Player Problems with Character Wealth
- Thread starter Metus
- Start date
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
I'll turn that around: is it the player's job or the DM's job to define the PC's heroism or lack thereof?Spatula said:
For me, the start and finish of it is that the players have told the DM what sort of game they'd like to play in. Either the DM is willing to run that type of game or not. Arguments about balance are important, but only when the group is not having fun and isn't sure why not; if the group is having fun, or if they strongly believe they know what needs to happen for them to have fun, then balance isn't as much of an issue.
Daniel
Pielorinho said:
Of course, there's always that old saying that starts, "Be careful what you wish for..."
Adventure: A series of uncomfortable events happening to some poor bastard a long ways away.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
One of the things people often overlook is how wealth levels effect class choices. The RPGA's living campaigns are an interesting case study of this:
In year one Living Greyhawk, there was hardly anyone I knew of who didn't multiclass. The typical fighter was a multiclassed barbarian/ranger/fighter/rogue or fighter/cleric or fighter/wizard. Year 1 was very much a low-treasure environment. In Year 3 and 4, the campaign came much closer to a DMG standard wealth level environment. Now, at conventions, I'm not surprised to see straight class characters among the people who began playing in year 3 and year 4. There's still a fair amount of powergame multiclassing (as I imagine there is in any large group of players) but there's a whole lot more single classed characters too or so it seems.
I think the wealth level has a lot to do with it.
If you're a 4th-6th level character with barely 2,000gp of random equipment to your name and you run into a troll, you have to know that you're going to get ripped to shreds. Sword and shield or chain shirt and barbarian levels, it doesn't make too much difference. The biggest factor in how much damage you take is not going to be your armor class but rather how quickly you kill your enemy. Hence the marked preference for bbn 2/fighter 4 characters with extra rage and two handed weapons.
On the other hand, if you have 10,000gp in equipment, it's a different story. The guy with gauntlets of ogre power, a +1 chain shirt, a +1 amulet of natural armor and a +1 greatsword will dish out damage a bit faster than his counterpart but the guy with +1 fullplate, a +1 large shield, a +1 ring of protection, and a +1 bastard sword will have a high enough AC that he can survive a noticably greater number of rounds. Defensively focussed characters need wealth to be viable.
In the same way, as a fighter 6 with a bastard sword, you need to look for ways to increase your damage. 1d10+5 might be good at level 5 and 6 but by level 8, you need to do better. If you're looking at getting a +1 flaming bastard sword, you can bump your damage. If you're just looking at getting a +1 bastard sword, it's too little too late. (At this point, the two handed weapon fighter still dishes out enough damage to be a credible threat and, in a normal wealth game is looking for a way to up his AC. In a low-wealth game, he knows there's no way to do that so he looks for a way to boost his hit points).
Similarly, in a standard wealth environment, Ftr 2/Clr 4 is an interesting choice. You get better saves and some domain powers and some minor spells. However, your advantages over a Ftr 6 are greatly exaggerated in a low-wealth environment. All of a sudden, he doesn't have magic armor or a ring of protection. Neither do you but you can cast shield of faith. He doesn't have a magic weapon. Neither do you, but you can cast magic weapon. Etc.
That's the reason why lower magic environments like Wheel of Time add class defense bonusses to the game. Without magic or class based defense, offense outstrips defense very quickly. Similarly, it's why games like Midnight offer special abiltiies to characters as they increase in level. There may be no magic but there are bonusses to make up for it and to make the system work at higher levels.
In year one Living Greyhawk, there was hardly anyone I knew of who didn't multiclass. The typical fighter was a multiclassed barbarian/ranger/fighter/rogue or fighter/cleric or fighter/wizard. Year 1 was very much a low-treasure environment. In Year 3 and 4, the campaign came much closer to a DMG standard wealth level environment. Now, at conventions, I'm not surprised to see straight class characters among the people who began playing in year 3 and year 4. There's still a fair amount of powergame multiclassing (as I imagine there is in any large group of players) but there's a whole lot more single classed characters too or so it seems.
I think the wealth level has a lot to do with it.
If you're a 4th-6th level character with barely 2,000gp of random equipment to your name and you run into a troll, you have to know that you're going to get ripped to shreds. Sword and shield or chain shirt and barbarian levels, it doesn't make too much difference. The biggest factor in how much damage you take is not going to be your armor class but rather how quickly you kill your enemy. Hence the marked preference for bbn 2/fighter 4 characters with extra rage and two handed weapons.
On the other hand, if you have 10,000gp in equipment, it's a different story. The guy with gauntlets of ogre power, a +1 chain shirt, a +1 amulet of natural armor and a +1 greatsword will dish out damage a bit faster than his counterpart but the guy with +1 fullplate, a +1 large shield, a +1 ring of protection, and a +1 bastard sword will have a high enough AC that he can survive a noticably greater number of rounds. Defensively focussed characters need wealth to be viable.
In the same way, as a fighter 6 with a bastard sword, you need to look for ways to increase your damage. 1d10+5 might be good at level 5 and 6 but by level 8, you need to do better. If you're looking at getting a +1 flaming bastard sword, you can bump your damage. If you're just looking at getting a +1 bastard sword, it's too little too late. (At this point, the two handed weapon fighter still dishes out enough damage to be a credible threat and, in a normal wealth game is looking for a way to up his AC. In a low-wealth game, he knows there's no way to do that so he looks for a way to boost his hit points).
Similarly, in a standard wealth environment, Ftr 2/Clr 4 is an interesting choice. You get better saves and some domain powers and some minor spells. However, your advantages over a Ftr 6 are greatly exaggerated in a low-wealth environment. All of a sudden, he doesn't have magic armor or a ring of protection. Neither do you but you can cast shield of faith. He doesn't have a magic weapon. Neither do you, but you can cast magic weapon. Etc.
That's the reason why lower magic environments like Wheel of Time add class defense bonusses to the game. Without magic or class based defense, offense outstrips defense very quickly. Similarly, it's why games like Midnight offer special abiltiies to characters as they increase in level. There may be no magic but there are bonusses to make up for it and to make the system work at higher levels.
Elder-Basilisk said:
May I introduce you to oil and torches. Wonderful things, oil and torches. Not only can they light your way, but properly applied they can keep a troll from regenerating.
When you don't have the tools you want, you use what's available.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
I can't believe that this wasn't deliberate.mythusmage said:
Did he say "you die to trolls because you lack the ability to use fire"?
No - he said "having a high enough ac to matter against a troll takes cash"
And he's right.
In a low-wealth campaign, the winners are the magic using classes. Wizards, bards, clerics etc. Because a spell slot 'costs' less than the benefit it can give you when funds are low.
If funds are at the right level, it's a tradeoff whether it's worth taking levels of wizard to get mage armour, or taking levels of fighter and just wearing the magic stuff.
That's the big thing a GM has to keep in mind - not whether the party can defeat foes, but whether each party member can contribute equally.
Saeviomagy said:
If a troll would have an easy time hitting you, don't put yourself in a position where he can hit you. It's not the tools you have to use, it's how you use the tools you have. There will be times when you won't have the tools you think you should have. Not a dang thing you can do about it either. All you can do is improvise and hope things fall your way. Can't face the troll toe to toe? Then don't. Use rope, use nets. Get it bogged down in marshy ground or trapped in a gully. Get it confined and unable to use its strength against you. When you are at a disadvantage find some way, any way, to put your opponent at an even worse disadvantage.
BTW, who says every member of the typical party has to contribute equally in every situation? So the party druid does the bulk of the work with an Entangle. Big whoop. You've got an immobilized troll and you can now work on oxidizing the bastard with extreme prejudice. There will be other opportunities for other members of the party to stand out. The goal of any adventuring party is not to shine as individuals, but to work together to accomplish goals. If it means the paladin has the limelight one day, then the paladin has the limelight that day.
No matter how you tweak things there will always be those who stand out, and those who stay in the background. It's how people are. You want folks to put themselves on display even when they don't want to. All in the name of "Party Balance". And so you would drive some out of the hobby who would've been quite happy acting to support the leads, and getting a bit of attention every now and then.
Let people contribute to the degree they feel comfortable. Never force people to do more than they are ready to do, unless it is a situation where somebody has to do something. And never manipulate a situation to get what you want. If it's to happen, let it happen naturally.
Believe me, shy people really hate being forced onto center stage when there is no good reason for it, and their revenge can be vicious.
In short, let people participant to the degree they want to. It'll make for better sessions.
As for trolls, they do have to breathe.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
mythusmage said:
And this was exactly my point.
If you limit resources then you dramatically limit the number of character types and concepts that the game supports. Without access to sufficient wealth to get magic armor and to make armor worthwhile, the game does not support the "armored knight" concept past a certain level. Using rope, nets, marshy ground, gullies, or your cleric levels to cast shield of faith and magic weapon is all well and good and works pretty well in standard wealth level D&D too. However, in a low-wealth D&D, unless other rules are added to compensate, it's the ONLY way to play.
The amount of wealth in the game will dramatically effect the number of viable character concepts--sometimes in unexpected ways.
This is a red herring. Nobody says every member of the party has to contribute equally in every situation. However, limiting wealth dramatically limits the number of characters who can contribute to certain situations and the ways in which they can contribute.
If you want to be able to support a sword and board fighter and a two handed weapon fighter in the same party, you have to allow enough wealth that defense is a viable route. If you want to allow people to construct a variety of single class characters who are not all hyper-optimized, you need to allow enough wealth that non-hyper-optimized characters can take on standard challenges. One of the facts of D&D is that different strategies work differently with different wealth levels. Low wealth encourages rampant multiclassing and spellcasting classes. That's just the way it is. If that's what floats your boat then fine. If you'd rather play a game where you can be an ordinary fighter with a bastard sword and shield and still contribute regularly, you'll need something closer to a standard wealth game.
Baloney. The only obligation a DM has is honesty. Don't cheat, don't lie, and no mid-encounter revisions when things don't go as you expected. It is up to the players to take advantage of any opportunities that occur.
You're not going to have the Right Tools™ every occasion. That's life. You adapt, you adopt. You improvise. The resources are lacking? Get creative instead of kvetching about the unfairness of it all.
And another thing. Not having the Right Tools™ does not mean certain character types etc. can't participate, it only means those characters types have to find another way to participate. The technical term is "Adaptation". If you can't adapt to circumstances, you really shouldn't be out adventuring.
The impression I'm getting here is that you are hung up on tools. Here's a challenge: If you're going to GenCon SoCal this year I'll run an adventure for you and any friends you bring along. Bog standard D&D. You and your friends? First level types with standard equipment. The Big Bad™? A bog standard troll. Your task? Kill it.
Yes, it is unbalanced. Yes, it is unfair. You don't kill it the village either gets destroyed, or has to move; and the troll might follow in the latter case. Welcome to the short end of the stick.
(FYI: I don't run anything as a mindless killing machine, unless it is a mindless killing machine. Trolls are predators. Predators prefer situations where the threat to them is minimized. Severe injuries reduce an animal's chance of survival, even a troll's. It gets hurt it will start looking for a way to escape. I expect you to show the same good sense. Up for it?)
You're not going to have the Right Tools™ every occasion. That's life. You adapt, you adopt. You improvise. The resources are lacking? Get creative instead of kvetching about the unfairness of it all.
And another thing. Not having the Right Tools™ does not mean certain character types etc. can't participate, it only means those characters types have to find another way to participate. The technical term is "Adaptation". If you can't adapt to circumstances, you really shouldn't be out adventuring.
The impression I'm getting here is that you are hung up on tools. Here's a challenge: If you're going to GenCon SoCal this year I'll run an adventure for you and any friends you bring along. Bog standard D&D. You and your friends? First level types with standard equipment. The Big Bad™? A bog standard troll. Your task? Kill it.
Yes, it is unbalanced. Yes, it is unfair. You don't kill it the village either gets destroyed, or has to move; and the troll might follow in the latter case. Welcome to the short end of the stick.
(FYI: I don't run anything as a mindless killing machine, unless it is a mindless killing machine. Trolls are predators. Predators prefer situations where the threat to them is minimized. Severe injuries reduce an animal's chance of survival, even a troll's. It gets hurt it will start looking for a way to escape. I expect you to show the same good sense. Up for it?)
Belen
Legend
mythusmage said:
It's freaky how much we agree in this thread. Are we clones?
Elder: Why isn't the mage or the cleric casting shield of faith or mage armor on their party members? It's a team effort, so as a team, the casters should look to some level of support for the non-casters, especially in a low equipment campaign. Are all casters in LG having a me first attitude etc?
Not to mention that a fighter 4-6 can easily have spring attack. This is very effective in hit and run tactics with tough opponents.
And, a GM can make a low equipment campaign scale to the level of the party. No serious items, then fight ogres rather than trolls etc.
LG players tend to be optimizers. So yes, with low equipment, then expect some optimization for combat. With the right equipment, they optimize in a different way. LG is far more a tactical wargame, than a RPG, so LG players need standard wealth or multi-classing because combat is what they do and CR/EL for their level is what they face. A GM has no leeway and must run standard stuff. Not too mention that LG people rarely play in formal groups, so of course they are "me first." They want the character to survive to play in the next module.
I just do not think LG a good example.
I could be wrong though.
