Could you please start arguing against my actual position?
Without even counting my own experiences yet:
Others have Frank. They brought up legitimate gamepley and logic issues.
At best you ignored them.
At worst, you told them their points were incomprehensible. If you were particularly generous you told them their points were incomprehensible to you.
Why would I want to go that route with you? Not to mention I already have.
If, however, that was supposed to be a clever way to say that I am wrong:
Your position is that anything over 15000 gold can't be made using the normal rules. Above 15000 gold, you need "high level" trade goods, that can't be bought through normal means. You went so far as to state that Wish couldn't create them, so that pretty clearly states that normal spellcasting can't get them.
So, the only way for characters to get these "high powered" items is for the DM to have to give them access to the "high level" trade goods, or give them a "high powered" magic item to trade with first.
How is that not taking the availability of "high powered" magic items out of the hands of the players, and putting it squarely on the shoulders of the DM? I'll even go so far as to assume that was an unintentional side effect.
Frank wants "high power" magic items (anything that costs more than 15000 gold) to not be available to player characters. Well, not directly. He wants to take their availability out of the hands of the players and put it square on the shoulders of the DM.
Um... who in your game is playing the guy who sells the fighter the +3 frost sword? I'm going to guess it's the DM.
How is it more in the DM's control for the fighter not to be handing over a truckload of gold pieces?
Your position is that anything over 15000 gold can't be made using the normal rules.
That's disingenuous. "truckloads of gold" are not something I would consider "the normal rules." So you're trying to argue by recharacterizing his position instead of addressing the mechanics of it.
So, the only way for characters to get these "high powered" items is for the DM to have to give them access to the "high level" trade goods, or give them a "high powered" magic item to trade with first.
And the only way for the DM to give people access to "high powered" items now is for the DM to allow them access to the game-breaking spells like Wish and Plane Shift.
How is that not taking the availability of "high powered" magic items out of the hands of the players
Because it assumes that under the rules as currently written, "high powered" are available to players without the consent of the DM. Which is a really odd and wholly inaccurate assumption to make.
The primary assumptions of Frank Trollman's proposal (as pertains to high level magic) seem to me to be...
1) The game expects players to receive wealth in amounts approximating the wealth-by-level guidelines.
2) The game expects players to spend that wealth exclusively on magic items that allow them to defeat encounters appropriate for their level.
3) At ninth level, players gain access to spells -- like plane shift -- that allow players to easily surpass the wealth-by-level guidelines.
Do you take issue with these three premises? I think this would help clarify your issues with the proposal.
Now, if you accept the premises, there would be at least four solutions available:
1) Alter Spells. Eliminate or alter every spell that allows players to break wealth-by-level guidelines. FT believes this would be more disruptive to the game than his proposal. Others disagree.
2) Rule Zero. Rely on DM fiat or Player benevolence to make sure players don't surpass wealth guidelines. This solution is fine for individual games, but horrible for game design.
3) Eliminate magic item dependency. This too would require a wholesale revision to the game more severe that FT's proposal.
4) Eliminate magic item fungibility. Without the ability to buy "high level" magic with cash, replacing it with the ability to obtain such items through "favors" (i.e., adventuring), it no longer matters that ninth level clerics can crate around barrels of diamonds. This is FT's proposal.
Assuming you accept the premises, please explain which of these four fixes you prefer. (Or perhaps you have a fifth fix)
The primary assumptions of Frank Trollman's proposal (as pertains to high level magic) seem to me to be...
1) The game expects players to receive wealth in amounts approximating the wealth-by-level guidelines.
2) The game expects players to spend that wealth exclusively on magic items that allow them to defeat encounters appropriate for their level.
3) At ninth level, players gain access to spells -- like plane shift -- that allow players to easily surpass the wealth-by-level guidelines.Do you take issue with these three premises? I think this would help clarify your issues with the proposal.
Yes, actually. But only as pertains to the rest of your response.
Like GeraintElberion earlier, you have played the "DM Controls All" trump card
That move not only means "you win the thread," it also precludes any further discussion from you on the topic. Because once the "DM Controls All," nothings else matters. Rules don't matter. Logic doesn't matter. At best, they both become guidelines.
If your DM ignores the rules, for better or worse, and/or is illogical, your game is illogical and the rules don't mean anything.
Either the DM controls the wealth per level guidelines - in spite of whatever power the characters have, or the players control what they get and when they get it.
And you have already weighed in on which side you are on. And it has nothing to do with what the rules say, or what logic indicates.
Trollman's proposal (as pertains to high level magic) seem to me to be...
1) The game expects players to receive wealth in amounts approximating the wealth-by-level guidelines.
2) The game expects players to spend that wealth exclusively on magic items that allow them to defeat encounters appropriate for their level.
3) At ninth level, players gain access to spells -- like plane shift -- that allow players to easily surpass the wealth-by-level guidelines.
Do you take issue with these three premises? I think this would help clarify your issues with the proposal.Yes, actually. But only as pertains to the rest of your response.
Does this mean you accept the three premises or not? You seemed to dodge the very plain question. A simply "yes" or a list of the premises you do not accept will suffice.
Like GeraintElberion earlier, you have played the "DM Controls All" trump card... If your DM ignores the rules, for better or worse, and/or is illogical, your game is illogical and the rules don't mean anything.
And what you have done is eschew the wealth guidelines which is essential to game balance. And yet when I ask if you accept that, you ignored my question and jumped on the DM fiat issue.
Players can use fifth level spells to break the wealth guidelines. Do you agree with this statement or not?
The encounter rules are written with the assumption that players are equipped commensurate with the wealth guidelines. Do you agree or not?
If players are able to obtain wealth not commensurate with the wealth guidelines, then the game is poorly designed. Do you agree or not?
It seems to me that you advocate that we continue to play with a broken game. And if that's true then there's really no need for your participation in this or any other game design thread.
And you have already weighed in on which side you are on. And it has nothing to do with what the rules say, or what logic indicates.
Since you seem to adamantly refuse to answer the very plain questions I set forth, there is no way to verify what sort of logical construct you imagine establishes this point.
|
All in all some of the things recommended by Frank do sound pretty logical, but the presentation of economic rules needs to be devorce from what has come from before to what Pathfinder will become in the future.
While I do understand that backwards compatability means that some people will be using pre-existing game worlds with defacto standards of off world trade centers that have objects that cost as much as a small countries GDP. The fact of the matter is that perhaps game ecomomics can be rethought and restructured without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
What we should be thinking of is that the economy of an adventurer is differant than a standard person. The amount of wealth is just massive for any adventurer even before they reach 8th level. To this point I have often though that most the most dangerous time an adventurer should have is not when they are in a dungeon, but when they leave a dungeon. For that matter why aren't the rolled for thier loot when they come back to town for healing or to bring one of thier party back from the dead. But I digress.
I myself thought of making a cap on gear per level that cannot exceed the levels prescribed in the DMG. The remander of wealth can be kept for a rainy day or sold for things other than adventuring gear. Perhaps a keep or a title. Maybe a wardrobe that gives a +2 social bonus when at court, ect.
On the other side, some rewards for high level adventures should not be actual coinage. Yea, I know the whole trope about dragons sleeping on a bed of coins. Other than that, perhaps it's time to change that. Maybe the monster has no tresure, but a rewards of a equal value is given by someone else. Perhaps that object has a value to someone else that can be traded for what the adventures want.
Now I know what you are saying. Your saying that this has been brought up before. Well I bring this up because I'm trying to spell out the fact that this goes beyound core rule book, this goes into adventure design. You can have the best of design economicly in the core and blow it out of the water with suppliments.
Something to consider is that economics always has two parts. Supply and demand. While the player makes part of the equation as either the supplier (I can make hundreds of widgets per fabricate) or the buyer ( I have enough money to buy a +3 sword) There is nothing to say that the market will bare what he wants, for as long as he wants. It's much like a DM's control of the environment (yes I know there are spell to over come that). For the most part and many players don't even question that.
So here is really the crux of the issue. Do you want something simple and transparent? I'm the DM, I give the players x number of value so that they can get get the gear that they want to help build ther characters that they what, a gamest approach? Or do you want a simulationist approach where they can liquidate there rewards according what the local current economy can handle and if not travel to another place that can handle the transactions that they want?
Frank wants "high power" magic items (anything that costs more than 15000 gold) to not be available to player characters. Well, not directly. He wants to take their availability out of the hands of the players and put it square on the shoulders of the DM.Um... who in your game is playing the guy who sells the fighter the +3 frost sword? I'm going to guess it's the DM.
How is it more in the DM's control for the fighter not to be handing over a truckload of gold pieces?
Actually, in the current 3.5 system, the Fighter could be buying from the party spellcaster(s).
Under Franks proposal, that can't happen unless the DM has the "high level" trade goods 'fall into their lap' first.
Actually, in the current 3.5 system, the Fighter could be buying from the party spellcaster(s).
Under Franks proposal, that can't happen unless the DM has the "high level" trade goods 'fall into their lap' first.
When did FT state that PCs couldn't take or implement item creation feats? I'm pretty sure he specifically stated that was outside the scope of this discussion.
I would like to submit that a system where wealth guidelines must be rigorously maintained to ensure game balance is going to be broken by players on occasions./
Sure, but then -- since we both accept that it is broken -- the question is whether the 3.5 system gets broken in ways that need fixing. FT and I think it does. If you or disenchanter think it doesn't, then discussing the specific proposal (or any proposal) to fix the problem is useless, because you don't think there's a problem. The issue, then is not the proposal, but the fact that we operate with different assumptions.
role-players will still find ways by hosting large parties to boost their reputations, bribing local officials, hiring personal armies, etc, to still try to convert wealth into power).
D&D is intended for adventurers who go out and kill creatures. If wealth doesn't translate into a greater ability to kill creatures, then allowing people to spread their wealth to raise armies, build strongholds and host parties doesn't affect game balance. Which seems to me to be win-win.
The primary assumptions of Frank Trollman's proposal (as pertains to high level magic) seem to me to be...
1) The game expects players to receive wealth in amounts approximating the wealth-by-level guidelines.
2) The game expects players to spend that wealth exclusively on magic items that allow them to defeat encounters appropriate for their level.
3) At ninth level, players gain access to spells -- like plane shift -- that allow players to easily surpass the wealth-by-level guidelines.Do you take issue with these three premises? I think this would help clarify your issues with the proposal.
Yes, actually. But only as pertains to the rest of your response.
Like GeraintElberion earlier, you have played the "DM Controls All" trump card
Dude, what are you even talking about? He didn't mention the DM trump card. Hell, he didn't even mention the Dungeon Master. I didn't mention the DM Trump Card. I haven't suggested using Rule Zero even once on this entire thread.
The premises, and mine are grounded entirely in the Wealth By Level guidelines and the rules for wealth accumulation. Whether the DM is considered a co-author or an iron fisted dictator isn't even something I care about for the purposes of this discussion because it is seriously a completely separate issue.
So seriously and finally: are you going to argue against my actual position or are you going to continue to erect and destroy straw men about DM (non)infallibility and item creation feats?
-Frank
|
|
Like GeraintElberion earlier, you have played the "DM Controls All" trump card... If your DM ignores the rules, for better or worse, and/or is illogical, your game is illogical and the rules don't mean anything.And what you have done is eschew the wealth guidelines which is essential to game balance. And yet when I ask if you accept that, you ignored my question and jumped on the DM fiat issue.
Players can use fifth level spells to break the wealth guidelines. Do you agree with this statement or not?
The encounter rules are written with the assumption that players are equipped commensurate with the wealth guidelines. Do you agree or not?
If players are able to obtain wealth not commensurate with the wealth guidelines, then the game is poorly designed. Do you agree or not?
It seems to me that you advocate that we continue to play with a broken game. And if that's true then there's really no need for your participation in this or any other game design thread.
Wrecan:
I would like to submit that a system where wealth guidelines must be rigorously maintained to ensure game balance is going to be broken by players on occasions. How long in 3.5 (unless the DM finds some way to 'ban' or otherwise 'discourage' such a practice) would it take a group of 1st level PCs, who set themselves up in a local town casting first level spells for hire, to exceed the wealth guidelines without (in theory) gaining so much as a single point of XP for doing so?
As far as I can understand, taking magical items (which can usually be purchased for money) out of the power equation beyond a certain point might make wealth guidelines less essential to game balance (at least from a personal equipment point of view- role-players will still find ways by hosting large parties to boost their reputations, bribing local officials, hiring personal armies, etc, to still try to convert wealth into power).Edit:
Just noticed Herald's most recent...
There is a third point I should have considered which is the co-op type of game in which all the player and the DM work in a shared space and all members work towards forwarding the games scope. I don't find this type of game style faverable for D&D, but have used it for Vampire games.
I myself like the Gamest form of play with a stronge narative bent. I let the players know that I have a plot arch that I intend to follow and while players can do things that take them into different directions, that if they take themselves to far off stage by lets say opening up a magical fabrication plant, that they have taken that character out of play and that it is no longer in their control. Please create another with the guidelines for normal amount of wealth for a NPC of an equal level.
I try and make sure that the loot that characters get is more or less easy to liquidate, but I warn them that they really shouldn't try and over do it with their gear. When they look disapppointed I often use this mantra "Are you trying to play the game or are you trying to get through the game. If playing the game is not fun unless you move through the game without risk, and all you want to do is arrive at the otherside unscratched and with more loot. I have created/presented a game that isn't fun and I need to fix it or present you with something else to play. Monopoly perhaps."
What I would recommend is that everyone take a step back and look at what you would consider is your typical method of handling your game world. Maybe, just maybe you might expose something that Paizo can actually turn in to an opportunity rather that just butting heads.
I bet you guys can uncover quite a bit insight if you just see that you are looking at a different things and not the same thing differantly.
edited because I got something out of order.
Do you want something simple and transparent? I'm the DM, I give the players x number of value so that they can get get the gear that they want to help build ther characters that they what, a gamest approach? Or do you want a simulationist approach where they can liquidate there rewards according what the local current economy can handle and if not travel to another place that can handle the transactions that they want?
D&D is clearly in the gamist mode, which is "simple and transparent". I think Pathfinder is more or less required to stick with that approach for backwards compatibility purposes.
The problem remains that characters of a certain level can without difficulty, break the wealth-by-level guidelines that form the basis of encounter balance. I still think that there are five approaches to this problem.
1) Let Players Break the Game. This appear to be disenchanter's preference.
2) Rule Zero. Tell DMs to use fiat to prevent players from accumulating wealth. As far as I can tell, nobody has advocated this, although disenchanter seems to think we have.
3) Change the Spells. This way the game cannot be broken.
4) Change How PCs Aquire Items. This is FT's solution.
5) Lessen Dependence on Magic Items. Essentially, eliminate a lot of items, and change encounters to reflect the absence of these items.
I think 3 and 5 are simply too complicated to retain backwards compatibility for Pathfinder (4th edition seems to be using a combination of 3 and 5), and I think 1 and 2 are poor game design. That leaves FT's suggestion, until someone suggests something else.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hello, all. I've tried to follow much of this discussion / debate / poo-flinging / back to debate ... but I admit that I've let some of the details and esoterica drift over me.
But I have a cut-to-the-quick question. I'd appreciate any civil answers.
1) Can 5th Level spells break the wealth curve? I think I understand how they could, yes. Plane Shift, if nothing else.
2) Do they, in fact do so, for NPC's? Apparently not. Both Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms, for example, have a moderate contingent of 9th-Level characters, who don't seem to be rolling in as-much-extradimensional-loot-as-they-please.
So, there might be an in-game reason that these spells aren't the wealth engines they appear to be.
(Or, sure, not. It might be that no NPC, or no writer, ever thought of doing something like that. Shrug.)
3) Why not, indeed? Y'know, wrecan, I think this is where I do turn to DM's Fiat, of sorts. I'm now looking for an in-world reason, understandable to the player-characters, that this get-righ-quick scheme hasn't worked for the campaigns NPC's, and won't work for them, either.
- Hostile extraplanar natives. The same reason we aren't swimming in astral silver swords.
- Problems with wealth-engine spells that are consistent with the spell descriptions but impose increasingly burdensome diminishing returns on the wealth. Maybe plane shift always takes you to the same place on the plane in question, so you run into someone else's mine. Maybe it creates a "planar wormhole" that allows hostile natives easy ingress to our plane via your castle. Maybe wish-granting efreeti grow ever-more-humiliated and hostile every time you ask for just a bunch of gold or gems. Remember how drow magic items fade away when brought into the surface realms? Maybe magically-produced wealth is like that, for some reason.
- It ticks off the gods. Literally. The god of wealth and the god of magic have agreed that this kind of tom-foolery is in no god's interests. The first time the PC's try it, they get two gods mad at them and endure unpleasant curses till they dump the wealth somewhere and seek forgiveness.
Think like Gygax. How would he have screwed over PC's who'd try something like this?
And then there's my personal solution, which I wouldn't recommend for everyone, but which has worked wonders for our group:
Characters must pay full XP value for items they keep, as if they had crafted them.
This one rule pretty much eliminates most considerations of monetary wealth from the game. Now it doesn't matter if a character spends all his time mining "astral diamonds" or whatever, because it has no effect on his gear or his personal power as a PC. True, he can stay in 5-star hotels and buy all the beer he wants, but that's a perk that should be open to all professional astral diamond miners.
You can't turn into a great Wyrm Gold Dragon at all. Your max HD is limited by your caster level. The highest HD you can shapechange into is 18.We are talking about polymorph any object, which has no limits of any meaningful nature. You can turn "a creature or object" into "another creature or object" - the only thing that moves up and down is the duration, and you can game that even by casting it more than once (since the duration of the most recent casting is permanently set based on how different the new form is from your current form).
Yeah. And there's NO guarantee that the creature you polymorph it into will be friendly. There ARE uses of this spell that are extremely cheesy, like turning a siege tower into a purple worm, that people must kill and then when it dies, it turns back into a siege tower.
Rule One! NEVER, EVER turn something nonsentient into something sentient. It will likely be extremely angry with you. In order to game the system, you need to game people's personalities too, and in an RPG, that's just wrong. The prevent rests with the gamemaster to just say "I'm sorry. I'm not going to let you do that. It doesn't work that way, eat it." And if the player walks, then he walks.
This looks brilliant! I was thinking about adding a 24 hour attunement period to any item other than a potion, scroll, staff, or wand. Adding a small XP cost would make the player think twice about attuning with just any item.
Thanks! We originally added that houserule to slow advancement a little bit, and to explain why NPC wizards would ever sacrifice their hard-earned xp crafting items for mere gold (no loss, if the customer pays). The side-effect of being able to ignore wealth was a VERY pleasant bonus.
I am opposed to Frank's actual position as I understand it. I don't think there needs to be a "tiered" economy where gold pieces are no longer useable at high levels.
When I go to a Convention, each D&D Game lists the amount of GP that a player-created pre-gen character can have, using rules from the DMG. At sufficiently high levels, you can purchase items above 15,000 gp. But it all happens offline before you show up at the game. So there is no problem with tons of gold coins. There were never any gold coins moved, just numbers in the books and on the character sheet.
In the campaign I'm a player in, we're now around 13th level. We just killed a bunch bad guys and took their stuff: magic swords and armor, and some art/jewelry. I am the party treasurer, so I added it all up in Excel and told the other 5 players what was available to pick from and what our average share would be (about 33,000 gp). It was about 200,000 gp of loot, but 40% of it is stuff our PCs don't want. That stuff just goes away and we get 80,000 gp to split, plus the items various players wanted (3 of which cracked the 15K limit).
But that 80,000 gp doesn't really exist in the game world, or on anyone's character sheet. It's only on my spreadsheet. The guy who picked the fewest magic items got 26,000 gp as his "gold" treasure share. But he isn't required to figure out the logistics of carrying 500 pounds of coins, because he doesn't really have that many coins. I don't know or care what he actually wrote on his character sheet, and neither does the DM. On my character sheet, if I happen to be saving up for a big ticket item, I hold gems if the amounts get too crazy, but at the end of the day, it's not really necessary. Because the gold usually appears and goes away between actual games.
So once my friend saves up enough for whatever fancy magic item he wants, he will just cross off the giant number of gp from his character sheet and write down the magic item. As long as the number on his sheet is high enough, he can have whatever he wants if it's listed in a book. Customized weapons and armor with ridiculously esoteric combinations of powers might be overuled by the DM. But for the most part, a player with the "cash" can have what he wants.
This whole process is 99% taken care of by email between games. We're practically not allowed to discuss loot during the game itself.
Magic item stores exist in the game world. I think it makes sense because it's in the best interest of the "powers that be" that adventurers of all levels can freely exchange their stuff up and down the power band. Because as long as all the adventurers in the area correctly equipped, all the various quests at all the various CRs are being completed. This makes the world safe for dirt farmers to grow food (or cloistered clerics to create it...)
I don't see where any of this is broken.
Our PCs have never bothered with any "gold farming" activities using high level spells because we're too busy saving the world during the games. If we ever tried any "wish economy" bullsh!t, I think the DM would be within his rights to just say "STFU" and move on. Besides, the non-spellcasters would get bored if we tried to spend time on that, and it's not something we would be allowed to do between games either. And if the players try to overpower themselves by abusing the system, the DM is free to squash them with CR infinity foes.
However, I can see where the "gold farming wish economy" could cause arguments. So I can see where closing some of the loopholes in the wish spell would be a good idea. Coping with the effects of inter-planar travel and deals with outsiders is a bit more problematic.
Really, there just needs to be some sort of a global rule that says "You can't get something for nothing"
Mike, your plan of shutting your eyes and putting your fingers in your ears and "not bothering" to spin off an additional couple of million gp with the abilities that your characters have right on the table is a fine solution for your game. It is a completely impotent solution for the game. The characters in your game don't purchase dozens of cows and then cast flesh to salt on each of them to get tonnes of trade goods that sell pound for pound like Silver. But they could.
Backwards compatibility requires that your characters have the capabilities they currently have and that characters have about the amount of magic items that the DMG says that they have. But if you continue to allow gold, silver, platinum, and salt to be fungible into magic items of unlimited value, the capabilities of 13th level characters allow them to have more powerful magic items than the DMG says they should have whenever they want. Your solution cannot fulfill both criteria of backwards compatibility, so it is not a solution.
---
The XP cost solution fails. As previously noted, characters who spend XP actually gain XP faster than characters who don't. This means that if you create a forked advancement path where a character can advance by gaining and keeping XP or by gaining and spending XP, that the second advancement path is always better in the long run.
What you are doing is making characters lower their level now and giving them additional power in the form of magic items to compensate. Being a "lower level character" they gain XP (and thus levels) faster than a character who advanced normally. So in a few sessions they catch up, but they still have the magic items. In short, right now you are having them trade one kind of power (character level) for another kind of power (magic items), but in the long run they will eventually have both kinds of power and be that much better than any sucker who was scared off by the idea of XP costs. A 9th level character can still get +5 armor, shield, and weapon - and the extra XP this costs (4000) will be recovered in full after just 13 encounters. In short, by the time the entire party goes up a full level, you'll be even steven with them, only you'll have +5 equipment across the board (at 1th level) and they won't).
-Frank
|
|
Do you want something simple and transparent? I'm the DM, I give the players x number of value so that they can get get the gear that they want to help build ther characters that they what, a gamest approach? Or do you want a simulationist approach where they can liquidate there rewards according what the local current economy can handle and if not travel to another place that can handle the transactions that they want?D&D is clearly in the gamist mode, which is "simple and transparent". I think Pathfinder is more or less required to stick with that approach for backwards compatibility purposes.
The problem remains that characters of a certain level can without difficulty, break the wealth-by-level guidelines that form the basis of encounter balance. I still think that there are five approaches to this problem.
1) Let Players Break the Game. This appear to be disenchanter's preference.
2) Rule Zero. Tell DMs to use fiat to prevent players from accumulating wealth. As far as I can tell, nobody has advocated this, although disenchanter seems to think we have.
3) Change the Spells. This way the game cannot be broken.
4) Change How PCs Aquire Items. This is FT's solution.
5) Lessen Dependence on Magic Items. Essentially, eliminate a lot of items, and change encounters to reflect the absence of these items.I think 3 and 5 are simply too complicated to retain backwards compatibility for Pathfinder (4th edition seems to be using a combination of 3 and 5), and I think 1 and 2 are poor game design. That leaves FT's suggestion, until someone suggests something else.
OK this is the third time posting this. I'm not sure why the message boards hate me but what are you going to do.
I still think that Option 3 has a chance of working. I also believe that even if you stripped out the spells you would still have some decent backwards compatability. But I will go one more step down this line and suggest something that has woked for WOTC and Paizo in the past. Sidebars.
Sidebars work very well in explaining the intentions of designers and can spell out how the spell is intended to work and the possible pitfalls DMs can have if they let the spells run out of control.
As far as coins and what have you, I have often felt that th weight of the coins were way to high and they should be smaller. I have also felt that a silver standard would make much more sense and in the eyes of the players make gold seem that much more special.
|
|
I am opposed to Frank's actual position as I understand it. I don't think there needs to be a "tiered" economy where gold pieces are no longer useable at high levels.
When I go to a Convention, each D&D Game lists the amount of GP that a player-created pre-gen character can have, using rules from the DMG. At sufficiently high levels, you can purchase items above 15,000 gp. But it all happens offline before you show up at the game. So there is no problem with tons of gold coins. There were never any gold coins moved, just numbers in the books and on the character sheet.
In the campaign I'm a player in, we're now around 13th level. We just killed a bunch bad guys and took their stuff: magic swords and armor, and some art/jewelry. I am the party treasurer, so I added it all up in Excel and told the other 5 players what was available to pick from and what our average share would be (about 33,000 gp). It was about 200,000 gp of loot, but 40% of it is stuff our PCs don't want. That stuff just goes away and we get 80,000 gp to split, plus the items various players wanted (3 of which cracked the 15K limit).
But that 80,000 gp doesn't really exist in the game world, or on anyone's character sheet. It's only on my spreadsheet. The guy who picked the fewest magic items got 26,000 gp as his "gold" treasure share. But he isn't required to figure out the logistics of carrying 500 pounds of coins, because he doesn't really have that many coins. I don't know or care what he actually wrote on his character sheet, and neither does the DM. On my character sheet, if I happen to be saving up for a big ticket item, I hold gems if the amounts get too crazy, but at the end of the day, it's not really necessary. Because the gold usually appears and goes away between actual games.
So once my friend saves up enough for whatever fancy magic item he wants, he will just cross off the giant number of gp from his character sheet and write down the magic item. As long as the number on his sheet is high enough, he can...
There is a lot of things in this post that I agree with. You run a game that I would say is close to the way I run a game.
It seems to me that the economic discussion keeps rolling back to a methodology of game styles arguement.
Gamist: I focus on the "on stage" aspects of the game. Things that happen of stage like aquiring new gear and the like are handled quickly by just by letting players choose what they can use and making it down on thier sheet. (Within reason)
Simulationist: I want to create a world that is consistant (But no less fantastical). My world, my cities, my NPC, ect are things that are dynamic that grow and change with the story of what is happening with the players.
Co-Operational: I set the stage for the players be we all interperate what that means, what has happened and what will happen.
Frank it seems leans to Simulationist, You seem lean to Gamist. I'm someware in the middle leaning closer to Gamist.
I still think that there is a middle ground to this and we can get to it together.
Herald,
I'm not going to quote you because I don't want to tur this into a quote-mine-fest and because I don't fundamentally disagree with you. I'll just address your points topic-by-topic:
Changing Spells
FT made a short list of spells and I think that while it is not impossible to fix the problem by changing spells, I think it would be more work than FT's suggestion. but reasonable people can disagree on that point.
Sidebars
I think Sidebars would be a wonderful idea, no matter what solution is taken. I also think that FT's suggestion could be expressed in a series of sidebars or even a single sidebar.
Silver standard
I don't disagree that a silver standard would be better. I do think, though, that has major backwards-compatibility issues.
Gamist v. Simulationist
I completely agree with what you're saying. My only issue is that simulationists are never going to have a problem with these issues because simulationists can always jerry-rig the campaign around the problem.
But game designers cannot write exclusively to simulationists. They have to be able to accommodate the gamists too. And the gamists need rules to prevent breakage. And that's why when people defend the current system by showing how it isn't broken in their game (usually because the players and DMs mutually agree to abide by wealth levels regardless of the opportunity to break it), it's not helpful from a game-design perspective.
The primary assumptions of Frank Trollman's proposal (as pertains to high level magic) seem to me to be...
1) The game expects players to receive wealth in amounts approximating the wealth-by-level guidelines.
2) The game expects players to spend that wealth exclusively on magic items that allow them to defeat encounters appropriate for their level.
3) At ninth level, players gain access to spells -- like plane shift -- that allow players to easily surpass the wealth-by-level guidelines.Do you take issue with these three premises? I think this would help clarify your issues with the proposal.
Alright. Since you need a detailed response to understand things, I'll accommodate you.
Premise 3) Needs DM Control to not exist:
- Plane Shift to the "Plane of Gold?" - The DM has to have a "Plane of Gold" and to allow Plane Shift to get there. And you can't point out any published planes, because it is up to the DM for them to be present, and work as written.
- Wall of Iron? - It is up to the DM that the iron is even usable if it is taken from the wall. (As a manufacturer of metal goods, I am well aware that it is possible to have, even a large amount of metal that functions as a wall, be utterly useless for anything else other than a paperweight.)
- Any of the "creation" spells? - It is up to the DM and setting to have someone interested or capable to purchase the results.
In order to "break" Premise 2), which requires DM Control to exist:
- After all, if the DM doesn't care about Wealth per Level, everything else is moot.
So what kind of discussion can we have on that topic? No matter how I answer, you have already set the trap. To agree with one of those premises, you need to disagree with the other.
And just so that you can't say I am avoiding any part, Premise 1) "The DM has to hand out truckloads of gold," has been pointed out, by several people besides me, to be incorrect. The DM does not have to hand out truckloads of gold. All that is required is that the DM had out "items" (even if they are slips of paper in game, or just a notation of a "favor" owed by someone of wealth/power) worth a truckload of gold.
EDIT::
When did FT state that PCs couldn't take or implement item creation feats? I'm pretty sure he specifically stated that was outside the scope of this discussion.Actually, in the current 3.5 system, the Fighter could be buying from the party spellcaster(s).
Under Franks proposal, that can't happen unless the DM has the "high level" trade goods 'fall into their lap' first.
Frank never said that the PCs couldn't take, or use the item creation feats. But my point was never about the feats.
Frank Trollman did state that "high power" magic items couldn't be made without the "high level" trade goods. So they could either be exchanged for the "high power" items, or used to make them. With out those goods, you are stuck with "low power" magic items.
|
|
Herald,
I'm not going to quote you because I don't want to tur this into a quote-mine-fest and because I don't fundamentally disagree with you. I'll just address your points topic-by-topic:
Changing Spells
<snip> but reasonable people can disagree on that point.
Yea I think it could be left at that. I see both sides of the coin so there we are.
Sidebars
I think Sidebars would be a wonderful idea, no matter what solution is taken. I also think that FT's suggestion could be expressed in a series of sidebars or even a single sidebar.
Sidebars do really clearup a lot of things.
Silver standard
I don't disagree that a silver standard would be better. I do think, though, that has major backwards-compatibility issues.
Your right, that sort of conversion really belongs in a game world accessory.
Gamist v. Simulationist
I completely agree with what you're saying. My only issue is that simulationists are never going to have a problem with these issues because simulationists can always jerry-rig the campaign around the problem.But game designers cannot write exclusively to simulationists. They have to be able to accommodate the gamists too. And the gamists need rules to prevent breakage. And that's why when people defend the current system by showing how it isn't broken in their game (usually because the players and DMs mutually agree to abide by wealth levels regardless of the opportunity to break it), it's not helpful from a game-design perspective.
I think that you are absolutly correct on that issue. There seems to be a fine line someware between Simulationist and Gamist that needs to be walked with game developers and that can be have both sides very fustrated.
The problem that I often see is that many people don't understand that there are multiple points of view and multiple ways of getting to the same place. Many peoople just think to themselves were all just a bunch of gamers and there for what I want is what everyone wants.
So I guess what I am trying to say we can agree to disagree, understand the differances, because when we meet new gamers they might be from the other side of the fence so to speak and see how we can accomidate each other to an extent.
As I said I lean towards Gamist more than Simulationist. And while I can see the flaws that some rules have, there not the flaws that come up at my game table and I consider myself lucky because of that.
Robin Laws has created some really great material on how to run RPGs and he helped create part of the DMG2. The Unearthed Arcana is another book that also shows people alot of the behind the scenes looks into design and game running. So I would think that sidebars and the like would be a good way of handling the Gamist/Simulationist gap.
Lets face it. If the spell takes up a page to explain how it works, it's really to long for the most part. But a side bar that explains the intent can really help the player and the DM alike and can shorten up the details of a spell. It might be argued that your justs splitting up the data into two differant areas, but you onlyu need the sidebar commentary for so ling and after a while you just use the details that pertain to your situation.
P.S. I too would jhave clipped more from this, but with some people being confused on some points through all the posts I find this easier to keep up with.
What you are doing is making characters lower their level now and giving them additional power in the form of magic items to compensate. Being a "lower level character" they gain XP (and thus levels) faster than a character who advanced normally.
Frank -- The system would break down exactly as you point out, if you encourage the players to open the DMG and pick items, and just tell them that the only cost is in xp. But if you use prepackaged adventures, write your own, and/or limit "magic shops" (or access to +5 gear) and expect characters to use item creation feats, then the system, in actual practice (we've used it for years), works quite well indeed for groups like ours.
Actual practice reveals a different outcome from the one you described. First off, the xp cost of even a moderate-level character's legitimate (found/won/created) gear is rarely enough to throw off his level advancement by more than half -- the xp costs just aren't that high. Second, not all items found are useful in the majority of situations. Characters who spend the xp to keep every item they find will be lower level, with a lot of toys they can't really apply to their survival, and they tend to die off (also, basic human psychology means they won't want to spend xp on things they can't really use). This works especially well if, as I do, you keep the party together (imagine a 14th level guy and his 9th level partner, who has 5 levels' worth of xp in gear. In EL 17 boss encounters, the 9th level guy is a goner).
Now remember the system was originally intended to slow advancement. One "fix" is to have the 9th level guy with 5 levels' worth of gear adventure and gain experience as a 14th level guy. He now gains levels far more slowly than his anadorned, 9th level juniors.
As can be seen, this system may require some adjustments to one’s gaming style -- so you could claim it's therefore too complicated to be useful, or “isn’t D&D.” We find the adjustments to be minor and common-sense oriented, and better rooted in the 1st edition “no magic shoppes” style we grew up with. If you’re not comfortable with that, don’t use it; this system is unapologetically a houserule, and is not intended for general use. All I’m claiming is that it works extremely well for our group, and that some other groups might enjoy it as well.
Frank -- The system would break down exactly as you point out, if you encourage the players to open the DMG and pick items, and just tell them that the only cost is in xp. But if you use prepackaged adventures, write your own, and/or limit "magic shops" (or access to +5 gear) and expect characters to use item creation feats, then the system, in actual practice (we've used it for years), works quite well indeed for groups like ours.
Kirth, we understand and accept and fully support that your campaign style works for your campaign. But we're not discussing problems (or lack thereof) in specific campaigns. We're discussing game design and game rules.
The ability of people to breath the wealth guidelines is a problem in the rules, even if it isn't a problem in your game. The question is what can be done by a game designer to ameliorate the problem.
You did have an interesting solution, which in might paraphrase as:
Impose an XP penalty on those with excessive wealth levels.
That's an interesting solution, though I see a few problems with it...
1) Bookkeeping. It would require people to constantly track the gp value of their equipment. Not a huge deal.
2) Encounter planning. The biggest problem with breaking the guidelines is that it turns people into glass cannons. They don't have the hp commensurate with the encounters their gear says should be challenging. And they can blow through the encounters that their hp dictate should be challenging. Moreover, their allies (assuming they are not directly benefitting from their friend's money) are turned into sidekicks.
Allowing someone to keep the equipment but with a level adjustment invokes all of the issues with level adjustment. While this is a feasible solution, I'm still a fan of FT's solution.
But that was a really good suggestion!
Kirth Gersen: while charging people XP to acquire magic items will serve to dissuade some players from acquiring large amounts of magic items, remember that in the long run our goal is to make the amount of magic items that a character of a specific level has roughly the same amount of equipment as another character of the same level.
Starkly put: if you give people the choice between gaining equipment and gaining levels, you've put a vast discrepancy between the amount of equipment that different characters have at any particular level. Indeed, within a single party you would expect the general case to be that higher level characters had less equipment and lower level characters had more equipment.
A negative correlation between the amount of equipment people have and the amount of levels they have gained undermines the CR system.
-Frank
|
|
Kirth Gersen: while charging people XP to acquire magic items will serve to dissuade some players from acquiring large amounts of magic items, remember that in the long run our goal is to make the amount of magic items that a character of a specific level has roughly the same amount of equipment as another character of the same level.
Starkly put: if you give people the choice between gaining equipment and gaining levels, you've put a vast discrepancy between the amount of equipment that different characters have at any particular level. Indeed, within a single party you would expect the general case to be that higher level characters had less equipment and lower level characters had more equipment.
A negative correlation between the amount of equipment people have and the amount of levels they have gained undermines the CR system.
-Frank
I'm going to agree here. XP really shouldn't be a currency/comodity. I can see how you make it work, but I really I think it it makes the system as wonky as Frank points out. Honestly I want as little as posible tapping into the XP jar as posible.
Frank, Herald, your points seem sound. All I can say is that we've been using this rule for some time, and haven't really run into any of the problems you anticipate. Maybe a different set of players would have them -- maybe even your players. I make no claims for universal applicablity or game omniscience; I'm only reporting what worked for our group. Maybe the issues are easily avoided, but whetever the case, the operative point is
this system is unapologetically a houserule, and is not intended for general use. All I’m claiming is that it works extremely well for our group, and that some other groups might enjoy it as well.
wrecan,
Frank pointed out an issue that he sees in the game; I replied with a system that removed that problem for us. I can't speak for all gamers or all game designers everywhere, nor would I claim to. Of the problems you point out, I can say that:
1. The amount of bookkeeping is reduced, not increased, because there's no need to track gold. The RAW use two forms of advancement: abilities by xp, and equipment by wealth. We've merged them, is all.
2. The "glass cannon" problem (a) hasn't actually ever popped up in actual play for the reasons I've already described, and (b) is self-correcting is it does. We have not actually ever had to resort to the equipment LA; I threw out the example as a nod to Frank, who is well aware of the existence of people who will try every means possible to take advantage of any given system. My group plays for fun, and we've never had an issue with it.
|
|
Frank, Herald, your points seem sound. All I can say is that we've been using this rule for some time, and haven't really run into any of the problems you anticipate. Maybe a different set of players would have them -- maybe even your players. I make no claims for universal applicablity or game omniscience; I'm only reporting what worked for our group. Maybe the issues are easily avoided, but whetever the case, the operative point is
this system is unapologetically a houserule, and is not intended for general use. All I’m claiming is that it works extremely well for our group, and that some other groups might enjoy it as well.wrecan,
Frank pointed out an issue that he sees in the game; I replied with a system that removed that problem for us. I can't speak for all gamers or all game designers everywhere, nor would I claim to. Of the problems you point out, I can say that:
1. The amount of bookkeeping is reduced, not increased, because there's no need to track gold. The RAW use two forms of advancement: abilities by xp, and equipment by wealth. We've merged them, is all.
2. The "glass cannon" problem (a) hasn't actually ever popped up in actual play for the reasons I've already described, and (b) is self-correcting is it does. We have not actually ever had to resort to the equipment LA; I threw out the example as a nod to Frank, who is well aware of the existence of people who will try every means possible to take advantage of any given system. My group plays for fun, and we've never had an issue with it.
Even still, it interesting to hear what others have done to get around this issue.
|
|
Kirth Gersen: while charging people XP to acquire magic items will serve to dissuade some players from acquiring large amounts of magic items, remember that in the long run our goal is to make the amount of magic items that a character of a specific level has roughly the same amount of equipment as another character of the same level.
Starkly put: if you give people the choice between gaining equipment and gaining levels, you've put a vast discrepancy between the amount of equipment that different characters have at any particular level. Indeed, within a single party you would expect the general case to be that higher level characters had less equipment and lower level characters had more equipment.
A negative correlation between the amount of equipment people have and the amount of levels they have gained undermines the CR system.
-Frank
Frankly the use of Magic should permanently cost them life force. Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Charisma should be drained permanently and incurably.
I think that experience should go unaffected, but these magics should devour their users physically.
Frankly the use of Magic should permanently cost them life force. Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Charisma should be drained permanently and incurably. I think that experience should go unaffected, but these magics should devour their users physically.
Well, these ideas would cut down on magic item use, but they kind of lead to a different sort of game... unless you're kidding?
Even still, it interesting to hear what others have done to get around this issue.
Yes, I agree completely; my subsequent posts were more a reaction to the immediate reply of "your idea sucks and totally can't work under any circumstances and has no place on this thread." I shall post no more on it here unless asked a direct question.
I still think that with some adjustments to the spell descriptions, you could avoid a lot of problems with infinite wealth generation.
I think it would also be a good idea to give the issue a sidebar somewhere. The problem is where to put it. The issue touches on equipment, economy, magic, and the planes/cosmology. You need to "Hang a Lampshade" on the issue and explain the potential for abuse of the spirit of the game and how to prevent it.
Conjuration / Creation and Transmutation magics should be limited in their ability to create huge amounts lasting value. You can limit the duration, or you can require that the value of the raw materials be nearly equal to the value of whatever comes out the other end. If you want to avoid someone selling the "effect" of a spell, just add impurities to the product so that is not commercially viable. A wall of iron's hardness and hp remain the same, but if you try to make anything out of it, the crap falls apart. And why would anyone want to buy salt that used to be someone? If you assume the salt is tainted enough for folks to tell, no one would buy it. I doubt Lot broke bits off his wife to season the stew.
And no matter what plane you go to, there should be nothing of value that isn't nailed down or already owned by someone else. If you beat up the owner and steal it, that's fine, as long as the CR of the owner matches the value of the loot. No CR 20 loot should be guarded by anything less than a CR 20 encounter. It should be very rare that the players are the first beings in the enitre f#cking multiverse to find some completely unguarded pile of loot.
When you're bargaining with extra-planar entities, similar rules should apply. Just because the rules make it easy for them to create something from nothing doesn't mean they will do that for the players in ridiculous amounts. And I'm not convinced an Efreet actually casts the 9th level spell "Wish". They have the spell-like ability to [b][i]"grant up to 3 wishes (to non-genies only)."[b/][i/] Since their Caster Level is only 12, I would argue that they don't get 3 charges of a 3th level spell. The wishes they can grant should be in line with their RAW caster level. In any case, the rule of thumb should be that the value created should not exceed the "costs" by much. The costs of the deal could take many forms depending on the nature of the being and what the PCs want.
So in conclusion:
1. A tiered economy is okay as a house rule, but not a core rule.
2. Definately create a sidebar somewhere in the rules that outlines the "something for nothing" issues.
3. In the sidebar (or elsewhere) make a rule that things created for free are not commercially viable.
4. Adjust spell descriptions to tie off any loose ends.
Frankly the use of Magic should permanently cost them life force. Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Charisma should be drained permanently and incurably. I think that experience should go unaffected, but these magics should devour their users physically.
Well, these ideas would cut down on magic item use, but they kind of lead to a different sort of game... unless you're kidding?
Isn't this similar to how these things worked in 1e AD&D? I wish I could find my old books.
I recall that a single casting of Permanency cost you 1 point of Constitution. What I can't remember was if you had any easy options for getting it back.
I also recalled that casting Wish permanently aged you by 3 years, with 1 year for limited wish. Haste aged you too. A human wizard could only cast so many wishes before they would blow out their life expectancy and drop dead. Potions of Longevity would help, but I don't think you could use them forever. And PC elves couldn't get 9th level spells.
Trying to "fix" spells by cutting off money-making schemes is impossible. I'm not saying that a few select spells can't be nerfed, but even then players will find ways to make money.
Here are some non-traditional ways to use magic (or not) to make money:
-Polymorph Any Object a creature into a sellable creature(griffins, anyone?).
-Breed the same creatures, if you wish.
-Scry for creatures with treasure and no ability to planeshift, scry, or teleport, then pop in, enclose them in walls of force, and leave with their loot.
-Cast a gate to bring water to the desert, or move some other commodity from a place where it is worthless to a place where it is valuable.
-Be an elven farmer and sell potatoes you grow every year. Then advance the setting by 500 years.
-Rent out your Leadership hirelings, animated Giants, or other minions.
-Be a lord, and collect taxes. Or be a religious figure, and collect tithes.
-Summon demons to steal gold from caravans for you.
-Sell castings of spells.
-Dominate a rich guy into giving you his wealth.
-Build cities with wall of stone and stoneshape.
Thats just crap I came up with off the top of my head. Dungeon Mag once had an adventure with a trap with metal balls, and then someone one the board was like "do you know that we are talking about millions of GP in metal balls?" I sure the same kind of thing happens all the time in other people's adventures.
PS. Back in the day you didn't drink potions of longevity, you drank elixers of youth which didn't have a backlash chance.
You also used wishes to get Constitution back.
Rinse and repeat, and never die.
Yeah, there are a ton of perfectly reasonable ways for a PC of any level to generate income, potentially lots of income.
At the end of the day, the DM and the Players have to agree that they are playing D&D so that the PCs can go on adventures and everybody has a good time overcoming appropriate challenges without trying to "break the rules".
K: 500 years of elven potato farming? Dude, that's just grim. You should come out of that experience lower level than you went in.
This is the best argument I can come up with for preventing players from acquiring wealth beyond the recomendations:
If you try to achieve wealth way beyond your CR, you will inevitably attract the attention someone of a much higher CR. They will show up, smack your b!tch UP, and steal your lunch money (no save). So don't f#ck around at the deep end of the pool.
If you stick to wealth appropriate to your CR, you're mostly safe. Folks of lower CR won't mess with you because you're too tough for them. You've got an even chance against someone of your CR.
And if you haven't turned yourself into a piece of "low hanging fruit", you're not worth the time or effort for the Big Dogs. Because they won't get XP for kicking your a$$, and they don't need your lower level loot.
It's a bit of "hand wave", but it all makes sense to me.
Yeah, there are a ton of perfectly reasonable ways for a PC of any level to generate income, potentially lots of income.
At the end of the day, the DM and the Players have to agree that they are playing D&D so that the PCs can go on adventures and everybody has a good time overcoming appropriate challenges without trying to "break the rules".
K: 500 years of elven potato farming? Dude, that's just grim. You should come out of that experience lower level than you went in.
This is the best argument I can come up with for preventing players from acquiring wealth beyond the recomendations:
If you try to achieve wealth way beyond your CR, you will inevitably attract the attention someone of a much higher CR. They will show up, smack your b!tch UP, and steal your lunch money (no save). So don't f#ck around at the deep end of the pool.
If you stick to wealth appropriate to your CR, you're mostly safe. Folks of lower CR won't mess with you because you're too tough for them. You've got an even chance against someone of your CR.
And if you haven't turned yourself into a piece of "low hanging fruit", you're not worth the time or effort for the Big Dogs. Because they won't get XP for kicking your a$$, and they don't need your lower level loot.
It's a bit of "hand wave", but it all makes sense to me.
Well, after around 10th level, you actually can beat anything in the SRD if you have the right equipment. Scrolls of 9th level spells are cheap, so if you have some wealth scheme that lets you buy powerful loot and a decent chance to activate that loot you can best the most powerful things in the game.
And beating those baddies gets you XP.... and more loot.... which then attracts bigger baddies with bigger loot..... which are worth more XP.
You get my point?
I'm all for gentlemen's agreements. I just don't think that from a design standpoint the game should be based on them.
Why does this all sound like a solution in search of a problem?
Because you personally have never sat through and read any of the literally hundreds of rants on the Gleemax board about how fabricate (or whatever) was ruining the game?
-Frank
|
|
Yeah, there are a ton of perfectly reasonable ways for a PC of any level to generate income, potentially lots of income.
K: 500 years of elven potato farming? Dude, that's just grim. You should come out of that experience lower level than you went in.
This is the best argument I can come up with for preventing players from acquiring wealth beyond the recomendations:
If you try to achieve wealth way beyond your CR, you will inevitably attract the attention someone of a much higher CR.
EVERY DOG HIS DAY
Bailiff Yano leaned on his Greatsword and smiled at the gathered elves.
"It has come to the attention of Baron Alvard De Johns that you have failed to pay taxes to the De Johns Family for the last five hundred years."
"Who?" Luca Sapwood stood up from examining his latest crop of Potatoes, his compatriots with him.
"Baron Alvard De Johns! His Family have held claim over these lands for many centuries. And you elf pig have failed to pay Tax!"
Sapwood shook his head in ignorance.
Emile Sapwood clicked with awareness.
"You remember...that bandit chap with the horses...we cemented his skull into the stonework above the fireplace about fifty years after the wretch burned down the Barn." Luca remembered pointing a finger and focused his attention on the fellow with the Sword.
"Cepio the Degenerate! I guess he changed the family name."
"Barons you say...well! well!. They have come a long way from baby raping bandits..."
DM BRIEFING: Someone shows up to collect tithe on the PC's Potato farm for their last five hundred years of untaxed bliss. The Thugs (er...Bailiffs) demand 50% of the produce estimated at 25 TONS per acre (Turnip Maximum Yield) for 500 years (or 112,500 TONS).
If you try to achieve wealth way beyond your CR, you will inevitably attract the attention someone of a much higher CR. They will show up, smack your b!tch UP, and steal your lunch money (no save). So don't f#ck around at the deep end of the pool.
In addition to the critiques lodged by others in this thread, I have my own.
PCs who follow the wealth tables have already achieved wealth beyond their CR. There is a separate wealth table for NPCs and PCs and PCs have about four times as much wealth as a PC of the same ECL. So from the perspective of the NPCs, the PCs are already over-treasured.
So why aren't PCs being constantly mugged? Because the equipment enables them to handle the NPCs who would want that equipment. And the same holds true for PCs who are over-treasured.
Sorry, disenchanter, your post disappeared during the server issues over the weekend and I didn't see it until just now.
The primary assumptions of Frank Trollman's proposal (as pertains to high level magic) seem to me to be...
1) The game expects players to receive wealth in amounts approximating the wealth-by-level guidelines.
2) The game expects players to spend that wealth exclusively on magic items that allow them to defeat encounters appropriate for their level.
3) At ninth level, players gain access to spells -- like plane shift -- that allow players to easily surpass the wealth-by-level guidelines.Do you take issue with these three premises? I think this would help clarify your issues with the proposal.
Alright. Since you need a detailed response to understand things, I'll accommodate you.
Yeah, it's funny how I lack the ability to read your mind and actually need things to be written out with words.
Premise 3) Needs DM Control to not exist:
No, premise 3 requires that a game not rely on DM fiat to fix its own problems.
If your defense to a problem is "The DM can use Rule Zero to handwave it away" then you haven't addressed the problem. You've just abdicated responsibility as a game designer. And if that's going to be your philosophy, then why bother making suggestions? Why should we even have Pathfinder, since the DM can just hand-wave away any issues that Pathfinder is trying to address?
In order to "break" Premise 2), which requires DM Control to exist. After all, if the DM doesn't care about Wealth per Level, everything else is moot.
I care about the premises of the game from a design perspective, and the game absolutely cares about players sticking to the wealth guidelines in order to provide a balanced encounter.
So once again, your answer is effectively "This isn't a problem because the DM can use Rule Zero to ignore it."
So what kind of discussion can we have on that topic? No matter how I answer, you have already set the trap.
Yeah, it's funny how logical proofs sometimes feel like trap to people who disagree with them. That's often a sign that the person who feels trapped is wrong yet unwilling to admit that.
And just so that you can't say I am avoiding any part, Premise 1) "The DM has to hand out truckloads of gold,"
As can be seen at the top of this post, what you quoted is not Premise Number 1. I never mentioned "truckloads of gold" in my premises. The truckloads of gold issue is a separate problem. (Though one you also handwave away by saying the DM should use Rule Zero to make it not exist.)
Frank never said that the PCs couldn't take, or use the item creation feats.... Frank Trollman did state that "high power" magic items couldn't be made without the "high level" trade goods.
No, he said that was something that might be considered in a thread about magic item creation. It's extraneous to this thread -- which he stated -- but since you thought you smelled blood, you decided to jump the rails and pursue the non sequitur. Please stop chewing on the straw man and rejoin us in the on-topic portion of the thread.
Ooo, I'll have to get deeper into this later, but you go Frank!
3e D&D economics aren't as unrealistic as many claim, and any work to making them more realistic is welcome in my book.
To me the biggest pain point is also magic items. You take a couple thousand gold pieces, sit on them, and poop out a magic item. (Which for some reason every DM says you can only sell for half price, despite the fact that everyone sells them to you at full price.)
These factors lead to the "magic item chritmas tree" effect.
1. In 1e and 2e creating magic items was pretty much impossible. But they reversed the trend too much, so that even a L3 wizard can be cranking out a large number of misc. magic items.
2. Because the cost is geometric, you always want to slather yourself with +1 items rather than get one +2 item. This leads to "more items."
3. Artificial limits - 'slot' or otherwise - are bad. We didn't have those in 1e/2e and didn't see the Xmas tree effect (as much).
Solution - making magic items should be harder, but then should not be as incrementally harder for more powerful items. So you'd much rather get one +3 thing than a mess of +1 things from your friendly 12th level wizard.