Remove Expected Wealth Levels

[airwalkrr]

This concept was explored a bit with respect to magic items in this thread. But I think there is a more important issue at the center of this discussion. When D&D was first created, there was no expected level of wealth X for a character of level Y. If I recall correctly, this was a concept introduced to the core rules as part of 3e, along with the standardization of magic item market values and creation rules. Now, I believe the hearts of the designers were in the right place when they came up with this. They wanted the game balance to reflect the level of power the PCs had via their magic items so they wanted to standardize the amount of wealth PCs were expected to have. They even went so far as to suggest that the DM periodically survey the wealth of the PCs in his group to make sure they were staying close to that expected level. I believe this design decision was in error.

First of all, it has been my experience that players will calculate their wealth on their own far more than the DM does and get disgruntled if the DM is not giving them "their fair share." This is not only problem players. Even good players do it from time to time out of curiosity. And if that number is not at or above the expected wealth level, they both respond to it negatively. Problem players go so far as to whine or even outright quit the game because of it. The better players will simply get a little discouraged or at worst, bring up the issue with the DM privately. But what is even more problematic here is that the players in a game with characters whose wealth is not at the "expected" level perceive that any challenges the DM has designed are going to be inherently unfair. It might be subconscious, or it might be something openly discussed, but any player who knows about the expected wealth tables and his own character's relative standing thereupon (and it seems there are many players like this) is going to react to it.

D&D Next ought to be designed and balanced independent of character wealth or expected magic items. To do that, they are first going to have to get rid of the idea of expected wealth. Next, they are also going to have to get rid of the idea that magic items or certain equipment is required to defeat certain encounters. Character wealth needs to become a reward again, not a necessary part of the calculations of character power. And right now, as it is in 4e and as it was in 3e, wealth is an absolute measure of power which is expected. Towards that end, there needs to be a real effort on the part of the designers to create magic items that do not simply add +X to a certain stat or ability, but rather give the players tricks and tactics not formerly available to them. I might even advocate getting rid of things like gauntlets of ogre power altogether or replacing their mechanics with things that let the PCs accomplish feats of great strength (like forcing down doors, carrying heavier loads, or wielding bigger weapons with less effort) without necessarily increasing stats.

I do not think this is going to be easy, but it has to start with the removal of an expected wealth level from the mechanics of the game. Give more power to the DM to determine what is acceptable wealth to his players. I am certain players will have more than enough tools at their disposal to customize their characters like skills, feats, multi-classing, spell/power choice, and so on. They do not need to also have a chart that says how much gold worth of items they should be walking around with too. That should be purely the demesne of the DM.

 

[Dausuul]

I agree. I do want to add, however, that there was a legitimate reason for WBL in 3E; namely, some classes were more item-dependent than others. A wizard could get by okay with no magic items at all, but as you got into the higher levels, a fighter who wasn't tricked out in every form of magic gear imaginable would become nigh useless. (A fighter who was so tricked out was still not going to hold a candle to the wizard, but could at least stand on the same battlefield.)

4E made all classes equally item-dependent, and in the process made it possible to decouple magic items from character advancement. If you used the inherent bonuses optional rule, you didn't have to worry about level-appropriate items at all.

5E should balance the game on the assumption of no magic items, then include guidelines for the DM to scale challenges based on how much magic the party has.

 

[billd91]

You're right it's not going to be easy, in one sense, because there was always an element of it that was implicit in AD&D. Certain creatures needed magic to be hit, hence, a certain level of treasure was required. 3e made that more explicit and easier to gauge but also padded the structure up, a lot. And the thing is, I don't think doing so was all that necessary. Most of us didn't have a problem with making sure our PCs had magic weapons in our hands as early as we could get them. They were fairly common treasures in published modules and the treasure tables in 1e AD&D made them fairly common as well (intentionally, by the way).

I too think the 3e structure was intended to be helpful. But in some ways it didn't do very well. Aside from issues of entitlement (which stem from a misunderstanding of the point of the structure), one major problem was trying to systematize something that wasn't all that systematic or amenable to systematizing in the first place. That, I think, leads to a lot of skewed prices that never got well-reconciled despite the recommendation of the rules. For example, 3e's magic item pricing rules strongly suggest that the DM be the final arbiter of prices based on how functional an item is compared to other items no matter what the base formulas may suggest. That's a good recommendation. But when you compare the market value of a ring of shooting stars to a ring of protection +5. In 3.5, they're both 50,000 gp. The ring of shooting stars has some interesting quirky powers to it, but there's about a snowball's chance in hell a PC will keep a ring of shooting stars rather than sell it for the scratch necessary to craft a ring of protection +5 or even buy a series of other items with constantly functioning + values to their protection or offense. Clearly, they are not the same value at all. This is one area where 1e's less systematic (as far as we can tell) values were much better than 3e's - the lowest level ring of protection in 1e was 10,000 gp (yep, a +1 ring), the ring of shooting stars was 15,000 gp.

The fact of the matter with systems like this is that really different effects are hard to compare with each other without a lot of trial and error. Champions does it (somewhat) and managed through a really good leap of brilliance figure out that transformative effects are about as useful as killing effects. And basic calculation can tell you that a 1d6 killing attack has a similar average to a 3d6 standard attack (if a lot more variance). But Champions falls down like crazy when trying to handle powers that should, realistically (for a superhero game), have broad effects. Shapechangers like Chameleon Boy and weather controllers like Storm are really expensive to build, far more expensive than their frequency in comics should suggest. A more abstract systematic approach less fussy about minor costs like Mutants and Masterminds ends up working much better for both types of characters. I think the same applies to comparison of magic items in D&D. A less granular and exacting approach is the way to go when valuing magic items, whether devising an alternative wealth by level chart or just determining how much a character can get selling an item nobody wants to keep.

I believe that in some ways the 3e system worked really well. Defensive items are generally cheaper than offensive ones (armor compared to weapons, resistance bonuses compared to items that raise save DCs like stat bumps) and broader defensive items are more expensive than narrower ones (deflection bonus vs natural armor and armor bonuses). But attack and defense values are much easier to directly compare. But how do you compare ability to fly for a number of minutes a day with a +4 breastplate? Are they really equivalent? The armor gets used in every fight, not the winged boots. But the boots will save your bacon falling off a floating citadel, the armor won't.

 

[dkyle]

First, D&D originally did have "wealth by level", in a way. The bulk of XP was directly from treasure. So it was reasonable to assume a significant fraction of XP, by level, was also what they could be expected to have in GP.

Second, while "don't assume magic items" sounds nice and all, it lies in direct conflict with two other desirable things: game balance, and magic items that "mean something". Any magic item that has any use to it at all, even if it isn't a bonus to a stat, is an increase in PC's power. If game balance is desired, there needs to be some sort of mechanism to account for that. In 3E and 4E, it's by assuming a certain amount of magical gear. I suppose an alternative could be to add GP value of gear to XP, and use that to calculate an "effective level". But that's rather complicated.

It seems to me that most campaigns have magic items in them, so it makes sense to simplify things, and assume a certain level of magic. But even in campaigns that aren't light on magic, people seem to dislike the mere presence of that "assumption".

One possibility would be to treat XP, and GP (which would include Magic Items, at their GP value) as essentially interchangeable. In high magic campaigns, characters would receive, perhaps, equal amounts of XP and GP, and would face creatures significantly higher than their character level. In low-magic campaigns, characters would receive XP almost exclusively, and would fight monsters at their character level.

 

[Szatany]

Writing a post that advocates dropping wealth-by-level seems like a sure way to get some XP

 

[Dausuul]

First, D&D originally did have "wealth by level", in a way. The bulk of XP was directly from treasure. So it was reasonable to assume a significant fraction of XP, by level, was also what they could be expected to have in GP.

Second, while "don't assume magic items" sounds nice and all, it lies in direct conflict with two other desirable things: game balance, and magic items that "mean something". Any magic item that has any use to it at all, even if it isn't a bonus to a stat, is an increase in PC's power. If game balance is desired, there needs to be some sort of mechanism to account for that. In 3E and 4E, it's by assuming a certain amount of magical gear. I suppose an alternative could be to add GP value of gear to XP, and use that to calculate an "effective level". But that's rather complicated.

Simpler approach: Categorize combat-oriented items as something like "minor," "major," and "relic." A minor item is one with a negligible effect on raw PC power; it just gives you an extra option, like a cape of the mountebank. A major item increases your character's combat power by about 10%, and a relic increases it by 20%--maybe more.

With this system, all you have to do is keep track of how many major items and relics the PCs have. Let's say you have a party of 4 PCs, who between them have 5 major items and 1 relic. The major items add 10% of a PC each, and the relic adds 20%, so this party is the equivalent of 4.7 PCs of the same level with no magic items.

 

[BobTheNob]

First, D&D originally did have "wealth by level", in a way. The bulk of XP was directly from treasure. So it was reasonable to assume a significant fraction of XP, by level, was also what they could be expected to have in GP.

I totally facepalmed when I read that. Its so right, and I never thought about it, and in hindsight it was a way of ensuring certain levels of gear against character!

Personnally, I just want an alternate method of handling money itself. I get so sick the whole spreadsheets of who has what and how much money. I want a system that allow that character have a certain "wealth" worth of gear that goes up with treasure finds and is utterly interchangeable. Then dont worry about how much has gone in and how much has gone out of how much that in cost us yada yada, just say "Look, as long as your total value of gear doesnt exceed your wealth, go to the shops and swap your gear around".

Minimise bookkeeping is what I want.

 

[Mallus]

When D&D was first created, there was no expected level of wealth X for a character of level Y.

That really isn't true. It was there, just not as formalized as in the later editions.

"If the party is assumed to have been adventuring for some
time, however brief, then it is probable that one or more of their number
would have acquired certain magic items. In order to reflect this likelihood,
use the following tables for the various classes of adventurers, as
applicable to your group" -- AD&D DMG, pg. 226. "Appendix P: Creating A Party On The Spur Of The Moment".

What follows is a series of level-based tables for determining the magic items possessed by PCs starting above 1st level, ex: a 5th level fighter has a %50 chance of having a magic sword.

... along with the standardization of magic item market values and creation rules.

The AD&D DMG listed the standard market price of every magic item listed, with the exception of artifacts.

Give more power to the DM to determine what is acceptable wealth to his players.

I'm all for changing the methodology surrounding the wealth-by-level, away from the 3e/4e approach. But expected-wealth-by-level we've always had with us...

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The problem is not the wealth by level guidelines. The problem is designing monsters so that a certain wealth level is assumed before fighting them. Needing a +x to hit is one thing. Needing a +x to ac, +x to hit, +x to damage, +x to saves, etc before you can realistically fight a creature is a horrible idea. A creature of X hit die, should be a challenge to anyone of similar level regardless of treasure level. Yeah, being loaded up with magic should make the fight easier, but it shouldn't be required. I should be able to run both a high magic and low magic game without drastically altering the monster manual.

 

[Savage Wombat]

As an additional comment to 1e magic items and treasure, remember that the RAW required a lot of gold for things like training and expenses. As I recall, a 1st level thief who got enough treasure to get him to 2nd level didn't actually have enough money to train yet. The rules assumed you'd be selling a lot of magic items to pay these expenses.

If you ignored them, as many games did, then you tended to have a lot of magic pile up on the characters - especially if you ran published modules.