Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Trench_Raider 09-21-07, 05:30 PM	Ok, first up for those who are not familiar with the term, a quick explanation is in order. Monty Hall was the long time host of an American TV game show that ran on and off from the late '60s until circa 1990. The premise of the show was the the contestant was simply handed a nominal prize and them tempted by the host to swap what he had for the posibility of of greater rewards. It was on the surface a pretty sappy concept, but it worked in practice. The concept of a situation in which players were simply given a prize for little or no work soon worked it's way into the D&d players vocabulary. A "Monty Haul" campaign was deamed to be one were there was little risk to the players, too much treasure was given out, and the bored players soon accumulated an outlandish mountain of gear that they never really had to work for. This used to be a almost universally reviled, yet all too common, play-style. Many older DMs will tell you stories of having to bar players from transfering over-equiped characers from other campaigns to their own. In those days, loot was much more sparingly given out and the general rule of thumb was that a properly geared out character should have no more than one (if that!) level apropriate magic item per character level. Now fast forward to today..... In today's editions we have the following: -Item creation feats (which are a cool concept, but if not kept in serious check can lead to magic item over-abundance) -If these forums are any indication, "Diablo" style magic item shops are actually commonplace in many campaigns. -The whole encounter rating system is based around the idea that characters should posess a certain (quite sizable by traditional standards) amount of magic items to make said system work. -Advanced character templates in the DMG that imply how many magic items (once again a shockingly high number) a player of whatever leve should pocess. Am I alone in thinking that all this adds up to a play enviorment in which the Monty Haul style campaign is the rule rather than the exception? Am I the only one who thinks the old "one magice item per character level at the the most, is a good rule of thumb? Does anyone else that "Diablo magic shops" were one can get whatever they want made to order is an abhorant concept? WWGD? Thoughts? Rants? Flames? "Trench Raider"
Salla 09-21-07, 05:39 PM	Only if it means that the PCs have a significantly greater amount of wealth than suggested by the DMG. In earlier editions, there was no guideline, whatsoever, for what sort of gear any PC should have. So you could go from a game where your 3rd level fighter had a Vorpal Sword (because that's what the tables said, I rolled it!) to a 18th level character with a rusty dagger and a loincloth. The first would be 'Monty Haul', the second probably suicide. Now, we actually have a guideline as to how much gear is considered typical, and that's a good thing.
lulzapalooza 09-21-07, 05:42 PM	My players are poor because I hate them.
Holy_Beholder 09-21-07, 05:53 PM	Even with the gear, it is still dangerous, which is what makes it not Monty Haul. 10% of encounters are supposed to be nearly unbeatable, and a single bad save can lead to ruin considering the amount of save or dies out there. Monty Haul is if you don't have the risk. The players need the items to survive, and even then there are no guarantees.
Trench_Raider 09-21-07, 05:58 PM	Salla- The idea of a guideline is a laudable idea. However those of the current edition and the mechanisms by which players can make their own items at little cost or have them made to order mean that this can snow-ball out of controll fast. If you just go by those "guidelines" as written, pretty soon you are going to have characters that look like this old Citadel sculpt ! http://www.solegends.com/citwf/IMG_9979-01.jpg While I agree that hard, in writing guidelines did not exist in older editions, there was plenty of material with excelent sugestions on the subject available at the time. Were do you think the "one magic item per level" rule of thumb came from? Go read an article Gygax wrote years ago in Dragon entitled something like "The Game that Failed". He could have been forcasting 3.5 edition! "Trench Raider"
Tempest Stormwind 09-21-07, 06:00 PM	Trench Raider, I notice a trend on your topics in this forum. You seem to harken Gygaxian gameplay as amazing and wonder if the new editions are weakening that. I posit you a clear question: If there was an obvious error in Gygaxian gameplay in earlier rules editions, and it was removed (or lessened) in later editions, would this be considered "weakening" the game? Fundamentally, that's what this is. Older-style games made magic items almost unattainable for characters, far more costly than their meager effects would suggest (recall Warduke, for instance, a high level fighter with a "+2 sword (flames on command)" as pretty much his only magical possession -- a mere +3 weapon on a fighter at his level would be like a wizard limited to 6th level spells at the end of the game, and yet Warduke was expected to be competitive. Despite this, since we saw Warduke with a weapon that strong, we came to associate characters that strong with equipment that weak, despite the problems inherent with it). The random treasure tables didn't help either -- Salla's vorpal-at-level-3 is a great example. Fast-forward to 3e, where we had (theoretically) solid item creation guidelines that produced an approximate value in GP, and a wealth-by-level table to summarize the result. Furthermore, combine this with a CR system that figures characters level up after a specific number of equal-CR encounters, and use that information to determine XP and loot rewards so that characters advance similarly to the projections on the wealth-by-level guideline. Hypothetically, this would mean that equipment-dependent classes would have equipment of the appropriate power level at every level (on average), and that anomalies from the treasure table were minimized. (Whether it actually did this or not is a matter of debate, but it's far closer to this ideal than the "all willy-nilly" approach of the earlier editions.) Item creation and magic item shops don't so much increase the amount of items available to the party (except in the case of the one-level gravy train, which you pay for by being a level behind the rest of your party and relies on the XP tables rather than wealth-by-level), but rather guarantee that you're getting items appropriate to the party. The treasure tables still have problems in such regards: Imagine the classic scenario of Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue party finding a weapon no one can use. Under old-style gameplay, you either learned to use it or sold it, hoping to find something to spend your new money on to make the challenge of getting it worthwhile. In the new system, you either learned to use it or sold it, then converted the money into something of similar (or lesser, if the wizard isn't an item crafter) value that you can actually use. This is similar to the idea of a mulligan in cards: Instead of being forced to play a bad hand, you trade the hand in for something you can use, but of lesser size and impact. (Any use is better than no use at all.) On a related note there are community GP limits on "magic item shops" that again limit what you can buy; good luck walking into Hommlet and asking for Excalibur (you might be able to get a masterwork sword or, if you're REALLY lucky and the smith likes you, his lone +1 sword that he's been saving for the right customer). Basically, characters got the gear they needed to stay in line with the challenges they fought -- there's a bit of leeway, but in general it's not more or less than what they need -- since the entire game was designed with this wealth-by-level idea in mind. You knew how much gold was open to a 14th level party, and could thus assume how strong their gear was, and thus could design encounters that were strong enough to account for the PCs and their gear. Meanwhile, in older editions, a module published by TSR had no such standards, which meant that one group might get devoured by the module, another might find it all right, and still another might eat it for lunch thanks to the mighty weapons they got on the treasure tables in the previous game. Wealth-by-level is the equivalent of a control, a benchmark, in game design that allows for the impact of variables such as monty haulism to be minimized in 3e. I'd say it's a step in the right direction, but a step away from Gygaxian gameplay. Would you agree, or would you say that any step away from Gygax is a de facto step in the wrong direction?
LivingShadow 09-21-07, 06:02 PM	I typically let my PCs have any item they can afford. (Within reason: Illegal items are not up for purchase and neither are artifacts, epic items are limited to planar cities such as Sigil.) And they can find it in most cities. (Again within reason: it would not make much sense to find a person selling a +5 vorpral sword in a hamlet with less than 20 people.)
AAB 09-21-07, 06:19 PM	I do agree that I don't like the reliance on gear. Sometimes I like to take a break from DnD and spend some time playing D20 Modern or Star Wars, where you can keep the gear you started with up to 20th level and not be punished for it. But is it a flaw, per se? Not necessarily. Some people still find mundane magic items thrilling, somehow. Does this dependence on magic items promote the style of gameplay that you term "Monty Haulism"? Once again, I will say not necessarily. While it is true that characters need much more magic to stay competitive in the 3.x iterations of the game, this does not relegate dungeons to "hole in the ground with loot" status. Monsters are still deadly; moreso if the PCs are not well-equipped. On a side note: I believe that the game of Dungeons and Dragons has only gotten better since the departure of Gary Gygax.
Starcloud 09-21-07, 06:26 PM	Yes, I dislike the idea of "magic shops" and I don't let player characters just buy whatever the heck magic items they want. There is trade in magic items, certainly, but it tends to be very limited and often on a "barter" basis rather than a "cash" basis. I don't let characters just create magic items on a whim, either. It takes time and money, and I keep a calender in my campaigns. Some items are relatively easy to create (scrolls), some take a bit of effort gathering the right ingredients (potions, wands, basic +1 enchanted weapons and armor), and anything else requires getting one or more really exotic components. I dont' charge XP; I'm of the opinion that creating potions, wands, and scrolls shouldn't cost experience, and creating more powerful items should grant the wizard XP. But they do take time... a day per spell for a scroll or potion, a week for a basic enchanted weapon/armor, varying amounts of time for other items but never less than a day. It generally ends up being faster and easier, if they're after a specific item, to just quest for it. And another rule I use is that every exposed item must roll a save if the character in question fails a save, instead of only one exposed item as per the RAW.
Tempest Stormwind 09-21-07, 06:31 PM	I do agree that I don't like the reliance on gear. Sometimes I like to take a break from DnD and spend some time playing D20 Modern or Star Wars, where you can keep the gear you started with up to 20th level and not be punished for it. But is it a flaw, per se? Not necessarily. Some people still find mundane magic items thrilling, somehow. I agree completely. I dislike playing accountant and constantly needing to upgrade my gear. Star Wars and d20 Modern were designed in such a way to *not* be gear-dependent. However, D&D has always had a sense of constant upgrades to their gear ("Hey, nice, a +2 sword's better than my current one!"). As such, D&D 3e was designed in such a way as *to* be gear-dependent, due to the legacy of the game being that way. And within that assumption, standardizing wealth acquisition rates is a good step to regulating amount of gear (akin to Saga basing damage and skill checks off of your character level). One other tidbit I didn't mention in my earlier reply is that thanks to item creation, it becomes quite possible to *upgrade* magic items. This avoids the following: "I am Arthur, and this is Excalibur." *next week* "I am Arthur, and this is Caladbolg." "What happened to Excalibur, sire?" "Its numbers weren't as good." Under 3e's item creation rules, you could have sold Caladbolg to pay to upgrade Excalibur (or your father's sword, or your civilization's holy lance, or whatever). This was later expanded upon with the Oriental Adventures samurai's Ancestral Daisho (good luck telling Musashi that his set of blades, in his family for generations, are obsolete and he should use that filthy hobgoblin sword +5 instead!), the Ancestral Relic feat, and the entire Weapons of Legacy book, but at its core, the simple idea of keeping your equipment but not falling behind in the numbers... goes back to item creation. Say what you will, but better approximating the very fantasy the game is supposedly able to approximate is a good thing.
Altar_Boy 09-21-07, 06:36 PM	In today's editions we have the following: -Item creation feats (which are a cool concept, but if not kept in serious check can lead to magic item over-abundance) -If these forums are any indication, "Diablo" style magic item shops are actually commonplace in many campaigns. -The whole encounter rating system is based around the idea that characters should posess a certain (quite sizable by traditional standards) amount of magic items to make said system work. -Advanced character templates in the DMG that imply how many magic items (once again a shockingly high number) a player of whatever leve should pocess. 1) Item creation feats are 3.5's method of allowing PC (and NPCs) to actually make all the cool loot. I believe that the experience cost for these items generally balances out. IE. Making your own +2 sword vs. advancing a level. 2) Well, unless the players are shoplifters, they'll still have to pay for them. :P But yes, that is excessive convienence. 3) A trait of 3rd Edition. Note that your judgement does not say whether said PCs earned it or were given it freely. 4) Again, tied into 3rd Edition's reliance on stuff. Starting off at 10th level does seem like an undeserved windfall, but really, if your character has 45,000 experience points and could easily kill a trio of Ogres on his own, wouldn't he have earned something over his time? Methinks half of your complaints will be addressed in 4th Edition. The other half through personal preferences by DMs: don't let PCs set up a Magic Item Shop when they get Craft Magic Arms. ;)
nekrekab 09-21-07, 06:36 PM	I think it really depends on whether you are running a 'high magic' or 'low magic' world. In a high magic world, magic is common place and generally used to promote a civil society. To put it another way, magic is the tech of the world. In a setting like this cell phones, hand guns, computers, easy access to air travel, hand held gps and other technology is readily available, if you have the money. This kind of world can be fun to play in, but the idea of magic being special in any way is low to missing altogether. In a low magic world, magic is rare. So a cell phone is looked on with awe and wonder and the fact that you have one sets you apart from everyone else. This kind of world provides a whole different kind of challenge to a player. Having said that, either kind of world can be Monty Haul, although a high magic world has a greater tendancy towards that effect simply due to availability if nothing else. I've seen 1st ed. worlds run with the same kind of 'Diabolo' magic shops. "Do they have a Vorpal Sword?" - rolling dice - 'Yep!' I've also seen worlds where experience was handed out like candy instead of magic items. You know, where the 20th level paladin is carving his kingdom out of the wilderness by defeating the nest of Illithid and dragons that have infested the otherwise tranquil woods. Now, I personally run a 'low magic' world. I prefer that because it helps the feeling that your character is really in a very different world. It means that when we have a fight, I really only have to know how a handful of items work and therefore the long discussions of rules and the physics of magic are much less likely to occur. To me it's the story that's important and I feel that a low magic world helps maintain an emphasis on story over stuff. My 2 cents, Nek Rekab
camthalion 09-21-07, 10:14 PM	I'm not big on magic shops. I've never really liked the worlds in which magic was a fantasy stand-in for technology and have always wondered if this is a sign of a lack of imagination. Maybe this is more a matter of not being able to imagine a world without conveniences. I keep a timeline (not a calendar though I should) in my campaigns. Usually my PCs have somewhere they want to go. (They choose their destination, I just create adventures that occur a long the way). If they want a magic item created, they had better be willing to slow down, which they rarely are. I also create my NPC wizards and spells known to fit a theme. If the wizards don't have the prerequisites, they aren't going to be able to make the item. Still, none of them complain. They love the magic items they do get and enjoy the adventure. In one adventure they wiped out an entire cave complex of nasties and gave the loot away to the townspeople being harassed by the baddies. They are just such sweet PCs.
Gryllmyre 09-21-07, 11:12 PM	Well, 1e and 2e didn't really promote it. That was purely a DM taste thing. I don't find the 3e recommended wealth per level to be too far off, until you get to level 17 or so, then the items you can afford start to get into the realm of the ridiculous. Of course, that doesn't stop careless DM's (and even some editors) from stuffing too much treasure into their adventures. As for being easy, well, the high level game tends to be a do or die affair, from what I hear.
Alex_P 09-21-07, 11:37 PM	Enh, D&D was always over-reliant on magic items for character customization. You had fewer items before, but also fewer innate character abilities. In a way, the magic items are just growing to match the much larger variety of special abilities that characters get. (You're free to argue that all the character powers are "Monty Haul"-ish, too, if you wish to take that tact.) -- Alex
Lord_Madrigan 09-21-07, 11:46 PM	When I have my players find a magic shop the only items in common stock are the cheeper Potions and scrolls up to about 2nd or 3rd level. Just about any other Item they need to, 1: Find it as random loot 2: Craft said Item 3: Find someone who will do a custom order (Hope you got Platinum) 4: Roll on the OMG the shop actually Has one! chart. Minor Item 15% Medium Item 10% Major Item 3% Cursed or Useless Item 35%
RadicalTaoist 09-22-07, 12:11 AM	good luck telling Musashi that his set of blades, in his family for generations, are obsolete and he should use that filthy hobgoblin sword +5 instead!Ahem. Miyamoto Musashi's swords would not have been family heirlooms. If you go by the most likely historical theories, then he was the son of a relatively lower vassal family, and he also was received into the service of new lords over time. This, in addition to the duels he won, would have seen him with different swords. If you go by the fictional account in Eiji Yoshikawa's novel (great stuff!) then he picked up a new set of swords (can't remember the name of the swordsmith) after his seclusion and training with Takuan (the same period during which he changed his name to Musashi Miyamoto after the Battle of Sekihagara; really, he'd accomplished most of what was fictionalized in Yoshikawa's novel before Sekihagara and the rise of the Tokugawa shogunate). Either way, it was unlikely he'd have fought notable duels (such as his defeat of the various heirs of the Yoshioka school and their students) with such a sword. In both real history and the popular fictional accounts, however, he was always known to have fought his most famous duel *without a blade*. He killed Sasaki Kojiro with a wooden sword he'd carved himself from a boat oar on his way to the dueling ground. Carrying on.
unrepentantweed 09-22-07, 12:17 AM	I found that the problem of too much wealth, while chronic has gotten worse over time. With the previous editions yes there was a ridiculous amount of money for adventurers, but at least the amount of magic items was lower. Of course in those days things were less standardized, but I distinctly remember that every one had less gear and it wasn't that bad. In some games there were fewer non plot magic items than there were players, this seemed normal at the time. The amount of loot has gone up with the new editions. There has been power creep, and it has been reflected by the assumed amounts of magic items that are available. Now days when I look at various forums I see such crazy PC loot that a small "thanks Monty" has escaped my lips on more than one occasion. Magic shops...that way lies madness, madness I say.
unrepentantweed 09-22-07, 12:21 AM	with that last post I now feel that I have officially become a gamer coot, talking about <flash back shimmer> "In my day we had a thing called THACO and we, well we didn't like it it rather sucked to be honest. At least it was better than all those damned tables that you had to look up...Magic shops! Thanks Monty! We used to laugh at any one munchkiny enough to say such a thing. Did I ever tell you of the time that my seventh level mage was chased over the roof tops..."
Vrykolas2k 09-22-07, 12:45 AM	I agree completely. I dislike playing accountant and constantly needing to upgrade my gear. Star Wars and d20 Modern were designed in such a way to *not* be gear-dependent. However, D&D has always had a sense of constant upgrades to their gear ("Hey, nice, a +2 sword's better than my current one!"). As such, D&D 3e was designed in such a way as *to* be gear-dependent, due to the legacy of the game being that way. And within that assumption, standardizing wealth acquisition rates is a good step to regulating amount of gear (akin to Saga basing damage and skill checks off of your character level). One other tidbit I didn't mention in my earlier reply is that thanks to item creation, it becomes quite possible to *upgrade* magic items. This avoids the following: "I am Arthur, and this is Excalibur." *next week* "I am Arthur, and this is Caladbolg." "What happened to Excalibur, sire?" "Its numbers weren't as good." Under 3e's item creation rules, you could have sold Caladbolg to pay to upgrade Excalibur (or your father's sword, or your civilization's holy lance, or whatever). This was later expanded upon with the Oriental Adventures samurai's Ancestral Daisho (good luck telling Musashi that his set of blades, in his family for generations, are obsolete and he should use that filthy hobgoblin sword +5 instead!), the Ancestral Relic feat, and the entire Weapons of Legacy book, but at its core, the simple idea of keeping your equipment but not falling behind in the numbers... goes back to item creation. Say what you will, but better approximating the very fantasy the game is supposedly able to approximate is a good thing. Strange. Every group I was ever in for 2nd ed, the mage was able to create or upgrade items. How do I know? I was often the mage, or a fighter-mage (or the GM, but I'll get to that in a minute). What allowed me to? The books, including the rules in the Book of Artifacts. Granted, you usually had to work with other PCs and even NPCs to do things, but hey, that makes sense also. As well, creating magic items wasn't done at whim... since it cost a point of Con to cast Permancy, and most magi dodn't assign their highest score there, you really had to want/ need an item before you'd go through what it took to make something like that. Hobgoblins, as written, were a clean, martial race who kept their weapons and armour in good repair. Orcs and goblins, on the other hand... As a GM, I used the tables as a guide-line when I created my "dungeons"... and assigned the treasures beforehand. So if the group went up against hob-goblins, and I rolled for three magic weapons and a set of armour, the chief and his two champions would give the players what for with them. The dragon would use the staff or wands. As examples. As for items themselves... I can't speak for every player, but if my elven Bladesinger ever got a vorpal sword, it would be kept, regardless if the Sword of Kas (or whatever)came up later or not... call it an "honour sword" or the like, but that's the way I played. I'd give "lesser magic items" to Henchmen or the leader and elites of my followers. Not to mention, most GMs were smart enough not to give out items pell-mell (so the Ebony Blade wouldn't be in the hands of the party that also had Excalibur and Stormbringer). That's retarded; most GMs rolled on the tables, and if something was inappropriate, they'd either re-roll or pick something else. I know I did. There's also the fact that I never played with anyone who would sit there and compare the stats of one item against another that had served them well, and wasn't overpowered by what they were fighting. Arthur wouldn't trade Excalibur off for ANY reason, for instance, neither would Elric swap Stormbringer for Mournblade. And most of the people I played with played their characters thusly... those who didn't ended up in someone else's group. It wasn't done to the point of stupidity, but people kept and appreciated what they got in AD&D... so while a paladin would "trade-in" a +2 sword for a Holy Avenger, he wouldn't trade the Holy Avenger for... whatever. Also, I liked how followers and henchmen were done in the previous editions... save the person's life? They're a henchman, if you wish... i gained quite a few apprenti that way. In the new system, if you haven't the leadership feat, you're hosed.
CCS 09-22-07, 02:14 AM	mundane magic items Now there is a sad, sad phrase. You should NEVER find the words mundane & magic linked together. And I think it says alot about what could be considered "wrong" with the game nowdays. Or at least many of those playing it.... Granted, not all items are created equelly (IE; with flashy powers/effects & all). But you should never let your games & stories reach the point where finding a "mere" +x magical item is viewed as being a muligan - just one more thing to be cashed in while passing through the next town. Doing so completely ignores the potential for further story telling and should serve as a big flashing warning light that something's amiss in your game. And if this is the general attitude concerning generic "+" weapons/armour/etc? Then I dread to think what reaction finding some of the more "wonderous items" ellicits. Think about it; Many of them have an incredibly narrow use and in no way contribute to combat effectiveness. Wich is what the rules seem to demand. Thus who'd really want them???
Vaelan 09-22-07, 02:30 AM	And if this is the general attitude concerning generic "+" weapons/armour/etc? Then I dread to think what reaction finding some of the more "wonderous items" ellicits. Bonuses are boring. Some of the more wonderous items don't grant bonuses and are thus not so boring.
Tempest Stormwind 09-22-07, 02:48 AM	Ahem. *snip* Carrying on. I picked a samurai-esque name to represent a samurai (much as I have in the past, except there I was referring to noble western warriors and used names like 'Leoric'), not representing Miyamoto Musashi, who I am actually rather familiar with (though not as familiar as you) -- as you know, since we've actually spoken about this in the past, RT! Quick, a nit, let's pick it! (What next, you attack Rich Burlew for using Hayao's name for Miko because it sounded right despite Miko having nothing to do with Ghibli?) Vrykolas2k: Regarding the whole constitution-for-permanency thing: If that was written to keep PCs from producing a bunch of gear, why bother letting them create gear in the first place from a game-mechanical perspective? Furthermore, from a world perspective, let's look at this another way: How many adventurers are there in the world? How many dragons? How many champion humanoid (or demi-humanoid) monsters? That's a LOT of magical gear. And thus, that's a LOT of life-force spent. Obviously, that Con-cost didn't stop some mages. It just seems like a clunky, forced mechanic to me. (Like XP costs, actually; 3e isn't completely exempt either. Still, I consider XP better than permanent loss of ability scores.)
yrogerg 09-22-07, 02:48 AM	Wait, magic shops are a 3e thing? Weird, I could swear I've played a number of CRPGs based on 2e *well* before 3e came out... I suppose they just pulled the concept out of the air, though.
IceFractal 09-22-07, 02:56 AM	I guess I should bring up, once again, the Paladin magic-item code, which eventually comes up in this kind of discussion and is just as soon forgotten afterwards. An imporant part of the Paladin code (one you could lose your powers for violating), was that you were only allowed to have 10 magic items. This being a specific limitation, it must have been presumed that the other non-Paladin party members would have more than 10 items - each! That's a good number of magic items, by any standard. I don't really feel that the previous editions were necessarily lower-treasure. But the more ambiguous wealth rules meant that if a DM decided to make the game low-treasure, there was nothing to compare it to, and that was percieved as the standard. Secondly, "magic shops". Nowhere in the rules does it claim there are "magic item shops". It claims that items are available in cities of a certain size, which is very different. If a town has a high-enough limit to have an item available, that doesn't usually mean you walk into the general store and ask for a +3 Flaming longsword. It could means that if you ask around town, you might hear about a retired guard captain from the royal court, who needs funds to start a warrior's guild, and who might be willing to sell one of his enchanted swords. And if you bargain with him, you might be able to get the sword you're looking for. Sometimes you want to play this out, sometimes not, but the fact that an item is "available" doesn't mean "on a store shelf".
Neutronium_Dragon 09-22-07, 02:57 AM	> With the previous editions yes there was a ridiculous amount of money for > adventurers, but at least the amount of magic items was lower. *Cough* Count the items in an old-E adventure and count the items in an equivalent 3E one. The number of items in the old-E one will usually be much higher. They're also more apt to be a bunch of random clutter that no one's going to use, but they're there.
High Octane 09-22-07, 03:09 AM	Item creation feats with high money and XP costs are Wizards way of addressing the complain of "How come NPCs can make cool stuff but we can't?" by saying "Here is how it is done. Now you could make those weapons and items but at this point I doubt you will WANT to, costing a feat and experience and still have to pay half price. Now shut up and loot your enemies and take their items to use or go buy what you need like a good adventurer and stop wasting good orcslaying time on mundane activities. We gave you food making spells and healing spells to reduce your downtime, didn't you catch the hint? Sheesh."
OleOneEye 09-22-07, 03:39 AM	This used to be a almost universally reviled, yet all too common, play-style. Many older DMs will tell you stories of having to bar players from transfering over-equiped characers from other campaigns to their own. In those days, loot was much more sparingly given out and the general rule of thumb was that a properly geared out character should have no more than one (if that!) level apropriate magic item per character level. Back in the heady days of AD&D, my first DM was one of the types that freely gave out magic items, and we had no idea what was level appropriate or not. Even my non-magical gems and herbs had quasi-magical properties. Thus, I cannot agree with you that loot was more sparingly given way back yonder, nor was it universally reviled because we pretty much always had a hoot. That said, it sometimes feels more mechanical nowadays, what with having a set formula to make a potion of strength instead of collecting the tears of a giant and the general expectation that somebody, somewhere will be willing to sell the exact magic item a PC craves.
shadzar 09-22-07, 03:45 AM	i would say either monthy haul or munchkinism.
BaltotheJunkie 09-22-07, 09:28 AM	Ok, first up for those who are not familiar with the term, a quick explanation is in order. Monty Hall was the long time host of an American TV game show that ran on and off from the late '60s until circa 1990. The premise of the show was the the contestant was simply handed a nominal prize and them tempted by the host to swap what he had for the posibility of of greater rewards. It was on the surface a pretty sappy concept, but it worked in practice. The concept of a situation in which players were simply given a prize for little or no work soon worked it's way into the D&d players vocabulary. A "Monty Haul" campaign was deamed to be one were there was little risk to the players, too much treasure was given out, and the bored players soon accumulated an outlandish mountain of gear that they never really had to work for. This used to be a almost universally reviled, yet all too common, play-style. Many older DMs will tell you stories of having to bar players from transfering over-equiped characers from other campaigns to their own. In those days, loot was much more sparingly given out and the general rule of thumb was that a properly geared out character should have no more than one (if that!) level apropriate magic item per character level. Now fast forward to today..... In today's editions we have the following: -Item creation feats (which are a cool concept, but if not kept in serious check can lead to magic item over-abundance) -If these forums are any indication, "Diablo" style magic item shops are actually commonplace in many campaigns. -The whole encounter rating system is based around the idea that characters should posess a certain (quite sizable by traditional standards) amount of magic items to make said system work. -Advanced character templates in the DMG that imply how many magic items (once again a shockingly high number) a player of whatever leve should pocess. Am I alone in thinking that all this adds up to a play enviorment in which the Monty Haul style campaign is the rule rather than the exception? Am I the only one who thinks the old "one magice item per character level at the the most, is a good rule of thumb? Does anyone else that "Diablo magic shops" were one can get whatever they want made to order is an abhorant concept? WWGD? Thoughts? Rants? Flames? "Trench Raider" Yes. The rules encourage it.
Varia 09-22-07, 11:39 AM	You are indeed incorrect, Raider. 3.5 is considerably LESS monty haul than 1.0. As has been pointed out, a quick count of loot in 1.0 modules vs 3.5 will answer that question easily enough. The revolting bean-counting mindset that 3.5 introduced with its wealth-by-level guidelines saw to that. (may have been 3.0, but I never played/read 3.0) What 3.5 DID do was essentially introduce magic shops, and more complete and player-friendly (player-spoiling?) item creation rules, which meant that while players tended to be strictly limited in their amount of cash, they also tended to be able to get exactly what they wanted. But because their budgets were limited it led to a much greater fixation on magic items than before as people searched for the biggest bang for their buck. So 3.5 players have fewer/lesser items, but a much greater fixation on those items, which can be mistaken for monty haul in a poor light. There has indeed been power creep since the 1.0 days, but its mainly due to three things- the introduction of feats, especially the ones that directly affect combat ability (maximise spell, power attack, and the like), the introduction of the new rules for how you get multiple attacks which by themselves over doubles the melee output of any given party,. and the fact that far and away the greatest attention and effort within the limited 3.5 players budgets goes to buying the most over-boosted weapon they can. There is no 1.0 equivalent of a +1 holy, shocking, magebane pigsticker of doom that does 6d6+3 against most targets an (heroic) adventurer faces before strength/skill/feat bonuses in 1.0, not even remotely close, and thats not even a lvl 20 weapon.
Alex_P 09-22-07, 01:03 PM	Now there is a sad, sad phrase. You should NEVER find the words mundane & magic linked together.Was D&D magic ever anything more than mundane? Spells in particular have pretty much always just been the equivalent of grenades you pull out of your backpack. And magic items... well, they are just grenades you pull out of your backpack. -- Alex
necrom99 09-23-07, 04:58 PM	Dude, straight up.... I've been playing D&D since it was THAC0 and not at all advanced.... and yes the system now is ridiculously generous with its distribution of Magic Items. I for one do not allow for purchasing of magic items in towns, with the exception of potions and scrolls and even then only in the biggest of cities. and i have a house rule that makes item creation more complicated, where most magic items require a "rare" component to complete, for example, a flaming enchantment would require the tooth of a Salamander or a red dragon eyeball or the ashes of a dead fire elemental....anything like that will do. not only does it mean less magic items but it means the ones they do have are precious as hell. i use the treasure roller provided in the DMG and when you use only that, it works out just fine. i've had the luxury of playing Monty Haul campaigns, and I cannot stand them, they usually die out pretty quickly too...... my campaigns run for 3-4 years and every challenge yields appropriate awards.
Seeker95 09-23-07, 05:20 PM	No edition promoted or encouraged Monty-Haulism. Every edition had elements of Monty-Haulism. The edition is MH independent. The DM and his players, on the other hand, either are, or are not.
yrogerg 09-23-07, 06:21 PM	You are indeed incorrect, Raider. 3.5 is considerably LESS monty haul than 1.0. As has been pointed out, a quick count of loot in 1.0 modules vs 3.5 will answer that question easily enough. The revolting bean-counting mindset that 3.5 introduced with its wealth-by-level guidelines saw to that. (may have been 3.0, but I never played/read 3.0) What 3.5 DID do was essentially introduce magic shops, and more complete and player-friendly (player-spoiling?) item creation rules, which meant that while players tended to be strictly limited in their amount of cash, they also tended to be able to get exactly what they wanted. But because their budgets were limited it led to a much greater fixation on magic items than before as people searched for the biggest bang for their buck. So 3.5 players have fewer/lesser items, but a much greater fixation on those items, which can be mistaken for monty haul in a poor light. This sounds about right. Personally, I'm not sure I'd say either system was any better than the other, ultimately. However, it's worth noting that magic shops really were a product of 2nd edition: IIRC, a 2e Waterdeep sourcebook discussed them, and there were *definitely* plenty of 2e-based CRPGs that used them extensively, well before 3rd Edition came out (Balder's Gate, Planescape: Torment, with BG II released the same year). 3.X may have friendlier crafting rules, and concrete WBL guidelines, but the magic shops were already there.
RichardAwesome 09-24-07, 04:30 AM	Better equipped players just gives me an excuse to throw tougher monsters or situations at them. :) As I tell all my players. Power comes at a price.
StormKnight 09-24-07, 12:26 PM	If you are told "Here's a set of guidelines for reasonable wealth levels and useable price and availability rules", you are always free to ignore those rules. If you are given no reasonable price and availability rules, you are always free to make up your own. However, it is much, MUCH easier to ignore something that is reasonable and balanced than to make up something of your own that is. Thus, the new edition style is better for all, no matter what your preference is.
Vrykolas2k 09-24-07, 12:50 PM	Wait, magic shops are a 3e thing? Weird, I could swear I've played a number of CRPGs based on 2e *well* before 3e came out... I suppose they just pulled the concept out of the air, though. CRPGs to P&PRPGs= Apples and Anvils. They're nae even close to the same thing. And since 3.x seems devoted more to emulating the CRPGs...
Naderion 09-24-07, 01:18 PM	Chalenge Rating is not a foolproof system. It's a nice general guideline, but as a DM one should always think for a few minutes how this specific party will fare against them. Change your cleric for a druid and suddenly undead adventures become much more difficult. If a fight is the first of the day or the 9th makes a huge diffenrence, too. So I have started to not cling too much to the fuidelines how much treasure the PCs shouls have. They could always have the idea to spend 30% of their wealth on a small castle as their home base and instantly the whole calculation is meaningless. Also I strongly doubt they really tested all the possible sets of equipment all those variations of parties could have against every creature. It's really not neccessary to follow the guidelines to the next round 10 gp. You just have to keep it in mind when you create high level encounters that your group needs to have the means to kill their opponent. The 3.0 Bebilith was a good example. DR 30/+3 and resistance 20 or more against everything and a CR 10 creature. Not that hard if you have +3 weapons, but invincible if you don't. Same goes for rakshasa, which at playing NWN several times anhilated the whole party because we were playing low magic and couldn't harm those bastards with any spells or weapons. I think magic Shops aren't that much of a problem. On the one hand, you want +3 weapons to be available, but what demand is there for weapons of 18.000 gp cost, that allow a trader to keep about 50 of them at stock? I don't think they are produced at line, but are all custom made. If you are not in a hurry, which you will likely not be when you sell your loot of the last adventure, you can go to the blacksmith and have him make a custom forged high quality sword. Then you take this sword to the local wizard and have him enchant it for you. It doesn't make the whole think any more expensive, most likely even cheaper because you get it right from the source and don't have to pay several traders until you get it. May take about a week, but I think for a 20.000 gp weapon, this should be affordable... :D
Vrykolas2k 09-24-07, 01:49 PM	Chalenge Rating is not a foolproof system. It's a nice general guideline, but as a DM one should always think for a few minutes how this specific party will fare against them. Change your cleric for a druid and suddenly undead adventures become much more difficult. If a fight is the first of the day or the 9th makes a huge diffenrence, too. So I have started to not cling too much to the fuidelines how much treasure the PCs shouls have. They could always have the idea to spend 30% of their wealth on a small castle as their home base and instantly the whole calculation is meaningless. Also I strongly doubt they really tested all the possible sets of equipment all those variations of parties could have against every creature. It's really not neccessary to follow the guidelines to the next round 10 gp. You just have to keep it in mind when you create high level encounters that your group needs to have the means to kill their opponent. The 3.0 Bebilith was a good example. DR 30/+3 and resistance 20 or more against everything and a CR 10 creature. Not that hard if you have +3 weapons, but invincible if you don't. Same goes for rakshasa, which at playing NWN several times anhilated the whole party because we were playing low magic and couldn't harm those bastards with any spells or weapons. I think magic Shops aren't that much of a problem. On the one hand, you want +3 weapons to be available, but what demand is there for weapons of 18.000 gp cost, that allow a trader to keep about 50 of them at stock? I don't think they are produced at line, but are all custom made. If you are not in a hurry, which you will likely not be when you sell your loot of the last adventure, you can go to the blacksmith and have him make a custom forged high quality sword. Then you take this sword to the local wizard and have him enchant it for you. It doesn't make the whole think any more expensive, most likely even cheaper because you get it right from the source and don't have to pay several traders until you get it. May take about a week, but I think for a 20.000 gp weapon, this should be affordable... :D True to a point, but don't forget some things: The wizard will charge for not only enchanting the item, baut also for materials used in doing so... and it's posible the weopon will need to be forged from something besides common steel, or have some other requirement. I haven't looked up the requirements for the game, but IRL a "master-work" sword requires about a month to make. And that's just the balde. You also need to consider the hilt, grip, pommel, scabbard and other furniture for the weapon. You may end up not saving quite so much as you think, depending on gm prescribed circumstances.
Naderion 09-24-07, 02:15 PM	It's not meant to be cheaper, but to have them aviable without them being at stock in shops in every town. Though magical blades are not available everywhere, I would think a masterwork weapon shouldn't be that hard to find. After all it usually costs less then 400 gp. As by the craft skill, making a regular longsword can be done by a good smith(with just 3 or 4 levels in expert) in a day without problem. Making it masterwork should take less than 10 days. So one to two weeks for a custom made longsword would be likely. Enchanting it for 18.000 gp would take 18 days, so all in all the whole thing would require about a month. That is quite some time but you don't HAVE to spend all that time in that town. You just have to be there sometime in about a month to collect it and pay the temaining price. Not practical for all campaigns and less so for really powerfull items, but for stuff in the range of 4000 to 6000 gp, it should work without problem.
AAB 09-24-07, 03:24 PM	True to a point, but don't forget some things: The wizard will charge for not only enchanting the item, baut also for materials used in doing so... and it's posible the weopon will need to be forged from something besides common steel, or have some other requirement. I haven't looked up the requirements for the game, but IRL a "master-work" sword requires about a month to make. And that's just the balde. You also need to consider the hilt, grip, pommel, scabbard and other furniture for the weapon. You may end up not saving quite so much as you think, depending on gm prescribed circumstances. Ah, but real life doesn't have "exceptional" dwarf smiths... Level 3 Dwarven Expert Skill Focus (Craft (weaponsmithing), Skill Focus (Craft (armorsmithing) +2 racial bonus to craft checks 2 apprentices using Aid Another action For a total Craft (whatever) modifier of +15 It takes him an average of 3 days to make a normal longsword, plus another 6 weeks to make it masterwork. So about 45 days (assuming a seven-day week; it's not specified in the PHB) of work to make a masterwork sword, but only 18 days to make it +3? That sucks.
Jexil 09-24-07, 03:29 PM	Back in the days of 1st edition I usually went strictly by the treasure types listed for each creature and rolled magic items randomly. The result was that PCs typically ended up with a ridiculous amount of magical loot. I remember as both a player and a DM that it was not unusual for a party to carry around a portal hole filled with dozens of magical items that were rarely or even never used. With 3.5, I ignore all rules regarding distributing treasure and just rely on my own judgement as far as what's appropriate--which is the only way to do it if you're concerned about the level of character wealth and magical possessions. As far as magic shops go, we used them in 1st edition too. This was before video games, so that was hardly a Diablo invention. In fact, the magic shops I put into my 3.5 campaigns have a much more restricted inventory than those I created in 1st edtion. I think a lot of characteristics that people ascribe to one edtion or another of the game really have a lot more to do with a particular gaming group's style than the edition itself. I play with a different group than I did 20 years ago, and the style of play is quite a bit different. But that' s more the group than the edition.
Vrykolas2k 09-24-07, 03:31 PM	Ah, but real life doesn't have "exceptional" dwarf smiths... Level 3 Dwarven Expert Skill Focus (Craft (weaponsmithing), Skill Focus (Craft (armorsmithing) +2 racial bonus to craft checks 2 apprentices using Aid Another action For a total Craft (whatever) modifier of +15 It takes him an average of 3 days to make a normal longsword, plus another 6 weeks to make it masterwork. So about 45 days (assuming a seven-day week; it's not specified in the PHB) of work to make a masterwork sword, but only 18 days to make it +3? That sucks. True enough, but I'd stack Masamune against a dwarf smith any day of the week, lol. And I bet I'd get a better blade. ;)
Vrykolas2k 09-24-07, 03:39 PM	Back in the days of 1st edition I usually went strictly by the treasure types listed for each creature and rolled magic items randomly. The result was that PCs typically ended up with a ridiculous amount of magical loot. I remember as both a player and a DM that it was not unusual for a party to carry around a portal hole filled with dozens of magical items that were rarely or even never used. With 3.5, I ignore all rules regarding distributing treasure and just rely on my own judgement as far as what's appropriate--which is the only way to do it if you're concerned about the level of character wealth and magical possessions. As far as magic shops go, we used them in 1st edition too. This was before video games, so that was hardly a Diablo invention. In fact, the magic shops I put into my 3.5 campaigns have a much more restricted inventory than those I created in 1st edtion. I think a lot of characteristics that people ascribe to one edtion or another of the game really have a lot more to do with a particular gaming group's style than the edition itself. I play with a different group than I did 20 years ago, and the style of play is quite a bit different. But that' s more the group than the edition. I'm starting to think I've always been a stingy gm, lol! Well, everyone had fun, so whatever works...
_Jayne_Cobb_ 09-24-07, 04:04 PM	In those days, loot was much more sparingly given out and the general rule of thumb was that a properly geared out character should have no more than one (if that!) level apropriate magic item per character level. You're kidding, right? Have you ever read a Gary Gygax module? The things are practically dripping with magic items. Let us not forget, too, that this was back when you got 1 XP for every GP worth of loot you found as well as the loot itself, and the weights of all items were listed in "coins". By comparison, 3e details what is an appropriate loot-level for a character based on his level to maintain balance with the default power-level implicit to the game rather than just handing out buckets full of gear and loot and letting the DM try to balance it, and deal with the repercussions with no guidance whatsoever. Not only does 3e not encourage Monty Haulism, it actively discourages it.
AAB 09-24-07, 06:21 PM	You're kidding, right? Have you ever read a Gary Gygax module? The things are practically dripping with magic items. Let us not forget, too, that this was back when you got 1 XP for every GP worth of loot you found as well as the loot itself, and the weights of all items were listed in "coins". By comparison, 3e details what is an appropriate loot-level for a character based on his level to maintain balance with the default power-level implicit to the game rather than just handing out buckets full of gear and loot and letting the DM try to balance it, and deal with the repercussions with no guidance whatsoever. Not only does 3e not encourage Monty Haulism, it actively discourages it. Wait. Just wait. Wait. People survive Gygax modules?
Tempest Stormwind 09-24-07, 06:49 PM	Wait. Just wait. Wait. People survive Gygax modules? If you're intelligent, and the dice don't indicate you randomly die with no save (yes, it happens: 'In this area, a purple worm emerges from the ground and eats one character at random' comes to mind), then yes, people survive Gygax modules. They're mean-spirited modules, but not impossible to survive.
AAB 09-24-07, 06:57 PM	My personal favorite was the "if any character goes through this portal they are teleported outside the dungeon, sans gear". Of course, that was about the fifth random portal in the dungeon (and all previous ones were safe), so we took it. And then ran into the horrible six-armed gargoyle.
Vrykolas2k 09-24-07, 10:32 PM	Wait. Just wait. Wait. People survive Gygax modules? "I survived Tomb of Horrors, and all I got was a lousy... wait a minute..."
Seeker95 09-25-07, 08:32 AM	"I survived Tomb of Horrors, and all I got was a lousy... wait a minute...":rofl: Priceless! :tiphat:
_Jayne_Cobb_ 09-25-07, 09:24 AM	Wait. Just wait. Wait. People survive Gygax modules? :rofl:
jasper 09-25-07, 11:09 AM	Trench_Raider;.... A "Monty Haul" campaign was deamed to be one were there was little risk to the players, too much treasure was given out, and the bored players soon accumulated an outlandish mountain of gear that they never really had to work for. This used to be a almost universally reviled, yet all too common, play-style. ... hMMM I remember good times with monty haul dms.:D ... In those days, loot was much more sparingly given out and the general rule of thumb was that a properly geared out character should have no more than one (if that!) level apropriate magic item per character level..... Maybe in your games you played with. With me it depended on DM...:) ....Now fast forward to today..... -Item creation feats.... Which helps give standard of making magic because back then it would take months and two or three quests for spell ingredients to make a potion. Plus it was so hard to make magic items why was there an over supply of items. Check the treasure charts slay a group of orcs with orge magi back up win the axe of dwarven lords. plus how many type was the Wand of Orcus found? ...-If these forums are any indication, "Diablo" style magic item shops are actually commonplace in many campaigns..... Gee the epic wizard on the magical plane of magic who would appear and let buy/swap magic items.. We didn't have Diablo but plenty Wizard Wally mart magic shops. Look at some of city state modules. -The whole encounter rating system is based around the idea that characters should posess a certain (quite sizable by traditional standards) amount of magic items to make said system work..... gee compared to fact if you bought modules and had pcs playing more 3 months you as dm had to pencil out a third of magic as you read thru it the first time. Also if monster is room 22. The magic item need to help destory monster was in room 18-25 skipping 22. Or how many charts for monsters by dungeon level, location etc. ...Thoughts? Trench Raider... Either you looking thru violet color glasses or you had more Sara's from knights of dinner table playing than I ever did.
cptrugged 09-25-07, 01:29 PM	The funny thing is that in most 3e games I've played, it always seems to me that +1 swords are just the replacement for gems. In the end it just equates to wealth and then you spend your vast ammounts to get what you want. But to be honest, in my game its not the warrior with the +2 shocking, flaming burst weapon you have to worry about. Its the mage or rogue with 10 different wands for every situation. Even low powered items used in versatility can break alot of encounters. In the end tho, it really comes down to the GM. Some give you a bag of holding to start the adventure and +1 just means 1000gp to you. Some you'd be happy to just see magic armor at all.
Jexil 09-25-07, 05:32 PM	Let us not forget, too, that this was back when you got 1 XP for every GP worth of loot you found If I recall, magic items were only worth 1/10 their GP value in XP if you keep them instead of selling them. We always used the 1/10 value XP regardless of whether they sold or used the items because otherwise characters would have been leveling up 2-3 times or more per adventure (and even then, PCs almost always received far more eperience from treasure than from killing monters) Also, I always wondered what was supposed to happen if you kept the item for a little while and then sold it. Would you immediately receive additional XP? Would the XP be decreased by a percentage based on how long you kept or how much you used the item while it was in your possession? Another reason to avoid the whole issue.
Count Arioch the 28th 09-25-07, 06:23 PM	Personally, I dislike the whole "Wealth per level" mechanic. Because in 3E, a high level character cannot have a castle or other base of operations. Why? Because even a small castle will be worth several million GP according to the rules presented in Stronghold Builder's Guide. A smart PC is going to sell that castle for more loot because magic items make you better. On the other side of the coin, a PC can't build a castle himself, because every copper not spent on his adventuring gear only makes him less able to overcome challenges. Wealth per level makes the game worse, in my opinion.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 09-25-07, 06:34 PM	Personally, I dislike the whole "Wealth per level" mechanic. Because in 3E, a high level character cannot have a castle or other base of operations. Why? Because even a small castle will be worth several million GP according to the rules presented in Stronghold Builder's Guide. A smart PC is going to sell that castle for more loot because magic items make you better. On the other side of the coin, a PC can't build a castle himself, because every copper not spent on his adventuring gear only makes him less able to overcome challenges. Wealth per level makes the game worse, in my opinion. Yes. That really, really sucks. That's why you use the Wish economy. Then mundane crap like that doesn't matter.
PhaedrusXY 09-25-07, 06:42 PM	If you Grognards like 1st and 2nd edition so much, why don't you go play them, instead of whining about the newer rules? I started playing not long after 2nd edition was released, and we used books from 1st edition, and there is almost nothing that I miss about those earlier rulesets. The only thing that I might say I miss is that the game was simpler, and high level combats didn't take hours, but it sounds like 4th edition is trying to get back to that somewhat by streamlining combat, etc. Also, if you actually followed the rules in earlier editions, rather than some "rule of thumb" that wasn't actually printed in a book, but was instead in some random magazine article that noone read, as already stated, characters were practically dripping with magic items. I remember in one campaign my character basically just started collecting all the random magic items that we got and noone else wanted. The one I remember most is the "endless salt shaker", for some reason. :D
AAB 09-25-07, 07:22 PM	Also, if you actually followed the rules in earlier editions, rather than some "rule of thumb" that wasn't actually printed in a book, but was instead in some random magazine article that noone read, as already stated, characters were practically dripping with magic items. I remember in one campaign my character basically just started collecting all the random magic items that we got and noone else wanted. The one I remember most is the "endless salt shaker", for some reason. :D Oh... now I want an endless saltshaker.... Scratch that. I want an Everflowing Mug. Now That's a magic item worth carrying around.
yrogerg 09-25-07, 07:24 PM	CRPGs to P&PRPGs= Apples and Anvils. They're nae even close to the same thing. And since 3.x seems devoted more to emulating the CRPGs... And yet, the CRPGs were devoted to emulating the rules, mechanics, settings, and flavor of the P&P RPGs of 2nd edition. That's what they *did*. And again, there *were* already magic shops written into setting sourcebooks. Seriously. This is like saying that "clerics of concepts" were an instance of 3.x emulating CRPGs because there's one in Torment, even though *they already existed in 2e Planescape*.
yrogerg 09-25-07, 07:25 PM	You're kidding, right? Have you ever read a Gary Gygax module? The things are practically dripping with magic items. Let us not forget, too, that this was back when you got 1 XP for every GP worth of loot you found as well as the loot itself, and the weights of all items were listed in "coins". By comparison, 3e details what is an appropriate loot-level for a character based on his level to maintain balance with the default power-level implicit to the game rather than just handing out buckets full of gear and loot and letting the DM try to balance it, and deal with the repercussions with no guidance whatsoever. Not only does 3e not encourage Monty Haulism, it actively discourages it. I don't know how I forgot about the whole Finding Loot=>Gaining XP thing. Isn't that pretty much the definition of a Monty Haul-type system?
Count Arioch the 28th 09-25-07, 08:12 PM	If you Grognards like 1st and 2nd edition so much, why don't you go play them, instead of whining about the newer rules? Ah yes, the "I don't agree with you, therefore I'm telling you to shut up" argument. How clever.
Rustmonster 09-25-07, 08:27 PM	Magic Walmarts are not a problem with the system. They are a probelm with DMs. It doesn't say in the rule book "there is always a shop in every town with every magic item you could ever want". That's something the DM decides.
Nadaka 09-25-07, 08:34 PM	Answer to original question? No. If anything, 3e promotes a reduced amount of magic items due to the recommended guidelines. Take a look back at the typical 1e module, cram packed with magic and artifacts oozing from every hole. I recall one 1e DM handing out a near artifact items (ring of regeneration, staff of life and death, +3 vorpal sword, etc.) to each player in a level one game as starting equipments. The OP mentioned 1 level appropriate item per character level? Wow, thats a lot of magic items. Consider that a typical 3e character will have 1 to 4 level appropriate items and a handful of lesser items at any given level (if following wealth guidelines).
shadzar 09-25-07, 09:26 PM	Magic Walmarts are not a problem with the system. They are a probelm with DMs. It doesn't say in the rule book "there is always a shop in every town with every magic item you could ever want". That's something the DM decides. no the problem is with the player thinking they need these magic items, and the DMs being overpowered in order to keep the game group together he gives in. look at the rampant players coming to these boards that complain about how DMs dont give them everything they want, and the other people that claim that this is what the DMs should do to "compromise" with the players.
Jexil 09-25-07, 09:48 PM	Personally, I dislike the whole "Wealth per level" mechanic. Because in 3E, a high level character cannot have a castle or other base of operations. Why? Because even a small castle will be worth several million GP according to the rules presented in Stronghold Builder's Guide. A smart PC is going to sell that castle for more loot because magic items make you better. On the other side of the coin, a PC can't build a castle himself, because every copper not spent on his adventuring gear only makes him less able to overcome challenges. I don't see how the fact that PCs prefer magic items over having a stronghold is the fault of wealth per level mechanics. Besides, a stronghold doesn't have to be part of the wealth per level mechanics. First, allow the characters to aquire a castle by means other than paying to have one built for them (for example, they can take one by force, which sounds a lot more fun than hiring builders). Secondly, if they try to sell it, don't have anyone offer to buy it--at least, not for anywhere near what it's worth. Selling the castle and spending the profits on magical gear is only an option if the DM allows it.
yrogerg 09-25-07, 10:07 PM	I don't see how the fact that PCs prefer magic items over having a stronghold is the fault of wealth per level mechanics. Agreed. If you got Leadership for free for having a stronghold in 3.5, more players would probably want one. Otherwise, it's hardly worth breaking the bank over.
Count Arioch the 28th 09-25-07, 10:08 PM	Selling the castle and spending the profits on magical gear is only an option if the DM allows it. Oberoni fallacy. The fact that I have to "not allow it" means that it IS broken, not that it ISN'T. Hell, I could ban everything in the game and make my players beat on each other with foam weapons while I sip Rumpleminz and laugh, but that doesn't have anything to do with the thread at large.
Count Arioch the 28th 09-25-07, 10:12 PM	no the problem is with the player thinking they need these magic items, and the DMs being overpowered in order to keep the game group together he gives in. And as it turns out, the players are 100% correct. Wealth per Level basically means "You need to have this many magical items to play at this level". If the 6th level fighter doesn't have at least +1 sword and +2 plate mail he can't play. Now, one of the faults for Wealth per Level is also that it's slanted. A sorcerer can be butt nekkid except for his spell component pouch and he's about as effective as he was before, while a fighter almost needs more than his wealth per level indicates to not be left behind.
yrogerg 09-25-07, 10:13 PM	Ah yes, the "I don't agree with you, therefore I'm telling you to shut up" argument. How clever. It's really the "Why do you play it if you hate it?" argument. Which isn't really an argument so much as a question. Closer to what you're claiming would be the "Why don't you complain about this in fora with larger sympathetic audiences, like ENworld?" argument. Which is, y'know, a valid point. Trolling the 3.x D&D fora complaining about how much 3.x sucks hardly seems worth it.
Count Arioch the 28th 09-25-07, 10:14 PM	Closer to what you're claiming would be the "Why don't you complain about this in fora with larger sympathetic audiences, like ENworld?" argument. Which is, y'know, a valid point. Trolling the 3.x D&D fora complaining about how much 3.x sucks hardly seems worth it. I can answer that one. I don't go to enworld because I'm not welcome there anymore. I pointed out moderator hypocrisy and was asked to leave. (Although as far as I know, I wasn't technically "banned", I could theoretically still post there, but I am respecting the wishes of that Morrus guy.)
yrogerg 09-25-07, 10:46 PM	And as it turns out, the players are 100% correct. Wealth per Level basically means "You need to have this many magical items to play at this level". If the 6th level fighter doesn't have at least +1 sword and +2 plate mail he can't play. No, it just means that you adjust CR and ECL appropriately. If you under-wealth a monster, it's less of a threat. If my character has less wealth than is typical for his level, those DR/Magic monsters might not be appropriate challenges. You don't see why that's useful? Back in 2e, the way you knew you were under-equipped was when you got torn apart by the Wererats you couldn't damage *at all*. The ease at which a DM could throw an unkillable monster at a party in 2e that "seemed appropriate" was kinda terrifying. Now, one of the faults for Wealth per Level is also that it's slanted. A sorcerer can be butt nekkid except for his spell component pouch and he's about as effective as he was before, while a fighter almost needs more than his wealth per level indicates to not be left behind. Except the part where the Sorcerer has to spend an enormous amount of money on consumable items to approach a fraction of the versatility of a Wizard (which can scribe his own scrolls for much cheaper, and rarely needs wands).
Count Arioch the 28th 09-25-07, 11:03 PM	Except the part where the Sorcerer has to spend an enormous amount of money on consumable items to approach a fraction of the versatility of a Wizard (which can scribe his own scrolls for much cheaper, and rarely needs wands). Really, a sorcerer is pretty closed to a balanced spellcaster, it's clerics, druids, and wizards that are too powerful.
yrogerg 09-25-07, 11:25 PM	Really, a sorcerer is pretty closed to a balanced spellcaster, it's clerics, druids, and wizards that are too powerful. To reiterate, in order to have enough versatility to deal with the normal encounter variation a spellcaster faces, the sorcerer still needs to spend mountains of wealth on consumable items. Even if you're not comparing it to the Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Psion, Wilder, Archivist, Artificer, Favored Soul, or any other primary spellcaster I can't think of right now, the fact that they can only change their spells once per level is a significant liability. As is the fact that they don't have enough skill ranks to cover their necessary spellcasting skills. And the fact that they don't really benefit from metamagic without spending additional feats. You don't need to compare them to the other primary spellcasters to spot those weaknesses.
Tempest Stormwind 09-25-07, 11:47 PM	To reiterate, in order to have enough versatility to deal with the normal encounter variation a spellcaster faces, the sorcerer still needs to spend mountains of wealth on consumable items. Even if you're not comparing it to the Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Psion, Wilder, Archivist, Artificer, Favored Soul, or any other primary spellcaster I can't think of right now, the fact that they can only change their spells once per level is a significant liability. Then what of the psionic classes there, which never get to change their powers? (I *think* the favored soul is in this camp too, but I could be wrong and I'm AFB.) Just curious. I tend to agree with most of what I'm seeing here, but I refuse to touch the sorcerer-power-level argument with an eleven-foot telescoping pole.
yrogerg 09-26-07, 12:03 AM	Then what of the psionic classes there, which never get to change their powers? (I *think* the favored soul is in this camp too, but I could be wrong and I'm AFB.) Just curious. I tend to agree with most of what I'm seeing here, but I refuse to touch the sorcerer-power-level argument with an eleven-foot telescoping pole. Psionic classes get effectively more powers (what with the multiple effects of individual powers), a better power progression, and the skill ranks necessary to actually manifest powers. They do suffer versatility issues, but since one energy power covers all of their blasting needs, they usually aren't hurting too much for extra powers known. And Shapers, at least, can get UPD as a class skill, giving their consumable use considerable diversity, as well. Wilders come closest to Sorcerers, but they have a unique class ability that *alone* gives them the edge over Sorcs, and they *also* have 4 skill points/level, compared to ther sorcerers 2. They can also make nifty multiclass gishes, especially with their skill list and larger hit dice. Likewise, compare the FS, with its diverse class abilities, to Sorcerers. There's no conceivable way that they could both be balanced classes.
shadzar 09-26-07, 12:35 AM	And as it turns out, the players are 100% correct. Wealth per Level basically means "You need to have this many magical items to play at this level". If the 6th level fighter doesn't have at least +1 sword and +2 plate mail he can't play. Now, one of the faults for Wealth per Level is also that it's slanted. A sorcerer can be butt nekkid except for his spell component pouch and he's about as effective as he was before, while a fighter almost needs more than his wealth per level indicates to not be left behind. um no the playes are wrong. who says the DM is even using the WBL or CR crap? and where is this WBL at? is this in the PHB or DMG? oh its in the DMG? funny that is the Dungeon MAster Guidebook, NOT the Players Handbook. maybe the players should reference the material intended for them. ah the good old days that told players. "this book is intended for the Dungeon Master. if you are not a Dungeon Master you should stop reading here." it wasnt about knowledge being something players shouldnt know. jsut that players seem to lack the ability to keep out of game knowledge well... out of the game. so the players are 100% wrong in even worrying about it. are the players jsut sitting hteir trying to scrutenize every action the DM takes, or are they playing the game? odds are if they play the game they might actually enjoy whats going on, rather than worying about what some poorly designed system within another poorly designed system says should or shouldnt be a concrete fact about how everyone MUST play the game. :eek:
AAB 09-26-07, 01:48 AM	Wilders come closest to Sorcerers, but they have a unique class ability that *alone* gives them the edge over Sorcs, and they *also* have 4 skill points/level, compared to ther sorcerers 2. They can also make nifty multiclass gishes, especially with their skill list and larger hit dice. I don't know. I'm not exactly a fan of the Wilder's "unique class ability". When you surge as a 20th level character that's a 30% chance that you will be dazed for a turn and lose 20 power points. Being dazed for a turn at that level basically means you die. Of course, this isn't any "real game experience". It's just me looking at the class and saying "that's kinda cool. Wait. No. No it's not". I could be wrong.
yrogerg 09-26-07, 07:18 AM	I don't know. I'm not exactly a fan of the Wilder's "unique class ability". When you surge as a 20th level character that's a 30% chance that you will be dazed for a turn and lose 20 power points. Being dazed for a turn at that level basically means you die. Meh, you waste 20 power points on a failed power at that level, too, so that's really a wash, unless you're surging unaugmented low-level powers for some reason. And the ability to increase your ML for free is nothing to sneer at at high levels. A sorcerer would need to use Heighten Spell to achieve the same end, and then another feat to make it a standard action. Because casting full-round spells in combat at that level *also* means you die.
jasper 09-26-07, 08:36 AM	...oh its in the DMG? funny that is the Dungeon MAster Guidebook, NOT the Players Handbook. maybe the players should reference the material intended for them. ah the good old days that told players. "this book is intended for the Dungeon Master. if you are not a Dungeon Master you should stop reading here." it wasnt about knowledge being something players shouldnt know. jsut that players seem to lack the ability to keep out of game knowledge well... out of the game. so the players are 100% wrong in even worrying about it.... : Ok I don't know if you being funny or not. So. Who are you to tell me what I can read? I want to dm too. Who are you to tell me I can't open my DMG, MM etc at the table just because you are DMing tonight? Yep the players were and are 100% wrong then and now. You either deal with it or find players suited to your game style.
shadzar 09-26-07, 09:56 AM	i love how people don't even read what they quote... "it wasnt about knowledge being something players shouldnt know. just that players seem to lack the ability to keep out of game knowledge well... out of the game."
_Jayne_Cobb_ 09-26-07, 10:01 AM	Now, one of the faults for Wealth per Level is also that it's slanted. A bigger fault is players who assume it is a hard-and-fast requirement rather than a guideline. Indeed I would say that anyone who thinks the wealth by level guidelines means "You need to have this many magical items to play at this level" has missed the point entirely. Any DM with two brain cells to rub together can adjust the EL of encounters up or down to offset where the PCs' wealth and equipment levels lie, one of the great benefits of a two-point system like this. Neither wealth by level nor CR/EL are set in stone and can be changed and customized as the DM sees fit.
Count Arioch the 28th 09-26-07, 10:16 AM	(Bunch of irrelevant stuff I won't dignify by quoting) :rolleyes: Alright, let me explain this to you. The game is balanced with the thought that the players have X amount of magical items. If you don't have those items, you literally can't play at that level. That's what wealth per level means. I don't see how player knowledge of that fact6 changes the fact that wealth per level is REAL, and it's breaking the game.
Count Arioch the 28th 09-26-07, 10:17 AM	Neither wealth by level nor CR/EL are set in stone and can be changed and customized as the DM sees fit. Oberoni fallacy. Just because the DM can fix a borken rule doesn't mean the rule wasn't broken in the first place. The fact that the DM needs to adjust CR for wealth means that welth per level IS broken, not that it ISN'T.
Seeker95 09-26-07, 10:55 AM	The fact that the DM needs to adjust CR for wealth means that wealth per level IS broken, not that it ISN'T.If WbCL guidelines were a *rule* your hyperbole-laden concerns would be more valid. The wealth by character level guidelines are just that... guidelines. It is reasonable for a DM to consider the impact of a given element of wealth in determining whether it counts. This does not contradict, adjust, or ignore the guidelines. If owning a castle does not impact your game, then don't count its monetary value in your calculation when choosing to use the Wealth by Character Level guidelines. That is not an Oberoni fallacy. If the guidelines were "broken", it would mean that *if you follow them* the characters would be too X (weak / powerful / whatever) when you apply other rules of the game. They are not. When used, they work just fine.
Nadaka 09-26-07, 11:09 AM	Oberoni fallacy. Just because the DM can fix a borken rule doesn't mean the rule wasn't broken in the first place. The fact that the DM needs to adjust CR for wealth means that welth per level IS broken, not that it ISN'T. No. You are misapplying the Oberoni fallacy. A DM that does not follow wealth by level may need to adjust the CR rules does not imply that wealth by level is broken. It means that deviating from suggested wealth by level can be broken if you do not adjust for it in some cases (specifically CR). This implies the direct inverse of your supposition. Plus you misspelled "borken" and "welth"
Tempest Stormwind 09-26-07, 11:20 AM	The idea is that you have X amount of gold in items at Y level. This means two things: 1) If you are creating a new character at Y level (Y>1), you use that gold value to buy gear, representing what you've accumulated since your character started adventuring. 2) If you are at Y level and you have more or less than X gold, you are more likely to be a bigger or smaller threat, and the DM must keep that in mind when designing or measuring encounters. An example of the second point: When a DM builds encounters, the CR system requires him to consider what the party's effective level is (otherwise he can't gauge whether an encounter at a given CR is cakewalk, OK, or overpowering). That party effective level assumes WBL guidelines have been followed. If your 8th level party has less gear than the WBL guidelines indicate, then they are less of a threat than the average 8th level party, and the DM has a bit of extra guesswork ahead of him when determining if an encounter is all right or too strong. (Note that the DM doesn't have to *change* these encounters. He just needs to be aware of the difference. An 8th level party with no magic gear is going to have to pull out all the stops to take out an EL 8 challenge, meaning that it takes them four days to do what a typical party could do in 1, for instance. Furthermore, some classes, notably spellcasters, have less of a need for magic gear than the others. I've played spellcasters who had next to no gear at level 10 and were still the strongest characters in the party.) This isn't Oberoni. No rules are being changed. You *can* play with more or less gear than WBL indicates, and in fact organically-grown (i.e. played from low levels through an assortment of adventures) characters often do have this issue. All that it means, though, is that they can take on challenges that are stronger or weaker than what the game's benchmark suggests.
RobbyPants 09-26-07, 11:35 AM	Am I alone in thinking that all this adds up to a play enviorment in which the Monty Haul style campaign is the rule rather than the exception? Am I the only one who thinks the old "one magice item per character level at the the most, is a good rule of thumb? Does anyone else that "Diablo magic shops" were one can get whatever they want made to order is an abhorant concept? Well this brings me to a quote I read from Tempest_Stormwind's first post on this thread: Basically, characters got the gear they needed to stay in line with the challenges they fought -- there's a bit of leeway, but in general it's not more or less than what they need -- since the entire game was designed with this wealth-by-level idea in mind. You knew how much gold was open to a 14th level party, and could thus assume how strong their gear was, and thus could design encounters that were strong enough to account for the PCs and their gear. Meanwhile, in older editions, a module published by TSR had no such standards, which meant that one group might get devoured by the module, another might find it all right, and still another might eat it for lunch thanks to the mighty weapons they got on the treasure tables in the previous game. Wealth-by-level is the equivalent of a control, a benchmark, in game design that allows for the impact of variables such as monty haulism to be minimized in 3e. I agree with this concept. And I guess the thread in it's entirety can be answered by figuring out what the baseline comparison is for defining if a game is "Monty Haul". If you compare a "typical" 3.5 game to an old 1st edition game, then yes, by comparison, it's a Monty Haul game encouraged by the new edition; however, I feel you'd be comparing apples and oranges at this point. If you compare any given 3.5 game to the wealth by level guildlines, then that can be a more reliable metric to determine if that particular game is a Monty Haul game. So, do I feel that the current edtion hands out more treasure than the older editoins? Yes, but I don't think that it's a relevant comparison. My players are poor because I hate them. What about their PCs? Are they poor too? :P
_Jayne_Cobb_ 09-26-07, 12:18 PM	Oberoni fallacy. Just because the DM can fix a borken rule doesn't mean the rule wasn't broken in the first place. The fact that the DM needs to adjust CR for wealth means that welth per level IS broken, not that it ISN'T. EL is meant to be adjusted. The rule is not broken, you are simply misunderstanding how it is applied.
Count Arioch the 28th 09-26-07, 03:10 PM	Alright, I retract my most recent invocation of the Oberoni Fallacy. I still dislike wealth per level though. I'd rather a character's worth came from innate abilities rather than stuff.
StormKnight 09-26-07, 03:38 PM	I still dislike wealth per level though. I'd rather a character's worth came from innate abilities rather than stuff. Then you dislike having lots of magic items, which has nothing to do with 'wealth per level'. Lots of magic items is lots of magic items whether or not you've got a guideline for what the expected amount of magic items is.
Seeker95 09-26-07, 03:45 PM	I'd rather a character's worth came from innate abilities rather than stuff.I understand where you're coming from on this, but I feel the reason for Character Wealth by Level guidelines is *because* of this rather than in contradiction to it. Regardless of the game, the campaign setting, or the level of play, a character's generic worth is relatively stable -- it is the combination of class(es), class abilities, and to an extent, feat choices. A rogue 3 / wizard 3 / arcane trickster 10 in an Eberron, Greyhawk, RPGA, Realms, Homebrew world will be roughly the same as a rogue 3 / wizard 3 arcane trickster 10 in any other world. However, the level of magic / item / stuff allowed in the individual game can vastly differentiate one r3/w3/at10 from another. The wealth by character level guidelines assist a DM in understanding how much more or less powerful his party is from the baseline against which encounters are developed. If the characters in your game have total item value *below* the guidelines for their level, you can be pretty confident that the encounter is more of a challenge than it would be to those who have total item value *at* the guidelines for their level. If the characters in your game have total item value *above* the guidelines for their level, you can be pretty confident that the encounter is less of a challenge than it would be to those who have total item value *at* the guidelines for their level. The guidelines do not dictate how much *can* be given. They provide a baseline against which encounters can be evaluated. They also allow a DM to relatively quickly assess whether a new player with an existing character will easily fit within the current game.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 09-26-07, 03:46 PM	Alright, I retract my most recent invocation of the Oberoni Fallacy. I still dislike wealth per level though. I'd rather a character's worth came from innate abilities rather than stuff. I absolutely concur. The problem is that 3e was built upon the foundations of early editions, and in them items = power. To get away form it requires diggin out those foundations and laying new ones. As long as they continue to build on that flawed premise the final product will remain equally flawed. Still, if there must be a gear = power mentality at least 3e took a step in the right direction by establishing guidelines for said level of gear and implemented a sliding-scale encounter difficulty system, to offset any overabundance or deficit of said gear in order to keep challenges, well, challenging. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it is better than the "anything goes" inequality and arbitrariness of previous editions.
Prof. Pacali 09-26-07, 03:59 PM	The concept of a situation in which players were simply given a prize for little or no work soon worked it's way into the D&d players vocabulary. A "Monty Haul" campaign was deamed to be one were there was little risk to the players, too much treasure was given out, and the bored players soon accumulated an outlandish mountain of gear that they never really had to work for. Well that's the point: did the players earn it or not. And in 3.5 there is a sort of minimum wage for PCs, the Wealth-By-Level Chart in the DMG. Unlike older editions in which stingy DMs got away with not rewarding PCs properly, 3.5 encourages DMs to give PCs level appropriate treasures, which they can either keep or sell as they see fit. If they sell the item, they might decide to spend the money buying an appropriate magic item, or crafting a few appropriate items. This way the DM can outfit the Hobgoblin Monk who fights the party with Ki Straps, or a Monk's Belt, even though no one in the party can use either item. The magic item makes the NPC tougher to beat, but when he's defeated the PCs don't have to stand around scratching their heads about what to do with the Monk's Belt. They can sell it, take the money they get from selling it (usually half the value of the item) and let the party wizard craft some scrolls or a Stat boosting item. It would be considered Monty Haul if the PCs don't face a challenge. Let's say the Hobgoblin was a Monk with a nifty item that he couldn't use (say a +1 Mithral Shirt) but the PCs need. They easily kill the Hobgoblin because he has a Mithral Shirt in his backpack that his Aunt gave him for his birthday, rather than an Amulet of Mighty Fists +1. The PCs now have a +1 Mithral Shirt they didn't earn. Repeat this several times, with a Drow Sorcerer who lugs around a magic weapon she's not proficient in, or a Kobold Warrior with a +1 dagger. Or maybe the PCs find an Ancient Wyrm Red Dragon, who dies of a heart attack in the surprise round. Now the party gets all that treasure they didn't earn. That's Monty Haul. Why? Because the DM isn't giving any thought into treasure placement. I hate to say this but if you go back and look at G1 Steading of the Hill Giant Chieftain, this is how most of the magical treasure was given out. The pre-made party in G1 is equipped in most cases with better equipment than you find in the mod, but in other cases the treasures are way too powerful. And without a way to sell this loot, the party has to either lug around a golfbag full of various magical longswords, or not take any treasure. And that would violate the labor laws the 3.5 DMG enacted. :)
AAB 09-26-07, 04:03 PM	I forgot - and please don't turn this into a 4e argument - but is 4e doing away with the "magical toolkit" feel? A concise answer would be sufficient.
Tempest Stormwind 09-26-07, 05:48 PM	I forgot - and please don't turn this into a 4e argument - but is 4e doing away with the "magical toolkit" feel? A concise answer would be sufficient. Their term they're using is "christmas tree effect" but yes, they have said that there's a lesser emphasis on sheer quantity of magic items. However, there have been hints that while you've got fewer items, the individual ones you have will be significant (the analogy they use is the fighter's weapon, which he cares about, uses often, and knows well, as opposed to his random Minor Wonderous Items that he often forgets about).
AAB 09-26-07, 06:25 PM	Yay!
camthalion 09-26-07, 07:00 PM	I hate to say this but if you go back and look at G1 Steading of the Hill Giant Chieftain, this is how most of the magical treasure was given out. The pre-made party in G1 is equipped in most cases with better equipment than you find in the mod, but in other cases the treasures are way too powerful. And without a way to sell this loot, the party has to either lug around a golfbag full of various magical longswords, or not take any treasure. And that would violate the labor laws the 3.5 DMG enacted. :) My son wants to raise an army to free the Pomarj. I'm DMing him through G1 so he'll have the coin. Shouldn't take much more than that. :D
shadzar 09-26-07, 10:32 PM	:rolleyes: Alright, let me explain this to you. The game is balanced with the thought that the players have X amount of magical items. If you don't have those items, you literally can't play at that level. That's what wealth per level means. I don't see how player knowledge of that fact6 changes the fact that wealth per level is REAL, and it's breaking the game. and that is what leads to the Monthy Haulism. jsut because they built the game are incompetence doesnt mean that is how it should be played. they made an objectuve of the game to collect all these magic items if anyone wishes to gain levels. that is what video games are for. D&D isnt about collecting items just to level. you collect the items for greed. they cut out low magic worlds in their idea of the game, and made it more high magic than most settings of high magic. that is the very problem.
Count Arioch the 28th 09-26-07, 10:35 PM	Shadzar, that's the very point I've been trying to make all thread. If you agree with me, then stop frigg'n arguing with me.
shadzar 09-26-07, 10:40 PM	Shadzar, that's the very point I've been trying to make all thread. If you agree with me, then stop frigg'n arguing with me. :ahem: where did i say i was arguing with you?
_Jayne_Cobb_ 09-27-07, 11:17 AM	D&D isnt about collecting items just to level. you collect the items for greed. You're kidding, right? In 1e you got 1xp for every gp you collected. Collecting loot provided a large portion of what leveled the PC. I know you hate 3e - you take every opportunity to shout it from the rooftops in every thread you post in - but have you actually played any edition of the game? From the AD&D Players Handbook by Gary Gygax, 1978: Gaining experience points through the acquisition of gold pieces and by slaying monsters might be questioned by some individuals as non-representative of how an actual character would become more able in his or her class. Admittedly, this is so, if the existence of spell casting clerics, druids, magic-users, and illusionists is (unrealistically) granted; likewise, dwarven superheroes, paladins, elven thieves, half-orc assassins, and the like might gain real experience from altogether different sorts of activities. This is a game, however, a fantasy game, and suspension of disbelief is required. If one can accept the existence of 12’ tall giants, why not the rewarding of experience points for treasure gained? While praying and religious-oriented acts are more properly the activities for which a cleric would gain experience points, this is not the stuff of exciting swords & sorcery adventure. So too, fighters need physical training and weapons practice, magic-users long hours of study in tomes of arcane lore, and thieves the repetition of their manual skills and discernitory prowess; but none of this is suitable to gaming. It is, therefore, discarded and subsumed as taking place on a character‘s “off hours”. The book further goes on to say that awarding experience for more realistic activities would be “conducive to non-game boredom!” (DMG, p. 85) Not only did pre-3e editions of the game allow a loot-based mentality they actually embraced it and inherently assumed it within the rules of the game.
shadzar 09-27-07, 12:20 PM	and i would actually NEVER play in a game run by EGG. because of many of his more assertive articles in the former Dragon Magazine that said... "If you aren't play the game the way it is written in the books [my way] then you aren't playing it right". and you as one of the biggest supporters around here of me being like that very same statement trying to say that its right for EGG to have that attitude when you feel wrong for me too? when you can swallow that back and remove your double standard from the implications of it, then i will debate things with you. there were plenty of smart people that scrapped XP gain from GP. oddly because they knew how to DM in a way to have the PCs advanced at rates to handle what was next rather than railroading them into situation because you are trying to play a forced script.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 09-27-07, 01:57 PM	and you as one of the biggest supporters around here of me being like that very same statement trying to say that its right for EGG to have that attitude when you feel wrong for me too? What? :confused: when you can swallow that back and remove your double standard from the implications of it, then i will debate things with you. Swallow what? :confused: Sorry, I really have no idea what you are talking about. This is a discussion forum, not a debate. We are here to talk, to exchange idea and camaraderie, not to "win".
Puggins 09-27-07, 02:16 PM	and you as one of the biggest supporters around here of me being like that very same statement trying to say that its right for EGG to have that attitude when you feel wrong for me too? when you can swallow that back and remove your double standard from the implications of it, then i will debate things with you. there were plenty of smart people that scrapped XP gain from GP. oddly because they knew how to DM in a way to have the PCs advanced at rates to handle what was next rather than railroading them into situation because you are trying to play a forced script. (1) Jayne_Cobb (and most other people that are arguing with you) do not "say that its right for EGG to have that attitude when [they] feel wrong for [you] too". In fact, MOST people are of the opinion that D&D is too treasure-centric, including the designers at WotC. That's why they're supposedly making 4e less item-dependent. (2) You are criticizing 3e for being magic-item dependent and love 1e/2e for not being magic-item dependent when you freely admit that you have to scrap a major experience-gaining mechanism to make it less dependent than 3e. That's a logical fallacy. I can excuse your grammar, Shadzar, because it's obvious that English is not your native language. But I won't excuse your attitude or logic you're being rude and hard-headed, and the reasons why you are being rude and hard-headed are logically flawed. If you really want to play a low-magic world in 3e, you can do it just fine. You simply have to adjust the CR system to account for the lack of magic. That CR12 dragon is probably gonna give your 12th level party fits, so.... use a CR10 or CR11 dragon instead. Problem solved.
ORC_Sinister 09-27-07, 02:21 PM	I find the current editions and D&D are about the perfect build. That is you are given 70 books on how to build a character and the challenge isn't playing the characters, it's attempting to optimize your character into a "thing". The fun part for many is the whole "build" instead of the role play. For others it's seeing the "build" in action and not roleplaying. The looting has only become more noticeable because[ of the need to "build". It isn't that looting is more encouraged for 3X it's that people are concerned with it more because they need items for the "build". I'm a real role player. I play RPGs that I can experience being a character. That said, I won't deny that I've received my share of enjoyment in the quest for the perfect build. DnD may be the only game I do that with, but since it's such an element of the game, most likely more so than acutally role playing. It's both my frustration and enjoyment. While I find 3.5 all about being a munchkin, and generally I hate that, there are times when, even I, want to be a munchkin.
Nadaka 09-27-07, 02:59 PM	What? :confused: Swallow what? :confused: Sorry, I really have no idea what you are talking about. This is a discussion forum, not a debate. We are here to talk, to exchange idea and camaraderie, not to "win". http://www.answers.com/topic/discuss dis·cuss (dĭ-skŭs') pronunciation tr.v., -cussed, -cuss·ing, -cuss·es. 1. To speak with another or others about; talk over. 2. To examine or consider (a subject) in speech or writing. [Middle English discussen, to examine, from Anglo-Norman discusser, from Latin discussus, past participle of discutere, to break up : dis-, apart; see dis– + quatere, to shake.] discussable dis·cuss'a·ble or dis·cuss'i·ble adj. discusser dis·cuss'er n. SYNONYMS discuss, argue, debate, dispute, contend. These verbs mean to talk with others in an effort to reach agreement, to ascertain truth, or to convince. Discuss involves close examination of a subject with interchange of opinions: My therapist discussed my concerns with my parents. Argue emphasizes the presentation of facts and reasons in support of a position opposed by others: The lawyer argued the plaintiff's case. Debate involves formal, often public argument: The candidates debated the campaign issues. Dispute implies differences of opinion and usually sharp argument: The senators disputed over increases in the proposed budget. To contend is to strive in debate or controversy: She contended that her theory was easily proven. :twitch: You are not discussing. :banghead:
Jexil 09-27-07, 03:46 PM	Oberoni fallacy. The fact that I have to "not allow it" means that it IS broken, not that it ISN'T. Hell, I could ban everything in the game and make my players beat on each other with foam weapons while I sip Rumpleminz and laugh, but that doesn't have anything to do with the thread at large. Maybe I should not have used the word "allow," since that implies they have a right according to the RAW to sell their castle, and you as DM must institute a home-brew ban it to prevent it. That isn't the case at all. In the game, you as DM control the NPC's. Players can't sell their castle for a ton of loot unless you provide an NPC who is willing and able to buy it. If you don't want the PCs to do that, why would you provide such an NPC? There is nothing expressly written in the rules that says the DM is required to ensure a buyer for whatever the PCs want to sell, so you're not really "banning" anything. And really, is it logical that such a buyer would be easy to find or even exist? How many people have that kind of money other than the nobility and landed aristocracy (who generally already own castles)? Also, if the PCs would much rather have powerful magical goodies instead of a castle, doesn't it stand to reason that others might feel the same? Really, who would buy the thing? Why assume that there is a ready market for a ridiculously overpriced stronghold that very few would need, fewer yet could ever afford, and that even the PCs themselves don't think is the best value for their money? Historically, I don't think it was particularly common for castles to be bought and sold for cash like modern real estate. They were built, inheireted, and taken by force, but rarely just sold outright (yes, I'm sure there were exceptions). So basically, there's absolutely no reason to introduce the concept into your campaign if you don't want it. If you do, the fault is yours. It has nothing to do with the game being broken.
Chaos Theory 09-27-07, 06:31 PM	I find the current editions and D&D are about the perfect build. That is you are given 70 books on how to build a character and the challenge isn't playing the characters, it's attempting to optimize your character into a "thing". The fun part for many is the whole "build" instead of the role play. For others it's seeing the "build" in action and not roleplaying. The looting has only become more noticeable because[ of the need to "build". It isn't that looting is more encouraged for 3X it's that people are concerned with it more because they need items for the "build". I'm a real role player. I play RPGs that I can experience being a character. That said, I won't deny that I've received my share of enjoyment in the quest for the perfect build. DnD may be the only game I do that with, but since it's such an element of the game, most likely more so than acutally role playing. It's both my frustration and enjoyment. While I find 3.5 all about being a munchkin, and generally I hate that, there are times when, even I, want to be a munchkin. Thats about the speed of things. I have found in my experiance that there is some monty haul built into 3.5 but that if the Dm is on the ball it can be avoided. Avoiding munkin play is a bit harder but likewise doable.