My 2 cp - I don't agree with the argument that the 'rules' allow for unchecked wealth exploits. Those 'rules' exist within a WORLD SYSTEM that the GM has created.
If the 'world' allows for it, fine. Then a Sigil market works for higher level characters, and items replace standard currency on some occasions. I think the two have to go hand in hand.
To coin a phrase from another site we'd end up playing a game called Merchants and Marketplaces.
|
Did you use the crafting XP cost or some multiple of it?Crafting xp. It's a minor tax more than a major hurdle, but it still makes people think twice before they become christmas trees. A better system would be to reckon character level based on total xp (including xp worth of items), then use a multiple of the crafting cost (5x?) and redo the xp charts accordingly, to take standard items into account. But that would require a bunch of work that most people probably aren't willing to do.
I'm not most people, though! I really think this system could at least be used to eventually approximate character level including magic items (even without the "tax" system, the total XP could be used to calculate ECL).
|
Except the rules don't say that gaining gp necessarily means they must gain xp. So while an experienced DM may think of that solution, a new DM almost certainly won't.
Except the rules DO state what the players wealth per level should be. And any GM can read that and enforce it, experienced or not.
Don't limit the potential creativity of a game by pretending a loophole exists that can be shut down easily by enforcing one rule already written.
So many of the apparent problems presented in this thread have actually spawned a great number of interesting roleplay situations.
Eberron was built on the assumption of easily used magic building an economy. If you start stifling players trying creative uses for magic by putting overly restrictive uses on it you may kill creativity entirely (in a game that demands it). Work with creative play, enforce the limitations built into the game. No problem
Or the GM can choose to ignore the built in limitations and be prepared to build a world around it.
The same goes for the player who chooses to break a rule. Be prepared to have the world change as a response if you want the rule to be broken.
Also, if an inexperienced GM is having trouble because they didn't realise the rules let them limit something, the experienced players trying this stunt should certainly tell them. I'm sure if the GM ruled something invalid for your player, despite it being in the rules, you'd jump all over the place to tell them. It should work the other way as well.
In essence, most people (myself included here) have just presented house rules for what is their own take on a D&D universe, because they're willing to bend some rules but want to keep some limitations in place.
That's all they need to be, house rules.
|
|
But the DM would be justified by having a local Thieves Guild rob the PCs blind in order to get them back on the "wealth by level" track, just as much as they would be by reducing treasure in planned encounters to less than it should be given the CR of the monsters. As long as the characters are at no risk of death, it isn't heavy-handed. After all, the Thieves are better off if the wizard keeps producing for them. If he stops? Oh well, move on to the next exploiting wizard.
That is a mechanical justification for DM Fiat.
Failing the Thieves Guild, a greedy Red Dragon might take notice of this sudden source of "wealth", and make repeated visits.
Please, don't argue that this doesn't correct a loophole in the rules, because it does. The DM uses the wealth guidelines, realizes your work-around is wrecking the system, and uses an in-game explanation to eliminate the problem, both in the present and in the future. It's a plausible explanation, requiring no effort (unless the players get really defensive and actually try to fight back), that takes place in game. It is logical - a wealthy person invariable becomes a target, especially if they have more wealth than their power can defend.
As a DM you can say Well, this Rogue 15/Wizard 15 figured it out centuries ago, and then became immortal because he amassed so much wealth, now he goes around preventing other people from doing the same. Anyone who complains that you sicking an epic Rogue on them is unfair is obviously not realizing what they themselves were doing. After all, nothing in the rules says the DM cannot send a creature of APL+10 against the party, just a warning that it is deadly.
Oh sure, the DM is being arrogant by forcing the players into a situation over which they have no control by abusing the rules. But the players went there first, so they can't complain. If this creates friction around your table, but you expect to get away with infinite wealth, that's pretty selfish. Creating infinite wealth is an obvious attempt to "win" at D&D. The DM response should just be "you can't win against the DM, please stop before I take matters into the game to end the problem".
By the way, I would rather this be a last possible solution - asking the player to stop is always better. If they get their back up and refuse to stop, then it is time to bring out the big guns. If they whine and complain about you being unfair, then they are being childish.
"Just because you CAN do a thing, doesn't mean you SHOULD do a thing."
|
|
Damnable forum, once again won't let me quote you properly Squirreloid, my appologies for that.
You mention that the WBL's are only guidelines. So are the price lists in the books. It says they can vary from market to market and with value.
This then lets the GM enforce market changes to any items price on that list. Infinte item, effective cost zero. Or more likely so low it becomes innefficient completing the task to get the cash.
Your solution is a good one, I don't deny that. I just don't see it as being any more than a houserule as the current rules will run just fine if played as written and enforced as written.
The WBL's are also there to enable a player to create a character not at level 1. It sets the GP limit you can spend on magic gear to have your character "balanced" at that level.
If your GM allows you to bend this limit, they're effectively telling you they're calling shots on rules, which eneables them to overule any other rule if they feel it doesn't fit the flavour of their campaign. In essence they're telling you they will houserule. In which case your solution might be useful.
While I've enjoyed the discourse, I do have to say this is al conjecture I guess as it really is up to the designers to determine if a problem exists or not. Not me I guess. I presented my solution earlier (which did limit magic but in my home campaign adds a great flavour). You presented yours which I'm sure adds great flavour.
Guess I'll stop arguing with people for a while and get back to work.
Cheers
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Root Issues and Solutions
(1) Magic Items don't increase power.
If it didn't matter that you had arbitrary items, then it wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, in addition to the pain of having to rework the very nature of magic items, much less rewrite every single one, it also completely breaks backwards compatibility. Barbie dress-up syndrome is here to stay.(2) Wealth cannot be transformed into arbitrary items.
Some items can just not be had for any amount of gold. Rather, creatures possessing them require inherently valuable planar currencies or other magic items that can also not be had for gold. One good place for this cut off is about 15k gp. Any item worth >=15k gp can be bought for gold. Thus, about the time most arbitrary wealth schemes become available, you can get a few plausibly helpful items, but nothing that will knock your socks off.Benefit: Arbitrary wealth exploits can exist - we don't have to watchdog for them continuously, and new ones won't ruin anything.
Benefit: Dragons can have enough gold to sleep on. We don't have to worry about it.
Benefit: Players can own castles, raise armies, and live luxuriously without having to worry about it decreasing their effectiveness as an adventurer. Ie, wealth actually gets used for roleplaying purposes, like it used to be back in 2nd edition.
Benefit: Coolness value - DM's who limit availability of items may have the players track down a Yugoloth merchant in Sigil, but he'll only take Souls. Ie, this creates a system with houserule/roleplaying potential. (It can of course be played fine with 'i have enough planar currency, i find a vendor and buy it' style playing as well.)
So, your solution to arbitrary wealth is to make sure they don't buy magical gear with it. They can hire armies, build castles, pay wizards, finance revolutions, but they don't get to buy gear. At the same time, the player who has earned his gold can't buy magical gear with it either, unless the DM says so.
If your players are exploiting arbitrary wealth loopholes to buy magical gear, this might be something to explore.
I'm not seeing it.
Except under this theory that character who has 'earned his gold' has actually earned Souls, Angel Tears, Primal Chaos, or whatever other planar currencies are used and can spend that to acquire powerful magical items.
Right, but you're left with the phoney-baloney situation where an institution that values both "money" and magic items (like a kingdom or a certain deity's church or even a player character) can never convert one into the other. Why? Because the DM says so, nyah nyah. :-)
I have no problem with a sidebar saying "In a normal campaign, the DM should make sure that players do not get away from the wealth by level guidelines in table 12-4 too much. If they are getting a lot of wealth without XP, the DM might want to give the PCs some challenges that gives XP but no treasure. Similarly, if the PCs are getting a lot of XP without treasure, the DM might want to give the PCs extra treasure for their next few challenges."
Because no rational creature holding powerful magical items or planar currencies is going to exchange them for gold. They have as much gold as they could possibly want. They can 'virtually' mint more on demand.
But that fails the "trope" test of helping the poor by donating money to a church. You're saying that all churches (that are big enough) have infinite money. So why should there be any peasants in the world when the Church of $GOOD_DEITY can provide enough alms for everyone in the universe? You've gone from "D&D world" to "Star Trek replicator world" (which is fine, if that's what you're into, but I don't care for it). Similarly with a "poor kingdom". You're effectively saying that as long as there's one loyal citizen of high enough level, a kingdom's treasury can never run out.
Look, if there were some example in the real world of truly non-convertible currencies, I'd go with the two-tier system. But I just don't see how it can work.
Because peasants can't eat gold?
So they go to the local inn and buy some food instead.
Seriously, these arguments always boil down to: "Gold is worth something (even though there's an infinite amount of it floating around in my campaign world) and magic items are worth something, but they're not worth the same thing! Because I say so!"
The modern world (mostly) lacks non-convertible currency because the modern world is globalized, with modern monetary markets, reserve currencies, regular exchanges, and international trade. This has no bearing on medieval economies.
Your economy with infinite "valuable" money has no bearing on medieval economies!
If all the peasants have been elevated above peasant, who's growing the food?Because peasants can't eat gold?So they go to the local inn and buy some food instead.
Exactly. You have pierced to the heart of my objection.
And so no one bothers to give the peasants gold? I mean, why would they?
Why wouldn't they? If gold has no value for a generous person of high enough level, then why wouldn't he make everyone in the world a millionaire?
I really don't know how to put it any clearer: if you give multiple people in the world the ability to print as much free money as they want, that money is essentially worthless.
And I don't believe that you've shown that high-level characters have the ability to create infinite money in the first place! Certainly they can create a significant amount of stone (via Wall of Stone) and iron (via Wall of Iron) and finished goods (via Fabricate), but that's not money (what you call souls/angel tears and what I call gold).
Flavor has to count for something. How cool was it when Conan amassed a vast fortune, only to spend it all in a few days of massive carousing? That's impossible in 3.5/PF, because Conan has to pinch every penny to keep up with his required magic item quota.
Q: How many high-level PCs does it take to build a castle?
A: They can't! Because the cost of the castle isn't buying them magic items, making them "weaker," and therefore much more likely to be killed.
A two-tiered system, no matter how artificial, takes care of this. I prefer to use XP as the "currency," because character power is already tied to XP, and because I hate keeping track of wealth. Some people advocate "soul gems" or whatever, because they at least simulate a gp value. Either would be preferrable, in my mind, to the above scenarios.
Flavor has to count for something. How cool was it when Conan amassed a vast fortune, only to spend it all in a few days of massive carousing? That's impossible in 3.5/PF, because Conan has to pinch every penny to keep up with his required magic item quota.
Q: How many high-level PCs does it take to build a castle?
A: They can't! Because the cost of the castle isn't buying them magic items, making them "weaker," and therefore much more likely to be killed.
(a) Conan could probably afford to squander all his money because he wasn't playing D&D. :-) Seriously, in a low-magic world like Conan's, nothing will be particularly expensive.
(b) Requiring a huge wagonload of coins up front to build a castle is just dumb (IMO); bein able to meet a monthly payroll (which will presumably pale in comparison to a PC's equipment budget) should be enough. At any rate, I don't count those kinds of "flavour" expenditures towards PC wealth (i.e. equipment budget).
Another point in favor of having magic items cost xp: As it stands, what's the CR of a 14th level NPC wizard who has no magic items? It's either CR 14 (absurd, as he's obviously less of a threat than one who's all bedecked), or <undefined>. Wouldn't it be nice if we had some measure of how to scale him as a challenge? Or, think of the old In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords. What are appropriate CR encounters for PCs who have no magic items? The system doesn't accommodate that; you have to guess. What about a player who, for flavor reasons, doesn't want 15 magic items? Too bad, bub, you're dead without 'em, unless the DM lets you take Vow of Cheese.
Another point in favor of having magic items cost xp: As it stands, what's the CR of a 14th level NPC wizard who has no magic items? It's either CR 14 (absurd, as he's obviously less of a threat than one who's all bedecked), or <undefined>. Wouldn't it be nice if we had some measure of how to scale him as a challenge? Or, think of the old In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords. What are appropriate CR encounters for PCs who have no magic items? The system doesn't accommodate that; you have to guess. What about a player who, for flavor reasons, doesn't want 15 magic items? Too bad, bub, you're dead without 'em, unless the DM lets you take Vow of Cheese.
This is an excellent point, and one that wouldn't be covered by a two-tier currency system. But it's hard (impossible?) to find an exact correspondence between a particular piece of gear and how much that piece of gear should boost your CR/ECL. That doesn't mean no one should try, though; the Champions/Hero system works that way (you buy special equipment with character creation points).
At any rate, I don't count those kinds of "flavour" expenditures towards PC wealth (i.e. equipment budget).
I don't understand. Do they get the money for castles out of thin air? Or they spend it, but you just don't mark off the gold on their character sheets? That could work, I guess, but it creates a de facto 2-tiered economy: there's "magic item gold" and then there's "spendin' gold." Because if gold = gold, all of it will go to equipment budget.
Vow of Poverty is both weaker and less flexible than standard WBL, even if you are the class that benefits least from magic items (Druid), moreso if you are anything else. No, Monks don't work without stuff. They're even more stuff dependent.
At any rate, I don't count those kinds of "flavour" expenditures towards PC wealth (i.e. equipment budget).I don't understand. Do they get the money for castles out of thin air? Or they spend it, but you just don't mark off the gold on their character sheets? That could work, I guess, but it creates a de facto 2-tiered economy: there's "magic item gold" and then there's "spendin' gold." Because if gold = gold, all of it will go to equipment budget.
No, they really spend the gold and then I'll increase rewards later to make up for it (if necessary).
A solution in the rules for the arbitrary wealth exploits might be to add a time factor to it: if the PCs decide to turn a wall of iron into iron bars in order to sell iron, then there could be a maximum amount of gp they earn per day. After all, they have to melt it all down.
In this way you make it possible for PCs to put their ideas into practice, and you still have a measure of control as DM.
A nice system for PCs earning money in business was in DMG II. Perhaps it could serve as inspiration for a new rule.
|
|
A solution in the rules for the arbitrary wealth exploits might be to add a time factor to it: if the PCs decide to turn a wall of iron into iron bars in order to sell iron, then there could be a maximum amount of gp they earn per day.
That's more or less what you do with profession anyway.
I'm still not sure these are properly called exploits. They seem like work to me, albeit work that utilizes magic to replace some laborers.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
A solution in the rules for the arbitrary wealth exploits might be to add a time factor to it: if the PCs decide to turn a wall of iron into iron bars in order to sell iron, then there could be a maximum amount of gp they earn per day.That's more or less what you do with profession anyway.
I'm still not sure these are properly called exploits. They seem like work to me, albeit work that utilizes magic to replace some laborers.
And what do we do well the characters are working away? Roll for wandering monsters... ;-)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
And what do we do well the characters are working away? Roll for wandering monsters... ;-)A solution in the rules for the arbitrary wealth exploits might be to add a time factor to it: if the PCs decide to turn a wall of iron into iron bars in order to sell iron, then there could be a maximum amount of gp they earn per day.That's more or less what you do with profession anyway.
I'm still not sure these are properly called exploits. They seem like work to me, albeit work that utilizes magic to replace some laborers.
That should say "what we do while the characters are working away"
|
|
I'm not trying to be disrespectful or anything, but this seems like a non-issue to me -- largely because the rules are necessarily finite, you can always find something to theoretically 'break.'
Because this is a game trying to simulate certain aspects of a fantastic world, rather than the actual world, there simply can never be rules for everything. It's impossible. The rules can only cover part of what happens or exists in the story. To expect them to do otherwise is unrealistic.
The rules do not state that there is a dungeon at a certain point for your characters to loot. They do not state that there is a town to sell your loot in. They do not provide the world at all -- they give you a mechanical framework for deciding conflict, the place where argument is most likely to occur over what happens in the story.
The DM provides the dungeon. The DM states that a town is nearby where you can sell your loot. THIS CONCEPT IS A BASIC PART OF THE RULES. Therefore, the DM can make you figure out a way to sell all that iron WITHOUT violating the RAW.
In other words, if you take the RAW as being the be-all and end-all, there will be no dungeon, no town, no world. The game will consist entirely of character generation, and the characters will then exist in a limbo.
The DM is the most crucial part of the equation, required for the game world to even exist -- and if he or she puts obstacles in the way of the players exploiting infinite wealth loopholes, then this is part of his/her expected function of world-builder and NPC-puppeteer, NOT a contradiction of RAW.
This is precisely true.
This entire discussion thread originally started from people pointing out spells that could gernerate stuff that you could then sell.
However, in order to sell it, you had to create a new rule that let you do something with the spell that wasn't in the spell description.
Wall of Iron says you can make a wall out of iron (or you can use your Iron to make a wall). Period. Played by the RAW you can't do anything else to it or with it.
What you can do is make up a cool way to harvest this stuff. You have, in effect, changed the RAW to suit yourself.
If you're willing to do this or more importantly if DM is willing to do this, then accept the fact that house rules are going to be in place.
Sure you can change the ecomoics of how the D&D world purhcases gear - home rule (4e did this with astral diamonds btw, and it makes sense in their world)
You can change how magic works - homerule (may also address some other issues like planar binding etc)
You might stick to WBL for magic items but let them spend anything above this on whatever they want - homerule (keeps power in check but lets them interact in high power situations as good roleplay)
I really feel this thread is about generating house rules for what is in effect another house rule. In other words, its just a circular argument.
There are some cool ideas in here that add flavour to a campaign world though. Maybe Paizo will pilfer some for their campaign world.
|
Let me begin by saying that, while I'm not exactly sold on the idea, neither do I strenuously object to the proposed solution that has been offered by the OP and elsewhere. It seems workable, though not necessarily as all-perfect as it is being presented as, and I would not raise much fuss were it to appear in some form in the final edition of the PFRPG.
Now that that's out of the way, let's be clear that there are significantly more options for fixing the situation than those presented here, in what can only be described as a false dichotomy. I present two here, as examples:
1) Require all magic that permanently creates an item of value to have a material component equal to 1/3 (if mundane) or 1/2 (if magical) of the base cost of the item in question, unless it is a commodity that can be traded as though it were cash or used as raw materials for other items, in which case it requires a component cost equal to the cost of the created object. This essentially turns the spell into a means of avoiding a Craft check and the time required to make it, proving advantageous but not overwhelming, and certainly not infinite.
Conversely, you could specify that no more actual profit can be realized from a magically created item than twice the value of its material component(s).
2) At some point between a single casting of the spell and the infinite gold supply, the character moves from the item resale rules to the Profession (salesperson) rules. This can be explained in a number of ways - the drop in profits resulting from the sudden glut in the market, the lack of a general buying populace, the PC's own inability to do a decent business deal, the fact that you're in Sandpoint and everyone who wants to buy everburning torches is in Magnimar; whatever floats your boat as a GM. Note that this is a direct application of the RAW. It is a matter of rules interpretation to place the Profession rules ahead of the sales rules, but frankly, the reverse is true as well, so this reduces to a perfectly functional solution if the GM chooses to use it. Only magic that creates actual cash or trade goods can beat this solution.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
[threadjack]
My son's character earned a lot of gold the old fashioned way. He wanted to use it to start a few businesses. I dag up some rules created by Gary Gygax for running shipping companies, modified them for caravans, and we were off. He started sending caravan routes all over Keoland, ships across the Aerdi sea, etc. There was a chance of loss. Every once in a while, his character would travel with a caravan or ship and have a great adventure. He didn't get rich doing this as he spent it all building roads, temples, and fortresses to protect his people. He had a great time.
[/threadjack]
|
|
[threadjack]
My son's character earned a lot of gold the old fashioned way. He wanted to use it to start a few businesses. I dag up some rules created by Gary Gygax for running shipping companies, modified them for caravans, and we were off. He started sending caravan routes all over Keoland, ships across the Aerdi sea, etc. There was a chance of loss. Every once in a while, his character would travel with a caravan or ship and have a great adventure. He didn't get rich doing this as he spent it all building roads, temples, and fortresses to protect his people. He had a great time.
[/threadjack]
Your son is playing D&D wrong. Tell him to play something else.
Hm, in this whole silly thread, I was never convinced there IS any actual method to achieve INFINITE profits... You can say that there are methods that achieve EXTREMELY HIGH profits, but it IS finite. Taking Wall of Iron (but any spell, since all spells have finite effects), even "playing dumb" and ignoring market effects, market limits, etc (which all limit the scam's scale), there is a set amount of product, and thus a finite potential profit, achievable in a finite amount of time (casting time, plus whatever necessary to bring to market and sell). Whatever astronomical sum you feel is achievable by this, IT'S NOT INFINITE.
So, despite the intention of the proposed "planar currency" (which either applies to non-OGL Sigil or Pathfinder, I'm not sure), as long as INFINITE gold cannot be created there would still be an 'exchange rate' between gold and this new currency: At the most abstract level, you could compare the average gold profits acquirable in the average time period necessary to acquire one "soul", and that's an average exchange rate acceptable to rational actors.
As I touched on, I saw a questionable drawing in of references to non-OGL material and/or non-Pathfinder specifics (i.e. Sigil, infinite Planar marketplaces, etc.), when this is supposed to be feedback specific to Pathfinder, not all 3.5 material. Here's the Pathfinder Campaign Setting's take on the planes: Which pretty clearly cuts off the 'infinite' stuff.
And on the whole issue of the 'problem' itself, I thought the plot ideas brought up in this thread (by Eric Meepo, myself, & others I'm forgetting) seemed so awesome I almost WANT someone to try and use this "scam" in a game I'm playing in, to enjoy the consequences :-)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
And on the whole issue of the 'problem' itself, I thought the plot ideas brought up in this thread (by Eric Meepo, myself, & others I'm forgetting) seemed so awesome I almost WANT someone to try and use this "scam" in a game I'm playing in, to enjoy the consequences :-)
Me too. "Knock, knock, knock ... 'Ey ya bloodless git o' a wizard! Getcher boney ass out 'ere there's 200 recently unemployed dwarves 'oo wanna talk tuh yuh!!"
|
|
Your son is playing D&D wrong. Tell him to play something else.[threadjack]
My son's character earned a lot of gold the old fashioned way. He wanted to use it to start a few businesses. I dag up some rules created by Gary Gygax for running shipping companies, modified them for caravans, and we were off. He started sending caravan routes all over Keoland, ships across the Aerdi sea, etc. There was a chance of loss. Every once in a while, his character would travel with a caravan or ship and have a great adventure. He didn't get rich doing this as he spent it all building roads, temples, and fortresses to protect his people. He had a great time.
[/threadjack]
leave the kid alone you big meanyhead!!!
|
|
leave the kid alone you big meanyhead!!!Your son is playing D&D wrong. Tell him to play something else.[threadjack]
My son's character earned a lot of gold the old fashioned way. He wanted to use it to start a few businesses. I dag up some rules created by Gary Gygax for running shipping companies, modified them for caravans, and we were off. He started sending caravan routes all over Keoland, ships across the Aerdi sea, etc. There was a chance of loss. Every once in a while, his character would travel with a caravan or ship and have a great adventure. He didn't get rich doing this as he spent it all building roads, temples, and fortresses to protect his people. He had a great time.
[/threadjack]
No, he needs to grow up and learn that life isn't about fun and imagination, it is about Rules As Written and Balance.
I am here to teach you all this lesson, and you should thank me for it you ungrateful cretins!
|
|
leave the kid alone you big meanyhead!!!Your son is playing D&D wrong. Tell him to play something else.[threadjack]
My son's character earned a lot of gold the old fashioned way. He wanted to use it to start a few businesses. I dag up some rules created by Gary Gygax for running shipping companies, modified them for caravans, and we were off. He started sending caravan routes all over Keoland, ships across the Aerdi sea, etc. There was a chance of loss. Every once in a while, his character would travel with a caravan or ship and have a great adventure. He didn't get rich doing this as he spent it all building roads, temples, and fortresses to protect his people. He had a great time.
[/threadjack]
No, he needs to grow up and learn that life isn't about fun and imagination, it is about Rules As Written and Balance.
I am here to teach you all this lesson, and you should thank me for it you ungrateful cretins!
hey, bud. stop trying to make the kid miserable. so what he wants to play a half orc bard? what's it to you? :P
Flavor has to count for something. How cool was it when Conan amassed a vast fortune, only to spend it all in a few days of massive carousing? That's impossible in 3.5/PF, because Conan has to pinch every penny to keep up with his required magic item quota.
Q: How many high-level PCs does it take to build a castle?
A: They can't! Because the cost of the castle isn't buying them magic items, making them "weaker," and therefore much more likely to be killed.
And this right here is why I'd like to see the magic item creation rules changed. I have no problem with PCs finding, buying, and selling magical items. What I do have a problem with is the fact that the current item creation rules basically allow you to transmute gold into magical power. I wouldn't mind seeing filthy rich characters walking around if they would actually use their wealth to do something interesting.
|
|
But if he plays a half-orc bard he won't have any fun, and he will die!
hey, bud. stop trying to make the kid miserable. so what he wants to play a half orc bard? what's it to you? :Pd@mn&d you and your mathematical probablilites and quantum logic! you haven't heard the last from me!
Stop insulting me. You, sir, are rude. Not that I care about rudeness, it's a waste of time.
|
|
As entertaining as the banter is you two, you are threadcapping. Not that I care overly much, as I've mostly moved past this. (Expect a playtest report soon. I even decided to not exploit arbitrary wealth/planar binding/etc... I still pull out some crazy, but its crazy that I think the system should be able to handle for the most part).
That's Paizo! Bwada-dah-dadah-duh!
Tarren started it.