Annoyed with Wealth Tables
- Thread starter Shalewind
- Start date
Shalewind
First Post
See, now here is where the real issue comes up. Equipment is assumed to be part of CR. Now, all of this is truely irrelavent to me personally because I run homebrew magic and stuff, but I love the core of the debate and want to see the heart of the mechanic.
The suggestion is to up the CR of the villian if he is capable of breaking all the PCs cool gear. That's all fine and good. And I agree. Now look at this example:
5th level party armed with +0 swords and equipment...
5th level party armed with +5 swords and several stat boosting items.
These two groups of people are NOT worth the same CR or the same ammount of experience, at least in my opinion they should not be. Party B could mop the floor with Party A. Now, if this power level is so unblanced, switch the parties around to the PC end. These two same parties are suppose to be capable of the same things, which is clearly not the case.
If the BBEG comes an destroys a 5th level character's +3 sword, he has just crippled that PC. This, I have no problem with... My problem is that it is assumed HE WILL FIND ANOTHER ONE! Sure, maybe not before the adventure is over, but he'll be right back up with the other PCs before long.
Personally I think equipment should be factored in to CR. But, I use a homebrew low-magic to solve my concerns.
As for the whole DM having powers over the players... All I have to say on this issue is I don't think it should be done any other way. I think you are deluding yourself as a PC if you think you have any control in the first place. Ultimately, the DM can kill any PC, craft any encounter, or do anything he wishes. He can bend the rules, make up his own stuff, do whatever. You as a player, have the right to say, "I like this", "I don't like this", or "Hey, It would be cool if...". Thinking that the 3e rules allow you to have a so called "control" over their characters is a misunderstanding IMHO. My players control their fate because they talk to me and tell me where they are going, and becuase they roleplay it out, not because the rules give players power over the DM.
First, to your comment directed at me, you didn't mention my 5th point, game rules ballance. That asside, I was offering a differing view of spellcasters and why they would create magic items. If you want you campaign to feel real, different characters had better think differently. Over the years, those you think in the method that I described will create a lot of magic items. Enough that there will be a secondary market. Even if the wizard wants to keep their secret, they are one who knows how to MAKE it.
The more I read your posts, the more I believe you have a narrow view of D&D, that your way is best. Hell, we all believe that or we wouldn't argue. The problem comes from your killing field crack and some other comments you have made here. My dungeon crawl is every bit as valid as your immersion roleplaying. Different groups have different styles. I am not calling your style good or bad, just telling you there are others and you should accept that.
Rather than hash this over again, why don't I ask you directly:
*Do you think the wealth table is a basis for balance in the game?
*Do you think items a character won't use are really valuable to them?
*Do you adjust challanges that players would defeat with various magic items, such as flying or invisible opponents?
Celebrim
Legend
"Do you think the wealth table is a basis for balance in the game?"
Yes, and I have said so in this thread. It is perfectly clear that the design intent of the wealth table is to provide guidance on achieving balance. It is not in and of itself sufficient to claim balance just because you have followed the wealth guidelines, but that is what they are there for. The wealth table gives the approximate wealth a PC of a given level is expected to have, which in turn provided guidance during playtesting for setting CR and so forth.
It however says nothing about how a character should acquire that wealth and nothing about whether the DM must assume that characters of a given level can and should face creatures of a given CR. It is just guidelines for someone learning the game based on how the designers played thiers, and how they think the game will be most attractive to the largest percentage of players - especially ones new to the game.
"Do you think items a character won't use are really valuable to them?"
Well, yes. But what you said is probably not what you meant, so I'll try to answer what you meant as well. An item that a player won't use represents a unutilized resource. What I think you mean is do I think an item that a character can't use is really valuable to them. And, no of course, by definition if they can't use it is not valuable to them. But then we have to ask the question, 'What can't a player use'? Even Uller and I seem to agree that a PC ought to be able to sell (in most circumstances) a generic magic item for which he believes he has no compelling use, and _that is a use for the item_. I don't however think that means there is a big supply of generic magic items lying about - see my comments earlier about different assumptions in my economy.
"Do you adjust challanges that players would defeat with various magic items, such as flying or invisible opponents?"
Well, doesn't everyone? Isn't game balance a DM's job? Don't you as a PC find the game frustrating if either the challenges are consistantly too easy or too hard? Whether you give out magic items that make it easier or give out magic items that make it harder you still have to adjust balance. The wealth table exists with the hope that a novice DM will need to provide minimal intervention is he progresses through challenges recommended by the designers for characters with these expected attributes. Isn't that obvious?
I'm not going to get dragged into another arguement over what is 'valid' and whether anyone has the 'right' to play how they want. Those are again questions that answer themselves. They have nothing to do with answering the question that they are generally intended to answer which is what is the best way
to play.
You say that my view is 'narrow', and accuse me of believing my 'way' is best. It is not like I think only stone age technology campaigns are best, any more than I think campaigns which feature science fiction themes are best. It is not like I think Polynesian inspired campaigns are best, or Arabian inspired campaigns are best, or European inspired campaigns are best, or campaigns with utterly novel cultural settings are best. It is not like I think grim and gritty is better than herioc cinematic campaigns. It is not like I think campaigns featuring no core races except humans are better than campaigns that only have humans or only have elves or only have goblins or have the whole standard 'sacred cow' list are better.
BTW, I have played in campaigns with all of those various flavors. How narrow _is_ my view compared to yours? How many of those have you even considered if you are the sort that is worried about whether or not you are going to get the items you planned for your PC to acquire from the list you compiled by skimming through the DMG?
To be frank, while I don't think my way is 'best', I do think that there are ways of playing that are better than others no matter how politically incorrect that may be for me to say. I honestly don't think those elements that I call good gaming are all that contriversial, but I don't want to start that whole arguement about what it means to game well again.
Yes, and I have said so in this thread. It is perfectly clear that the design intent of the wealth table is to provide guidance on achieving balance. It is not in and of itself sufficient to claim balance just because you have followed the wealth guidelines, but that is what they are there for. The wealth table gives the approximate wealth a PC of a given level is expected to have, which in turn provided guidance during playtesting for setting CR and so forth.
It however says nothing about how a character should acquire that wealth and nothing about whether the DM must assume that characters of a given level can and should face creatures of a given CR. It is just guidelines for someone learning the game based on how the designers played thiers, and how they think the game will be most attractive to the largest percentage of players - especially ones new to the game.
"Do you think items a character won't use are really valuable to them?"
Well, yes. But what you said is probably not what you meant, so I'll try to answer what you meant as well. An item that a player won't use represents a unutilized resource. What I think you mean is do I think an item that a character can't use is really valuable to them. And, no of course, by definition if they can't use it is not valuable to them. But then we have to ask the question, 'What can't a player use'? Even Uller and I seem to agree that a PC ought to be able to sell (in most circumstances) a generic magic item for which he believes he has no compelling use, and _that is a use for the item_. I don't however think that means there is a big supply of generic magic items lying about - see my comments earlier about different assumptions in my economy.
"Do you adjust challanges that players would defeat with various magic items, such as flying or invisible opponents?"
Well, doesn't everyone? Isn't game balance a DM's job? Don't you as a PC find the game frustrating if either the challenges are consistantly too easy or too hard? Whether you give out magic items that make it easier or give out magic items that make it harder you still have to adjust balance. The wealth table exists with the hope that a novice DM will need to provide minimal intervention is he progresses through challenges recommended by the designers for characters with these expected attributes. Isn't that obvious?
I'm not going to get dragged into another arguement over what is 'valid' and whether anyone has the 'right' to play how they want. Those are again questions that answer themselves. They have nothing to do with answering the question that they are generally intended to answer which is what is the best way
to play.
You say that my view is 'narrow', and accuse me of believing my 'way' is best. It is not like I think only stone age technology campaigns are best, any more than I think campaigns which feature science fiction themes are best. It is not like I think Polynesian inspired campaigns are best, or Arabian inspired campaigns are best, or European inspired campaigns are best, or campaigns with utterly novel cultural settings are best. It is not like I think grim and gritty is better than herioc cinematic campaigns. It is not like I think campaigns featuring no core races except humans are better than campaigns that only have humans or only have elves or only have goblins or have the whole standard 'sacred cow' list are better.
BTW, I have played in campaigns with all of those various flavors. How narrow _is_ my view compared to yours? How many of those have you even considered if you are the sort that is worried about whether or not you are going to get the items you planned for your PC to acquire from the list you compiled by skimming through the DMG?
To be frank, while I don't think my way is 'best', I do think that there are ways of playing that are better than others no matter how politically incorrect that may be for me to say. I honestly don't think those elements that I call good gaming are all that contriversial, but I don't want to start that whole arguement about what it means to game well again.
Uller
Adventurer
Celebrim said:
Well then here is another question: What use is it to sell a useless item if you can't buy another to replace it?
I know...I know...there are other uses for money than buying magic items and we all want D&D to be more than:
1 Kill stuff
2 Get Treasure
3 Buy Magic Items/Gain Levels
4 Repeat
But from a game mechanic POV, there is really no use for money other than to buy items of various sorts (or to hire henchmen...I guess that is sort of a game mechanic).
Oh...and for the record, I don't think you have a "narrow view" of D&D. You just seemed to think that I (we?) was telling you my way was best...I think all posts in this thread can be tagged with a "Here's how I do it in my game".
kigmatzomat
Legend
Celebrim said:
Still does if I remember the rules right (posting from work). Most of the "full plate" we think of was mastework and included a matching shield: cost: 1500+150+20+150=1820gp.
IIRC, Crafters create 1/2 their roll result in GP/week. So the smiths would need a total of 3640 to complete the armor. Assuming you take the smiths' rolls individually instead of using the more painful "helping out" rules, two 10th level smiths with 18 stats (+4), max skill (13), masterwork tools (+2) and the various minor helpers would take 47 weeks (11 months) to complete the set.
Now, how likely are you to find twin 10th level mastersmiths? Not very. So I don't see a conflict with "real world" economics. Especially since 1cp ~ $1 in 3e.
After watching three magic items go up in smoke last session from shocker lizards, I can heartily agree that non-artifacts are not indestructable. Factor in sundering and other incidents and I can see a magic item graveyard.
I run a game in a "civilized" world with stables, smiths, and all the crafters you might expect in 11th century England. (Domesday book online + "Life in a Medieval Castle" == good 'nuff realisim). All of those skills exist in the party. Mainly because adventurers often spend time away from civilization and cannot afford to be without those skills. Will they often have more than 5 points in the skill? No, but that makes them functional, if not exceptional, workers.
I can't really argue that, but it really gets into setting vs. mechanics which is probably the crux of the arguments. Some people believe that mechanics are setting agnostic while others do not. There are a lot of inter-related dependencies in 3e that were either never mentioned or never thought through.
Some of us (myself) believe that changing any of the availabilities of items, character wealth, XP progression, or CR pretty much requires changing all of them. 3e makes certain assumptions and it spells them out.
Let's just say I distrust many DMs to balance these factors since most aren't even aware of their relationships.
Celebrim said:
By this logic, the entire game is the gift of the DM, since if he wasn't running it the players wouldn't be playing it. Mind you, by the exact same logic the game is also the gift of the players, since if they weren't playing it the DM would have to play with himself.
BY himself.
I always get those two mixed up.
Last edited:
Celebrim said:
Ok, so players (in an "average" game) should have valuable stuff, and those things they don't want they should be able sell. But it is up the DM to prepare the party for every fight?
Ulner asked, and I would like to know as well, what do you expect them to do with the money?
Good roleplaying is always about control. Players should always feel like they have choices that matter, that they are in control. I think you can agree that a railroading DM isn't fun. I see choices of magic, in some form, being an extention of this. Because those magic items are so important, you should have so many of them, players should have some ability to be smart or stupid. That is were I see fun in magic shopping.
I am not saying players should be able to buy any items, or that this works well for all groups. I would honestly like see a whole section of the DMG devoted to specific alterations for different campaigns. But utill you make those changes to the rules you are using, players need magic, and good DMing means "letting them feel like they are in control". Not magic WalMarts, but some low value items for sale is in order.
Celebrim said:
You say that you believe some ways to play are better. I respect that. You could have just told me off, which is what I was expecting. I can respect you believe in your views strongly enough to politically incorrect. But I can not tolerate a lack of acceptance for other styles. 3e works very well for dungeon crawls. If you can not accept that other would like to play that style of game, or others that differ from your better styles, tell me now so I can stop responding.
But you were good enough to answer my questions, I will answer yours.
"How narrow _is_ my view compared to yours?"
You have seem to have played a lot of settings. I have played and run a few myself. StarWars, ShadowRun (standard, grim & gritty, and post-apocolyptic), D&D, HOL, and various flavors of White Wolf. Deep immersion (not nearly as often as I would like) looney, powergaming, plot driven, epic, mundane, and middle-of-the-road. You didn't mention what styles you played, so I can't say my experience is broader or narrower than yours. As to your view, I think I could play in the kind of game you describe and have a lot of fun. But I can also play (have played) in MagicMart games and had a ton of fun. Could you have fun in a MagicMart game?
"How many of those have you even considered if you are the sort that is worried about whether or not you are going to get the items you planned for your PC to acquire from the list you compiled by skimming through the DMG?"
Not every game is or should be focused on power looting. I agree that if that is your focus, you won't think of different kinds of campaigns. But any person who only thinks about one thing, or one set of things is boring to me. If a gaming group only ever changed the setting of the game, I would feel like I was trapped in "Knights of the Dinner Table". Different DMs, different styles, and different settings all help spice up the game.
