Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="aboyd" data-source="post: 4876991" data-attributes="member: 44797">Once?&nbsp; He's pretty up front that if I allow it, he intends to do it hundreds of times in succession so that money is basically irrelevant for him and he can have any item that exists.He has even described how, if I enact a &quot;market glut&quot; type of situation, he will enact a teleportation system where he travels from city to city until he has saturated every market on the planet.My problem is that I'm a fairly by-the-book kind of guy.&nbsp; If RAW allows for this, then I would probably allow this to happen.&nbsp; I would just assume that the authors of the game intended for 9th level to be when the economy collapses and wealth-by-level guidelines grow irrelevant.&nbsp; If that's what they intended, then I may be willing to move forward with the game like this, expecting that D&amp;D rules anticipate this and are somehow balanced for money becoming irrelevant.Thanee's interpretation goes very literal.&nbsp; I like it, but I would like it more if I could hear from an author or someone at Wizard's that agrees.&nbsp; Is there an &quot;Ask Wizards&quot; article about this?&nbsp; I'll go crawl through the official FAQ and see what's there.Also, I read in another thread that going very literal still has drawbacks -- for example, if you want to create 100 planks of wood, you could use 100 Fabricate spells to create each &quot;product.&quot;&nbsp; Or, you could use 1 Fabricate casting, and declare the product to be &quot;a bridge made of planks.&quot;&nbsp; And then you just disassemble the bridge to get all the planks you need.&nbsp; Similarly, the product for Alchemist's Fire could be &quot;A vat of the stuff.&quot;&nbsp; And then the players stand around bottling it for a week and still have the same net result -- absurd amounts of Alchemist's Fire.&nbsp; So a literal interpretation might work, but I'd love to see someone comment on the spirit or intention behind the spell, so that I feel good about enforcing a limitation even if the players come up with an unexpected loophole.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="aboyd, post: 4876991, member: 44797"] Once? He's pretty up front that if I allow it, he intends to do it hundreds of times in succession so that money is basically irrelevant for him and he can have any item that exists. He has even described how, if I enact a "market glut" type of situation, he will enact a teleportation system where he travels from city to city until he has saturated every market on the planet. My problem is that I'm a fairly by-the-book kind of guy. If RAW allows for this, then I would probably allow this to happen. I would just assume that the authors of the game intended for 9th level to be when the economy collapses and wealth-by-level guidelines grow irrelevant. If that's what they intended, then I may be willing to move forward with the game like this, expecting that D&D rules anticipate this and are somehow balanced for money becoming irrelevant. Thanee's interpretation goes very literal. I like it, but I would like it more if I could hear from an author or someone at Wizard's that agrees. Is there an "Ask Wizards" article about this? I'll go crawl through the official FAQ and see what's there. Also, I read in another thread that going very literal still has drawbacks -- for example, if you want to create 100 planks of wood, you could use 100 Fabricate spells to create each "product." Or, you could use 1 Fabricate casting, and declare the product to be "a bridge made of planks." And then you just disassemble the bridge to get all the planks you need. Similarly, the product for Alchemist's Fire could be "A vat of the stuff." And then the players stand around bottling it for a week and still have the same net result -- absurd amounts of Alchemist's Fire. So a literal interpretation might work, but I'd love to see someone comment on the [i]spirit[/i] or intention behind the spell, so that I feel good about enforcing a limitation even if the players come up with an unexpected loophole. [/QUOTE]

Verification