Remove Expected Wealth Levels

[Sunseeker]

IMO: the general guideline needs to be the following:

Give your players exactly how much they need in order to get what they need, +/-20%.

A high-magic, high-powered game is going to naturally require more coin. A low-magic, lower power game will not.

Now, the +/-20% is the catch. If you want to be generous and give your players a little "spending money", +20% however much you give them. This will give your players some "fun money" to get accessories or frilly things. If you want your players to be more adept at pooling their resources, -20%. This will force your characters to work together to get fewer, probably better items at less regular intervals, but will work towards improving party dynamic.


ME personally? You could give me 5 coins of 50 billion. As long as I don't feel like I'm being bent over a barrel by every fishmonger, I really don't care.

 

[kitsune9]

I like WBL because it's a great measure for me to issue out rewards and balance how I'll place magic items. Since I didn't have it in 2e, I had adventures where there was hardly any treasure and others where it was Monty Haul which is definitely what I don't want to do. WBL always served as a good guide in getting the players enough treasure of what they'll need to get magic items.

For campaigns that have low magic or no magic, this is a good concept to follow.

 

[Lwaxy]

I don't let monsters, especially the plant or mutated animal type, have treasure. It makes no sense. Even a bunch of goblins or kobolds not in contact with any other civilization wouldn't really want to keep most of that stuff. In most adventures, unless it fits with the story, I remove at least half the treasure. Sometimes there is none at all.

So compared to other campaigns, I'm probably on the very low end of wealth the PCs get.

 

[KidSnide]

I agree that the math would be better if there wasn't an "expected" wealth level, but I do think the DMG has to provide some guidance about what different levels of wealth do to the expected power of a PC. For example, I'd like to know if a 9th level character with 40,000 gp in magic items is more or less powerful than an 11th level character with 4,000 gp in magic items.

And it would also be nice if the answer to that question didn't depend heavily of the class of the characters in question.

-KS

 

[Dragonblade]

This really comes down to two core issues.

Magic items do two things that impact game balance. They affect the math of the game, and they allow players a measure of control over the narrative space that can have unpredictable results. Usually, the sole domain of the DM.

The first issue is +X magic and how they impact the math of the game. All things being equal, fighter with a +1 sword has a 5% greater chance of hitting a foe of their level. +2 is 10% and so on. Likewise, +1 armor reduces their chance of getting hit by 5%. This has a cascading effect on hit%, damage output, durability, and so on. It ripples throughout the game.

There are two solutions to this. One is to remove all +X modifiers from magic items. The second is to build that math into the game and assume you get magic at a certain level. This is what 3e, and 4e did. The problem is it commoditizes magic and makes it required. Thankfully, the solution is built into the problem ala the 4e inherent bonus rule. Provide the bonus that players or monsters would be expected to have at a certain level automatically and have it overlaop but not stack with magical bonuses.

This method allows you to have your cake and eat it too. It makes the mathematical impact of magic on the game transparent, allows you to still have the iconic +X item, but lets DMs control item availability without punishing players who no longer need items to be at their expected level of power.

The second issue is a bit more complex. Magic items let you do things that you normally can't do, and since they are essentially spells that anyone can use it raises broader questions of what should magic allow you to do and when should it allow you to do it?

When should the game allow players to fly? To teleport? To raise the dead? To walk through walls? To divine secrets? And how often should players be able to do those things and should they all share the exact same recovery mechanic? Is using a spell slot for fireball really equal to using one for fly?

Should flying magic even be available to PCs at 5th level? Prior editions said yes, but 4e said no. And should flying magic be treated as interchangeably as fireball? One does big group damage, but the other allows you to completely and easily bypass challenges that would be impossible for a group just one level lower to overcome at all.

Some DMs are comfortable with this player control over the narrative. Some aren't and there is a broad spectrum of opinions in-between. I don't have the answers to all of that, and even if I did, my answers will be different from someone elses.

So the real issue isn't necessarily how wealthy players should be at a certain level, its what should they be able to do with magic at a certain level and how often should they be able to do it?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Let's try a tangent here for a second. How about character wealth guidelines, but serving a different purpose?

In 3E/4E, the wealth guidelines are supposed to help you balance characters with expected challenges. And they sort of do, most of the time. But the system is not as robust as the wealth guidelines would have you believe. That's because the other pieces of the equation are things like "players", "DMs", and "adventure style".

Or if you prefer, the wealth guidelines pretend to a precision they don't have. It's been awhile since my chemistry class days, but wasn't there something about rounding with precision measurements? You multiply 2.00 by 3.000, you get 6.00--not 6, not 6.000 (or something like that). Your final measurement can only be as precise as the least precise of your source measurements.

So why not simply admit that magic items aren't balanced, and leave them out of the equation? In fact, glory in it. Items can do all kinds of wacky stuff. Then, your wealth guidelines aren't telling you how much to provide to get balance, but how to recognize when you aren't happy with the balance, and what to do about it. Your group isn't all that tactical or strategic, and aren't getting any better at handling the challenges you want to throw at them? Give them more stuff! They are walking all over everything and feeling a bit unchallenged. Give them less stuff! Steal some of their existing stuff. (You may note resemblance to some early D&D advice. )

That is, magic items as a DM adjudicated "correction" lever will make the overall system more robust, not less--while allowing for a wilder and wider variety.

Naturally, this doesn't work as well for pick up Con games, RPGA events, and the like. Well, the RPGA is a special animal that should be setting its own wealth guidelines--not using the ones in the main rules, which may not work well for it. One-shot and other such adventures where you don't know the players should be set at the adventure level--perhaps based on what the DM is comfortable handling. If your adventure features a gargoyle that requires +1 weapons to hit, then you need to see that the party has such weapons, can get them in the adventure, or you have an alternative or two for them to use. Your choice.

One size does not fit all, and pretending it does leaves everyone kind of "meh" on this issue.

 

[billd91]

The first issue is +X magic and how they impact the math of the game. All things being equal, fighter with a +1 sword has a 5% greater chance of hitting a foe of their level. +2 is 10% and so on. Likewise, +1 armor reduces their chance of getting hit by 5%. This has a cascading effect on hit%, damage output, durability, and so on. It ripples throughout the game.

There are two solutions to this. One is to remove all +X modifiers from magic items. The second is to build that math into the game and assume you get magic at a certain level. This is what 3e, and 4e did. The problem is it commoditizes magic and makes it required. Thankfully, the solution is built into the problem ala the 4e inherent bonus rule. Provide the bonus that players or monsters would be expected to have at a certain level automatically and have it overlaop but not stack with magical bonuses.

There are more than two solutions. One alternative is to return to 1e/2e structures a bit: reduce the number and variety of stacking bonuses, cap the range of defenses and saving throw targets, recognize a little variance isn't bad. As I see it, bonuses that aren't scrupulously accounted for in the system by countering bonuses aren't necessarily a problem. The problem is letting them get way out of hand, not that they exist.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I don't let monsters, especially the plant or mutated animal type, have treasure. It makes no sense.

Well, the man eating plant might not have treasure, but the last guy he killed might. And there might be a ring in the midden heap that it couldn't digest, etc.

 

[Lwaxy]

Oh yeah those I let them find quite often. Just that they really have to hack the plant apart to see what they can find. One of my online players made a game out of it a few years ago that was quite fun to play between sessions.

 

[Dausuul]

I cannot for the life of me understand why so many people are stuck on wealth guidelines as a way to calculate the effect of magic items on PC combat prowess. 3E should have taught anyone that WBL is an incredibly, abysmally bad tool for that.

All you need to know is, for each item the party possesses, how much does that item boost the party's combat prowess? Add 'em up and there you go. For items that don't have a significant effect on combat power, you don't even have to consider them. It's simpler, easier to track, and far more accurate than WBL. Furthermore, it allows each DM to decide how much magic to hand out, without worrying about being above or below some arbitrary standard. Just hand out what you feel like handing out, and calibrate encounters accordingly.