Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6154471" data-attributes="member: 8461">Except that that's how it works under the Rules as Written. I'm not saying that's logical or illogical, just that that's how it is. I was expanding the scope of the argument. Insofar as commoners in the campaign are concerned, yes, a suit of full plate mail will be as unavaible as a +1 longsword in terms of their purchasing power being nowhere near enough to afford either.You keep implying, however, that there's a readily-available economy in expensive non-magical items. Even if we ignore the inconsistency in that train of thought (which is pretty well revealed in towns in 3.X having a gp limit on things that can be purchased), this is explained by pointing out the much greater requirements that are needed for creating magical items versus non-magical ones.In other words, you can safely presume that there's support for a tiny economic market for luxury non-magical items, presuming that you have at least a few characters with enough money to support it. That's not necessarily the case for magic items of any cost, however, due to issues of specialized creation requirements.You also do a fairly good job of answering your own questions, here.I think that this is more of a failure of imagination than anything else. Leaving aside issues of somebody having brought in money from some remote locale (e.g. where adventurers usually go), this is as easy as making the wealth be a reward earned in the context of the adventure itself (e.g. taking it from the bad guys, rather than having it given to you by a sponsor).This is what I was talking about above regarding answering your own questions. This is a perfectly plausible train of thought, and the answer to the last question is as easy as "the will of the gods" or some other explanation that can be chalked up to providence, destiny, fate, or even chance (which handily explains why it hasn't happened before, or at least not for a very, very long time). PC exceptionalism is nothing new, after all.It's no problem to not use too many surface-dwelling races as antagonists at higher levels. Besides having a plethora of monsters, what exceptional humanoid villains you do have can be the evil equivalents to the PCs - that is, the one-in-a-million exceptions that are stark contrasts to most of their kind.Why haven't the monsters conquered the world already? That's a question for pretty much every campaign, but again can largely be laid at the feet of interventionist deities, ancient magics, and the general disorganization (or other inherent hindrances) of most monsters.Yeah, that's called "world-building." It's part and parcel of the GM's milieu.Presumably because, being monsters, they can't just walk into a shop and start buying things when people are screaming and running away or pulling out weapons when they approach.I think that's an overstatement. As I pointed out above, you pretty easily answered most of the questions you posed, showing that this isn't a very hard row to hoe. World-building can be a lot of work, but that's also the fun of it, and there's nothing inherent in the rules that make any of what you laid out any more implausible than any other campaign, while still preserving internal logic and consistency.</blockquote>

Verification