out an NPC with all he wants in a less than an hour. A DM with little experience or time, just copy one from those tables.
That's what the new treasure table are. Just DM tools.
It's incredible that everytime something new shows up, people believe it is a plan for WotC to limit DM's ability to control a game.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-04, 01:25 PM
I don't see any mention of them getting rid of WBL.

Well, no, but rather than an arbitrary number, the new WBL will probably be something like "each character gets one item of each level", or "items worth twice his level total" or something easy like that.

Artanis
2007-12-04, 01:30 PM
Well, no, but rather than an arbitrary number, the new WBL will probably be something like "each character gets one item of each level", or "items worth twice his level total" or something easy like that.
But they explicitly state that the item level doesn't work that way, and instead is 1) a way to price the item (price being a function of level), and 2) a way to tell whether an item is appropriate for the character.

They say nothing about giving somebody a total number of levels worth of items or anything of the sort. They say "a level 10 sword will be about the right strength of sword for a level 10 character: a level 8 sword will generally be a bit too weak for a level 10 character, and a level 12 sword will generally be a bit higher-powered-than-intended for a level 10 character.

Kaelik
2007-12-04, 02:00 PM
But they explicitly state that the item level doesn't work that way, and instead is 1) a way to price the item (price being a function of level), and 2) a way to tell whether an item is appropriate for the character.

They say nothing about giving somebody a total number of levels worth of items or anything of the sort. They say "a level 10 sword will be about the right strength of sword for a level 10 character: a level 8 sword will generally be a bit too weak for a level 10 character, and a level 12 sword will generally be a bit higher-powered-than-intended for a level 10 character.

Right, and Price is a function of level. And money increases by level. And so you end up having X levels worth of gear at Y level. And Z levels worth of gear at W level. And there will be a correlation between x/y and w/z. That appears to be how it will work out.

Dausuul
2007-12-04, 02:17 PM
Actually, I just realized something... this means no more magic item shops. Or, at least, sharply curtailed magic item shops. If a given item isn't supposed to be available at a given level, it undercuts the whole system if you can just walk into a shop and buy one. Therefore, it stands to reason that they are designing the new item system so that the Magic Item Wal-Mart is no longer an integral part of game balance.

Sweet.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-04, 02:25 PM
if you can just walk into a shop and buy one.

Excuse me, sir, can I see some ID for that purchase?

Oh, level eight, is it? No, we do not sell vorpal blades to minor levels. Best put it back before we call your parents.

Artanis
2007-12-04, 02:28 PM
Right, and Price is a function of level. And money increases by level. And so you end up having X levels worth of gear at Y level. And Z levels worth of gear at W level. And there will be a correlation between x/y and w/z. That appears to be how it will work out.
...maybe in an indirect way, yeah.

What I mean is if you look at 3e's pricing for magic weapons and armor, a +8 total (between bonus and powers) is a hell of a lot more expensive than two +4s, and similar comparisons.

The J Pizzel
2007-12-04, 03:44 PM
Excuse me, sir, can I see some ID for that purchase?

Oh, level eight, is it? No, we do not sell vorpal blades to minor levels. Best put it back before we call your parents.

You win this thread. I've been DMing for a while and I still have a hard time making sure I don't under and overpower my players. My last campaign, I was handing out items that were (apparently) way too high for my players. The baddies weren't standing a chance against my players. Now with my new group I use the "guidlines" from the MIC. No, I don't don't use follow them to a T, I use them as guidlines. It has helped incredibly. So I and thrilled that their putting this in 4e.

Just my humble opinion.

JP

Hopeless
2007-12-04, 05:01 PM
Okay maybe you can explain this for me, if my 3rd level character only has a cloak of elvenkind does this strike you as an item appropriate to a halfling sorceror of 3rd level?

Does the MiC note such things or is it merely a precursor to what 4e will bring about?

Renx
2007-12-05, 07:45 AM
I don't like it. A magic carpet reserved for 18th-level players? A rope of climbing for 9th-level characters? The basis works only if you're going to get all characters to level 20 (which seems to be the point of 3.5 and 4th ed, sigh), but what about people who like to roleplay over roll play? Granted, those people have DMs who won't be bound by a level tag on a magic item, but still...

Beleriphon
2007-12-05, 07:59 AM
I don't like it. A magic carpet reserved for 18th-level players? A rope of climbing for 9th-level characters? The basis works only if you're going to get all characters to level 20 (which seems to be the point of 3.5 and 4th ed, sigh), but what about people who like to roleplay over roll play? Granted, those people have DMs who won't be bound by a level tag on a magic item, but still...

I don't think you get how the level thing is supposed to work. The magic carpet is an appropriate item for an 18th level character because of its usefulness. Marking it as such is meant to make it clear to a DM that giving a magic carpet to a character well below 18th level is probably a bad idea since it makes them more powerful than they would be otherwise, or undercuts the abilities of other characters. Giving such an item to a 30th level character is a bad idea because they'll have abilities that make using such an item useless, or would be better suited to having a different item that offers similar abilities (say a ring of teleportation to pull something out of my butt).

Making things easier for a DM to adjudicate the game is not a function of rollplay/roleplay, its a function of helping the DM adjudicate the game. Anything that makes things faster and easier for me to run a game is a good thing.

Dausuul
2007-12-05, 09:08 AM
I don't like it. A magic carpet reserved for 18th-level players? A rope of climbing for 9th-level characters? The basis works only if you're going to get all characters to level 20 (which seems to be the point of 3.5 and 4th ed, sigh), but what about people who like to roleplay over roll play? Granted, those people have DMs who won't be bound by a level tag on a magic item, but still...

What does this have to do with role-playing? You can still use the items if your DM gives them to you; the DM is simply advised against giving them to you for balance reasons, just like the DM is advised against giving 200,000 gold to a 3rd-level party. Questions of role-playing have nothing to do with it.

horseboy
2007-12-05, 11:16 AM
What does this have to do with role-playing? You can still use the items if your DM gives them to you; the DM is simply advised against giving them to you for balance reasons, just like the DM is advised against giving 200,000 gold to a 3rd-level party. Questions of role-playing have nothing to do with it.

I think it was an allusion to how the dm is just there to run like a computer the appropriate leveled gear. I don't know.

I'm more annoyed how this means that Aladdin was 18 level.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-12-05, 01:28 PM
I think it was an allusion to how the dm is just there to run like a computer the appropriate leveled gear. I don't know.

I'm more annoyed how this means that Aladdin was 18 level.

Technically, Aladdin just looted from an 18th level treasure horde :smallbiggrin:

Darkforge
2007-12-05, 01:37 PM
For the Lazy:




I resent that, I'm not lazy, I'm just at work and the Wizards site is blocked on my work computer.

but seriously, thanks for the spoiler :smallbiggrin:

psychoticbarber
2007-12-05, 04:26 PM
Personally I like this for one major reason:

Writing up equipment lists for high-level characters is a pain in the, uh, rear-end, and I'm kind of lazy and would prefer playing to bookkeeping.

I would love, so much, to just be able to browse a list of level appropriate items, rather than set up a calculator with over 10,000 gold pieces on it and slowly subtract as I try to figure out what equipment an NPC that my players are going to kill in half an hour or less should have.

Leicontis
2007-12-05, 04:31 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about the all-items-at-the-same-level-have-the-same-price thing. It should be fine, so long as there are still items with levels lower than 1 - I have fallen in love with the relatively weak magic items. If any shmuck with the right stats can theoretically learn minor spells, why shouldn't there be magic items that cost less than a house?

I will say this for the level/price correlation system - it will definitely make improving magic items (either by the PCs getting them enchanted or by DM wanting to make a beefier version of something) much easier to figure out. If my 3.5e character wants to enchant a Sword of Subtlety to be flaming, for example, there's no description in the rules for if or how I can do that. Perhaps this system will have, instead of enhancement equivalencies, level modifiers?

Fax Celestis
2007-12-05, 08:12 PM
If my 3.5e character wants to enchant a Sword of Subtlety to be flaming, for example, there's no description in the rules for if or how I can do that. Perhaps this system will have, instead of enhancement equivalencies, level modifiers?

If IIRC, there are rules for doing just that, but they appear to be not in the SRD.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2007-12-05, 08:20 PM
I don't care how many core books they add and try and make me pay for to play the basic game, which is all adding this is, but I am pissed about the Half-Orc being gone.

YPU
2007-12-06, 10:36 AM
By all means this is seems to make things a bit easier. Especially if your beginning a game at a higher level. In a game starting at lvl1 the players will slowly accumulate their gold and stuff, and probably keep some of the older stuff for bonuses and the like. When starting at higher levels they get a whole bunch of gold at once and are far more likely to spend it on one big thing. happened to my group a lot, and made for somewhat crooked characters. I think that now we could say for instance 6th lvl, standard gold, magic items up to lvl5 with one lvl 6 allowed.

Also, am I reading this correctly, items of the same level will al be the same price? I think I do not like that. hard t explain why, but lets try. Some items are vastly overpowers at one level then become very reasonable, even weak, the next level, mostly because of available spells and such. Such an item should not be to expansive because then nobody would buy them. now they will be relatively low level because they should be cheap, and that way end up in the lower levels where they still are overpowered. Am I making any sense at all?

@ ^ I already mis the gnome.