Why I don't like Wealth by Level guidelines

[Ultimatecalibur]

The original purpose of the WbL guidelines was for published adventures to take into account the expected resources of the 'typical' group when planning for barriers and obstacles. It was also a way for a DM to measure the actual wealth in his campaign against a published norm -- it's at least a way for the DM to guard against Monty Haulism or reward parsimony.

And this is why WbL guidelines can be good. The problem comes when the guidelines become rules.

I dislike the thought that a set of characters should be restricted or entitled to WbL guidelines and further rewards should be adjusted to maintain that level.

In my 3.5e campaign, the PCs wealth has varied away from the WbL (both up and down) as a consequence of player strategy, group success, and mission choice.

I've felt no need to bump up rewards when the player group became smitten with consumables (potions and scrolls) and spent several thousand gp to recover a few hundred on mission after mission. I've felt no need to pare down the rewards when the group had a specacular success in a treasure haul and ended well above WbL guidelines for a level or two. Nor did I feel the need to bump the potential rewards when most of the group's items were lost in a near-TPK and the guideline wealth was well above their actual wealth.

For me, wealth is one of the measures the PCs should take into consideration when the group is making is strategic choices as to what missions to accept, what resources to commit, and what contingences to prepare. It really isn't a concern for the DM save to help guard his own behaviour when designing scenarios and challenges.

I totally agree with you here. You've done a great job adhering to the spirit of the guidelines rather than the letter of the guidelines.

I just wanted to chime in and say, I love discussion of game design that is (1) honest, (2) open, and (3) decoupled from edition squabbling! Keep it up, guys, and I'll keep reading!

Thanks! Also, RC you said in the XP note you disagree with somethings. What do you disagree with and why?

Ultimatecalibur, best of luck with your Fantasy Heartbreaker!

Since it is 4e based, I assume that you are not going to release it to a wider audience? Or are you going to "retro-clone" something similar to 4e, and use the OGL? Depending upon what you're doing, you might want to talk to LostSoul about his "fiction-first" hack, or the Jester for ways to use 4e materials "outside the box".


RC

Actually calling it a "rebuild" of 4e isn't quite true; its more of what I want 5e to look like based off of what 4e design concepts I do (things like martial classes having powers) and don't like (all classes have at-wills, encounters and dailies).

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I too would prefer a system that built the "wealth by level" component of becoming more powerful into the characters, and made items and treasure just that...no +1's to anything (but you might find a sword so sharp it would be vorpal).

I think it'd dramatically change the "kill stuff and loot it" philosophy of players.



My game is 3e, but I've considered giving all the players the "vow of poverty" abilities for free, with the understanding that magic items would become much, much more rare.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

In the category of "Keeping traditional elements while not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" ...

One thing I'm considering in my current game that you might find useful is the idea that perhaps the problem with +X weapons and armor is not the +X, but its range. I'm leaning towards something like this:

1. Use inherent bonuses for the the +1 to +6, per that standard option.

2. Let weapons, armor, and neck slots go from +1 to +3, typically one plus per tier.

3. Either ban expertise feats or allow them but change the bonus given so that it does not stack with equipment.

The thinking is that, for example, a fighter is supposed to acquire a +2 weapon he likes somewhere in about the middle of the paragon tier. But if he happens to get it between, say, levels 8 and 22, no real harm done (assuming if he gets it late, he had a +1 weapon in there somewhere). That +1 to hit (relative to not having it) is important, but not game breaking. And if he does get it late, he can always take the appropriate expertise feat, and then retrain out of it later.

This doesn't so much remove the wealth by guideline issues, with key equipment, as minimize them. Over the course of 10 levels or so, it isn't hard to have everyone upgrade their equipment, and it come across as fairly natural in play.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

This is an interesting topic to me; I'm working on a homebrewed system in which I'm strongly considering either bringing back the "xp for treasure" model of early D&D or switching to an "xp for spending money on drinks and whores" model. Either one has the effect of shifting the game's emphasis from killing things and taking their stuff to getting paid.

Good luck with that no matter what you decide!

I agree 100% with the original post excepting the "likes" of wishlists and magic item shops, but even then, in the right game a magic item shop is okay.

By Wishlists, I mean finding out what players want. In 1e & 2e you could drop rumors of a Holy Avenger and cause anyone playing a paladin to salivate. You could do the same thing to wizards with the mention of a Staff of the Magi or Staff of Power. Pretty much every class had at least one of these. Bards had the Instruments of the Bardic Colleges, Thieves had Elven Chainmail, Clerics had Pearls of Power and so on. And that is not even including stuff like Bags of Holding and Portable Holes.

As for Magic Shops, I did say it depends on the campaign and world. In some worlds only finding magic items in ancient ruins makes sense, in others finding magic items while wandering the Bazaar of the Bizarre should be common.

 

[Mort]

Inherent bonuses the need for the big necessity magic items and therefore, while technically still wealth by level, really do go a long way to solving the problem (yes you could get the same result by modifying the monsters and situations, but to me doing the math once is better than me having to remember to do it all the time).

As for the rest of the post, I mostly agree with one glaring exception:

• Magic item crafting - I have no problem with crafting magic items. There are some great tales to be told about doing so. You can build entire adventures around forging one or more weapons or other items.

I love Item crafting in general, but I love the way 2e and prior edditions did it. Yes it was DM fiat, but it was magical mysterious and took some effort (basically it was an adventure or series of adventures unto itself). 3e + the caster essentially throws some gold in the air and viola - magic item. Further with 3e/3.5 with scroll/wand crafting - I believe this was the biggest culprit to the ridiculously versatile powerful wizard that could with proper scroll crafting usurp the role of anyone else in the party (except the cleric) and still have plenty of casting left over to do his own schtick.

 

[Diamond Cross]

You realize, that at least in d20, those wealth by level guidelines are not entitlements don't you?

They are guidelines for starting equipment for making characters who start at that level, not for characters who have had years of adventuring experience starting at level one.

In other words, if a character reaches level five he does not automatically get all that gold or items. They do get it if they start at level five.

In other words you are not guaranteed to get that +5 weapon at level 25 unless you started at level 25.

They are also a way to help the DM to determine what personal items an NPC could have as well.

And the other misconception is that they are money. No. The wealth guidelines are also used for magic items and mundane equipment, or gold. For example, in 3.5e +1 magic weapons are equal to 2000gp.A +1 armor and a +1 shield are worth 1,000gp each for a total of 2,000gp So if an NPC has 5000gp worth of stuff, that leaves him with 1000gp to have in either magic items or gold items or other mundane equipment. So that means he could have a lot of potions or scrolls and a few wands.

Otherwise, players have to find their treasure during an adventure or a dungeon delve.

Because let's face it, a player who's had more experience from level 1 is more than likely to have more money that the level guidelines, and possibly even better stuff that's worth more that the level guidelines.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Thanks! Also, RC you said in the XP note you disagree with somethings. What do you disagree with and why?

There's nothing I disagree with, just things I don't fully agree with (as a matter of preference). Overall, I like the cut of your jib, and you shouldn't be worried about my niggling little likes or dislikes. FWIW, I am very careful about "treasure parcels", "wish lists", and "magic shops" for many of the reasons you dislike WBL guidelines.

"Magic shops" bother me the least, if they are rare, minimal, unrealiable, or all three. A magic shop where you can buy a +5 sword bothers me a lot.

"Wish lists" IMHO should occur in play. I.e., if Bob the Fighter starts looking for a magic bow, you as the GM now know that Bob the Fighter wants a magic bow. Communication is good, but wish lists can easily lead to the same expectations WBL guidelines can.

Likewise treasure parcels. I prefer to think "What should be here, based on setting?" than anything else. If the PCs get a big haul as a result, woot! If they get less than they'd hope for, well, it's a tough world.

But, again, don't let my concerns stop you from making the game you want!

Actually calling it a "rebuild" of 4e isn't quite true; its more of what I want 5e to look like based off of what 4e design concepts I do (things like martial classes having powers) and don't like (all classes have at-wills, encounters and dailies).

Well, if it is an OGL game, you can borrow freely from the Beta Playtest of RCFG. All the text (except quotes from other sources) is OGC, and there are a few things that might spur your creativity. Even if the Beta Playtest is an organizational nightmare.


RC

 

[Beginning of the End]

I will be blunt; I don't like wealth by level guidelines.

Iron Man Principle: "If you take two perfectly balanced twin brothers, tell them to fight, and then stick one of them in the Iron Man suit… well, that guy’s gonna win."

If you're going to provide any sort of meaningful guideline about what type of challenges a PC should be facing, then you need to take into account the equipment that they have available to them.

So I don't object to wealth by level guidelines. What I object to is when the guidelines of "wealth by level" and "challenge rating" are treated as IMMUTABLE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE. Partially because it's unnecessary. Partially because it eliminates flexibility in the system. Partially because it drains away any sense of actual achievement when the achievement is considered a guarantee. Partially because such guidelines are rarely foolproof in the first place.

In the case of 3E, ignoring the guidelines was pretty simple: You just ignored them. (Of course, you needed to ignore all of them. You can't equip 10th level PCs with balls of lint and then wonder why CR 10 creatures are tougher than they're "supposed to be".) I'm not familiar enough with running 4E to know if it's equally as flexible (although given its core design principles, I'm suspecting that it's more problematic).

 

[Umbran]

I will be blunt; I don't like wealth by level guidelines.

I, like BotE above, have no problem with guidelines. A guideline is not an entitlement, not a hard and fast rule. I am by no means bound to them, and may players are smart enough to know the difference.

I actually prefer they give me the guidelines on which their design assumptions are based, so I will more easily know when and where I am deviating from their assumptions. Knowledge is power, and if they don't give me the guideline, I have to dig it out of the system myself, which is annoying.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is true in principle; it isn't always true in execution.

HOWEVER, the less the players are allowed to set the acceptable challenge level (i.e., the more the GM determines what they will do) the more important such guidelines become.