The current rules for starting wealth at level 2 & 3 are absurds. There is no way such characters would have amassed three magic items and enough gold for a 4th if they had played through these levels instead of starting there.
Even if you remove the +1 item in case of people who retire and start at the same level, it is still too much equipment as far as level 2 is concerned!
A group of 5 who adventure through level 1 would normally earn 4 items and 720 gp. A fair minded group would award more gold to the PC who did not get one of these 4 items so that he can buy one for himself; probably enough for a level 2 items (520gp). That leaves 200 gp to split for 5 ways : 40 GP.
So in theory, most characters would reach the level 2 with one item, 40 gp and their starting level 1 wealth (100 gp).
Therefore I propose that a level 2 character starts with:
Level 3 item (Level +1) and 140 gp.
More would be a strong encouragement to retire at level 2 and start again richer!
Following the same logic, during the level 2, most PC would acquire another items and about 72 gp (1040 gp for level 2 - the cost of a level 3 item for the itemless PC / 5).
So a level 3 PC should have
Level 4 item (level +1)
Level 3 item (Level +0)
and 212 gp
By level 4 the starting wealth guideline start making sense.
---
This is without accounting for any penalty you may want to add for someone who retire at one level and start at the same.
For those I recommend reducing the value of the starting items by one level.
I agree that the current system doesn't work great at lower levels, although I want to run the numbers myself first. However, I know of at least one character judge (me) who will not be amused by people "retiring" just to get the items. I don't think such abuse would be the problem you suggest it could become.
I think there is also one other thing you're not thinking about. What you speak of is absolutely true in a standard group who plays under only 1 DM. However, with each adventure, you could be under a new DM. Even if said DM looks at each and every one of his players sheets to determine what equipment they have, at what levels, and then places items in his adventure to account for that, there is nothing saying that the players will give said item to the player the DM placed the item in the adventure for.
Without some kind of concrete system for determining who gets an item when (which would disrupt the natrual flow of DMing quite fankly) I don't really think that you'll be limited by only getting 1 item, with the exception most likely being between level 1 and 2 if you start out on a long adventure.
I know I'm new, so there's probably a discussion somewhere about this that would clear up things for me, but wouldn't the solution to this be to treat characters retiring the same as characters dying the final death?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Charter
If a character of 4th level or higher has been killed, the player can mark him as permanently dead, and replace him with a character of a level higher than 1st. This works the same way as retiring such a character. (See below.)
<SNIP>
If you retire a character who is higher than level 1, you have two options for creating a replacement: A) Create the new character one level below the old character, but will full starting wealth as outlined in the DMG on page 143, or B) create the new character at the same level as the old, but without the magic item at level+1. For example, if you retire a 5th level character and choose option B, the replacement level 5 character would only get magic items at levels 5 and 4, instead of 6, 5, and 4 as the DMG outlines.
It sounds like, if I'm reading that right, if a 2nd level character dies, the player makes a new 1st level character. It's not until level 4 you can die and make a new character at a higher level (3 or 4). But if a 2nd level character retires, you're allowed a new 2nd level character, and that seems the level with the most disparity between a newly-created character's equipment and a battle-worn character's earned loot.
Mal, I know you used the level 3 example, but even there I think the likelihood of one character outshining the others is reduced, because by that point everyone should have at least one magic item to play with. Is it entirely fair? Not totally, but then most things aren't. And if the DM sees a disparity like what this creates, he/she can always select magic items in the treasure that won't be used by the character. If the character has a magic longsword and someone else also uses longswords, throw out another magical longsword. It's only a true jerk that would convince the party to give him a second magical longsword when someone else doesn't have even one. That said, I can see where the disparity exists, even at level 3, and can understand if people want to introduce house rules to close it some.
Was there a reason for this difference in death versus retirement?
If we're going to disallow retirement before level 4, we definitely need a system for completely mechanically changing a character, because a lot of people have asked for it and we've been telling them to just retire them.
I think there is also one other thing you're not thinking about. What you speak of is absolutely true in a standard group who plays under only 1 DM. However, with each adventure, you could be under a new DM. Even if said DM looks at each and every one of his players sheets to determine what equipment they have, at what levels, and then places items in his adventure to account for that, there is nothing saying that the players will give said item to the player the DM placed the item in the adventure for.
We are still talking about roughly 1 item per PC per level. Typically, if someone gains two items in one level it's because someone somehwere has had none. But that's another problem entirely.
I am talking about PCs who start directly at level 2 and wonder why they should start with more than 1 item, never mind 3 or 4 as the rules currently allow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoHeadsBarking
However, I know of at least one character judge (me) who will not be amused by people "retiring" just to get the items.
How would you ever be able to tell the difference between a player who primarily wants to try something new and someone who is primarily motivated by the boost in power his new PC will get?
We ain't mind reader; in a case like this, we have to take what people say at face value knowing perfectly well that some will be dishonest.
It's wiser to get rid of the temptation than to assume no one would give in (or that you would be able to tell the difference if someone did).
Beside, even if someone IS motivated by the purity of Roleplaying... does he deserve better equipment for his PC than the people who stuck with their PC?
---
All I am saying is that by starting at level 2 you start with better equipment than if you had adventured your way from level 1 to 2. Anyone thinks I am wrong? And if not, shouldn't we fix this? I think my suggestion does that and allows you to start with an equipment that is comparable to that of a PC who stuck it out.
Last edited by Mal Malenkirk; 14th July 2009 at 09:27 PM..
How would you ever be able to tell the difference between a player who primarily wants to try something new and someone who is primarily motivated by the boost in power his new PC will get?
That the new character and the old character are the same class, race, and gender will certainly be a clue, given that we have a different mechanism for changing just about everything else, one that doesn't alter your wealth. So yeah, actually, if someone uses retirement when they should be using an overhaul, I'll get suspicious.
Sure, in theory, someone could spend 6-12 months playing a character he doesn't really want to play so that when he hits level two, he can bring out the character he did want to play with a bunch of low level magic items. But that's a lot of time invested in abusing the rules of a pbp board. And they could be throwing away a level+4 item in the process. If anyone does go through with this, then they are free to cackle at my naivete, just as I'd be free to shake my head in pity and amazement.
I think you're right that the wealth is off, and I think it should be fixed, but like I said before, I'm not worried about people abusing the system we have now.
I think you're right that the wealth is off, and I think it should be fixed, but like I said before, I'm not worried about people abusing the system we have now.
Yeah. That's a LOT of time wasted to get the extra items. If someone is that much of a goob to try and play the system, they'll end up dropping out from frustration or be such a jerk that no one will want to play with them.
I agree that the starting wealth at level 2 and thereabouts is something to be addressed. I have a feelling that we'll see a lot of retirement at level 2, when people play a character for a while and it doesn't quite work out how they thought it would, but they stick it out to 2 so as to get something for the time spent. I think that's reasonable, but, as you say, the starting wealth is out of line at level 2. I think we always knew it would be; it was just one of those things we were going to fix later rather than letting it hold up the start.
Anyway, what about using the expected wealth by level that we've been talking about in other recent threads (e.g. Time Gold) as a baseline? I don't have the numbers in front of me, but if we took the average expected net worth of a PC who has adventured to level 2 and gotten 1/5 of the standard 10 treasure packets, took off, say, 20% as a "retirement fee", and used that number as the starting wealth at level 2? No stipulation as to what you have to spend it on; I don't think it's fair to require a level 3 item when there might not be any L3 items that character would be interested in. IMO the character should get the initial 100g from level 1 starting as well, but have to pay for mundane items.
Hmm ... that sounds like a pretty reasonable idea. It's a little 3.5 with the buying free-for-all, but at level 2 or 3 you shouldn't have enough choice for it to be a pain.
To put some numbers to covaithe's idea:
Total value of parcels for level 1: 3760 gp
3760/5 = 752 gp
752*0.8 = 601.6 gp
If we include the 100 gp level 1 allowance, then a new 2nd level character has just enough to buy a 3rd level item and some other stuff, and not enough to buy two 1st level items. Seems just about perfect for what this proposal wants to accomplish.
The numbers using the same method for a new level 3 character:
Total value of parcels for level 1 and 2: 8080 gp
8080/5 = 1616 gp
1616*0.8 = 1292.8 gp
That's enough to buy a small variety of items. Highest volume is three 1st level items, highest power is either one 5th level item or a 4th with a 1st. With the 100 gp allowance from 1st level, you could add a 1st level item to your 5th, or upgrade the 4/1 to 4/2. Of course, going with a 3rd level item would give you more flexibility.
Sound about right? If people agree that not forcing item level slots is the way we want to go, this method seems to work almost perfectly for the end result desired.
I feel like we should check the numbers at some higher levels, too, like 10, 15, 20.
Would we be implementing this for every level? I was under the impression we were just looking at level 2 and level 3 being unbalanced. If we're looking at every level, I'll throw together a spreadsheet here in a bit to compare current practice versus the proposed change at each level.
I feel like it would be nice to have a single set of rules, instead of one set at low levels and another set kicking in at 4. Also, I think I've heard it suggested that the DMG wealth method falls behind at higher levels, and that players who play through are richer. I'm curious to see if that's true.
I know it probably doesn't matter just now, since we're unlikely to have many retirements higher than level 3 any time soon, but I'd just as soon not fix this in a hurry and leave ourselves more work later.
I'm throwing those numbers together now; didn't have my DMG at work to get the parcel amounts. Also, it looks like the combined value of level 1 and 2 parcels given above is missing the 1,040 monetary treasure, so if the numbers are a bit different, that may be where it's coming from. Once I have them calculated, I'll post them here.
New Information
Ok, I've checked my numbers twice and I think they're good and covaithe, the idea that new characters fall behind the value of adventurers who play through is definitely confirmed; in fact, it's understating the situation.
At 5th level, a character created according to the DMG has a value of 4,480 gp. That's a level 6, level 5, and level 4 magic item with gold equal to a level 4 magic item. With the proposed change, summing the parcels, dividing by five, then taking out 20% as a retirement fee, a level 5 character would start with 9,186.4 gp worth of wealth. That could buy them a level 11 weapon, if they dumped almost everything into it.
At 10th, the DMG gives 22,400 gp. The proposed method gives 87,582.4 gp. At 15th, the DMG gives 112,000 gp while this new way gives 512,538.4 gp. At level 20, the DMG gives 560,000 gp, the new way gives 2,670,294.4 gp. In fact, the only two levels where our new method gives less than the DMG? Yep, levels 2 and 3. And this is after taking 20% back as a fee!
One thing that jumped out at me while calculating the numbers is, while adventurering blows the DMG out of the water, your choices are drastically reduced when it comes to magic items. You get what the DM gives, and if you want to get something else? You have to sell the item at a fraction of the total value. To be really fair, we should probably incorporate sale price as well as total value into the calculation, but at that point we've stopped playing DnD and are playing "Super Spreadsheets World."
Looking at the numbers, and the drastic difference at high levels in particular, I'd say we either find a better system for all levels, or treat levels 2 and 3 as distinct, because as it stands, a character started at level 24 under this proposed sytem could buy 3 level 30 magic items and still have around 400,000 gp left.
I have the spreadsheet saved; if anyone would like a copy, I can e-mail it to you. Send me an e-mail at byers2142@hotmail.com and I'll respond with the spreadsheet attached. Let me know if you want .xls or .ods format.
I love the idea of Time Gold as the basis for this. Great idea Covaithe! I guess we'll see what the real results will look like once Stringbean2142 finishes the spreadsheet. Thanks for volunteering String! (I was going to do exactly what you're talking about doing [since I've got a ton of time on my hands today], but since you already volunteered I guess I won't duplicate any work lol)
(I was going to do exactly what you're talking about doing [since I've got a ton of time on my hands today], but since you already volunteered I guess I won't duplicate any work lol)
Yeah, I figured I had the time (read: was at work, bored out of my mind), so I might as well throw this together. Besides, this is what I do all day, anyway. At least this time it's calculating fund I might some day see (even in a fantasy situation, not someone else's money.
Any volunteers?
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
