Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Doug McCrae" data-source="post: 5596628" data-attributes="member: 21169">To be fair, 3e places limits on available magic items dependent on settlement size. They are listed in Table 5-2 on page 137 of the 3.5e DMG. For example a Hamlet (pop 81-400) won't sell anything, magical or non-magical that costs more than 100gp.3e has something like “follow me” treasure in that the DMG sets treasure awards to PC level and not on any other factor. At least by the game text, there is no concept of the deserving player getting more and the undeserving player getting less, as there is in 1e and earlier. (2e I'm not sure about.)&nbsp;- 3.5 DMG page 51However, again as per the game text, choices and consequences are important -&nbsp;- 3.5 DMG pages 44-45&nbsp;- 3.5 DMG page 45This seems rather contradictory – player choices can have good or bad consequences for the PCs and yet at the same time, the amount of treasure the PCs receive is basically fixed. I believe the answer to this contradiction is that the consequences will take other forms than the losing or gaining of treasure.This has much bearing on Elf Witch's recent thread about the destruction of valuable animated skeletons, by one PC, against the wishes of the rest of the party. I believe that was a 3e game. According to the advice in the DMG, the GM should've made up for the loss of treasure later, assuming the PCs were below wealth by level guidelines. Ofc, I'm not saying that anyone should follow that advice, just that that is the advice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Doug McCrae, post: 5596628, member: 21169"] To be fair, 3e places limits on available magic items dependent on settlement size. They are listed in Table 5-2 on page 137 of the 3.5e DMG. For example a Hamlet (pop 81-400) won't sell anything, magical or non-magical that costs more than 100gp. 3e has something like “follow me” treasure in that the DMG sets treasure awards to PC level and not on any other factor. At least by the game text, there is no concept of the deserving player getting more and the undeserving player getting less, as there is in 1e and earlier. (2e I'm not sure about.) - 3.5 DMG page 51 However, again as per the game text, choices and consequences are important - - 3.5 DMG pages 44-45 - 3.5 DMG page 45 This seems rather contradictory – player choices can have good or bad consequences for the PCs and yet at the same time, the amount of treasure the PCs receive is basically fixed. I believe the answer to this contradiction is that the consequences will take other forms than the losing or gaining of treasure. This has much bearing on Elf Witch's recent thread about the destruction of valuable animated skeletons, by one PC, against the wishes of the rest of the party. I believe that was a 3e game. According to the advice in the DMG, the GM should've made up for the loss of treasure later, assuming the PCs were below wealth by level guidelines. Ofc, I'm not saying that anyone should follow that advice, just that that is the advice. [/QUOTE]

Verification