Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="StreamOfTheSky" data-source="post: 5118481" data-attributes="member: 35909">The poster I replied to said it was 3rd edition.&nbsp; I don't know about older editions, but I doubt that it wasn't a big deal back then.&nbsp; Wasn't one of the first versions of the game on an &quot;gp = xp&quot; system?&nbsp; If a single spell can wipe out tens of thousands of gp in a single casting, how exactly would that work?If you're handing out insanely large amounts of treasure, far more than the game expects, I guess it does balance.&nbsp; Then again...instead of bashing the players with a disjunction every few months to keep their power in line, why not just take some basic steps to keep track of the wealth you're giving them and not let the problem start in the first place?No, not just &quot;different strokes.&quot;&nbsp; If you're keeping the PC's wealth well below what the system expects at higher levels (in 3E at least), it's not just an &quot;aw shucks, guess we like different things&quot; situation.&nbsp; The noncasters need those items more than the casters do, and the casters were already more powerful than the noncasters.&nbsp; To help visualize what is happening at that point: The DM is stealing food from the homeless.(I should probably mention that I don't mind casters being more powerful at higher levels.&nbsp; Higher levels by definition will see the smallest amount of play time of any of the levels anyway.&nbsp; And despite what internet forums keep claiming, I have yet to see a game where the casters were up to par with the warriors at low levels, so it's also a see-saw kind of balance.&nbsp; I also like the thematics of high level casters just plain surpassing their warrior peers.&nbsp; I'm not criticizing the high level power imbalance.&nbsp; I just think it's twisted to make things even worse for the weaker classes than it already is.And yes, I play high level non-casters myself.&nbsp; About 2/3 of my characters that started at or reached level 15+ had no spellcasting ability at all.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="StreamOfTheSky, post: 5118481, member: 35909"] The poster I replied to said it was 3rd edition. I don't know about older editions, but I doubt that it wasn't a big deal back then. Wasn't one of the first versions of the game on an "gp = xp" system? If a single spell can wipe out tens of thousands of gp in a single casting, how exactly would [b]that[/b] work? If you're handing out insanely large amounts of treasure, far more than the game expects, I guess it does balance. Then again...instead of bashing the players with a disjunction every few months to keep their power in line, why not just take some basic steps to keep track of the wealth you're giving them and not let the problem start in the first place? No, not just "different strokes." If you're keeping the PC's wealth well below what the system expects at higher levels (in 3E at least), it's not just an "aw shucks, guess we like different things" situation. The noncasters need those items more than the casters do, and the casters were already more powerful than the noncasters. To help visualize what is happening at that point: The DM is stealing food from the homeless. (I should probably mention that I don't mind casters being more powerful at higher levels. Higher levels by definition will see the smallest amount of play time of any of the levels anyway. And despite what internet forums keep claiming, I have yet to see a game where the casters were up to par with the warriors at low levels, so it's also a see-saw kind of balance. I also like the thematics of high level casters just plain surpassing their warrior peers. I'm not criticizing the high level power imbalance. I just think it's twisted to make things even worse for the weaker classes than it already is. And yes, I play high level non-casters myself. About 2/3 of my characters that started at or reached level 15+ had no spellcasting ability at all.) [/QUOTE]

Verification