Annoyed with Wealth Tables
- Thread starter Shalewind
- Start date
Uller
Adventurer
Celebrim said:
You think these were _rolled_ with 3d6 where the average roll should be 10.5? There should be as many rolls 10 or below as there are 11 or above (roughly)...These characters are good even by 4d6 standards!
Anyway...this is a little off topic. My point is that we DMs have always had the ability to make the characters we want...if we wanted an uberfighter villian back in 1e, we could give him an 18(95) str, a +3 Flaming Two-Handed Sword and a suit of +5 platemail without a second thought. The players had to stick with their 3d6 generated character and be thankful for whatever the DM had the good graces to give them. Now in 3e, the players have a lot of flexibility. The DM controls the level of magic simply by adjusting the wealth guidelines up or down and the players can go off and make the character they _want_ and equip him the way they _want_ (within reason). I like that. I don't like 7-11 magic shops. So I've struck what I consider to be a good balance to allow the players the flexibility to make the characters they want (while maintianing the flexibility I want for my NPCs) while keeping control on the magic items available: Let them buy/trade items between adventures. Limit what they can buy so you don't get any crazy items. Crazy powerful items are left in the realm of special quests and what not.
Sure...if your player has a fighter that specializes in a longsword, you could plop a +2 Keen Longsword into your game to reward him...but that really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. What if he uses a more exotice weapon. Maybe he is from a distant culture that favors using rapiers and it would be wierd for an NPC villian to show up with a rapier (and even wierder for one to just happen to be lying on the floor). I want to outfit my NPCs the way I want without having to worry too much about what magic items the PCs need. Of course I often drop in magic items that will be useful to the players...usually ones that will be helpful during the current set of adventures since the PCs won't have the opportunity to go back and trade or by magic items. For instance, if they have to fight a monster with DR...there might be a weapon around that can overcome that DR. It might not be an optimum weapon for the party fighter...but thems-the-breaks!
I'm definately not advocating the 7-11 magic shop. Like I said, buying/selling/trading magic items on a large scale is usually done between adventures in my game (when the PCs have several months or even years where presumably they would get opportunities to trade items). During actual game sessions, magic venders are rare in my games and their stocks will usually be very limited (the village blacksmith might have a "special" weapon he keeps in the back...he probably doesn't even know its true value...great roleplay opportunity).
Does this make magic mundane? Sure, but no more so than having an elf or a wizard in the party. Magic is mundane in D&D because the players have access to it and understand it. For me, +1 and +2 magic items _should_ be mundane. Their like Sting and other elven blades in the Hobbit and LotR. Just about everyone's got one because a lot of them have been made. Truly special items are more rare...which is why a +10 equivalent weapon costs 200,000gp! If you control the level of wealth in your game, then such weapons will be unheard of or very very special.
Uller
Adventurer
Celebrim said:
And then you end up with the ridiculous circumstance where the villians have to be outfitted with the same weapons the PCs are outfitted with. If you have a fighter in your party who uses a bow and one who uses a rapier and you throw in a villian with a magic bow for the first fighter, the second fighter is going to expect an upcoming villian to happen to have a magic rapier (or maybe the first villian happened to have a magic rapier hidden under his bed?) That starts to leave a really bad taste after a while. I just outfit the NPCs in ways that make sense for their skills, feats and fighting styles. The PCs can take their items and use them if they are useful or trade them later if they aren't so useful (and trading usually gets them only 1/3 to 1/2 the value of the traded item!).
Yeah...it shocked my 1e sensibilities too...but then I realized this is better because I know that as a player I _hate_ relying on the DM to give me "gifts" and "rewards" as he pleases. Just let me keep my character within a certain set of parameters. So I accorde my players that same flexibility. Maybe that makes magic "mundane"...but so does having a character who can shoot lightning bolts or heal a wound from a sword.
Spell casters can work with other characters to make magic items. A high level wizard can purchase a MW weapon or higher a weaponsmith to make one for him. But certainly SOME armorers, etc are spell casters.
My campaigns usually start at 1st through 3rd level. Average thugs are 1st level, but they scale up with greater numbers...for instance a group of 10 orcs would probably consist of 5 1st level warriors, 3 2nd level ones 1 3rd level and 1 4th level (one of these last two would likely be someother class like adept, druid, cleric or some such...also if this was an "elite" group, they might be barbarians or fighters instead of warriors).
But I don't really see what that has to do with anything.
My point is...the wealth tables are just a balance guideline that allows the players greater control over their PCs. To me, that's a GOOD thing.
What is so bad about taking a villain that uses a rapier to "give" a PC a magical rapier? As the DM you can build a villain that uses rapier and fit his skills, classes and feats accordingly, and it should not leave a bad aftertaste. (Rapier-wielding challengers might come after a famous swashbuckler, the PC might represent a certain fighting school which has rivals after their students etc.)
As a DM I tailor my adventures to the PCs and players, not to some obscure "realism" or "canon random treasure table".
As a DM I tailor my adventures to the PCs and players, not to some obscure "realism" or "canon random treasure table".
Uller
Adventurer
It just feels silly after a while to me. Sure...once in a while its fine (and I certainly do that when it makes sense). But eventually that +1 rapier is going to get old and and the player will want a more powerful one. Do you then put in a villian with a +3 rapier or have one in a treasure pile somewhere? Even if rapiers are very rare in the setting?Fenes 2 said:
Did I ever say that I tried to be "realistic" or that I used random treasure tables religiously? WTF? I make my NPCs the way I want them to fit the adventure, the setting. The "anti-wealth table" and "anti-magic 7-11" people were the ones saying about "realism". I try to make my games FUN...for the PLAYERS. Sticking them with magic items they don't really want doesn't seem very fun to me. Nor does having NPCs who coincidently carry the magic items the PCs want.
I certainly tailor my adventures to the characters...but I prefer to concentrate on story-lines and interesting encounters...not tailoring gear to the PCs. YMMV
Celebrim
Legend
I started playing D&D in 1980 and I never had a DM who insisted on 3d6 six times - love it, that's all you are getting. 4d6 and other variations have been standard pretty much since the start. What's wrong with an NPC having the equivalent of a good 4d6 roll or a 32 point buy? Are you saying that doesn't happen now? And in any event, what does that have to do with the 'wealth tables' or the commonality of magic items?
I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I've never had any of the problems that you guys are complaining about, either as a player or a DM. Ok, the villain has a +1 spetum. No one uses a spetum. Oh, well. Hey, the villain has a +1 morningstar! That's mine! Bad taste in your mouth? For what? I defy a PC to consistantly differentiate between when I rolled for generic items and when I placed them. I almost always consult random tables (even if I'm not slave to them) so that I will consider ideas I would not have considered otherwise. My hand on the games wheel is more subtle than that, and my obviously 'created and placed' items generally serve a purpose in advancing the story as well as being 'treasure'. To do otherwise is to be so heavy handed that the PC's notice when they are being railroaded, and everyone knows that is a bad thing.
And ultimately, whether you have an IC 'magic shop' or off camera menu that your players can select from, it is the same thing only if you are handling it 'off camera' you are just saying 'I don't want to be bothered by that.' And ultimately, however the PC's get the items you as the DM are responcible for giving them what they got. If you run magic shops, you decide what is in them. If you have treasure placed in dungeons, you decide what is there. If you tell, 'anything from the DMG with these restrictions', then you have decided what is available.
The wealth tables aren't even remotely a tool for giving PC's more control over themselves. That is utterly silly. If they were, they'd appear in the PH, not the DMG. They are just a suggested guideline, no more or less. They record a play testing standard for a DM who is unsure of his ability to maintain balance. They are a tool for assisting the DM who isn't sure how much treasure to place or give out. They have nothing at all to do with player freedom.
Sting is mundane? Everyone has an elven blade? Sheesh.
Look, my point is that it is entirely different to say that magic is more readily available in 3rd edition, and magic needs to be more readily available so I'll allow PC's to buy almost anything they want between adventures.
I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I've never had any of the problems that you guys are complaining about, either as a player or a DM. Ok, the villain has a +1 spetum. No one uses a spetum. Oh, well. Hey, the villain has a +1 morningstar! That's mine! Bad taste in your mouth? For what? I defy a PC to consistantly differentiate between when I rolled for generic items and when I placed them. I almost always consult random tables (even if I'm not slave to them) so that I will consider ideas I would not have considered otherwise. My hand on the games wheel is more subtle than that, and my obviously 'created and placed' items generally serve a purpose in advancing the story as well as being 'treasure'. To do otherwise is to be so heavy handed that the PC's notice when they are being railroaded, and everyone knows that is a bad thing.
And ultimately, whether you have an IC 'magic shop' or off camera menu that your players can select from, it is the same thing only if you are handling it 'off camera' you are just saying 'I don't want to be bothered by that.' And ultimately, however the PC's get the items you as the DM are responcible for giving them what they got. If you run magic shops, you decide what is in them. If you have treasure placed in dungeons, you decide what is there. If you tell, 'anything from the DMG with these restrictions', then you have decided what is available.
The wealth tables aren't even remotely a tool for giving PC's more control over themselves. That is utterly silly. If they were, they'd appear in the PH, not the DMG. They are just a suggested guideline, no more or less. They record a play testing standard for a DM who is unsure of his ability to maintain balance. They are a tool for assisting the DM who isn't sure how much treasure to place or give out. They have nothing at all to do with player freedom.
Sting is mundane? Everyone has an elven blade? Sheesh.
Look, my point is that it is entirely different to say that magic is more readily available in 3rd edition, and magic needs to be more readily available so I'll allow PC's to buy almost anything they want between adventures.
Celebrim said:
Strangely enough, I've never had a problem with magic shops either.
Consider the (obviously highly remote) possibility that by allowing characters to commission items of their own in their "off time", you avoid the issue of railroading and appropriate treasure item placement entirely. You _do_ run into the issue of whether such player-controlled item creation is suitable for maintaining the aura of mystique that many DMs think magic items should have. But that's something entirely separate, and said DMs often have issues with control anyway.
You're going round in circles.
Uller
Adventurer
I started about the same time...at first people would just reroll over and over again or just outright fudge it (usually with DMs blessing...sometimes not). I did play in a lot of games where the DM insisted on 3d6...place them as they fall but then we'd play in modules where the villains were like the scores above.Celebrim said:
The point is...in 3e, the "standard" house rule that everyone used for stats has become an actual rule. The wealth guidelines are (for me) the same sort of thing. They exist for DMs to balance PCs and NPCs. I give the players (roughly) the same flexibility I have as a DM to make the character they envision. That includes magic items.
They are both balancing factors that DMs (and players) can use to keep the game relatively balanced.
Pro'lly...but that's what this board is for. No?
That's fine for common items...but the player that has his heart set on a particular item to round out his PC that is more rare either has to ask the DM for it or just go without.
Like I said...that works great for common items. And that's what I do. But it is nice to give the players a way to pick up more rare/custom items they want in order to round out their characters without having to place them in adventures all the time. (but it is also fun to require a quest for the more important ones).
For the record, my players _rarely_ buy anything other than potions, scrolls and an occasional wand. Trading in a +2 weapon for only 1/3 of the market value is rarely worth it unless the weapon is truly worthless to the party. It is only characters who rely on very rare items that need to do this...and that's the cost of relying on rare items, no?
That is absolutely true...the DM must control the magic in his game to keep it at the right level. I prefer the "off camera" approach because for my group table time is very limited (one 6 hour session every month...sometimes less). Roleplaying the "quest" to purchase some potions of cure serious wounds is a waste of time unless it is actually advancing the story.
No...they are a tool for the DM to balance the game. Giving the players some ability to get the magic items they want (within those guidelines) is a tool that I give my players.
The original post made the assumption that the two (wealth tables and the notion of easy access to magic) are somehow tied (or so it seemed to me). I'm trying to show how I use both those concepts to give the players some level of customization over their characters.
Apparently...if a group of Trolls had Sting, Orcrist AND Glamdring (and IIRC the swords in the barrow wights' lair were also magical) one must assume that such weapons are not all that rare (or Tolkien is a bit of a Monty Haul DM
). I can't think of any time that a non-magical weapon was ever found in the books.Like PC said...magic was fairly common in Middle Earth...Sam's rope was magic for crying out loud! Just about any weapon with a history could be assumed to be magical, I think.
Yes...magic is more readily available in 3e. So are higher levels (and higher level spells). I think it is a good thing...everything is just scaled up, so a +1 weapon in 3e doesn't mean as much as a +1 weapon in 1e.
In my mind, a 3rd level 1e character is roughly equivalent to a 5th level 3e character...so your 1e sensibilities can be reconciled with 3e if you just look at it like that. At least that's what I did.
Uller said:
My (few) magic items are all important parts of the story, all have a history and a plot hook, some spanning several story arcs while others are "solved" or "mastered" in a couple adventures.
I don't have weak magic items that are discarded when something stronger comes along in my game (apart from scrolls and potions) - the PC's magic items grow in power with the user, in various ways. Some need a deed to unlock their power, others are missing parts, f.e. enchanted gemstones that have to be recovered, some are bound to the wielder like a familiar. Others yet are enhanced, f.e. by a god, as a reward for a particular deed.
And, I have to add, I strictly separate player knowledge and PC knowledge. So, a player can ask me for a specifi item, but that does not mean his PC is actively seeking it, or even knows about its existence, so the PC will not find it strange when he stumbles upon it.
Celebrim
Legend
Hong: If you've never had a problem with magic shops, fine. Whatever works for your style of campaign. I don't think that has ever been in debate. I listed some reasons why I don't like them. If you don't like those reasons, fine. They won't work for every style of campaign. But bringing up issues like proper construction of NPC's, and NPC attributes, and telling me about how much better equiped the NPC will be than the PC if I do it my way is entirely ridiculous. That is nothing more than a red herring. Implicitly suggesting that things will be so much better if the DM relinquishes responsibility for what appears in his campaign is even more bizarre. Being uncomfortable with the fact that you are entirely at the mercy of the DM when you are a PC is also a little weird.
Assuming that they have some lengthy period of off time and knew the proper NPC and had the proper 'coin' to pay said NPC, sure I'd let them commision something. Did I not say to start that in my campaign things of value were generally done on commission? But lengthy periods off camera aren't necessarily the norm, and in any event if the object was unusual there would have to be a minimal RP discussing exactly what form of payment would be acceptable for the item.
Assuming that they have some lengthy period of off time and knew the proper NPC and had the proper 'coin' to pay said NPC, sure I'd let them commision something. Did I not say to start that in my campaign things of value were generally done on commission? But lengthy periods off camera aren't necessarily the norm, and in any event if the object was unusual there would have to be a minimal RP discussing exactly what form of payment would be acceptable for the item.
