| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek11-23-04, 09:42 PM | Some of us have been having an argument about whether or not, if you find the right scribing materials to scribe spells in your spellbook, do you still have to pay the 100 gp cost, even though you find the materials or steal them etc..... Give us your opinion.... |
| Kem11-23-04, 09:47 PM | Some of us have been having an argument about whether or not, if you find the right scribing materials to scribe spells in your spellbook, do you still have to pay the 100 gp cost, even though you find the materials or steal them etc..... Give us your opinion.... No, but those materials count against your Total Gold Value. |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek11-23-04, 10:00 PM | No, but those materials count against your Total Gold Value. No they don't..... |
| SpellMaster11-23-04, 10:51 PM | This post was locked for a reason. Don't start it up again. At least not here. Go to the "What's a Player to Do?" boards and ask there. |
| the Horc11-23-04, 11:20 PM | All in favor of continuing this dead horse beating, say "neigh"! |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek11-23-04, 11:24 PM | This post was locked for a reason. Don't start it up again. At least not here. Go to the "What's a Player to Do?" boards and ask there. Please stay on topic....If you are not going to stay on the subject then don't post here...Thank you... |
| Iron Chef Vastrox11-24-04, 12:40 AM | do you still have to pay the 100 gp cost, even though you find the materials or steal them etc..... Give us your opinion.... I'm going to reiterate, in the vain hope that by doing the same thing only more and harder, it will work where before it has only failed. If your wizard wishes to scribe spells, he must have special materials valued at 100 gp. The reason why these materials cost 100 gp is because they are special. The ink is special magic scribing ink. The pen is a special magic scribing ink pen. Your blotter is a special blotter. Etc. Thus, in order to acquire these special materials, your character: a.) bought them at the local bazaar at a cost of 100 gp b.) acquired them from a beneficiary, a benevolent act with a monetary value of 100 gp c.) "discovered" them in an empty study, a dungeon, a pile of loot--a find worth approximately 100 gp. These special scribing materials (ink, blotter, pen, whateverthe****else comes in the set) are sufficient to cover one page in a spellbook. Then their specialness gets used up and they are no longer any good for scribing spells. So you'd have to buy another 100 gp worth of 'special' to scribe Page 2. Another 100 for Page 3. Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum. So, Xun Van Dorl of House Kil'Sek, Each page of scribing uses up materials that cost 100 gp. Therefore, since spell scribing can actually be very, very expensive, the Wizard has to put some sort of effort into obtaining the capital necessary to buy these materials. Usually that means buying them with his share of the treasure. Consider the following scenario: your party consists of a Rogue, a Fighter, and a Wizard. You enter an abandoned room. In it are Thieves' Tools worth 100 gp, a Two-Bladed Sword worth 100 gp, and a set of Scribing Materials worth 100 gp. This is a pretty easy split. Each character gets 100 gp worth of treasure, probably divvying up by which class has the most use for what. Slightly different scenario: Same party enters an abandoned room, however in this one is merely 300 gp worth of scribing materials. The Rogue and Fighter each have equal claim as the Wizard. Thus the Wizard will have to give them each the equivalent of 100 gp if he wishes to obtain all of the scribing materials. THIS IS WHAT IS MEANT BY SCRIBING MATERIALS COUNTING AGAINST YOUR TREASURE ALLOTMENT. |
| Kolo11-24-04, 01:21 PM | Some of us have been having an argument about whether or not, if you find the right scribing materials to scribe spells in your spellbook, do you still have to pay the 100 gp cost, even though you find the materials or steal them etc..... Give us your opinion.... No, you don't have to pay for it. BUT. butbutbut. it DOES count against the total Gold Piece value for that character. (and this IS on topic, because you are literally asking us to say our piece- so no put-downs like you did with Kem, or I'm reporting you.) Let's have us a look-see at the total gold value tables in the DMG, and see what they have to say about it. Keep in mind that I am now putting forth ACTUAL rules here, DIRECTLY from the 3.5 DMG, and debating the point you put forward. This is, in fact, completely on topic and I'll expect you to show me the courtesy of debating and defending your point. Now then. You may have noticed, in the DMG (but not in the SRD- let's not confuse the two), a chart that has the recommended gold piece value of everything carried, found, bought and owned by the character according to his level. And the text specifically states everything, so don't say it doesn't. Now then. Let's say a character's total gold piece value is 22.000 GP. This does not mean that he carries 22.000 GP with him, regardless of equipment; this also figures in the equipment he is carrying. So let's say that out guy's magic items (let's call him Jim for reference and make him a wizard) that he currently has costs 13.000GP. Over Jim's career, he has spent 4000 GP on various oddities; scrolls, potions, wands and scribing costs (with materials both found and bought), and that he's carrying a total of 1000 GP worth of gems. This comes to a total of 18.000 GP as to how much he is worth. According to his total gold value, he should now have 4000 GP in his pocket, which for the sake of this example, he does. This means that his gold value is not4000gp, but the total sum of his equipment and random stuff and his coins, to a total value of 22.000. Now, let's say our boy wonder Jim enters a dungeon, slays the evil Bob (another wizard) and finds, as treasure, 200gp worth of materials to scribe scrolls with, 700gp in coins and 100gp worth of gems. Assuming no other party members, Jim puts it all in his Handy Haversack (or whatever), and goes back home. Even though he now carries 4700gp in his pocket, his total gold piece value just went up to 23.000- 22.000 base, plus 200gp value materials, 100gp value gems and 700 coins. Are you getting it yet? Total Gold Piece Value is the amount of total GP worth the character has when all his equipment and coins together are counted in, and not just the change in his pocket. This system also adds to this value all GP Jim finds in the future, and accounts for his expenses as well- if Jim buys equipment for all the gold in his pockets, his total GP value is still 23.000. This is how the core rules work. You don't have to use them, but a lot of class balance is centered around this mechanic. If you maintain that wizards are more powerful than everyone else, and aren't using this game balancing mechanic, than you have no valid basis for comparison except for "IMHO" and "In my campaign". So... care to state where exactly you're getting the rule from that this doesn't work like this, and maybe even (gasp) defend your point this time around? |
| Heron_Marked_Blade11-24-04, 04:02 PM | Kolo is right. Period. I haven't been a part of this conversation in its previous incarnation, but doesn't it seem like the OP has already made up his mind? If so, you'll have more luck emptying the Nile Delta with a spoon than getting him to realize his error. Good luck with that river. |
| Iron Chef Vastrox11-24-04, 10:25 PM | doesn't it seem like the OP has already made up his mind? The effort isn't really to change the OP's mind, more to pound it into his head that what he's arguing isn't a game mechanic. He's used this point in several threads to show why Wizards are Ueber, which then derails the thread into "off-topicness" when it's shown that what he argues as game mechanic contradicts the core rules. This isn't an effort to change the Perpetrator's mind, this is more the bellyflop bandwagon thread where we all monkeypile onto the Perp and refuse to get off until he starts using valid citations and logic. |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek11-25-04, 12:50 AM | No, you don't have to pay for it. BUT. butbutbut. it DOES count against the total Gold Piece value for that character. (and this IS on topic, because you are literally asking us to say our piece- so no put-downs like you did with Kem, or I'm reporting you.) Let's have us a look-see at the total gold value tables in the DMG, and see what they have to say about it. Keep in mind that I am now putting forth ACTUAL rules here, DIRECTLY from the 3.5 DMG, and debating the point you put forward. This is, in fact, completely on topic and I'll expect you to show me the courtesy of debating and defending your point. Now then. You may have noticed, in the DMG (but not in the SRD- let's not confuse the two), a chart that has the recommended gold piece value of everything carried, found, bought and owned by the character according to his level. And the text specifically states everything, so don't say it doesn't. Now then. Let's say a character's total gold piece value is 22.000 GP. This does not mean that he carries 22.000 GP with him, regardless of equipment; this also figures in the equipment he is carrying. So let's say that out guy's magic items (let's call him Jim for reference and make him a wizard) that he currently has costs 13.000GP. Over Jim's career, he has spent 4000 GP on various oddities; scrolls, potions, wands and scribing costs (with materials both found and bought), and that he's carrying a total of 1000 GP worth of gems. This comes to a total of 18.000 GP as to how much he is worth. According to his total gold value, he should now have 4000 GP in his pocket, which for the sake of this example, he does. This means that his gold value is not4000gp, but the total sum of his equipment and random stuff and his coins, to a total value of 22.000. Now, let's say our boy wonder Jim enters a dungeon, slays the evil Bob (another wizard) and finds, as treasure, 200gp worth of materials to scribe scrolls with, 700gp in coins and 100gp worth of gems. Assuming no other party members, Jim puts it all in his Handy Haversack (or whatever), and goes back home. Even though he now carries 4700gp in his pocket, his total gold piece value just went up to 23.000- 22.000 base, plus 200gp value materials, 100gp value gems and 700 coins. Are you getting it yet? Total Gold Piece Value is the amount of total GP worth the character has when all his equipment and coins together are counted in, and not just the change in his pocket. This system also adds to this value all GP Jim finds in the future, and accounts for his expenses as well- if Jim buys equipment for all the gold in his pockets, his total GP value is still 23.000. This is how the core rules work. You don't have to use them, but a lot of class balance is centered around this mechanic. If you maintain that wizards are more powerful than everyone else, and aren't using this game balancing mechanic, than you have no valid basis for comparison except for "IMHO" and "In my campaign". So... care to state where exactly you're getting the rule from that this doesn't work like this, and maybe even (gasp) defend your point this time around? You have already messed up.....Those charts are mainly for NPC's and such...And recommended........There is no core rule that says you have to have this much at so and so level.........Also, you "DON'T" look at yourself as total GP value...You don't....If you are in a campaign where you hardly have any magic shops, you won't get what the say armor is worth.......You don't just walk into a shop, have the DM look up the value and expect an equal trade in gold....Shops and others have to make their money....... No what you have stated is not core rules, sure the charts are in the book as a reference....As a guidline....Guidelines are not rules, they are helpful advice.......So no, you are wrong....... |
| Felonious Monk11-25-04, 04:24 AM | Leaping onto the dogpile... You have already messed up.....Those charts are mainly for NPC's and such...And recommended............... No what you have stated is not core rules, sure the charts are in the book as a reference....As a guidline....Guidelines are not rules, they are helpful advice.......So no, you are wrong....... The reason that the gp values are recommended is that all CRs are balanced against a four-player party with gear of an approximate total value. That's a guideline. However, it is a ridiculous sophistry to claim that the charts are not core. If the charts aren't core, then you are perfectly justified in including a duck* in treasure found and assigning it a value of 13i Silver Moogles. In your campaign. Where wizards are, in fact, Ueber (mad props to the Iron Chef for the inclusion of that first 'e'). However, by the book, spell preparation materials take on their assumed value when accounting, unless you enjoy this variant rule that pokes the player whose character can use only the least valuable item. Which you seem to. Which the D&D-playing universe at large does not seem to. End of story, no ellipsis included. *Never pick up a duck in a dungeon. |
| [GSV] Kirstar11-25-04, 05:13 AM | when dividing treasure of course it counts as value. However, i thought the original post was about gathering the comonents manually. Ie giant squid ink and such. if you gather your own components then I would allow a reduced cost you have gathered blood and other such things on your adventures specifically to craft your ink for scribing. Depending on what you gathered.... its condition.... and your alchemy check I will decide what sort of discount you would get... with really rare components....vrock or couatl feather for the quill, kraken ink, angle tears etc the i would say you pay nothing.... |
| Kolo11-25-04, 07:45 AM | You have already messed up.....Those charts are mainly for NPC's and such...And recommended........There is no core rule that says you have to have this much at so and so level.........Also, you "DON'T" look at yourself as total GP value...You don't....If you are in a campaign where you hardly have any magic shops, you won't get what the say armor is worth.......You don't just walk into a shop, have the DM look up the value and expect an equal trade in gold....Shops and others have to make their money....... No what you have stated is not core rules, sure the charts are in the book as a reference....As a guidline....Guidelines are not rules, they are helpful advice.......So no, you are wrong....... no, they are not "mainly for NPC's". Yes, they are recommended, and maybe that's because they had a reson to recommend it in the first place, hm? remember, CR also calculates equipment. This chart presents the recommended gold, and is core. it is, in fact, a rule the DM can bend at will- but this argument would be invalid because the DM can bend all the rules all the time if he wants to. That doen't make the rules any less valid. When you're not using the charts, you're using a variant rule- also known as a houserule, which has no place in this discussion at all. And nothing ever mentioned shops or other in-game things; only the gold value on the items themselves and what they total up to as you are carrying them. You hardly discuss CR in-game, but it still exists as a mechanic- and so it is with total gold values. and the charts are in there because they are rules, and because they make it easier to reference the rule. And by way of being in a core book, it is in fact as core as anything else in the core books. the charts are guidelines in that the PC's should have around that much gold for their level, not that exact absolute amount. "around" can mean "10.000, give or take a few hundred", and the chart is the baseline for the rule that the PC's should be carrying x amount of gold value at x level. You actually claim, in fact, that something included in the core books is not core. One has to wonder where you pulled that particular brainfart off. And guidelines... sheesh, you're forgetting that ALL the rules in the DMG should be considered guidelines. It says so right at the beginning of the book. I'll say it again; that doesn't make the rules it presents any less valid in a balance discussion. |
| angryman11-25-04, 10:03 AM | XunValDorl of HouseKilsek, you have started these threads specifically about either the inferiority of sorcerers or superiority of wizards. Hey I love wizards too, hooray for wizards. I don't even like sorcerers much...however, this list scares me. This doesn't include responses from other threads... 23 repetitive threads, let's count them Wizards and Spellbooks Continued.... Wizards.......Always the way to go All about Wizards...... Wizards...The Way to Go..... Wizards and Spellbooks.... ( 1 2 ) Why Wizards are the best arcane Spellcasters... And the Sorcerer was made because?? II (Remember this?) Wizard 1.0 Changing the Wizard?? Wizard or Sorcerer "Who's got your Back?" Why Wizards have the feats and skills that they have. Wizards and Alternative Spellbooks My Variant on the Sorcerer. Two new Sorcerer ideas. Are people trying a little too hard to improve the Sorcerer? The likes and Dislikes about Arcane Casters Sorcerer Revamp 1.0 Why should the Sorcerer be improved? Why the Sorcerer isn't a good PC Class Why the Sorcerer isn't a good PC class Why the Sorcerer isn't a good PC Class. Tell me again why the Sorcerer class was even made? Wizards or Sorcerers oll |
| [GSV] Kirstar11-25-04, 10:30 AM | what no links ? |
| CruelDM11-25-04, 11:37 AM | A wizard can spend thousands of gold on scribing his spells into his spellbook, yet the book is worth only half of what he paid to scribe said spells. When calculating his total GP value, which value do you use? The same holds true for any item, you can only sell it for half its listed market price, so finding an item that costs 4000 gp will only net a 2000 gp gain when sold. Would retaining this item raise his gp value by 4000 gp or only 2000 gp (the maximum value he could gain from selling it)? Is the characters gp value based off market price or actual worth to the character? I ask only because if you are using the tables mentioned in the DMG as rules for PCs it makes a big difference. I personally dont use the tables with regards to the PCs. As far as I can tell, they do not promote game balance or believability, especially when used with NPCs too. If the NPCs carry the correct gp value according to the tables and the PCs defeat the NPCs, do you force the PCs to sell the items and donate the proceeds to charity to keep them within the table guidelines? How is this handled? |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek11-25-04, 12:39 PM | The bottom line is you don't have to use the charts...... I have a 15th level character and I don't have nowhere near the gold and items that the chart says i have..But, thats because things we fight do not have a lot of treasure.... Certain things just do not carry treasure....... If you think about it, it's stupid to look at the chart and tell your DM well it says here that I am supposed to have this and that amount you are not playing by the rules......That is why it isn't a core rule but a guideline.......A core rule is BAB, AC or something like that...These charts are mainly for creating NPC's..... And it takes the fun out of the game if you already know what you are getting before you even get there.....Thats why CR's are not accurate, and should not be tied into these charts....... While a creature's stats may not have so and so item listed, the DM may have this creature with an item to add flavor cause that is the point of D&D....be creative...... You need rare components to cast spells, but you do not need them to copy spells into your spellbook...The materials are listed and have a set amount.......If I steal them, or find them or whatever, then there is no difference from me going to buy them except that it didn't cost me a dime...They are not attuned to you just cause you pay for them....It's simple logic... |
| Tealgorthian11-25-04, 01:41 PM | The bottom line is you don't have to use the charts...... I have a 15th level character and I don't have nowhere near the gold and items that the chart says i have..But, thats because things we fight do not have a lot of treasure.... Certain things just do not carry treasure....... If you think about it, it's stupid to look at the chart and tell your DM well it says here that I am supposed to have this and that amount you are not playing by the rules......That is why it isn't a core rule but a guideline.......A core rule is BAB, AC or something like that...These charts are mainly for creating NPC's..... And it takes the fun out of the game if you already know what you are getting before you even get there.....Thats why CR's are not accurate, and should not be tied into these charts....... While a creature's stats may not have so and so item listed, the DM may have this creature with an item to add flavor cause that is the point of D&D....be creative...... You need rare components to cast spells, but you do not need them to copy spells into your spellbook...The materials are listed and have a set amount.......If I steal them, or find them or whatever, then there is no difference from me going to buy them except that it didn't cost me a dime...They are not attuned to you just cause you pay for them....It's simple logic... You are using a houserule, and by default, wrong. If you played in my party, and your wizard tried to take all the 100gp value scribing materials, I would deduct it from your total treasure from the party pile. So if it was a 4 person party, and we found 11,900 gold peices, and 100 gp of scribing materials, you would get 2,900 gold peices, and 100 gp of the scribing materials, while the rest of us got 3,000 gold peices. If you are doing differently, you are using a houserule, and are going against the rules as written, which makes you wrong. End of discussion. |
| Heron_Marked_Blade11-25-04, 01:47 PM | It seems your argument is that a character doesn't have to pay 100gp each time he scribes a page in his spellbook....and you're right in the sense that you can aquire the material in ways other than physically paying 100gp for them. You can "steal or find" them. However, a DM who is concerned with Character Wealth Per Level (and the majority of them are) will take into account that when you "steal or find" items or material, it raises your Character Wealth. So in a very real sense, you're still "paying" (i.e. you're spending) 100gp each time you scribe a page, and that amount is coming from your overall wealth (which includes things you "steal or find"). |
| Kolo11-25-04, 08:07 PM | The bottom line is you don't have to use the charts...... Table 5.1 (specifically the table for Total Gold Values for PCs) says that you should do so because it affects game balance. You don't use it; your game balance is out of whack. We use it; we're doing just fine. Oh, and if you're not using it, you're using a houserule. I will state this here for reference ONCE AGAIN; If you are using houserules in your game balance argument and presenting it as core, you are automatically WRONG. I have a 15th level character and I don't have nowhere near the gold and items that the chart says i have.. BUT, you have stated that you have tons and tons of spells, all of which are considered found treasure because hey... you found them. I'm betting you're not counting the actual gold value of those spellbooks; It's the cost of the book+the cost of the spells in the book, and if you scribed them you add the cost of the scribing materials. But, thats because things we fight do not have a lot of treasure.... Certain things just do not carry treasure....... You have already given an example of how you got almost all the spells in the PHB as treasure. Please, at least try to be consistent. If you think about it, it's stupid to look at the chart and tell your DM well it says here that I am supposed to have this and that amount you are not playing by the rules...... It's even more stupid to go on these boards and say "Hey, I don't use these rules and my DM doesn't, and neither should any of you because I said so and my opinion is the only one that counts!" honestly. You're basically saying that your campaign is balanced even though your DM isn't using all the balance rules. That's fine for your campaign, but it does not give you a valid basis for comparison on how class balance works for all campaigns or core campaigns. That is why it isn't a core rule but a guideline....... Wrong. read the sidebar of table 5.1 in the DMG and have a look at the fact that it is, in fact, stated that these are rules, not guidelines. A core rule is BAB, AC or something like that... A core rule is any rule in the core books. Table 5.1 is a rule in a core book[I/]. If you're simply going to say that it's not core [I]even though it is a rule in the core books, and expect me to concede the point, you are not only sadly mistaken, but completely missing the entire point of what a core rule is in the first place. These charts are mainly for creating NPC's..... Wrong. table 5.1 is for PCs specifically. And it takes the fun out of the game if you already know what you are getting before you even get there..... False and Your Opinion. You know the approximate value, but you have no way of knowing what exactly you're getting. A magic item worth 10.000 can be a lot of different items; a weapon, a wondrous item, armor, scrolls, cloaks... whatever. Thats why CR's are not accurate, and should not be tied into these charts....... Your opinion only. CR's are partly calculated from these very values. the CR's are out of whack in your campaign because you're not using all the rules involved in balancing your PC's against the appropriate CR. When this chart is used, suddenly CR starts getting a lot more accurate. Not perfect, mind you, but much, much closer than if you're not using them. While a creature's stats may not have so and so item listed, the DM may have this creature with an item to add flavor cause that is the point of D&D....be creative...... ...And that item would be added to the treasure chart for that monster, and included in the loot you'd get from it, and thus fall directly under these charts. Nothing prevents you from doing this at all; You just have to follow the appropriate gold values for PC's and make sure the item isn't too powerful for them at that level. You need rare components to cast spells, but you do not need them to copy spells into your spellbook...The materials are listed and have a set amount....... uh... what? What exactly is your point? I already know it costs a certain amount of GP to scribe a spell, why point out to me that it only costs that cost in GP? I already said that! And I certainly never said that I had to pay the material component cost as well! I'll ask you kindly to stop putting words in my mouth now. If I steal them, or find them or whatever, then there is no difference from me going to buy them except that it didn't cost me a dime... will you get it through your head that we are NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU HAVING TO SPEND MONEY AT ALL? We are saying that if you FIND them, you do not have to buy them but they DO COUNT AGAINST THE TOTAL GOLD VALUE FOR YOUR CHARACTER. this is CORE, it is IN THE DMG, and if you do not follow these rules you are USING A HOUSERULE and thus do NOT HAVE A VALID BASIS FOR COMPARISON- your argument is automatically invalidated. So far, you have done nothing to even try to refute the point using the rules. If you're going to talk about the rules and then say that the rules are wrong and that you are right, you shouldn't even be talking about it in the first place. They are not attuned to you just cause you pay for them....It's simple logic... Again, what the heck are you talking about? "attuned"? what is this sentence even supposed to mean? are you trying to say that I ever put forward the argument that you had to buy them? I never said anything of the sort. read my posts, don't just assume I said something. Your argument is based around the fact that you actually think that it's perfectly okay for your character to get limitless wealth in the form of items as long as the gold is split evenly. you say that found stuff doesn't even count as treasure at all, and therefore you're getting them for free. Well, guess what; you may be getting them for free, but you're not getting endless amounts if you follow the core rules. never. Read table 5.1 and the accompanying sidebar; it looks like you only looked at the random treasure tables, a completely different thing. |
| angryman11-25-04, 10:26 PM | what no links ? No links for you! :noway: |
| Kolo11-26-04, 10:30 AM | A wizard can spend thousands of gold on scribing his spells into his spellbook, yet the book is worth only half of what he paid to scribe said spells. When calculating his total GP value, which value do you use? The same holds true for any item, you can only sell it for half its listed market price, so finding an item that costs 4000 gp will only net a 2000 gp gain when sold. Would retaining this item raise his gp value by 4000 gp or only 2000 gp (the maximum value he could gain from selling it)? Is the characters gp value based off market price or actual worth to the character? I ask only because if you are using the tables mentioned in the DMG as rules for PCs it makes a big difference. I personally dont use the tables with regards to the PCs. As far as I can tell, they do not promote game balance or believability, especially when used with NPCs too. If the NPCs carry the correct gp value according to the tables and the PCs defeat the NPCs, do you force the PCs to sell the items and donate the proceeds to charity to keep them within the table guidelines? How is this handled? The tables assume price, not market value. you may be able to sell an item to half it's value, but as long as you are using it, the full price is taken into account. Say an item costs 20.000 GP; you can sell it for 10.000, or you can keep it-and then the 20.000 would be added to the chart. Also, keep in mind that the chart is not for NPC's unless the DM really wants it to be. And trust me when I say that deviating too much one way or the other on the chart does have serious repercussions on balance. A level 3 fighter with a +5 sword is too powerful for the CR appropriate to his level, and can plough through his enemies; a level 20 fighter with a +1 sword is too weak to handle appropriate CR ratings for his level, and may have a tough time with a CR up to six levels lower. not using the chart would require the DM to readjust the CR system, which is all fine and good, but it is a lot of work. |
| [GSV] Kirstar11-26-04, 02:47 PM | It seems your argument is that a character doesn't have to pay 100gp each time he scribes a page in his spellbook....and you're right in the sense that you can aquire the material in ways other than physically paying 100gp for them. You can "steal or find" them. However, a DM who is concerned with Character Wealth Per Level (and the majority of them are) will take into account that when you "steal or find" items or material, it raises your Character Wealth. So in a very real sense, you're still "paying" (i.e. you're spending) 100gp each time you scribe a page, and that amount is coming from your overall wealth (which includes things you "steal or find"). A dm would be a fool to penalise a player for his hard work. A player that goes into trade and manages by hook or by crook to make lots of wealth suddenly doesnt find that when he adventures all the money is missing. and vice versa a player that is too stupid to see wealth put in front of them doesnt get extra cash to make up for it. |
| CruelDM11-27-04, 03:18 AM | So far no one has answered my original question. If the PCs are following a wealth chart, and they have attained the correct amount of loot for their level, do the enemies stop carrying treasure or items until the PCs gain a level, or do you force the PCs to sell the loot and donate all proceeds to charity? |
| green_yawgmoth11-27-04, 05:15 AM | So far no one has answered my original question. If the PCs are following a wealth chart, and they have attained the correct amount of loot for their level, do the enemies stop carrying treasure or items until the PCs gain a level, or do you force the PCs to sell the loot and donate all proceeds to charity? If the DM is following the weath chart that closely, he'd never put the PCs in a position in which they'd have more or less "loot" than they should have. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek11-27-04, 10:45 AM | Table 5.1 (specifically the table for Total Gold Values for PCs) says that you should do so because it affects game balance. You don't use it; your game balance is out of whack. We use it; we're doing just fine. Oh, and if you're not using it, you're using a houserule. I will state this here for reference ONCE AGAIN; If you are using houserules in your game balance argument and presenting it as core, you are automatically WRONG. BUT, you have stated that you have tons and tons of spells, all of which are considered found treasure because hey... you found them. I'm betting you're not counting the actual gold value of those spellbooks; It's the cost of the book+the cost of the spells in the book, and if you scribed them you add the cost of the scribing materials. The thing you don't seem to understand is......I don't have very many items....Right now I have about 10,000 gold stashed away......Ok, now while I am adventuring it's not doing me jack cause it's not with me.....If I walk into a store I am still broke......I can't take all the items that I do have, add them together and then walk into a store and buy something....You make absolutely no sense...... If I walk over to my companion, steal oh 100gp go to a shop, buy some materials, then I have lost nothing cause my companion earned it, I just stole it and I didn't have to pay anything....Thats like sitting at the poker table...I steal a chip from a guy next to me and I throw in his chip as my bet..I then win the hand and all that money without having to use my own money...I just gained something without having to sacrifice my own....It is the same logic.......Now with regards to the charts......IT IS NOT A HOUSE RULE IF YOU DON"T USE THEM...THEY ARE JUST A GUIDELINE.....DO YOU UNDERSTAND GUIDELINE?????????? THEY ARE NOT A CORE RULE.... THEY ARE THERE FOR QUICK ACCESS WHEN DEALING, OR CREATING NPC'S...THAT IS THEIR PURPOSE...... it's stupid to give items to characters in order to be able to defeat monsters.....There are things like spells, skills, feats, special abilities etc....... You really need to go back and read your DMG carefully... |
| Kolo11-27-04, 11:17 AM | The thing you don't seem to understand is......I don't have very many items....Right now I have about 10,000 gold stashed away......Ok, now while I am adventuring it's not doing me jack cause it's not with me.....If I walk into a store I am still broke......I can't take all the items that I do have, add them together and then walk into a store and buy something....You make absolutely no sense...... If I walk over to my companion, steal oh 100gp go to a shop, buy some materials, then I have lost nothing cause my companion earned it, I just stole it and I didn't have to pay anything....Thats like sitting at the poker table...I steal a chip from a guy next to me and I throw in his chip as my bet..I then win the hand and all that money without having to use my own money...I just gained something without having to sacrifice my own....It is the same logic.......Now with regards to the charts......IT IS NOT A HOUSE RULE IF YOU DON"T USE THEM...THEY ARE JUST A GUIDELINE.....DO YOU UNDERSTAND GUIDELINE?????????? THEY ARE NOT A CORE RULE.... THEY ARE THERE FOR QUICK ACCESS WHEN DEALING, OR CREATING NPC'S...THAT IS THEIR PURPOSE...... it's stupid to give items to characters in order to be able to defeat monsters.....There are things like spells, skills, feats, special abilities etc....... You really need to go back and read your DMG carefully... Oh, come on. :rolleyes: You are confusing the out-of-character game balancing system with in-game and in-character playing. The table works exactly as it says it does, and it works exactly the way I described. And many of your points assume I not only said something I never said, but also that the rules simply do not apply to you. In no way did I EVER say; -that the table assumed you could simply walk into a store, sell your stuff and buy something different. It merely calculates the total worth of your items and other stuff to see if your character's items are too powerful for his level. (You know, the old hat; a level 3 fighter with a +5 vorpal sword has too much stuff, the level 20 rogue with a +1 dagger has too little. That's what this table is for.) -That the tables had anything at all to do with the in-game situation of stealing from your comrades and spending their money to your benefit. You can do this all you want, as long as you don't go way over the wealth level. -That the table was an in-game barrier that somehow prevented you from earning treasure or finding things. see my first point on what the table is for. I asked you once, I'll ask you again; stop putting words in my mouth. You are confusing your experience as a player with how a DM ruleset works. My advice to you is that you actually read the rule, which I notice you still haven't done by the fact that you still seem to think it's somehow a useless guideline no one ever needs to follow. (your assumption is untrue, BTW; The table is balanced for the average D&D party, and is meant to be used with the rest of the rules.) Also, table 5.1 is for PLAYER CHARACTERS SPECIFICALLY, not NPC's. Player Characters. You're still looking at the random treasure tables, which is a completely different thing- so different as to belong to an entire different discussion. Also, this is a rule. it is in the DMG, which is a core rulebook. it is specifically meant to balance the average party of adventurers against CR's appropriate to their level and against the relative power of each other. It is, in fact,all core, as you'd know if you had read the rule. Which you clearly haven't. (if you need help finding the table; It's not in the SRD, just like the experience tables aren't. It's table 5.1 in the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide. Maybe you could borrow a copy from somewhere if you don't have one handy, or ask to see the table the next time you play.) And your "spells, skills, special abilities" argument on power; are you seriously suggesting that magic items, whose purpose is to increase the power of a character in a certain area, somehow aren't a way to increase the power of characters? How exactly, by any measure other than saying that it's "stupid" (which you did), did you think you could you ever convince me that things that make your character more powerful don't make your character more powerful and therefore shouldn't be counted in a balance discussion? (FYI, for wizards, a lot of spells also fall under the heading of "items you give to characters in order to be able to defeat monsters" because they cost gold to scribe and buy, and have a gold value attached-that is, they count as valuable treasure. The only spells that don't are the ones wizards get free from levelling.) Explain how equipment doesn't fit into a balance discussion using quotes from the rules, and you might convince me. Shouting expletives will get you, and us, nowhere except flameland. Oh, yes; Follow your own advice. Read the rules. carefully. I already did. |
| GRAOUH !!!11-27-04, 12:00 PM | Edit : Bah, don't want to lose my time and yours, sorry |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek11-27-04, 12:33 PM | Oh, come on. :rolleyes: You are confusing the out-of-character game balancing system with in-game and in-character playing. The table works exactly as it says it does, and it works exactly the way I described. And many of your points assume I not only said something I never said, but also that the rules simply do not apply to you. In no way did I EVER say; -that the table assumed you could simply walk into a store, sell your stuff and buy something different. It merely calculates the total worth of your items and other stuff to see if your character's items are too powerful for his level. (You know, the old hat; a level 3 fighter with a +5 vorpal sword has too much stuff, the level 20 rogue with a +1 dagger has too little. That's what this table is for.) -That the tables had anything at all to do with the in-game situation of stealing from your comrades and spending their money to your benefit. You can do this all you want, as long as you don't go way over the wealth level. -That the table was an in-game barrier that somehow prevented you from earning treasure or finding things. see my first point on what the table is for. I asked you once, I'll ask you again; stop putting words in my mouth. You are confusing your experience as a player with how a DM ruleset works. My advice to you is that you actually read the rule, which I notice you still haven't done by the fact that you still seem to think it's somehow a useless guideline no one ever needs to follow. (your assumption is untrue, BTW; The table is balanced for the average D&D party, and is meant to be used with the rest of the rules.) Also, table 5.1 is for PLAYER CHARACTERS SPECIFICALLY, not NPC's. Player Characters. You're still looking at the random treasure tables, which is a completely different thing- so different as to belong to an entire different discussion. Also, this is a rule. it is in the DMG, which is a core rulebook. it is specifically meant to balance the average party of adventurers against CR's appropriate to their level and against the relative power of each other. It is, in fact,all core, as you'd know if you had read the rule. Which you clearly haven't. (if you need help finding the table; It's not in the SRD, just like the experience tables aren't. It's table 5.1 in the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide. Maybe you could borrow a copy from somewhere if you don't have one handy, or ask to see the table the next time you play.) And your "spells, skills, special abilities" argument on power; are you seriously suggesting that magic items, whose purpose is to increase the power of a character in a certain area, somehow aren't a way to increase the power of characters? How exactly, by any measure other than saying that it's "stupid" (which you did), did you think you could you ever convince me that things that make your character more powerful don't make your character more powerful and therefore shouldn't be counted in a balance discussion? (FYI, for wizards, a lot of spells also fall under the heading of "items you give to characters in order to be able to defeat monsters" because they cost gold to scribe and buy, and have a gold value attached-that is, they count as valuable treasure. The only spells that don't are the ones wizards get free from levelling.) Explain how equipment doesn't fit into a balance discussion using quotes from the rules, and you might convince me. Shouting expletives will get you, and us, nowhere except flameland. Oh, yes; Follow your own advice. Read the rules. carefully. I already did. I want you to give me a page number in the book that will show me where it says, that if you don't use these charts that you are not using core rules...I don't know how many times I have to tell you that those charts are for reference......Guidlines....Please give me a page number, and a paragraph if you can..... |
| Tealgorthian11-27-04, 12:43 PM | .... By guidelines, they mean if you have around this much, give or take a few percent, you are in the appropriate wealth zone. If you have half this amount, you have significantly more or less, you are going to have a easily or harder time with encounters. CRs are based on all the charts in the DMG. If you are -not- following the charts in the DMG, you are using a houserule. But from your other posts, your DM makes Wizards super-powerful (you know, like Sudden Metamagic usable any number of times perday?) it really wouldnt surprise me if you had -never- paid to scribe a spell. |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek11-27-04, 01:57 PM | .... By guidelines, they mean if you have around this much, give or take a few percent, you are in the appropriate wealth zone. If you have half this amount, you have significantly more or less, you are going to have a easily or harder time with encounters. CRs are based on all the charts in the DMG. If you are -not- following the charts in the DMG, you are using a houserule. But from your other posts, your DM makes Wizards super-powerful (you know, like Sudden Metamagic usable any number of times perday?) it really wouldnt surprise me if you had -never- paid to scribe a spell. No..I am afraid you are wrong...If you don't use the wealth charts, then it is not a house rule.....There is no core rule to using the charts....... |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek11-27-04, 02:08 PM | I will quote from the DMG pg 145 under Character Wealth: One of the ways in which you can maintain measureable control on PC power levels is by strictly monitoring their wealth, including their magic items. table 5-1: Character wealth by level is based on average treasures found in average encounters compared with the experience points earned in those encounters. Using that information, you can determine how much wealth a character should have based on her level. All published adventures for this edition of the D&D game use this "wealth by level" guideline as a basis for balance in adventures. No adventure meant for 7th level characters, for example, will require or assume that the party possess a magic item that costs 20,000gp........ No place in that paragraph states that you must use these rules....This guideline is here to help out DM's, and for premade modules....... If you have to use these charts, thats like saying that if a DM makes up his own world, then he isn't being core, or if he doesn't use a module he isn't being core...Those are helpful tips.....no core rules that you have to go by..... |
| Tealgorthian11-27-04, 02:10 PM | Yes, there is. The CR system is based on a character having a certain amount of resources availible to them, this is evidanced by the fact an equal CR encounter should use 20% of your daily resources. This is an accepted -fact-. The wealth tables tells you what your availble resources should be during a level. So if you have more than this, you are scaling faster than the CR system. If you dont understand this, then I dont know what else to tell you. |
| Heron_Marked_Blade11-27-04, 11:07 PM | I want you to give me a page number in the book that will show me where it says, that if you don't use these charts that you are not using core rules...I don't know how many times I have to tell you that those charts are for reference......Guidlines....Please give me a page number, and a paragraph if you can..... If it's published in either the Player's Handbook, the Dungeon Master's Guide, or the Monster Manual, and if it isn't under a heading such as "Variant Rules", then it's considered part of the Core Rules. Need a page number and quote? DMG, top of page 4: "This book contains information that every Dungeon Master (DM) needs to set up adventures, narrate the action, run the monsters, and referee the DUNGEON & DRAGONS game. This book, the Player's Handbook, and the Monster Manual comprise the core rules for the D&D game." (Emphasis mine.) There you have it, XunValDorl of HouseKilsek. Everything in the DMG (tables, glossary, and everything in between) is a Core Rule for the D&D game. Anything else you may choose to do is either a Variant rule or a House rule. :ayyyy!: |
| Iron Chef Vastrox11-27-04, 11:19 PM | There you have it, XunValDorl of HouseKilsek. Everything in the DMG (tables, glossary, and everything in between) is a Core Rule for the D&D game. Unless it's specifically labeled as a variant rule, all of which occur in a sidebar of some sort. Note that the PC Wealth By Level guidelines are not listed as a variant rule. That makes them core, nonvariant rules. |
| Kolo11-27-04, 11:37 PM | I want you to give me a page number in the book that will show me where it says, that if you don't use these charts that you are not using core rules...I don't know how many times I have to tell you that those charts are for reference......Guidlines....Please give me a page number, and a paragraph if you can..... If I must... Heron marked blade already pointed out page four, so I won't waste any more time on that (thanks! :)) Page 14; Altering the way things work Every rule in the Player's Hanbook was written for a reason. That doesn't mean that you can't change the rules for your own game. Perhaps your players don't like the way initiative is determined, or you find that the rules for learning new spells are too limiting. Rules that you change for your own game are called house rules. Also, on game balance; page 13. Good DM management A DM who carefully watches all portions of the game so that nothing goes out of his or her control helps keep the game balanced. PCs and NPCs, victories and defeats, awards and afflictions, treasure found and treasure spent -all these aspects must be monitored to maintain balance. table 5.1 is the rule on how to keep tabs on that last bit. EDIT; also forgot; table 5.1 is a core rule because it is not specifically listed to be a variant. Unless specifically listed to be variant rules, all the rules in the three books are core. And don't make me look that one up for you like you did with the above quotes. You are perfectly capable of reading them yourself and don't need me to do it for you, so don't make me. |
| The_Dark_One11-27-04, 11:55 PM | This post has been delted by me. I reported it to make sure I hadn't gone over the line. I was told, and rightly so, that I had. I would like to offer my sincere apologies and from now on will keep my comments about the subject in question, not other posters. |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek11-28-04, 12:54 AM | Unless it's specifically labeled as a variant rule, all of which occur in a sidebar of some sort. Note that the PC Wealth By Level guidelines are not listed as a variant rule. That makes them core, nonvariant rules. Nope you are wrong.....Please read the description of the Wealth chart.....it is not core.....it is mainly for modules, and as a guideline to help DM's who want a quick reference........... Let me explain something......Ok as a DM, I want my player's 5th level fighter to have a +5 longsword of blah blah that costs about 100,000 gp.......Now, the sword will only function as a +2 magical sword no other bonuses until that fighter reaches a certain level.....Now, if what you state was true about these charts being totally core, then I couldn't do this....The sword only works as a +2 right now, but it is still worth 100,000gp... Now, what you are saying is, that a DM doesn't have the freedom to come up with his own story, and way of doing items.....This situation is not a house rule, because the chart is for modules and average games....Not all games are average, this is a special case in which the chart doesn't apply because it isn't core...The DM doesn't need it because he has taken care of that part.....You need to think about what you are saying... |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek11-28-04, 12:58 AM | Here is a reference By the way (and I hope you are a native speaker of the English Language. If you are a non-native speaker of English, ignore my next comments. You are doing a good job :cheer: ) you might find that if you put a little bit of effort into your spelling and grammar, it will make you a little bit more credible. Try to use punctuation. The effort you put into being coherant as well as civil will pay off. Dude what is the point in the stupid comments?? You are not being cool, you are not being bad...What are you trying to do Intimidate me, make a fool out of me???? Comments like that are not called for....If it continues I am going to report you..... |
| Tealgorthian11-28-04, 01:41 AM | Nope you are wrong.....Please read the description of the Wealth chart.....it is not core.....it is mainly for modules, and as a guideline to help DM's who want a quick reference........... Let me explain something......Ok as a DM, I want my player's 5th level fighter to have a +5 longsword of blah blah that costs about 100,000 gp.......Now, the sword will only function as a +2 magical sword no other bonuses until that fighter reaches a certain level.....Now, if what you state was true about these charts being totally core, then I couldn't do this....The sword only works as a +2 right now, but it is still worth 100,000gp... Now, what you are saying is, that a DM doesn't have the freedom to come up with his own story, and way of doing items.....This situation is not a house rule, because the chart is for modules and average games....Not all games are average, this is a special case in which the chart doesn't apply because it isn't core...The DM doesn't need it because he has taken care of that part.....You need to think about what you are saying... You need to go back and address the other points that you ignored, like you always do. YOU ARE WRONG. You are the only person in this ENTIRE thread that has missed the boat. If -you- want to go and give your PCs too much treasure to make the game too easy, you go right ahead. But you are not following the core rules. You are following your own rules. Go on and play your overpowered game. |
| The_Dark_One11-28-04, 02:20 AM | If it continues I am going to report you..... Actually, I have already been reported (by me); I thought that some of the stuff I said was over the line. I'm waiting for official word on that. By the way, this is what offended you? That was actually my attempt at being nice. I noticed some spelling/grammar errors in some of your posts and thought I'd give you a little friendly advice about correcting them (you could try copy/pasting your post to a word processing program and running a spell check). This was the mildest part of the post. In the rest, I come across as hostile, condescending, and just plain rude. The one part of the post where I try to be helpful, and this is the part that he finds offensive... I am such a jerk. :embarrass Dude what is the point in the stupid comments?? Just out of curiosity , why is this a stupid comment? No, I won't go into my rant about how internet culture is degrading our language skills, that would be grotesquely off topic. On a completely different note, I've noticed that some of your angry retorts seem to reveal that you don't know the D&D definition of Core . It generally refers to the canonized set of rules that make up the default game of Dungeons and Dragons. Any varient of that goes against the canon and is considered non-core. It is neither a criticism nor an insult to suggest that the game you play in is not a core one. WOTC produces books which are non-core and some of them are very good. ......Ok as a DM, I want my player's 5th level fighter to have a +5 longsword of blah blah that costs about 100,000 gp.......Now, the sword will only function as a +2 magical sword no other bonuses until that fighter reaches a certain level.....Now, if what you state was true about these charts being totally core, then I couldn't do this.... No, you could, indeed, do this. It just wouldn't be core. What you describe sounds very much like a leveled item, by the way... |
| Chaser11-28-04, 05:03 AM | Nope you are wrong.....Please read the description of the Wealth chart.....it is not core.....it is mainly for modules, and as a guideline to help DM's who want a quick reference........... Okay, well, let me try something here. It is plain that you think core rules are those rules that are recognizably rules and are recognizably DanD; like levels, experience points, spell mechanics, weapons charts, and the character classes in the Player's Handbook. These sorts of 'rules' are much the same from campaign to campaign and are the things we all quickly recognize as official and as DanD and as rules. However, being widely recognizable, common to most campaigns, or a vital game mechanic to DanD does not make something a core rule. There are three qualifications that make something a core rule; it has to be a rule, it has to be in the PH, DMG, or MM, and it has to not have the tag 'variant rule' attached to it. So, Table 5-1: Character Wealth by Level, under Character Wealth, under Character Power Levels is definitely Core, but is is a Rule? It is one of the rules for balancing and managing campaigns. It is based on average treasure found in average encounters, solved by a four character party. That means if you run your adventures and campaign as suggested elsewhere in the core rules, your characters will NATURALLY have about this much wealth. It then goes on to say that "The baseline campaign for the DanD game uses this "Wealth by Level" guideline as a basis for balance in adventures. Guideline? Well, yes, it says guideline, but if you build encounters by the core rules and generate treasure by the core rules, then your characters should end up having around a certain amount of wealth at each level. Yes, it says guideline, but it also says that its published adventures WILL use this guideline for balancing adventures. This table will be used OFFICIALLY as one of the rules for balancing the baseline campaign and balancing adventures. In other words, Table 5-1 is a CORE RULE for balancing campaigns and adventures, because it is derived from CORE encounter and treasure rules, and because it will be used as the official benchmark. Is is nitpicky and potentially a lot of paperwork, as well as being unglamorous and perhaps a drag for the DM? YES. Do you have to use it? No. If you don't follow it reasonably closely, are you managing your campaigns and adventures by the core rules? No. Now, you might be an excellent, balanced DM such that you naturally produce adventures and campaigns in accord with table 5-1 without ever actually looking at the table. You are still in accord with the core rules for managing campaigns and adventures even if you do it by instinct or accident. XunValDorl, you also seemed to have an issue about character wealth earlier in this thread. Character wealth is not just gold pieces and items-easily-traded that the character currently possesses. A wizard's spellbook takes a fair amount of money to make in the regular way, thus it has value and is part of that character's wealth. If a wizard is seventh level and has about 19,000 gp in items and cash PLUS a spellbook, then the wizard is wealthier than the average 7th level character by the amount of his spellbook. If the other characters in the campaign are each worth about 19,000 gold, then the wizard is ahead of the game by the value of that spellbook, and this isn't necessarily fair. |
| Ferret11-28-04, 05:21 AM | Lock Thread... hmm can't find it just now. As for me, I played in nothing but low gold never past 5th level campaignes in the last three years so I've been forced to get the most cp in any situation. So crafting is always a good start for 1st level. Now as a wizard needing scribing materials then whatever we do to get something extra is jsut that something extra. We fight a troll, I have one of my empty vials and fill it with trolls blood. Take claws and teeth too. Dire wolves, diddo kiddo. Hagspawns blood got that. I only do this on the slight chance it will reduce some of my costs and doesnt go againt party funds as the party sees it. I took the exta time to do it. We were all looking for some tarrofelt root to help cure a gnome, the DM asked if anyone wanted to take some extra me and three others did. We each sold it for 10gp/ half pound, well actually I did I said to the others I found a merchant that would buy it for 5gp per 1/2 lb and pocketed the rest as a 'finders' fee. I made an extra 55gp that way. Thats how you can get funds to not be part of the party's split. But your worth is still calculated with those extras as I sitll used that 55gp to scribe a spell/scroll buy a sword etc etc So now wheres the lock thread button...... |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek11-28-04, 03:51 PM | Actually, I have already been reported (by me); I thought that some of the stuff I said was over the line. I'm waiting for official word on that. By the way, this is what offended you? That was actually my attempt at being nice. I noticed some spelling/grammar errors in some of your posts and thought I'd give you a little friendly advice about correcting them (you could try copy/pasting your post to a word processing program and running a spell check). This was the mildest part of the post. In the rest, I come across as hostile, condescending, and just plain rude. The one part of the post where I try to be helpful, and this is the part that he finds offensive... I am such a jerk. :embarrass Just out of curiosity , why is this a stupid comment? No, I won't go into my rant about how internet culture is degrading our language skills, that would be grotesquely off topic. On a completely different note, I've noticed that some of your angry retorts seem to reveal that you don't know the D&D definition of Core . It generally refers to the canonized set of rules that make up the default game of Dungeons and Dragons. Any varient of that goes against the canon and is considered non-core. It is neither a criticism nor an insult to suggest that the game you play in is not a core one. WOTC produces books which are non-core and some of them are very good. No, you could, indeed, do this. It just wouldn't be core. What you describe sounds very much like a leveled item, by the way... There is nothing non core about that......... Those charts are not a "part of the rules" like how many actions in a round, or minuses I get with using two weapons etc... Those are general core rules.....The charts are not...They are helpful tools that DM's can use...... If a DM gives a character a certain weapon at a certain level, if the chart has that the weapon wouldn't normally be given to a character of that level, then that is talking about a standard game that the designers may have come up with in their playing, but is not restricted to others because each DM is not the same.....Modules are an example of what they call standard games....... You can't define this stuff as core rules cause it's not....A sorcerer's spell known chart, that is core, or the description of a feat, that is core..... But this type of stuff is not considered a core rule......If a 5th level fighter happens to stumble upon a +5 sword then so be it...Thats part of free gaming for a DM.....With regards to stuff like that there is no wrong and right way to play..... Just because the designers may have had a balancing problem in the example games they played, that doesn't mean that everyone will........ Things that can turn the tide are people who can use, say fighting tactics, and full advantage of spells, than a player who doesn't and just uses pure mechanics........ There is a difference with " Ok my fighter is taking partial cover against that tree there so that he can't be flanked", and then there is " Ok I walk up to the thing, tell me what I need to roll to hit it"....... Those charts can't take into account all of the options that players have, and ideas that they come up with......This isn't a video game.....Thats why they are not core rules......... |
| CruelDM11-28-04, 04:51 PM | Not to take sides here, but the character wealth table is just one of the ways a DM can track and maintain balance in their campaigns. It even says so in the first sentence above the table everyone is up in arms over on pg 135 in the DMG. If its "one of the ways" this means there are other ways, ways that dont use that table and that are still core. If its not "the way" but merely one of the ways, then, contrary to what everyone is arguing, it is a variant way to maintain balance. Just off the top of my head another way would be scale encounters to a higher CR, would this be a house rule or in any way non core? If you say yes then any encounter of higher or lower CR than the partys average level is house rules or non core. This is ridiculous in my opinion. I asked earlier if your PCs had the proper wealth for their level did that mean the opponants stoppoed carrying equipment or did you force the PCs to sell the loot and donate the proceeds to charity? This was the only response: If the DM is following the weath chart that closely, he'd never put the PCs in a position in which they'd have more or less "loot" than they should have. Based on that reply, I assume that all those that follow the wealth table do indeed force the bad guys to go about without equipment and treasure or magic (which incidently lowers the CR of encounters) or if not, these items and gold "dissappear" when the party goes to loot the bodies. Sure, the tables can help, but eventually the parties wealth is going to exceed anything listed in that table unless you force the opposition to carry signifigantly less loot than they should. The tables are a tool, not a core rule that, if ignored, leaves you making house rules. In all actuallity, when reading the description of the table, it appears to be there for the DM when making NPC parties and encounters, not for limiting the PCs wealth. Its an aid for module writers to help them not overscale their encounters in the adventures they write. As a side affect, if you use this table when creating adventures and NPC parties, the PC party should not outscale the CRs or become to powerful due to magic item possession. The table, used as a tool and reference for the DM, is one way a DM can help maintain balance (incidently, exactly what its supposed to do). |
| Chaser11-28-04, 04:58 PM | There is nothing non core about that......... Those charts are not a "part of the rules" like how many actions in a round, or minuses I get with using two weapons etc... I suggest you read my post above. Those charts are core rules ABOUT CAMPAIGN MANAGEMENT. They are derived using the core encounter, experience point, and treasure rules. Those are general core rules I spoke directly to this. The core rules are not JUST the recognizable DanD play mechanics rules.If aDM gives a character a certain weapon at a certain level, if the chart has that the weapon wouldn't normally be given to a character of that level, then that is talking about a standard game that the designers may have come up with in their playing, but is not restricted to others because each DM is not the same No, it is non-Core campaign management. It does not mean the DM is being a 'bad' DM, it means he is not using the core rules for treasure and encounters.You can't define this stuff as core rules cause it's not WE don't make that decision, WoTC does, and they are core.....A sorcerer's spell known chart, that is core, or the description of a feat, that is core..... But this type of stuff is not considered a core rule......If a 5th level fighter happens to stumble upon a +5 sword then so be it...Thats part of free gaming for a DM Free gaming that puts him outside the core rules. Big deal. It means the suggested encounter levels will be inadequate challenges for that character, because the DM is not following the core rules and will have to ramp up encounters to provide a challenge. Again, Core rules are not just combat and character mechanics.....With regards to stuff like that there is no wrong and right way to play You're right, but there is Core and non-Core, not right or wrong, but what the rules are written and designed to handle and what they are not designed to handle. What's Core or not is not your call. What you actually use IS your call, and I wish you creativity, fun, and success with that. I don't follow core 100%, but I don't call my game core where it's not. |
| Kolo11-29-04, 05:58 AM | Regarding what a variant rule is and isn't in the DMG; There's a sidebar on page 14 which explains this in detail. It states that any sidebar containing the words Variant Rule are not core, i.e. they are possible houserules. This means that any sidebar that does not contain these words are core. The wealth chart does not have these words, and is therefore by the RAW and all guidelines in the DMG core. This is so explicitly defined that there cannot be any doubt whatsoever unless one wants to argue english definitions instead of game definitions. the two concepts are entirely seperate, as they are for nearly all systems of rules. I repeat; What a variant rule is is clearly defined in the DMG, and the wealth chart most certainly does not fit the definition, meaning that it is not a variant rule. just because it's a guideline doesn't mean it's not core; remember, EVERYTHING in D&D is a guideline while still being core. The DMG is very clear on that too. (and to think I gave you almost 48 hours to actually respond to what I said in a meaningful manner... :waits: ) |
| CruelDM11-29-04, 09:45 AM | Well, again, according to the first sentence about the table in question, its merely one of the ways to aid a DM maintain balance in a campaign, therefor, not using that table does not make your campaign any "less core" than someones who does use the table, as long as something from the DMG is being used to maintain the balance. Clearly the first sentence describing that table as "one of the ways a DM can maintain balance" while not making it a variant, definately makes it optional. |
| Zelphi11-29-04, 11:34 AM | Irelevent to if it is a rule or not. It is still the practiced standard and if you are deviating from this guideline, then you are not playing to the appropriate standards that others are using for their campaigns and your examples fall over. If it isn't a houserule (or just a different campaign style), then its just as bad a point because it is campaign dependant and therefore irrelevent to anyone else. At which point any comment you make under such deviations from the suggested core guidelines, still puts your comments in bad light. In your situation it may be true that there is no point to a Sorc or whatever point you try to make. However, as long as you do deviate from the guidelines you do make an irrelevent point. You are simply incorrect in your statements because they are not based on the truths of other peoples campaigns. At which point this entire thread, and everyone you've ever made on the subject is a meaningless waste. Therefore the only way you (and anyone else) can ever make a meaningful point is to use the guidelines presented and take things into consideration based on what thoese guidelines say. Seeing as you state yourself that you are not sticking to these guidelines, you cannot escape the fact that you are not playing a valid campaign for comparison. |
| cowdragon11-29-04, 11:37 AM | Click Click Click! Click!!! Click! Click Clickety-click!!!! Darnit. It doesn't work for me. I gotta go buy 100gp worth of scribing materials and learn "Close Obnoxious and Repetative Thread" spell. Until then, I suppose I have to rely on the WIZOs. They are powerful entities with the outsider/moderator subtypes who have this ability at will. ;) They may also have spell resistance. The Cowdragon :mage: |
| Kolo11-29-04, 12:03 PM | Well, again, according to the first sentence about the table in question, its merely one of the ways to aid a DM maintain balance in a campaign, therefor, not using that table does not make your campaign any "less core" than someones who does use the table, as long as something from the DMG is being used to maintain the balance. Clearly the first sentence describing that table as "one of the ways a DM can maintain balance" while not making it a variant, definately makes it optional. Do you know about how rule definitions work? I'm telling you, it's printed there, black-on-sort-of-yellowish-color. unless specifically stated to be a variant rule, it is core. You might infere from the text that it's saying something different, but that doesn't matter. The rule is; If it is a variant and optional rule, it says so in big, black bold letters at the beginning of the sidebar. If those letters are missing, it's not a variant. Remember, rules do not care about our word definitions, only it's own. The system's definition can be completely different from what we ourselves believe- just look at the alignment chapter in the PHB and see how much you think everyone would agree with on the definition of "good"- but just because everyone has a different definition of "good" doesn't make the good alignments invalid to the rules. If the rules relied on people "infering" and "interpreting", the rule system as a whole wouldn't even work in the first place and it would all be guesswork with a d20 and some mountain dew. The definition of a variant rule exists, and the table does not follow the definition- therefore, it is not a variant rule. @ Cowdragon; Spell resistance and outsiders, heck. I'm thinking that their powers are closer to salient divine abilities. ;) |
| CruelDM11-29-04, 12:28 PM | This is absurd, if I use the CR or ECL rules presented in the DMG to scale an encounter to the PCs power and abilities then my campaign is not core? Or your Campaign Fu is corer than mine? Are you sticking your tongue out while typing too? NANANANA my campaign is more core than yours... LOL! If the table is one of the ways to maintain balance printed in the DMG yet I use another way presented in the same book, which, by your definition is just as core as yours (and not a variant) how does this make my campaign any less core from yours? Aside from mine being more believable because NPCs in my campaigns always have the correct gear for the appropriate levels when yours obviously cannot because you would be breaking the table you claim is the only way to maintain balance and be core. It's even more stupid to go on these boards and say "Hey, I don't use these rules and my DM doesn't, and neither should any of you because I said so and my opinion is the only one that counts!" Not to mention hypocriticle to accuse someone in this manner and then do the same yourself? (just substitue the words doesnt with do and/or does) or to believe your opinion is the only one that matters. At which point any comment you make under such deviations from the suggested core guidelines, still puts your comments in bad light. Comments like this and the ones that followed put all of your comments in a bad light and dont make your arguments any more right. You say I deviate from the core guidelines, yet I use the core guidelines as much as you. If you care to read that table description yet again, its only one of the ways to maintain balance presented and therefor its optional, as are any of the other ways presented. The point is that you use some form of balancing rule or you will find your game unbalanced. |
| cowdragon11-29-04, 12:37 PM | I guess the part that I think is so silly about it all is that evrybody KNOWS sorcerers are better. There's no arguing it. No matter what ANYBODY says otherwise...they're wrong. But I don't mind rubbing it in their faces that I'm not listening. ;) Yup. Sorcerers rule and wizards drool. :P Don't bother commenting back or using your fancy-schmancy debate jedi powers on me!!! Cause the truth can't be stopped. Sorry Xun...you're so wrong. So wrong in fact, that I don't even have to explain myself. You should just know better. Sheesh. Xun, this is what you are doing/saying every time you open a thread like this. Only about wizards...which makes you wrong. ;) The Cowdragon :mage: |
| Kolo11-29-04, 12:57 PM | This is absurd, if I use the CR or ECL rules presented in the DMG to scale an encounter to the PCs power and abilities then my campaign is not core? Or your Campaign Fu is corer than mine? Are you sticking your tongue out while typing too? NANANANA my campaign is more core than yours... LOL! Read before posting. What I am saying is that if you do use these rules (as well as the wealth tables because they are an inherent part of the balance system, as stated on page 13,) then your campaign is core. If you don't use them, then it's not. Also, don't use childish rhetoric; it only hurts people's opinions of both you and your arguments. If the table is one of the ways to maintain balance printed in the DMG yet I use another way presented in the same book,... I'm just gonna interject here to tell you that you are mistaking the table as being a different balance system. The wealth chart is an inherent part of the CR system in addition to CR's and ECL and whatnot, not a different system altogether. You are putting forth the argument that it's a variant CR system, which no one ever claimed it was and which it most certainly is not. which, by your definition is just as core as yours (and not a variant) how does this make my campaign any less core from yours? Aside from mine being more believable because NPCs in my campaigns always have the correct gear for the appropriate levels when yours obviously cannot because you would be breaking the table you claim is the only way to maintain balance and be core. If you'd look at my posts over for more than a glancing minute, you'd notice that I never said any of this. I'm saying, as I always have, that the wealth chart is an inherent part of the CR system. It's you who have been claiming that it's not, or that it's a different system. Again; Page 13, DMG, on class balance, it is stated that character treasure is an inherent part of balance in a campaign. Comments like this and the ones that followed put all of your comments in a bad light and dont make your arguments any more right. You say I deviate from the core guidelines, yet I use the core guidelines as much as you. If you care to read that table description yet again, its only one of the ways to maintain balance presented and therefor its optional, as are any of the other ways presented. The point is that you use some form of balancing rule or you will find your game unbalanced. MY comments are in a bad light? MY comments?! how about YOU, who MISQUOTED ME, DELIBERATELY IGNORED large portions of my post and claim I said things THAT I HAVE NEVER STATED AT ALL? On top of all that, You aren't even reading the entire description of the chart. It does NOT say that it's one of the ways to maintain balance; It says that it's one of the ways to maintain proper treasure levels according to the PC's level, which is an integral part of the core CR system. misquoting both me and the rules is not going to get you anywhere except reported. |
| CruelDM11-29-04, 01:14 PM | Well, for starters, unless I actually used the quotes, I wasnt quoting you, and even if I used the quotes, if I didnt put your name in the "originally posted by" section, I wasnt neccisarrily quoting YOU. Besides the table not being the only way to maintain balance, the table itself falls apart if adhered to literally. There is no way you can adhere to that table without the enemies eventually running around naked with no equipment because if your PC looted their clerical vestments and adventurer garbs and sold them they would have too much wealth. Its time to calm down, quit taking bites out of people who dont accept your literral and rigid beliefs and opinions, and look at what your typing and reading. The "core rule table" you demand must be used or your campaigns arent core specifically states that it is neither the only way, merely one of the ways to maintain balance, nor is it the only way to balance a campaign and be core. You are wrong, Kolo (yes I am refering to you directly now), and apparently cannot admit it even when faced with undeniable proof found in the text of the table you so forcefully are trying to shove down everyone elses throats. On top of all that, You aren't even reading the entire description of the chart. It does NOT say that it's one of the ways to maintain balance; It says that it's one of the ways to maintain proper treasure levels according to the PC's level, which is an integral part of the core CR system. So, is this an admission that you can maintain a core campaign without using the wealth table? It looks that way, but I doubt thats what you meant. Many people fall into the close-minded pitfall you find yourself in, I have myself fallen into such pitfalls on these boards, but I have always admitted when I was incorrect, or at least when I have been beaten down by the RAW. |
| Kolo11-29-04, 01:31 PM | Well, for starters, unless I actually used the quotes, I wasnt quoting you, and even if I used the quotes, if I didnt put your name in the "originally posted by" section, I wasnt neccisarrily quoting YOU. Besides the table not being the only way to maintain balance, the table itself falls apart if adhered to literally. There is no way you can adhere to that table without the enemies eventually running around naked with no equipment because if your PC looted their clerical vestments and adventurer garbs and sold them they would have too much wealth. Its time to calm down, quit taking bites out of people who dont accept your literral and rigid beliefs and opinions, and look at what your typing and reading. The "core rule table" you demand must be used or you arent core specifically states that it is neither the only way, merely one of the ways to maintain balance, nor is it the only way to balance a campaign and be core. You are wrong, Kolo (yes I am refering to you directly now), and apparently cannot admit it even when faced with undeniable proof found in the text of the table you so forcefully are trying to shove down everyone elses throats. Many people fall into the close-minded pitfall you find yourself in, I have myself fallen into such pitfalls on these boards, but I have always admitted when I was incorrect, or at least when I have been beaten down by the RAW. It is core, as the RAW states. Your "RAW" depends on a supposition and an inference from one sentence, sort of like some people want monks to be able to take the Improved Natural Attack feat to increase their unarmed damage despite overwhelming evidence in the RAW to the contrary. I'll back down when proved wrong according to the RAW. You have only infered from a sentence; I have quoted no less than three different passages that support what I am saying. Also, the chart isn't "rigid" at all. The chart is a baseline, which means that your PC's should have around that much wealth, not exactly that amount. That's what it means when it says guideline. And it's not my opinion- it's core. It is, in fact, you that is rigidly holding on to one sentence taken out of context to support an argument that is directly opposed to all the rules as written. Give me the RAW quote where it says that treasure is not a part of how CR is calculated, the RAW quote where it says that all sidebars can be infered to be variant rules and the RAW quote that PC wealth has no impact on campaign balance, and I'll listen. I hope you'll note that all the rules as written I have quoted have said the exact opposite thing. Three entire passages of Rules As Written... against your one out-of-context sentence. I'll stick to my argument, thanks. |
| CruelDM11-29-04, 01:52 PM | As far as misquoting goes, you do a good job of that yourself, I corrected my implication that the chart was a variant rule by stating it was optional many posts ago. The description of the chart in question does not need any interpretation. When the rules state "One of the ways in which you can maintain measurable control on PC power......." that means just that. One of the ways. You appear to interpret it (or you read it) to mean the ONLY way, and from that I must conclude your grasp of english, sentence structure and meaning are very different than mine. Its no wonder you are so upset and venemous towards my posts and opinions, you seem to not understand them as I intended. For the record, my opinion is based on reading the rules, yours is the only opinion that DEPENDS on interpreting them (or at least changing the words "ONE OF THE WAYS" to "THE ONLY WAY"). I am not stating that using the table is non-core or wrong, only that not adhering to the table does not immediately make your campaign non-core or unbalanced. That, and the fact that one cannot adhere to the table literraly without some give and take because it forces you to start making unbelievable and boring encounters after the PCs reach the wealth given for levels. If their level wealth dictates that they are capped out at level 5 (9000 gp) then you must adjust encounters so that the party cannot bust the table if the are victorious. This means that an ECL 5 or 6 encounter cannot contain any treasure. Some encounters can adhere to this, but others, especially involving NPCs, are impossible- that is unless they have no items- in which case you just busted the CR tables. Believe it or not, some people may be better at balancing their campaigns than you are when not using that table. If you find the ONLY way for you to maintain proper balance and PC wealth is to adhere to a guideline table in the DMG, I am glad they put it in there for you. For others who dont have balance issues without the table, I am glad they listed it as ONE of the ways to help us and not the only way. EDIT: Upon further reflection it occurs to me that this thread has gone way off topic. To answer the original posters question: No, if you steal the materials to scribe spells into your spellbook you do not also have to pay for the materials. Your spell book is neither less valuable for obtaining the materials in this manner nor are your spells any less effective. |
| Kolo11-29-04, 02:46 PM | As far as misquoting goes, you do a good job of that yourself, I corrected my implication that the chart was a variant rule by stating it was optional many posts ago. The description of the chart in question does not need any interpretation. When the rules state "One of the ways in which you can maintain measurable control on PC power......." means just that. One of the ways. You interpret it to mean the ONLY way, and from that I must conclude your grasp of english, sentence structure and meaning are very different than mine. Its no wonder you are so upset and venemous towards my posts and opinions, you seem to not understand them as I intended. I am not stating that using the table is non-core or wrong, only that not adhering to the table does not immediately make your campaign non-core or unbalanced. That, and the fact that one cannot adhere to the table literraly without some give and take because it forces you to start making unbelievable and boring encounters after the PCs reach the wealth given for levels. If their level wealth dictates that they are capped out at level 5 (9000 gp) then you must adjust encounters so that the party cannot bust the table if the are victorious. This means that an ECL 5 or 6 encounter cannot contain any treasure. Some encounters can adhere to this, but others, especially involving NPCs, are impossible- that is unless they have no items- in which case you just busted the CR tables. Believe it or not, some people may be better at balancing their campaigns than you are when not using that table. If you find the ONLY way for you to maintain proper balance and PC wealth is to adhere to a guideline table in the DMG, I am glad they put it in there for you. For others who dont have balance issues without the table, I am glad they listed it as ONE of the ways to help us and not the only way. EDIT: Upon further reflection it occurs to me that this thread has gone way off topic. To answer the original posters question: No, if you steal the materials to scribe spells into your spellbook you do not also have to pay for the materials. Your spell book is neither less valuable for obtaining the materials in this manner nor are your spells any less effective. If it's optional, it's a variant rule. If it's a variant rule, it's non-core. That's my point. I'm not saying it's the only system of balance (And I still have not stated this anywhere, thank you AGAIN)- I'm saying that it's core. I have used this system, and I have used other systems and liked them too. But that is all irrelevant to the point at hand. The point is that this is the core rule system, and not a variant. In case you didn't read the original thread that this one stemmed from; the OP (Xun) was maintaining the opinion that the charts were non-core, at best a variant rule, in order to support his argument that "if it's not gold, it's not treasure", and that therefore, there would be no upper limit to the treasure he could collect as long as it was in items or spells- or in this case, stolen materials for scrolls. He challenged me to prove that the rules were core- and I have, using several quotes and examples to prove my point. You immediately latched onto the argument with the supposition that I was somehow stating that this was the only way to balance your campaign. I will say it again; I NEVER SAID THAT. I have stated, however, that it's the core balancing system, meaning that if someone is going to discuss class balance (as the OP was doing before he started this continuation thread), he must take the core balancing system into account. He has stated that Wizards are the most powerful class, yet has not used the core guidelines that are designed to maintain balance to support his argument and in fact, his only argument against it has been that it's "stupid" or a variant rule. That was the OP's intent when starting this thread, which is why I have said that you are quoting me entirely out of context- you are unaware of the entire original argument. This is entirely understandable, considering that the original thread (along with the original argument) was locked to prevent further posting due to repeated flames. We have been discussing class balance and how one measures it this entire time, and I hope this enlightens you somewhat- in fact, I'll provide a link to the original thread to clear things up a bit. I hope you take the time to read it. LINK (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=340341) (Oh, and if I seem a bit hostile towards Xun, well, he has a looong history of making these "wizards are best, sorcerers suck" threads, including several that were quite simply baiting. I don't like that sort of posting, so... :embarrass ) I'll say it again; I am NOT saying that this is the only system, and I never have;I am only stating that this is the core system, and I'm doing this to disprove Xun's point that wizards are more powerful than the other classes because they can "easily" know all the spells in the PHB and still have a full complement of magic items, and that therefore they are more powerful, simply because that's how the core rules are written. He uses houserules to support his argument, and I deconstruct how exactly his argument is fallacious. EDIT; If you need further proof of his arguments, here are some more of Xun's threads to show you the sheer amount of threads Xun has started specifically to say that the wizard is more powerful than the other arcane classes. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=343476 http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=342072 (This one also touches on the current argument) http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=342025 (another continuation of the original spellbook thread) http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=281653 (Whatever you do, do not ressurrect this beast. Let sleeping fallacies lie.) http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=244359 http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=144511 (This one is called "why the sorcerer isn't a good PC class; mostly it's just about how uber the wizard is) The list goes on. |
| cowdragon11-29-04, 03:25 PM | @Kolo Let sleeping falacies lie. hahahahaha. That was good. The Cowdragon :mage: |
| Kolo11-29-04, 03:57 PM | @Kolo Let sleeping falacies lie. hahahahaha. That was good. The Cowdragon :mage: Har. :embarrass Hey, convincing Xun that just maybe he might be wrong is an epic quest worthy of any hero worth his name, And that's the sort of stuff that D&D is all about! ;) |
| Iron Chef Vastrox11-29-04, 04:32 PM | Hey, convincing Xun that just maybe he might be wrong is an epic quest worthy of any hero worth his name, And that's the sort of stuff that D&D is all about! ;) Sorry, my campaigns cap at 30th level. Tops. |
| Tealgorthian11-29-04, 05:11 PM | I'd just like to know one thing: What **** poor magic shop that sells these kinds of things doesnt stock magical traps to turn would be theives into hampsters? And what archmage just leaves his scribing materials laying around for DumbWizard1 to steal? Wiz: "I want to steal his scribing material when he isnt looking" DM: "Uh.. make a slight of hand check.... :uh-huh:" Wiz: "<roll> 11, 13 with my dex mod" DM: "The Wizard turns around and begins casting a spell.. your spellcraft isnt high enough to know what it is." Wiz: "I AM XUN. I USE MY 6th LEVEL WIZARD DISPEL MAGIC TO COUNTER." DM: " :twitch: " |
| Kolo11-29-04, 06:11 PM | Sorry, my campaigns cap at 30th level. Tops. Oh, parp. :( It's okay, I can already cast locate rule pretty much at will and I've got Ki strike; Fallacy from my 8 levels in the ruleslawyer prestige class. :P |
| CruelDM11-29-04, 06:53 PM | Ok, you are correct, I have not followed any of the other threads on this or any topic started by the original poster. If they turned into flames I am sure I wouldnt care to. However, I do not use the character wealth table and have never felt my games were unbalanced. On a whim, I took 3 of the 5 most common PCs whose sheets I had here at the house (some of my weekly players that just leave them here with the other material so nothing is left at their house when the come to play). After examining these sheets and adding up the wealth, comparing it to the tables for their level, only one was over the top. The fighter had about 4000gp more than the chart said he should, the cleric had about 1000 over and the poor wizard was shorted about 2000 gp. This was due mostly to the party dividing the treasure found unevenly (by choice). In the past I have had games become unbalanced, one very badly because of some item I gave out (cant remember what it was at the moment), but it was the item and the parties ingenuity that made it unbalanced, not the total gp value. That items fate was sealed after about 3 sessions when it was I who had no fun DM'ing the game, the players grumbled, but in the end balance was restored. We moved on. If anything my players usually tell me their challenges are to hard, but I always state that if I were to go too easy on them they would soon lose interest and if the encounters were truly to hard they would die more often (death is uncommon, but not rare, though TPKs are rare to non-existant, in fact I cant remember a TPK with this group ever in the year its been together). At any rate, I may refer to the table from time to time from here on, just to make sure it doesnt get too out of whack. Good Gaming. |
| Zelphi11-30-04, 04:08 AM | As I said, it might end up balanced, but its irrelevent to assume what Xun was saying matters to anyone who doesn't ignore them. You cannot ignore that we cannot judge how balanced your games were based on what you did, and if you deviate from the guidelines of balance that everyone else is using and claim something is unbalanced - then you don't have much of a point. |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek11-30-04, 10:02 PM | I'd just like to know one thing: What **** poor magic shop that sells these kinds of things doesnt stock magical traps to turn would be theives into hampsters? And what archmage just leaves his scribing materials laying around for DumbWizard1 to steal? Wiz: "I want to steal his scribing material when he isnt looking" DM: "Uh.. make a slight of hand check.... :uh-huh:" Wiz: "<roll> 11, 13 with my dex mod" DM: "The Wizard turns around and begins casting a spell.. your spellcraft isnt high enough to know what it is." Wiz: "I AM XUN. I USE MY 6th LEVEL WIZARD DISPEL MAGIC TO COUNTER." DM: " :twitch: " Well lets see....When you have more than one member in your party, who can help you out......Also, there are such things as lonely wizards towers, keeps, etc....... Just because things don't happen in your games, that doesn't mean that they don't happen in other games.....Thats why D&D is so versatile, because each DM can be unique....Have a nice day... |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek11-30-04, 10:06 PM | The reason why the charts are not core is because they can't cover every situation, and every campaign is not the same.........Just like CR's are not accurate....... A CR for one group may be easy, while the same CR for another is hard...... If you up the CR of a certain creature because the way your players play, then this is still a legit move, because the way it is designed is to be flexible for each and every player......If it were core then it wouldn't fit every player, and DM's would only be able to run a campaign one way....Thats not free D&D....Thats a module..... |
| Kolo11-30-04, 11:52 PM | The reason why the charts are not core is because they can't cover every situation, and every campaign is not the same......... Prove it. Quote to me where exactly it says in the book that these are house rules, variants or otherwise not core. I certainly have provided several quotes explaining why they are; because the DMG says so. In fact, the fact that you state that every campaign is different only strengthens my point. We all have our own rules, but we can't talk to each other unless we use the core because every campaign is different. This includes discussions on class balance; I note that many of the most overpowered things you keep stating about the wizard are, in fact, your group's houserules. C'mon, speak the language everyone is speaking. At least make the attempt to actually, for once, to use the core rules as written to support what you're saying. Just like CR's are not accurate....... A CR for one group may be easy, while the same CR for another is hard...... Of course the CR's are going to be out of whack if you don't use the treasure tables. The CR's are partly based around them. And no, you are in fact wrong; They are still core, regardless of wether your campaign is different or not. If you up the CR of a certain creature because the way your players play, then this is still a legit move, because the way it is designed is to be flexible for each and every player...... You can change the rules, true. But if you do, you're not using the RAW, and are in fact using a houserule. The system does not care about wether you use different terms or not- except to say that any such difference is a houserule. It says so on page 14. I still haven't seen you argue against my points with anything new, nor have I seen you quoting the rules to support you. Tell me; where in the DMG does it say that your argument is correct? at least try to discuss the matter. Go ahead, I'm waiting. If it were core then it wouldn't fit every player, and DM's would only be able to run a campaign one way....Thats not free D&D....Thats a module..... ...And if everyone would just get along, we'd all be fine... :rolleyes: It is CORE by way of being a CORE rule as defined by the CORE rules. I already showed you the exact page where it says that; you have shown me nothing except your own houserules which you seem to maintain are actually more core than the core rules! If you think the rule is too restrictive, you can change it. but to be so arrogant as to suggest that your viewpoint supercede the actual RAW as being core is literally staggering. You might feel them to be better, but that doesn't make them core. I would NEVER run a campaign the way you have described yours- does that mean your campaign sucks? NO! It just means I prefer other methods! Unlike you, however, I can freely accept that my campaign is different from the core rules. The core rules, however, are the baseline around which D&D is built. If you argue something according to rules, and then completely ignore the baseline around which the entire D&D system is built, you are basically imposing your houserules on us and telling us to simply accept that you are right. Not gonna happen. Unless you accept that we have to keep to the core rules when discussing how the core rules work, there is no reason for anyone at all to listen to you. Talk about your rules over at the houserule forum all you want; here, we're talking about the Core, as you asked us to do. no more, no less. |
| Draco Strang12-01-04, 07:14 AM | Well lets see....When you have more than one member in your party, who can help you out......Also, there are such things as lonely wizards towers, keeps, etc....... Just because things don't happen in your games, that doesn't mean that they don't happen in other games.....Thats why D&D is so versatile, because each DM can be unique....Have a nice day... Is it just me, or do any of you imagine Xun with a speech pattern like William Shatner? "No....we....have to destroy the klingons....there.....isn't much.....time. Ok, and now down to business. Those frickin' charts are core man. I dunno what to tell you. I'm looking at my 3.5 AND my 3.0 DMG, and I'm not finding anything that says "go ahead and not use these if you wish...it's not like they have the slightest impact on game balance, wealth management, or making sure my level five fighter doesn't get a +5 vorpal diminutive dagger." |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek12-02-04, 12:08 AM | Is it just me, or do any of you imagine Xun with a speech pattern like William Shatner? "No....we....have to destroy the klingons....there.....isn't much.....time. Ok, and now down to business. Those frickin' charts are core man. I dunno what to tell you. I'm looking at my 3.5 AND my 3.0 DMG, and I'm not finding anything that says "go ahead and not use these if you wish...it's not like they have the slightest impact on game balance, wealth management, or making sure my level five fighter doesn't get a +5 vorpal diminutive dagger." Guess what??? Those frickin charts are not core man. There is no core to those charts.They are optional.... |
| TheDarkestOfAngels12-02-04, 12:45 AM | Guess what??? Those frickin charts are not core man. There is no core to those charts.They are optional.... I don't know how to tell you this, but, those charts ARE core. They're not listed as varient rules or rules that can be ignored in a standard campaign. They define the standard campaign. They're in the core books. They're not listed as a varient rule or listed in the chapter that covers varient rules and that's the only other thing they could be. It's core and those charts define character wealth. And no, they aren't optional either. |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek12-02-04, 01:05 AM | I don't know how to tell you this, but, those charts ARE core. They're not listed as varient rules or rules that can be ignored in a standard campaign. They define the standard campaign. They're in the core books. They're not listed as a varient rule or listed in the chapter that covers varient rules and that's the only other thing they could be. It's core and those charts define character wealth. And no, they aren't optional either. Actually they are optional.........It says in the wealth chart description. If you use this chart. "If". Hmm this seems like it is able to be optional to me. The charts are not core because all games cannot go according to those charts. All games are not alike, nor are all characters. If a character decides to save every speck of money he has except to buy food, then he will end up most likely having more money than the chart says. So is it against the rules for someone to save their money? Or say you have a character in the party who decides he doesn't need money and gives you all of his portion that he earned, this could give you more than the chart says, but does this break the rules??? The answer is no.... |
| Iron Chef Vastrox12-02-04, 01:14 AM | The charts are not core because all games cannot go according to those charts. Balanced games can. Refer to Cruel DM's post near the top of this page; he was running a balanced game and therefore had a group party wealth very similar to the sum of what the charts dictate is appropriate for individual PCs of that level. The charts are both a cause and an effect of game balance. Angrily repeating a wrong and silly opinion doesn't make it more correct, or less silly and wrong. |
| Dire Celestial Bonobo12-02-04, 01:49 AM | Actually they are optional.........It says in the wealth chart description. If you use this chart. You don't have to use all spells, all monsters, all skills, or all classes, either, but that doesn't make 'em non-core. Respecting the core rules is the only way to effectively discuss "D&D rules" and their effects, such as class balance. Without a common set of rules---the core rules---to base the discussion on, there's nothing more than "well, in my game...", which is largely useless as a guide to anyone not in that person's game. Nobody's saying you should use all the core rules. All we're saying is that if you don't use the core rules in your arguments about the core rules, you are wasting your time, and will never convince anyone. Think of it this way, if it helps: imagine everybody else does use the core rules, so those are the foundation on which you can construct a successful argument. Ignore that foundation, and nobody will believe your arguments. Build on that foundation, and people will take your arguments seriously. Up to you what you want to do, but that's the only way you'll ever convince anyone of what you're saying. Whether or not that seems fair to you, it's the only way. |
| The_Dark_One12-02-04, 02:11 AM | If a character decides to save every speck of money he has except to buy food, then he will end up most likely having more money than the chart says. So is it against the rules for someone to save their money? Okay, this character will have more wealth in the form of currency. The other characters, who presumably spent their money on equipment, will have character wealth in the form of items . Any material asset is a form of character wealth. If it has an assesible value, and your character has it, it is part of his wealth as tracked by the chart. That means that spells you scribed into your grimoire using stolen materials are part of your wealth as a character (nice how I related this to the original point, isn't it?) Oh, XunValDorl of HouseKilsek, the post I made earlier has been deleted and an apology put in its place. I didn't know if you would go back and look at past posts, so I mentioned it here. I crossed the line and I sincerely apologize. I realize that I came across as an irational, condescending jackass. It seems to me that we are saying the same thing over and over and over and over again. This discussion is getting repetitive and pretty unproductive. It seems clear that the only answer you're going to get is "Uh-uh. Its not core". I think its time we all moved on. |
| Alchahest12-02-04, 02:54 AM | someone should just ask CustServ this question: "is the material in the DMG core?" that should solve Xun's problem |
| Draco Strang12-02-04, 03:12 AM | Guess what??? Those frickin charts are not core man. There is no core to those charts.They are optional.... You know Xun, this is by far the most compelling argument you've put forth on this, or any other thread. Positively profound my friend. I am floored. The DMG is a core rulebook. Aside from the variant and houserule sidebars, everything in the, is core. That's why the variant sidebars are LABELED AS VARIANT. They assume that those reading the book are intelligent enough to recognize the fact that everything BUT those is core. Check it again. |
| Zelphi12-02-04, 07:25 AM | Xun, there is still no relevence in those charts being not core or not. Because it has no bearing on anybody else. Get a more valid arguement and understand what people are saying. |
| Kolo12-02-04, 04:31 PM | Guess what??? Those frickin charts are not core man. There is no core to those charts.They are optional.... Your definition of "optional" eludes my understanding. And I'm still not seeing any rule quotes to support this argument at all. To read the other parts of the paragraphs, which you conveniently left out; "The baseline campaign for the D&D game uses this 'wealth by level' guideline as a basis for balance in adventures." and what applies to the core, baseline campaign? Page 4; "The basic rules presented in this book- that is, everything not identified as a variant- apply to the baseline D&D campaign." Now, what is a variant? page 4 again; "some sidebars suggest variants you can adopt or modify to suit your game." Table 5.1 is not a sidebar at all, and is therefore not a variant, regardless of wether it says it's "one of the ways" you can maintain treasure levels. The sentence just means that you can use other methds if it suits you; but the table itself is, nonetheless, core. Also, every variant in the book is clearly marked with the word VARIANT on top of it, which table 5.1 is not. And to underline how important the table is, I suggest looking at the sidebar on page 54, which describes the relationship between encounter levels and treasure levels and how it works- pretty detailed and far-reaching for something you consider a variant, no? I've certainly never seen a variant rule referenced like that with core rules... |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek12-02-04, 11:27 PM | What you people need to do is go and actually open the DMG. Then, read through those charts and the descriptions. In the descriptions you will see phrases like " If you decide to use this chart etc..." You don't see the Sorcerer's known spell chart saying, "Well if you decide to use this" You won't see that. If you don't want to listen then thats fine, but I have read the book and I do understand what is written. |
| Chaser12-03-04, 12:03 AM | I don't know how to tell you this, but, those charts ARE core. They're not listed as varient rules or rules that can be ignored in a standard campaign. They define the standard campaign. They're in the core books. They're not listed as a varient rule or listed in the chapter that covers varient rules and that's the only other thing they could be. It's core and those charts define character wealth. And no, they aren't optional either. Well, yes, they are optional, and CORE. It's just that there is no option to what is core, there is only option to what you actually use. |
| Chaser12-03-04, 12:09 AM | The charts are not core because all games cannot go according to those charts. All games are not alike, nor are all characters. Well, of course, not all games nor all characters are alike. That does not change the definition of CORE, which you do not seem to get. Please provide a reference from the PH, DMG or MM [all 3.5] that shows your understanding of CORE. Everyone else, with their citations from the DMG, COULD be wrong. Just show the proof of your position, please: page number and book. By the way, the paragraphs about those charts explain how the charts are derived from core rules, you might notice, so that may not be where your proof lies. |
| Kolo12-03-04, 09:46 AM | What you people need to do is go and actually open the DMG. Then, read through those charts and the descriptions. In the descriptions you will see phrases like " If you decide to use this chart etc..." You don't see the Sorcerer's known spell chart saying, "Well if you decide to use this" You won't see that. If you don't want to listen then thats fine, but I have read the book and I do understand what is written. Then the crux of your argument is that, basically, you're not going to accept that any material that can be changed or discarded by the DM in his own home games is core. :nonono: Good luck convincing anyone of that. You need to open YOUR Dungeon Master's Giude and look at the definition of the "baseline D&D campaign" and "variant rules" before mouthing off. Or maybe you care to supply us with the DMG definition of what a variant rule is and tell us how this, in any way, fits that definition? I already showed you that it doesn't do so at all several times. In fact, I've shown you passages that directly state it to be a part of the entire core CR system. That very passage you're quoting says that this is a baseline rule for the standard D&D campaign, meaning that it's one of the core rules that the official online gaming community follows in it's games. It even states that this rule is used to balance games. Wether you decide to use it or not has no bearing on the fact that the rule is still core. Uness you haven't noticed, we're part of the online gaming community, so unless we are talking about house rules, we will be using that chart as a baseline. If you can't accept that, you can go to the houserule board and post there. Now then; Are you going to debate and argue your point, or are you going to do what you've been doing for the last few posts, which is basically ignoring everything except your own interpretation, even to the point of contradicting the DMG? |
| Iron Chef Vastrox12-03-04, 01:27 PM | If you don't want to listen then thats fine, but I have read the book and I do understand what is written. In other words, "Because XunValDorl's Mommy says so." :rolleyes: |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek12-03-04, 08:21 PM | Then the crux of your argument is that, basically, you're not going to accept that any material that can be changed or discarded by the DM in his own home games is core. :nonono: Good luck convincing anyone of that. You need to open YOUR Dungeon Master's Giude and look at the definition of the "baseline D&D campaign" and "variant rules" before mouthing off. Or maybe you care to supply us with the DMG definition of what a variant rule is and tell us how this, in any way, fits that definition? I already showed you that it doesn't do so at all several times. In fact, I've shown you passages that directly state it to be a part of the entire core CR system. That very passage you're quoting says that this is a baseline rule for the standard D&D campaign, meaning that it's one of the core rules that the official online gaming community follows in it's games. It even states that this rule is used to balance games. Wether you decide to use it or not has no bearing on the fact that the rule is still core. Uness you haven't noticed, we're part of the online gaming community, so unless we are talking about house rules, we will be using that chart as a baseline. If you can't accept that, you can go to the houserule board and post there. Now then; Are you going to debate and argue your point, or are you going to do what you've been doing for the last few posts, which is basically ignoring everything except your own interpretation, even to the point of contradicting the DMG? Here is exactly what it says in the book. "ONE OF THE WAYS IN WHICH YOU CAN MAINTAIN MEASURABLE CONTROL OF YOUR PC'S WEALTH, INCLUDING THEIR MAGIC ITEMS table5-1: CHARACTER WEALTH BY LEVEL IS BASED ON AVERAGE TREASURES FOUND IN AVERAGE ENCOUNTERS COMPARED WITH THE EXPERIENCE POINTS EARNED IN THOSE ENCOUNTERS. USING THAT INFORMATION, YOU CAN DETERMINE HOW MUCH WEALTH A CHARACTER SHOULD HAVE BASED ON HER LEVEL. ALL PUBLISHED ADVENTURES FOR THIS EDITION OF THE D&D GAME USE THIS "WEALTH BY LEVEL" GUIDELINE AS A BASIS FOR BALANCE IN ADVENTURES." Hmm what does it start out with? One of the ways.... I'm sure you understand the english language so it's not hard to figure this out. Page 145 of the DMG. In black and white. if you don't use the charts your games are still core, you don't have to use the charts in order to remain core. It's simple. You can't argue with whats written. |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek12-03-04, 08:22 PM | In other words, "Because XunValDorl's Mommy says so." :rolleyes: Why do you come here? You haven't said anything helpful yet.... |
| Heron_Marked_Blade12-03-04, 08:31 PM | :banghead: You're not going to win this one, guys.... YOU know the saying: "You can lead a horse to water...." |
| Draco Strang12-03-04, 10:09 PM | :banghead: You're not going to win this one, guys.... YOU know the saying: "You can lead a horse to water...." Yea, but you can't hit the horse in the head with a rock and then drop the thing into a bottomless pit. That wouldn't be core, would it? |
| Felonious Monk12-04-04, 05:26 AM | Horses, character wealth by level and rocks are core; bottomless pits and heads are not. Unless there's an erratum I haven't seen. ;) |
| Zelphi12-04-04, 05:58 AM | ONE OF THE WAYS IN WHICH YOU CAN MAINTAIN MEASURABLE CONTROL OF YOUR PC'S WEALTH, INCLUDING THEIR MAGIC ITEMS table5-1: CHARACTER WEALTH BY LEVEL IS BASED ON AVERAGE TREASURES FOUND IN AVERAGE ENCOUNTERS COMPARED WITH THE EXPERIENCE POINTS EARNED IN THOSE ENCOUNTERS. USING THAT INFORMATION, YOU CAN DETERMINE HOW MUCH WEALTH A CHARACTER SHOULD HAVE BASED ON HER LEVEL. ALL PUBLISHED ADVENTURES FOR THIS EDITION OF THE D&D GAME USE THIS "WEALTH BY LEVEL" GUIDELINE AS A BASIS FOR BALANCE IN ADVENTURES." What you need to do is read your own damn posts and quotes. This means that whilst you don't have to stick to these rules, they are the basis for balance on wealth in most campaigns, whilst you might not stick to such rules, they are the basis for most adventurers and by deviating from them you are not playing a standard campaign. So basically, if you do play with with unfair wealth alotments, then you are playing an unbalanced game, because irrelevent of the usage of the wealth charts - distributed wealth is a balance factor of the entire D&D set-up. It is the way all core material is balanced, it is the most common way all other campaigns are balanced (in relative amounts to the chart) and you risk breaking your game if you don't stick to these charts (or proportionatly displaced versions). What relevence to anyone else does a poorly run campaign have? What does it mean to class balance if you break it yourself? All you've demonstrated is that you can undermine the value of other classes with campaigns that don't follow the guidlines that the entire game set was based on. You have absolutely no core based evidence of your claim that A) Wizards are absolutely better than any other Arcane caster to the extent that they make the other choices completely obsolete. B) The other Arcane classes do not have their own values and applications C) That you have any valid issues to raise at all And once we've established that a sense of treasure control should be used and applied to a balanced campaign. You should be able to understand that resources that detract from overall costs should be added to the virtual treasure limits of everyone in the party. |
| Kolo12-04-04, 10:37 AM | I believe Zelphi just said it all. Xun, you completely ignored the entire latter half of your own quoted rule! Not to mention that you've probably not even tried to look up the rules I've shown you which all state that this is not a variant, but core. Until you actually look at my points and debate them, as I have done yours (all of which was promptly ignored in favor of a fallacious personal interpretation), I'm going to consider this argument won on my side purely because you seem to be unable to participate in it in any normal manner. |
| Draco Strang12-04-04, 11:10 AM | What you need to do is read your own damn posts and quotes. [What relevence to anyone else does a poorly run campaign have? What does it mean to class balance if you break it yourself? All you've demonstrated is that you can undermine the value of other classes with campaigns that don't follow the guidlines that the entire game set was based on. You have absolutely no core based evidence of your claim that A) Wizards are absolutely better than any other Arcane caster to the extent that they make the other choices completely obsolete. B) The other Arcane classes do not have their own values and applications C) That you have any valid issues to raise at all *chants* ZELPHI ZELPHI ZELPHI ZELPHI ZELPHI ZELPHI ZELPHI Way to lay it out on behalf of the rest of us. Oh, if my player wants to chant, is it a full-round or standard action? I might just wind up houseruling it, as I can't find the CORE reference. |
| cowdragon12-04-04, 11:55 AM | Zelphi, Zolo, Cowdragon, and many others: 45 Xun: 0 Congradulations guys. We've won ANOTHER of Xuns own Threads. :cheer: The Cowdragon :mage: |
| Kolo12-04-04, 02:23 PM | Zolo Oy! :P |
| Iron Chef Vastrox12-04-04, 05:43 PM | :w00t: |
| simen_8812-04-04, 07:46 PM | Oy vey... For some reason this chap reminds me of Maja or Gestalt_Commoner. This thread is now officially won. |
| solbergb12-04-04, 08:44 PM | What you need to do is read your own damn posts and quotes. This means that whilst you don't have to stick to these rules, they are the basis for balance on wealth in most campaigns, whilst you might not stick to such rules, they are the basis for most adventurers and by deviating from them you are not playing a standard campaign. . I add my applause...very well said Zelphi. Wizards benefit more from unlimited wealth than other arcane casters. Therefore if the campaign allows wizards unlimited wealth, they'll overshadow other arcane casters. In a campaign that doesn't "count" wizard wealth spent on wizardly things, a wizard will be more powerful than it is in a normal campaign, and opinions about class balance will be skewed. This very much matches my personal experiences with wizards and sorcerers...just a minor thing, but my wizard always seems to be not only strapped for cash but borrowing from other party members (paying them back with crafted magic items on occasion) My sorcerer always seems to have more cash than her wizard companions even though she blows a lot per adventure on scrolls and alchemical substances. The difference is the spellbook, and just the fact that all the items that mitigate the prepared spellcasting of the wizard also add to their expense burden...and also that the sorcerer can trust that her powers will always be there, where the wizard has to worry about the day when he did the wrong spells or is out of spells. |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek12-04-04, 11:57 PM | I believe Zelphi just said it all. Xun, you completely ignored the entire latter half of your own quoted rule! Not to mention that you've probably not even tried to look up the rules I've shown you which all state that this is not a variant, but core. Until you actually look at my points and debate them, as I have done yours (all of which was promptly ignored in favor of a fallacious personal interpretation), I'm going to consider this argument won on my side purely because you seem to be unable to participate in it in any normal manner. What page is what you stated on???????? Give me a page number... |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek12-05-04, 12:12 AM | What you need to do is read your own damn posts and quotes. This means that whilst you don't have to stick to these rules, they are the basis for balance on wealth in most campaigns, whilst you might not stick to such rules, they are the basis for most adventurers and by deviating from them you are not playing a standard campaign. So basically, if you do play with with unfair wealth alotments, then you are playing an unbalanced game, because irrelevent of the usage of the wealth charts - distributed wealth is a balance factor of the entire D&D set-up. It is the way all core material is balanced, it is the most common way all other campaigns are balanced (in relative amounts to the chart) and you risk breaking your game if you don't stick to these charts (or proportionatly displaced versions). What relevence to anyone else does a poorly run campaign have? What does it mean to class balance if you break it yourself? All you've demonstrated is that you can undermine the value of other classes with campaigns that don't follow the guidlines that the entire game set was based on. You have absolutely no core based evidence of your claim that A) Wizards are absolutely better than any other Arcane caster to the extent that they make the other choices completely obsolete. B) The other Arcane classes do not have their own values and applications C) That you have any valid issues to raise at all And once we've established that a sense of treasure control should be used and applied to a balanced campaign. You should be able to understand that resources that detract from overall costs should be added to the virtual treasure limits of everyone in the party. I'm sorry but you are incorrect. Do you know what a standard campaign is? A module. *chuckles* You just don't get it. Apparently you just don't read. A standard D&D game does not have to be played. The DM has the option of not using the charts. And yes, I do read my own DAMN posts. Not using the charts does not make an unbalanced game. I guess you are one of those people who can't balance a game on his own. It's like the book has to hold your hand. It even talks about in the DMG of other methods than can balance the game. If you are running a module game, then the charts are what is used, if you need a quick NPC, then the charts are what you use. You need to read the DMG, not give me your opinon on it. Who says that all DM's are supposed to play standard campaigns??????? Who says that if you don't play a standard game you are not playing core???? You need to learn the game, truly. DM's have the option of running the game they want to, but still consider it core. Just because the charts are a lifeline to you cause you can't figure out balance on your own doesn't mean that if others don't use it they aren't being core. Those charts are the way all MODULES are balanced. Or, if you are just starting out and you can't run it on your own. It's for a basic game.... But apparently, you think that if you don't play a basic game then it isn't core. Well I hate to break your little heart but, it still can be core. Ever heard if low wealth games, or high wealth games? The DMG gives you the power and permisson to do games like these and still be core. All you've demonstrated is that cause you believe thats the way you have to play, that nobody else knows how to play. And Zelphi, nobody tells you to come here anyway. If there is a problem like I told you in another thread, PM me. Don't run your mouth and waste my time on the threads. If you are trying to impress your buddies then what ever floats your boat. You don't impress me, you don't insult me, you don't intimidate me. I have been playing D&D for 18 plus years. Your little comments won't break my spirit. But I do find offensive to waste my time arguing and telling me I am wrong when you go by your opinions. I will defend my opinions, but I also do read the books. I have quoted from the DMG, and if you can't comprehend the meaning then that isn't my fault. |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek12-05-04, 12:15 AM | I add my applause...very well said Zelphi. Wizards benefit more from unlimited wealth than other arcane casters. Therefore if the campaign allows wizards unlimited wealth, they'll overshadow other arcane casters. In a campaign that doesn't "count" wizard wealth spent on wizardly things, a wizard will be more powerful than it is in a normal campaign, and opinions about class balance will be skewed. This very much matches my personal experiences with wizards and sorcerers...just a minor thing, but my wizard always seems to be not only strapped for cash but borrowing from other party members (paying them back with crafted magic items on occasion) My sorcerer always seems to have more cash than her wizard companions even though she blows a lot per adventure on scrolls and alchemical substances. The difference is the spellbook, and just the fact that all the items that mitigate the prepared spellcasting of the wizard also add to their expense burden...and also that the sorcerer can trust that her powers will always be there, where the wizard has to worry about the day when he did the wrong spells or is out of spells. Actually Wizard benefit from limited and unlimited wealth. Just because you had a bad time with a wizard that doesn't mean others have. if you wizard if running out of money, then you are spending it to much, or your DM isn't going by Zelphi's charts, and according to Zelphi's thinking, not being core.. |
| cowdragon12-05-04, 12:27 AM | Xun, Zelphi doesn't have the comprehension problem. In fact nobody here does except you. You have repeatedly quoted the DMG only to back up your opponents opinions! The fact that you get irate afterwards is just icing on the cake for us. If you actually read what YOU post you'd see. Of course it takes at least a 6th grade vocabulary to completly understand...but I think you could make due with a 2nd. Where does that leave you? hmmm. Anyway, people have repeatedly debated with you only to be insulted and called names. All the while you ignore the great points they are making. You...are a burbler. You burble about your houserules. You burble about how you play wizards. You burble about how your DM likes to empower the wizard and stick it to the sorcerers. You, very well may be a creature of unspeakable evil! You are the Jabberwock!!! `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. "Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!" He took his vorpal sword in hand: Long time the manxome foe he sought -- So rested he by the Tumtum tree, And stood awhile in thought. And, as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame, Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came! One, two! One, two! And through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back. "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. Beware my friends, the Xun ValDorl of House Kilsek. He tum tums, and twiligs, for the wizards and thumbs are the best grilligs!!! Sorcerers sucks, is what he'll say, caloo, calay!!! Listen not, and care even less. Opinion fools lay, this thread be a mess. The Cowdragon :mage: |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek12-05-04, 12:33 AM | Xun, Zelphi doesn't have the comprehension problem. In fact nobody here does except you. You have repeatedly quoted the DMG only to back up your opponents opinions! The fact that you get irate afterwards is just icing on the cake for us. If you actually read what YOU post you'd see. Of course it takes at least a 6th grade vocabulary to completly understand...but I think you could make due with a 2nd. Where does that leave you? hmmm. Anyway, people have repeatedly debated with you only to be insulted and called names. All the while you ignore the great points they are making. You...are a burbler. You burble about your houserules. You burble about how you play wizards. You burble about how your DM likes to empower the wizard and stick it to the sorcerers. You, very well may be a creature of unspeakable evil! You are the Jabberwock!!! I know how to read. I now reading comprehension. If you don't understand what " One of the ways in which" means then you haven't even made it past second grade. One of the ways means that there is one of many ways you can do something. Why don't you read the DMG, read a school text books for gods sakes if you are arguing about that. The DMG gives you one of the ways in which you can do it, and their wealth chart is one of the ways in which you can keep wealth balance, but your DM also has the option of doing it his way. |
| cowdragon12-05-04, 12:41 AM | That's not the point though Xun, and until you COMPREHEND that little nibblet...you'll never get this whole debate. Nuff said. I declare this thread won by Xun's oponents also. US: 46!!! Xun: 0 (still) :cheer: Please don't bring this energizer bunny back. We get it that you don't get it. Too bad for you. Not really that great for anybody actually. BUT, WE still won. :cheer: The Cowdragon :mage: |
| SpellMaster12-05-04, 01:39 AM | I hope I can add something to this without simply restating an opinion: Xun: We all agree that each DM can run a completely different style of campaign. Some will use one rule or guideline, others will not. This is the nature, and quite honestly, the best part of the game of DnD. Each game can be tailored to specific playing styles, making it an extremely versatile game. On these boards, however, what we usually use to compare notes, answer questions, and whatnot, is use the basic rules (and/or guidelines) as stated in the DMG. Variants clearly labeled as "Variant Rules" are left out of this basis. My point in this is that those who have been saying that this rule is core or that table is not is that is does not belong to the basis of rules and guidelines by which most people answer questions and give opinions. Basically, the majority of people on these boards will consider anything in the DMG not labeled as "Variant Rule" as the core rules. Being the dynamic game that it is, DnD games may or may not follow these letters to the T. Quite frankly, I've yet to know any DM who follows each and every rule exactly as written, because, let's be frank, some of them just don't make sense sometimes. So, this argument over whether or not the Wealth by Level table found in the DMG is core simply comes down to this: if it is not labeled "Variant Rule" (which, and I hope everyone can agree with my on this, this particular table is not), then the Wizards.com community will take it as core, using it as a basis for most discussions. We all understand completely that not all games follow these things that we consider core, and we are perfectly fine with that. To each his own, as they say. I believe this discussion has degraded to the point of endless bickering of opinions, and it should end on the basis that each person has his or her own opinion, and that the whole of the DnD game is optional. Simply the community's take on what is core is what we are discussing, which is pointless, as that is just a group of like-minded opinions. I encourage you all to just let this subject drop, as it is going nowhere, and each person is entitled to his own opinion. I'm sure we can all be mature here and see this has no point, and should not be continued. Spellmaster |
| Draco Strang12-05-04, 03:47 AM | That's not the point though Xun, and until you COMPREHEND that little nibblet...you'll never get this whole debate. Nuff said. I declare this thread won by Xun's oponents also. US: 46!!! Xun: 0 (still) :cheer: The Cowdragon :mage: Honestly, I thought we had way more than 46. Are we only counting points for half or something? Xun, Like I said before. I need you to do me a favor. Go to your computer. Yank out the ethernet cord. Thanks. |
| Kolo12-05-04, 10:39 AM | What page is what you stated on???????? Give me a page number... :banghead: Well, now I know one of my claims on your argumentation was spot-on; You never read my posts at all. (How did you expect me to accept anything you said if you never even once tried to see if I was right or wrong? I honestly wonder.) Page 4; The basic rules presented in this book- that is, everything not identified as a variant- apply to the baseline D&D campaign. page 4 again; some sidebars suggest variants you can adopt or modify to suit your game. (In every case, these variants in the DMG are marked with the word VARIANT before it, and are only found in sidebars. table 5.1 is not a sidebar, and does not include the word VARIANT. Which leads us neatly into the next quote...) Page 14; Altering the way things work Every rule in the Player's Hanbook was written for a reason. That doesn't mean that you can't change the rules for your own game. Perhaps your players don't like the way initiative is determined, or you find that the rules for learning new spells are too limiting. Rules that you change for your own game are called house rules. (Since table 5.1 is not labeled as a VARIANT and is not in a sidebar, it is a core rule. If you don't use it, you are using a house rule.) And finally, on wether this table is part of balancing D&D or not; page 13; Good DM management A DM who carefully watches all portions of the game so that nothing goes out of his or her control helps keep the game balanced. PCs and NPCs, victories and defeats, awards and afflictions, treasure found and treasure spent -all these aspects must be monitored to maintain balance. There. Page numbers provided. Again. |
| XunValDorl of HouseKilsek12-05-04, 03:17 PM | I will give you a core situation that has happened that doesn't go along with the charts. We have a campaign going on where a few of our players are playing things from the Savage Species book. I am playing a Wizard, and a friend of mine is playing a Rakshasa. Anyway, we are working for a demon army. We are free to keep whatever we find, and the army supplies us with what we need food, spell components, scribe materials, prayer materials etc... Right now we are 15th level. I haven't spent anything I have made cause I haven't needed to. Now, I have close to what the chart says. I have about 210,000 gp in wealth. Now, the Rakshasa and I have a pact going. I protect him from certain things, and he gives me his share of wealth cause the story about his character, he doesn't want money or wealth. He wants human slaves. Now, he is 14th level as a Sorcerer. Now, looking at the chart his wealth is worth 150,000. He doesn't need items, so he gives those to me also. Well that puts me at 360,000 gp total wealth. Now, that puts me way beyond what the charts say. But, there is no rule that states that another character can't give you all of his wealth. Thats why when you don't use the charts it is still considered core. You don't have to use them in order to remain core. |
| Bonzai12-05-04, 05:58 PM | Uhg... I just read this thread straight through and have a headache. Ok, here is my two copper. I haven't read any of the other linked threads so I come to this unbiased. Xun, On the arguement that the chart isn't core, drop it. You'll be much better off. By the rules of the book, and the definitions therein, it is considered Core. Does that mean that it must be fanaticly followed or draconianly enforced? Nope, as you are pointing out, it's a guideline. From Dictionary.com guideline n 1: a light line that is used in lettering to help align the letters 2: a detailed plan or explanation to guide you in setting standards or determining a course of action; "the president said he had a road map for normalizing relations with Vietnam" [syn: road map] 3: a rule or principle that provides guidance to appropriate behavior [syn: guidepost, rule of thumb] It's there to be refrenced and checked against. If your own campaign goes over or under, no big deal. It's a general target to shoot for. If way out of line, that may or may not be balanced, depending on the campaign. I have participated on several aventures where the DM gave us access to items and weapons that were powerful for our lvl, but usually in preperation for a proportianatly higher lvl CR encounter. So while usually it is a very bad idea to give a lvl 5 Barbarian a +5 great sword, it may work out as it allowed him to slay the tyrant that he was previously no match for. And then have him run over by a herd of rust monsters as his on his way to show it off to his friends. In your example, before you split the loot, you were pretty much in line with the guidelines. The Rakasha's loot was his loot to do what he wanted, and doesn't count necassarily towards your limit. (Btw, the chart works much better when compared to the Parties combined average rather than individually). Now if I understand your situation, wealth in gold is practiacally worthless. You have had nothing to spend it on, and due to the nature of the army, you aren't likley to put it to use any time soon. So as a DM, I would work with that, and measure your wealth in terms of your spells, spellbook, and misc.. items. Then again, as a DM, you would have a hard time walking away with your stash unless you were in the habbit of carrying it all on your person at all times. This is a Demon army after all. They will tolerate you so long as you prove useful. Once you prove otherwise your Wizard will be lucky to escape with his life. "The DM doth giveth, and he doth taketh" - Me. :P |
| WizO_Catoblepas12-05-04, 07:19 PM | Ok, there's too many insults in this post to be productive. Thus it's time to close it. Some of you should expect to recieve disciplinary measures in the e-mail shortly. In the future, I strongly suggest that you keep your posts to the subject matter of the thread an not other guests. |