Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6021942" data-attributes="member: 996">Well...&nbsp; maybe, a little.&nbsp; 3e made the cost of items explode as levels increased, so /buying/ a wildly-overpowered item should have been difficult and blowing most of your money on some grand RP gesture (re-building your ravaged ancestral holdings, lifting a population out of poverty, etc) would likely leave you with enough spare change to not be too far behind the curve.&nbsp; It didn't work out that well:&nbsp; some very cheap items turned out to be disruptive, and half-price magic item creation along with wealth-generation tricks could blow the doors off it, but it was a reasonable attempt in structure and theory.&nbsp; 4e cranked the cost increases/level up to 11, to the point that it needed absurdly valuable 'astral diamonds' as epic-level currency, but between that, lacking any wealth-generation loopholes, and eliminating cost breaks for making items, it did achieve what 3e attempted: you couldn't afford to buy level-inappropriate items, and you could afford to fit yourself out with one-step-down items out of 'petty cash' if you came up short.&nbsp; The 'treasure parcel' system also gave you most of your wealth in actual items - the cash you got (and 20% proceeds of selling items, especially behind-the-curve cast-offs) couldn't amount to enough to buy too-powerful, or even level-appropriate items, so you were free to spend it as you liked, treating it as another customization issue, not a core balance factor.While I don't like the way 3e and 4e 'commoditized' magic items, I acknowledge that it did ultimately work as intended, and that it was hardly bad for the game.&nbsp; I'd have preferred that magic items perhaps have an entirely separate economy, so that you could have 'poor' or 'rich' PCs in the game without altering balance at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6021942, member: 996"] Well... maybe, a little. 3e made the cost of items explode as levels increased, so /buying/ a wildly-overpowered item should have been difficult and blowing most of your money on some grand RP gesture (re-building your ravaged ancestral holdings, lifting a population out of poverty, etc) would likely leave you with enough spare change to not be too far behind the curve. It didn't work out that well: some very cheap items turned out to be disruptive, and half-price magic item creation along with wealth-generation tricks could blow the doors off it, but it was a reasonable attempt in structure and theory. 4e cranked the cost increases/level up to 11, to the point that it needed absurdly valuable 'astral diamonds' as epic-level currency, but between that, lacking any wealth-generation loopholes, and eliminating cost breaks for making items, it did achieve what 3e attempted: you couldn't afford to buy level-inappropriate items, and you could afford to fit yourself out with one-step-down items out of 'petty cash' if you came up short. The 'treasure parcel' system also gave you most of your wealth in actual items - the cash you got (and 20% proceeds of selling items, especially behind-the-curve cast-offs) couldn't amount to enough to buy too-powerful, or even level-appropriate items, so you were free to spend it as you liked, treating it as another customization issue, not a core balance factor. While I don't like the way 3e and 4e 'commoditized' magic items, I acknowledge that it did ultimately work as intended, and that it was hardly bad for the game. I'd have preferred that magic items perhaps have an entirely separate economy, so that you could have 'poor' or 'rich' PCs in the game without altering balance at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification