(Discussion) General Part VII

[Knight Otu]

I think Creamsteak made an error in editing the relevant passage. The original reads:

To spend Craft points toward the creation of an alchemical, masterwork, or magic item, you must have the requisite Craft feat (such as Craft Masterwork Armor for creating a masterwork chain shirt) or assist someone who does (see Assisting, below).

Since we consolidated the Masterwork and Alchemical craft feats into one, I guess the error happened at that time.

But I think that spellcasters will need that feat for alchemical Crafting, though... Creamsteak?

 

[nimisgod]

Does this meant that a wizard enchanting an existing suit of (masterwork) armor, weapon, or other item needs the Craft Masterwork Items feat?

I think you can just buy a suit of MW armor or a MW weapon and start the enchanting process from there.

However, if you want to make the Suit of Armor/Weapon then the answer would be "Yes" according to the wording of the feat.

 

[Creamsteak]

Zweischneid, Patlin basically nailed what our primary concern is with our "fantasy economics."

With the compromises implicit in a shared world, I have no problem with an open, easy market.

I would really love it if the game was fluid and had every item being created by another player. Every item was made by a particular person, for a particular purpose. That would be incredibly cool. However, I don't think it can be pulled off.

- - - - - - - - - -

Creamsteak, here's a smallish thing - over in the Death and Retirement proposal, we established a soft level limit for NPCs, at about 9th level. How about, while we keep the 50000 gp limit, we add an additional limitation that the item cannot be one that requires level 10 or more (remembering that the Caster Level line is not generally a prerequisite). So, weapons and armor above a +3 bonus are out (though +3 with an +1 ability is likely still in). Items requiring a 6th or higher level spell are out. Staves and Rings would also be out, due to feat requirements.
Of course, that's all barring special circumstances, such as a PC wizard opening a shop for staves, DMs/judges including a dedicated shop in another city, etc. A bit of fine tuning might help, though.

So, the questing for special items will still be possible - even the Claymore of Frost. If it is a +3 icy burst weapon, it will be (barely) above the gold piece limit, after all.

I agree with you there. Now, also don't forget that we created a 5 level "Trader" prestige class (it's in the heap). That also has an effect on things.

I mentioned this in the craft point thread: Since craft points are directly related to level and feats, they are going to run out at some point, and thus shop-crafters might have some trouble. I know you mentioned that there might be some other way to gain craft points, but you never really specified if it's just a possibility or planned.

I don't want to sound offending or anything, but since I'm playing in LEW and I have two characters that are going to take item creation feats and possibly opening some kind of shops at some point (should they live long enough), this is kind of an interesting subject to me.

We could pass around some ideas on that. Craft points could also be handed out on a real-time basis. What I mean by that, is we could have craft points awarded every month of real time, similar to how we are trying to do with experience.

Creamsteak - should I turn my compromise and job system into proposals now?

If you think you can do it adequately, go for it.

- - - - - - - - - - -

I'll see about correcting that mistake in the passage thing.

 

[Zweischneid]

Ok, ok, I get the point.
As always, I am likely stuck too deep in my pen&paper games I suppose. I'll promise betterment. (really)

To be absolutely sure.
If I want to invest a bit of my limited funds into (in my example) some items (like cold iron arrows) or crafted things (lika a psionic tattoo or two), I merely subtract the gold and write em down on my sheet?

And if I want to sell some things like my sealing wax, etc.. because Morulas is getting encumbered, I'll just delete them from the sheet and get half the price in return?

All assuming my character is in town and with a bit time on hand of course.
Thanks in advance for answering....

 

[Creamsteak]

If your in Orussus, and the item follows the limits (Knight Otu might be setting up a proposal so we have an official word on that), yeah, that's what it would amount to.

We really need to improve the record-keeping, and around early January, I think I'm going to start the new character tracking thread. You won't lose anything, but the new thread will "thin the list" to only those characters and players that are playing. Others can grab thier characters and bring them to the new thread later if they don't do so right away, it's just a measure to help us keep track of a more particular list. I also want to keep track of rewards from adventures a little bit better (currently we track experience mostly).

And, as far as selling, you can get 50% for a fully functional item under normal circumstances. now, if your a trader (a prestige class) you get a slightly better %. I think it might be 75% but I'm not positive. Also, you could always find a player that wants the same item (a lower level character that could use your +1 bastard sword) and sell it to them for a slightly better mark up (65%?). That would, generally, be the better choice as far as magic items are concerned.

 

[Knight Otu]

That's pretty much how it should work. Of course, depending on which town you are in, you may not be able to sell what you want to sell if it is too expensive for the townsfolk.

I'm curious if my compromise would at least reduce some of your concerns, though.

 

[Zweischneid]

I'm curious if my compromise would at least reduce some of your concerns, though.

Hmm, tough question.
I can see how the limitations of a shared world like Living ENWorld needs to find workable compromise, and I'm still as happy to play around here. I think your compromise will work just fine by and large.

When everything is said and done, the point is obviously always to game and have fun and anything that follows below now are just the minor nitpicks of a diletantte student. Proceed at your own risk!






Anyways, as of my original concerns, I think they mostly still persist. Though as always with theories, one needs to see how it plays out before one can be sure of anything.
I'll go through them backwards if you don't mind.

3.
Also, the 'power-gap' between high-level and low-level characters will widen considerably I believel, if any player can optimize his selection of magic items in a shop.
Since LENWorld adventures regularly feature very mixed level set-ups in adventures (I don't think it will be uncommon to see lvl 3 characters traveling along lvl 7 or even 8 ones, once there are such characters around) it would in the long run make things much easier for DMs and much more cordial among players, if characters aren't fine-tuned to the last potions and enchanted ring.

This one I think is and will be the major issue. Even though my lvl 2 elf only recieved about 250 gp (900 gp - is what the DMG works with as average, right?) of treasure in the last adventure, picking up a few psionic tattoos, potions and specially crafted arrows has made the character much more effective than he otherwise would be, i.e. the power gap to a lvl 1 character has widend considerable even when only accessing a free selection of items below 100 or 150 gp.
I still think this needs to be adressed in a game environment where characters of different levels will play together as this could turn into a real downer once the people here reach higher levels (and greater treasures).

2.
There's also something decidedly ugly about a druid staking a claim on a magic two-hander or a fighter on a ring of wizardry, which will surely happen if magic items are reduced to their respective cash value only if anything and everything can be traded for or sold at the 'magic-item-shop' for something useful.

Well, I admit that I did have greeds ugly tendrils (I myself warned about) close in on me after first admiting Gorefoot and Ishmael to their magic weapons and than found out they could be bought freely.
Therefore I'm likely the wrong person to argue the point.. I'll try anyways:



First, while I do not doubt that Patlin will make sure we even out again treasure wise in the long run, I dont think there is a way to compensate, economically speaking, for the 'lost time' (in a pbp game, likely many months) that the characters who won the weapons get to play with their new shiny toys while those who missed out have to wait on them. As someone wrote above.. saving money or treasure in D&D makes no sense.. there are no interest rates after all and if you get something first, you've gained a big advantage.

Or - to use the specific example of the Burning Tower/Farie Woods - if Morulas had to sit out on the fights for another three months due to a lack of magic weapon I'd be mightily pissed.
(Though I hope I can work around this now with Psionic Tattoos.. maybe my argumentation below point 3 would prove a good counterargument to this point here )

The example might be flawed though, because for some reason the very two characters who ended up with the magic weapons are the exactly the very two characters not left out cold by the lack of a magic weapon in the previous adventure.. kinda distorts the problem I guess.
The value of this 'game time' far trancends the value of the item IMO.


(This kinda turned pretty long... jump the green part if you've got something useful to do)
Secondly, money does lose it's value very, very quickly in D&D, and the same goes for Magic Items which are likely the biggest chunk of a characters expenses (aside from healing/resurrections possibly).

A +1 Sword or a Ring of Protection is much, much more valuable to a lvl 2 character, than it would be to a lvl 3 or lvl 5 character.
At higher levels, other assets (spells, potions, class abilities) are more common and the impact on the monsters/the game is predictably much less impressive.

Taking the little (sadly nonlinear) chart for recommended starting gold from the DMG as basis (no average PC-Character income to work with I guess)..

lvl 2 - 900 gp
lvl 3 - 2700 gp
lvl 4 - 5400 gp
lvl 5 - 9000 gp

..one would see that a magic item costing 2700 gp would equal three times the usual assets of a lvl 2 character, equal the average assets of a lvl 3 character and be less than 1/3 of the total assets of a lvl 5 character.

To get the same real value a lvl 2 character recieves from a 2700 gp weapon/item, you'd have to provide a lvl 3 character with a 8100 gp item or a lvl 5 character with a 27000 gp item.

The other way around, a lvl 3 character recieving/buying a 2700 gp item would only gain the real value from it, that a lvl 2 character would get from a 900 gp item.

So, if you actually follow my logic, you'll create a vicious circle where there's always one player getting the shaft and (rightfully) demanding his due later on. (which will leave another player short).
If you don't, those who receive their due later are never really rewarded equally to those who receive theirs earlier.

To sum it up.. an unlimited supply of magic items makes uneaven loot distribution .. well, a highly volatile subject. Which leads us to..



..Thirdly, and most importantly.. if I was set back by my greedy temptations, others might be too. The friendly relations here on LENWorld could suffer from this. (or I could be the only one, in which case you should ban my account I suppose)

1.
The fun of D&D is chasing the mystical stuff out there in the world, not stopping by the house next to the bakery and loading up on gear that is perfectly crafted to your own needs.

(and thereby basicallly devaluating any loot from adventures which might be less-optimal and will therefore in turn only be sold to said shop 90% of the time)

Well, this point likely is the least. A good DM will come up with different Adventure hooks. It's just that Treasure Hunting is sooo D&D

 

[Zweischneid]

Man.. what a monster post!


Do I get a price ?

 

[Patlin]

This is not intended as a rant or anything, merely as an analysis of the problems in the example games. Since it can be hard to evaluate emotion on a bulletin board, let me simply state that I am not feeling offended or defensive or anything. This is just what I think.

The fact that anyone wound up sitting on their hands in the final battle of the burning tower is a fundamental error on my part. All I can say is I'll try not to let it happen again, magic toys or no magic toys. I did a variety of things wrong, in my own opinion.

1. I simply wasn't sure how to balance a threat for 7 characters spread out from levels 1 through 3.

2. The monster I picked had too much defensive capability, not enough offensive capability. Led to an unfortunate stalemate, too drawn out.

3. In planning the adventure, I didn't fully take into account one of the principal differences between a living campaign and my normal tabeltop game: each character is created in isolation, and parties just sort of happen. No one sat down and said, hey, I want to play a fighter this time, he wants to play a sorceror. Would you guys like to play a rogue and a cleric? The mix is more difficult to predict. This is fun, organic, and interesting. It does, however, make some obstacles more difficult. In this particular case, I think somewhere in the back of my mind I was thinking that I'd make sure you all knew you had time to prepare for the fight, and that someone would prepare a magic weapon spell to get past the DR. Didn't consider that the only spellcasters were spontaneous spellcasters. We had no Cleric. No one could.

I intentionally stayed out of the divvy, and rather than assigning the magic weapons to the characters that would benefit the most, the players chose to present them as prizes to the characters that were seen to have contributed the most. (At least, I think this was the reasoning. Was it?) A valid choice, but I can see how it adds to your concern. I was a little surprised no one put forward Fant as especially deserving, given that she filled the role of party leader, but different minds evaluate these things differently, I guess.

As to making up for the lost time to play with the shiny toys, I think you are neglecting one aspect. The new toys are usually better than the old toys. For example, say the next cool item found is a +2 weapon. Unless I'm completely crazy, the first thing the average adventuring part will ask is "OK, who doesn't have a magic weapon yet?" Won't the fact that for a time you have the *best* new toy make up at least a little for the fact that the other guys got their toy first?

I also figure how you feel about this depends in part on your playing style. Personally, I've noticed most of the people I play with enjoy accumulating loot more than I do. Probably this is because I so enjoy designing characters and seeing them grow into the roll I intended. It would be nice for Tor to find the +5 Blazing Spiked Chain of Doom, for example, but it would be a lot more rewarding in my opinion to finally reach the point where he can take his first level of Dragon Disciple.

One final tangent: I have a tendancy to hoard my gold for the really big purchases. If I want Ironwolf to have a +1 Mindfeeder Falchion, the money to buy a +1 Falchion is likely to stay in my pocket. A behavior identified as crazy at least twice in the last few posts. Ah, well. Sanity's overrated anyway.

 

[SlagMortar]

I also have a tendency to save up for the big purchases, but with some effort, I hope to vary that from Character to Character. Nars will save, Planus will blow it all right away, and Beamer will be somewhere in the middle.

I (or actually Nars) picked Ishmael because he used up more of his consumable resources than anyone else for the benefit of the group (1/3 of his wand of cure light wounds). Specifically from Nars's perspective, Ishmael healed him with no complaint after Nars had been beaten within an inch of his life following a poor decision. Gorefoot was chosen because Nars thought he had "saved the day" and Nars was eager to see the little guy's face light up when he saw his new toy. Nars thought of Fant as well, but there were only two weapons.

I was wary of making a suggestion as the first suggestion made is often accepted, but would have been perfectly happy with a different distribution. I did expect that there might be other suggestions.

I had not thought of the point that Gorefoot and Ishmael were effective despite the damage reduction and so perhaps the weapons should be given to help boost the other members of the group. That would have been a very valid counter argument to Nars and given his personality, he would have immediately given in. Especially now that Gorefoot can power attack for -2/+4.