Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gorrstagg" data-source="post: 4605253" data-attributes="member: 15863">In the context of a campaign, that can be a signficant amount of wealth. That would in theory let the players make additional choices for themselves. But 5.4% of wealth over that time is useful.Sure, I believe that's possible seeing as each DM runs their game the way the wish. And a lot of DM's like to run their campaigns by the rules as it were as well. In my 26 years of gaming D&D I've met the gamut of DM's. And quite a few enjoyed running it by the book on the premise that it's balanced. (That often gets found out later that it's not, but 4E is easily the most balanced in this setting.) Your right, many will lose lots more by disenchanting/selling. But that's their choice, and over the time if presented with the balance, then having the additional wealth may let them acquire some goods they they've been saving for. And the vast simplification well, that's obvious, from the variable factors. But that's because your looking at the variables in question not the big picture. i.e. over time, wealth is missing, per member. Well if you don't care, then why visit the thread? I've shown the discrepancy at it's most base level. And even included the wealth of the magic items in gold value. But 5.4% of the wealth gained, over time is not for larger groups. Maybe you don't have large groups, but I've run from 6-10 man groups. I've since tried to keep it down to 6 member groups, to make the game go smoother. But from the perspective of me trusting the math of this system to be balanced, I would anticipate something like this to be caught or mentioned.The wealth is the grand total of all magic items converted to gold based upon group size, plus the wealth specifically in monies. So the total kit and caboodle. Maybe 5% isn't a big deal for you. But your premise for dismissing it is ... cause you don't care about it? Okay that's your choice to be honest, and I respect that right to choose. But I found an issue, and I don't like disrespecting my players, and limit their options because of an oversight. i.e. it's similar to the forked thread about screwing your players over because of them being clever, and disrespecting the fair expectation covenant between the players and the DM. If said DM is going by the rules, and the rules are flawed even from a very minor level, correcting it like such should be easy. And this way it's fair to all peoples involved. The wealth, ultimately is up to the players to spend for themselves. They are the ones adventuring. I'm just making sure they have the wealth to use that is listed in the book from a fair and decent perspective. However They see fit.Thanks for your opinion on this subject. I'll consider your input and then go back to making sure the players get a fair shake. But what I'm personally glad about is that the tables DO hold together so well. With some minor adjustment, which I can now feel more comfortable spreading around more monies for the players over the particular levels, and knowing that it's a fair shake. They trust me to be fair, and impartial. I am, and in the setting I'm going by the wealth listed, but I found a problem, and I've found an easy way to fix it. Just a simple spreadsheet with the correct data, and problem solved. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /></blockquote>

Verification