The talismanic lure of high levels

[I'm A Banana]

Well, yeah, but does that wealth include stronghold? Servants? Value of the house and cows? Does this mean that a 1st level commoner who owns a farm has more GP than a 1st level PC class?

The GP is the gold value of the PC's equipment; the "intangibles" are completely arbitrary DM descisions that vary significantly with the campaign. Like I said, you can start at LV1 as a king, or you can go to LV20 and never be anything more than an alcolyte. It's up to the world the DM builds. Core rules seem to kind of assume the PC's dont' get castles and settle down, because they're out adventuring and living out of inns.

 

[Altalazar]

Well, yeah, but does that wealth include stronghold? Servants? Value of the house and cows? Does this mean that a 1st level commoner who owns a farm has more GP than a 1st level PC class?

The GP is the gold value of the PC's equipment; the "intangibles" are completely arbitrary DM descisions that vary significantly with the campaign. Like I said, you can start at LV1 as a king, or you can go to LV20 and never be anything more than an alcolyte. It's up to the world the DM builds. Core rules seem to kind of assume the PC's dont' get castles and settle down, because they're out adventuring and living out of inns.

The PHB wealth assumes ALL wealth. But that aside, I think it is more fun to start from nothing and build an empire - one carved out of the wilderness, not out of the political machinations of an already ancient and established kingdom. I guess I like the "Civ III" start - a few settlers and an empty, wild, untamed landscape upon which to build a civilization.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The PHB wealth assumes ALL wealth

From the DMG, it's based on 'average treasure found.'.....so unless your PC's are finding castle deeds in dungeons instead of piles of gold and magic items, it basically measures gear and equipment value ("power value," in a way, since it's one of the ways to control PC power). And since 'deed to a manor' doesn't appear on treasure generation tables, but coins do, it can be assumed that for an average D&D campaign, the PC's wealth doesn't really include landed holdings. In fact, the D&D game doesn't contain land values, construction costs, etc. (except in a non-Open format), so there is no real reliable way to measure how much a castle should cost in terms of 'character wealth by level.'

 

[StalkingBlue]

... My point was that once PCs are teleporting and not taking the road, and maybe there are less people on the road killing orcs, which means that they qualify for minions from someone who wants to manipulate them for his own nefarious purposes. The orcs don't get appreciably tougher, but perhaps they learn tactics from the bad guy or get reinforcements. Mind you, if the group had still been walking, he never would have gotten a foothold in the first place.
...

Hmm, that's assuming there are no other low-level heroes in the region who might now be travelling along the road making their living killing orcs and taking their stuff.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Hmm, that's assuming there are no other low-level heroes in the region who might now be travelling along the road making their living killing orcs and taking their stuff.

Ah, but then this begs the question: Are the PCs really special, unique people rising above the rest, or are they just another band of treasure hunters in a world full of them?

 

[Altalazar]

From the DMG, it's based on 'average treasure found.'.....so unless your PC's are finding castle deeds in dungeons instead of piles of gold and magic items, it basically measures gear and equipment value ("power value," in a way, since it's one of the ways to control PC power). And since 'deed to a manor' doesn't appear on treasure generation tables, but coins do, it can be assumed that for an average D&D campaign, the PC's wealth doesn't really include landed holdings. In fact, the D&D game doesn't contain land values, construction costs, etc. (except in a non-Open format), so there is no real reliable way to measure how much a castle should cost in terms of 'character wealth by level.'

I see no reason to assume it doesn't include all assets. For instance, a PC could just as easily find a magic sword, sell it, and use the proceeds to buy some land. It isn't whether they "find" castle deeds so much as how much of the wealth they DO find ends up getting invested in castles and lands.

 

[mirzabah]

Its interesting that this topic has come up because I have been planning that my next campaign will be capped at 10th level and XP will be halved. Why? Simple. Low level modules have always been my favorite and I would like to get more use out of them. Also, low levels match my comfort zone as a dm due to the rapid increase of complexity that comes with higher level play. Going up in levels is overrated anyway. So you're tougher now. So are the monsters. You really haven't gained much.

Sorry to come in on this so late, but ... I too have always found low-level modules generally much better than high level ones. This is nothing new. It seems to me at least, that low-level modules tend to have more interesting storylines. Apparently at high levels the designer's imagination gets all used in dreaming up with increasingly twinky BBEGs, or n-dimensional mazes populated by giant lamington people.

 

[mirzabah]

Well, obviously the problem is one of multi-classing and granularity. How can I be a super awesome fighter/rogue/blackguard/assassin with only 10 levels? Seriously however, the fewer levels available, the less I can mix and match to get exactly the feel that I want. PRC's also become an interesting dilemma, though revising how those work is probablly a good idea anyway.

Yah, it makes you wonder how we ever managed to have any kind of fun back in the bad old days of restricted multi-classing in AD&D, or even no multi-classing OD&D :\

 

[rounser]

How can I be a super awesome fighter/rogue/blackguard/assassin with only 10 levels?

Unsure if this has been suggested earlier, but why not cap every class at level 10, but no cap on total levels? EDIT: On reflection, I seem to remember someone suggesting it on these boards a year or two ago.

That way you can have your fighter 10/rogue 10/blackguard 10/assassin 10s and run a campaign which has few of the problems presented by normal 40th level characters.

The only problem I can see is that the fighter classes stack a lot better than the magic users (e.g. Fighter 10/Paladin 10/Ranger 10/Barbarian 10 is a lot more powerful than Wizard 10/Sorceror 10/Cleric 10/Druid 10 or Evoker 10/Transmuter 10/Enchanter 10/Necromancer 10 for that matter), so there might be a case for capping BAB at 20 or so, but you can stay in low-to-mid level wonderland, with high level trappings, pretty much indefinitely.

A problem I can see, though, might be handling PRCs which add +1 spellcaster level when you've already hit level 10 in wizard, for instance...

 

[Altalazar]

Sorry to come in on this so late, but ... I too have always found low-level modules generally much better than high level ones. This is nothing new. It seems to me at least, that low-level modules tend to have more interesting storylines. Apparently at high levels the designer's imagination gets all used in dreaming up with increasingly twinky BBEGs, or n-dimensional mazes populated by giant lamington people.

That isn't universal - after all, we all love the Tomb of Horrors, and that is a high level adventure from the golden age.

The G1-Q1 modules also are old favorites and are also high level.

I don't think there is any reason a high-level adventure can't have just as good a storyline as a low-level one.