Proposal: Remove the magic item penalty for new characters

renau1g · Nov 30, 2009

*bump* So, I've got a comment, I guess. I'm retiring Blade and remaking a level 3 PC. I'd like to confirm the GP amount and Cov directed it here. With level 3 PC's starting with 1750 gp that's already substantially below DMG/PHB recommendations which would be 2560 gp (lvl-1, lvl+1, lvl items + lvl-1 gp).

Perhaps the retirement rules are too harsh?

Open discussion:

Fragsie · Nov 30, 2009

Although maybe a little harsh compared to what is set out in the PHB and DMG, the wealth for new higher level PC's that was set out here was intended to be in line with characters that had reached that level playing through adventures here in L4W, a character made at lvl 3 by DMG rules has a lot more wealth than a character that started at lvl 1 and worked their way up to lvl 3. I personally was happy with the amounts agreed upon in this thread. That being said we have since then doubled XP awards (and with them, treasure parcels), if that has had an affect on the maths that was used to determin wealth by level, then it should be looked at again.

renau1g · Nov 30, 2009

Not sure if that statement's 100% accurate or not. Murphy Tang's slightly behind the DMG guidelines, but not by much. He was created at level 1 and developed his way to level 3 then added some DM credits to get to 4, he's got 2 level 5 items and a level 3 item + enough gold for another level 3 item.

Look at Raiyek as well he's currently sitting on 3017 gp of wealth, himself ABOVE DMG recommendations. So that blanket statement isn't turning out to be 100% correct.

Fragsie · Nov 30, 2009

Granted; my statement was a generalisation, and you bring up a valid point in that some characters are right on target or even over the wealth they are supposed to have. Perhaps then when retiring, the new character could have the same wealth as the one retiring?

renau1g · Nov 30, 2009

Not sure that's the best solution either, as it favours those who've received a decent amount of treasure (ie Raiyek) and disfavours those who haven't received their expected amounts (Carolina, until just the last fight & Mikara) I think it should be a standarized amounts. The 1750 for level 3 seems like a fair average.

I did a quick look at some of teh lvl 3 PC's around (these are approximates)

7 Rabbit - about 1400 gp
Raiyek - 3000 gp
Kruk - 2100 gp
Alexander (ata's pc) - 2600
Haruka - 1200 or so
Hadrak - 1800 gp
Rurdev - 2000 gp
Incarnation - 2300 gp

So as we can see there's quite a disparity in wealth across the PC's. I think this also demonstrates that there's not really any big worry about developed PC's being left behind. I'd like to note that Haruka will be receiving something this level to bump her up to expected value of the others. If you average them out it's 2050 in items and it you allow the 1750 amounts that would be about a 15% penalty for retiring. I think that's fair.

renau1g · Nov 30, 2009

My initial thoughts are to scrap Option A, but grant that amount as starting wealth for retired PC's.

covaithe · Nov 30, 2009

When this was originally discussed, way back here, we put together some charts showing average expected wealth for characters who adventure and get treasure, and new characters created by DMG rules. Bottom line is that, with a few outlying levels, the two numbers track fairly closely, except for levels 2 and 3, where the DMG numbers are unrealistically high.

We tossed around a few ideas, but finally ended up awarding 90% of the time gold that you would have gotten if you'd gotten to level 2 or 3 purely on time xp, rounded up to even numbers. So, at the end of the day, they're arbitrary numbers that seem vaguely reasonable.

If you re-read that thread, though, all of the discussion was sparked off by someone retiring at level 2 and starting a new character also at level 2, using option B. I'm pretty confident that that's what we all had in mind, the whole time. But somehow, in copying it to the charter, it got put in under option A. No one has ever used option A to my knowledge, and I don't really see it happening.

I think at the very least we ought to clarify that the numbers in question -- 780 at level 2, 1750 at level 3, per DMG otherwise -- apply to option B, not option A. And IMO we should probably get rid of option A while we're at it.

TwoHeadsBarking · Nov 30, 2009

I would be happy to drop Option A, but I don't see a compelling reason to do so. Unless we completely remove the penalty for Option B, which would make A completely obsolete. Which, by the way, I still think is a good idea.

Lord Sessadore · Nov 30, 2009

I haven't had the time to go looking back through the old thread, but I think the "780 at level 2, 1750 at level 3, per DMG otherwise" should work better than what we've got for option B.

I also think that option A is never going to be used. And probably if someone does choose to use it they're going to be kicking themself later for it. I would be perfectly happy seeing option A disappear.

Now, the question is, do we need to make a proposal to change the charter again?

renau1g said:
Look at Raiyek as well he's currently sitting on 3017 gp of wealth, himself ABOVE DMG recommendations. So that blanket statement isn't turning out to be 100% correct.

Well, it's not his fault that Mr. DM picked the biggest item on his wishlist ... (Thank you, by the way

)

renau1g · Nov 30, 2009

Very true. That was my Monty Haul DM coming out

I rolled randomly for the packets and Raiyek happened to get lucky.

Ok.... Proposal Time:

I propose that we remove option A from the charter, change option B's gold amount to Option A's amount (780 at level 2, 1750 at level 3, per DMG otherwise) thereby removing some of the penalty for character retirement and negating the need for option A. I obviously can't vote (not that I'd like to on this matter, I can't really be impartial)