Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Siduakal 03-14-05, 11:43 AM	Starting as a (insert X Level above 1st level) level character, you are to have a certain "Wealth".. Now is there any rule that says that wealth can't all be spent on one item?
mojo_202 03-14-05, 11:50 AM	This should probably be over in one of the more generic boards, but anyways. No, there is certainly no rule that says you can't spend all of your money on a single item. If you wanted you could spend it all on nothing and walk around naked with just your fists for weapons and your skin for armor and a big sack'o gold. But hey, that's up to you. So feel free to spend you cash on whatever you can afford.
MarkB 03-14-05, 11:50 AM	Starting as a (insert X Level above 1st level) level character, you are to have a certain "Wealth".. Now is there any rule that says that wealth can't all be spent on one item? I've seen it ruled that you can't spend more than 50% of your starting wealth (above 1st level) on a single item. I'm not sure if that's anywhere in the official rules, but it would be a sensible houserule if you're worried about players overspecialising to gain powerful items early.
Siduakal 03-14-05, 11:51 AM	Er.. No no.. -grins- Guardian Angel wants a +1 Adamantine Greatsword.. =) (I'm a warforged, I don't need anything but a weapon... well I could USE other things, but I'm fine without them)
Vizjerei 03-14-05, 11:55 AM	I'm not certain that there is a rule, but the general consensus among DMs in our group is that the character wealth allocated on the table(pg 135 DMG) is a reflection of wealth acquired over the course of one PC's adventuring career up until that point. To best reflect that, his wealth would have likely been spent on numerous items varying in power along the way. Thus the quasi-rule of not dumping all the gold you start with on one solitary item. Not sure if that interpretation has any basis in RAW, but that was our take on it.
Alkaline 03-14-05, 11:59 AM	I've houseruled that starting gold must be spent in full before the start of the first game. This is because for me, the starting gold represents a set of equipment that the character has accumulated before the first session, not a lot of gold they stumbled upon. Now, if that player spends all of the money on say... a masterwork item or something. It may make perfect sense that they were just merely really poor and inherited this MW item from their ancestor or something... Anyways, more than what they buy, I think for me it's important that they spend all of the money.
Magagumo 03-14-05, 02:59 PM	To throw in 2 crowns- I start many games above 1st level, and have ruled the following: -All cash must be spent prior to the character's entry into said game. -The most expensive [1] item a player may own cannot exceed 1/3rd of their total wealth. -The three most expensive items a player owns cannot exceed more than 1/2 their total wealth. This generally results in a scattering of solid items, without the entrance of a character miraculously wielding a super-item that his compatriots are far from ever acquiring. In a 15th game I'm starting, that brings 150k in Wealth, so a +5 weapon is reasonable, and leaves 25k for the two next expensive items. It's still possible to have one great item (+4 weapon {32k}, +4 armor {16k}, +4 buff {16k}= 64k), but no +5 armor {25k}, +5 weapon {50k}, +5 shield {25k}, +6 buff {36k} item nonsense {136k} :). [1]- Non-magic items, as a 2nd level character may badly need that masterwork composite bow and should not be forced to buy a new one when they hit the next lvl. GM good sense is recommended as always :thumbsup:
fizzbang 03-14-05, 03:12 PM	I'm not certain that there is a rule, but the general consensus among DMs in our group is that the character wealth allocated on the table(pg 135 DMG) is a reflection of wealth acquired over the course of one PC's adventuring career up until that point. To best reflect that, his wealth would have likely been spent on numerous items varying in power along the way. Thus the quasi-rule of not dumping all the gold you start with on one solitary item. Not sure if that interpretation has any basis in RAW, but that was our take on it. Hrmm... I haven't seen that consensus, myself. In fact, if I recall correctly, the "character wealth per level" chart already takes this into account, so taking money off of that would be doubly penalizing the characters. For an example of how much money the characters have made over their whole career, use the "wealth per equal encounter" chart multiplied by the number of equal encounters per level (13.3, if I recall). It makes for a significantly higher number than the "character wealth per level" chart gives, although I can't recall the exact difference. Lowballing players on the effective wealth can be a real killer to your party, especially if it means they never have the materials to afford the equipment they need to overcome an obstacle. Nothing's sadder than a party trying to fight a monster and being unable to hurt it because they don't have any way to bypass its damage reduction or energy resistance.
Vizjerei 03-14-05, 05:05 PM	Hrmm... I haven't seen that consensus, myself. In fact, if I recall correctly, the "character wealth per level" chart already takes this into account, so taking money off of that would be doubly penalizing the characters. For an example of how much money the characters have made over their whole career, use the "wealth per equal encounter" chart multiplied by the number of equal encounters per level (13.3, if I recall). It makes for a significantly higher number than the "character wealth per level" chart gives, although I can't recall the exact difference. Lowballing players on the effective wealth can be a real killer to your party, especially if it means they never have the materials to afford the equipment they need to overcome an obstacle. Nothing's sadder than a party trying to fight a monster and being unable to hurt it because they don't have any way to bypass its damage reduction or energy resistance. Well the consensus is as I said; among our group of DMs. In response to your first bit though, we aren't taking any money off the amount alotted by the table, we just don't allow A PC starting at level 3 to spend all all 2700 of his starting gold on one solitary item. In our opinions, the amount on the table should reflect money garnered and spent over the course of obtaining those three levels, and thus not all of it would have been available for spending at one given point in time(but over the course of all that time). So far, this practice has not lead to any lowballing problems. Our PCs stay at par for their level to what is standard, and our DMs provide encounters that are appropriate in their degree of challenge. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me on this practice, I'm just mentioning that it is how our group works it. :twocents:
Rolzup 03-14-05, 06:09 PM	I'm starting my PCs out at 4th level, and I'm not going to put any restrictions on how they spend their cash. They do, however, know that more expensive magic items -- 10,000 GP+ -- will not be readily available for sale. One of the nicer side affects of Eberron's lack of higher-level NPCs, in my opinion. They'll be finding a good bit of stuff, though....
ekomega 03-14-05, 08:44 PM	Read Page 199 of the DMG, that is what you're looking for. It doesn't say you have to limit what the PCs can get, but it does suggest ways to limit and does address balancing reasons for doing so.