Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 1770740" data-attributes="member: 3146">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.</blockquote>

Verification