"Wealth by Level" vs. Total Earnings


Rules Questions


The Wealth by Level table tells how much equipment a character started above 1st level should begin with. But, if a character begins at level one and adventures through 10th level, they've certainly spend gold on things they no longer have around (e.g. bribes, potions, wands, ammunition, healing, and gear that's been bought and subsequently sold off for less than the purchase price).

How much treasure should have gone through a character's hands by a given level?

Liberty's Edge

There isn't a formula for that, it really varies by DM and by Campaign.


30%, probably.

Silver Crusade

The characters Should be close to the table when they level. I have my players give me there total wealth every few levels. So I can gage if I need to add any more loot, or keep it where it's at. I run AP's allot but with a group of 6 players I normally have to add allot of gear to keep the players close to WBL. For example I'm running king maker Right now. They just made level 7 and there total GP run from 17,500 to 32,000. So what ill do is add items that are more useful to the people with the lower GP. And not worry so much about the guy who is almost 10k over. There is a huge difference in characters that get one lump sum and get to spend it on what they want vs. characters that get gear from adventuring. I do not let players join active groups with a blank WBL GP value. I give them starting gear close to what the players have found so far and some starting gold.

How much treasure should they have gone through. That really depends on how Meany consumables they go tho. Some groups go throw wands and potions like candy. Others hardly use them at all. The group that I'm running tho king maker has used very few consumable items. I have Had groups that go tho pots like nothing. It just depends on how the group is set up.


Blueluck wrote:

The Wealth by Level table tells how much equipment a character started above 1st level should begin with. But, if a character begins at level one and adventures through 10th level, they've certainly spend gold on things they no longer have around (e.g. bribes, potions, wands, ammunition, healing, and gear that's been bought and subsequently sold off for less than the purchase price).

How much treasure should have gone through a character's hands by a given level?

First off let me thank you for such a fun question.

The wealth by level table is how much wealth they should have about the start of the level -- and it is a guideline.

If you were to check the rewards charts and add everything up you'll find that if you follow the charts you will give out more wealth than what is needed to meet wealth by level.

This is precisely to cover what you are thinking about -- consumable and non-durable goods or losses through sales or destruction of old items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Blueluck wrote:

The Wealth by Level table tells how much equipment a character started above 1st level should begin with. But, if a character begins at level one and adventures through 10th level, they've certainly spend gold on things they no longer have around (e.g. bribes, potions, wands, ammunition, healing, and gear that's been bought and subsequently sold off for less than the purchase price).

How much treasure should have gone through a character's hands by a given level?

First off let me thank you for such a fun question.

The wealth by level table is how much wealth they should have about the start of the level -- and it is a guideline.

If you were to check the rewards charts and add everything up you'll find that if you follow the charts you will give out more wealth than what is needed to meet wealth by level.

This is precisely to cover what you are thinking about -- consumable and non-durable goods or losses through sales or destruction of old items.

Precisely. I came upon this question when trying to decide if the benefit of item creation feats was that players have cherrypicked items equal to WBL, or if it was supposed to give them more total wealth than WBL would suggest.

One argument for increased total wealth was, "What use would item creation feats be if a player can generate a level ten character with as much wealth as players who have been playing organically, but can spend his gold as he wishes?"

After a number crunch, I seem to recall that a player who plays organically will come across 30% more wealth than an equivalent character is generated with.


You offer some excellent insights, thank you!

Check out this Google Spreadsheet with calculations. According to this, the average treasure "loss" is just under 14%.

When D&D 3.0 came out I remember reading that gaining a level required the experience points from 13.33 battles of CR=APL. That seems like a reasonable number to me, 1 challenge per hour, 4 hours per game session, 3-4 game sessions to level. In trying to reconstruct such a ratio for Pathfinder, I get some crazy sounding numbers. 20 fights to gain 2nd level, and 50-70 fights per level after 3rd! Perhaps I'm reading a table incorrectly somewhere?


Blueluck wrote:

You offer some excellent insights, thank you!

Check out this Google Spreadsheet with calculations. According to this, the average treasure "loss" is just under 14%.

When D&D 3.0 came out I remember reading that gaining a level required the experience points from 13.33 battles of CR=APL. That seems like a reasonable number to me, 1 challenge per hour, 4 hours per game session, 3-4 game sessions to level. In trying to reconstruct such a ratio for Pathfinder, I get some crazy sounding numbers. 20 fights to gain 2nd level, and 50-70 fights per level after 3rd! Perhaps I'm reading a table incorrectly somewhere?

Problem with the formula in that table. The xp required to level is the total xp required, not the difference between levels.

For example, to get to level 8 you need a total of 75,000 xp. But the difference between level 7 (51,000 total xp) and level 8 (75,000 total xp) is 24,000 requiring 20 challenges equal to APL to level up with a four character party.

According to my calculations, it is ranges from 19-21 equal encounters to level up a four character party, and from 24-26 to level up a five character party using the medium xp totals.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Blueluck wrote:

The Wealth by Level table tells how much equipment a character started above 1st level should begin with. But, if a character begins at level one and adventures through 10th level, they've certainly spend gold on things they no longer have around (e.g. bribes, potions, wands, ammunition, healing, and gear that's been bought and subsequently sold off for less than the purchase price).

How much treasure should have gone through a character's hands by a given level?

The WBL table takes that into account, it's a theoretical average of gains and losses. It's a soft target, not a hard and fast number.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

One of my problem with the WBL are the possessions that don't actually affect encounters.

Let's say I want to have a fine mansion, with servants and several luxuries.
Maybe it could give me a bonus to some diplomacy check and a better healing rate when resting than a inn room, but little more that will affect my encounter performance, while giving me some rice RP hook.
But my fine house, its furnishing and the upkeep cost me a good crunch of money that will be factored in my WBL, so if my GM were to slavishly follow the WBL guidelines I would be weaker than a equivalent character that didn't spent money that way.

Similarly my players like to keep mementoes of their adventures, especially items that have peculiar powers or sizes that make them absolutely useless for them but that were signature items for some of the enemies.
Again, if I were to include those items in their WBL they would be theoretically richer without an actual increase in power.
So for me WBL is only a guideline on what a new character would have and not some kind of hard rule to follow every time the characters gain a penny.


Diego Rossi wrote:

One of my problem with the WBL are the possessions that don't actually affect encounters.

Let's say I want to have a fine mansion, with servants and several luxuries.
Maybe it could give me a bonus to some diplomacy check and a better healing rate when resting than a inn room, but little more that will affect my encounter performance, while giving me some rice RP hook.
But my fine house, its furnishing and the upkeep cost me a good crunch of money that will be factored in my WBL, so if my GM were to slavishly follow the WBL guidelines I would be weaker than a equivalent character that didn't spent money that way.

Similarly my players like to keep mementoes of their adventures, especially items that have peculiar powers or sizes that make them absolutely useless for them but that were signature items for some of the enemies.
Again, if I were to include those items in their WBL they would be theoretically richer without an actual increase in power.
So for me WBL is only a guideline on what a new character would have and not some kind of hard rule to follow every time the characters gain a penny.

I like the idea of players having that sort of stuff, but then you run into situations such as: If your mansion 'doesn't count', then you have to improvise something any time a player wants to liquidate their assets and buy a +10 sword.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
One of my problem with the WBL are the possessions that don't actually affect encounters.

Wealth by level only takes into account wealth that helps with the adventure.

If you have a title of baron but it doesn't do anything to give you bonuses in a dungeon crawl as far as WBL is considered it has a value of 0.

Same with a huge bag full of looted +1 swords -- until you can actually manage to do something with them they aren't of concern... it's just 'useless' treasure.

Now when you get to town and can convert that into something useful then yes it affects WBL (as might the title from above if it gives bonuses at the town).


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Blueluck wrote:
How much treasure should have gone through a character's hands by a given level?

Indeterminate. The amount varies wildly from PC to PC. A fighter type who uses what he finds, his handled-amount will basically be identical to his WbL at any given level. A crafter who makes stuff for himself (at half-price) should have a handled-amount roughly half of his WbL so he's not over-equipped. Another character who burns through consumables at a high rate should handle more treasure than his WbL, to compensate for the fact that his on-hand wealth is always getting burned away to Do Things.

So handled-treasure could reasonably vary from 50% of WbL to easily 200% of WbL.

Part of a DM's job is to manage this. One of the tricks is to manage the contents of dropped treasure. Some of it is just... stuff the bad guys use. That gets sold at 50%. But when I see that a couple characters are below WbL while others are above, because of crafting for instance, I deliberately compensate by dropping gear that PC will want. They get 100% value out of their treasure share because they keep the found goodies.


Thanks Spook, I knew something had to be wrong. I fixed that little problem and now everything makes sense! The party is expected to retain 75% of treasure as wealth and sink 25% into consumables and other expenses. Here's the revised spreadsheet.

One of the reasons I wanted to do this math is that players (and groups) display quite a range of opinion about consumable items. (Some like to burn through gold like crazy, and others want to pinch every copper.) Having a guideline like 75/25 gives me a reference point.


I would guess that the point the WBL breaks down the most is levels 1~4.


Abraham spalding wrote:
I would guess that the point the WBL breaks down the most is levels 1~4.

Oh, absolutely!

When I GM, and I've seen this behavior in lots of other GMs, I like to get the party into their optimum non-magic starting equipment while they're level 1-2. That might mean Mighty Composite Longbow for STR +5 (900 gold), a masterwork weapon or two (300-600gold), Masterwork Full Plate (1650 gold), spellbooks with a handful of useful spells, mounts, etc.

At later levels, if I feel the party has too much gear, I can always switch to non-monetary awards for a while. If only my employer didn't use the same method :(

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Abraham spalding wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
One of my problem with the WBL are the possessions that don't actually affect encounters.

Wealth by level only takes into account wealth that helps with the adventure.

If you have a title of baron but it doesn't do anything to give you bonuses in a dungeon crawl as far as WBL is considered it has a value of 0.

Same with a huge bag full of looted +1 swords -- until you can actually manage to do something with them they aren't of concern... it's just 'useless' treasure.

Now when you get to town and can convert that into something useful then yes it affects WBL (as might the title from above if it gives bonuses at the town).

I follow that way of thinking (and don't care much if the PC are above WBL) but I have noticed poster on this forum that seem to consider everything you own, useful or not.

Anguish wrote:
Blueluck wrote:
How much treasure should have gone through a character's hands by a given level?

Indeterminate. The amount varies wildly from PC to PC. A fighter type who uses what he finds, his handled-amount will basically be identical to his WbL at any given level. A crafter who makes stuff for himself (at half-price) should have a handled-amount roughly half of his WbL so he's not over-equipped. Another character who burns through consumables at a high rate should handle more treasure than his WbL, to compensate for the fact that his on-hand wealth is always getting burned away to Do Things.

So handled-treasure could reasonably vary from 50% of WbL to easily 200% of WbL.

Part of a DM's job is to manage this. One of the tricks is to manage the contents of dropped treasure. Some of it is just... stuff the bad guys use. That gets sold at 50%. But when I see that a couple characters are below WbL while others are above, because of crafting for instance, I deliberately compensate by dropping gear that PC will want. They get 100% value out of their treasure share because they keep the found goodies.

I don't see how you will make that work with most groups. My characters pile up all the stuff they find, evaluate it, and everyone pay a compensation from his share for the pieces he take. Some of the generic utilities are kept as a shared property as they are useful for everyone.

so if you were to drop more stuff aimed at a single character the result would be to make him choose what he would keep, not to give him extra wealth.
The consumable argument to me seem even worse. If your player are aware of that they could abuse your generosity, spending a big percentage of their WBL in consumables and using them constantly as they will be replaced to keep their WBL on par with what is expected.
Unless you use some tactic to discourage that kind of shenanigans you will get a party boosted by the liberal use of consumables and constantly getting more of them as it will be under its supposed WBL.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blueluck wrote:
How much treasure should have gone through a character's hands by a given level?
Anguish wrote:


Indeterminate. The amount varies wildly from PC to PC. A fighter type who uses what he finds, his handled-amount will basically be identical to his WbL at any given level. A crafter who makes stuff for himself (at half-price) should have a handled-amount roughly half of his WbL so he's not over-equipped. Another character who burns through consumables at a high rate should handle more treasure than his WbL, to compensate for the fact that his on-hand wealth is always getting burned away to Do Things.

So handled-treasure could reasonably vary from 50% of WbL to easily 200% of WbL.

Part of a DM's job is to manage this. One of the tricks is to manage the contents of dropped treasure. Some of it is just... stuff the bad guys use. That gets sold at 50%. But when I see that a couple characters are below WbL while others are above, because of crafting for instance, I deliberately compensate by dropping gear that PC will want. They get 100% value out of their treasure share because they keep the found goodies.

Diego Rossi wrote:

I don't see how you will make that work with most groups. My characters pile up all the stuff they find, evaluate it, and everyone pay a compensation from his share for the pieces he take. Some of the generic utilities are kept as a shared property as they are useful for everyone.

so if you were to drop more stuff aimed at a single character the result would be to make him choose what he would keep, not to give him extra wealth.
The consumable argument to me seem even worse. If your player are aware of that they could abuse your generosity, spending a big percentage of their WBL in consumables and using them constantly as they will be replaced to keep their WBL on par with what is expected.
Unless you use some tactic to discourage that kind of shenanigans you will get a party boosted by the liberal use of consumables and constantly getting more of them as it will be under its supposed WBL.

I agree with Diego Rossi on this. (My groups use the same loot distribution system as his.) I think that using Anguish's method, either one player or the whole group could easily abuse consumable magic items. Of course, if his players distribute loot differently, or if he tightly controls what items are available, it might not be a problem in his games.

On the other hand, I find that a lot of groups underutilize consumable magic items because they know it can be wasteful in the long run. I've experimented a little with ways to balance this out. My current favorite method is to make consumable magic items "sellback price" 25% of retail, while permanent magic items sell to vendors at 75% of retail. Then, include a lot of disposable magic items in treasure awards.

  • First, it gives the party a lot of fun consumables to play with, and little reason to turn fun stuff into cash.
  • Second, it makes finding a magic shortsword, magic longsword, and magic greatsword suck less for the guy who sunk three feats into using scimitars!
  • Third, it makes upgrading to a new item by selling an old one 25% less painful. I find this is particularly important to melee types who want to constantly upgrade weapons and armor.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Interesting Blueluck.

I would be more of a "simulationist" and give players a better sell price for items what will have a larger market.

A +1 magic weapon will be way easier to sell than a +5 (or even a +2) simply because there is a large number of creatures that can be armed only by magic weapons or have high DR against normal weapons and using splash weapons like alchemist fire or acid isn't so safe.

So professional military man could buy one +1 magical weapon to be on the safe side.
As militia could reasonably buy a couple of +1 weapon to assign to selected soldiers for an emergency.
It would be a costly but reasonable expense.

For the same people the advantage of upgrading from a +1 to a +2 weapon would way less evident.

So things like common +1 weapons and a few others items could sell above the normal 50% resale price as the merchant will be reasonably sure to sell them.
The big items, or those with niche use, would instead sell for less than the usual 50% price as the merchant will know that they will stay on his shelve for a long time.

Playing it that way even the loot from a few mooks with +1 magic weapons will be a nice find.


Blueluck wrote:

Third, it makes upgrading to a new item by selling an old one 25% less painful. I find this is particularly important to melee types who want to constantly upgrade weapons and armor.

Whichever method of wealth management you use for your players, the one piece of advice I can't emphasize enough, is to provide methods for your players to upgrade their gear WITHOUT selling it.

In my mind, a character's gear is his gear. If he chooses to sell it for something else there's nothing 'wrong' with that, but it DOES seem wrong to force it on him, as opposed to allowing it to grow with him in some method.

Whether you use virtual gold value that can be spent (and possibly roleplayed out) upgrading, or allow characters to perform rituals to sacrifice magic items to transfer their power into an existing item, or simply make magic vendors willing to upgrade existing magic weapons available, please make sure that a character doesn't have to trade in his gear to keep it level appropriate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Blueluck wrote:

Third, it makes upgrading to a new item by selling an old one 25% less painful. I find this is particularly important to melee types who want to constantly upgrade weapons and armor.

Whichever method of wealth management you use for your players, the one piece of advice I can't emphasize enough, is to provide methods for your players to upgrade their gear WITHOUT selling it.

In my mind, a character's gear is his gear. If he chooses to sell it for something else there's nothing 'wrong' with that, but it DOES seem wrong to force it on him, as opposed to allowing it to grow with him in some method.

Whether you use virtual gold value that can be spent (and possibly roleplayed out) upgrading, or allow characters to perform rituals to sacrifice magic items to transfer their power into an existing item, or simply make magic vendors willing to upgrade existing magic weapons available, please make sure that a character doesn't have to trade in his gear to keep it level appropriate.

I wholeheartedly agree. I do that as well, in various ways.

In 3.5 I made a homebrew setting in which the PCs were given two separate pools of treasure, one for "cash" and a larger one, invisible like experience points, for magically upgrading gear. The idea was that legendary magic items become magical by being used by legendary people to accomplish legendary feats. So, if you want your sword to get the "flaming" ability, and you have enough "gold" stored up in your pool - go kill a fire elemental or other flame creature.


Blueluck wrote:
So, if you want your sword to get the "flaming" ability, and you have enough "gold" stored up in your pool - go kill a fire elemental or other flame creature.

Funny you should mention that. In just last session, while invading a temple of Dagon that was suffering a schism (and under the hire of one side to purge the heretics on the other) my character ended up fighting some manta-ray mounted Mermen in a massive sacred pool. His magic sword absorbed some of that sacred mojo and, with the appropriate expenditure marked off my GP value, became an Aquatic Sword. (+2,000 GP, functions underwater without penalty.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm decoupling magic items from material wealth. Instead, each character will have a certain amound of "mojo" based on his or her level.

  • Anyone with less gear than a "minimum" amount by level will have CR -1 (like NPCs).
  • Anyone below "par" for their level can "discover" new properties in their existing gear, until they meet par. The example of the underwater sword cited above is a perfect example of how this would work.
  • No one can retain an amount of gear beyond the maximum mojo for their character level; excess stuff is lost, destroyed, stolen, refuses to operate consistently, or is otherwise not part of the character's permanent repertoire.

    Along with this, I'm abolishing the "slot" system. As long as you're within your allowable mojo, I don't care if you have sixteen different items or just one really awesome sword that does all that.


  • The problem with earnings vs wealth are the Item Creation Feats.

    The Fighter has to sell two +1 Flaming Shortswords to get a +2 Longsword which he wants.
    The Cleric has to sell one +1 Flaming Shortsword to get his +2 Longsword.

    This is just an example but breaks it down quite well. A Wizard can easily obtain stat boosters and other good items (cloak of resistance etc pp) while others (or groups without that wizard) have to sell the double value to get the same bang for the double buck.

    How is anyone supposed to handle it? Punish the players who take these feats for investing their feats and just give them 50% of the loot they would get without having spend the feat?
    Or live with the fact that their "preparedness" pays out for them?


    Alienfreak wrote:
    The problem with earnings vs wealth are the Item Creation Feats.

    That is "a" problem with the existing system, not "the" problem!

    --
    Under my proposed rules, crafters can exceed par (but not exceed maximum), so they have a narrow window of advantage, if they are able to put in the time and effort.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Alienfreak wrote:
    The problem with earnings vs wealth are the Item Creation Feats.

    That is "a" problem with the existing system, not "the" problem!

    --
    Under my proposed rules, crafters can exceed par (but not exceed maximum), so they have a narrow window of advantage, if they are able to put in the time and effort.

    In most official APs you have a lot of downtime at your hands between the adventures (and sometimes even during the books).

    So either you "fix" the system or let them excel...


    Or the fighter can take the feats and make his own stuff... or he could simply ask the cleric to make it for him.


    Abraham spalding wrote:
    Or the fighter can take the feats and make his own stuff... or he could simply ask the cleric to make it for him.

    Thats why I included "group". So if you have 2 groups playing the same adventure (premade by Paizo) one will end up having about only 2/3 of the 75% (out of the 100% drop) in REAL Items available.

    The other one will have the whole 75% at their disposal because they don't lose money when selling magic items to craft new ones...


    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    I'm decoupling magic items from material wealth. Instead, each character will have a certain amound of "mojo" based on his or her level.

  • Anyone with less gear than a "minimum" amount by level will have CR -1 (like NPCs).
  • Anyone below "par" for their level can "discover" new properties in their existing gear, until they meet par. The example of the underwater sword cited above is a perfect example of how this would work.
  • No one can retain an amount of gear beyond the maximum mojo for their character level; excess stuff is lost, destroyed, stolen, refuses to operate consistently, or is otherwise not part of the character's permanent repertoire.

    Along with this, I'm abolishing the "slot" system. As long as you're within your allowable mojo, I don't care if you have sixteen different items or just one really awesome sword that does all that.

  • Yep, this is almost exactly what I did. Just two small differences.

    First, since magic items weren't readily available for purchase, I didn't have to worry about extra loot turning into more powerful magic. Extra loot turned into bribes, horses, masterwork gear for allies, property, etc. For example, the party hired some mercenary troops to guard a village they'd rescued - most of the village's capable warriors had already been killed before the rescue, and the party didn't want to leave them vulnerable. Having money that can't get turned into magic items really enhances a game, in my opinion.

    Second, I didn't just abolish slots, I reversed the system. I granted a 10% discount to any appropriate item abilities that were stacked onto a single item. (The discount was applied to all abilities except the most powerful.) So our sorcerer, for example, had all sorts of magic wrapped up in his staff. Our barbarian had a greatsword with offensive abilities, and a set of armor festooned with trophies he took off of her defeated enemies and which held all of her defensive magic. (AC, Saves, etc.)

    It really made every magic item a part of it's owner's personality.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    I'm decoupling magic items from material wealth. Instead, each character will have a certain amound of "mojo" based on his or her level.

  • Anyone with less gear than a "minimum" amount by level will have CR -1 (like NPCs).
  • Anyone below "par" for their level can "discover" new properties in their existing gear, until they meet par. The example of the underwater sword cited above is a perfect example of how this would work.
  • No one can retain an amount of gear beyond the maximum mojo for their character level; excess stuff is lost, destroyed, stolen, refuses to operate consistently, or is otherwise not part of the character's permanent repertoire.

    Along with this, I'm abolishing the "slot" system. As long as you're within your allowable mojo, I don't care if you have sixteen different items or just one really awesome sword that does all that.

  • What is the factor of maximum wealth compared to the normal wealth without the feats?

    1.2?


    Blueluck wrote:
    Just two small differences. First, since magic items weren't readily available for purchase, I didn't have to worry about extra loot turning into more powerful magic...

    That's not a difference; it's the same under my system. Any item valued over 10,000 gp (pegged as the value of the diamond needed for a resurrection spell) cannot be purchased for mere gold.


    Alienfreak wrote:
    What is the factor of maximum wealth compared to the normal wealth without the feats? 1.2?

    Currently, minimum is equal to the NPC wealth-by-level values in the core rules. "Par" is determined by the PC WBL, and "maximum" is equal to par for the next level (which usually seems to come out to around 1.3).


    I look forward to what the developers say they intend for PCs' WBL when using item creation feats.

    I run a lot of wilderness adventures, and handed out a lot of gold via art objects and harvesting monsters. It worked just fine until a PC took ICFs and suddenly doubled all that gold, rocketing beyond the next level's WBL.

    Now, players' mileage with ICFs may vary incredibly depending on whether their DMs award the recommended treasure in full gear, full gold (double value), or something inbetween ... so it brings up the question, how much of awarded treasure should be gold?

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Alienfreak wrote:

    The problem with earnings vs wealth are the Item Creation Feats.

    The Fighter has to sell two +1 Flaming Shortswords to get a +2 Longsword which he wants.
    The Cleric has to sell one +1 Flaming Shortsword to get his +2 Longsword.

    This is just an example but breaks it down quite well. A Wizard can easily obtain stat boosters and other good items (cloak of resistance etc pp) while others (or groups without that wizard) have to sell the double value to get the same bang for the double buck.

    How is anyone supposed to handle it? Punish the players who take these feats for investing their feats and just give them 50% of the loot they would get without having spend the feat?
    Or live with the fact that their "preparedness" pays out for them?

    Item creation feats are not meant as methods to break the WBL table if you're generating characters at high level. They represent future opportunities.

    I go the route of simply banning them if I'm having people generate characters for a one shot anyway.

    If on the other hand, you're talking about characters who arrive at high level starting from 1st, than the WBL table can simply be thrown out. Because by that time the DM already knows whether or not his party has sufficient gear for the tasks he's going to throw at them.


    I like what I'm hearing, mainly because I agree. :)

    People who chew through consumables should be poorer than the frugal ones.
    The rate of wealth gain increases fast enough that nearly as soon as they realize permanent items are better, the PC can acquire competitive items (if not as good as the frugal PC's).

    I, too, sometimes use an "Invisible Wealth" system, where item abilities are tied to the PC instead. Every level they get to spend 'invisible g.p.' on their new abilities.
    Makes me wonder how many more do so...
    I like the fact that it makes magic rarer, not out on display shelves.
    A neat (untested) variant is that people with ICFs can turn that 'invisible WBL' into tangible objects to sell/give/trade. With that system, NPCs & PCs can't crank out unlimited items, only convert their invisible magic into tangible items.

    Blueluck, that's a cool idea to have signature items.
    Of course, my PCs would panic at the sight of a giant with an adamantium sword...

    Troubleshooter,
    As for giving out gold, it can be very dangerous if they have ICFs. Even in 3.x, I had players willing to fall a level behind to crank out items. It made a huge difference, and CR+2 was a minimum for fights.
    I find this sad, as the image of a chest or hoard of gold is the epitome of fantasy treasure tropes.
    "Treasure chest? Must be a mimic!"

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Troubleshooter wrote:

    I look forward to what the developers say they intend for PCs' WBL when using item creation feats.

    It actually has been spoken on this. The WBL table is the target on what a player needs. It's the balance for a group running appropriate CR. Any excuse used to inflate WBL defeats the purpose of the table.

    What they've also said, is that ultimately it's YOUR game as a GM. You can run it which ever way you see fit.


    LazarX wrote:
    Troubleshooter wrote:

    I look forward to what the developers say they intend for PCs' WBL when using item creation feats.

    It actually has been spoken on this. The WBL table is the target on what a player needs. It's the balance for a group running appropriate CR. Any excuse used to inflate WBL defeats the purpose of the table.

    What they've also said, is that ultimately it's YOUR game as a GM. You can run it which ever way you see fit.

    So the good old:

    1. Screw up Rules
    2. Deliver Rules
    3. Notice Rules are Screwed
    4. Invoke Rule 0 (Let the DM do the work) and say you didn't screw up anything!

    Look at the APs. Its made by them and it gives you what loot the players find. So its not meant to be a table of "what people are supposed to have by some transcendend meanings" its actually what they find + ~20% (for usables) over their career. And ICFs screw that up. Nerfing them into oblivion is not the right way because just like taking Power Attack as the THW Barbarian increases your effectivity by a large margin ICF should also increase it.

    So the best way I have read about is having a cap of 1.2 to 1.3 of the current value you should have.


    Alienfreak wrote:
    LazarX wrote:
    Troubleshooter wrote:

    I look forward to what the developers say they intend for PCs' WBL when using item creation feats.

    It actually has been spoken on this. The WBL table is the target on what a player needs. It's the balance for a group running appropriate CR. Any excuse used to inflate WBL defeats the purpose of the table.

    What they've also said, is that ultimately it's YOUR game as a GM. You can run it which ever way you see fit.

    So the good old:

    1. Screw up Rules
    2. Deliver Rules
    3. Notice Rules are Screwed
    4. Invoke Rule 0 (Let the DM do the work) and say you didn't screw up anything!

    Only works that way if you call them rules -- which they are not -- they are guidelines.


    Are we playing by the Core Guideline Book, 4th Printing now?

    Are we now quoting "Guidelines as Written"?


    Purplefixer wrote:

    Are we playing by the Core Guideline Book, 4th Printing now?

    Are we now quoting "Guidelines as Written"?

    Apparently in this thread yes -- after all The section it is in is "gamemastering" and every what third sentence is "you can of course do different, if you do so try this."

    It never states, "The GM shall follow these instructions to the letter, the only way to do this is in the way this section lays out. The players are entitled to think everything written here is the law and the way it will work and if you don't follow this you are wrong."

    It says it assumes a default that changing the default will change play -- and that a GM is absolutely in his right to do this.

    But hey if you want a video game I hear there's a new Legend of Zelda coming out soon, as well as another Final Fantasy sequel.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    PRD wrote:
    Table: Character Wealth by Level lists the amount of treasure each PC is expected to have at a specific level. Note that this table assumes a standard fantasy game. Low-fantasy games might award only half this value, while high-fantasy games might double the value. It is assumed that some of this treasure is consumed in the course of an adventure (such as potions and scrolls), and that some of the less useful items are sold for half value so more useful gear can be purchased.

    Yes, decidedly a guideline.


    Diego Rossi wrote:
    PRD wrote:
    Table: Character Wealth by Level lists the amount of treasure each PC is expected to have at a specific level. Note that this table assumes a standard fantasy game. Low-fantasy games might award only half this value, while high-fantasy games might double the value. It is assumed that some of this treasure is consumed in the course of an adventure (such as potions and scrolls), and that some of the less useful items are sold for half value so more useful gear can be purchased.
    Yes, decidedly a guideline.

    So the stats for loot found by the group in the APs is also just a "guideline"?


    Abraham spalding wrote:
    Alienfreak wrote:

    So the good old:

    1. Screw up Rules
    2. Deliver Rules
    3. Notice Rules are Screwed
    4. Invoke Rule 0 (Let the DM do the work) and say you didn't screw up anything!
    Only works that way if you call them rules -- which they are not -- they are guidelines.

    1. Screw up Guidelines

    2. Deliver Guidelines
    3. Notice Guidelines are Screwed
    4. Invoke Rule 0 (Let the DM do the work) and say you didn't screw up anything!

    See, it works exactly the same way. I don't understand the rabid defense of outright lousy rules (or "guidelines" or "advice" or whatever you prefer) in product people are paying money for, if they know they'll just end up rule zero-ing the whole thing anyway.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Abraham spalding wrote:
    Alienfreak wrote:

    So the good old:

    1. Screw up Rules
    2. Deliver Rules
    3. Notice Rules are Screwed
    4. Invoke Rule 0 (Let the DM do the work) and say you didn't screw up anything!
    Only works that way if you call them rules -- which they are not -- they are guidelines.

    1. Screw up Guidelines

    2. Deliver Guidelines
    3. Notice Guidelines are Screwed
    4. Invoke Rule 0 (Let the DM do the work) and say you didn't screw up anything!

    See, it works exactly the same way. I don't understand the rabid defense of outright lousy rules (or "guidelines" or "advice" or whatever you prefer) in product people are paying money for, if they know they'll just end up rule zero-ing the whole thing anyway.

    Thats my point.

    There isn't even an official "guideline" what to do with people using ICFs. Do you adjust the loot so they end up with their intended wealth? Do you leave it equal? Do you give them a maximum of 1.2 of the usual wealth (what is the best option I've seen yet).


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Abraham spalding wrote:
    Alienfreak wrote:

    So the good old:

    1. Screw up Rules
    2. Deliver Rules
    3. Notice Rules are Screwed
    4. Invoke Rule 0 (Let the DM do the work) and say you didn't screw up anything!
    Only works that way if you call them rules -- which they are not -- they are guidelines.

    1. Screw up Guidelines

    2. Deliver Guidelines
    3. Notice Guidelines are Screwed
    4. Invoke Rule 0 (Let the DM do the work) and say you didn't screw up anything!

    See, it works exactly the same way. I don't understand the rabid defense of outright lousy rules (or "guidelines" or "advice" or whatever you prefer) in product people are paying money for, if they know they'll just end up rule zero-ing the whole thing anyway.

    They works great for me and every group I have played with, but I don't have an bilinear extrapolated chart for each level that tells me the exact amount of gold each player should gain for each encounter to the third decimal place.

    Instead, I look at the guideline, and I recognize that if my players are above that level, then encounters are generally going to be easier. If my players are below that, encounters are going to be harder. The difficulty of encounters relative to the APL of the party assumes that players are close the the WBL guidlings. If the developers don't tell us these assumptions, then we will have wildly different outcomes on the same CR encounters because of differeing gear level and the people will be griping about how creature X is the wrong CR because a level 10 party with no magic weapons got TPKed by it.

    The CR system, WBL system, and many of the other GM systems are guidelines for inexperienced DM to use when creating campaigns. They are actually pretty helpful in that capacity.


    Charender wrote:
    They works great for me and every group I have played with, but I don't have an bilinear extrapolated chart for each level that tells the each player should have exactly x gold worth of equipment after each encounter to the third decimal place.

    You don't need that, but it would be nice to have, for example, some sort of logical game-embedded explanation why the newly-ascended King of Goldovia, a 2nd level Aristocrat now ruling a very wealthy, very populous country after his father's death from old age, doesn't have +5 mithral full plate, a +5 animated shield, a helm of brilliance, etc., etc. Instead, we just need to hand-wave it.

    My system provides a rationale and actual guidelines; the RAW do not. There are any number of other examples (see the imps vs. psuedodragons thread, for example). All of them fall under what my wife calls "you're overthinking it" -- which she uses with respect to movies that have major, glaring plot holes and/or discontinuities, but you're supposed to ignore those and just look at the pretty 'splosions. Game rules are the same way; some people are fine ignoring the stuff that blatantly doesn't work or doesn't make sense, but some of us prefer to spend money on stuff that doesn't require quite that degree of forced ignoring of things.

    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / "Wealth by Level" vs. Total Earnings All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.