proposal: adopt LEB's rules on treasure and retirement

evilbob

Explorer

• Sep 8, 2010

• #41

Complete side conversations: I think the DMG guidelines for wealth for starting a character at X level are wacky. Specifically, they start out ridiculously high and then are way too low past a certain level. I have a chart I made somewhere... Anyway, the bottom line is: I like charts.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

renau1g

First Post

• Sep 8, 2010

• #42

I agree with you on that evilbob. The DMG's isn't correct. Heck, my LFR PC had a level 6 item at first level and a level 7 item at second level.

 

garyh

First Post

• Sep 9, 2010

• #43

I'm not voting yet, but I'm not really in favor of adopting the LEB parcel system. A couple reasons:

1 - I think grafting the LEB system onto L4W after two years of play would, in fact, be difficult.

2 - If we really want to make sure that PC's don't fall behind the power curve, I think inherent bonuses would be more effective, and then magic items awarded in play can be "non-big three" extras, and not "must have attack/armor/neck" items.

Anyway, I'm still thinking about this.

 

evilbob

Explorer

• Sep 13, 2010

• #44

Bumping for judges:

[MENTION=6078]garyh[/MENTION]; [MENTION=57255]Lord Sessadore[/MENTION]; [MENTION=41601]ScorpiusRisk[/MENTION]; [MENTION=46559]covaithe[/MENTION]; [MENTION=79620]Ozymandias79[/MENTION]


Again, we're just talking about the parcel system for L4W.

 

O

Otakkun

Explorer

• Sep 13, 2010

• #45

The problem with not using a parcel system is that random treasures just punish the players.

Say, if the player wants to play a frostcheese character (and makes his build for one) but he gets a sunblade ... how's that supposed to be fair to him?

The system is balanced on everyone getting what they want as long as it's of the adequate level. So if someone doesn't get what they want, they'll just fall behind the power curve.

Why does this happen? Mostly because we can't trade one level 5 item for another level 5 in the city. Perhaps we could, instead of making a parcel system, create a store in the city where one can trade items?

Perhaps that would work better.

 

renau1g

First Post

• Sep 13, 2010

• #46

Maybe an option should be for DM's to not even award treasures. Maybe the PC's should just be able to select whatever they want on level up? Saves us DM's work that way. Maybe put the parcel system right into the player's hands and cut out the middleman.

 

stonegod

Spawn of Khyber/LEB Judge

• Sep 13, 2010

• #47

Regarding player trading: This was brought up before, esp with regard to maintaining balance. The parcel system does help here (as it makes sure that there are "equal" swaps. I remember the talk going around for a while; don't recall what the final decision (if any).

 

renau1g

First Post

• Sep 13, 2010

• #48

The proposal did not pass. There's a few reasons. It would easily jump the wealth of some lower level PC's and then create an unfair advantage, develop potential conflicts as to why I had Murphy give so and so's PC my old +1 sword for a 65% discount.

 

evilbob

Explorer

• Sep 13, 2010

• #49

I think what was being said was more like if you traded a level 1 item for a level 1 item then that would be fair. Anything other than that would be tricky, yes.

Also, r1: was your 10:15 post was done in [sarcasm] brackets? I couldn't tell. Either way: that actually sounds like a system I've heard of before, but I don't recall... Maybe a living world system or something...

 

renau1g

First Post

• Sep 13, 2010

• #50

It was a bit sarcastic. LIkely too much so, bad morning at work. If the DM doesn't want to give a PC the items to super optimize and take advantage of what they feel are cheezy elements are they now a bad DM? Is that unfair? I don't think so, but that's me.