Post/Author/DateTime	Post
cycloptic_squirrel 04-15-07, 11:24 AM	This question was inspired by the item creation thread. We pretty much instituted a minimum to shore up anyone who fell incredibly behind on the expected wealth (charity of friends). I like it and think it works well. I hear people complaining about crafting being too powerful. Usually these arguments are based on the wealth curve and messing it up. What if we simply capped wealth? I'm not really sure what I think about the idea myself yet, but I'd like to hear other people's opinions on the matter. As an alternative, what if we simply applied a penalty to gp if a character was above a certain level. That would encourage people to continue earning but slow them enough that people who don't craft and die 8 times can have a comparable amount of wealth. Something like... "If your character worth is more than the twice the amount listed in Table 5-1 of the DMG, you take a 50% penalty to all gp earned in an adventure."
Britt 04-15-07, 12:19 PM	We talked about that during the LGCS revisions and it probably won't happen, at least not like that. The Charity of Friends option is completely voluntary; you don't have to calculate your character wealth if you don't want to do so. A wealth cap, on the other hand, requires all characters to track their current character wealth, which would be a pain in the rear.
Lupo 04-15-07, 01:07 PM	This question was inspired by the item creation thread. We pretty much instituted a minimum to shore up anyone who fell incredibly behind on the expected wealth (charity of friends). I like it and think it works well. I hear people complaining about crafting being too powerful. Usually these arguments are based on the wealth curve and messing it up. What if we simply capped wealth? I'm not really sure what I think about the idea myself yet, but I'd like to hear other people's opinions on the matter. As an alternative, what if we simply applied a penalty to gp if a character was above a certain level. That would encourage people to continue earning but slow them enough that people who don't craft and die 8 times can have a comparable amount of wealth. Something like... "If your character worth is more than the twice the amount listed in Table 5-1 of the DMG, you take a 50% penalty to all gp earned in an adventure." right now cohorts suffer a heavy wealth cap, and this makes life for my cleric's frontliner cohort really tough, wouldn't the cleric buy some and lend some items for the cohort it would be near to unplayable. [i admit that the cohorts are compared to the NPC table, when PCs might be compared to the PC table] even now lots of gp are evaporating after a module . . . making more gold going away might take it from funny to pathetic :D. bear in mind that not all magic items are "comparably" priced and some characters get an "opportunity" to burn a fortune for silly things that are NOT magic items but give similar boni. ciao martin m. ps: i once saw a favor "entity XY will enchant a weapon with one enhancement from the following list", i would like to see some more of these.
katrick 04-15-07, 04:00 PM	At 10,000gp sailing ships are not silly things. Katrick
Eric Anondson 04-15-07, 06:32 PM	ps: i once saw a favor "entity XY will enchant a weapon with one enhancement from the following list", i would like to see some more of these.I see them almost regularly in Shield Lands and Highfolk (where I play) regionals and interactives.
Rerednaw 04-16-07, 02:06 PM	This question was inspired by the item creation thread. ...Usually these arguments are based on the wealth curve and messing it up. What if we simply capped wealth? I'm not really sure what I think about the idea myself yet, but I'd like to hear other people's opinions on the matter. ...that people who don't craft and die 8 times can have a comparable amount of wealth. Something like... "If your character worth is more than the twice the amount listed in Table 5-1 of the DMG, you take a 50% penalty to all gp earned in an adventure." As someone whose main character is usually around 40-60% of the wealth by level tables (high consumables) I've never had this situation come up under play. I don't see how you would have much wealth leftover after 8 x 5k per death? Unless you were very very high level and chose to do this. I do agree that while tracking character wealth is additional paperwork...we pretty much do that already. Every consumable item and masterwork/magical item has to be tracked anyway on MIL's. Gold on hand is on every AR. The remaining mundane goods rarely add up to much unless you start including items like longships...which again as a big ticket item you probably don't have more than a handful anyway. My view? Doable: very. Fun: Not.
Howie23 04-16-07, 04:10 PM	[/SIZE] Every consumable item and masterwork/magical item has to be tracked anyway on MIL's. Every consumable item doesn't have to be tracked through the MIL. Items that are not from the PHB need to be tracked through the MIL. PHB consumables (antitoxin, holy water, healing kits, alchemist fire, tanglefoot bags, etc.) do not have to go through the MIL. David
katrick 04-17-07, 04:19 PM	My ghostoil, Silversheen, Wepon capsules and the retainer, ships, Bronze griffons, anti-toxins,Holy water, Scrolls scribed into spellbook and even Holy symbols taken off of baddies are all on my MIL's. Even some silly items like the hand some weirdo was selling and the Voice Eater Death Knife and this strange red fruit i found in castle greyhawk. You can never be to careful. Remember what Aesop said run, run run, as fast as i can, they can't catch me I'm the Gingerbreadman. katrick
MatteBlack 04-18-07, 09:59 AM	I think the paperwork would probably be worth the improvement to balancing character wealth. By setting minimums and maximums for wealth you could do away with the concept of "overcap gold" on a per module basis. Honestly, by setting a maximum, it would be very likely that the extra monies would trickle down to poorer character to bring them back up to par. Probably the simplest system would be to allow characters under a poverty line for their level to draw from the overcap money until back to that level. This way would require no real change in awards and leaves the paperwork burden on player being brought up to snuff. Lee
Mattastrophic 04-18-07, 12:36 PM	I think the paperwork would probably be worth the improvement to balancing character wealth. A wealth cap would be bad news. What should be encouraged is the acceptance of the fact that someone else may just happen to have a character who is richer than yours. If knowing that richer characters are out there is too much, then Living Greyhawk is the wrong campaign. If you prefer that everyone's wealth be standardized, then try Xen'drik Expeditions. Point being... why do we have to "balance" character wealth? What's so unbalanced about a difference in wealth values among characters? That one character might be more powerful than another because he has more stuff? I'm sorry, but that's something that needs to be accepted, not fought. -Matt
KShaver 04-18-07, 01:18 PM	A wealth cap would be bad news.If knowing that richer characters are out there is too much, then Living Greyhawk is the wrong campaign. If you prefer that everyone's wealth be standardized, then try Xen'drik Expeditions. Actually before the level bump character wealth in XE varied far more than I would have liked it to. Certain modules assumed they were ran at certain APLs even though most characters weren't that level, and parties who didn't complete or do every encounter received dramatically reduced cash.
MatteBlack 04-18-07, 03:41 PM	A wealth cap would be bad news. What should be encouraged is the acceptance of the fact that someone else may just happen to have a character who is richer than yours. If knowing that richer characters are out there is too much, then Living Greyhawk is the wrong campaign. If you prefer that everyone's wealth be standardized, then try Xen'drik Expeditions. Point being... why do we have to "balance" character wealth? What's so unbalanced about a difference in wealth values among characters? That one character might be more powerful than another because he has more stuff? I'm sorry, but that's something that needs to be accepted, not fought. -Matt Because it factors unto scaling and the imbalance may well have nothing to do with the player/character. Just differences between DMs could have a big impact on gold earned or spent. Falling behind the curve can lead to deaths and falling further behind it. The current system artificially limits character wealth by how much you can earn per adventure without providing a mechanism to get back on track. I got no problem with there being richer characters than my own but, currently, you can only earn gold in specific manners in alotted amounts while there are no similar restrictions on expenditures. The current system rewards stingy character choices that may well be against type. A better system would keep characters at level apprropriate wealth levels as opposed to artificially manipulating how much you earn and hoping it works out. As long as consummable could only make up a preset portion of your worth, a lid could be kept on how much they could exploit a min/max wealth system.
Mattastrophic 04-18-07, 07:33 PM	MatteBlack: So you're saying that we should put mechanisms in place to get people back on track? That's fair enough. But punishing success, by limiting wealth, that would be BAD. -Matt
Redfist 04-18-07, 09:17 PM	I don't see a problem with people gaining on the wealth curve if they've spent FEATS on doing so. That's kind of the purpose of the feats...
bitznarf 04-18-07, 09:36 PM	MatteBlack: So you're saying that we should put mechanisms in place to get people back on track? That's fair enough. But punishing success, by limiting wealth, that would be BAD. -Matt Oh come now, didn't you know that D&D is based on Marxist philosophy? :D
Timlagor 04-18-07, 09:52 PM	1) We have Charity of Friends to stop people falling too far behind (though you can argue it should be more generous if you like). 2) Dieing actually increases your gp/xp significantly once you get beyond about level 6 (and that's even if you pay the full cost out of your savings which rarely happens) --though other people dying at the table can hurt your gp if you contribute (as usually happens ime)
MatteBlack 04-19-07, 01:26 AM	MatteBlack: So you're saying that we should put mechanisms in place to get people back on track? That's fair enough. But punishing success, by limiting wealth, that would be BAD. -Matt Honestly, I am more concerned with keeping characters above a minimum appropriate to their level but, I think it would probably be wise to keep characters in level-appropriate ranges with both minimums and maximums. My experience has been that the "success" you say is being "punished" is nearly as often the product of shady powergaming and rules mongering as it is truly successful play. In fact, what many might consider good roleplay is frequently rewarded with further expenses. Odds are that few characters would be declared overly wealthy. The per adventure reward cap has seen to that but, I doubt highly that this "punishment of success" would cause players to try any less hard. It boils down to playing a game the way it was designed. Wealth is part of the scaling equation. Playing with characters whose wealth falls into those parameters makes for better play. Again, my concern lies with those who fall behind the curve but, if you are so threatened by playing with equipment appropriately scaled to the adventure and your level, perhaps shooting fish in a barrel would be a more suitable pasttime. Lee
Mattastrophic 04-19-07, 01:36 AM	Again, my concern lies with those who fall behind the curve but, if you are so threatened by playing with equipment appropriately scaled to the adventure and your level, perhaps shooting fish in a barrel would be a more suitable pasttime. To be precise, as I've already mentioned, what I would feel threatened by is the possibility of Living Greyhawk suddenly standardizing all their characters by turning us into 28 point-buy cohorts. But it's not happening, so it's all moot. -Matt
cycloptic_squirrel 04-19-07, 07:49 AM	MatteBlack: So you're saying that we should put mechanisms in place to get people back on track? That's fair enough. But punishing success, by limiting wealth, that would be BAD. -Matt I'm not really seeing why limiting wealth is inherently bad. Though a hard cap is far less than ideal, it's something. The wealth levels I'm talking about curtailing... they're just high. I mean how many people have more than double the DMG suggested value without undergoing some really odd situations? I know I grumble as a DM or a player when I see authors throw in an exorbitant amount of equipment on an NPC without it affecting the APL. Why should players be immune? Simply put, you're more effective with more wealth. "Toughen up and accept the fact that some characters are more effective than yours are" is not an argument that leads anywhere. You could let people have a hill giant character at no EL adjustment with the same argument. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of slowing wealth at the top end. Eventually as you level, your wealth should fall back into the accepted parameters. It's just that dang total wealth calculation! I don't mind myself, but I see how it'd be a pain. I'd like to suggest it as a part of leveling... if you're above twice the average wealth of your new level, you earn 50% gp until you're within... but then we're still calculating! I guess I'm not seeing this exceptional wealth as a huge problem, just an itch that I can't reach. Without calculating wealth at any point, there's no real way of ascertaining when there's a problem, and thus no real way to fix said problem. C'est la Vie.
MatteBlack 04-19-07, 01:56 PM	To be precise, as I've already mentioned, what I would feel threatened by is the possibility of Living Greyhawk suddenly standardizing all their characters by turning us into 28 point-buy cohorts. I really don't see how proscribing upper and lower limits on wealth for given levels turns into standardizing characters. Lets say that the upperlimit is max gold for all the adventures leading up to a given xp total and the lower limit is 75% of that number. How does that limit player options and lead us to standardization? There are still accesses to be had and a wide range of player choices. The actual wealth totals for levels and appropriate percentage spread the ranges would make up could all be considered and dialed in. Its just a matter of LG setting their marks. The only issue would be the bookkeeping. I won't go into it in this post but, there are even ways to keep to keep the logistics of it to a minimum. I am of the opinion that playing with gear appropriate to the challenge makes for the best play. If keeping characters functional at the bottom end comes at the expense of item laden characters who are overscaled for their level being able to feel "leet" because of all their expensive loot, I doubt many tears will be shed by me. But it's not happening, so it's all moot. -Matt This hypothetical rules discussion is about as moot as the rest of them in any forum but, falling off the wealth curve is a problem I hear come up over and over again. Kicking around ideas before the next LGCS review is probably the best way to come up with good solutions. It's basically a given that forum posts will generally amount to a hill of beans but, by stating, "But it's not happening, so it's all moot." You are just basically saying you don't want to defend the thoughts you just posted.
JamesMaissen 04-19-07, 02:12 PM	I'm not really seeing why limiting wealth is inherently bad. First it involves tracking wealth. This was done at the start of the campaign and lasted quite some time. You would have an entry where you listed cash/total wealth. It was a pain to constantly do like you wouldn't believe if you didn't have to deal with it. Quaff a potion? Fire so many arrows? Keep track (and when you buy an item make sure you realize which side to take off from and whether or not to add it to the other). Then list out all of your items on the bottom of each and every page (and don't be afraid to go to the back should you need to do so). This was beyond painful and annoying. Secondly it takes away from a living system. It's one step closer to level bumps and resetable wealth. Why not just come in with a brand new Xth level character each time? If you want you can make them different progressions of the 'same' one. Where's the harm, right? That's where this is leading. Have stop gaps for great abuse. That's fine. But there is a price that you pay with each and every rule. Look at the LGCS now rather than before. Which do you prefer? Which one is even readable? Best of intentions are fine. They can lead you in the wrong direction however. Becareful that you don't make rules hurting everyone a little, to effect just the few people that might merit them. -James PS: This is why I wish tracking wealth on cohorts was optional. Have them go by core D&D rules and make such things optional. I think you'd be surprised at how many people would opt not to gain more gold with their cohort in lieu of not having to track their wealth constantly.
MatteBlack 04-19-07, 02:15 PM	I'm not really seeing why limiting wealth is inherently bad. Though a hard cap is far less than ideal, it's something. The wealth levels I'm talking about curtailing... they're just high. I mean how many people have more than double the DMG suggested value without undergoing some really odd situations? I know I grumble as a DM or a player when I see authors throw in an exorbitant amount of equipment on an NPC without it affecting the APL. Why should players be immune? Simply put, you're more effective with more wealth. "Toughen up and accept the fact that some characters are more effective than yours are" is not an argument that leads anywhere. You could let people have a hill giant character at no EL adjustment with the same argument. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of slowing wealth at the top end. Eventually as you level, your wealth should fall back into the accepted parameters. It's just that dang total wealth calculation! I don't mind myself, but I see how it'd be a pain. I'd like to suggest it as a part of leveling... if you're above twice the average wealth of your new level, you earn 50% gp until you're within... but then we're still calculating! I guess I'm not seeing this exceptional wealth as a huge problem, just an itch that I can't reach. Without calculating wealth at any point, there's no real way of ascertaining when there's a problem, and thus no real way to fix said problem. C'est la Vie. Once the upper and lower limits were set, I'd suggest that those under the minimum total their gear on a special form upon leveling to be brought up to snuff. There should also be a stated maximum of how much value in gear and coin can be brought on an adventure. This would make for a soft wealth cap where an appropriate level of gear could be tailored to the expected mission. Without completely pulling value away from rich characters or allowing items to dominate an adventure. It would also keep poorer characters to a level of viability. The only mandatory bookkeeping would be for poorer characters at level ups and a DM-auditable list of items brought by near or over the cap characters. Most characters would just state they are bringing everything with them. As long as we are only totaling magic and other major items the math should not be so bad and will likely change very little from adventure to adventure. The only possible problem I see is exploitation through consummables. A player doing so would only ever get up to the "poverty" level, so it might not be that appealing. Also, the fact that they would only be moved back up to minimum levels on the level-up would likely deter the practice.
thorinXXX 04-19-07, 02:35 PM	The biggest problem with a minimum wealth level is that it encourages mass use of consumables. After all, there is no cost associated if you get it all back. The current minimum wealth level is set low enough that no one is likely to try to cheese the system.
Mattastrophic 04-19-07, 05:31 PM	...
MatteBlack 04-19-07, 09:00 PM	The biggest problem with a minimum wealth level is that it encourages mass use of consumables. After all, there is no cost associated if you get it all back. The current minimum wealth level is set low enough that no one is likely to try to cheese the system. I agree, this would be the biggest impediment too a wealth minmum. Tying corrections to level-ups makes it a bit less attractive since you would not be replenished every adventure. Setting the minimum wealth levels low enough to deter consummable exploitation yet high enough to keep players viable would be a key point.
katrick 04-20-07, 05:23 PM	All this talk takes away from One's ability to roleplay cash. Several of my characters have spent large (roleplaying sums) to aid the Hospice in Traft (about 1000gp) not a lot I know, but it goes a long way towards the people of Traft(nothing in game terms) or maybe? On my last AR(retirement) I spent my remaining cash on teleporting 18 times per day from Perrenland to the Pomarj buying slaves and releasing them, in Perrenland, and if they choose to return home, then so be it, I have 18\day and have been most everywhere, and have the next 50+ years to do it:5 slaves per trip;45/day. But you will never hear them call me Darius the Liberator!(just the good looking chap that saved us) An Adventurer needs spare cash, otherwise they are just another Toff Noble. Katrick
NeSoDak 04-20-07, 06:00 PM	I see them almost regularly in Shield Lands and Highfolk (where I play) regionals and interactives. Really?!? I've been playing in the Shield Lands since year 3 and I have yet to receive a favor that just gives away an enhancement without it costing me anything.
Eric Anondson 04-20-07, 06:55 PM	Really?!? I've been playing in the Shield Lands since year 3 and I have yet to receive a favor that just gives away an enhancement without it costing me anything.Who said anything about it not costing anything? Not I, nor the person I responded to.