In your game you can really do whatever you want. Per the CRB though, that becomes part of their wealth and gets weighed in the balance and no extra XP is awarded just for having it.
In your game you can really do whatever you want. Per the CRB though, that becomes part of their wealth and gets weighed in the balance and no extra XP is awarded just for having it.
it is only factored into their wealth if it is an immediately useful permanent magical item with truly tangible benefits.
consumables are lousy items unless your DM adjusts treasure to accomodate every consumable you blow through.
and i don't think a few emergency wands or potions should count towards WBL. nor should the noble title, the mansion that comes with the title, the fancy nonmagical clothes the PC with the title wears, nor the decorations placed upon the noble PCs mansion wall that provide no benefit to the noble PC while he or she adventures. similar circumstances of wealth that doesn't immediately help an adventurer kill stuff shouldn't apply either.
other examples of things that shouldn't be factored into WBL are
base nonmagical item prices. nonmagical ammunition, noncombat pets, tagalong children who serve no purpose but to play the role of helpless dependant NPC.
In your game you can really do whatever you want. Per the CRB though, that becomes part of their wealth and gets weighed in the balance and no extra XP is awarded just for having it.it is only factored into their wealth if it is an immediately useful permanent magical item with truly tangible benefits.
Very much agreed on this point. Your WBL only really counts if it comes in a reasonably useful form. If a wizard's "wealth" consists entirely of enchanted large-sized ogre hooks (which the GM won't let him sell), then the wizard doesn't really have any wealth at all. Sure, he has stuff that is theoretically valuable, but realistically it does absolutely nothing except take up space.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I liked your idea as well Blueluck, great thematically. It reminds me a lot of Earthdawn (by FASA). How did you set the magical allotment by level? Off the Pathfinder guidelines or another scale? So, the item crafting feats for gear really don't get used either(except potions/scrolls), removing a nice minor headache for the GM.I like Blueluck's idea a lot, actually. Just divorcing magical equipment from the regular treasure helps a bunch, at least freeing up treasure for things other than more gear.
I simply adopted WBL as the magic allotment.
Yes, I simply dropped the item crafting feats. I had a sorcerer who wanted to craft his own magic staff - so he did. All the work (roleplaying) he put into working on his staff late into the night while sitting around the party's campfire made an excellent explanation for its increasing power.
Very much agreed on this point. Your WBL only really counts if it comes in a reasonably useful form. If a wizard's "wealth" consists entirely of enchanted large-sized ogre hooks (which the GM won't let him sell), then the wizard doesn't really have any wealth at all. Sure, he has stuff that is theoretically valuable, but realistically it does absolutely nothing except take up space.In your game you can really do whatever you want. Per the CRB though, that becomes part of their wealth and gets weighed in the balance and no extra XP is awarded just for having it.it is only factored into their wealth if it is an immediately useful permanent magical item with truly tangible benefits.
that was my point.
it is only factored into their wealth if it is an immediately useful permanent magical item with truly tangible benefits.
consumables are lousy items unless your DM adjusts treasure to accomodate every consumable you blow through.
and i don't think a few emergency wands or potions should count towards WBL. nor should the noble title, the mansion that comes with the title, the fancy nonmagical clothes the PC with the title wears, nor the decorations placed upon the noble PCs mansion wall that provide no benefit to the noble PC while he or she adventures. similar circumstances of wealth that doesn't immediately help an adventurer kill stuff shouldn't apply either.
other examples of things that shouldn't be factored into WBL are
base nonmagical item prices. nonmagical ammunition, noncombat pets, tagalong children who serve no purpose but to play the role of helpless dependant NPC.
That's all well and good. As I said, you can play how you want. Per the term, you wealth is your wealth. The total value of everything you have or command contributes toward that. Having a mansion is just 1k gp for an entire month. It's nothing for an adventurer.
My level 10 summoner could have just "bought" one for an entire year from a recent loot split and still had cash to spare. However, something I am doing with that character is buying, rather than renting, a large building and am renovating it into a headquarters for his guild. Those investments certainly count toward my WBL as its a holding that can be sold, utilized for further gain as it contains alchemy labs, forges, etc. That goes into determining the entirety of what my character is worth.
it is only factored into their wealth if it is an immediately useful permanent magical item with truly tangible benefits.
consumables are lousy items unless your DM adjusts treasure to accomodate every consumable you blow through.
and i don't think a few emergency wands or potions should count towards WBL. nor should the noble title, the mansion that comes with the title, the fancy nonmagical clothes the PC with the title wears, nor the decorations placed upon the noble PCs mansion wall that provide no benefit to the noble PC while he or she adventures. similar circumstances of wealth that doesn't immediately help an adventurer kill stuff shouldn't apply either.
other examples of things that shouldn't be factored into WBL are
base nonmagical item prices. nonmagical ammunition, noncombat pets, tagalong children who serve no purpose but to play the role of helpless dependant NPC.
That's all well and good. As I said, you can play how you want. Per the term, you wealth is your wealth. The total value of everything you have or command contributes toward that. Having a mansion is just 1k gp for an entire month. It's nothing for an adventurer.
My level 10 summoner could have just "bought" one for an entire year from a recent loot split and still had cash to spare. However, something I am doing with that character is buying, rather than renting, a large building and am renovating it into a headquarters for his guild. Those investments certainly count toward my WBL as its a holding that can be sold, utilized for further gain as it contains alchemy labs, forges, etc. That goes into determining the entirety of what my character is worth.
but that mansion and it's crafting resources aren't contributing to permanent adventuring bonuses. paying all the laborers to craft and all the servants to retain it, makes it a hinderance to your wealth by level unless you get huge discounts on extremely powerful items
otherwise, it is little different from paying a monthly fee to supply your own magic mart and backup PC generator.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not all choices you make with a character have to be rewarded or recognized. Some choices, even expensive ones, can be made for purely roleplay reasons and those should come from the character's pool of wealth. Not everyone plays to sandbag bonuses or magic items. Nothing should compel the GM to give you more, or the "party" because you're low, just because you make these decisions.
Many good points, and I also like magic to be 'special', 'rare', 'valuable', etc.
This is why MMORPGs have won. The designers of MMORPGs understand that the challenge-reward cycle is vital to keeping interest, so early on characters get the chance to earn stuff that makes them better. Meanwhile tabletop GMs go on about how they hate magic, and maybe it the character hits 10th level they'll MAYBE think about letting them have a +1 sword. Maybe. And then they go online and complain about how nobody plays tabletop rpgs any more.
Not all choices you make with a character have to be rewarded or recognized. Some choices, even expensive ones, can be made for purely roleplay reasons and those should come from the character's pool of wealth. Not everyone plays to sandbag bonuses or magic items. Nothing should compel the GM to give you more, or the "party" because you're low, just because you make these decisions.
you give that opinion on a game designed around playing a group of glorified bandits whose sole purpose is to climb the ranks of wealth and power by murdering other intelligent beings to gain their stuff so they can climb higher in the ranks, kill stronger intelligent beings, loot their stuff in a perpetual cycle.
the Games CR system is based on the fact you would have a certain value in permanent magical bonuses to face your opposition
if you are even a copper piece or experience point behind the richest or highest level PC, the CR system falls apart and crumbles.
if you donate to a church regularly to help the poor, the church should keep a tally of their donations they recieve from you, and take half the funds at particular intervals to craft items for you, because the other half is plenty to feed the starving, and with those items the church crafts for you, you are expected to gather more wealth for donations and the church takes half those donations to craft your stuff. giving you your full WBL in gear, and keeping the poor fed at the same time. because the church recognizes your kindness.
Then I'm royally screwed. :D
Maybe that's how you run your games. Maybe you've had GMs that do that. Nothing forces that from the game.
This is why MMORPGs have won. The designers of MMORPGs understand that the challenge-reward cycle is vital to keeping interest, so early on characters get the chance to earn stuff that makes them better. Meanwhile tabletop GMs go on about how they hate magic, and maybe it the character hits 10th level they'll MAYBE think about letting them have a +1 sword. Maybe. And then they go online and complain about how nobody plays tabletop rpgs any more.
I can't imagine that the number of players who have ditched tabletop RPGs in favor of MMOs because they didn't feel they got the goodies they wanted is very high. MMO convenience is probably a much greater factor in MMOs "winning".
Then I'm royally screwed. :D
Maybe that's how you run your games. Maybe you've had GMs that do that. Nothing forces that from the game.
i subscribe to Alvena Publishing's blogs.
but so do my DMs, they utilize monsters that actually use the full extent of their available treasure, including consumables, to screw PCs over.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many good points, and I also like magic to be 'special', 'rare', 'valuable', etc.This is why MMORPGs have won. The designers of MMORPGs understand that the challenge-reward cycle is vital to keeping interest, so early on characters get the chance to earn stuff that makes them better. Meanwhile tabletop GMs go on about how they hate magic, and maybe it the character hits 10th level they'll MAYBE think about letting them have a +1 sword. Maybe. And then they go online and complain about how nobody plays tabletop rpgs any more.
MMOs don't "win" because there was no conflict. They are different. Most table top players also play MMOs. MMOs aren't keeping people from real RPGs, that's ludicrous.
Have you considered people want to play their table tops with magic being rare and special because the MMOs and other games they play don't and they'd like a change of pace?
I mean, talk of reward cycles is lunacy in regards to table top games. The reward of a table top game is the game itself--the experience of it--the puzzles, the roleplaying, the socialization around the table. It's all things that are impossible in an MMO, which is why they need reward cycles in the first place.
When I want to play a game about obtaining magic items that I can use to obtain more magic items, I'll play an MMO. When I sit at a table, I don't want to play an MMO, so I don't want it to be about getting magic items that help me acquire more magic items.
Many good points, and I also like magic to be 'special', 'rare', 'valuable', etc.This is why MMORPGs have won. The designers of MMORPGs understand that the challenge-reward cycle is vital to keeping interest, so early on characters get the chance to earn stuff that makes them better. Meanwhile tabletop GMs go on about how they hate magic, and maybe it the character hits 10th level they'll MAYBE think about letting them have a +1 sword. Maybe. And then they go online and complain about how nobody plays tabletop rpgs any more.MMOs don't "win" because there was no conflict. They are different. Most table top players also play MMOs. MMOs aren't keeping people from real RPGs, that's ludicrous.
Have you considered people want to play their table tops with magic being rare and special because the MMOs and other games they play don't and they'd like a change of pace?
I mean, talk of reward cycles is lunacy in regards to table top games. The reward of a table top game is the game itself--the experience of it--the puzzles, the roleplaying, the socialization around the table. It's all things that are impossible in an MMO, which is why they need reward cycles in the first place.
When I want to play a game about obtaining magic items that I can use to obtain more magic items, I'll play an MMO. When I sit at a table, I don't want to play an MMO, so I don't want it to be about getting magic items that help me acquire more magic items.
MMOs started with Tabletop RP and many MMO conventions came from the Tabletop. such as Reward Cycles and better loot.
In your game you can really do whatever you want. Per the CRB though, that becomes part of their wealth and gets weighed in the balance and no extra XP is awarded just for having it.it is only factored into their wealth if it is an immediately useful permanent magical item with truly tangible benefits.
and i don't think a few emergency wands or potions should count towards WBL. nor should the noble title, the mansion that comes with the title, the fancy nonmagical clothes the PC with the title wears, nor the decorations placed upon the noble PCs mansion wall that provide no benefit to the noble PC while he or she adventures. similar circumstances of wealth that doesn't immediately help an adventurer kill stuff shouldn't apply either.
Dawnbringer,
You keep saying this and things like it, and you keep being wrong.
While I (and the groups I continue to play with) have discarded the entire WBL thing as a bad idea, AS WRITTEN, WBL includes ALL a character's wealth. Including mundane property, clothing and accessories, magical (and alchemical) consumables, etc.
THAT'S JUST THE WAY THE RULES ARE WRITTEN.
I really wish you'd quit making statements as if they were factual about what is/is not included in WBL. It irritates those of us who know what the rules are and potentially confuses people new to the game.
there are multiple ways to interpret the same thing.
though the intention, was a factor of immediately useable permanent adventuring gear with tangible permanent benefits.
don't expect me to buy a mansion in your games.
though the intention, was a factor of immediately useable permanent adventuring gear with tangible permanent benefits.
I thought there was some percentage of WBL explicitly called out as being for consumables? (When using it to equip characters beyond first level, anyhow).
You keep saying this and things like it, and you keep being wrong.In your game you can really do whatever you want. Per the CRB though, that becomes part of their wealth and gets weighed in the balance and no extra XP is awarded just for having it.it is only factored into their wealth if it is an immediately useful permanent magical item with truly tangible benefits.
Cheeseweasel is right that there's nothing in the Wealth By Level rules explicitly stating that only adventure-usable wealth counts. On the other hand, there is ample ancillary evidence that this is the case.
Text in the Gamemastering chapter of the Pathfinder Core Book describes the division of WBL, "For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins." This description leaves out the possibility of owning significant commodities, land, or other non-adventuring wealth. Other statements in that chapter also demonstrate that the wealth being referred to is "the amount of treasure they carry and use".
Text in other Pathfinder books also strongly implies that non-adventuring holdings are not considered part of a character's WBL. For example, the Kingmaker (and more recently Ultimate Campaign) rules for kingdom building don't count the value of a character's castles against their wealth. Many other published adventures give adventuring parties strongholds, lands, or titles without reducing adventuring gear to compensate.
The generally accepted intent of the WBL rules is that a character with significantly more or less gear than the expected amount will be commensurately more or less powerful an adventurer. Owning 10,000 head of cattle in a foreign land may make one "wealthy" but it doesn't help you fight a troll, and therefore does not need to be addressed by the rules of adventuring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so the title is a bit of an overstatement, but here goes:
In going through these forums there seems to be a decent number of people (or a very vocal few) who don't like characters gaining power through magic items. They like to feel that their character's inherent abilities should be solely responsible for their power and that magic items somehow diminish their triumphs.
Obviously, this is an opinion, and a fine one to hold. However, in the interest of providing more perspective, consider this (in my opinion) excellent article that talks about how dependent humans are on tool use. You don't have to read the article, but it basically proposes that tool use has influenced our very evolution. More colloquially, one doesn't have to look far to see how dependent we are on tools in everyday life. From combat to transportation to medicine, we are extremely dependent on tools.
In short, I don't really have a problem with my character using tools to defeat monsters. My tools are a part of me and I don't think that using them diminishes my victories. Being able to create and use tools judiciously and creatively is one of humanity's great advantages over threats, and I for one like that this is part of the game. What do you guys think?
What this post did NOT argue: That magic items should necessarily be common/easily accessible, that people who don't like characters gaining power through magic items are wrong, etc.
I don't think anyone has argued that characters shouldn't be allowed to use tools/weapons to defeat their foes. I think the argument has simply been that the more dependent characters become on items rather than their skills and abilities, the less responsible for their victories they actually are. That and the more mundane we make magic the less wonderous and magical it is.
I've never seen any fantasy film nor read any fantasy book where every character in it had a veritable arsenal of magic items in it to choose from when dealing with a problem. in almost every case its been the hero's determination, skill and luck that has allowed him to succeed. And then there's the Monty Hall effect: Imagine if Aragorn was gifted with Anduril, the Flame of the West, and in response he decides to stick it in his bag of holding along with the other four magic swords he had - or perhaps he decided to go into the Mountain to sell it at the ghost magic store along with the elven cloak he has been gifted with and Arwen's magic pendant so that he could buy a really good sword.
Magic should be magical, and characters should be responsible for their successes and failures. That's my argument. No one's arguing against using swords.
...tabletop GMs go on about how they hate magic, and maybe it the character hits 10th level they'll MAYBE think about letting them have a +1 sword. Maybe.
Yeah, I've never seen that.
Cheeseweasel is right that there's nothing in the Wealth By Level rules explicitly stating that only adventure-usable wealth counts. On the other hand, there is ample ancillary evidence that this is the case.Text in the Gamemastering chapter of the Pathfinder Core Book describes the division of WBL, "For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins." This description leaves out the possibility of owning significant commodities, land, or other non-adventuring wealth. Other statements in that chapter also demonstrate that the wealth being referred to is "the amount of treasure they carry and use".
Text in other Pathfinder books also strongly implies that non-adventuring holdings are not considered part of a character's WBL. For example, the Kingmaker (and more recently Ultimate Campaign) rules for kingdom building don't count the value of a character's castles against their wealth. Many other published adventures give adventuring parties strongholds, lands, or titles without reducing adventuring gear to compensate.
The generally accepted intent of the WBL rules is that a character with significantly more or less gear than the expected amount will be commensurately more or less powerful an adventurer. Owning 10,000 head of cattle in a foreign land may make one...
The issue with that is with liquidable assets. If you can keep owning lands, acquire manors and so on without it impacting your WBL, you can easily sandbag all kinds of resources all over the place and liquidate them for insane amounts of gold even if you only take a fraction of their actual worth. Nothing prevents this other than GMs not wanting to deal with a headache if it's not considered part of your WBL. If it is then it gets considered in the balance and everything evens out. Anything you own that has value should be considered part of that equation.
You cite Kingmaker and quite often I see threads where people take crafting rules to an extreme. I can see why GMs ask how to balance encounters in that campaign here if you're allowed to have your normal WBL just for your personal gear AND can bring to bear the resources several estates can bring. Your enemies are no longer facing a heroic PC but that and a vast array of resources behind them. This might make sense in Kingmaker but that's about it.
And should the part come up against something where they might need to sell some of those roleplay resources to help with adventuring? Maybe a group of thugs are demanding a reward for the "princess" they kidnapped from the party. Because she's a bona fide princess with lands and servants, the group can front that hefty amount they're asking for, too, right? What if part of those roleplay resources include a couple small standing armies that you might find a situation to legitimately use them? There are a lot of touchy scenarios where seemingly roleplay-only elements become benefits in ways other than just creating uber powerful magic items.
The generally accepted intent of the WBL rules is that a character with significantly more or less gear than the expected amount will be commensurately more or less powerful an adventurer. Owning 10,000 head of cattle in a foreign land may make one "wealthy" but it doesn't help you fight a troll, and therefore does not need to be addressed by the rules of adventuring.The issue with that is with liquidable assets. If you can keep owning lands, acquire manors and so on without it impacting your WBL, you can easily sandbag all kinds of resources all over the place and liquidate them for insane amounts of gold even if you only take a fraction of their actual worth. Nothing prevents this other than GMs not wanting to deal with a headache if it's not considered part of your WBL. If it is then it gets considered in the balance and everything evens out. Anything you own that has value should be considered part of that equation.
You cite Kingmaker and quite often I see threads where people take crafting rules to an extreme. I can see why GMs ask how to balance encounters in that campaign here if you're allowed to have your normal WBL just for your personal gear AND can bring to bear the resources several estates can bring. Your enemies are no longer facing a heroic PC but that and a vast array of resources behind them. This might make sense in Kingmaker but that's about it.
I think that's handled by the "Don't be a jerk" clause.
The GM says, I'm not going to count roleplaying wealth (land & other non-adventuring stuff) against your WBL, allowing you to do the cool RP stuff you want without crippling yourself by having substandard gear for your level. In return, you don't decide to sell it all and turn it into personal magic items.
Yep, exactly.
Should players attempt to convert their holdings into gear, a GM would, of course, count it against WBL or whatever measure he chooses to gauge the party's power by. Also, a good GM will turn the conversion itself into a story.
I'm with Dawnbringer. And when playing, thankfully, my DM is as well.
In our current game, we're refurbishing an airship for our own personal use. If we had to actually spend all our wealth to cover the costs of this endeavor, we'd have nothing left for any magic items at all.
Yes, once we're finished our adventuring party will be the owners of a very, very valuable property. But it still won't help us kill that troll. ;)
The generally accepted intent of the WBL rules is that a character with significantly more or less gear than the expected amount will be commensurately more or less powerful an adventurer. Owning 10,000 head of cattle in a foreign land may make one "wealthy" but it doesn't help you fight a troll, and therefore does not need to be addressed by the rules of adventuring.The issue with that is with liquidable assets. If you can keep owning lands, acquire manors and so on without it impacting your WBL, you can easily sandbag all kinds of resources all over the place and liquidate them for insane amounts of gold even if you only take a fraction of their actual worth. Nothing prevents this other than GMs not wanting to deal with a headache if it's not considered part of your WBL. If it is then it gets considered in the balance and everything evens out. Anything you own that has value should be considered part of that equation.
You cite Kingmaker and quite often I see threads where people take crafting rules to an extreme. I can see why GMs ask how to balance encounters in that campaign here if you're allowed to have your normal WBL just for your personal gear AND can bring to bear the resources several estates can bring. Your enemies are no longer facing a heroic PC but that and a vast array of resources behind them. This might make sense in Kingmaker but that's about it.
I think that's handled by the "Don't be a jerk" clause.
The GM says, I'm not going to count roleplaying wealth (land & other non-adventuring stuff) against your WBL, allowing you to do the cool RP stuff you want without crippling yourself by having substandard gear for your level. In return, you don't decide to sell it all and turn it into personal magic items.
Yep, exactly.
Should players attempt to convert their holdings into gear, a GM would, of course, count it against WBL or whatever measure he chooses to gauge the party's power by. Also, a good GM will turn the conversion itself into a story.
With you 110%, Blueluck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many good points, and I also like magic to be 'special', 'rare', 'valuable', etc.This is why MMORPGs have won. The designers of MMORPGs understand that the challenge-reward cycle is vital to keeping interest, so early on characters get the chance to earn stuff that makes them better. Meanwhile tabletop GMs go on about how they hate magic, and maybe it the character hits 10th level they'll MAYBE think about letting them have a +1 sword. Maybe. And then they go online and complain about how nobody plays tabletop rpgs any more.
lol.
MMORPGs are also 'winning' because even if you have to role play via chat, and there's no opportunity for DMs to make your adventures unique...there's also no opportunity for DMs to make self-defeating boneheaded decisions! Like deciding that WBL is to be used in a strictly legalistic manner -- you want a castle with servants and tapestries? That's coming out of your WBL, sucker! And then they go online and rant about how players just want to be murderhobos. Oh, and how it's all the fault of MMORPGs and the next generation's ADD entitlement attitude.
Just kidding, everyone!
...Sort of.
...tabletop GMs go on about how they hate magic, and maybe it the character hits 10th level they'll MAYBE think about letting them have a +1 sword. Maybe.Yeah, I've never seen that.I have. I'm playing in a low magic game right now (Admittedly, it's 3.5 with some PF mixed in). My character is level 15. He has one magic item, and it's the equivalent of a bag of holding.
As for the Magic Item thing, I think the issue for me is this. Magic is part of the setting, magic weapons are part of the setting. Awesome loot is part of the reward cycle. That unfortunately results in magic items that SHOULD be impressive feeling like trinkets and a characters personal "Look how cool my weapon should be" sword being likely to get tossed the moment they pick up something better. It leads to the gear not feeling as "Special" as magic items should and it leads to "cool" items getting sold for numerical bonuses. I understand it mechanically but it really just doesn't FEEL right.
i had an oracle whom was 15th level and only had a single +1 dagger as her sole magic item, she was wearing the same scale mail she started with because none of the foes had full plate and the only people that had it were nobles whom were all 40th level or higher. she dealt more damage with her mundane glaive or sabre (Scimitar)
the party fighter, had a suit of leather armor that was ragged and smelly and 2 masterwork kukris he only had since 10th level
the party wizard. had nothing but his spellbook, familiar, and component pouch
the bard had a fancy dress, a dagger, and a light crossbow, none of it masterwork
the ninja still wore her sailor schoolgirl uniform and couldn't find a darn magic item she was proficient with, and her Wakazashi were shattered, so she had to use the bottom halves of the broken blades and hilts, which functioned as improvised daggers. at least she was able to trade poison use for trapfinding.
the barbarian had as the only items to his name, a kilt, and a Zweihander
the ranger, had Ratty leather armor, a Ratty suit of leather barding on his large jaguar, and a pair of mundane knives
the sorceress, literally, had nothing but a sundress and a dagger
the cleric, had shoddy scale mail, a holy symbol, a +1 longspear, an a mundane spiked gauntlet
the druid, had a ratty suit of leather, a ratty suit of barding on his pet jaguar, and nothing else
the monk literally Ran around in nothing but an obnoxious pair of purple and orange checkered boxer shorts
the cavalier had a suit of scale mail and a masterwork lance, his dagger was mundane, and his horse had shoddy leather barding
the inquisitor only had a sundress and a +1 sabre (Scimitar)
the witch only had a kimono and a straw doll
the samurai only had a pair of pajamas and a longsword
the magus only had a purple nightgown and a book she bludgeoned people with
a party of 16 PCs all 15th level, with nothing to their name.
a party of 16 PCs all 15th level, with nothing to their name.
They had it easy!
I would jump for joy if something like this was given an official treatment.
are there any drawbacks to this feat?
I would jump for joy if something like this was given an official treatment.are there any drawbacks to this feat?
that you have to blow a feat and sacrifice money to get your bonuses.
What do you guys think?
What do I think? If I am in a low magic campaign, I'm playing a caster. And, I'll quickly pass the martials in power. Great idea - lets make the casters even better....No.
|
I would jump for joy if something like this was given an official treatment.are there any drawbacks to this feat?
No switching out stuff on the fly, leaning harder towards a dedication to choices made. Removal of wealth and all the options that opens up not emulated by those rules. Remaining vulnerability to dispel suppression of emulated abilities. There's also the option to keep the acquiring of karma points tied exclusively to story/deeds rather than the usual WBL grind.
Totally worth it for a functional character that actually feels right, IMO. :) I could make a monk that actually stays in the spirit of the monk in my head* with those rules, whereas the bling-dependancy makes me feel like I'm faking it. It winds up feeling hollow.
*Regarding gear-independency that is.
I like magic items, mainly because I like system depth, and I like getting loot. Magic items satisfy both of these needs. System depth comes in the form of deciding just which magic items best suit my character build (and there are plenty of slots besides the standard defensive slots), and getting loot comes from, well, getting loot. :p
I also have never found it difficult to have standard magic in a campaign and "special" magic items. My current DM is very good about this. Each of his PCs gains a special "heirloom magic item" which is something along the lines of a minor artifact, and has a backstory. In our last campaign my paladin had a shield that was a holy relic of his god.
Not all choices you make with a character have to be rewarded or recognized. Some choices, even expensive ones, can be made for purely roleplay reasons and those should come from the character's pool of wealth. Not everyone plays to sandbag bonuses or magic items. Nothing should compel the GM to give you more, or the "party" because you're low, just because you make these decisions.
Yes, we should totally punish people for roleplaying their characters, because that will certainly make people pay less attention to the mechanics and more to roleplaying. What?
Yes, because that's totally what I said.
3.5's Vow of Poverty was WAY overpowered!
Not at all...
The only time VoP even remotely became a problem was when it was on a Druid (but druids were OP as it was anyway so that really is kinda moot) or with a Binder from the Magic of Incarnum book (kinda funny since you can have some powerful "armor" and "weapons" for free AND have the Vow Bonuses xD)