The table assumes certain things. It can be made to be more exact, but player options will be more limited. I do agree that a DM should always adjust things for his group though.It would be nice to know what the table assumes. What my groups has or does (or doesn't have, or doesn't do) that the table isn't accounting for. As it is, an encounter that uses 20% to 25% of our groups resources (i.e. equal CR) has a margin of error of + or - 2 on the CR table. On a table where +4 is epic and -4 is trivial, 2 whole points makes a ton of difference.
It was in the 3.5 DMG. That information has been split between the core book, and the GMG.
It assumes a specialized damage dealer, arcane caster, skills guy, and divine caster. With the correct amount of gear they should be able to do 4 fights a day. This breaks down, but that was the intent. It also assumes a 15 point buy, and other things.The book can't account of player building or tactical skills, the ability of the DM, and various other things that may get in the way.
I can normally challenge multiple groups with one CR. I just use more devious tactics against the better groups.
The table assumes certain things. It can be made to be more exact, but player options will be more limited. I do agree that a DM should always adjust things for his group though.It would be nice to know what the table assumes. What my groups has or does (or doesn't have, or doesn't do) that the table isn't accounting for. As it is, an encounter that uses 20% to 25% of our groups resources (i.e. equal CR) has a margin of error of + or - 2 on the CR table. On a table where +4 is epic and -4 is trivial, 2 whole points makes a ton of difference.It was in the 3.5 DMG. That information has been split between the core book, and the GMG.
It assumes a specialized damage dealer, arcane caster, skills guy, and divine caster. With the correct amount of gear they should be able to do 4 fights a day. This breaks down, but that was the intent. It also assumes a 15 point buy, and other things.
The book can't account of player building or tactical skills, the ability of the DM, and various other things that may get in the way.
I can normally challenge multiple groups with one CR. I just use more devious tactics against the better groups.
Another assumption is that consumables will be available and used and are something that shouldn't be counted into total wealth. Obviously there should be some limit to that (no, just because you spent your entire aquired gold on wands of cure light wounds you don't get the gold back), but the intent was that emergency items would be available and used when appropriate and shouldn't be counted against the characters. Sometimes the dice ARE against you and these consumables are another buffer for when things go bad as they sometimes do.
Quite honestly, if you are truly interested in knowing what the table is assuming, your best bet is to get ahold of a 3.5 DMG and read up on wealth and CR's (I think those were the topics where most of the information regarding the balance and what the game assumes is going on/is balanced for). Heck if you can go into a book store and sit down with one for any amount of time you'd get most of what you were looking for.
WBL, CR's, and '4X Encounters a day' are all great features for an organised play game as they help standardise and balance the game for a bunch of disparate players.
The above three things should be considered entirely expendable outside Org Play.
WBL, CR's, and '4X Encounters a day' are all great features for an organised play game as they help standardise and balance the game for a bunch of disparate players.
The above three things should be considered entirely expendable outside Org Play.
Well, yes and no. Actually understanding the reasoning behind things in the game being the way they are will make someone a better DM - inside or outside of Org play... Knowing what the games "premise" is allows someone to better balance encounters and not throw things willy nilly at a party and be surprised when the $&#* hits the fan as they didn't understand the limits and mechanics.
The number of posts we see on the boards about, my party wipes the board with everything I throw at it or my DM kills off people all the time and I want to be able to make a character who will survive, or any variation of... Well that should be an indicator of how many people really don't understand these things no?
Until very recently, I didn't know anyone used that chart for anything other than starting wealth for characters created above 1st level. Beyond that purpose, it seems a little ridiculous to me. Different campaigns will have different levels of wealth, magic, gear, etc.
The chart also assumes you play the game the under the same assumption the designers went with when creating the game. Once you start to move from that base you as a DM should adjust according, but I honestly don't know anyone who plays the game exactly like that.
I don't really track it, but I have a good idea of how much stuff players should have.
Also note that the game does not favor 'few, powerful items' over 'many, weaker ones'.
This is most apparant in AC devices. stacking bonuses from armor, shield, deflection and nat armor in little +1's is MUCH cheaper then going for the big +5 bonus.
Likewise, the amount of other gear you give up by going right for the big sword and stat boosters make it very much not worth it.
==Aelryinth
I honestly treat WBL as a minimum.
I think it's very important to note that the weaker classes rely on magical equipment far more then others. Spellcasters need drastically fewer gold then anyone else, whereas monks need to literally become a christmas tree in order to fully do their job.
When you decide "Screw the WBL I'll just give out way less stuff," all you're doing is making bad classes worse.
Wealth by level used to be one of the tables I'd go to look at only after I saw a party member lagging behind the other's in combat or out-of-combat situations. I found that in many cases the lagging player had gear that was worth a level or two below the other party members.
In my most recent game, I decided to try something completely different. I threw out experience as a method of leveling up characters. Instead I used the WbL table to level up the party as a whole. When the party is pretty much geared up to be just into the next level, each member gains a level. I don't count expendable items towards leveling up the group, and I try not to let one character have more than a level worth of gear ahead or behind the group.
In application, the method has worked pretty well. At low levels, a few good items went to the party fighter, and until recently, I haven't needed to check his gear to see if he is ready to level up. The other characters have gotten little increases over time that have leveled them up.
I honestly treat WBL as a minimum.
I think it's very important to note that the weaker classes rely on magical equipment far more then others. Spellcasters need drastically fewer gold then anyone else, whereas monks need to literally become a christmas tree in order to fully do their job.
When you decide "Screw the WBL I'll just give out way less stuff," all you're doing is making bad classes worse.
WBL is a minimum and the person with the highest gold total in the party should not have more than a quarter more than the person with the lowest-- ie, a person with 100,000gp should have that much if the lowest is at 75,000gp, but should not have 100,000gp if the lowest party member has 50,000gp.
It keeps people balanced? But the problem is that some people are giver-awayers. I had one PC in a game I ran recently get good stuff and keep getting all of the good stuff. He way needed it though, and the party kept balance that way.
Why does everyone say monks need to be Christmas trees? It's been my experience that they need LESS items than anyone else. They have all high saves, a plethora of bonuses to armor class, decent attacks with decent damage, high maneuverability, a big bag of tricks, etc. And that's if they are naked!
I can see magic items helping a lot, but I don't see hoe that equates to them being necessary as so many people imply.
Why does everyone say monks need to be Christmas trees? It's been my experience that they need LESS items than anyone else. They have all high saves, a plethora of bonuses to armor class, decent attacks with decent damage, high maneuverability, a big bag of tricks, etc. And that's if they are naked!
I can see magic items helping a lot, but I don't see hoe that equates to them being necessary as so many people imply.
Because we don't use 50 point buy ;p
Monks need strength and constitution. Monks who want to utilize many of their class features need wisdom. Monks are greatly improved with Dexterity. That means half the stats are "must have" with an additional "very good" to go with it. That's a lot of stat boosting gear they're going to want.
Monks are also melee classes, which means they need the necklace of natural armor, the ring of deflection, the bracers of armor, etc, tetc.
Their only ranged weapon is used for distraction rather then pure damage, so they need an item of flight.
They're pushed towards unarmed combat, so they need their necklace, which a) interferes with their necklace of natural armor and b) costs substantially more then an equal magic weapon does.
All of this is going without mentioning the consumables they'd need and/or want.
Monks can have high saves, bonues to AC, decent attacks, and a big bag of tricks...but not naked. They can focus in only one thing if naked, and still do that only semi-well.
Another assumption is that consumables will be available and used and are something that shouldn't be counted into total wealth. Obviously there should be some limit to that (no, just because you spent your entire aquired gold on wands of cure light wounds you don't get the gold back), but the intent was that emergency items would be available and used when appropriate and shouldn't be counted against the characters. Sometimes the dice ARE against you and these consumables are another buffer for when things go bad as they sometimes do.
Quite honestly, if you are truly interested in knowing what the table is assuming, your best bet is to get ahold of a 3.5 DMG and read up on wealth and CR's (I think those were the topics where most of the information regarding the balance and...
The thing is, I have read the 3.5 DMG, thoroughly. It was the shortcomings of the 3.5 CR system that caused me to abandon CR. I also have experience with organized play. Mostly at small time local cons and things. I often see two groups, same # of players, same level, same wealth, same point buy, run the exact same encounter, one group storms the encounter, the other TPK'd.
Why does everyone say monks need to be Christmas trees? It's been my experience that they need LESS items than anyone else. They have all high saves, a plethora of bonuses to armor class, decent attacks with decent damage, high maneuverability, a big bag of tricks, etc. And that's if they are naked!
I can see magic items helping a lot, but I don't see hoe that equates to them being necessary as so many people imply.
I'm not sure what being a Christmas Tree means in this context. Does it mean needing more magic items than the WBL allows?
To give this a bit of focus, here's a 13th level Monk
Monks need much more gold than WBL allows, yeah. They want a high str, dex, con and wis, and they can't dump intelligence for it or they'll lose their skill points for acrobatics or other necessary monkish things. They also need an overpriced item to compete which leaves them annoyed and frownie.
Comments on that monk:
AC is low. You want a 38.
CMB is low. Needs to roll a high on the d20 to get monsters or creatures his CR (NPC fighter would have 13BAB + 5Str + 3Dex + 3Deflection + 1Dodge + 10Base for 35 CMD)
75 hp is also on the low side.
Dirty trick is a standard action.
Doing 1d6+2 damage at 13th level is pretty much absolutely rock bottom terrible. 2d8+3 is also horrendous. Monsters at CR 13 have like 120-180 hp. You want to be able to chew that up and spit it out. Dealing 3 damage per strike vs. an iron golem = dead monk. A lvl13 fighter can do +26/+21/+16 2d6+26 17-20 x2. You want to do that much too-- or collectively as much as you can to try to stay competitive.
You're comparing a 13th level monk to a 13th CR monster. The CR of the monster is suppossed to be compared to the entire party. In other words, a 13th level creature is equal to a 13th level -party-.
The appropriate comparison to a 13th level monk would be about a CR 11.
... You fight CR 13 monsters at level 13. Of course you should be able to effect those creatures meaningfully.
EDIT:
A lvl13 fighter can do +26/+21/+16 2d6+26 17-20 x2. You want to do that much too-- or collectively as much as you can to try to stay competitive.No, you don't. That's not the point of a monk. What the monk gives you that the fighter doesn't is the ability to stack a crazy amount of combat modifiers on to the target very quickly.
The most potent and relevant combat modifier is "death."
A lvl13 fighter can do +26/+21/+16 2d6+26 17-20 x2. You want to do that much too-- or collectively as much as you can to try to stay competitive.
The fighter is a combat focused class while the monk is a skill focused class that can fight. You can't ask to the monk to be as effective as a fighter in combat because if he was, then nobody would be playing a fighter!
You fight CR 13 monsters at level 13. Of course you should be able to effect those creatures meaningfully.I'll let you in on a little secret. If one character in a party by himself/herself can single handedly take out a monster meant to be a challenge for the entire party, it's not a challenge for the entire party.
You're uh, supposed to fight groups of equal CR creatures. Not just one.
It's a group vs a group. Unless the monk can't contribute, then it's a group vs group-1.
A lvl13 fighter can do +26/+21/+16 2d6+26 17-20 x2. You want to do that much too-- or collectively as much as you can to try to stay competitive.The fighter is a combat focused class while the monk is a skill focused class that can fight. You can't ask to the monk to be as effective as a fighter in combat because if he was, then nobody would be playing a fighter!
Uh, too late?
Fighter is an abysmal class because 2+int skills is the dumbest thing ever. Skills and combat potency are way too bizarrely linked to make any accurate conclusions from it.
You fight CR 13 monsters at level 13. Of course you should be able to effect those creatures meaningfully.I'll let you in on a little secret. If one character in a party by himself/herself can single handedly take out a monster meant to be a challenge for the entire party, it's not a challenge for the entire party.
Fighting even level CR monsters is not a challenge. It's actually defined as "average" by the book. Something like two stone golems would be right on the mark for a 3 round average difficulty fight for the iconic party and the monk. (fight, cleric, wizard, rogue + monk)
Two iron golems is a "hard" fight. These are fights a monk has the edge in, carrying around his body as an adamantine weapon. You might flurry down one golem in about eight rounds, whereas a fighter can kill one in three. If he had an adamantine sword, he could do it in two.
Anyways, I don't even know what we're arguing about. (Are we arguing?) If you could have a high strength *and* high dex you wouldn't have to spend feats on agile maneuvers and weapon finesse. Then your damage could go up by 6 or 7, you could take power attack and something cool like lightning stance or something and take -4 for +8 damage and do 2d8+18 instead of 2d8+3. And now, bam, like that, you're just as good at damage as the fighter-- a couple (~5 to 10) off, just like AC and hit-bonus, but you have a lot more to make up for it than he does.
A lvl13 fighter can do +26/+21/+16 2d6+26 17-20 x2. You want to do that much too-- or collectively as much as you can to try to stay competitive.The fighter is a combat focused class while the monk is a skill focused class that can fight. You can't ask to the monk to be as effective as a fighter in combat because if he was, then nobody would be playing a fighter!
If you want to be bar-none best at combat, you play a fighter. Anything you don't gain in combat juggernaut prowess is given back to you in forms of cool gadgets, whizmos, dangles and relevant non-combat skills.
The 13th monk with a +6 strength belt could easily be doing +19/+19/+14/+14/+9 alongside a fighter with +22/+17/+12. He's not as good at fighting as the fighter, but he's power attacking and does 2d8+18. The fighter is power attacking and does 2d6+30 17-20. The fighter is much better than the monk-- in AC (+2 or 3 full plate with 3 dex by now), hit bonus (my +3 weapon didn't cost half as much as your +3 weapon + weapon training + weapon focuses) damage (2h power attacking + weapon training + specializations) and critical range and effects (improved critical + bleeding and staggering critical) but he's no slouch and can hold his own if he has to.
And you have to hold your own. Carry some of the weight. But there's no way you're going to do better than the fighter in a fight.
And that's a kitted out monk, too. 24 STR, DEX and WIS. And he doesn't even do half as much damage as a fighter and has a bonus three lower.
The original poster asked people if they adhere to WBL tables or if they just use it as a guideline, and this thread turns into one of the four or so conversations that every thread turns into with the exact same posts rearranged in different order. Color me surprised.
|
The thing that I dislike about WBL is the "let's go shopping" mentality it gives to the players. As a DM I'm perhaps stuck in the past where magic items are rare finds, sure as DM you would sneak in things that your players would like/find useful into the adventure, but there wasn't a magic shop of ALL items in every city as the rule imply now. See I don't honesty (as a DM) see the problem of a fighter level 15 with a +1 sword. Someone said withholding items makes bad classes worse, doesn't this imply that not withholding items makes the good classes even better. The difference between the good and bad (whatever that means in an RPG setting) classes still exists. But it would seem that D&D has become a game of "pluses" and items are an integral part of where these "pluses" come from. Just wish I could get out of the 80/90's mentality so I can look myself in the mirror after letting my PC's "shop until they drop".
"Is that credit or cash sir."
- Mungo, The Magic Shop, Magic Shop Mall, Waterdeep, Forgotten Realms.
S.
The point I use WBL the most is at character creation for higher level characters... at least in theory -- I one of those that tends to memorize large amounts of what I read so while I may not actively use the wealth by level tables while GMing I don't doubt that I keep a subconcious idea of how much I have and haven't given out and in what forms.
As far as the "magic shop" is concerned I try and nip that by getting character histories, ideas for the character's futures, and what sort of gear each character is going to want and need and plan my GMing from there.
This doesn't mean each player will have a wish list that I will spend all my time filling, plot be damned, but there is little sense in giving away stuff the players are just going to want to sell unless I'm going to allow them some place to sell it.
If there is a piece that someone specifically wants I'll let the player do the work of developing a means to get it -- it makes it even more valuable to them and adds to the story without making me do the work -- all I got to do is keep an eye on the fluff they put out for me and add the challenges as we go.
As a matter of trust I try to let the players know that the more they pick up the more of it I'll count against their WBL. So if they want to have a bunch of +1 crap then they can loot everything they come across (which seems a bit -- vulgar for heroes to me) and they won't find a lot of high end stuff. But if they generally leave the mook gear alone they'll find the nicer high end bits late on.
This way they get to help decide what they want to do -- if they like the bigger prizes I'm handing out and feel that it's keeping with what matches the character then they hold of the "loot everything in the room" part -- if they feel what I'm giving them isn't up to par and want more ability to "magic shop" as it were then they start up with the looting.
As a GM aid this is great since it allows me to know how my players feel about the game.
Fighter is an abysmal class because 2+int skills is the dumbest thing ever. Skills and combat potency are way too bizarrely linked to make any accurate conclusions from it.
Well, if the fighter was as much skilled as the monk, then nobody would be playing a monk. :P
No but, seriously, I do agree that 2+int skill points is a little low. Beside, soldiers in the real world are more skilled than the average civilian. They learn how to survive in the wood (survival and orientation) and they are in good shape (climb and swim). D&D fighters are quite inapt and they could not survive for long outside a city. (;
However, I do understand the reason behind the way that skills and combat potency are linked : the more you shine in combat, the less you will outside of combat (unless you're a caster). People who compares class on this forum are often missing the point that D&D is not a wargame and that sneak attack is not the "main" feature of the rogue, his skills are, and this will always be true, no matter if you use the WBL guideline or not.
|
|
No but, seriously, I do agree that 2+int skill points is a little low. Beside, soldiers in the real world are more skilled than the average civilian. They learn how to survive in the wood (survival and orientation) and they are in good shape (climb and swim). D&D fighters are quite inapt and they could not survive for long outside a city. (;
often missing the point that D&D is not a wargame and that sneak attack is not the "main" feature of the rogue, his skills are, and this will always be true, no matter if you use the WBL guideline or not.
I agree about the first bit, but I think that is the way they are meant to be. You want outdoor skills, play a Ranger (6 + Int skills). The average ancient/medieval soldier was not trained well at all in anything other than their task - combat.
The difficultly is that D&D has (d)evolved back into more of a wargame. Combat are nothing more than a boardgame where you have to make your own board. So you can forgive those who see it as the main purpose. Most adventures end with you fighting nearly everything to see.
Still the D&D world is what you make it,
S.
I would also like to point out that spellcasters get free Wealth by level in the form of gaining spells to cast for no money...even the wizard.
A Melee class needs his armor and weapons just to perform his basic functions. Especially his weapon. A Melee's weapon should no more count against his WBL then a spellcaster's spell list.
===Aelryinth
I would also like to point out that spellcasters get free Wealth by level in the form of gaining spells to cast for no money...even the wizard.
A Melee class needs his armor and weapons just to perform his basic functions. Especially his weapon. A Melee's weapon should no more count against his WBL then a spellcaster's spell list.
===Aelryinth
Each class should have its own WBL, which is what I think you were alluding to without saying it.
<waits for someone to say a fighter(monk/barbarian/etc) does need as much gear as casters>
The most potent and relevant combat modifier is "death."
+1, that made me laugh
Actually, a wizard's EXTRA spells are considered part of his wealth by level...and then only if the DM tracks them. The spells he gains every level as he goes up (2/level + spec bonus) represent a substantial amount of money he does not need to spend.
Ditto sorcs, who never need to pay to gain their spells, and divine casters, who get the whole list.
Another change from 1E...you got 4 spells at start, and then, good luck!
==Aelryinth
|
|
If we have to balance things cheating with the treasure then something is wrong, and the solution isn't messing with the WBL tables but fixing the origin of the problem.
It's impossible to balance the classes without reducing the number of classes to one. In most situations all classes should be able to contribute but I don't think equally is possible. In some situations only a single class should shine, hence giving it uniqueness. Should a mage shine in melee, no. Should a fighter be able to take out numerous foes in one hit, no. Should a cleric be able to sneak across dried leaves, no.
Treasure is a balancing device in that it smears out the differences between the classes. I'm not sure it is a good thing when this happens, a party should consist of classes that don't do everything solo, but when classes overlap, i.e. a party of fighter, cleric, mage, and thief, then the monsters are in for an arse kicking.
So for me magic items should enhance your class relative to others of your class and comparisons with others classes should be avoided as it's comparing the proverbial apples with oranges.
The idea of further balancing classes has ready been done, people complained, it is called 4e.
S.
Actually, a wizard's EXTRA spells are considered part of his wealth by level...and then only if the DM tracks them. The spells he gains every level as he goes up (2/level + spec bonus) represent a substantial amount of money he does not need to spend.
Ditto sorcs, who never need to pay to gain their spells, and divine casters, who get the whole list.
Another change from 1E...you got 4 spells at start, and then, good luck!
==Aelryinth
No
Much like a Rogue who steals a wand, the spells the Wizard gets each level, he gets for free, but they still count against his WBL.
By the rules you are right, but one person holding spells in a book, and another in their mind should not matter. I don't think the free spells should count.
The question might come up of how to handle divine casters that have free access to the full list if I went with that method. Honestly, I have no idea.
Actually, a wizard's EXTRA spells are considered part of his wealth by level...and then only if the DM tracks them. The spells he gains every level as he goes up (2/level + spec bonus) represent a substantial amount of money he does not need to spend.
Ditto sorcs, who never need to pay to gain their spells, and divine casters, who get the whole list.
Another change from 1E...you got 4 spells at start, and then, good luck!
==Aelryinth
No
Much like a Rogue who steals a wand, the spells the Wizard gets each level, he gets for free, but they still count against his WBL.
By the rules you are right, but one person holding spells in a book, and another in their mind should not matter. I don't think the free spells should count*.
The question might come up of how to handle divine casters that have free access to the full list if I went with that method. Honestly, I have no idea.edit:*Now that my internet is playing nice again I will add that I am just expressing an opinion. I do think the spellbook does count, but since I don't think many DM's will allow the unlimited spell scenario, and those that do won't track WBL anyway most likely, the free spells should not count.
The thing is, I have read the 3.5 DMG, thoroughly. It was the shortcomings of the 3.5 CR system that caused me to abandon CR. I also have experience with organized play. Mostly at small time local cons and things. I often see two groups, same # of players, same level, same wealth, same point buy, run the exact same encounter, one group storms the encounter, the other TPK'd.
Which falls under one group knows the rules and squeezed what they could out of them (optimized in some ways if not totally) and the other made characters who were interesting or just didn't bother to make the rule set work for them. Neither way is "BAD" but as a DM the onus is on you to know the capabilities of the party and scale things accordingly. An optimized party may be able to deal with higher CR encounters and a good DM will be able to adjust accordingly as they know the in's and out's of the game and be able to challenge them appropriately as they understand the core design principles.
Honestly most CR's are low for our regular party but there are some people who under perform and we help them out by finding out what concepts they want to play and suggestions on how to make the most out it. The DM is happy as things are more even and the players are happy as each is pulling weight and no one is overshadowing everyone else all the time. We all have our schtick so to speak.
Basically, the tables give a roughly even start point but the human element makes or breaks the game, literally.
The thing that I dislike about WBL is the "let's go shopping" mentality it gives to the players. As a DM I'm perhaps stuck in the past where magic items are rare finds, sure as DM you would sneak in things that your players would like/find useful into the adventure, but there wasn't a magic shop of ALL items in every city as the rule imply now. See I don't honesty (as a DM) see the problem of a fighter level 15 with a +1 sword. Someone said withholding items makes bad classes worse, doesn't this imply that not withholding items makes the good classes even better. The difference between the good and bad (whatever that means in an RPG setting) classes still exists. But it would seem that D&D has become a game of "pluses" and items are an integral part of where these "pluses" come from. Just wish I could get out of the 80/90's mentality so I can look myself in the mirror after letting my PC's "shop until they drop".
"Is that credit or cash sir."
- Mungo, The Magic Shop, Magic Shop Mall, Waterdeep, Forgotten Realms.S.
And I totally agree with that... That's why I tend not to use the WBL with my players, so they don't got bad habit... ;)
A lot of people here find that some weapons are a "no brainer" because they forgot that it might be difficult to find these type of weapons... Percentage to find some as loot are minimal, finding already enchanted ones will be very difficult, finding someone to craft a master one will be difficult and take time... That's how you "make balance"...
And as already said, some objects seems to cost too much for what they really do (monk one for example :p ), so you can fiat they find it or make them cheaper... ;)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Actually, a wizard's EXTRA spells are considered part of his wealth by level...and then only if the DM tracks them. The spells he gains every level as he goes up (2/level + spec bonus) represent a substantial amount of money he does not need to spend.
Ditto sorcs, who never need to pay to gain their spells, and divine casters, who get the whole list.
Another change from 1E...you got 4 spells at start, and then, good luck!
==Aelryinth
No
Much like a Rogue who steals a wand, the spells the Wizard gets each level, he gets for free, but they still count against his WBL.
I respectfully disagree. Gaining the 2 spells level is a class benefit. It does not say anywhere that he has to pay for them in any fashion, and thus they are 'free', i.e. 0 cost. It's directly akin to having a feat that gives you +1000 GP/level...you paid the feat, the money is completely extra to your WBL. The wizard's class gives it to him the same way as the feat does. Ruling otherwise, while it might be 'fair', also discriminates against the wizard vs sorc, cleric and druid, who all get spells for 'free', completely sidestepping the idea of a spellbook, of course.
==Aelryinth
Aelryinth: remember that spellbooks have a gold piece value based on the number and level of spells contained within them, and the 2 free spells wizards get each level are added to their spellbook. Spellbooks are a piece of gear, and thus are considered part of WBL. Thus, yes, LT is correct; the 2 free spells do technically count against WBL. I don't think I've ever had any DM actually ask a player what the value of their spellbook is, though.
Aelryinth: remember that spellbooks have a gold piece value based on the number and level of spells contained within them, and the 2 free spells wizards get each level are added to their spellbook. Spellbooks are a piece of gear, and thus are considered part of WBL. Thus, yes, LT is correct; the 2 free spells do technically count against WBL. I don't think I've ever had any DM actually ask a player what the value of their spellbook is, though.
I have, in a high level campaign (might have been epic level - been while), shortly after it was realized it was destroyed... Acid fog makes PC's cry.
To be fair it was one of those *things dawn upon the DM moments/OH S&%T!* when something happened that wasn't expected.
Aelryinth: remember that spellbooks have a gold piece value based on the number and level of spells contained within them, and the 2 free spells wizards get each level are added to their spellbook. Spellbooks are a piece of gear, and thus are considered part of WBL. Thus, yes, LT is correct; the 2 free spells do technically count against WBL. I don't think I've ever had any DM actually ask a player what the value of their spellbook is, though.
The main 'permanent' cost of spells is the cost of acquisition, not the cost of scribing (bound to be almost nil with Blessed Books). While the book might have value, no money was expended on his spells by level, so it shouldn't count against his WBL, because he's spent nothing on them.
===Aelryinth
Aelryinth: remember that spellbooks have a gold piece value based on the number and level of spells contained within them, and the 2 free spells wizards get each level are added to their spellbook. Spellbooks are a piece of gear, and thus are considered part of WBL. Thus, yes, LT is correct; the 2 free spells do technically count against WBL. I don't think I've ever had any DM actually ask a player what the value of their spellbook is, though.The main 'permanent' cost of spells is the cost of acquisition, not the cost of scribing (bound to be almost nil with Blessed Books). While the book might have value, no money was expended on his spells by level, so it shouldn't count against his WBL, because he's spent nothing on them.
===Aelryinth
WBL is gear you have, not money you spent, by my understanding.