"Metadesign Principles of D&D"

[Nail]

Oops.

 

[Nail]

Most NPCs though, to be worth their CR, need a reasonable amount of equipment. That amount is generally higher than the average treasure value for that level.

It's not an "intentional" metadesign principal, but this one is a huge under-current of the entire game. It's manifested in non-classed monsters as LA, for example.

Put more generally:

CR is not the same thing as PC level, even though the rules for giving CRs to classed NPCs seem to say the exact opposite. Having an ability/power/magic item as a PC is far more powerful as having that very same thing as an NPC.

 

[Odhanan]

Sure.

What I meant was: "Is there any metadesign principle in their use?" or "Why use (Sp) as opposed to some other?" or "What's the logic behind limiting the (Su) powers of PCs?"

Etc.

Yes. An ability that is extraordinary (Ex) is much more powerful than a Spell-like ability (Sp) because you can't dispell it, for instance, so (Ex) abilities have to be handled carefully.

PS: Thanks to Henry for launching the thread. This is quite an interesting discussion.

 

[Kapture]

Even at 50%, the guidelines you quote can easily give the PCs a lot more wealth than they should ever get. And except for a few bribes to NPCs or spells cast by NPCs, most PC expenses are fairly trivial compared to the wealth that they acquire.

I often have trouble with this in games I run. I use a lot of NPC opponents.

Part of the problem here, and I think this is mentioned in the DMG somewhere, is the "back to the dungeon" emphasis. The assumption is that many encounters will be "big game" style, with big dumb beasts that provide a threat but not much treasure. NPC equipment would provide the good stuff in such a scenario.

But if you run five levels (60+) encounters in a Tuan-Ti temple, or fighting a thieves guild, then your characters will have much more treasure.

You can not count potions and etc. as treasure. It will get used (unless, of course, your players are hoarders). You can discount low level treasure. I mean, how many +1 weapons can a PC use? And how many can the local temple afford to buy? And how many to you want to lug around?

But I prefer to use lots of one shot items: potions, single magic arrows, poisons, sub-charged wands. It tends to work for me. Plus, PCs don't always stop to loot. Don't always have times, and sometimes they miss stuff, or forget.

The problem with under-equipping NPCs is that they often seem under optimized against PCs anyways, so I like to give them little boosts to make them surprising. That mid level mage? Has one dose of dust of disappearance! Woo Hoo.

I also find it easier (for time and story reasons) to equip members of an organization similarly. My rangers all have potions of barkskin, for instance, because they have a evil treant druid making them for them.

 

[shilsen]

I often have trouble with this in games I run. I use a lot of NPC opponents.

Here's a simple solution: Apply the mechanical benefits of magical items without actually providing the magical item itself. Instead of giving an NPC a pair of Gauntlets of Ogre Power, just consider his strength to be +2 higher. Instead of giving him a Cloak of Resistance +2, just bump his saves up by two each. That way the NPCs are mechanically as strong as they should be without carrying piles of magical equipment.

 

[DarkKestral]

Actually, I don't think the inherent/level bonus odd-number mechanics is due to the 'difficulty' of getting the item. It's tied in with Save DCs. Assuming 'standard' treasure, you end up getting saves that are 15+level, and characters that will save 50% of the time on a poor save, and 75% of the time on a good save in a character's prime ability stat, if you follow the inherent/level bonus guide and go for +10 and optimized items at level 20.

 

[Votan]

Here's a simple solution: Apply the mechanical benefits of magical items without actually providing the magical item itself. Instead of giving an NPC a pair of Gauntlets of Ogre Power, just consider his strength to be +2 higher. Instead of giving him a Cloak of Resistance +2, just bump his saves up by two each. That way the NPCs are mechanically as strong as they should be without carrying piles of magical equipment.

Not a bad plan but then the players will feel cheated once they figure this all out. To be honest, one of the hardest things in 3rd edition is managing wealth appropriately given exactly how much it drives player character power.

 

[shilsen]

Not a bad plan but then the players will feel cheated once they figure this all out. To be honest, one of the hardest things in 3rd edition is managing wealth appropriately given exactly how much it drives player character power.

True, but as long as the players are receiving an appropriate amount of wealth anyway, there's no reason for them to feel cheated.

 

[Votan]

True, but as long as the players are receiving an appropriate amount of wealth anyway, there's no reason for them to feel cheated.

This is a good point. However, I still find that the assumption (on topic now) of wealth being implicitly built into character power to be a metadesign principle (you can only compare character classes post-magic item assignment) but a poor one. It makes comparisons complex, increases the number of dimensions that the DM has to balance and makes it easy for things to slip.

I'd prefer if wealth/magic items were not so much the lifeblood of a character.

 

[Magesmiley]

1. I'm going to go back to the original poster and expand a bit on one there - the action.

The value of action types should be (from most to least):

Full-round action
Standard Action
Move Action
Free Actions

Anything which changes the action required to a less valuable type should have a cost, the larger the shift, the larger the cost should be.

2. An XP should be in-between a gold piece and platinum piece in value.

3. A trap isn't as much of a challenge as a creature with identical abilities/powers.