Annoyed with Wealth Tables

[drnuncheon]

My economy is largely based on real medieval economics.

Well, there's your problem. Our world's medieval era didn't have easily portable, nigh-indestructible magical weapons that would last for generations.

I have alot of problems with magic shops. First they harm the atmosphere of the game and drag it unnecessarily into a modern paradigm (and all of the usual lack of role playing that normally goes along with that).

If you want 'harm the atmosphere of the game' go look at some of the 1e spell component stuff, like the description of casting firefinger.

Magic items are, in 3e, just not that difficult to make. On average, there's going to be at least one wizard capable of doing it in any settlement above the size of a large town, and a dozen or so in any metropolis.

And they don't wear out.

Unlike, say, a normal sword, your magic swords aren't going to rust, get broken in a normal battle, or any of the other things that happen to normal swords. The one that was forged a thousand years ago is going to still be as good today as it was back then.

A dozen wizards in a metropolis capable of doing it. Let's say only one mage has the feat at any given time. Even if only one sword gets made a year, well, that's a thousand swords, from the wizards in one city - and we're not even taking into account clerics and sorcerers and other spellcasters. And most settings have more than one city.

If there's that much stuff out there that's potentially for sale, someone will sell it.

Thirdly, they kill the value of taking feats that allow you to craft items for yourself. Why spend your own XP when you can pay some smuck to spend it for you?

Does having a swordsmith kill the value of taking Craft (weaponsmith)? Does having a livery stable kill the value of putting ranks in Handle Animal?

Fourthly, on a very basic level they fail my realism test. In fact, I've often wondered why magic swords are all that common in the first place. Think about it. All magic swords are made by wizards. Making magic swords requires alot of investment in time and money and in the intangible but all important things that XP represent. Wizards can't use swords. Wizards have no use for swords, and any wizard with a brain is going to realize that if those sword swingers didn't have magic swords they'd be alot less dangerous to wizards in general.

Alternately, the wizard is going to realize that the lord or rich mercenary who wants a magic sword will pay him a whole truckload of money that would let him further his magical research...or the sword-swinger who would be using it is going to be the one standing between him and his enemies...or he wants the sword-swinger to go after rival wizards...or, well, any number of other things.

Oh, and clerics can make magic swords too nowadays. In fact, there are plenty of weapon special abilities that you need a cleric for.

J

 

[Celebrim]

"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."

Exactly.

If you have a player seeking an object to round out his character, he has stopped playing his character and made bookkeeping into the game. You've blown immersion all to heck. Unless you are dealing with an experienced player that already knows how to play (in which case he probably wouldn't be doing this anyway), you are teaching all sorts of bad habits.

If a player told me that Sir Edvald wanted a +5 flaming holy sword, or even a +1 flaming holy sword, I'd have to ask how Sir Edvald knew what '+1' (a term with no in game meaning), 'flaming', and 'holy' meant and how he knew of the existance of such things. I'd then have to ask why Sir Edvald was talking to the DM, or why the player felt the need to tell me how Sir Edvald felt rather than show me. I'd have to tell the player that RP normally involved dialoge or at the least telling me what Sir Edvald did, not an out of character exchange leading toward acquisition of player power. If the player told me that Sir Edvald was going to seek a master merchant in order to acquire a more puisant weapon, then we'd be getting on the right track but it almost certainly would not be a track that led directly to a +1 flaming holy sword or anything else so specialized. Sir Edvald is not aware of his attack bonus or his average damage per round versus AC 20, or his hit points, or anything else that is just a abstraction of Sir Edvald. The primary concern of the player shouldn't be keeping Sir Edvald's books so that his actions can be arbitrated in the game (important though that may be), but figuring out what Sir Edvald is concerned about and contributing the the RP. Let the DM worry about the balance and what challenges Sir Edvald is capable of handling and whether or not Sir Edvald is well enough equipped to handle the challenges that the DM plans on having him face.

One of the problems I have with third edition in general it is seems to have encouraged PC's to plan out thier character on a spreadsheet, and apparantly (and this I'm only now beginning to realize) that includes even the very equipment that they expect to own. To me, that is the death of RP, the end of emmersion, and if that is all you want from your 'DM', a computer program will entertain you far better than I ever could.

 

[Celebrim]

DrNuncheon: No, but a suit of full plate took a team of skilled craftsman an entire year to forge, so I think it is safe to say that they did have some items of extraordinary value which offer good corralaries to magic items. To a certain extent the whole notion of magic item is grounded in the elaborate creation of those very items.

The description of fire finger is another red herring. If you think it harms the atmosphere of the game, it doesn't justify allowing other things that harm the atmosphere of the game; it justifies changing the description of fire finger.

Magic items not wearing out in some form or the other is an awful big assumption, and one that simply isn't true in my campaign, wasn't at all true in 1st edition, and is only arguably true in 3rd edition.

We could argue for ages about how many magic objects a given set of assumptions indicate should exist in the world. I doubt we could even agree on assumptions. About the only thing we can agree on is that the commonality of magic items in the world is much more justified by 3rd edition creation rules than it was for 1st edition's rather heavy handed item creation rules. What level of commonality either indicates is a much more difficult subject.

"Does having a swordsmith kill the value of taking Craft (weaponsmith)? Does having a livery stable kill the value of putting ranks in Handle Animal?"

Well, yes, it does. How many players do you have taking alot of ranks in Craft skills? How many players do you have taking alot of ranks in Handle Animal? Isn't this because the players assume that there will be craftsman around to handle such 'mundane' tasks for them? Given thier limited skill points, won't most players choose to put the skills somewhere 'useful' if they know that they can always contract a master craftsman to do the job for them? Aren't craft skills normally only taken for 'RP purposes'?

Now, suppose you tell the PC's that you will be running a stone age/early copper age campaign. No cities. Very few craftsman. No merchants at all. Metalsmiths and bowyers are extremely rare, and there are perhaps none within a months journey of the PC's starting location unless the PC's have such skills themselves. Won't this VASTLY increase the utility of craft skills. In fact, I dare say in such a situation craft skills would be the most important skills a PC could have.

By a similar parallel, a DM that makes a custom item readily available has made the decision to relagate item creation feats to a position of secondary importance - to the extent that I think few spell casters will bother with them. If you know you can readily by miscellaneous magic items that you desire, why bother spending a feat on it? Why bother spending your own precious XP? Unless, it is for 'rp purposes'

 

[Fenes 2]

Just to make it clear: I have no problem with players coming to me and telling me that they would really like their PC to have item X or weapon Y. I have a problem if they start roleplaying their PC looking for such an item without justification in-character.

Or, to make it exactly clear: I hate PCs using the DMG in-game as a shopping tool in the magic bazaar - I have no problems with players shopping like that (suspect to DM approval) and then getting the items in various different ways during a campaign.

Heck, one of my major plot-arcs is centered on a magic sword that has been broken into many parts, scattered among different countries and even planes, and sought after by both a PC and an evil undead mage, both sides going after all legends on magic swords that may carry a piece of that weapon. Each time a piece is found it combines with the other parts and the weapon becomes a bit more powerful.

As far as the durability of magic weapons is concerned, imc magic items are not invulnerable. Those 100s of swords of ancient times may have found their ends through fireballs, acid, sundering opponents, disintegrate, drops into lava, melting down, rust monsters etc.

 

[Uller]

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.

There's that ridiculous word again...

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.

Wow....you got all that from what I said? You can do things however you want. I'm not saying your way is wrong (or even ridiculous). Do whatever you want.

Look...all I'm saying is I came to 3e with the same "1e sensibilities" other people did: The game was meant to be played at low to mid levels. DMs need to control the magic in their game. Magic shops on every corner are silly, etc. etc. The masses of NPCs should be very low level. etc.

But I realized after a bit of tinkering that 3e is scaled differently than 1e. The wealth tables are just one aspect of that scaling...as are increased XP rates, increased average hit points and damage, increased numbers of spells, etc. Once I learned that 3e level != 1e level, then things make a lot more sense.

The whole greater flexibility for players thing is something I got out of 3e and I like it very much...maybe you don't get that out of it...maybe designers didn't intend that...maybe they did...I don't know. I don't care...it is what I get out of it and how I use it. I was just sharing my POV of how I reconciled my view of 1e wiht my view of 3e.

If you and your players are happy with your "realistic" medieval economy, then good for you. My players and I aren't interested in that...to me, a "realistic" economy in a game is about as much fun as the real economy is...I'm not an economist for a reason...

The greatest enjoyment I get out of D&D (other than getting together with my buds) is creating interesting characters...including motivations, history, skills, spells, feats, stats...and items...and placing them in interesting situations with other characters and seeing how they interact. This is both as a DM and a player. So I give my players the same ability to make interesting characters so they can have that same enjoyment.

 

[Fenes 2]

I have nothing against flexibility - for the players, not for the PCs. I like it when the PCs find and quest for their magic items and don't mail-order them from Aurora's. I like it when they don't just get a +2 Sword, but "Nephtis' Wrath" with a rich history.

You can have all the vaunted flexibility of 3E without readily available magic markets.

 

[Celebrim]

Uller: "I know that as a player I _hate_ relying on the DM to give me "gifts" and "rewards" as he pleases."

That's how I got that you were uncomfortable being at the mercy of the DM. I was trying to point out that no matter how the item ends up on your characters sheet, it only got there as a gift or reward from the DM. That is true both directly (if the DM was opposed to it he wouldn't have let you buy it), and indirectly (the money that you use to buy the object is itself a gift or reward). That was what I was saying when hong took me out of context and accused me of going in circles.

Uller: "I give the players (roughly) the same flexibility I have as a DM to make the character they envision. That includes magic items."

That is one of the many quotes you make that suggest to me that you feel the game is better if the DM directly gives up responcibility for what appears in the game. Do you really think it better if a PC has the same flexibility as a DM in creating and allocating magic items (for his own PC)? I like 3rd editions character flexibility as well, but to me a PC's flexible acquisition of items implies item creation feats and abiding by the rules and penalties there of, NOT the ability to assume that items are available for purchase when he desires to purchase them. And the real important aspects of character flexibility in 3rd ed. really have nothing to do with wealth or items.

Look, I know that 1st ed. != 3rd. ed. Third edition is a whole lot better game than 1st ed. It is designed a whole lot better. But I'm no more a slave to 3rd ed's assumptions than I was to 1st editions assumptions. There are things I don't like about 3rd ed. balance both as a DM and as a player. For example, rapid advancement in levels causes disatisfaction for me both as a PC and a DM, and forces odd design decisions on me as DM when writing lengthier adventures.

I guess the difference here is that I have never once associated an interesting character with the items he owns or the wealth he has available. And it seems to me that the heart of your arguement is that I'm somehow restricting flexibility in character creation by not allowing characters to buy the items that they want when they want them - which at the very least I think you'll have to admit means that we have somewhat different focuses on what the purpose of character creation is.

 

[Uller]

Or, to make it exactly clear: I hate PCs using the DMG in-game as a shopping tool in the magic bazaar - I have no problems with players shopping like that (suspect to DM approval) and then getting the items in various different ways during a campaign.

Who says it has to be "in game". The good role-player who knows what he wants for his character can certainly role-play that. Just like you as a DM can role-play why your NPC fighter who specializes in Great Axe has a magic great axe. You still have ultimate control over what they can have...

 

[dcollins]

And look at the NPCs _STATS_ in most 1e adventures...no way the writers sat down and actually rolled those stats with the 3d6-put-em-where-you-roll-em method proscribed in pre-Unearthed Aracna rules!

You're rather mistaken there. The "4d6-drop-1" mechanism has been standard for D&D ever since the AD&D 1st Ed. DMG listed it as "Method I" for its ability-rolling options.

 

[Uller]

Uller: "I know that as a player I _hate_ relying on the DM to give me "gifts" and "rewards" as he pleases."

That's how I got that you were uncomfortable being at the mercy of the DM.

In some regards, when I'm a player, I am uncomfortable being at the mercy of the DM (which is why I prefer to DM). The DM doesn't always know what I want. I as a DM don't always know what my players want.

Edit: For the record, I never liked it when DMs assigned or limited spell selections for wizards in pre-3e versions. I like the 3e rule much better....let the wizard pick some of his spells...let the DM make others available. /Edit

Sometimes it's nice if they can just go out and buy what the want when we're away from the table. Especially minor things (and that is all my players can ever afford...minor items). The DM controls things simply by controlling wealth available to the PCs, the maximum value of items available and restrict items that either don't fit or would unbalance the campaign.

Uller: "I give the players (roughly) the same flexibility I have as a DM to make the character they envision. That includes magic items."

That is one of the many quotes you make that suggest to me that you feel the game is better if the DM directly gives up responcibility for what appears in the game.

Giving the players some power does not mean the DM is giving up responsibility for what items are present. My players know that all items are subject to my approval.