D&D 1E Common House Rules for AD&D?

[overgeeked]

1e didn't have wealth-by-level guidelines, though. 3e did, which is why I was asking as to @haakon1 's experience with it.

Yes, I’m aware. But PCs swimming in gold isn’t a 3E thing. I was comparing my experiences to yours. Excessive gold. To solve that we used XP for gold spent.

I get the sentiment, but my issue with it is that it really hurts the PC who doesn't spend now because she's saving up for something big later e.g. a stronghold.

Layaway. You’ve got to start somewhere. Survey teams. Mercs to clear the site. Patrols to keep it clear. Hire architects to make plans. Masons and loggers. Etc. You don’t drop 100,000 gp and get a stronghold by morning.

I've never used xp-for-treasure anyway, but this variant doesn't exactly encourage me to want to start.

Fair.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, I’m aware. But PCs swimming in gold isn’t a 3E thing. I was comparing my experiences to yours. Excessive gold. To solve that we used XP for gold spent.

When I played 3e we were swimming in gold. Slowed-down level advancement and 1e modules = very wealthy characters.

Not that I-as-player minded. It gave the DM headaches, thoguh.

Layaway. You’ve got to start somewhere. Survey teams. Mercs to clear the site. Patrols to keep it clear. Hire architects to make plans. Masons and loggers. Etc. You don’t drop 100,000 gp and get a stronghold by morning.

Sure you do. Just pay someone that 100K to drop a Wish and then start hauling in the furniture.

More seriously, all of that sort of thing is what I'd want my PC to be doing after retirement from adventuring so he could oversee the process and be involved in it day-to-day. But I'd want to be saving up for it all the way along, such that when I do retire I've enough cash on hand to afford the clearing, construction, etc.

But if saving up for it means I'll never get enough xp to get to that level...it just doesn't make sense somehow.

 

[overgeeked]

When I played 3e we were swimming in gold. Slowed-down level advancement and 1e modules = very wealthy characters.

Not that I-as-player minded. It gave the DM headaches, thoguh.

Sure you do. Just pay someone that 100K to drop a Wish and then start hauling in the furniture.

More seriously, all of that sort of thing is what I'd want my PC to be doing after retirement from adventuring so he could oversee the process and be involved in it day-to-day. But I'd want to be saving up for it all the way along, such that when I do retire I've enough cash on hand to afford the clearing, construction, etc.

But if saving up for it means I'll never get enough xp to get to that level...it just doesn't make sense somehow.

Right. Which is why when we used that system we never "saved up for it." We spent as we went. Because it makes no sense to hoard gold when you get XP for spending it. So we constantly spent and wasted gold on whatever we could to get the XP, and suddenly we were broke and needed to go out adventuring again to get more gold to spend...just like all those swords & sorcery stories. Broke sellswords needing a few coins to rub together hiring themselves out to perform whatever petty larceny or spot of tomb robbing was needed. Worked like a charm for us. Perfect tone for our group. Still managed to get keeps and castles out of it, too.

 

[glass]

In my experience, "too much" gold makes a lot less difference then "too little".

I once played in a campaign where the GM accidentally gave us several million gp at 11th level - it was a very large dragon hoard, and he thought we would only be able to cart off a small proportion of it before word got around and other people jumped on the claim. Maybe we would have been able to defend it anyway (11th level, after all) but it was rather moot because we had recently acquired some rings gates and a castle. A couple of ours of scooping later and all the coinage had been transferred via the former to the latter. Anyway, the point is that it didn't break anything - although without it my wizard probably would not have bought a Cloak of Charisma!