The Only Two Situations Where WBL Matters.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 216 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Aranna wrote:
I sympathize... By calling it a rule, you end up with GMs who will arbitrarily delete treasure off your sheet because "you are cheating by taking too much treasure". Even if it was treasure given out by that GM or placed within the published adventure.
That sounds like a really unlikely scenario, unless the GM is a ten-year old or a robot.
Wow you respond with insults?

Are you so sensitive that even the slightest amount of irony is an insult to you? Please notice how I did not cast aspersions on your character with my original reply, but just pointed out how extreme your position sounded.

Aranna wrote:
The GM in question (yes he is real) is a twenty something year old computer repair specialist. To him WBL is a RULE and will be adhered to strictly. If we ever exceed WBL from treasure he hands out he will strip it from your characters arbitrarily until you are under the listed maximum for your level. Rules WILL be followed in his game or else. We killed a dragon once and nobody dared to pick up any treasure because we were already at WBL and dared not even remove a single copper coin from the horde lest the GM step in and say "You seem to have misplaced your magic ring somewhere... remove it from your sheet." Although to be fair if we just grabbed coins it's more likely our coin purses would vanish. One guy once tossed aside a couple items to pick up a new piece... nobody touched the stuff he dropped either.

And that is bad, nay, horrible GM'ing. I guess he goes more in the direction of being a robot, then.

Aranna wrote:
So YES there are GMs out there who will see the quote that WBL is a rule and claim full justification from the Devs themselves for their actions. Even if it ruins immersion in the setting and breaks the fourth wall to pieces.

As I said, I guess he's a robot (not literally, though). You need to apply some human judgement to how you GM, not just cite the rules.


Aranna wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Aranna wrote:
I sympathize... By calling it a rule, you end up with GMs who will arbitrarily delete treasure off your sheet because "you are cheating by taking too much treasure". Even if it was treasure given out by that GM or placed within the published adventure.
That sounds like a really unlikely scenario, unless the GM is a ten-year old or a robot.

Wow you respond with insults? The GM in question (yes he is real) is a twenty something year old computer repair specialist. To him WBL is a RULE and will be adhered to strictly. If we ever exceed WBL from treasure he hands out he will strip it from your characters arbitrarily until you are under the listed maximum for your level. Rules WILL be followed in his game or else. We killed a dragon once and nobody dared to pick up any treasure because we were already at WBL and dared not even remove a single copper coin from the horde lest the GM step in and say "You seem to have misplaced your magic ring somewhere... remove it from your sheet." Although to be fair if we just grabbed coins it's more likely our coin purses would vanish. One guy once tossed aside a couple items to pick up a new piece... nobody touched the stuff he dropped either.

So YES there are GMs out there who will see the quote that WBL is a rule and claim full justification from the Devs themselves for their actions. Even if it ruins immersion in the setting and breaks the fourth wall to pieces.

This is EXACTLY why I agree with Evil Lincoln.

It might not always go to this extreme, but that kind of interpretation is bound to crop up if it isn't clear that WBL is just a guideline.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thenobledrake wrote:
No - what the party has available as options to use their wealth for keeps the balance in check, not the wealth itself.

It's not as binary as you want to make it out to be. Yes, of course if you are grossly over WBL, but it's all tons of artwork, it doesn't immediately make the party more powerful. But when the party converts that artwork into magic items (by selling the artwork, going to an appropiately sized town and buying stuff that makes them more powerful), then it becomes a problem. You can prevent them from doing so by arbitrary restrictions, but with RAW, eventually the oversized WBL will make them more powerful than they should be.

thenobledrake wrote:
Having more +1 weapons that anyone is actually using does not make the party more powerful than one that simply has a +1 weapon for every member... at least not unless the party is able to convert those unused weapons to cash and then convert that cash to items they will use (both of which are 100% GM fiat, not any kind of rule or guideline).

Actually, there are rules for that, too. It's called city wealth limits. Yes, you can arbitrarily restrict things and not give them the stuff they want. But that is just another way of admitting that you screwed up when allocating treasure, i.e. by not going with WBL. It's really no different than not having given out the excessive WBL in the first place.

thenobledrake wrote:
I disagree. Further, I assert that you cannot find proof of your claim of universal demand for rebalancing.

I, uh, what? Where did I state that there was an "universal demand for rebalancing"? And you can disagree if you like, it's not as if there isn't a multitude of opinions on the internet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:

Here is my solution for the "big six" situation:

1) You are not entitled to a stat boosting item, nor is one required for your character to maintain a fair chance of success.
2) Magic armor is not nearly as relevant as it might seem as the game heavily favors accuracy, you will rarely notice any detriment without it
3) Magic weapons are not guaranteed, nor necessary to be successful - and weapon-dependent classes in Pathfinder get enough bonuses to their attacks to still be so accurate at higher levels as to only miss on a 1 on their first attack in a round without weapons.
4) Save DCs are not, in a game not assuming everybody gets a stat-booster, that hard to succeed at - so you don't need a cloak of resistance to get by.
5) I confess: I don't know what the 5th and 6th part of the...

YES!!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
The GM in question (yes he is real) is a twenty something year old computer repair specialist. To him WBL is a RULE and will be adhered to strictly. If we ever exceed WBL from treasure he hands out he will strip it from your characters arbitrarily until you are under the listed maximum for your level. Rules WILL be followed in his game or else. We killed a dragon once and nobody dared to pick up any treasure because we were already at WBL and dared not even remove a single copper coin from the horde lest the GM step in and say "You seem to have misplaced your magic ring somewhere... remove it from your sheet." Although to be fair if we just grabbed coins it's more likely our coin purses would vanish. One guy once tossed aside a couple items to pick up a new piece... nobody touched the stuff he dropped either.

Out of curiosity, what happens when the party gains a level? Do items suddenly show up, similarly to how items earlier randomly vanished, or does the increased WBL simply allow the party to begin picking up items again (by revisiting the slain dragon's hoard, for instance)?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
It's not as binary as you want to make it out to be.

One of us must be severely confused as to what the other is trying to say, or possibly one of us is not actually familiar with the definition of the word "binary."

I am not saying that being over-powered for your level because of wealth is binary - I am saying the exact opposite, actually. The way in which wealth influences the actual power of a character is so extremely conditional as to not even possibly be gauged by gold piece value alone.

magnuskn wrote:
Actually, there are rules for that, too. It's called city wealth limits.

There is no rule on the books that says how often the party be able to find a settlement, nor any rule on the books which mandates the size of settlement that the party can find.

That is why I said that is pure GM fiat as to when and how the party can turn one kind of wealth into another.

...and that doesn't even cover that there are only certain items in a settlement which are 100% guaranteed to be present - you could easily roll the 75% chance for the items the party wants to find and they end up never finding any of them - dice are funny like that.

magnuskn wrote:
It's really no different than not having given out the excessive WBL in the first place.

Not letting the party easily trade in a large stash of gemstones for the exact magic item they want (presumably one that would have a noteworthy impact in the current campaign circumstances) is not the same as not having let the party find a stash of gemstones.

In the first case the party has gemstones they can trade away for other things (food, shelter, transportation fare, information, hired help, and purchasable wares or property other than the magic item the party desires, for a few examples), while in the second case the party has nothing.

magnuskn wrote:
I, uh, what? Where did I state that there was an "universal demand for rebalancing"?

You stated "deviating strongly from it demands constant rebalancing of encounters".

That statement is a universal statement - meaning you have stated that deviating strongly always results in demand for rebalancing.

For contrast, I have been making a conditional statement - meaning that I am saying there is no always in this matter.

In closing, I'd like to add a new thought in the form of a question:

Am I the only one that has experienced players that refuse to spend wealth on anything outside the "big six" items because they think Wealth by Level is a rule that means they will only receive a precisely finite amount of wealth throughout the entire campaign?


Are wrote:
Aranna wrote:
The GM in question (yes he is real) is a twenty something year old computer repair specialist. To him WBL is a RULE and will be adhered to strictly. If we ever exceed WBL from treasure he hands out he will strip it from your characters arbitrarily until you are under the listed maximum for your level. Rules WILL be followed in his game or else. We killed a dragon once and nobody dared to pick up any treasure because we were already at WBL and dared not even remove a single copper coin from the horde lest the GM step in and say "You seem to have misplaced your magic ring somewhere... remove it from your sheet." Although to be fair if we just grabbed coins it's more likely our coin purses would vanish. One guy once tossed aside a couple items to pick up a new piece... nobody touched the stuff he dropped either.

Out of curiosity, what happens when the party gains a level? Do items suddenly show up, similarly to how items earlier randomly vanished, or does the increased WBL simply allow the party to begin picking up items again (by revisiting the slain dragon's hoard, for instance)?

The later option; we can suddenly start picking up gear again at least till we hit the new level limit.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thenobledrake wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
It's not as binary as you want to make it out to be.

One of us must be severely confused as to what the other is trying to say, or possibly one of us is not actually familiar with the definition of the word "binary."

I am not saying that being over-powered for your level because of wealth is binary - I am saying the exact opposite, actually. The way in which wealth influences the actual power of a character is so extremely conditional as to not even possibly be gauged by gold piece value alone.

I wanted to express that WBL is more complex than just saying that you cannot judge wealth by gold pieces alone. I was probably inartful in how I expressed that.

thenobledrake wrote:
There is no rule on the books that says how often the party be able to find a settlement, nor any rule on the books which mandates the size of settlement that the party can find.

So I guess you play your campaigns on the plane of Limbo? Because otherwise there are those things like "geography" and "nations". I play my campaigns in a fixed campaign world and if the AP I am GM'ing doesn't throw the player characters into some sort of desert, there normally are some sort of population centers fixed on the map where they can go to.

thenobledrake wrote:
That is why I said that is pure GM fiat as to when and how the party can turn one kind of wealth into another.

I try to avoid being unnecessarily arbitrary in how the game world behaves.

thenobledrake wrote:
...and that doesn't even cover that there are only certain items in a settlement which are 100% guaranteed to be present - you could easily roll the 75% chance for the items the party wants to find and they end up never finding any of them - dice are funny like that.

I also avoid massive cheating at dice. I prefer that situations where cheat rolls are necessary do not even come up. Like, by keeping within WBL limits.

thenobledrake wrote:

Not letting the party easily trade in a large stash of gemstones for the exact magic item they want (presumably one that would have a noteworthy impact in the current campaign circumstances) is not the same as not having let the party find a stash of gemstones.

In the first case the party has gemstones they can trade away for other things (food, shelter, transportation fare, information, hired help, and purchasable wares or property other than the magic item the party desires, for a few examples), while in the second case the party has nothing.

In the end, you are just saying the same as I do, only that our methods differ. WBL does matter, your methods just deny the player characters converting their excessive loot into items which raise their combat power level, while I just give them enough to stay as balanced as this game gets.

thenobledrake wrote:

You stated "deviating strongly from it demands constant rebalancing of encounters".

That statement is a universal statement - meaning you have stated that deviating strongly always results in demand for rebalancing.

For contrast, I have been making a conditional statement - meaning that I am saying there is no always in this matter.

Ah, yes. For some reason I didn't make the connection. Must be the morning hours. And, yeah, I stand by my assertion, although I'll add the caveat that "if the GM wants the party to have challenging encounters". If the GM is happy with the party just walking all over the opposition, then "excessive WBL" balance becomes less of a concern.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jess Door wrote:

I am in a party that is pretty severely under wbl. Purchasing of magic items is difficult. We have not been able to find or purchase a single magical piece of armor or defensive equipment (such as cloaks of resistance or rings of protection) except bracers of armor +1 for our arcane caster. We are level 5.

The offense of monsters attacking us is not commensurately lower, however. Our last fight, the enemy was continuously hitting AC 20+. My paladin has the highest AC in the party with an AC of 18. This is...a problem.

Now let's look at what happens if the GM in question heeds my admonitions:

The party is under wealth. The GM changes nothing about the opposition, but lowers the party's effective WBL by one (or more) to account for the disadvantage.

This doesn't mean the GM is now forced to lower the CR of the opposition, oh no! It means he's forced to give a slightly large XP award to parties who overcome challenges with fewer advantages.

Yes, this means that in games without XP, the only purpose of WBL is so that the GM can gauge challenges for the party in the famously ballpark manner of CR.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

I don't really understand why this thread was started. You're angry because a dev said that a rule is a rule? Does it bother you that you've been house-ruling or something? I mean, wealth by level only matters if the GM says it matters... so what's the problem here?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cartmanbeck wrote:
I don't really understand why this thread was started. You're angry because a dev said that a rule is a rule? Does it bother you that you've been house-ruling or something? I mean, wealth by level only matters if the GM says it matters... so what's the problem here?

To inform, and generate discussion and, hopefully, help GMs?

Seems like it's meant that way to me.

(I can't speak for him, but I've found it helpful, thought-provoking, and interesting.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Jess Door wrote:

I am in a party that is pretty severely under wbl. Purchasing of magic items is difficult. We have not been able to find or purchase a single magical piece of armor or defensive equipment (such as cloaks of resistance or rings of protection) except bracers of armor +1 for our arcane caster. We are level 5.

The offense of monsters attacking us is not commensurately lower, however. Our last fight, the enemy was continuously hitting AC 20+. My paladin has the highest AC in the party with an AC of 18. This is...a problem.

Now let's look at what happens if the GM in question heeds my admonitions:

The party is under wealth. The GM changes nothing about the opposition, but lowers the party's effective WBL by one (or more) to account for the disadvantage.

This doesn't mean the GM is now forced to lower the CR of the opposition, oh no! It means he's forced to give a slightly large XP award to parties who overcome challenges with fewer advantages.

I openly admit bias on this subject, as I have removed both XP and wealth by level from my game.

That said. This doesnt address the issue, or at least one of them. Assuming the GM has a reason for wanting challenges to be this difficult, the greater xp gains have no actual value. Even if you get another level faster, the gm will simply scale up the challenges to match. In terms of the capabilities of the party vs what they face, the greater xp is meaningly. If the future challenges were already set (like say if you were running an ap as is) then sure those future challenges would be easier even with the reduced wealth because you have a proportionally higher level. But what dm on the planet that keeps the party 'under geared' wont react to those future easier challenges by scaling them up so the game stays on hard mode?

Quote:

Yes, this means that in games without XP, the only purpose of WBL is so that the GM can gauge challenges for the party in the famously ballpark manner of CR.

That has always been the purpose. Both WBL and the CR system are ballpark tools to help the dm understand where the game expects the players to be and go from there. Some dms want things super hard, some like things easy and prefer to focus on other aspects of the game. All of this is fine, and making people more concious of how these guidelines interact with the game is great. But I dont think your idea really addresses anything other then possibly increasing some numbers on all sides of the equation long term.

And eventually in my experience the whole thing breaks down. There are certain things that can only be attained via magic items in the rules as is (like a martial character being able to make himself fly) that new levels dont help with, and eventually just reducing challenge ratings doesnt work because even if you are 19th level facing 16th level challenges, those 16th level challenges expect you to have things that are really only attainable with magic items, and your 3 extra levels dont give you those.

Either adjust the game to work without wealth or use the guideling, it doesnt have to be strict adherence, but in my opinion it needs to be there because the math stops working without it. Mind you, you could just stick to lowish levels, and then it doesnt matter all that much, but if you want to play the game 1-20, somewhere, somehow, the players need that 'stuff' the get from wealth.

Silver Crusade

Mythic Evil Lincoln, is right the WBL table as a rule for determining just wealth is out of whack. A mounted knight with non masterwork weapons cost just under 2000 gp w.o normal adventuring gear with master work weapons it brings his gear up to 3000 gp this is with out any consumables wand CLW another 750 3 potions clw wand does not always work and potion lesser resteration 300gp and by now you should have a +1 weapon that brings it up to a 4th level wbl for just a basic knights gear.

I guess its fine to use WBL if you want t play in a low magic game if you want to players to have fun in a real fantasy setting High magic high challenge you are going to have to a least 3x the WBL. Personally I just
give out treasure that I think the players would like and make encounters easier or harder based on how my players handle themselves.


thenobledrake wrote:

4) Save DCs are not, in a game not assuming everybody gets a stat-booster, that hard to succeed at - so you don't need a cloak of resistance to get by.

This, at least, has not been my experience. Save DCs and frequency of saves, especially in APs, combine to more or less assure that they will be failed. And often.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
This doesn't mean the GM is now forced to lower the CR of the opposition, oh no! It means he's forced to give a slightly large XP award to parties who overcome challenges with fewer advantages.

How does the system do that when XP rewards are static per enemy and are not changed due to APL?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

thenobledrake has a valid point I am thinking. Why is the total value of the gear considered vs the highest quality of that gear? Isn't it more informative for the purpose of balancing fights to the GM to know that the party has an average of +3 magic items rather than that one guy is overbalanced against WBL because his collection of +1 swords is worth over 10000gp?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Isn't it more informative for the purpose of balancing fights to the GM to know that the party has an average of +3 magic items rather than that one guy is overbalanced against WBL because his collection of +1 swords is worth over 10000gp?

It's really only equipped gear that is relevant. The party can have a million gold pieces without unbalancing encounters, until they spend it. But the guy with ten +1 swords is expected to sell them all and buy something useful at the first opportunity.


MYTHIC TOZ wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
This doesn't mean the GM is now forced to lower the CR of the opposition, oh no! It means he's forced to give a slightly large XP award to parties who overcome challenges with fewer advantages.
How does the system do that when XP rewards are static per enemy and are not changed due to APL?

Because sometimes I forget that it is Pathfinder and not 3.5.

*sad trombone*

So I guess that means that XP or no, the only point of WBL (and CR) is assigning challenges appropriately.

Some GMs think "appropriately" is "hard" and there's nothing really wrong with that, IMO.


magnuskn wrote:
So I guess you play your campaigns on the plane of Limbo?

You guess wrong. You are making assumptions that my opinion differing from yours means that my campaign is vastly different from yours. That is not likely the case - I run my game in a set campaign world as well, I am just aware that it is GM fiat that I say "You are 20 miles outside of Magnimar," and not supported by the rules of the game that the party be any particular distance from any particular settlement.

I could, for example, decide to have the party trapped on a hostile island with no local settlements of noteworthy size... oh wait, that's part of an Adventure Path, better not spoil anything.

No matter the case, it is GM fiat that sets the scene - and that establishes how difficult it will be for the party to reach a settlement of suitable size to buy/sell what they wish.

magnuskn wrote:
I also avoid massive cheating at dice. I prefer that situations where cheat rolls are necessary do not even come up. Like, by keeping within WBL limits.

This looks like you are saying that I advocated cheating in some way. Factually, I did not.

I have never cheated at a role-playing game - I see no need to.

What I did say was that, even at only a 25% chance of not getting what you want that the dice - devices of randomness that they are - may decide that you do not find what you want within the time constraints of the campaign... you know, kind of like how it is possible to be playing a high level fighter and still miss all of attack rolls in a round.

magnuskn wrote:
In the end, you are just saying the same as I do, only that our methods differ.

No, I am confident that we are not saying even remotely the same thing.

magnuskn wrote:
WBL does matter

Does not.

magnuskn wrote:
your methods just deny the player characters converting their excessive loot into items which raise their combat power level

I do not.

magnuskn wrote:
while I just give them enough to stay as balanced as this game gets.

That, I cannot judge having not played with you as a GM.

I do, however, doubt it.

It is pretty clear to me that you think that the gold piece value of an item is a good indication as to its impact upon a campaign - where as I find the gold piece value to be the least relevant thing in determining an item's impact upon a campaign.

To try one last time to get my point across, let's evaluate the campaign impact of some items with identical gold piece values.

Item 1) +2 longsword
Item 2) +1 flaming longsword
Item 3) +1 giant bane longsword

Campaign A - fighting all manner of giants) In this campaign Item 3 has the greatest impact because so many of the enemies face are subject to the bane property that you may as well consider it a +3 longsword with +2d6 bonus damage. Item 2 works pretty well except that fire giants are immune to its bonus damage (offset by frost giants taking more damage from it), but Item 1 helps more with the high AC armor-wearing giants.

Campaign B - lots of mummies, zero giants) In this campaign Item 3 may as well be considered a simple +1 longsword, Item 1 sits on a middle ground since mummies aren't so hard to hit than an extra +1 feels necessary, and Item 2 is "king" in this campaign because so many of the enemies faced are vulnerable to fire.

Campaign C - No giants, no fire vulnerable enemies, numerous fire resistant enemies) Item 3 may as well just be a +1 longsword again, Item 2 is barely any better (not better at all if every enemy has fire resistance, like an adventure across the plane of fire), and it is Item 1 that clearly shines brighter than the other two.

...and yet all 3 items have the same price, and so WBL values them identically - despite it being clear that their cost has nothing to do with how dramatically they impact the character's power.


Zilvar2k11 wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:

4) Save DCs are not, in a game not assuming everybody gets a stat-booster, that hard to succeed at - so you don't need a cloak of resistance to get by.

This, at least, has not been my experience. Save DCs and frequency of saves, especially in APs, combine to more or less assure that they will be failed. And often.

APs are often written intentionally difficult - but if you look at the target statistics for creating monsters, you see that the Save DC of creature abilities (creatures used as the example because they tend not to have stat-boosters equipped) starts at DC 12 for CR 1 and goes up by 1 point per CR above that...

So you might be looking at DC 15 saves from the tough enemies you face at level 1, and that goes up by 1 DC every level - while your good saving throw goes up 1 point ever 2 levels by default, can get a +2 boost from a feat, and can get more from ability score increases and spells used.

You can keep up without magic items - most people just choose not to.

Also, this is one of the consequences of the design decisions made by the 3rd edition D&D design team - they are the ones that turned saving throws from something that eventually got to near-auto-success at high levels into a near-auto-failure on your bad saves no matter what you do, and possibly on your good saves if you don't take care of them... and decided that Fighters should have the worst saving throws, rather than the overall best.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

WBL is a terrible metric because it doesn't track how effective that wealth has been spent. Someone with 50,000gp sunk into the 'big six' is more combat effective than someone who has sunk it into other, more interesting things.

Since the game generally involves lots of combat, if you don't spend your WBL on combat stuff you're well behind the curve. Even worse, you can have a very combat effective WBL and the opposite in the same group, which makes it even harder to adjust challenges appropriately.

A list of suggested equipment power at certain levels would be more effective. Should PCs have mostly +2 weapons at 7th level? Should they have +4 stat boosters at 14th?

There are fairly easy solutions; inherent bonuses by level to substitute for magic items is one, magic item scaling by level is another.


MYTHIC TOZ wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
This doesn't mean the GM is now forced to lower the CR of the opposition, oh no! It means he's forced to give a slightly large XP award to parties who overcome challenges with fewer advantages.
How does the system do that when XP rewards are static per enemy and are not changed due to APL?

That mindset is exactly why this discussion needs to happen. "TEH BOOKZ SEZ JOO ADGUST APL!"

Paizo does not write rules for YOUR CAMPAIGN. They write rules to publish in a book, which you purchase and utilize to frame your role playing session. As each group is different, the GM is the deciding factor in all things. An intelligent GM can say the challenge is more difficult, and *GASP* increase the CR by one.

The published rules are a tool set. Sometimes you need a specialty tool.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's OK to disagree with the developers about aspects of design. SKR's probably my fave rules designer in the industry, but I couldn't disagree more about how he thinks Craft feats should interact with WBL. It isn't a question of who's right--until Paizo fires him and hires me as a rules designer, Sean's right--it's a question of which design results in more fun. I just happen to think that the game is more fun when Craft feats provide a customization advantage rather than a WBL hack.

Personally, I find WBL useful only insofar as it, well, stays useful. For the most part I run APs and I don't fiddle much with the treasure, so I trust that the PCs are generally staying around WBL with the treasure given by the AP; crafting and selling generally balance each other out. So the chances of me spending an hour auditing WBL every time PCs level? Nil.

I'd probably use WBL to equip a new PC or a replacement PC, but that would probably also cause me to actually do an audit to make sure the new PC wasn't coming in significantly more or less well-equipped than everybody else.

If the PCs don't get treasure because they resolved an encounter by some other satisfactory method (Diplomacy, stealth, etc.) I generally sub in that treasure somewhere else. But if they are under-equipped because they just didn't find something? Well, they should have looked harder. I won't reward them for failure by positively adjusting wealth toward WBL.

Silver Crusade

I know my WBL is shot to the Nine Hells after shelling out for two resurrections.


You've missed one, Mr. President.

One of the purposes of WBL is to balance players against the other players. Let's face it, it's not fun when your party is the Justice League, and you have to be Robin. So, one way to make sure that the players are reasonably balanced against each other is to make sure that they have similar amounts of equipment.

And we need to be a little thoughtful with treasure, because about half the time you can predict which character will end up with any given item. The magic arrows probably go to the archer, for example. It's only items like rings of protection that are hard to predict.

For the advanced round, you can handicap the players, and give more wealth to the players who need more help. This can be overt or covert; you know your players better than I do.


I'm using the BIG 6 proposed replacement method of +1/3 level with appropriately equipped masterwork stuff (thinking of applying limits based off of lack of special materials - like iron and silver maxes out a +2, while cold iron and mithril +4, and so on; it doesn't matter yet, so I've not decided) and... we really like it. A lot.

I ran it once as a straight-forward "you're level 10, and you'll level up at the end" one-shot, and it worked great.

Still makes characters equipment-dependent... but not specific-equipment-dependent.

Magic items are still extremely valuable, but in different ways.
In fact, the more powerful the magic item, the more useful it becomes to lower-level characters, as the higher-level ones are skilled enough without it.


Tacticslion wrote:
I'm using the BIG 6 proposed replacement method of +1/3 level with appropriately equipped masterwork stuff (thinking of applying limits based off of lack of special materials - like iron and silver maxes out a +2, while cold iron and mithril +4, and so on; it doesn't matter yet, so I've not decided) and... we really like it. A lot.

I actually hate this kind of rule, because my players get their bonuses for free, but still want magic items that boost their bonuses even further, it's just part of the game.

The christmas tree effect is what it is, removing items that boost your most important stats is something for a home game. Giving bonuses based on level already happens within the game's mechanics, and doing it again really doesn't fix the game unless everyone at the table agrees on it. But you can do that by just lowering the CRs of the encounters and agreeing on a low magic campaign in the first place so it's all moot.

As far as WBL goes, my numbers are always off in the games I run. Not that I give too much or too few piles of treasure, but the economy of the world and the availability of magic items is often one of the main driving points for the characters in my games. If they have to quest to be able to even get the magic items they want in the first place, then not only are my players engaged, but I also can be pretty lazy when it comes to story writing. I also tend to hand out a lot of extra gp, but have expectations on how it is spent in world. You need to find a place to sleep, you need to eat, you don't just know how to get everywhere, your horses aren't free, you have to feed them too. Ignoring minor resource management in my experience is exactly what leads to greedy christmas tree players who think every 1k they get is going towards their new magic weapon. I also like throwing in custom items who's value is incalculable.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Epic Meepo wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I think SKR once said that the WBl is basically a rule.
WBL is a rule the same way CR is a rule. You use it to (very roughly) gauge what sorts of challenges your character can reasonably expect to overcome.


Tacticslion wrote:
I'm using the BIG 6 proposed replacement method of +1/3 level with appropriately equipped masterwork stuff (thinking of applying limits based off of lack of special materials - like iron and silver maxes out a +2, while cold iron and mithril +4, and so on; it doesn't matter yet, so I've not decided) and... we really like it. A lot.
master_marshmallow wrote:
I actually hate this kind of rule, because my players get their bonuses for free, but still want magic items that boost their bonuses even further, it's just part of the game.

I don't think it works the way you think it works (or at least not the way you indicate your players think it works), though I could be misunderstanding you here. (I'm willing to be corrected!)

Since the magic items in question are the kind that they are, it doesn't stack with itself. If I had a belt that granted me +2 to dexterity, and I already had that +2 to dexterity, the belt doesn't matter. Both are Enhancement Bonuses. This is true whether it's "+? swords" or "cloaks of resistance +?".

As to "where do people get them"?
The question is easily answered: local ambient magic (because, you know, Enhancement bonuses shut off when they enter magic-dead areas). Effectively, it becomes a creature's own innate skill and power that translate into those abilities, and rare materials become more important than simple DR-bypassers at the same time.

This makes magic items relatively rare (higher level characters that might create them don't need them), but more useful for lower level characters than higher level characters (as their bonuses overlap instead of stack).

master_marshmallow wrote:
The christmas tree effect is what it is, removing items that boost your most important stats is something for a home game.

Are you suggesting that he Christmas Tree effect is a good thing? I don't wish to misconstrue what you're saying, so if it seems like I am, I apologize. I'm actually just trying to understand.

Regardless... yes, I'm mentioning what I'm doing in my home game, so... that's the place for this, I guess?

master_marshmallow wrote:
Giving bonuses based on level already happens within the game's mechanics, and doing it again really doesn't fix the game unless everyone at the table agrees on it. But you can do that by just lowering the CRs of the encounters and agreeing on a low magic campaign in the first place so it's all moot.

First, everyone's agreed on it. Second, the bonuses granted by level are not to AC, but are otherwise mostly a function of class choice, making people very different (which is good) and highly variable in personal power (which is... less good).

You can do lots of things. This one is actually easier (to me) because it involves the pre-printed creatures, the pre-printed creature stats, the pre-printed CRs, and the pre-printed everything except specific magic items.

It is (entirely personally) easier for me, as a GM, to come up with things the players want to sink money into to accomplish other than MOAR ITEMS, meaning I really don't have to adjust anything.

I suppose it comes with the kinds of players I've played with.

It's also probably (at least currently) due to only having a single player to play stuff with (my wife), though this same thing held true in other groups I've run for.

I definitely understand that it's not for all groups, though!

master_marshmallow wrote:
As far as WBL goes, my numbers are always off in the games I run. Not that I give too much or too few piles of treasure, but the economy of the world and the availability of magic items is often one of the main driving points for the characters in my games. If they have to quest to be able to even get the magic items they want in the first place, then not only are my players engaged, but I also can be pretty lazy when it comes to story writing. I also tend to hand out a lot of extra gp, but have expectations on how it is spent in world. You need to find a place to sleep, you need to eat, you don't just know how to get everywhere, your horses aren't free, you have to feed them too. Ignoring minor resource management in my experience is exactly what leads to greedy christmas tree players who think every 1k they get is going towards their new magic weapon. I also like throwing in custom items who's value is incalculable.

I tend to agree that ignoring the minor expenditures adds up to weird things. I also like engaging with my players, and not necessarily tracking all their wealth too finely. And I also actually and actively enjoy giving them "too much" money.

They've always seemed to find lots and lots and lots of other things to do with it other than just buy gear.

Heck, my Kingmaker guy (a magical crafter) actively gives away most of his wealth to his various nobles and fellow rulers and councilmembers and stuff. He doesn't need it (ring of sustenance+constant endure elements = "I don't care 'bout minor stuff"; plus he's a mage), and they do (being non-mages), so it works out for everyone there, really. He keeps a few choice pieces, mostly for sentimental reasons ("Why, this bow, here, was given to me by the Centaurs of the Eastern plains - and I can certainly use it whenever I have Bull's Strength on!").

And he still tends to end up with too much for himself (though not enough for the Kingdom; dang it, he wanted to build that new orphanage this week!)

But that's my character and my games. Certainly not all! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
I actually hate this kind of rule, because my players get their bonuses for free, but still want magic items that boost their bonuses even further, it's just part of the game.

If the freebies give out enhancement bonuses to stats and resistance bonuses to saves, your characters can't just increase them using the normal methods.


thenobledrake wrote:

So you might be looking at DC 15 saves from the tough enemies you face at level 1, and that goes up by 1 DC every level - while your good saving throw goes up 1 point ever 2 levels by default, can get a +2 boost from a feat, and can get more from ability score increases and spells used.

You can keep up without magic items - most people just choose not to.

You cannot keep up with all saves without magic items at any level of play where they can be expected to be on your character sheet (per WBL) (and I often wish I had them before). At best, you can shore up a weakness and spread out your stats to mitigate your chances..but even that is a short duration solution.

I don't understand how you can hold this position when you move onto the last paragraph and admit that the monster designs are such that poor saves are 'near-auto-fail (...) no matter what you do'.

Obviously YMMV, but unless I misunderstand your post completely you're not even agreeing with yourself.


Tacticslion wrote:
Are you suggesting that he Christmas Tree effect is a good thing? I don't wish to misconstrue what you're saying, so if it seems like I am, I apologize. I'm actually just trying to understand.

I'm saying that it's unavoidable that your players are going to want to spend their resources on their most important items. If you give them a +2 Enhancement bonus on a stat, and they already have a +2 Resistance Bonus on their saves, and already have +2 enhancements on AC and attacks, then they will probably try and dump all of their money on a bigger enhancement bonus on one thing. Like a +6 stat item that will supersede their +2. Or a +4 suit of armor, or something.

The big six is just part of the game and if you want it to change it will take a new edition to do it.

I'm all for changing the number crunching with feats that replace armor and weapon bonuses allowing players to spend money on abilities instead of flat bonuses. I'm all for nixing Natural Armor (or rather not having it stack with regular armor) and replacing Deflection bonuses with a simple Magic bonus to AC.

It can be done with the current game sure in exactly the way you have done it, but it doesn't do much for the game except give the DM more control over the players which I hate.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
It is pretty clear to me that you think that the gold piece value of an item is a good indication as to its impact upon a campaign - where as I find the gold piece value to be the least relevant thing in determining an item's impact upon a campaign.

This is true, and is provable, via the way that certain items can have wildly varying book price, depending on the class assumed to have created it. Yet this book price has zero impact on the power of the item.

Case in point, lesser restoration, cast by a cleric, is a level 2 spell, requiring a level 3 caster, thus setting any item price at 6 times the base price.
If cast by a paladin, it is a level 1 spell, requiring a level 1 caster, thus setting any item price at 1 times base price.

The spell is non-offensive, and does not scale with caster level, so it is immaterial who casts the spell on a target, who would be as grateful to receive it either caster, except when it comes to price charged per casting (something I hope would be waived for an ally accompanying the caster on their divine quest, but those priests of Abadar just can't help themselves....).

If your PC is buying consumables, clearly one vendor is cheaper than another.
Who would pay 150 gp for a scroll of lesser restoration, when they could get it for 25?
Who would pay 300 gp for a potion of lesser restoration, when they could get it for 50?
Who would pay 4500 gp for a wand of lesser restoration, when they could get it for 750?

But equally, a GM is within their rights to say that there isn't a huge source for these cheaper items, that paladins are rarer than clerics, rarely take crafting feats, and rarely sit at home when there's evil to smite.
Hence why rules had to be put in place in Organised Play, to set precedents for the crafting class heirarchy of NPCs making items for purchase.

Over the course of a campaign, allowing the magical market to be flooded with these cheaper versions of standard items would increase the power of the PCs, due to them being able to afford more of them.

But if you were handed a pregen PC, whose gear included a wand of lesser restoration, and two potions, and were told these had to last him the duration of the session, would it make any difference to how he performed, whether his equipment were priced at the higher, standard price, or the lower, budget price?

If they'd been purchased at the standard core book price, would the fact that a canny player could say "I could have got those items for 83% discount." make any difference to how well the party perform?

Conversely, had they been purchased at the budget price, would the fact that a player thought "Strewth! He's effectively got 4250gp over WBL! Cor Blimey, We're gonna rock!" make any difference to how well the party perform?

If the answer in both cases is "No", then that illustrates thenobledrake's point precisely.

Sovereign Court

Kolokotroni wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Jess Door wrote:

I am in a party that is pretty severely under wbl. Purchasing of magic items is difficult. We have not been able to find or purchase a single magical piece of armor or defensive equipment (such as cloaks of resistance or rings of protection) except bracers of armor +1 for our arcane caster. We are level 5.

The offense of monsters attacking us is not commensurately lower, however. Our last fight, the enemy was continuously hitting AC 20+. My paladin has the highest AC in the party with an AC of 18. This is...a problem.

Now let's look at what happens if the GM in question heeds my admonitions:

The party is under wealth. The GM changes nothing about the opposition, but lowers the party's effective WBL by one (or more) to account for the disadvantage.

This doesn't mean the GM is now forced to lower the CR of the opposition, oh no! It means he's forced to give a slightly large XP award to parties who overcome challenges with fewer advantages.

I openly admit bias on this subject, as I have removed both XP and wealth by level from my game.

That said. This doesnt address the issue, or at least one of them. Assuming the GM has a reason for wanting challenges to be this difficult, the greater xp gains have no actual value. Even if you get another level faster, the gm will simply scale up the challenges to match. In terms of the capabilities of the party vs what they face, the greater xp is meaningly. If the future challenges were already set (like say if you were running an ap as is) then sure those future challenges would be easier even with the reduced wealth because you have a proportionally higher level. But what dm on the planet that keeps the party 'under geared' wont react to those future easier challenges by scaling them up so the game stays on hard mode?

Quote:


Yes, this means that in games without XP, the only purpose of WBL is so that the GM can gauge challenges for the party in the famously ballpark manner of CR.

That has always been the purpose. Both WBL and the CR system are ballpark tools to help the dm understand where the game expects the players to be and go from there. Some dms want things super hard, some like things easy and prefer to focus on other aspects of the game. All of this is fine, and making people more concious of how these guidelines interact with the game is great. But I dont think your idea really addresses anything other then possibly increasing some numbers on all sides of the equation long term.

And eventually in my experience the whole thing breaks down. There are certain things that can only be attained via magic items in the rules as is (like a martial character being able to make himself fly) that new levels dont help with, and eventually just reducing challenge ratings doesnt work because even if you are 19th level facing 16th level challenges, those 16th level challenges expect you to have things that are really only attainable with magic items, and your 3 extra levels dont give you those.

Either adjust the game to work without wealth or use the guideling, it doesnt have to be strict adherence, but in my opinion it needs to be there because the math stops working without it. Mind you, you could just stick to lowish levels, and then it doesnt matter all that much, but if you want to play the game 1-20, somewhere, somehow, the players need that 'stuff' the get from wealth.

The DM in this case is stringing together pre-published modules. He's running things with a somewhat "magical tea party" feel - he changes the rules on the fly as things occur to him, doesn't use tactical maps or minis reliably, and this leads to all sorts of craziness.

I would venture to guess that I know the rules better than anyone in the party. Many are experienced players, but it appears they have been playing in non-Pathfinders games. They have most of the basic concepts, but don't understand the specifics well. That's fine. I remember rules way more than any sane person should, and try to be helpful in my knowledge, not a pain in the butt. When something violates the rules, I mention the rule as I understand it, then if the DM indicates he's going ahead with his change, I drop it.

Lack of a map is an issue because so many of the feats, espeically martial feats and the like, are based on positioning. We have reach fighters, so placement is an issue, for cover and attacking an all that jazz. People's feats aren't being taken into account, or they aren't being used correctly, or things that should have limitations don't because we're not using the rules correctly. Or things that were already limited are further limited by DM fiat.

(My paladin character is the main healer in our party. She is focussed only on taking feats to increase the efficacy of her lay on hands and channel. The DM decided, as I was taking my third level feat, that I couldn't use any Lay on Hands from the "Extra Lay on Hands" feat to power channels.)

I'm playing because some of these people are my friends, and at low level this wasn't so bad, but as we're continuing, I'm seeing that no one in the group is really seeing how these changes require commensurate changes in challenges/prepublished adventures to balance out what has been done to our options. There's no systemic consideration of consequences of these changes being taken into account. I'm enough of a numbers person that it's beginning to grate. I see how instead of the system beginning to break down around level 13 or so, it's going to happen early. It's already beginning to show up a bit, at level 5.

We haven't had a single suit of medium armor show up in the game yet, let alone heavy armor. My 18 AC paladin, rocking the best armor in the group, has a chain shirt and heavy shield. We have yet to see any magical defensive gear except the +1 bracers of armor, and my character's total career cash at level 5 is about 1200 gp. I had to spend more than 1/4 of that on cold weather gear in order to survive arctic travel. I've been saving everything else to try to purchase magical gear, but at about 800 gold, I don't have enough yet. :(

Actually, I've been trying to convince our white haired witch to be the party tank. With a non-zero dex score, the spells shield and mage armor, and the spell mirror image, she's by far the best defended PC in the group. But the player says he doesn't think that fits his concept for her. :(

Edit: We have one character who may have medium armor in our party - one player didn't like his character and switched him out. I believe he was able to purchase equipment with the WBL rules, and I believe he has some better equipment.

Other than what gear that character has, I believe we have two magical weapons, the bracers, and potions. Our barbarian and Fighter are using MW weapons. The Barbarian has a +1 Bane vs. Magical Beasts longsword, but he never uses it, and the DM said we can't sell it.


Well considering the CR is based around WBL , to me , it is important.

Not saying you must be exactly 100% spot on. But must be near it.

Otherwise the GM can check what the PCs got + All the other stuff you already got take into account from classes to ...

And then balance their encounters on that.

WBL is a helper. Helpers are nice.

Also like others said , it help balance PCs.

When you are the one dropping the items it is important to take care and not seem like you are favoring somebody , that is one quick road to pissed players.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Because sometimes I forget that it is Pathfinder and not 3.5.

*sad trombone*

So I guess that means that XP or no, the only point of WBL (and CR) is assigning challenges appropriately.

Some GMs think "appropriately" is "hard" and there's nothing really wrong with that, IMO.

*happy oboe*

Amen to that! I'm a firm believer that "hard" means "rewarding".


Jess Door wrote:

The DM in this case is stringing together pre-published modules. He's running things with a somewhat "magical tea party" feel - he changes the rules on the fly as things occur to him, doesn't use tactical maps or minis reliably, and this leads to all sorts of craziness.

I would venture to guess that I know the rules better than anyone in the party. Many are experienced players, but it appears they have been playing in non-Pathfinders games. They have most of the basic concepts, but don't understand the specifics well. That's fine. I remember rules way more than any sane person should, and try to be helpful in my knowledge, not a pain in the butt. When something violates the rules, I mention the rule as I understand it, then if the DM indicates he's going ahead with his change, I drop it.

Lack of a map is an issue because so many of the feats, espeically martial feats and the like, are based on positioning. We have reach fighters, so placement is an issue, for cover and attacking an all that jazz. People's feats aren't being taken into account, or they aren't being used correctly, or things that should have limitations don't because we're not using the rules correctly. Or things that were already limited are further limited by DM fiat.

(My paladin character is the main healer in our party. She is focussed only on taking feats to increase the efficacy of her lay on hands and channel. The DM decided, as I was taking my third level feat, that I couldn't use any Lay on Hands from the "Extra Lay on Hands" feat to power channels.)

I'm playing because some of these people are my friends, and at low level this wasn't so bad, but as we're continuing, I'm seeing that no one in the group is really seeing how these changes require commensurate changes in challenges/prepublished adventures to balance out what has been done to our options. There's no systemic consideration of consequences of these changes being taken into account. I'm enough of a numbers person that it's beginning to grate. I see how instead of the system beginning to break down around level 13 or so, it's going to happen early. It's already beginning to show up a bit, at level 5.

We haven't had a single suit of medium armor show up in the game yet, let alone heavy armor. My 18 AC paladin, rocking the best armor in the group, has a chain shirt and heavy shield. We have yet to see any magical defensive gear except the +1 bracers of armor, and my character's total career cash at level 5 is about 1200 gp. I had to spend more than 1/4 of that on cold weather gear in order to survive arctic travel. I've been saving everything else to try to purchase magical gear, but at about 800 gold, I don't have enough yet. :(

Actually, I've been trying to convince our white haired witch to be the party tank. With a non-zero dex score, the spells shield and mage armor, and the spell mirror image, she's by far the best defended PC in the group. But the player says he doesn't think that fits his concept for her. :(

Edit: We have one character who may have medium armor in our party - one player didn't like his character and switched him out. I believe he was able to purchase equipment with the WBL rules, and I believe he has some better equipment.

Other than what gear that character has, I believe we have two magical weapons, the bracers, and potions. Our barbarian and Fighter are using MW weapons. The Barbarian has a +1 Bane vs. Magical Beasts longsword, but he never uses it, and the DM said we can't sell it.

Sounds like there are all sorts of issues going on in that group beyond just wbl issues. I pressume you've tried to sit down and talk to the dm about the issues you see? Is the party constantly struggling to handle basic challenges causing the dm to pull his punches or something? It sounds like a published module would wipe the floor with your party.


There are so many erroneous statements in this thread that could be solved by basic GM knowledge.

That guy who strictly adheres to the WBL by making things disappear is a complete dunce. You should be slowly attaining wealth so that by the time you hit a new level, you already have the baseline wealth for that level of character.

Like I said before, the CR system takes into account that you have obtained items to make you more effective in combat. If your 10th level and haven't acquired stat boosters, atleast +2 weapons, and a cloak of resistance, unless the DM is coddling you, your party is going to die against any APL+3 encounter. Like a Glabrezu. Oh your fighter has to roll a 14 or better if he has iron will against confusion. Wizard is stunned for 1-8 rounds no save. Theres a 20% chance for another Glabrezu that doesn't increase the CR of the encounter or 50% for 1-2 CR 9 Vrocks.

You most definitely need magic weapons past a certain point. Heres an incorporeal creature, unless your party is full of casters, TPK. Level 11 Human Ghost Sorcerer will do the trick with the malevolence ability. Focuses on killing your casters first before possessing the melee combatants and making them kill themselves. DC 22 Will Save.

It is a poor DM who makes the argument, "Oh but I gave you enough wealth for your characters, you just cant use it effectively in combat."

Well that means its worthless unless you run a game without combat.

Using magic items to solve other problems can often be done in single castings of a spell generally so I wouldn't recommend purchasing gear for that purpose.

EDIT: If you use the CR system, please for the love of the gods adhere to WBL, if you don't, well have a merry day then.

Sovereign Court

Kolokotroni wrote:
Sounds like there are all sorts of issues going on in that group beyond just wbl issues. I pressume you've tried to sit down and talk to the dm about the issues you see? Is the party constantly struggling to handle basic challenges causing the dm to pull his punches or something? It sounds like a published module would wipe the floor with your party.

There's lots of non-standard stuff going on. I'm actually okay with that. Hell, I helped playtest Kirthfinder, and we did a lot of rules wrangling and changing while going through it. I rebuilt my characters many times as the rules morphed. I'm okay with that, in general. It's the lack of understanding on the part of DM of the repercussions of his decisions.

His background is in 1st edition D&D. I never played until 3.5. We're going to have very different understanding of how the game "should" be. But removing the "nitpicky" nature of the current rules and maps and minis also makes many of the existing rules and feats change in the their value rather drastically. Wanting a "magic items are very valuable and special" feel to a game is understandable, and I"m okay with trying out a low magic item game like that - but then adjustments should be made in what we're facing to take into account the refactored expected power level of our party.

I run games with WBL as a vague guideline in my games. In kingmaker, with all the down time, we had lots of crafter characters, and wealth got seriously out of control in the party. I adjusted treasure down a bit, party CR up a bit, and made adjustments to monsters to keep the fights appropriately difficult.

I'm already the 'troublemaker' in the group, I think, for bringing up when rules are not being followed at all, and for bringing up that I wouldn't stay in the group if a particular form of bullying of one player did not stop. Maybe it's time to have a discussion with the DM, but it may be a difficult conversation. He's a cultural anthropologist. He's focussed on story, feel and culture. I'm a computer programmer. Numbers and systems analysis are my bread and butter. ::shrug::


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Some GMs think "appropriately" is "hard" and there's nothing really wrong with that, IMO.

Well, until "hard" becomes "mentally draining".


A third situation for WBL was omitted - determining the treasure awards for AP chapters and modules.

So very optional for DMs running homebrew, but any modules/chapters you buy from Paizo are giving awards (and gearing the villains!) based on those rules.

WBL can be kind of weirdly skewed, since certain things (like weapons) are very expensive. A martial character with a crazy grab-bag of weapons from an AP could easily technically exceed WBL without it actually mattering.

On the other hand, if the party overall has higher than normal useful wealth, than they can often handle significantly greater challenges. The reverse is true if the party is dirt poor, like as Jess Door was describing above.

In one game I'm playing in the party is ludicrously beyond the WBL guidelines, and they routinely face ECL+6 to ECL+8 (or higher) threats. Which in turn results in commensurate awards, keeping them solidly on the curve they're currently on. It's pretty amusing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

For the record, I am not saying WBL is bad.

I am saying WBL does not exist for the reasons many GMs seem to assume.

I actually LOVE WBL. I love that the game is thoughtful enough to put a benchmark in the system so that GMs can figure out what's "off" if need be. Most systems do not do these nice things for you.

The point of this thread is to explain how it is a tool you can use, not a rule that must be obeyed.

The people who think I am talking about scrapping WBL altogether haven't actually parsed my argument.


I'm pretty sure Paizo gives above-ABL treasure within their APs.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

The GM never, ever needs to account for WBL when placing treasure. They may choose to do so, in order to make their lives easier, or in order to get the party back to baseline for the sake of Challenge Rating. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with giving the party items that are wildly inappropriate for their WBL, as long as you are willing to live with the consequences of balancing encounters with that wild card in the mix.

WBL is not a rule that the GM has to play by. It is a table that assists with balancing encounters. Furthermore, CR isn't a rule that the GM must abide by either. ***None of this applies to organized play, which is a special, terrible thing.

Note that I am not citing any rules source for this assertion. I don't care if this is the "official" take on WBL. For me, this is the only truth that matters: the one that helps me GM the game.

Here's the thing WBL doesn't necessarily translate to CR with any reasonable degree of certainty at all which is why their isn't a table exactly relating the two.

And you're right neither CR nor WBL are hard rules but they are both linked aspects of the same idea which is that players prefer a game in which they are reasonably challenged not them steam rolling nor them being rolled.

In order to facilitate this idea the WBL chart and the CR chart are both relevant. Exceptionally well played/created parties will have a variance on what is a reasonable challenge but if you follow the charts you're in the right ballpark which makes the DMs life easier so if you ignore them you may find you TPK the party while you're still trying to zero in on their relative power level which is usually frowned upon.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Helic wrote:
WBL is a terrible metric because it doesn't track how effective that wealth has been spent. Someone with 50,000gp sunk into the 'big six' is more combat effective than someone who has sunk it into other, more interesting things.

Which is sad, because "the big six" (which usually differ depending on who you talk to) tend to be the most boring items in the entire catalog of magical items.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

WBL?

I offer appropriate treasure per encounter. That is all.

If you squander, you squander. If you make millions by careful deals, good for you. I still control the availability of magic items, within reason. I don't care to make the game a balancing act.


Tacticslion wrote:
I'm pretty sure Paizo gives above-ABL treasure within their APs.

Having run Carrion Crown, having played all the way through Serpent's Skull, and currently playing in Jade Regent - not necessarily.

It changes a lot from adventure to adventure, and sometime significant treasure can be of very limited use (like enchanted exotic weapons), missable (like the Figurines hidden in a secret compartment in CC book 2), or a large quantity of not terribly useful things (like +1 spears in Serpent's Skull).

And yeah, WBL can definitely be useful. If you're seeing a disparity between PCs who should be equivalent, or seeing a disparity between what the party can take on and what they SHOULD be able to take on, WBL is definitely something to look at.


Kthulhu wrote:
Helic wrote:
WBL is a terrible metric because it doesn't track how effective that wealth has been spent. Someone with 50,000gp sunk into the 'big six' is more combat effective than someone who has sunk it into other, more interesting things.
Which is sad, because "the big six" (which usually differ depending on who you talk to) tend to be the most boring items in the entire catalog of magical items.

Most useful as well.

The point is if you put all your money in combat effectiveness then you move along according to how the CR system is set up. Most NPC enemies in modules and APs are built with gear that will help them in combat.

Saves, weapon bonuses, and stat booster will always be used. Once the fight breaks out, that Hat of Disguise is essentially 1,800 wasted gold.

Now a really cool thought would be to have a separate pool of wealth to be spent on utility items specifically not for combat.

I don't feel the guidelines on how you should spend your wealth make a whole lot of sense and is generally unfair to martials who need to invest so much more in their weapons and armor whereas a wizard really gets to just fool around with his money.

Liberty's Edge

Just another point...most wealthy characters in games I run end up buying houses...building castles... etc...


Zilvar2k11 wrote:
I don't understand how you can hold this position when you move onto the last paragraph and admit that the monster designs are such that poor saves are 'near-auto-fail (...) no matter what you do'.

There are two save progressions, I see them as the following:

Good Save: You can keep a pretty even 50%+ chance at succeeding on saves on saving throws using this save progression - if you have a decent score in the related attribute, and make choices that offset the built-in (and in my opinion entirely backwards) design that higher level characters should fail saves more frequently.

Poor Save: You can throw a high attribute at it, toss every resource available into it - even slap on a magic item to help - and still have a poor chance to succeed at saving throws using this save progression.

Zilvar2k11 wrote:
Obviously YMMV, but unless I misunderstand your post completely you're not even agreeing with yourself.

I can see how my post was muddled - especially considering my opinion on the saving throw rules is muddled: I think the general idea is good, but the numbers that were picked out by the designers are way off the mark... I'd be happier with poor saves being +1/2 level rather than +1/3, and with re-assigning the good/bad assignments such that Fighters would have good reflex (if only having 1 good save).

51 to 100 of 216 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Only Two Situations Where WBL Matters. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.