Excerpt: Economies [merged]

[Lizard]

And you can continue statting them up. Well, if your distaste with D&D doesn't cause you to go back to GURPS and/or HERO first, that is.

It's up to my players.

Honestly, I want to buy KOTS and run it, so we can all get a fair look at the rules in actual play, but I think people will stick w/3.5 until the current campaigns end. After that, who knows? Depends on how active Pathfinder support ends up being and if there's cool things from 3PP for 4e.

 

[hong]

It's up to my players.

Oh well.

 

[hong]

Because the starting point is "Role" and everything follows from there.

The starting point is whatever you, the DM, want it to be. Role only comes into play if/when the NPC enters combat.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Kobold manservant? Hobgoblin bodyguard to an elf prince? Orc wizard? Ogre shaman? Half-silver-dragon artist/dilettante? Half-troll/half-green-dragon bandit chieftain? Half-fiend medusa rogue pretending to be a mind flayer? I've statted 'em all up. I've had a lot of fun with NPCs who wouldn't last five seconds in a straight-up fight, but 4e doesn't have any place for them as mechanically distinct creatures. You can't, from what we've seen, build a scholar or a diplomat who is actually focused on those abilities; you are Trained in a skill, and that's it.

I don't see why you wouldn't be able to stat any of these creatures up.

Admittedly, we haven't seen the full extent of the rules set, but 4e is an exception-based design. You might have to stat most of those from the ground up, using the base creatures as a guideline, but I don't see why it wouldn't be able to be done.

Just because the MM doesn't include combat-irrelevant powers, doesn't mean that you have to. And even though you have to build them from the ground up, it's unlikely to be significantly more complicated than applying multiple templates and classes to a creature in 3.x, because it seems to me that 4e is fairly relaxed about how stats work (I suppose it would require more creativity, not that I am in ANY way trying to imply that you are lacking thereof; just saying that creating a creature from mostly scratch seems, to me, to require more creativity than applying a template does).

Decide what kind of creature to make, what level it falls under, and make sure that it's bonuses are appropriate for that level. Want a scholar? Take a human mage from the MM (assuming there is one) and replace his spells with Learned: +5 to all knowledge-based checks. Think the mage is too tough for a cloistered scholar? Make him a minion.

Technically, you probably don't even need to give the scholar stats in 4e unless you plan on having him involved in combat, but I can't see there being anything to prevent you from doing so. Its not like the WotC ninjas will show up at your house because you've committed an act of badwrongfun. Unless they do, in which case I apologize in advance for having lead you astray.

 

[marune]

4e, it's "Lurker, brute, controller". It exists to appear, beat up the PCs for five rounds, and vanish. It's boring and constraining and limits my creativity to deciding what combat role something should have -- as opposed to building a creature FIRST and then seeing where its abilities and powers naturally place it, if it even is SUPPOSED to be in combat. I've had a lot of fun with NPCs who wouldn't last five seconds in a straight-up fight, but 4e doesn't have any place for them as mechanically distinct creatures. Every ability in the game is centered around combat; anything outside of the battlemat is pure handwaving. Looking at the sample characters, and now we've seen a lot of them, I don't see a single feat or power which is intended to improve performance in "skill challenges" -- the system seems to be an afterthought. You can't, from what we've seen, build a scholar or a diplomat who is actually focused on those abilities; you are Trained in a skill, and that's it.

I guess it's pointless to say that you don't have to set a role to a NPC that is not meant to be a combat challenge ?

I'm pretty sure the DMG will tell us : " You can make an NPC like this : Cornelius the Sage, Human, Male, History +19".

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I guess it's pointless to say that you don't have to set a role to a NPC that is not meant to be a combat challenge ?

I'm pretty sure the DMG will tell us : " You can make an NPC like this : Cornelius the Sage, Human, Male, History +19".

I agree, you only need to stat them out as far as they need to be.

 

[pawsplay]

Sure. That works. Sell your old blades to the king's armorer one at a time. You just have to convince someone to get you an intro.

"Hi! I have a magic sword. Think your king would be interested in that?"

Then beat off the thieves trying to take it from you when word gets out that you've got a magic sword.

Heck, put out flyers. Let the XP flow.

Finally, you have to meet with the fellow responsible, and then convince him to buy it at your asking price. Of course, he's interested, but he could see clear to giving you full price if you'd just take care of this wee little problem that he has with a troll over in Greendale. Naturally, any treasure you find is yours to keep. Too bad the troll's been doing nothing but pillaging chicken farms.

"Gosh, that's too bad. I wonder if yonder noble over the hill would be interested?"

Chicken farms, indeed. Who says that vengeful DMing is a lost art?

That's what I mean when I say you can't "beat the system." The DM is the system. If the players try to exploit loopholes, it's the DM's job to close said loopholes.

I have a hard time thinking of logic, economics, and versimillitude as "loopholes."

Limited time. And again, the DM is an adaptable human being, not a dumb machine. Only a DM who's an utter moron would let the PCs "beat the system."

Only an utter moron would refuse to allow the PCs a hard won victory over great obstacles.

How is the merchant "bullying" anyone? He's just charging a fair price. Or are you claiming that the markup is unfair? Quite honestly, how do you have any idea what a "fair markup" would be on a magic item?

I think we've already established that the markup is NOT fair. As far as markup goes, I think it would be like trading in commodities. You buy one +1 sword for 1000 gp from an adventurer who needs cash, take it down the road and find a guyer who will pay 2000 gp. I'd say 10% is more realistic, but 50% is fine for a seller's market.

Or is this back to the theory that because the PCs are powerful, they should be able to take whatever they want?

Because the PCs are powerful, they should get the same deals as any wandering merchant.

Because nobody ever hoards anything to keep the price up. Tell me, how much do you know about the diamond trade?

More than a little, actually. And one thing I know is that anyone selling a diamond, whether hoarding diamonds or not, enjoys the price boost caused by that hoarding.

Because the local nobility is going to think that the merchant is the problem with all these armed ruffians about. Yeah right. The merchant is just making his living.

There's a very long history of kings excusing themselves from debts, hiring privateers, and randomly arresting merchants and shaking them down for loans or business opportunities. Nobles are, essentially, ruffians who have achieved a high degree of success. William the Conqueror was an armed ruffian. So was Genghis Khan.

Of course, the merchant's guild is responsible for maintaining whatever passes for civilization in this god-forsaken country. For heroic PCs, the merchant's guild is probably composed of people much like them. And, moreover, they probably have clients who are at least as powerful as the PCs, but don't mind playing by the rules.

I really doubt that. Isolated communities usually depend on local crafts a lot, and they make lots of use of used and repaired items. A city that depended on regular caravans through dangerous country risks disaster.

Besides, I thought we were talking about +1 sword, so the PCs are hardly dragon-slaying immortals just yet. By the time they are, they're probably trying to trade with an Efreeti merchant in the city of Brass, and I doubt he'll appreciate being pushed around either.

You're predicating a whole lot on the theory that these markups are thoroughly unreasonable. I take it you never pay retail?

There's nothing wrong with paying retail, if it gets you what you need at a price you can afford. Yes, those markups are unreasonable. Car dealers get by on between 3% and 15% or so on each sale, and I think car sales are an excellent comparison, because cars are expensive, but many people find them useful.

There is a discrepancy between what I could sell a car for, versus a dealership. But that mainly comes down to my lack of a public reputation. The markup is far less than 800%. It's less than 50%. In general, you can get 85% or more of the retail price selling your car on your own. Never trade in, unless you are pressed for time.

There's a ceiling to what someone can charge for a magic item, when there is a competing barter system. PCs may find opportunities to swap items for items. Surely, NPCs don't get that much markup. "I'll trade you this fine +1 axe for those five +1 longswords. You being PCs and all."

 

[marune]

I have to admit that you can't do : Dork, Human, Male, Farmer + 12, Cobbler + 8.

Question is, how many times do these skills will be used by a NPC to give help/hindrance to the PCs faced with a challenge ?

 

[hong]

"Gosh, that's too bad. I wonder if yonder noble over the hill would be interested?"

Chicken farms, indeed. Who says that vengeful DMing is a lost art?

"It's a great new fantasy roleplaying game. We pretend we're workers and students in an industrialised and technological society."

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I have to admit that you can't do : Dork, Human, Male, Farmer + 12, Cobbler + 8.

Question is, how many times do these skills will be used by a NPC to give help/hindrance to the PCs faced with a challenge ?

Farmer: Nature

Cobbler: Thievery (good with your hands)