Etymology
Weeble said:
Let’s examine the section of the DMG that deals with Table 5-1: Character Wealth by Level on page 145. Read the section in the right column titled “Character Wealth”. Notice the first sentence says “One of the ways,” implying that there could be other ways outside of the rules in which a DM can maintain measurable control over PCs. There is probably no reason to require a DM to follow this table to the letter, but rather to use it as a guideline to maintain fairness and to make CRs worth while and accurate.
Funny. That's what I posted about it. Glad to see you changed your mind. Although, I do recall you stating that this table had absolutely nothing to do with maintaing wealth and gear limits when it comes to anything that is not "found", which you continue to argue below.
Weeble said:
I argue that there could be a Class System in D&D and that we should not treat the wealth of a Fighter at 5th level exactly the same as a Wizard at 5th level.
Might be a good house rule, but a house rule none the less. If you don't at least attempt to maintain a roughly equal amount of wealth between two different characters, no matter what their class, one will inevitably be far weaker or stronger than the other in terms of overall power.
Weeble said:
Many people probably think I am contradicting myself.
Yep. I've read your earlier posts in the other thread in House Rules. You essentially stated that there is no limit to the amount of wealth an item creator can have if he makes his own items, such as 5,000,000gp for a 20th level item creator. That seemed odd to me than and it seems odd to me now.
Weeble said:
Do I suggest that DMs follow guidelines or not?
You previously posted repeatedly that you did not feel that spellcasters should be limited to what or how much they can create, thus increasing their wealth, in any way, shape, or form, so no, I didn't think you were suggesting that DMs follow guidelines for them.
Weeble said:
Do following some guidelines limit verisimilitude or not?
What does verisiimilitude have to do with it? Are you referring to quality?
Weeble said:
If a DM were to use table 5-1 as a strict guideline for how much wealth a character had from buying or making items on top of “treasures found in average encounters” then that DM would be throwing verisimilitude out the door.
Again, I ask. What does verisimilitude have to do with any of this?
Weeble said:
But it also gives the imaginative players (some call munchkin-I dislike that term) the chance to convert their character’s treasure into even more wealth, kind of like an “investment”.
Maybe. But characters are still limited to a certain amount of wealth, as shown in Table 5-1, so it's not a problem at all.
Naturally, wealth that is inaccessible to a character, such as across the continent with no way of quickly retrieving it, probably shouldn't count against them. It's one of those tricky things.
Weeble said:
Later on, if I were to “hand out” less treasure to a spellcaster who had previously created items because I counted those items at market value (even though those items really are only worth what was put into them) I would be doing that character a grave injustice.
This conclusion has already been reached, so this is nothing new. However, you might one day indeed need to limit how much you "hand out" if your characters attain too much accessible wealth.
Weeble said:
This also would be destroying any verisimilitude that my campaign world had.
There's that etymology thing again. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with that.
Weeble said:
Would I say to the other players “NO! You cannot give that spellcaster the exact amount of gold as everyone, because, because, um, because he has made magic items that put him over my ever-strict guidelines using Table 5-1 in the DMG?”
Of course not. You would be much better off either balancing him out with the rest of the party, or balancing out the rest of the party with him, or balancing out the CRs and ELs with the whole party. But I'm careful with wealth, so this rarely ever happens in my games. You have many options besides the one you suggest, but I think you already know that.
Weeble said:
This seems like a ridiculous amount of metagaming on the part of any DM who would do such a thing...
Of course it is, which is why you shouldn't do it. Any good DM would refrain from such tactics, and I doubt many DMs on these boards have done it, hopefully.
Weeble said:
But if I use table 5-1 as a basis for managing what wealth I give out in the form of “treasure found”, then I need not worry about this. This leads me again to think that, as DM, I should count items created at what wealth was used to create them.
Partially true. If you use this table for the sole purpose of handing out treasure, and not for keeping an eye on what the characters already have, then you're bound to end up with a party much more powerful than they should be, thus forcing you to take action to balance the game, possibly in the ways I mentioned above.
Weeble said:
Lets now look on p.43, top of column two, “Character-Created Magic Items.” It matters not to me whether the character has attained a certain level or I hand out XP to a player to create a character. A PC is a PC. Following this, “a PC spellcaster can spend as many of the XP and gp you have awarded toward making magic items…” I, as DM, allow the character to make magic items to his/her liking, as long as they follow all of the rules for item creation, i.e. not dropping a level.
It makes a difference when you're dealing with charged items. A PC that makes a new charged magic item does not roll for a random amount of charges. Or was there something else you were pointing out here? (I apologize if I missed it)
Weeble said:
Furthermore, if we limit future treasures found we destroy verisimilitude.
There it is again.
Weeble said:
Yet, if we use the creation costs of magic items made when determining Character Wealth by level, there is little chance to pass the limit...
Yup. I finally noticed that after seeing Sean's example of the two clerics. Took me a while, but at least it finally sunk in.
Weeble said:
One step further, if we use Table 5-1 as a guide for “treasure found”, then we don’t need to worry about what the item is worth (what wealth the spellcaster put into it), as it was not found.
That table is not restricted to treasure "found". It would be a house rule if it were. Remember, that table is based on average trease found (gear you find and/or the money you need to make or purchase an item) in an average encounter compared with the experience points earned (the XP you need to make items, and also the XP you need to increase your overall character wealth limit) in those encounters.
Weeble said:
I interpret the rules the way I have stated, and use them accordingly.
Fine. But it's rather unfortunate that it took you this long to formulate your opinion. Previously, you simply continued to compare NPCs to PCs, and they do not follow all of the same rules. (The 70% discount that NPCs receive for self created equipment is a prime example.
Weeble said:
Don’t just say you feel a certain way about the rules but NOT show me.
You mean like you, and some others on this board, have been doing this entire time? Come on.
Look, Weeble, I appreciate your input, seriously, I do. But there was no chance in Hades that I could be capable of swallowing your previous arguments. Parts of this one, yes, as they make a lot of sense. It's just too bad that you couldn't post it sooner.
I have no problem with defeat. If I did, I wouldn't be here. But I sure as heck won't give you too much credit, especially not when you suddenly "get it mostly right" after the fact, just as I won't give myself any credit whatsoever for being wrong in the first place.
I can't express how much I appreciate everyone's help on this, as nearly all of the help that many of you have given me will substantially improve this aspect of my games, now and in the future. Thanks a bunch everyone!
