Jeff Wilder
First Post
Well, yeah, but to get the cash to buy "choice treasure," they're selling "found treasure" at 50 percent of its value, so it should balance out, at the least.Artoomis said:
Wealth by Level Guidelines
- Thread starter Shadeydm
- Start date
Nonlethal Force
First Post
It is a general guideline, but as others have said - it should represent the wealth upon gaining the level.
For example: The line for 2nd level reads 900 gp, no? Well, we know that a 1st level character starts out with random starting wealth as per the PHB. [Or houseruled to some static amount] So, there isn't an entry on the table for 1st level because it is random and stated elsewhere. Hence, the absence of an entry for 1st level indicates that the values are for attaining that level.
Another way to think about it is this: Suppose the table is their wealth that they attain at the end of the level. Then, why is there no entry for 1st level? Characters don't start at the end of 1st level, so a DM should need a guideline for approximate wealth at the end of 1st level, no? But since that entry isn't there, the table cannot mean end of level wealth. Rather, it means entry wealth for the level.
Again, only a guideline, though!
For example: The line for 2nd level reads 900 gp, no? Well, we know that a 1st level character starts out with random starting wealth as per the PHB. [Or houseruled to some static amount] So, there isn't an entry on the table for 1st level because it is random and stated elsewhere. Hence, the absence of an entry for 1st level indicates that the values are for attaining that level.
Another way to think about it is this: Suppose the table is their wealth that they attain at the end of the level. Then, why is there no entry for 1st level? Characters don't start at the end of 1st level, so a DM should need a guideline for approximate wealth at the end of 1st level, no? But since that entry isn't there, the table cannot mean end of level wealth. Rather, it means entry wealth for the level.
Again, only a guideline, though!
robberbaron
First Post
I use it as the starting wealth for new characters.
Don't really use it at any other time. I prefer to give out what I think are reasonable rewards for the tasks set and I'm not too worried about the PCs having a lot of kit (I think the richest of them is about 30% over the guidelines).
I'm certainly not going to say "you've just shared out dead PC X's kit so you won't be getting any treasure for a while". To me, that is just ridiculous and counterproductive.
That said, my party are evil so I can't use their consciences to get them to do stuff and have to give what they will accept as reasonable remuneration for tasks. They don't always get much treasure, so their pay has to be sufficient to encourage them to go adventuring.
Bottom line for me: if the players are happy with their wealth and it isn't causing me problems then it is OK.
Don't really use it at any other time. I prefer to give out what I think are reasonable rewards for the tasks set and I'm not too worried about the PCs having a lot of kit (I think the richest of them is about 30% over the guidelines).
I'm certainly not going to say "you've just shared out dead PC X's kit so you won't be getting any treasure for a while". To me, that is just ridiculous and counterproductive.
That said, my party are evil so I can't use their consciences to get them to do stuff and have to give what they will accept as reasonable remuneration for tasks. They don't always get much treasure, so their pay has to be sufficient to encourage them to go adventuring.
Bottom line for me: if the players are happy with their wealth and it isn't causing me problems then it is OK.
Nifft
Penguin Herder
I use it both ways: as a general guideline for about how much loot the PCs should have at any random point over the course of that level. Obviously, they should tend to have more loot towards the end of a level than the beginning! 
I use those numbers when generating new high-level PCs, and also to double-check that I've not given too much loot (or sundered / stolen / rended too much equipment).
Cheers, -- N
I use those numbers when generating new high-level PCs, and also to double-check that I've not given too much loot (or sundered / stolen / rended too much equipment).
Cheers, -- N
Li Shenron
Legend
First, it's a GUIDELINE, so at least a DM shouldn't worry too much about following it exactly 
That said, there could be 2 purposes for that guideline: creating characters at that level, or keeping control over character equipment during a campaign.
Unfortunately the 2 purposes don't fit perfectly with each other, due to the presence of "consumable" magic items (potions, scrolls, wands...).
If you create a PC using the wealth guideline, you pretty much spend all those money without bothering about what the PC might have had previously, and had used it up.
But if you use the guidelines for "monitoring" PCs wealth in an ongoing campaign, you have to choose whether to "forget" about already-used consumable items, or still count them in the PC's current wealth. If you forget them, you favor characters who use lots of consumables. If you still count them, you favor those who don't use any, and you may even wonder if the two characters are still balanced with each other (the wiz who spent everything on wands and now is pennyless vs the fighter who only bought permanent items are certainly NOT on par!!).
That said, there could be 2 purposes for that guideline: creating characters at that level, or keeping control over character equipment during a campaign.
Unfortunately the 2 purposes don't fit perfectly with each other, due to the presence of "consumable" magic items (potions, scrolls, wands...).
If you create a PC using the wealth guideline, you pretty much spend all those money without bothering about what the PC might have had previously, and had used it up.
But if you use the guidelines for "monitoring" PCs wealth in an ongoing campaign, you have to choose whether to "forget" about already-used consumable items, or still count them in the PC's current wealth. If you forget them, you favor characters who use lots of consumables. If you still count them, you favor those who don't use any, and you may even wonder if the two characters are still balanced with each other (the wiz who spent everything on wands and now is pennyless vs the fighter who only bought permanent items are certainly NOT on par!!).
I use it for "starting wealth".
I eyeball it to ensure the PCs are at least on track.
I do have a player who is constantly telling me that I need to adjust treasure since I have added in a few monsters to bump up the EL due to the party being so large (7 members).
The party has just hit 3rd level and I had been inserting "items" that I felt were necessary (or at least real useful). I am running Age of Worms. I inserted a single real useful magic item (a haversack) and rounding up any treasure listed. I also inserted a random encounter with some bandits that were slightly overequipped so that the PCs could gain some treasure. It was not really random, but planned with the NPCs previously statted out. Most creatures when not found in a lair have very little treasure - something a DM who was running a game I was in failed to realize while he was enforcing the optional training rules from the DMG (and its gp cost).
With the fairly constant wining from the player I have almost decided to call him out during a game in front of everyone and state we will be using a mandatory "auditing" process and . I figure that will get the other players to put him in check since I believe they have faith that I will ensure they get what they need in order to advance adequately. At least one of them is very much aware of the "issues" I had with the way the other DM ran/runs his game - especially the reliance on random encounters (totally random and rolled up on the spot - which delays the game tremendously).
But overall I do not beleive in "auditing" player wealth as it is not a real good measure since they could have spent a lot of it on "services" which no longer have a "value" or a disproportionate amount of expendable magic items - which likewise will skew the results. I feel that requiring "audits" ruins a lot of the "fun" of the game and forces things to become too predictable. The wealth per level "gidelines" are valuable though and an eye should be kept on them to make sure that PCs are in the ball park, although it really depends on the setting being used. For example in a magic item rare type of setting the wealth tables would give a truely meaningless measure as they would in a magic item rich environment.
I eyeball it to ensure the PCs are at least on track.
I do have a player who is constantly telling me that I need to adjust treasure since I have added in a few monsters to bump up the EL due to the party being so large (7 members).
The party has just hit 3rd level and I had been inserting "items" that I felt were necessary (or at least real useful). I am running Age of Worms. I inserted a single real useful magic item (a haversack) and rounding up any treasure listed. I also inserted a random encounter with some bandits that were slightly overequipped so that the PCs could gain some treasure. It was not really random, but planned with the NPCs previously statted out. Most creatures when not found in a lair have very little treasure - something a DM who was running a game I was in failed to realize while he was enforcing the optional training rules from the DMG (and its gp cost).
With the fairly constant wining from the player I have almost decided to call him out during a game in front of everyone and state we will be using a mandatory "auditing" process and . I figure that will get the other players to put him in check since I believe they have faith that I will ensure they get what they need in order to advance adequately. At least one of them is very much aware of the "issues" I had with the way the other DM ran/runs his game - especially the reliance on random encounters (totally random and rolled up on the spot - which delays the game tremendously).
But overall I do not beleive in "auditing" player wealth as it is not a real good measure since they could have spent a lot of it on "services" which no longer have a "value" or a disproportionate amount of expendable magic items - which likewise will skew the results. I feel that requiring "audits" ruins a lot of the "fun" of the game and forces things to become too predictable. The wealth per level "gidelines" are valuable though and an eye should be kept on them to make sure that PCs are in the ball park, although it really depends on the setting being used. For example in a magic item rare type of setting the wealth tables would give a truely meaningless measure as they would in a magic item rich environment.
ThirdWizard
First Post
Li Shenron said:
The wizard generally won't do that to himself, though. And, if he does that's his own fault. A mix of permanent and consumables is the way to go.
brehobit
Explorer
I generally prefer to keep the party above the wealth guidelines as they don't generally have much control over what they buy and I want them on par with a character who uses the wealth guidelines and gets to choose what items they get.
I rarely, if ever, adjust treasure gained to the party. So the two-handed sword specialist might have a heck of a time finding the "right" weapon. They can often buy stuff, usually made-to-order, but it takes time and the creator is not generally able to make everything they might want...
Mark
I rarely, if ever, adjust treasure gained to the party. So the two-handed sword specialist might have a heck of a time finding the "right" weapon. They can often buy stuff, usually made-to-order, but it takes time and the creator is not generally able to make everything they might want...
Mark
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
Li Shenron said:
I believe the built in assumption is that the PCs will spend a certain portion of their wealth on consumables. What portion that is is not spelled out. Otherwise you would be punishing PCs for having played in your game, over a new PC that has just been created.
Yes, a PC that is a tightwad "should" tend to be high compared with the guideline, and a PC that uses lots and lots of potions "should" tend to be low.
You also have to factor in the cashing out to buy better equipment aspect. The Fighter who has 12 +1 swords and 3 +2 swords is probably not wealthier than the Fighter with a single +3 sword in any meaningful way, unless you happen to be a DM who likes destroying equipment.
We should always remember these are merely guidelines. There is a significant degree of imprecision, so "should" does not necessarily apply in any particular case.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
brehobit said:
I have a DM that forgets this.
The true in play value of an interesting collection of magical stuff by Market Price is probably less than half the value of a carefully chosen array of tools for a specific PC.
Now I am not suggesting that the wealth guideline, if you as a DM choose to adhere to it closely, implies that the PC's wealth should entirely consist of magic items optimally chosen. But if did not end up seeding some number of good magic items that match up with the PCs schticks, simply adding up the Market Price value can easily overcount by 25% or more.
