Equipping New High Level Characters

I cannot find in the playtest packet rules around equipping characters higher than level 1. Am I overlooking it?
the game doesn't make any assumptions about character wealth by level. even at higher levels, you start with 150gp.  
Really?
No.
I would imagine that the system might make some suggestions in the final release (or later in the play test) as other things get settled, but maybe not even then.

If players cannot buy magic items, then there is not much point to give players tens of thousands of gold pieces any more, especially since the only other thing to drop that much accumulated wealth on would be physical "stuff" like a castle or a manor (or a lair or a tower or similar thing) and that might not fit the kind of campaign the DM wants to run.
If you want to 'simulate' a higher level character:  the DM could randomly roll some items or pick some for you that you "found in your previous adventures."  Afterall, if you had played in some previous adventures, he'd be deciding what you found.

 

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

But, if you're running MS'sT you may want to give your PCs each one magic item. I haven't run it, but when the adventure first came to D&DN some of the DMs on these boards regretted not having the PCs w/ some magical gear.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
Really?

Yes, really. For now, at least. Hopefully they'll realize soon enough how stupid this is.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Really?

Yes, really. For now, at least. Hopefully they'll realize soon enough how stupid this is.


It is a playtest. While the absence is an irksome detail it's nowhere near as important as making sure the monster math is right and classes are balanced.

I cannot find in the playtest packet rules around equipping characters higher than level 1. Am I overlooking it?


Look at the treasure section of the DM rules, which advises characters should roughly recieve 50gp/level each day spent adventuring (4 encounters) with twelve or so encounters each level.
Quickly doing the math, this is 150gp at level 2,  450gp at level 3, 900gp at level 4, 1500gp at level 5, 2250gp at level 6, etc.

Which, theoretically, is enough to buy one rare item, or four uncommon items (or, at the lowest price, four rare and twenty uncommon magic items). 
If creating a level 6 character, it wouldn't be unfair to give them a rare item, two uncommon items, and a thousand-odd gp to buy misc equipment. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

I back-calculated gold per level based on XP/gold awarded for my Mud Tombs game in the previous playtest; but now that the XP is changed you have to do it for yourself.
No.




go read the latest wandering monsters article.


I cannot find in the playtest packet rules around equipping characters higher than level 1. Am I overlooking it?


Look at the treasure section of the DM rules, which advises characters should roughly recieve 50gp/level each day spent adventuring (4 encounters) with twelve or so encounters each level.
Quickly doing the math, this is 150gp at level 2,  450gp at level 3, 900gp at level 4, 1500gp at level 5, 2250gp at level 6, etc.

Which, theoretically, is enough to buy one rare item, or four uncommon items (or, at the lowest price, four rare and twenty uncommon magic items). 
If creating a level 6 character, it wouldn't be unfair to give them a rare item, two uncommon items, and a thousand-odd gp to buy misc equipment. 




Thanks

The game is supposed to play just fine without magic item.

Give the players enough money to buy a horse and plate armor. That should be good enough.
Really?

Yes, really. For now, at least. Hopefully they'll realize soon enough how stupid this is.




What's stupid is expected wealth and Christmas tree characters (assumed magic items).



it's so fun to apply objective descriptions to subjective concepts.
What is the wizard suppose to do with plate?
I find it interesting that a PC should be able to afford Tier 2 armor (500gp) at 4th and tier 3 armor (5000gp) around 9-10th.


Which would set up tiers as Beginner 1-3, Adventurer 4-8, and Lord 9 or 10+.  Much like our early AD&D and BX breakdown.
I think expected magical items to keep up with the system math is bad, which something that D&D:next is trying to avoid. However, expected magical items because said character is 6th, 10th, 14th level makes sense for a game with a strong element of Fantasy. If the DM and group want to start out at higher level then, to me, it breaks immersion if I'm still toting around the same sword, chainmail, shield, wand, etc. when clearly I've adventured and gained those levels somehow.

I can only hope that they put in a section of the DMG on equipping characters with magical items at higher levels to help fuel my immersion of a Fantasy Role-playing game. Also, thanks to The_Jester for coming up with a quick WBL chart as a quick fix. Additionally, one could easily exclude the "+" of magical items and just have it gain some property. There's no reason for magic items to have "+" unless the DM/Group decides that they want to improve numbers wise.  
Really?

Yes, really. For now, at least. Hopefully they'll realize soon enough how stupid this is.




What's stupid is expected wealth and Christmas tree characters (assumed magic items).



Maybe to you, but last I checked you aren't the only person playing the game. Your righteous indignation to another person's playstyle is ridiculous, IMO.
If you hand out items, it is probably best not to hand out +X items as the system math is quite poor right now and it is easy to break with magical gear.
 The optimal "catering" is no assumed magic items whatsoever.  The entire point of a baseline is that it's at the base.

It would be nice to have Munchkin-style "values" for magic swag, or at least some general guidelines, so a DM who's handing out goodies can easily calculate how badly he's screwing up encounter tables.
The game is supposed to play just fine without magic item.

Give the players enough money to buy a horse and plate armor. That should be good enough.


    This is a playtest, which means "realistic" conditions.  That in turn means that we need to have 10th level characters have 10th level equipment.

     & while the game may play fine without magic items, testing the game without them means a very fragile part of the game is left untested.  It is very easy for magic to break the game [or be junk].  Accordingly, it must be tested much more than less dangerous parts.  And thus the play test must be with magic.
   
     The fact that the game can be played without magic does not mean it will be at all often.  In fact the previous record of the game suggests the game will overwhelming be played with magic, so much so that the non magic version can be dismissed as an oddity.
I would personally love for magic items to work like this.

Any item that is "magic" simply functions as a +1 item. Then you can focus on magic items with interesting abilities (instead of more boring +X bonuses).

A flaming sword is awesome not because it has a +X bonus, but because it shines like a torch and deals fire damage.

Something like a ring of protection could be called upon (as a reaction) to protect its wearer by giving them resistance to damage or advantage on a saving throw. That would be far more interesting than a ring that gives +1 AC.

If you make magic items interesting enough, there is no need for +2 or +3 items at all. That way you won't ever have to worry about the game falling apart due to poor math either.
The optimal "catering" is no assumed magic items whatsoever.  The entire point of a badeline is that it's at the base.

Exactly, I have no problem with magic item rich campaigns, I have DMed them, I just do not like assumed magic items baked into the core of D&D, and this is not an edition thing, as pretty much every edition of D&D has assumed magic items, to a lesser or greater degree, and I have never agreed.  

The system needs to assume variance, and provide guidelines for adapting; not to assume "one true way", and leave it to DMs & Players to figure out what went wrong otherwise.

This is a playtest, which means "realistic" conditions.  That in turn means that we need to have 10th level characters have 10th level equipment.



Wealth per level only makes sense when you have encounter guidelines doesn't it? It means "if your PCs have X gold piece worth of equipment at level Y, then a group of level Y monsters is a suitable challenge". If your characters are below/above expected wealth, then your PCs are weaker/stronger and you need to adjust your encounter levels.

In D&D Next, the assumption is that you have no magic items. So all the monsters levels assume no magic items.


while the game may play fine without magic items, testing the game without them means a very fragile part of the game is left untested.  It is very easy for magic to break the game [or be junk].  Accordingly, it must be tested much more than less dangerous parts.  And thus the play test must be with magic.



I don't think magic items can break the game. They can screw up badly the encounter guidelines but that's about it. Actually, in D&D Next, they will screw up the encounter guidelines because they're not assumed in the math!


The fact that the game can be played without magic does not mean it will be at all often.  In fact the previous record of the game suggests the game will overwhelming be played with magic, so much so that the non magic version can be dismissed as an oddity.



It depends on who you're playing with. I'm one of those dirt bags "I have the biggest" DMs that likes to humiliate 5th level characters by throwing orcs at them. The trick? Don't give magic items. Some of my friends are the exact opposite. They give you items so powerful that your character abilities are meaningless compared to your magic items (imagine a level 2 wizard with a staff of fire).

The game designers shouldn't give you expected magic items per level or expected wealth per level. They hurt more than anything because they tell you how to play the game. At beast, they should tell you that if your characters have x magic items at level Y, then the guidelines are accurate.


Bottom line, if you want to test the encounter guidelines, don't give any magic items. If you want to have fun, give as many as you want.
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Bottom line, if you want to test the encounter guidelines, don't give any magic items. If you want to have fun, give as many as you want.


       And that may be the prime reason to give a lot of magic.  We need for the players to have fun And every edition of D&D has assumed that has meant magic items in serious quantity.  There is strong reason to think a magicless D&D will tank.

Since we don't have rules for this yet here is my take on it. I would sit down and talk to each player about their character (their history,what they did and so on). From that you have a good idea about player's concept of his character. Then for instance if he was a famous warrior who slew dragon (cliche i know) i would give him probably plate of fire resistance (he coated it with dragons blood) and sword of cold doom (ice burst weapon). Basicly go trough magic items and give 1 or 2 rare items,few uncommon ones and some high quality mundane items that are tailored for his character. So every player can feel special. This may not be best mechanical wise but if they are happy F*** the balance,lets kill something ;)

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg)

Sign In to post comments