Henchmen, Hirelings, Faith, and Heresy

[Nemesis Destiny]

The 'problem' is that the 4e economy is designed to work as a game, not to model a pseudo-medieval world. This is good, because a pseudo-medieval world built on D&D's tropes wouldn't work. GPs in 4e (and, arguably, in 3.x, too) are merely a points system for purchasing in-game party enhancements; used that way, they work fine. Change the 4e economy, and you will not get a world that actually works (because there are far too many other factors preventing that), but you may get a game that doesn't.

Like I said earlier, I DO get the gamist aspect of the 4e economy.

I have ditched it because:

1) My homebrew campaign has been around a lot longer then 4e
2) The in-game economy works fine in my world the way it has been since 199X
3) My group is on board with keeping the old model (most of them have been with us nearly since the beginning)
4) We don't use a "fixed wealth per level" model - it's DM fiat all the way
5) We don't game with powergamers, so tighter control is unnecessary

 

[MrMyth]

The 'problem' is that the 4e economy is designed to work as a game, not to model a pseudo-medieval world. This is good, because a pseudo-medieval world built on D&D's tropes wouldn't work. GPs in 4e (and, arguably, in 3.x, too) are merely a points system for purchasing in-game party enhancements; used that way, they work fine. Change the 4e economy, and you will not get a world that actually works (because there are far too many other factors preventing that), but you may get a game that doesn't.

Yes and no. I think the fundamental most important part of the 4E economy is making sure the characters have the right bonuses. Using the Inherent Bonuses system addresses that. Honestly, I think players having full access to purchase anything they want ran into more dangers than reducing that access while preserving the bonuses that are actually needed.

For myself, my next campaign I plan to use inherent bonuses and avoid any magic item purchase at all. (Save perhaps for occasional consumables). That way, PCs will be encouraged to spend gold on... well, actually buying stuff of interest to their character concepts, rather than their mechanical builds. The Unearthed Arcana articles are great for that - the potential to invest in a stronghold, henchmen, etc.

We'll see how it goes!

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Yes and no. I think the fundamental most important part of the 4E economy is making sure the characters have the right bonuses. Using the Inherent Bonuses system addresses that. Honestly, I think players having full access to purchase anything they want ran into more dangers than reducing that access while preserving the bonuses that are actually needed.

For myself, my next campaign I plan to use inherent bonuses and avoid any magic item purchase at all. (Save perhaps for occasional consumables). That way, PCs will be encouraged to spend gold on... well, actually buying stuff of interest to their character concepts, rather than their mechanical builds. The Unearthed Arcana articles are great for that - the potential to invest in a stronghold, henchmen, etc.

We'll see how it goes!

Yes, this is basically the crux of the matter. I have used this model of running the game and can tell you that it does work, though you may need to have the "right" group of players. Not everyone is on board with a lack of magic item economy, since the books set players up to expect it now. Same goes for wishlists.

But it can be done, and it does work. Good luck to you in that endeavour, MrMyth.

PS - I tried to rep you for that, but it seems that I agree with you too often. Sorry!

 

[Matt James]

Great article by Rob. I loved it.

 

[Balesir]

Yes and no. I think the fundamental most important part of the 4E economy is making sure the characters have the right bonuses. Using the Inherent Bonuses system addresses that. Honestly, I think players having full access to purchase anything they want ran into more dangers than reducing that access while preserving the bonuses that are actually needed.

Hmm, 'keep bonuses in the right ballpark', maybe - I hear a lot about "feat taxes" and stuff, but I'm far from convinced that exact bonuses are all that critical. Magic items allow some variety, here - take the extra plus, or get some interesting properties/powers. That said, the 'Inherent Bonuses' takes care of the 'ballpark bonus' need; I wonder whether this will leave too much scope for other attributes of items, but you can always give less items, as you intend, so it's hardly insoluble.

For myself, my next campaign I plan to use inherent bonuses and avoid any magic item purchase at all. (Save perhaps for occasional consumables). That way, PCs will be encouraged to spend gold on... well, actually buying stuff of interest to their character concepts, rather than their mechanical builds. The Unearthed Arcana articles are great for that - the potential to invest in a stronghold, henchmen, etc.

OK, I can see how taking gold pieces out of the 'game' part altogether and having it buy fluff could be a useful function. D&D does need some "measure of character success" that is not linked to adding in-game power, and this is one way to do it. If some of those elements become useful on adventure, though, you might get a warped market (since it will be "obviously better" to players who are 'playing the game' to buy attributes that give adventuring bonuses)

We'll see how it goes!

Aye - the proof is always in the pudding.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Imagine wise hermits or ancient martial arts masters secluded high in the mountain tops.

Said martial arts master is a minion? I think not. IMO, they'd be a fairly high level (say, paragon) skirmisher or what not, who has perhaps lost levels due to age and lack of practice. He's still dangerous though.

 

[NexH]

Said martial arts master is a minion? I think not. IMO, they'd be a fairly high level (say, paragon) skirmisher or what not, who has perhaps lost levels due to age and lack of practice. He's still dangerous though.

I find it useful for adventure building and showcasing the PC's power advancement to consider that most minions are only such in relation with the PC's level. So a 5th level standard orc may be modelled in the paragon tier as a 13th level minion: perhaps, unable to damage the PC's with his normal fighting style, he is sacrificing his own safety for the chance to deal damage; on the other hand, the PCs are now capable of dispatching him via more precise attacks, ignoring everything else and focusing only on his vital points for a quick kill.
Similarly, a 14th level (standard) skirmisher may be modelled, versus the legendary power of the PCs in epic tier, as level 22 skirmisher minion; he is still dangerous and extremely competent in absolute terms, but not in relation to the PCs and their enemies.

 

[MrMyth]

Hmm, 'keep bonuses in the right ballpark', maybe - I hear a lot about "feat taxes" and stuff, but I'm far from convinced that exact bonuses are all that critical. Magic items allow some variety, here - take the extra plus, or get some interesting properties/powers. That said, the 'Inherent Bonuses' takes care of the 'ballpark bonus' need; I wonder whether this will leave too much scope for other attributes of items, but you can always give less items, as you intend, so it's hardly insoluble.

I've never seen a need for the feat taxes like Expertise. As far as items go, though, I think those are a bit more relevant, though probably not significantly noticeable until you are getting into Paragon.

Either way, outside of that, I can't think of any magic item properties or powers that a party would ever actually 'need' - and while the lack would be a reduction in power, I think it is mainly in focused power. Over the course of the day, the magic item party isn't too overwhelmingly ahead of the non magic item party. However, in any given short term scenario, they can probably bring a bit more to bear.

But I think that will honestly make it easier to plot out and design encounters, since the party's capabilities will be much easier to predict overall.

OK, I can see how taking gold pieces out of the 'game' part altogether and having it buy fluff could be a useful function. D&D does need some "measure of character success" that is not linked to adding in-game power, and this is one way to do it. If some of those elements become useful on adventure, though, you might get a warped market (since it will be "obviously better" to players who are 'playing the game' to buy attributes that give adventuring bonuses)

Sure, but that's why magic items are out of the equation. That doesn't mean they won't have options that aren't usable in combat, but those options won't necessarily be potent enough to be worth giving up a chance to buy their own boat. And they will probably be more likely to have consequences than magic items would.

So the player who is all about combat effectiveness can hire some mercenaries to protect him in combat - and they will provide some bonuses, but also be quite likely to get killed if he uses them too aggressively, and consequences can easily develop from that.