Is this good or bad? 1st level party ALREADY has a stronghold...

[Wolfspider]

"if the robbers have been there for ten years, why do they only have 100 gp?"

Because they spent it all on ale and whores?

Seriously, they're criminals. Bandits and common criminal tend to spend what they get when they get it--who knows if they'll live long enough to save it and have a nice retirement? Organized crime is a bit different, but I see these kinds of rogues as being spendthrifts....

 

[Doc_Klueless]

I'll just chime in and say that I'd make the character's lives as unpleasant as possible while they're lords over this property. They simply aren't equipped yet to handle such responsibilities. Take it away from them anyway you can and let them have another opportunity to own such a stronghold when they're higher level.

This is not an attack on Wolfspider, so please don't take it that way, but rather an argument against the "wait until they are higher level" thing that tends to go around. Here goes:

Are all your land/stronghold holding nobles high(er) level NPC-class nobles? I see no reason why an inexperienced PC couldn't hold a stronghold when history is full of nobles who took over a castle/stronghold/fief/KINGDOM and were totally unsuited and/or inexperienced at it. It'd make for some fun play.

Doing everything you can to take their property from them or making their characters' lives as unpleasant as possible is punishing them for a mistake (if you want to look at it as a mistake) done by the DM. That's unpleasant and, if I were the players, I'd seriously consider quitting the game. Who knows what the DM will pull the next time he "screws" up or I manage to "one up" him through good play with the elements presented to me.

Instead, use the stronghold for the story hooks it presents, or, at worst, show the characters/players just how boring stronghold life can be. After 10 months of balancing the budget, they may abandon the stronghold all on their own or, more likely if it was my stronghold, leave it in the hands of a faithful (hopefully) custodian/castellan/chamberlain/somebody so that I'd have a secure home base to return to if need be. That would produce even more story hooks if the custodian turned out to be not so faithful or down right treacherous!

 

[Wolfspider]

This is not an attack on Wolfspider, so please don't take it that way, but rather an argument against the "wait until they are higher level" thing that tends to go around. Here goes:

No offense taken.

Are all your land/stronghold holding nobles high(er) level NPC-class nobles?

Pretty much. Or they're higher level characters of some class or another.

Doing everything you can to take their property from them or making their characters' lives as unpleasant as possible is punishing them for a mistake (if you want to look at it as a mistake) done by the DM. That's unpleasant and, if I were the players, I'd seriously consider quitting the game. Who knows what the DM will pull the next time he "screws" up or I manage to "one up" him through good play with the elements presented to me.

Well, putting it that way, I see your point. I'd be fairly pissed off if it were taken away without good reason. The best thing for the DM to do in my opinion would be to admit his mistake and ask the characters to willingly give up the property. I'd throw the PCs some appropriate treasure to make up for the loss and move on.

show the characters/players just how boring stronghold life can be. After 10 months of balancing the budget, they may abandon the stronghold all on their own

Isn't this really just another way to punish the characters for the DM's mistake, making owning the property as deadly boring as possible so the PCs will abandon it at the earliest opportunity? If the DM lets the PCs keep the property at such a low level, what is he going to do if they decide to sell it off and pocket the hundred or so THOUSAND gp? Then the DM will be forced to use heavy handed tactics then in order to keep things balanced.

No, I think that the best way to handle it would be just to talk with the players and admit the mistake, not to use heavy-handed tactics to take it away or make them abandon it.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Isn't this really just another way to punish the characters for the DM's mistake, making owning the property as deadly boring as possible so the PCs will abandon it at the earliest opportunity?

But they might keep it as a base of operations or a safe house. However, I do see your point.

I have, however, fallen in love with the idea. Tonight the group "iinherits" an old keep. I took them through NeMoran's Vault.
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
spoiler
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
They have the scroll that grants the holder lumber rights in the Westron Woods (or whatever it's called). To do this though, they'll need to set up the stronghold and get it going again.

We'll see how it goes. This could, of course, backfire and bite me in the ass, but it's worth a shot!

 

[Damror]

Well, I really like games where the characters have a stronghold or other major/minor political role.

Not all the time of course, but sometimes those games are good for a change of pace. I've played a 1st level prince who got caught up in underworld activities and had to worry about his reputation and who he was seen with. And I've played a mid-level knight who oversaw a small manor house when a murder spree started. And I've DMed games where the player was an 18th level wizard who also happened to be an emperor playing on the stage of world politics on the eve of a world war.

I don't think there is anything wrong with characters of any level having a stronghold. It all depends on the story and what the DM wants to do.

Now, the 125,000 gp award is something else entirely. That really should not have happened, and as others have pointed out, money is part of the balance equation in 3e. If you let it get out of control, it can cause other things in your game to get out of control too.

Like wolfspider said, just because the bandits have been robbing for 10 years or so, doesn't mean they have 10 years worth of funds stored up. Evil, selfish, oppertunistic people will spend money as fast as they get it.

What were they living on for the past 10 years??

I don't see anything wrong with these bandits having 300-500 gp max. maybe some empty bottles of expensive wine. Or some fine, expensive race horses that have been mistreated and not properly cared for. Maybe an expensive painting that has been faded and mildewed from the bandits' improper care of it.

I think you should stick with the stronghold. Don't punish the characters for having it, use it as a story device. It should be a source of difficulty and trouble for them, but not entirely so.

Besides, its really your fault that they have it, so don't punish them for having it. Make it look like you ment to do that....

 

[LostSoul]

I see no reason why an inexperienced PC couldn't hold a stronghold when history is full of nobles who took over a castle/stronghold/fief/KINGDOM and were totally unsuited and/or inexperienced at it. It'd make for some fun play.

Since they are the "nouveau riche", the landed nobility (in a standard feudal setting) probably won't accept them. The PCs are going to be out-maneuvered politically at every turn. They might even face a lord or family trying to use "ancient blood claims" on the land to get it for free.

Basically, the only way the PCs are going to be able to hold the land with is force of arms (just as "totally unsuited" nobles did in history). That doesn't make for a bad scenario.

 

[LostSoul]

Now, the 125,000 gp award is something else entirely. That really should not have happened, and as others have pointed out, money is part of the balance equation in 3e. If you let it get out of control, it can cause other things in your game to get out of control too.

125,000 gold isn't out of hand - it's your campaign, after all. You don't have to put up magic items for sale, nor do you have to make having a fortune easy on the PCs. They are going to be hunted down by not-so-common thieves. They are going to encounter people who try to swindle the money away from them. They might make enemies just because they have a big lump of cash.

"Game Balance" is more of an intra-party deal, in that all characters should have about the same level of ability (in different fields, of course). At the setting level, "Game Balance" doesn't matter at all.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

"Game Balance" is more of an intra-party deal, in that all characters should have about the same level of ability (in different fields, of course). At the setting level, "Game Balance" doesn't matter at all.

I agree absolutely. I merely warn (as I wrote above,) that one need to take the level of character wealth into account when figuring CRs and stuff. They won't work anymore.

That said, it sounds like Bob has a good handle on things in that respect. And the stronghold in and of itself is a great idea. Gives the PCs something to hold onto. I've been trying to talk my DM into letting my group get one for months now.

 

[Lunn]

Strongholds can be a lot of fun. I play a rogue in a champaign where my group took a Keep during a war. That adventure was just great. Since then, we have been dealing with the running and upkeep of the fief. This has kept us very busy. We have finally reached a point where politics are becoming more important. Never a dull moment.

 

[Altalazar]

I think it is a fascinating situation.

While I agree that you shouldn't have players finding that much money that early all the time, a one time deal, especially at first level, leaves all sorts of interesting possibilities.

No matter what magic they might get with that much money, for instance a kick ass weapon, they are still first level.

It is really a matter of desiging challenges for their abilities, be they from level or items, from having a stronghold to being penniless.

I rather like it from the standpoint that it isn't a regular, standard, start 'em off at first level and have them bow and scrape their way to getting anything until they are much higher level situation.

It even gives me an idea for a new campaign, where all the PCs are rich nobles who decide to become adventurers for one reason or another. It changes the flavor of things immensely - it isn't about getting gold, because they already have more than they need. It is about something else, then. And just because you have tons of money doesnt' necessarily mean, for instance, there is a staff of the magi to buy.

Maybe instead, each character sits with you and comes up with a very personalized set of equipment, magical or otherwise, such that they'd not really be interested in buying more magic anyway. Maybe some of it is even level dependant, so it grows with them.

It would make for a very different flavor of a campaign, and having played and run in so many, different can be quite good.

Think along these lines and I think you can generate quite a bit of fun in a non-cliche way - because after the 10th campaign, characters killing dire rats and scraping up the cash just to be able to afford an identify spell starts to become just another cliche.