PDA

View Full Version : D&D Magic-Item Economy: 3.5 vs 4e, which worked better?



gadren
2015-08-10, 02:43 AM
I was thinking a lot about the 3.5 magic item economy vs 4e's Magic item economy, and I can't decide which was better. What are your guys' thoughts?

4e magic item prices went up way more steeply than 3.5's: For example, in 4e, a +3 sword had a price 25x that of a +1 sword, while in 3.5 a +3 sword only cost 9x as much as a +1.
The advantage to this steeper slope meant that the 4e DM could put a bunch of misc. magic items in the treasure without worrying about PCs just selling them and buying a single way more powerful item. The disadvantage meant that at higher levels, you could just spend a bunch of your loot on lower level items with encounter or daily powers. You could have one +2 wand that cast a 3rd level spell once per day, or you could have five +1 version of the same wand casting the same spell, with what was effectively just a -1 to hit.

Thoughts? I still can decide which was the better approach.

EDIT:
I have taken the price lists by level from 3.5 and 4e and put them side by side for comparison:



Item Level 3rd edition average price 4th edition prices


1 100 gp 360 gp (+1 sword)


2 275 gp 520 gp


3 600 gp 680 gp


4 1050 gp 840 gp


51550 gp 1000 gp (+1 lightning sword)


6 2050 gp (+1 sword) 1800 gp (+2 sword)


7 2650 gp 2600 gp


8 3500 gp 3400 gp


9 4500 gp 4200 gp


10 5750 gp 5000 gp (+2 lightning sword)


11 7250 gp (+2 sword) 9000 gp (+3 sword)


12 9000 gp 13,000 gp


13 11,500 gp 17,000 gp


14 15,500 gp (+3 sword) 21,000 gp


15 21,500 gp 25,000 gp (+3 lightning sword)


16 30,000 gp (+4 sword) 45,000 gp (+4 sword)


17 41,500 gp 65,000 gp


18 56,000 gp (+5 sword) 85,000 gp


19 72,000 gp ("+6" sword) 105,000 gp


20 90,000 gp ("+7" sword) 125,000 gp (+4 lightning sword)


21 110,000 gp 225,000 gp (+5 sword)


22 130,000 gp ("+8" sword) 325,000 gp


23 150,000 gp 425,000 gp


24 170,000 gp ("+9" sword) 525,000 gp


25 190,000 gp ("+10" sword) 625,000 gp (+5 lightning sword)


26 210,000 gp 1,125,000 gp (+6 sword)


27 230,000 gp 1,625,000 gp


28 250,000 gp 2,125,000 gp


29 270,000 gp 2,625,000 gp


30 290,000 gp 3,125,000 gp (+6 lightning sword)

Yukitsu
2015-08-10, 02:55 AM
They're kind of designed with their systems in mind. Classes in 4E can get away with poor item "drops" since their abilities are relatively homogenous, you don't "need" a flight item as a fighter for example. They only need the key number adjustments that augment their specific class abilities and they were usually fine so if you didn't get the items that you wanted you could still be fairly effective compared to the rest of the party. By contrast, in 3.5 many classes absolutely need access to a large number and variety of powerful weapons and items just to function. An example would be if you built an archer. Wealth is such a key component to making a functional ranged archery build that money is probably more important than class. Adjusting the prices of items up practically kills the archetype, and even with standard wealth I'd rather play a sorcerer or psion if I want to hit things at range for HP damage.

So the better one is matched to whichever system you're using. If you're looking to make a new system or use the mentality in another game system it really depends on how items interact with the game.

Nifft
2015-08-10, 03:12 AM
4e did it better by being more honest and upfront about what the PCs would need in order to face level-appropriate threats from the books.

But I don't like needing magic items at all, especially not generic +X number-boosters, so my personal opinion would be that neither did it in a way that I liked.

Kurald Galain
2015-08-10, 03:43 AM
I was thinking a lot about the 3.5 magic item economy vs 4e's Magic item economy, and I can't decide which was better. What are your guys' thoughts?

4E has a design flaw here: the developers thought (and stated outright in the PHB1) that low-level items would be useless to a high-level character. And this turns out to be incorrect. On the one hand, you don't need a +2 armor once you've got your +4 armor. On the other hand, if e.g. a level 3 sword has a strong daily property, then a level 12 character can buy a dozen of these for essentially pocket change, and use its daily property at will.

This is bad, because the game is balanced on the notion thatt daily powers get used once per day and recharging them is a fairly big deal.

There have been several patches for the design flaw. The PHB1 limits how many Magic Item Dailies you can use per day, but that was considered clumsy and eventually errata'ed. The RulCom states that uncommon items should only be available as randomized treasure, not for sale; but random treasure doesn't work well in 4E since about 90% of all random items will be useless to a given party. The LFR campaign prohibited any character from having duplicate items.



The advantage to this steeper slope meant that the 4e DM could put a bunch of misc. magic items in the treasure without worrying about PCs just selling them and buying a single way more powerful item.
There's the thing. If you want to stop the PCs from selling equipment to buy something nice, you should directly rule that magic items cannot be sold (or cannot be sold easily). Creating an exponential price system leads to all kinds of other issues, such as the above, and the fact that moderate-level PCs could buy a small country with the money from their gear.

Vitruviansquid
2015-08-10, 03:50 AM
Ehhh, they're different games, so the systems are tailored to the games.

In 3.5, you can think of a character's competency as a series of binaries. Can the character overcome flying? Yes/No. Can the character overcome a skeleton? Yes/No. Can the character overcome XYZ? Yes/no. In this setting, the difference between a +1 and a +3 matters quite little as long as the value is there. What people get magic items for is to increase the range of their capabilities. The fighter gets magic items to be able to fly, the rogue to be able to store a lot of loot, the wizard to resist fear, and so on and so forth. The mindset is pretty visible at this thread (that I actually dug up by googling "3.5 important magic items"): http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?187851-3-5-Lists-of-Necessary-Magic-Items

In 4e, it is not binary. If you can control, it matters how much you can control. If you can strike, it matters how hard you strike. You will almost never, if ever, in the course of recommended gameplay, run into a situation where the numbers don't matter. In this setting, the goal of magic items is to increase pre-existing capabilities.

Now, if pressed, I would have to say that 4e has a superior item system, because it mostly stays out of the way and lets the classes take center stage in defining your character's capabilities, but that doesn't mean I would like to play 3.5 using 4e's item system either.

SpectralDerp
2015-08-10, 04:04 AM
What people get magic items for is to increase the range of their capabilities. The fighter gets magic items to be able to fly, the rogue to be able to store a lot of loot, the wizard to resist fear, and so on and so forth.

You do that in 4e as well, in fact that type of stuff is effecitvely necessary once the party reaches epic levels. It's just that the monster math also expects PCs to have a weapon/armor/neckpiece giving a +X bonus approriate for their level range. Can't say I was ever a fan of that system, it ended up being mostly pointless busywork in games I was in.

Kurald Galain
2015-08-10, 04:09 AM
In 3.5, you can think of a character's competency as a series of binaries. Can the character overcome flying? Yes/No. Can the character overcome a skeleton? Yes/No. Can the character overcome XYZ? Yes/no. In this setting, the difference between a +1 and a +3 matters quite little as long as the value is there. What people get magic items for is to increase the range of their capabilities. The fighter gets magic items to be able to fly, the rogue to be able to store a lot of loot, the wizard to resist fear, and so on and so forth. The mindset is pretty visible at this thread (that I actually dug up by googling "3.5 important magic items"): http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?187851-3-5-Lists-of-Necessary-Magic-Items

In 4e, it is not binary. If you can control, it matters how much you can control. If you can strike, it matters how hard you strike. You will almost never, if ever, in the course of recommended gameplay, run into a situation where the numbers don't matter. In this setting, the goal of magic items is to increase pre-existing capabilities.

That's really not true.

3E is just as much gradual. For example, it matters how well you can deal with fliers; do you do this not at all, or with ranged weaponry, or by jumping, or by temporary flight, or by permaflight?

Conversely, 4E is just as binary. For example, can you pierce damage resistance? Yes/no. Can you remove the stunned condition from yourself? Yes/no. And so forth.

Anonymouswizard
2015-08-10, 05:30 AM
To me 3.X feels like it encourages a 'hrab bag' style where the party uses a bunch of magic items to get past obstacles, whether that's wands, wondrous items, secondary effects of weapons or armour.

4e feels more like a capability checklist: can you X? Can you Y? It can support the grab bag style, but it hints that players should plan their equipment with the GM rather than making use of the 10 utility wands they nabed off that wizard to defeat the dragon.

gadren
2015-08-10, 11:20 AM
So what would be worse, a 3.5 game where the item prices scaled like 4e, or a 4e game where the prices scaled like 3.5?

TheThan
2015-08-10, 11:28 AM
4e did it better by being more honest and upfront about what the PCs would need in order to face level-appropriate threats from the books.

But I don't like needing magic items at all, especially not generic +X number-boosters, so my personal opinion would be that neither did it in a way that I liked.

I agree here, I want magic items to be fairly rare, and special. I want them to be rewards for skilled game play. I don’t want to give out magic items as Consolation prizes, or because the rules force me to.

gadren
2015-08-10, 12:42 PM
So what would be worse, a 3.5 game where the item prices scaled like 4e, or a 4e game where the prices scaled like 3.5?

Actually, let me state this a different way.

How would you think a 3.5 game would be different if I determined the item level of all items on a scale of 1-30 according to the table in the Magic Item Compendium, and converted their prices to 4e's prices, but still awarded items as appropriate to level?

How would you think a 4e game would be different if I converted item prices by level to those listed in the 3.5 Magic Item Compendium?

I have taken the price lists by level from 3.5 and 4e and put them side by side for comparison:



Item Level 3rd edition average price 4th edition prices


1 100 gp 360 gp (+1 sword)


2 275 gp 520 gp


3 600 gp 680 gp


4 1050 gp 840 gp


51550 gp 1000 gp (+1 lightning sword)


6 2050 gp (+1 sword) 1800 gp (+2 sword)


7 2650 gp 2600 gp


8 3500 gp 3400 gp


9 4500 gp 4200 gp


10 5750 gp 5000 gp (+2 lightning sword)


11 7250 gp (+2 sword) 9000 gp (+3 sword)


12 9000 gp 13,000 gp


13 11,500 gp 17,000 gp


14 15,500 gp (+3 sword) 21,000 gp


15 21,500 gp 25,000 gp (+3 lightning sword)


16 30,000 gp (+4 sword) 45,000 gp (+4 sword)


17 41,500 gp 65,000 gp


18 56,000 gp (+5 sword) 85,000 gp


19 72,000 gp ("+6" sword) 105,000 gp


20 90,000 gp ("+7" sword) 125,000 gp (+4 lightning sword)


21 110,000 gp 225,000 gp (+5 sword)


22 130,000 gp ("+8" sword) 325,000 gp


23 150,000 gp 425,000 gp


24 170,000 gp ("+9" sword) 525,000 gp


25 190,000 gp ("+10" sword) 625,000 gp (+5 lightning sword)


26 210,000 gp 1,125,000 gp (+6 sword)


27 230,000 gp 1,625,000 gp


28 250,000 gp 2,125,000 gp


29 270,000 gp 2,625,000 gp


30 290,000 gp 3,125,000 gp (+6 lightning sword)

Kurald Galain
2015-08-10, 01:39 PM
So what would be worse, a 3.5 game where the item prices scaled like 4e, or a 4e game where the prices scaled like 3.5?

well, you claim the issue with 3E is that PCs could sell ten items to buy one good item, right? Because the issue with 4E is that PCs could sell one item to buy ten good ones. That strikes me as much worse.

gadren
2015-08-10, 05:03 PM
well, you claim the issue with 3E is that PCs could sell ten items to buy one good item, right? Because the issue with 4E is that PCs could sell one item to buy ten good ones. That strikes me as much worse.

Good point.

obryn
2015-08-10, 11:36 PM
Both are pretty terrible, IMO. They turn 'gold' into a clunky, poorly-balanced point-buy powerup system that I don't think has much place in D&D.

My current preference is for an inherent bonus system, which lets magic items return to being cool, added special effects. If they are needed for the system's math, they should just be baked in from the outset.



There have been several patches for the design flaw. The PHB1 limits how many Magic Item Dailies you can use per day, but that was considered clumsy and eventually errata'ed. The RulCom states that uncommon items should only be available as randomized treasure, not for sale; but random treasure doesn't work well in 4E since about 90% of all random items will be useless to a given party. The LFR campaign prohibited any character from having duplicate items.
If you're using the "buy whatever" method, the Daily item limit is necessary. It speaks well of the design team that they realized it, at least. It's still terrible and clumsy, mind you, but it's critical, and you ignore it at your peril, like 1e's xp-for-gp and 3e's WBL. I think it's silly to call it a patch for a design flaw, though, when it's right there in the PHB specifically to counter the "lots if cheap items" exploit. It's at odds with the assertion that this somehow blindsided the designers. :smallsmile:

Random treasure works as well in 4e as it did in 3e, which is to say, almost not at all. It worked in earlier editions where there were fewer character customization bits and bobs (no feats/powers, fewer class features, etc.) but hasn't worked well since. Restricting buying to common items makes sense when you intentionally break the game's magic item balance, though, I suppose. At least the Transfer Enchantment ritual exists.

I haven't found anything more satisfying than inherent bonuses + hand-picked items, myself. It's more functional than 5e's "la la la what do you mean math is important?" approach, too.

Telok
2015-08-11, 02:19 AM
As I recall 4e didn't have anything you could really call an economy. The DM had to either give you the build-specific items as loot or give you the proscribed amount of money to make or buy them. Of course 3e wasn't much better with it's magic-mart assumption. Both editions used magic items to patch character holes like the late game flight requirement, and that of course was a requirement because the fighters were so specalized in melee that they couldn't do anything else.

I think that magic item economies came about because of the crippling overspecalization required to keep up with the massive hit point inflation. A 2e doombat with 6+3 hit dice averaged around 30 hit points. It faced a fighter shooting two or three arrows a round at 1d8+(0 to 3) and couldn't fly after losing half it's hit points. In 3e it might have 5 hit dice and a Con bonus giving it 40 or more hit points, but now the fighter is only getting one shot or is taking penalties on multiple shots and still doing the same damage. In 4e it might be a sixth level skirmisher with 50, 60, or more hit points and the fighter is only getting one shot each round which still does 1d8+ a little damage. Suddenly a fighter who can't get into melee range becomes useless because the system forces specalization in melee damage.