Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 5986879" data-attributes="member: 7006">The problem with this format though is that the classes who are required to do this (the spellcasters) end up not getting to actually keep much of the loot they get.&nbsp; It all gets funneled back into powering abilities for later adventure.&nbsp; Thus, the martial classes who don't require consumables to function end up getting richer faster.&nbsp; It makes playing a spellcaster less desireable because you're adventuring not to get rich, but just to fuel the next adventure.The only way to combat this is to &quot;take off the top&quot; a level of treasure that goes into powering the consumables of the spellcasters.&nbsp; Which admittedly many groups already do (and which our group did during the playtest, where a percentage of the treasure up front went to covering the costs of the Healer-themed cleric's Herbalism abilities)... but to have that be par for the course for every spellcasting class?&nbsp; It's kind of a self-defeating purpose in my opinion.&nbsp; To know that you have to take 25% of all treasure off the top just to power up your spellcasters later is kind of pointless... because I suspect most groups would just say &quot;You know what, Mister DM?&nbsp; Just give us 25% less treasure and we'll assume our casters are always full up.&quot;&nbsp; And if that's the direction most groups go (which I would suspect it is)... then it'd be the &quot;paying for consumables&quot; side of the equation that would end up being the module, not the other way around.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 5986879, member: 7006"] The problem with this format though is that the classes who are required to do this (the spellcasters) end up not getting to actually keep much of the loot they get. It all gets funneled back into powering abilities for later adventure. Thus, the martial classes who don't require consumables to function end up getting richer faster. It makes playing a spellcaster less desireable because you're adventuring not to get rich, but just to fuel the next adventure. The only way to combat this is to "take off the top" a level of treasure that goes into powering the consumables of the spellcasters. Which admittedly many groups already do (and which our group did during the playtest, where a percentage of the treasure up front went to covering the costs of the Healer-themed cleric's Herbalism abilities)... but to have that be par for the course for [I]every[/I] spellcasting class? It's kind of a self-defeating purpose in my opinion. To know that you have to take 25% of all treasure off the top just to power up your spellcasters later is kind of pointless... because I suspect most groups would just say "You know what, Mister DM? Just give us 25% less treasure and we'll assume our casters are always full up." And if that's the direction most groups go (which I would suspect it is)... then it'd be the "paying for consumables" side of the equation that would end up being the module, not the other way around. [/QUOTE]

Verification