Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Elrick_Nuradii 07-05-07, 01:19 PM	This spell from "Sandstorm" is a huge money maker if my calculations are correct. Anyone correct me if I´m wrong. At caster lvl 7, you can create 7 5ft salt cubes for a total of 875 cubic feet times 12x12x12 cubic inches, thats 1 512 000 cubic inches times 2,54x2,54x2,54 cubic centimeters, thats 24 777 240.77 cubic centimeters times 2.16 g/cm3, salts density, that´s 53 518 840.06 grams divided by 1k, that´s 53 518.84006 kilograms times 2.2 pounds, it´s 117 741.4481 pounds "Table 7-3: Trade Goods" of the "PHB" says a pound of salt is worth 5gp so: 117 741.4481 pounds of salt, times 5gp a pound= 588 707.2407 GP per casting!!!!!
Kursk 07-05-07, 01:24 PM	Looks like you hit it. Fortunately, I vet all unplaytested splat books in my campaign.
malignor 07-05-07, 01:25 PM	Yet again the WotC has their foot in their mouth. How can they justify that a spell can never make more money than CLxSLx10gp? That rule is broken all the time, especially with the Conjuration school. Heck, look at Wall of Iron. SL is 6, so minimum CL is 11. Density of iron is 492 lbs per cubic foot. thickness 1" per 4CL, making a 5'x5' square per CL at CL11: it's 2" thick (5x5x11x(2/12)) = 45 cubic feet = 22140 pounds = 22140 sp = 2214 gp material component is 25gp of gold dust. 2214-25 = 2189 gp profitA level 12+ sorcerer can retire wealthy as a provider for anyone with a forge or a smelter.
Loki5654 07-05-07, 01:40 PM	A few thoughts: 1. A trade good's price is based on supply and demand. Dump that much salt on the market all at once and supply will outweigh demand, causing the price to plummet. If you were to take your time and sell it in small quantities so as not to cause the price to change, say good-bye to your adventuring career. 2. Your character is probably not the first person in the game world to think of this. The market is aware of magical "cheats" like this and is prepared to deal with them. I'd imagine the local guilds would start a smear campaign telling the public that your salt is "tainted" and "unclean" while simultaneously hiring some people to "encourage you to get out of the business". 3. The game is called "Dungeons & Dragons" not "Markets & Moneylenders". The rules are designed for adventure and action, not double-entry bookkeeping. Remember: D&D is like pointilism, stare at it too closely and all you'll see is spots.
lint trap 07-05-07, 01:50 PM	Yes, Wall of Salt is the biggest money maker in D&D. The "saturate the market" counter doesn't work; just look at a city's gp limit. And even selling at 1/10th the price, you're making huge profits. The "teamster" counter doesn't work either; you're a 7th level Wizard in a world of Commoners and Experts, and whatever mercenaries they hire, you can now pay them double. And yes, this game isn't an economic simulator, but no one is expecting a character to retire once they strike it rich; rather, they cast this spell anytime they want a bunch of wands or an armor upgrade. So there are two solutions; drop the price of salt to 5 sp or 5 cp per pound (not historically accurate, but commoners in D&D are assumed to have a higher standard of living than real world peasants), or just ban the spell. The second option is the best one, since a Wall of Salt is pretty freaking useless unless you're selling it.
Kursk 07-05-07, 01:59 PM	one thing you forgot about that much salt where will you keep it renting a building till you have a buyer takes some profits out of it hiring some men to watch it takes some profits just one business rivial with a torch to burn a couple holes in the roof then when it rains the salt gets washed away and you have to repair the damages to said roof too me it is too much hassle to worry about I'm sure a 7th level caster would figure it out...
lint trap 07-05-07, 02:00 PM	I'm sure a 7th level caster would figure it out... Forget that; how the hell did you quote a person before they posted?
bloodtalon 07-05-07, 02:01 PM	one thing you forgot about that much salt where will you keep it renting a building till you have a buyer takes some profits out of it hiring some men to watch it takes some profits just one business rivial with a torch to burn a couple holes in the roof then when it rains the salt gets washed away and you have to repair the damages to said roof too me it is too much hassle to worry about
lint trap 07-05-07, 02:02 PM	Holy crap, I did it too.
Kursk 07-05-07, 02:09 PM	Forget that; how the hell did you quote a person before they posted? It's magic. ;)
Loki5654 07-05-07, 02:13 PM	Yes, Wall of Salt is the biggest money maker in D&D. Only if the DM is completely uncreative and extremely permissive. The "saturate the market" counter doesn't work; just look at a city's gp limit. Why doesn't it work and what does the gp limit have to do with it? Its simple economics: If Supply goes up and Demand stays the same, prices go down. The "teamster" counter doesn't work either; you're a 7th level Wizard in a world of Commoners and Experts, and whatever mercenaries they hire, you can now pay them double. Wizards have to sleep sometime and not everyone can be bought. Also, what's to stop the guild from hiring some adventurers to take you out? And yes, this game isn't an economic simulator, but no one is expecting a character to retire once they strike it rich; rather, they cast this spell anytime they want a bunch of wands or an armor upgrade. So there are two solutions; drop the price of salt to 5 sp or 5 cp per pound (not historically accurate, but commoners in D&D are assumed to have a higher standard of living than real world peasants), or just ban the spell. The second option is the best one, since a Wall of Salt is pretty freaking useless unless you're selling it. You don't have to change the price permanently and you don't have to ban the spell. There are a multitude of ways a DM can prevent a player from unbalancing the game without resorting to such heavy-handed tactics.
lint trap 07-05-07, 02:17 PM	There are a multitude of ways a DM can prevent a player from unbalancing the game without resorting to such heavy-handed tactics. Alright. But I've always considered banning a spell less "heavy-handed" then sending an assassination squad of NPCs after a player.
Kursk 07-05-07, 02:21 PM	Alright. But I've always considered banning a spell less "heavy-handed" then sending an assassination squad of NPCs after a player. :rofl: Good one! If it's not a spell that I'd allow PCs to successfully research it is automatically banned. Too much untested crap in the splat books.
tarkin 07-05-07, 02:23 PM	Does the spell explicitedly state that it is saleable, human consumable salt that is identical to the item you priced Failing that I instruct you to read up on salt. A salt, in chemistry, is defined as the product formed from the neutralisation reaction of acids and bases. It is a type of compound. A similar word in metalluargy is ALLOY. Yes, that type of compound does include Sodium Chloride, what is commonly used by people to flavor food. It also includes Lead acetate, which while tastes sweet, is deadly poison. It also includes sodium hydrogen sulfate which is very acidic (it is not fully neutralized by the base. ------ Anyone who just assumes that a Wall of Salt makes edible salt, valued at very high price deserves to be killed by Lead Acetate the second they taste it (or be killed by the vengefull merchant that they sold it to). As a DM, the best you would hope for in my game is a wall consisting of a random mix of multiple salts. Some of which would be edible, some would be deadly poison, but most of the wall would be composed of a salt that is neither edible nor poisonous. A similar problem exists with the Wall of Iron 1. There are different qualities of Iron. 2. You are assuming the wall of iron is very high quality. 3. Some people use a the bad price for Iron. I forgot the good one, but in one of the books they gave a false price that had to be errated. 4. You are assuming the iron involved counts as a commodity. A simple rule that the iron involved is not the REGULAR alloy of iron, and therefore can only be sold at 1/3 price, gets rid of most of the problem. If you reverse these assumptions, then boom, the Wall of Iron spell suddenly becomes fairly priced.
Loki5654 07-05-07, 02:23 PM	Alright. But I've always considered banning a spell less "heavy-handed" then sending an assassination squad of NPCs after a player. Its a way to get them back to adventure rather than sitting around racking up imaginary numbers on a piece of paper. To paraphrase Jim Carrey: "If you ban the spell, they won't learn nothing!" Which makes for a better lesson? "I can't do that. My DM banned the spell." "I can't do that. At least, not after what the Salt Cartel did to me last time. They made me eat so much salt my lips are still chapped."
DarkPawn 07-05-07, 02:24 PM	Why doesn't it work and what does the gp limit have to do with it? Its simple economics: If Supply goes up and Demand stays the same, prices go down. Yes but economics clearly shows that the more the price goes down the more people want it. Especially when dealing with something that not only makes bad food taste better, but also is the main way to preserve food so it doesn't go bad.
Loki5654 07-05-07, 02:24 PM	Does the spell explicitedly state that it is saleable, human consumable salt that is identical to the item you priced Failing that I instruct you to read up on salt. A salt, in chemistry, is defined as the product formed from the neutralisation reaction of acids and bases. It is a type of compound. Yes, that type of compound does include Sodium Chloride, what is commonly used by humans to flavor food. It also includes Lead acetate, which while tastes sweet, is deadly poison. It also includes sodium hydrogen sulfate which is very acidic (it is not fully neutralized by the base. ------ Anyone who just assumes that a Wall of Salt makes edible salt, valued at very high price deserves to be killed by Lead Acetate the second they taste it (or be killed by the vengefull merchant that they sold it to). See? A creative DM can come up with a solution without banning the spell. Thanks, tarkin!
DarkPawn 07-05-07, 02:31 PM	Does the spell explicitedly state that it is saleable, human consumable salt that is identical to the item you priced Failing that I instruct you to read up on salt. A salt, in chemistry, is defined as the product formed from the neutralisation reaction of acids and bases. It is a type of compound. A similar word in metalluargy is ALLOY. Yes, that type of compound does include Sodium Chloride, what is commonly used by people to flavor food. It also includes Lead acetate, which while tastes sweet, is deadly poison. It also includes sodium hydrogen sulfate which is very acidic (it is not fully neutralized by the base. ------ Anyone who just assumes that a Wall of Salt makes edible salt, valued at very high price deserves to be killed by Lead Acetate the second they taste it (or be killed by the vengefull merchant that they sold it to). As a DM, the best you would hope for in my game is a wall consisting of a random mix of multiple salts. Some of which would be edible, some would be deadly poison, but most of the wall would be composed of a salt that is neither edible nor poisonous. A similar problem exists with the Wall of Iron 1. There are different qualities of Iron. 2. You are assuming the wall of iron is very high quality. This is exactly how a DM should deal with this type of exploit. The iron wall could be pitted, flawed, and horrible quality. Making it all but useless. Yes you could melt it down and maybe extract some quality iron but the process and time required to do so would all but make it worthless. I have treated this type of situation the same way described by Tarkin. Although I definately didn't explain it in the manner he has. ;) EDIT: Think about it this way, would you want to eat road salt?
lint trap 07-05-07, 02:43 PM	Does the spell explicitedly state that it is saleable, human consumable salt that is identical to the item you priced Just going by the material component, which is a crystal of rock salt (aka table salt). But making the salt inedible makes sense for the sake of balance. I doubt my players will be clamoring for access, but if they really want Wall of Salt in their games, this is how I'll handle it.
Ketone 07-05-07, 02:47 PM	I've thought about this before, and I realize there are ways to counter it. On a similar note, what if the adventurers go into a cave and collect some brown mold. Protection from cold would make it easy. They put it in a box and bring it back somewhere. Then they cast burning hands and such spells to make it grow. I think it doubles in size every time fire is used on it. Then they collect the extra and sell it. The market price for a simple box of mold is 3000 gp.
lukelightning 07-05-07, 02:47 PM	Two walls were walking through a dungeon and one was a salted. Seriously, though, if a player wanted to do this I'd just use one of the several "running a business in D&D" rulesets I've seen. Ruling that the salt is not, in fact, what we commonly refer to as "salt" opens up a can of worms (a can of salty salty worms). If you say it is some other chemical salt, then the character can figure out what it is and perhaps that kind of salt is deadly poison (now the character can make huge amounts of poison), flammable (giant burning walls of salt!), etc. Plus if you use real-world chemistry then players may start trying to make gunpowder.
CantripN 07-05-07, 02:49 PM	Does the spell explicitedly state that it is saleable, human consumable salt that is identical to the item you priced Awesome idea, tarkin! You'd just solved some age old spell abuses!
Loki5654 07-05-07, 02:49 PM	Just going by the material component, which is a crystal of rock salt (aka table salt). Rock salt:table salt::wood:paper They are similar but not completely the same.
DarkPawn 07-05-07, 02:50 PM	I've thought about this before, and I realize there are ways to counter it. On a similar note, what if the adventurers go into a cave and collect some brown mold. Protection from cold would make it easy. They put it in a box and bring it back somewhere. Then they cast burning hands and such spells to make it grow. I think it doubles in size every time fire is used on it. Then they collect the extra and sell it. The market price for a simple box of mold is 3000 gp. I would simply have the market of buyers difficult and time consuming to find. It isn't like everyone under the sun wants to purchase brown mold. I would think the market of buyers would be very unique. It would take a good amount of time to find a buyer, unless someone was hired to act as a financial institution that sells brown mold. If you work through a financial institution that brokers brown mold sales, they will obviously charge a fee. Then there is the matter of transporting the brown mold. Oh, brown mold does not survive magical forms of transportation (why not eh?) so it has to be shipped over land or sea. That means hiring wagon trains, ships, or other forms of mundane transportation. Then the noble family, criminal elements, and merchant factions want a cut of this action. So there is a new tariff on brown mold traveling through each kingdom (because it is a dangerous lifeform and threat to the community), and the criminal element wants a cut to make sure nothing bad happens to the shipment. Causing a disaster if brown mold escaped and killed an innocent farmer and his family. The local outcry would be horrible for business. Well you get the point...
Ketone 07-05-07, 02:56 PM	I see. But at least you'd have boxes of brown mold at your disposal, even if no one wants to buy it, you can make weapons out of it. The stuff is pretty dangerous. A patch of brown mold once almost defeated my 4th level party. If you have a cleric who commands undead, or a wizard with create undead, cover them in brown mold for a particularly dangerous mob of zombies!
TheCobra 07-05-07, 02:59 PM	While all this rationalizing is amusing, I still wish WotC would keep an eye on this type of thing. This one didn't take ruleslawyer to break. Instant salt + 5 gp per pound makes it pretty obvious.
DarkPawn 07-05-07, 03:01 PM	I see. But at least you'd have boxes of brown mold at your disposal, even if no one wants to buy it, you can make weapons out of it. The stuff is pretty dangerous. A patch of brown mold once almost defeated my 4th level party. If you have a cleric who commands undead, or a wizard with create undead, cover them in brown mold for a particularly dangerous mob of zombies! I highlighted the part of what you stated I think is very important to note. It is very dangerous to mess around with something like this. Especially in a world of magic with sometimes unexpected magical events. If I was running a campaign and the players were stockpiling brown mold they would eventually be in for a horrible suprise. Whether a magical storm mutates the brown mold, the brown mold is released one night by an enemy, one box is stolen and unleashed at the royal palace, etc.. etc.. I'd come up with something nasty for the players to teach them a lesson. :devil:
Ketone 07-05-07, 03:01 PM	Maybe they figured a spell from sandstorm wouldn't be used by most players in most campaigns. I would consider it an exotic spell that players in a standard (not desert) campaign would have to research heavily to learn or copy into their spellbook. And in a desert setting, I'll bet salt is not nearly worth as much.
Kursk 07-05-07, 03:04 PM	And in a desert setting, I'll bet salt is not nearly worth as much. Might be worth more as it is needed to stay alive...
Ketone 07-05-07, 03:07 PM	Might be worth more as it is needed to stay alive... Do you need it to stay alive any more in the desert than you do anywhere else? If not, my point is that it might be easier to find in the desert.
TheCobra 07-05-07, 03:08 PM	How hard would it have been to put a little note in the spell that says the salt isn't fit for human consumption and thus not worth much?
Kursk 07-05-07, 03:15 PM	Do you need it to stay alive any more in the desert than you do anywhere else? If not, my point is that it might be easier to find in the desert. Your body uses a lot more salt in a hot climate. Have you ever tasted your own sweat? If you find a salt flat it would be easier. Otherwise, no.
jaelis 07-05-07, 03:17 PM	How hard would it have been to put a little note in the spell that says the salt isn't fit for human consumption and thus not worth much? I'm sure they would have if they had thought of it.
Kursk 07-05-07, 03:17 PM	How hard would it have been to put a little note in the spell that says the salt isn't fit for human consumption and thus not worth much? That would have required a modest amount of D&D playing experience. Your guess as to why it wasn't done.
DarkPawn 07-05-07, 03:29 PM	Makes you wonder why they don't utilize these forums for free critiques. If they made a "in the works" section and posted segments of books, this stuff would be caught well before it was ever published.
Kursk 07-05-07, 03:32 PM	Makes you wonder why they don't utilize these forums for free critiques. If they made a "in the works" section and posted segments of books, this stuff would be caught well before it was ever published. That would at least catch the majority of mistakes that end up in the splat books. Don't know if Munchkins out there would like that much! :evillaugh
DarkPawn 07-05-07, 03:38 PM	That would at least catch the majority of mistakes that end up in the splat books. Don't know if Munchkins out there would like that much! :evillaugh But do we care what the Muchkins like or don't like? ;)
TheOrdnanceGod 07-05-07, 03:39 PM	I could really go for a pretzel right about now
Kursk 07-05-07, 03:46 PM	But do we care what the Muchkins like or don't like? ;) No, but it's fun to watch them squirm while roasted over an open fire. :dragon:
mvincent 07-05-07, 04:00 PM	Makes you wonder why they don't utilize these forums for free critiques.New to the boards ;)? It's possible that you are overestimating the usefulness of an average poster, and/or are underestimating the headaches involved in dealing with such ;yuck:. Plus: 1) They would be releasing proprietary information to the public (even before publication) 2) They have their own testers and proofreaders That said, WotC could indeed make better use of the body of knowledge contained on the boards. Many of those "tips" articles and books have nothing on what these forums can come up with :)
DarkPawn 07-05-07, 04:38 PM	New to the boards? It's possible that you are overestimating the usefulness of an average poster, and/or are underestimating the headaches involved in dealing with such. Plus: 1) They would be releasing proprietary information to the public (even before publication) 2) They have there own testers and proofreaders That said, WotC could indeed make better use of the body of knowledge contained on the boards. Many of those "tips" articles and books have nothing on what these forums can come up with. Well for one, they could easily remove or block worthless posters from entering the topic. Two, yes they would be releasing information before publication, but if it is a spell here, a creature there, mixed from a ton of different sources...this will hurt sales of the final product how? Three, their testers and proofreaders frankly suck. Or they have other more pressing matters and not as much free time as most of the dorks that live on these forums. Four, I really didn't put too much thought into it because it isn't really going to happen. You're far too serious about this stuff.
mvincent 07-05-07, 04:43 PM	You're far too serious about this stuff.Sorry if that sounded serious. My tone was intended to be light (i.e. a wry statement about typical posts on these boards, including my own). Emoticons now added.
DarkPawn 07-05-07, 04:44 PM	Sorry if that sounded serious. My tone was intended to be light (i.e. a wry statement about typical posts on these boards, including my own). I'm sorry too, meant more like serious as you put a lot of thought into why it wouldn't work. Not like serious as in you need a life. ;) I see your point and agree with you. Just meant the tone of our banter leading up to your post was purely jovial and definately not serious at all.
NobodyRemembersThis 07-05-07, 04:45 PM	Four, I really didn't put too much thought into it because it isn't really going to happen. You're far too serious about this stuff.But it should happen. It should be required that any and all playtesters visit this forum on a weekly basis. The "sage" should be required to visit on a daily basis to fish for threads about the questions he is going to answer. Then, maybe WotC's FAQ would be useful and the splatbooks wouldn't suck. :P On a more serious note, it would be very, very easy to submit a couple of threads under an account with bits and pieces of abilities and such that will eventually be a PrC to test them for balance. After all, they could then simply "archive" the thread to the moderator board and *POOF* it's gone and no one has access to it. ;)
DarkPawn 07-05-07, 04:48 PM	But it should happen. It should be required that any and all playtesters visit this forum on a weekly basis The "sage" should be required to visit on a daily to fish for threads about the questions he is going to answer. Then, maybe WotC's FAQ would be useful and the splatbooks wouldn't suck. :P Yes in a perfect world I agree 100%. However, they are business and will sell books no matter how many mistakes. It is far more profitable to get a book out on time then to delay it. They can always post some errata and correct something online which costs like "zero" to do. The only way they would stop pumping out books with errors is if people just stopped buying their books. Then they would have to improve quality. The problem is they are a monopoly as far as D&D is concerned and really don't have to worry too much about competition.
malignor 07-05-07, 04:49 PM	A salt, in chemistry, is defined as the product formed from the neutralisation reaction of acids and bases.It's dangerous to incorporate real-world science to justify player nerfage. Things can get turned around on you really quickly. Here are some examples... It also includes Lead acetate, which while tastes sweet, is deadly poison.Sweet! Ingestable poison for free!It also includes sodium hydrogen sulfate which is very acidic (it is not fully neutralized by the base)Sweet! Stable, transportable acid for free! Just add water. As a DM, the best you would hope for in my game is a wall consisting of a random mix of multiple salts. Some of which would be edible, some would be deadly poison, but most of the wall would be composed of a salt that is neither edible nor poisonous.Well first off, everything that you can physically swallow is either edible or poisonous. Next off, getting a mix of salts is still a joke for anyone with Craft-Alchemy. If you can name me a salt that has no value, or whose components have no value, I'll listen.A similar problem exists with the Wall of Iron 1. There are different qualities of Iron. 2. You are assuming the wall of iron is very high quality. 3. Some people use a the bad price for Iron. I forgot the good one, but in one of the books they gave a false price that had to be errated. 4. You are assuming the iron involved counts as a commodity. A simple rule that the iron involved is not the REGULAR alloy of iron, and therefore can only be sold at 1/3 price, gets rid of most of the problem. make it 1/10th the price, and there's still a tasty profit. And it's "wall of iron", not "wall of iron alloy". It has 30 hit points per inch of thickness and hardness 10. The only way to use this argument and remain consistent is to incorporate metallurgy, which I'm guessing would do at least one of the following... blow the crafting rules apart blow the D&D economy apart not work for you argument like you thought.It's not wall of magnetite (Fe3O4). Not wall of hematite (Fe2O3), not wall of limonite or siderite. It's wall of iron. The lowest grade iron is Pig Iron, which is what crafters use to make steel for weapons and armor out of. So what is "trade good quality iron"? Where is it defined in the game mechanics? Pig iron? Wrought iron? Cast iron? Game mechanics say nothing, and I always assume it would be Pig Iron, since that's what is often transported even nowadays. The fact of the matter is that the WotC built a game with mechanics, some of which provide loopholes that contradict their own rules. The only way to get around it is with pure DM fiat, "and don't ask questions".
Vaelan 07-05-07, 04:51 PM	A few thoughts: 1. A trade good's price is based on supply and demand. Dump that much salt on the market all at once and supply will outweigh demand, causing the price to plummet. If you were to take your time and sell it in small quantities so as not to cause the price to change, say good-bye to your adventuring career. So you use a Follower with Boots of Teleportation. No time required and you can spread the salt out throughout the world. 2. Your character is probably not the first person in the game world to think of this. The market is aware of magical "cheats" like this and is prepared to deal with them. I'd imagine the local guilds would start a smear campaign telling the public that your salt is "tainted" and "unclean" while simultaneously hiring some people to "encourage you to get out of the business". Then you offer to sell it to these people at about a third of the price and only make 200,000 gp/casting. Also, consider that you can just teleport around until you find a market that doesn't use a guild system or doesn't know who you are. 3. The game is called "Dungeons & Dragons" not "Markets & Moneylenders". The rules are designed for adventure and action, not double-entry bookkeeping. Remember: D&D is like pointilism, stare at it too closely and all you'll see is spots. Yeah, this. Problem solved!
DarkPawn 07-05-07, 04:52 PM	There are so many things I find wrong with your reasoning but let me just highlight the one that first struck me as absurd. It's dangerous to incorporate real-world science to justify player nerfage. Things can get turned around on you really quickly. Here are some examples... Sweet! Ingestable poison for free!Sweet! Stable, transportable acid for free! Just add water. Just because something is poisonous doesn't mean it will kill you immediately. You might have to eat pounds of salt over a year to die. Why do you assume it has to be something that could benefit you in an adventuring scenario? If it takes a year or more to suffer any serious consequences, I doubt this will be abused by the players.
Loki5654 07-05-07, 05:01 PM	So you use a Follower with Boots of Teleportation. No time required and you can spread the salt out throughout the world. Two words: Teleportation Mishap Then you offer to sell it to these people at about a third of the price and only make 200,000 gp/casting. Also, consider that you can just teleport around until you find a market that doesn't use a guild system or doesn't know who you are. So it becomes a contest between the creativity of the DM and the creativity of the player. If you really want to foster the "DM vs. the players" attitude, go ahead and keep trying to break the game. Yeah, this. Problem solved! It was just a thought. I even started that post with "A few thoughts". I never said they were hard and fast solutions. You seem to have a problem with me merely expressing a thought, why is that?
mvincent 07-05-07, 05:02 PM	The "sage" should be required to visit on a daily to fish for threads about the questions he is going to answer.That is actually a good idea (he might already be doing it some, but not enough imho) Then, maybe WotC's FAQ would be usefulIt is already useful (and indeed, it has been updated several times with corrections that have been spotted here). However, you serve as an excellent example of the likely headaches associated with these forums, and the likely quality of feedback. But I can agree that topics on these boards can often be more thoroughly researched than initial FAQ answers (due to a group mind). and the splatbooks wouldn't suck. :PFrom my own view, I'm not sure proof-reading would help those. They simply do not have the sort of content I find valuable. However, (good) information compiled from these forums (example: 100 best spell combos, 100 ideas for NPC's, 100 best tips for running games, etc.) might be something I'd find value in.
NobodyRemembersThis 07-05-07, 05:20 PM	It is already useful (and indeed, it has been updated several times with corrections that have been spotted here). However, you serve as an excellent example of the likely headaches associated with these forums, and the likely quality of feedback. But I can agree that topics on these boards can often be more thoroughly researched than initial FAQ answers (due to a group mind).See, I dissagree. The FAQ answers the (for the most part) "easy" questions. Which is nice, but the rules are there and newb's just missed them or misread them. However, the Sage is also not as consistent as he should be - and is doubly inconsistent with CustServ. As a professional "answers man" the FAQ shouldn't be wrong - especially not when a 5 minute perusal of a thread about the question would prevent an incorrect ruling. It makes the Sage look bad. If the Sage were consistent and made use of these boards to avoid simple mistakes, I wouldn't have an issue with the FAQ. I wouldn't always agree with it (after all, as we have both seen with the Tower shield discussions, some rules do have multiple interpretations that are valid), but I would at least respect it. I don't, however - I've been here for years and the FAQ is still not as consistent nor as rules savvy as it should be. That is my biggest issue with it. From my own view, I'm not sure proof-reading would help those. They simply do not have the sort of content I find valuable. However, (good) information compiled from these forums (example: 100 best spell combos, 100 ideas for NPC's, 100 best tips for running games, etc.) might be something I'd find value in.The themed books can have an occasional bit of value, but for the most part I agree. The Mic and Spells Compendium are examples of great supplements. I'd lump ToB into that as well - especially if you don't want to be bothered trying to fix the design flaws of the fighter. :P
malignor 07-05-07, 05:24 PM	Just because something is poisonous doesn't mean it will kill you immediately. You might have to eat pounds of salt over a year to die. Why do you assume it has to be something that could benefit you in an adventuring scenario? If it takes a year or more to suffer any serious consequences, I doubt this will be abused by the players.There's no mechanics for that. In D&D, poison follows certain rules. If you're playing "reality edition D&D" then please remove the following: - Burrowing speed for all animals. - The hitpoint system. - Poison rules. - More stuff I can't think of right now. Again, I reiterate, the only way to justify some rules in D&D is simply to force the awareness that D&D is run by mechanics (which don't have to make sense) and reality is run by the its physical laws (which do). WotC made a game that runs well, as long as you keep this in mind and just say "that's how the the game mechanics work" when situations like this come out. If the game says a spell can't produce more wealth than its economic value in gold pieces (CL x SL x 10 + matCost + focusCost / 10 + XPcost x 5), then that's all there is to it. That's the rules of the game. Any further justification is pointless and just leads to arguments based on the laws of a different universe (reality). The gaming table doesn't need that kind of confusion.
DarkPawn 07-05-07, 05:30 PM	There's no mechanics for that. In D&D, poison follows certain rules. If you're playing "reality edition D&D" then please remove the following: - Burrowing speed for all animals. - The hitpoint system. - Poison rules. - More stuff I can't think of right now. Reality edition of D&D? So economics doesn't fall under that topic or "supply and demand"? Making a business and selling items is actually in the rule books? How your competition would react, price drops, taxes, tariffs, etc..etc.. Well in that case, Rule Zero, no you can't sell anything you conjure because I'm the DM. If you aren't using any common sense based on the reality, then why bother arguing any of it?
Pentar 07-05-07, 05:32 PM	A fun way to deal with this is anytime someone tries to collect salt as a result of Wall of Salt, the natural anti-power-gamer fabric of the gaming universe responds by casting Create Water. Bwahah.
green_yawgmoth 07-05-07, 05:42 PM	3. The game is called "Dungeons & Dragons" not "Markets & Moneylenders". The rules are designed for adventure and action, not double-entry bookkeeping. Remember: D&D is like pointilism, stare at it too closely and all you'll see is spots. Yes, yes yes, a million times YES. Why do people refuse to grasp this? If you want to play magical accountant, go play one of the many white wolf games out there. This, however, is D&D; we kill things, take their stuff, and sell it to a magewright/artificer/crazy wizard type for better gear without even cleaning it off. Which is not to say that you can't have an immersing storyline or realistic whatever, but c'mon. Destroying economies in a game is for people who get mad over action movie plotholes. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
mvincent 07-05-07, 06:06 PM	I've been here for years and the FAQ is still not as consistent nor as rules savvy as it should be.That is a subjective matter (i.e. an opinion). My own opinion is different, and (in regard to the FAQ and rules) I believe I'm more of a subject matter expert than you (yes, I'm that much of a geek, especially in regard to studying the FAQ and noting errors). I also believe I'm a more objective person. Regardless, that's still just one person's opinion. However, a poll was conducted on the Enworld board (a board that is notorious for maligning the FAQ... I'm guessing you're a regular there?). The respondents to that poll overwhelmingly said that the FAQ was very useful (indicating that people like you are likely more of a 'vocal minority'). The Mic and Spells Compendium are examples of great supplements. See now: many people like them, but I personally didn't need yet more spells and magic items (my group has more than they can use already). However, I felt that supplements like the Manual of the planes were excellent. To me, further details and analysis of already present stuff seems preferable to making new stuff (yeah, I'd probably pay for "official" details as to why Wall of Iron or Wall of Salt don't wreck economies) But I can at least understand why Mic and Spells Compendium are such big sellers.
The_sleeper1 07-05-07, 08:09 PM	"Table 7-3: Trade Goods" of the "PHB" says a pound of salt is worth 5gp so: 117 741.4481 pounds of salt, times 5gp a pound= 588 707.2407 GP per casting!!!!! Normal salt is made from oceans, it is dried out and crstilizes in fine cristals it also does not have lots impuritys like salt that is dug up from the ground. It would also be in large pieces that would need breaking apart. If you wanted to remove the silt and dirt from it you would have to disolve it in water and then let it out to dry, if you live in a southern cliamate then you could just lay it out in shallow brine pools otherwise you would likely need to convert it down by boiling the water off costing a lot for wood pots and helpers to do all that. Of course if you dont care about the dirt and just crush it and sell it asis then you would likely only be able to sell if to 1/2 or less what you normaly could, either way you have a large large outlay of cash. Say you can convert it to regular salt and everyone wants to buy some from you, your salt is the best it is magical after all so say everyone wants a pound per each family, they only likely make 100ish gold a year but 5gp is a dam fine investment in your salt. so a regular city may have 20,000 people and as a rough guess say each family has 5 people in it includeing kids you sell 4,000lbs of salt for 20,000gp. Then what? Everyone has enough salt to last a few years. In truth most of those commoners would not likely buy any salt 5gp is a LOT of coin, would you or anyone spend a weeks wages on one spice you would need to use spareingly because it is so expensive? I think not. You would be lucky if you could sell 100lbs in a city unless you drop the cost to rock bottom prices and then your not makeing as much nearly. Prices are infinatly reduceable. One tenth normal price seems drastic but as you dump more and more on to the market people have less and less reason to get it because more and more people have already gotten it. Salt merchants have a vested interst in keeping wizards out of the salt industry. Imagine your wizard showing up at his ware house after spending months building up a good stock pile of salt and iron and all his good being seized by the lawful city because the rich salt merchants took there grivance up with the king, noble or mayor. Such people can ban you from useing or selling the products of any such magic and they do have the ways to enforce it if need be.
malignor 07-05-07, 08:10 PM	Reality edition of D&D? So economics doesn't fall under that topic or "supply and demand"? Making a business and selling items is actually in the rule books? How your competition would react, price drops, taxes, tariffs, etc..etc..Where are price drops mentioned? All I see is the trade goods price. If the D&D economy is honestly realistic, it would account for the abundance of conjurable items, which is dependent on the magic level of the world. Or it would go into more detail of materials, trade goods, quality and so on. But there is nothing written. Do WotC expect us to automagically understand an economy built on the foundation of the iron age and modified by the existence of magic, of non-human beings, of provable religion and so on? This economy would honestly take a huge amount of work to balance against itself, and would require the focused efforts of numerous economists and imaginative, intelligent people. Heck, we have a hard enough time guessing the prices of our own commodities (hence the commodities market).Well in that case, Rule Zero, no you can't sell anything you conjure because I'm the DM. If you aren't using any common sense based on the reality, then why bother arguing any of it?It's not about rule zero. It's about "the game mechanics are what they are." As for reality, it is, 100% of the time, overridden by D&D mechanics. D&D mechanics has hitpoints, burrow speeds, magic, a oversimplified economy and numerous other things that make it not based on reality. However, to maintain some suspension of disbelief and avoid alienating gamers, things have to be somewhat realistic in certain ways: D&D humans have most of the same characteristics of real humans, vipers are poisonous, fire is hot and so on. But when the game mechanics say something like, for example, the existence of outsiders, or that iron conjured from a Wall of Iron actually diminishes in worth-per-weight as caster level increases, you just have to accept it at face value; reality has been overridden in such cases. Reality obviously holds no bearing on the value of a conjured substance.
ArcTan 07-05-07, 08:23 PM	Looks like you hit it. Fortunately, I vet all unplaytested splat books in my campaign. Hope you vetted the PHB, too, because wall of iron is essentially the same thing (and has been mentioned a huge number of times already).
NobodyRemembersThis 07-05-07, 08:43 PM	That is a subjective matter (i.e. an opinion). My own opinion is different, and (in regard to the FAQ and rules) I believe I'm more of a subject matter expert than you (yes, I'm that much of a geek, especially in regard to studying the FAQ and noting errors). I also believe I'm a more objective person.Well, that is your opinion on your objectivity, at any rate :P Regardless, that's still just one person's opinion. However, a poll was conducted on the Enworld board (a board that is notorious for maligning the FAQ... I'm guessing you're a regular there?). The respondents to that poll overwhelmingly said that the FAQ was very useful (indicating that people like you are likely more of a 'vocal minority').Very Useful and Consistent With the Rules are two separate things. I don't care about it's usefulness as much as I care that it is not as consistent as it should be. Especially when the Sage introduces rules that aren't actually in the books to support his interpretation. That's bad - introducing houserules and not announcing them as such. :nonono: And no, I never go to Enworld - I am neither sadistic nor masochistic enough for that forum. :) See now: many people like them, but I personally didn't need yet more spells and magic items (my group has more than they can use already). I was using them as examples. After all, However, (good) information compiled from these forums (example: 100 best spell combos, 100 ideas for NPC's, 100 best tips for running games, etc.) might be something I'd find value in.The Magic Item Compendium and the Spells Compendium are the closest equivalent splatbooks to the threads you mentioned. Which is why they are "great". I, personally, don't use them, but they have lots of crunch and make it very easy to tailor the Vancian magic system to suit your campaign preferences. ;) However, I felt that supplements like the Manual of the Planes were excellent. Agreed. However, they are much more difficult to pull off, especially to keep teh flavor generic enough to use in any campaign. To me, further details and analysis of already present stuff seems preferable to making new stuff (yeah, I'd probably pay for "official" details as to why Wall of Iron or Wall of Salt don't wreck economies)Agreed. I'd personally like to see a book titled Errata to Make Your Game World Consistent or A Guide to Consistent Game Mechanics. I'd pay good money for that. :ayyyy!: But I can at least understand why Mic and Spells Compendium are such big sellers.In this we also have an accord. :D
skydin 07-05-07, 09:07 PM	Does the spell explicitedly state that it is saleable, human consumable salt that is identical to the item you priced Failing that I instruct you to read up on salt. A salt, in chemistry, is defined as the product formed from the neutralisation reaction of acids and bases. It is a type of compound. A similar word in metalluargy is ALLOY. Yes, that type of compound does include Sodium Chloride, what is commonly used by people to flavor food. It also includes Lead acetate, which while tastes sweet, is deadly poison. It also includes sodium hydrogen sulfate which is very acidic (it is not fully neutralized by the base. ------ Anyone who just assumes that a Wall of Salt makes edible salt, valued at very high price deserves to be killed by Lead Acetate the second they taste it (or be killed by the vengefull merchant that they sold it to). As a DM, the best you would hope for in my game is a wall consisting of a random mix of multiple salts. Some of which would be edible, some would be deadly poison, but most of the wall would be composed of a salt that is neither edible nor poisonous. A similar problem exists with the Wall of Iron 1. There are different qualities of Iron. 2. You are assuming the wall of iron is very high quality. 3. Some people use a the bad price for Iron. I forgot the good one, but in one of the books they gave a false price that had to be errated. 4. You are assuming the iron involved counts as a commodity. A simple rule that the iron involved is not the REGULAR alloy of iron, and therefore can only be sold at 1/3 price, gets rid of most of the problem. If you reverse these assumptions, then boom, the Wall of Iron spell suddenly becomes fairly priced. first of all, does it specify any kind of salt at all? then you would imagine it would either be the common salt of the times or the person casting it would be able to chose the kind of salt to use. you know, if your not going to be THAT DM that takes all their briliant ideas and crushes them, thereby making them cry. your all overthinking this. let them make the salt, let them sell the salt, and then have them robbed on the way to the bank. thus, no complicated rules or theorizing, you let the players have their gold, and you can tell them you always had planned to have them robbed, you didnt know they would makea fourtune right beforehand.
NobodyRemembersThis 07-05-07, 09:35 PM	your all overthinking this. let them make the salt, let them sell the salt, and then have them robbed on the way to the bank. thus, no complicated rules or theorizing, you let the players have their gold, and you can tell them you always had planned to have them robbed, you didnt know they would makea fourtune right beforehand.DM Fiat does not excuse mechanics that can cause rules breakdowns because they are poorly written. It's like free HD, duplicating all of your gear infinitely, and other abuses from Shapechange - the gaps in the rules are there, and need to be accounted for and closed. DM fiat i the easy way out that creates a DM vs Player scenario. Talking it over before or after game and settling on an interpretation of the rules that the group can agree to is infinitely preferable.
ORC_Paradox 07-05-07, 09:55 PM	Yeah, you can't blame WotC for players coming up with new things to do with spells. Now, are they casting the spell indoors? If not, a rainstorm will wipe them out rather quickly. I'll have to look the spell over, but- does it have a duration? Does it have a damage rating before it "disolves"? What about bugs? Noboby's going to buy buggy salt. Throw in a plot twist- a salt elemental really appreciates the "Salt home" they make for it... and it doesn't take kindly to someone dismantaling his home.
Vaelan 07-05-07, 10:17 PM	Two words: Teleportation Mishap That's why boots have three charges per day. So it becomes a contest between the creativity of the DM and the creativity of the player. If you really want to foster the "DM vs. the players" attitude, go ahead and keep trying to break the game. It only leads to the DM vs. Player mentality if the DM isn't mature enough to go with your third suggestion, instead opting for silly contrivances that can be worked around. It was just a thought. I even started that post with "A few thoughts". I never said they were hard and fast solutions. You seem to have a problem with me merely expressing a thought, why is that? That statement was actually sincere. This suggestion does, in fact, solve the problem. Instead of coming up with lame, ridiculous crap that will stop the players from bothering to try anything creative, talk to them. This solution has a lesser chance of leading to conflict and actually works.
DarkPawn 07-05-07, 10:19 PM	Or how about we just use economics against them. If they can do it then everyone can do it. There is no regulation or artificial barrier to prevent entry into this market. Eventually as more people enter the market, it will drop the profit down to 0%. What character will keep supplying salt only breaking even? Eventually it may even cost more to manufacture the product, then what they are earning. Then people pull out of the market, which eventually leads to profit going back up. Again if profit goes up, more will enter and this vicious circle goes over and over again. Now besides the reality of economics, imagine you're a level 36 wizard that has been doing this for a long time. You will not take kindly to newcomers and can simply threaten buyers to not buy from the players. That is an easy enough solution. The wizard and his friends might just wipe the players out... or make them an offer they can't refuse. There are a million and one ways to prevent an exploit of this. Some based on real world economy and some based on fantasy. Pick your poison.
sigea 07-05-07, 10:27 PM	Or how about this: It's a game. Seriously, I have never in all my years had issues with my players trying everything possible to railroad a silly advantage. This sort of scenario is no different to a DM trying to railroad thier players into specific actions. DnD is unrealistic, get used to it, and enjoy the game for what it is. Heck, when was the last time you played monopoly? do you know anyone who ownes a street (Governments excepted)? and why do I have to pay money to someone else because I stop on a street (if it were government fines maybe, but this money goes to a fellow investor). And oh my gosh, do you beleive how much it cost just to go to a station without purchasing a ticket (who just "goes" to a station and pays $25 bucks anyway?). And then if I am unlucky I have to pay for general repairs while my next door neighbour doesn't pay squat. and best of all, I can only start my property development if I own all the streets in my suburb and then to put up a hotel, I have to purchase 4 houses and then tear them down to pay for a hotel? HUH? One last thing, why all this issue regarding Errata and playtesting. Come on, surely it is not that hard to have enough of an imagination to think of ways around something that does not fit. Heck, we have pretty concrete laws in western society but that is why we pay lawers and solicitors, to make sure we abide by them, get us out of jail free cards when we break one, and unfortunately, to fix glaring issues with existing laws. We can't even have societies with 100% fullproof laws and mechanics, how do you expect a GAME to be flawless?
The_sleeper1 07-05-07, 10:33 PM	There's no mechanics for that. In D&D, poison follows certain rules. Salt that is a posion could require injesting 5-10 pounds over years in time and then have an onset (second damage batch) of YEARS, well within D&D rules. it is not normal salt, it has a magical aura so *something* about it must be different. Does the unspecified differentness cause magical salt to give people magic sickness? Does Magical Iron not aloy with carbon so you can not make steel? Does steel made from magical iron rust very fast after it is forged. Of course in the case of an iron wall how does one melt a huge piece of metal as big as one would make? Custom smelter? lots of coal and lots of people to stoak it and work the bellows for days to melt down the hunk of metal. Perhaps it looks like normal iron but requires VERY high tempatures to melt it makeing it too wasteful to melt down for weapons.
sigea 07-05-07, 10:34 PM	Or how about we just use economics against them. If they can do it then everyone can do it. There is no regulation or artificial barrier to prevent entry into this market. Eventually as more people enter the market, it will drop the profit down to 0%. What character will keep supplying salt only breaking even? Eventually it may even cost more to manufacture the product, then what they are earning. Then people pull out of the market, which eventually leads to profit going back up. Again if profit goes up, more will enter and this vicious circle goes over and over again. Now besides the reality of economics, imagine you're a level 36 wizard that has been doing this for a long time. You will not take kindly to newcomers and can simply threaten buyers to not buy from the players. That is an easy enough solution. The wizard and his friends might just wipe the players out... or make them an offer they can't refuse. There are a million and one ways to prevent an exploit of this. Some based on real world economy and some based on fantasy. Pick your poison. One other thing to remember, if you allow spells like wall of salt\iron to have an economical gain, what is to stop someone from having their wizards design a spell to create a wall of gold or platnium or a wall of gems? Now I am not suggesting players go and do this, I am just saying that allowing economics to get the better of DND will destroy your game in the end. Now should you completly remove money making schemes for cleaver players, no, but you should be able to agree on certain things without it spiraling out of control and needing a rewrite of the rules to keep everyone in line. This is also great when using time based problems. Sure, go and spend 6 months selling your wall of salt around the world, and while you do that, your beloved king is assasinated and replaced by some BBEG, and guess what, you are way behind the CR scale to tackle him\her\it. But hey, at least your a rich slave right?
ravenshrike 07-05-07, 10:36 PM	Just because something is poisonous doesn't mean it will kill you immediately. You might have to eat pounds of salt over a year to die. Why do you assume it has to be something that could benefit you in an adventuring scenario? Yes, normal salt. 3/4 of an ounce is pretty ****ing deadly for lead acetate however, so make it two and I doubt most people would survive the following days.
Loki5654 07-05-07, 11:41 PM	That's why boots have three charges per day. The boots could only have one charge per day, a mishap is still a mishap. If one were to go teleporting around the world (and one could easily assume they'd end up going to a place they didn't know that well) the odds are they'd get a mishap eventually. Remember what the teleport spell says: You and anyone else teleporting with you have gotten “scrambled.” You each take 1d10 points of damage, and you reroll on the chart to see where you wind up. For these rerolls, roll 1d20+80. Each time “Mishap” comes up, the characters take more damage and must reroll. The 1d20+80 makes it even more likely that multiple mishaps would happen, and they would keep happening independent of the boots' remaining charges.
guru7892 07-05-07, 11:41 PM	wait, couldnt this spell be used to contaminate water supplies? Parodox said salt emementals may make a home, but what about people who already live their? if it is in an old mine, the mine drainage would spike in salt content and cause riots and discontent in every farming village that used the stream for water, as well as any gobliniod tribes, or cities. Now a small salt-emmental town has sprung up after your one week salt-wall spree. you may have a minor war on your hands as the emmentals wont let you destory the salt and the river dependent people start to starve from crop failures. Then they would raid other feilds. rebelions! The aristocracey fearing all out revolutions, higher an intrebid band of heros to get the the root of the crisis and your name will be plaster'd as the 'Harbringer of salted sanity', and the 'crazy crop contaminator'. Four hundred years after your vile death by hanging you mosoleum will be pilfered and you will be reanimated as a lich bound to the service of an evil undead army as you wreak revenge against your former kingdom by summoning legions of Salt Plastered Undead and Salt Elementals as you salt the land creating the Salted Wastes of the Welfargreth. Even to this day adventures will travel through the undead and elemental ridden salt flat to search for the treausres of the lost city, that now resides in a great salt lake!!! yeah, long story short, not a good idea. P.S. Don't get me started on wall of iron...
DarkPawn 07-06-07, 12:00 AM	I guess my point is if you want a reason in the scope of realism to prevent this there are ways without resorting to any DM override. Personally I see no problem with DM override and can't imagine a campaign where people would want to do this anyway. As a player (which I currently am), I would leave the group in character and out of character I'd have a talk with the player about turning a game into a monopoly game. I would never play with a group of people that would try this and expect to actually make tons of cash. The point to playing D&D is to defeat monsters and find treasure, like someone so eloquently put it. Player abuses of any spell or combination is just irritating for everyone. Including the players, and when the DM has to work overtime just to prevent the game from spinning out of control it wrecks it for everyone.
malignor 07-06-07, 12:04 AM	Salt that is a posion could require injesting 5-10 pounds over years in time and then have an onset (second damage batch) of YEARS, well within D&D rules.Care to provide an example of a listed D&D poison that behaves in this sort of time frame?it is not normal salt, it has a magical aura so *something* about it must be different. Does the unspecified differentness cause magical salt to give people magic sickness? Does Magical Iron not aloy with carbon so you can not make steel? Does steel made from magical iron rust very fast after it is forged.Magical Aura? I thought it was just normal stuff assembled by magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#creation). Giving properties and powers outside of the rules is called houseruling.Of course in the case of an iron wall how does one melt a huge piece of metal as big as one would make? Custom smelter? lots of coal and lots of people to stoak it and work the bellows for days to melt down the hunk of metal. Perhaps it looks like normal iron but requires VERY high tempatures to melt it makeing it too wasteful to melt down for weapons.Again, giving the iron super powers that defy the very description of the spell, and the rules for damaging objects. Hardness and hitpoints are as per iron. It's iron as per the spell description. Anything else is a DM fiat houserule. Wanna play the game as written? Play the game using mechanics. Real-world physics, even logic itself, is overridden by game mechanics when there is any uncertainty or conflict. That's all there is to it. So forget logic, forget real-world systems, forget physics and biology and chemistry and metallurgy. The game rules are what reign supreme... unless you houserule. And houserules are not something to assert on strangers over the internet.
sigea 07-06-07, 12:10 AM	I guess my point is if you want a reason in the scope of realism to prevent this there are ways without resorting to any DM override. Personally I see no problem with DM override and can't imagine a campaign where people would want to do this anyway. As a player (which I currently am), I would leave the group in character and out of character I'd have a talk with the player about turning a game into a monopoly game. I would never play with a group of people that would try this and expect to actually make tons of cash. The point to playing D&D is to defeat monsters and find treasure, like someone so eloquently put it. Player abuses of any spell or combination is just irritating for everyone. Including the players, and when the DM has to work overtime just to prevent the game from spinning out of control it wrecks it for everyone. Darkpawn, I agree with you completely and I appologise if you thought I was saying the opposite. I was just commenting on how easy it easy for these sorts of things to get out of control if you play with those types of people who have to "win" against the DM.
DarkPawn 07-06-07, 12:45 AM	Darkpawn, I agree with you completely and I appologise if you thought I was saying the opposite. I was just commenting on how easy it easy for these sorts of things to get out of control if you play with those types of people who have to "win" against the DM. Trust me I know exactly what you mean. Right now I'm playing with a guy that used around 9 books or more to make his character. He is a feral (savage species template) cloistered cleric, some winged race and a swordsage. He has about 15 custom made magical items using sanctified relic and alignment restrictions to lower prices to like nothing with legendary artisan. His items ranged from gauntlets that he claimed would do "Ray of Enfeeblement" each hit, and luminous armor on a regular shirt. This is just a few of the items he has. Other items like "shape sand" and what not to make weapons as hard as steel in Dark Sun...etc.. Basically I hate his character, the DM hates his character, and it is a constant battle every single time the DM says no or rules otherwise. He has mentioned using fabricate and iron walls and such to make masterworks metal swords he can sell to people. I swear there is an hour of arguing every time we show up to play now. It has gotten real old, real fast.
sigea 07-06-07, 01:21 AM	Trust me I know exactly what you mean. Right now I'm playing with a guy that used around 9 books or more to make his character. He is a feral (savage species template) cloistered cleric, some winged race and a swordsage. He has about 15 custom made magical items using sanctified relic and alignment restrictions to lower prices to like nothing with legendary artisan. His items ranged from gauntlets that he claimed would do "Ray of Enfeeblement" each hit, and luminous armor on a regular shirt. This is just a few of the items he has. Other items like "shape sand" and what not to make weapons as hard as steel in Dark Sun...etc.. Basically I hate his character, the DM hates his character, and it is a constant battle every single time the DM says no or rules otherwise. He has mentioned using fabricate and iron walls and such to make masterworks metal swords he can sell to people. I swear there is an hour of arguing every time we show up to play now. It has gotten real old, real fast. Yeah, I hear you and this is where it can get really sticky. It sounds like you need to talk to the guy to make him realise that he is taking the fun out for everyone else, but I also understand that this is sometimes harder said than done. Your DM escpecially needs to settle this as he is the one running the game, and irrespective of what others will no doubt say against this, your DM is well within his rights to bar, well, whatever he wants (and before anyone starts with the "DM fiat" arguments, get over it, that is a DM's right and responsibility whether you like it or not). Me for example bar any of that broken Ebberron rubbish (can anyone say Warforged Artificer, you know who you are :D ) and my players respect that without even a whimper. Same as my DM doesn't allow psionics.
ArcTan 07-06-07, 01:25 AM	Yeah, I hear you and this is where it can get really sticky. It sounds like you need to talk to the guy to make him realise that he is taking the fun out for everyone else, but I also understand that this is sometimes harder said than done. Your DM escpecially needs to settle this as he is the one running the game, and irrespective of what others will no doubt say against this, your DM is well within his rights to bar, well, whatever he wants (and before anyone starts with the "DM fiat" arguments, get over it, that is a DM's right and responsibility whether you like it or not). Me for example bar any of that broken Ebberron rubbish (can anyone say Warforged Artificer, you know who you are :D ) and my players respect that without even a whimper. Same as my DM doesn't allow psionics. It makes perfect sense to bar Eberron classes and races from a campaign that doesn't take place in Eberron, and the same goes for Forgotten Realms. However, as an Eberron fan I do have to chime in with the requisite pointing-out that a Warforged Artificer is hardly any more broken or breakable than a core Druid, of any race.
sigea 07-06-07, 01:39 AM	It makes perfect sense to bar Eberron classes and races from a campaign that doesn't take place in Eberron, and the same goes for Forgotten Realms. However, as an Eberron fan I do have to chime in with the requisite pointing-out that a Warforged Artificer is hardly any more broken or breakable than a core Druid, of any race. Each to their own i suppose. But nothing fills me with dread more than that darn Warforged Artificer :shudders:. I guess that is because no one in my game has ever played a Druid. Oh wait, one guy did and in his first game set fire to a whole forest (still makes me laugh).
ORC_Paradox 07-06-07, 01:43 AM	Iron walls find rust monster infestations rather quickly...
Surgo 07-06-07, 01:44 AM	3. The game is called "Dungeons & Dragons" not "Markets & Moneylenders". The rules are designed for adventure and action, not double-entry bookkeeping. Remember: D&D is like pointilism, stare at it too closely and all you'll see is spots. This is edging dangerously close to the Oberoni Fallacy. Just because the game is meant for adventure does not mean that other parts of the rules should be inconsistent or useless. Economic models are one of the weaker areas of the rules and one I'd like to see overhauled the most (along with skills). The simplest solution to the Wall of Salt problem is to change the value of salt to negligable, like a few other items in the PHB. It doesn't require any differing interpretations of spell details that are unspecified (quality of salt, type of salt), and historical accuracy doesn't mean anything in a game where I regularly throw magic missiles at ogres. It's not like anyone makes such a great use of salt in-game that this even matters anyway. Even if they did, you could just cast Wall of Salt once and have a lifetime supply.
ArcTan 07-06-07, 01:59 AM	Each to their own i suppose. But nothing fills me with dread more than that darn Warforged Artificer :shudders:. Have you ever actually played with one? In a game where everyone -- including the DM -- understood the rules? I'm sorry to come off with the same abrasive attitude about it that you see a lot on these boards, but whenever people slam things like the Artificer or Psionic classes as automatically "broken" it always seems to be people with little actual play experience with them and people who have fundamental misunderstandings about how they work.
ArcTan 07-06-07, 02:01 AM	This is edging dangerously close to the Oberoni Fallacy. Just because the game is meant for adventure does not mean that other parts of the rules should be inconsistent or useless. Economic models are one of the weaker areas of the rules and one I'd like to see overhauled the most (along with skills). Is it really the Oberoni Fallacy to say that things that don't actually matter to the game -- like "modelling" the economy of an entire country, or world, in a d20 ruleset -- should simply be ignored or elided? Do you realize how much work it would be to try to modify the game so the economy "made sense" -- creating supply-and-demand fluctuations for the prices of equipment and magic items, for instance -- and how little fun it would add to the game when you finished?
sigea 07-06-07, 02:09 AM	This is edging dangerously close to the Oberoni Fallacy. Just because the game is meant for adventure does not mean that other parts of the rules should be inconsistent or useless. Economic models are one of the weaker areas of the rules and one I'd like to see overhauled the most (along with skills). The simplest solution to the Wall of Salt problem is to change the value of salt to negligable, like a few other items in the PHB. It doesn't require any differing interpretations of spell details that are unspecified (quality of salt, type of salt), and historical accuracy doesn't mean anything in a game where I regularly throw magic missiles at ogres. It's not like anyone makes such a great use of salt in-game that this even matters anyway. Even if they did, you could just cast Wall of Salt once and have a lifetime supply. I completely disagree, in one paragraph you state that more emphasis should be placed on economic models (do you really understand how complex economics is? Supply\Demand, Bell curves and market fluctuations are just the tip of a very large iceberg.) obviously to be more realistic, but then go on to say that the best solution is to ignore reality and historical accuracy by making the value of salt negligable. This sort of argument, IMHO, is no different to debating that due to Magic, Divine inspiration, genius intellects and world hoping capabilities that gun powder and modern technologies should be common place in a medievil based setting (in most cases, d20 modern excepted). They don't exist purely because it destroys the "feel" of the game, same as making millions of gold from a spell does while keeping salt as an "exotic" consumable blends into the feel of the game without ruling it. Economics in DnD to me would make me walk away from the game in an instant, I do that for a living, not for escapism. It would also mean that one would only need to adventure once or twice, and then with the correct gearing strategy and risk profiling, retire on a fat sum of money without need to walk out the front door. heck, with only 1,000gp you could start up your own boutique bank\money lending operation and watch the money poor in.
OneWinged4ngel 07-06-07, 02:10 AM	See? A creative DM can come up with a solution without banning the spell. Because killing your players for not knowing that salt could mean deadly poison (and it certainly isn't implied in the spell description and isn't exactly common wisdom) is perfectly reasonable, and definitely a much better idea that just making an addendum or alteration to the problematic spell or outright banning it if it's only being used for the sake of abuse. :rolleyes: And you guys say that banning problematic material is heavy handed...
sigea 07-06-07, 02:12 AM	Have you ever actually played with one? In a game where everyone -- including the DM -- understood the rules? I'm sorry to come off with the same abrasive attitude about it that you see a lot on these boards, but whenever people slam things like the Artificer or Psionic classes as automatically "broken" it always seems to be people with little actual play experience with them and people who have fundamental misunderstandings about how they work. Yes, yes i have :weep: . I do not ban anything in my games until I have seen what they actually like in game play. I can then make the judgement call as to whether it stays or goes. I think it is wrong (In my opinion only, if you disagree that's fine) to ban anything based on what I personally think, but once it is play tested, then it's game on.
Morphail_o 07-06-07, 03:03 AM	Hope you vetted the PHB, too, because wall of iron is essentially the same thing (and has been mentioned a huge number of times already). What about create water? This has tremendous effects on a medevil-like world. Say goodbuy to siege warfare. And in a desert surrounding a caster that can make gallons and gallions of clean drinking water will be rich, no matter what the listed price of water is. And then there is create food and water although it is 3rd level...
Polop 07-06-07, 04:19 AM	On a similar note I had an idea for a wizard that specialized in the flesh to salt spell, and was a merchant of rare and unique salt around the world, him and his salt mephit, and I think it was orange dragon(the one with the salt breath) cohort... Other than that, I think if people want to spend precious game time attempting to rake in mad cash from selling hoards of salt should be ready, for merchant guild fees, competing prices, paying for guards, storage, shipping, bards to spread the news, healing for any injured workers which there should be plenty, good starts as they drop their prices below book value with diminished returns as nobody needs to purchase salt any longer, then sabotage, thieves, druids and farmers who have had fields ruined due to sloppy initial handling that ended up salting portions of land. And once all that is said and done, TAXES. oddly enough most of that is covered in Hackmaster....
NobodyRemembersThis 07-06-07, 07:52 AM	Is it really the Oberoni Fallacy to say that things that don't actually matter to the game -- like "modelling" the economy of an entire country, or world, in a d20 ruleset -- should simply be ignored or elided? Do you realize how much work it would be to try to modify the game so the economy "made sense" -- creating supply-and-demand fluctuations for the prices of equipment and magic items, for instance -- and how little fun it would add to the game when you finished?The reason it is applicable is because there are some (barely fleshed out) rules for handling economy in the DMG. Trying to say that those (largely incomplete) rules can't be broken as long as the DM makes houserules to govern unpredicted side effects of spells is the Oberoni Fallacy. The rules are there. They suck, but the are there.
tarkin 07-06-07, 12:13 PM	first of all, does it specify any kind of salt at all? then you would imagine it would either be the common salt of the times or the person casting it would be able to chose the kind of salt to use. you know, if your not going to be THAT DM that takes all their briliant ideas and crushes them, thereby making them cry. your all overthinking this. let them make the salt, let them sell the salt, and then have them robbed on the way to the bank. thus, no complicated rules or theorizing, you let the players have their gold, and you can tell them you always had planned to have them robbed, you didnt know they would makea fourtune right beforehand. No. I am NOT overthinking it. Nor am I taking a brilliant idea and crushing it. Because: 1. It is NOT a brilliant idea. It is a stupid, abusive idea. "WOW, I will take a poorly written spell and use it to make money off of by doing things the game designer did not think of Nah nah nah. 2. I am not crushing it. I am perfectly willing to let them make a REASONABLE profit. You want to make cash, fine. I will let them make 100 pounds of salt, that with work can be purified and turned into a nice profit. Maybe even DOUBLE what you can normally get from selling a spell casting use. 3. Most of the people that will try this will not even have been smart enough to comeup with themselves, instead they will simply have read it on the boards. What I am doing is putting a stop to a idea that would make the game BORING because some greedy fool read it on these boards and now wants to have 50x as much money as his character level should have. You are an adventurer. You want cash? Go out and kill something. I am not here to play Salt Merchants and Governement Taxes. If you are, go some place else. There are lots of games besides DUNGEONS and DRAGONS.
CantripN 07-06-07, 12:22 PM	Alternatively, there's a Spellcraft check to realise something was created by magic. Maybe Iron Walls are made of Irony, and not Ferum? Or that Walls of Salt are made of the essense of salt, which quickly "dissolves" in even a low humidity.
Surgo 07-06-07, 12:24 PM	I am not saying I want full economic modeling in D&D, I'm just saying the rules need an overhaul. However, I wish people would stop commenting on that somewhat offtopic statement and instead talk about my proposed fix to the spell in particular -- it seems like the most easy and least invasive solution to me.
malignor 07-06-07, 12:44 PM	The Pure-Game-Mechanics Method (to its fullest extent) Base profit from anything made by a spell = (SL x CL x 10) + (XP x 5) + (Focus Cost / 10) + (Material Cost). - adjusted by negotiation (diplomacy) - adjusted by deception (bluff) - adjusted by crafting as per the skill (craft), be it by another spell (Fabricate, Stone Shape, Wood Shape) or pure labour & time. Accept the fact that creation spells increase the amount of created substance either linear or exponentially, but total value of the final product ALWAYS increases linear to the caster level. Therefore iron, stone, salt, wood, etc. produced by exponentially increasing spells actually LOSE value, the higher level the caster. No explanation is provided, or necessary for the purpose of the game. The "Inject Realism" Method (to its fullest extent) - Do extensive research in chemistry, metallurgy and economics. - Modify every spell that creates something to include notation about the quality and nature of the material produced. Follow up with references to research material in case the players ask questions (because they always will). - Author a small library about the economics of each region, city and country. This includes mining, resources, production, imports, exports, trade routes, affects of climate and weather, labour force, supply and demand of each commodity, taxation, and the relationship each of these concepts on each other. = = = = = = = The problem is that in these arguments you have to hit some point where the player can stop asking "why?" To do that, you either have to draw a line and say "because that's the rules", or you have to go into realistic detail ad nauseum.Until you do either one of these, you have an incomplete, "broken", reasoning. Maybe you can fake it, and just explain enough to complicate things beyond your players' level of knowledge. But that's not really an option for me. I'm a 30-something, playing with other ppl aged 26-35, all with various levels of education from technical institutions, universities and colleges. My own background in mechanical engineering, martial arts (12+years), accounting and computer science means I've been taught too much about too many things, so half-baked explanations just don't cut it. The most argumentative guy is educated in pharmaceuticals, physics and networking. It's all or nothing with our crew.
DarkPawn 07-06-07, 12:57 PM	The Pure-Game-Mechanics Method (to its fullest extent) Base profit from anything made by a spell = (SL x CL x 10) + (XP x 5) + (Focus Cost / 10) + (Material Cost). - adjusted by negotiation (diplomacy) - adjusted by deception (bluff) - adjusted by crafting as per the skill (craft), be it by another spell (Fabricate, Stone Shape, Wood Shape) or pure labour & time. Accept the fact that creation spells increase the amount of created substance either linear or exponentially, but total value of the final product ALWAYS increases linear to the caster level. Therefore iron, stone, salt, wood, etc. produced by exponentially increasing spells actually LOSE value, the higher level the caster. No explanation is provided, or necessary for the purpose of the game. The "Inject Realism" Method (to its fullest extent) - Do extensive research in chemistry, metallurgy and economics. - Modify every spell that creates something to include notation about the quality and nature of the material produced. Follow up with references to research material in case the players ask questions (because they always will). - Author a small library about the economics of each region, city and country. This includes mining, resources, production, imports, exports, trade routes, affects of climate and weather, labour force, supply and demand of each commodity, taxation, and the relationship each of these concepts on each other. = = = = = = = The problem is that in these arguments you have to hit some point where the player can stop asking "why?" To do that, you either have to draw a line and say "because that's the rules", or you have to go into realistic detail ad nauseum.Until you do either one of these, you have an incomplete, "broken", reasoning. Realism method is simply: As supply rises the price drops, as the price drops the demand rises. As more people enter the market because there is a profit to be made, the profit drops. Soon it all hits zero profit, which is still profit. So basically in a fantasy world like this, all of these markets will be at zero profit already. People will make enough money to pay variable costs + fixed costs = total costs. They will make no extra profit. If the players enter the market they may drop the profit under zero, which means everyone is paying to make iron or salt. That means something has got to give. Either players drop out of market, make others drop out of market, or they are forced out of the market. End of story.
malignor 07-06-07, 01:18 PM	Realism method is simply: As supply rises the price drops, as the price drops the demand rises. As more people enter the market because there is a profit to be made, the profit drops. Soon it all hits zero profit, which is still profit. So basically in a fantasy world like this, all of these markets will be at zero profit already. People will make enough money to pay variable costs + fixed costs = total costs. They will make no extra profit. If the players enter the market they may drop the profit under zero, which means everyone is paying to make iron or salt. That means something has got to give. Either players drop out of market, make others drop out of market, or they are forced out of the market. End of story.Very not end of story. The players are not stationary. They can move from region to region, saturating the markets as they go. Heck, even travel to other planes and embark on trading excursions. What do they DO with all that salt or iron? It will change the society. It doesn't just disappear, or else the price would never change. Salt would change the food supplies market, as suddenly preservatives are cheap an abundant. A proliferation of iron would result in a cheaper (and thus larger, better equipped) military. Things have consequences. What else happens when there's alot of Salt? Livestock, poultry and other animals do not always receive adequate amounts of sodium and chloride from forages and other feeds. They need supplemental salt as part of a nutritionally balanced diet to remain healthy, disease free, and to achieve optimum growth and reproduction rates. Because animals have a natural, definitive appetite for salt - they will eat only a certain amount - it is used to ensure adequate intake of less palatable nutrients and as a means of limiting feed intake. Salt can be mixed with feed or fed free-choice, and is an excellent carrier for trace minerals. So it improves animal farming. Now animal products are cheaper, and can be preserved for longer, too. Dye and textiles also uses salt. Suddenly this manufacturing line becomes somewhat cheaper. Now clothes are cheaper. When the demand becomes zero, it's because society has all the salt they can use. This means dyes, textiles and all animal products (leather, meat, etc) have maximized production that other (non-salt related) factors permit. What do you do when you have more salt than you need? You do what the spellcaster did: trade it! Now the town exports salt to neighbouring regions, which affects THEIR production and economy. And so it continues.
malignor 07-06-07, 01:35 PM	Another problem is the "it's been done before" argument. Assuming it's true: Then the prices are what they are (as listed), either despite the abundance of material or because of it. Therefore the PCs will always get full price for selling their goods, as they are one market competitor of many. Assuming it's false: Then the PCs suddenly shape the local economy and make money doing it.
Lord_Madrigan 07-06-07, 01:58 PM	Which makes for a better lesson? "I can't do that. My DM banned the spell." "I can't do that. At least, not after what the Salt Cartel did to me last time. They made me eat so much salt my lips are still chapped." So you want to sell salt in our town? Whats this, no permit from the Guild. Well we can't have that now can we? Rhino, Moose help our friend here with all this Extra Salt.
DarkPawn 07-06-07, 01:59 PM	Very not end of story. The players are not stationary. They can move from region to region, saturating the markets as they go. Heck, even travel to other planes and embark on trading excursions. What do they DO with all that salt or iron? It will change the society. It doesn't just disappear, or else the price would never change. Salt would change the food supplies market, as suddenly preservatives are cheap an abundant. A proliferation of iron would result in a cheaper (and thus larger, better equipped) military. Things have consequences. What else happens when there's alot of Salt? Livestock, poultry and other animals do not always receive adequate amounts of sodium and chloride from forages and other feeds. They need supplemental salt as part of a nutritionally balanced diet to remain healthy, disease free, and to achieve optimum growth and reproduction rates. Because animals have a natural, definitive appetite for salt - they will eat only a certain amount - it is used to ensure adequate intake of less palatable nutrients and as a means of limiting feed intake. Salt can be mixed with feed or fed free-choice, and is an excellent carrier for trace minerals. So it improves animal farming. Now animal products are cheaper, and can be preserved for longer, too. Dye and textiles also uses salt. Suddenly this manufacturing line becomes somewhat cheaper. Now clothes are cheaper. When the demand becomes zero, it's because society has all the salt they can use. This means dyes, textiles and all animal products (leather, meat, etc) have maximized production that other (non-salt related) factors permit. What do you do when you have more salt than you need? You do what the spellcaster did: trade it! Now the town exports salt to neighbouring regions, which affects THEIR production and economy. And so it continues. All economies in the world are producing salt and iron at zero profit. Because magic makes one wizard in one remote area able to supply the world. Hence all markets are full of salt and iron. There is no need for anymore because the market is full. If you want to take realistic economy and add magic that is what happens. Spellcasters would become merchant kings and queens, they would own the markets. The common man would not be able to enter the market. The market is dead. So, tell your player to go make money the old fashioned way, go kill monsters and take their crap. Again, end of story.
Loki5654 07-06-07, 01:59 PM	So you want to sell salt in our town? Whats this, no permit from the Guild. Well we can't have that now can we? Rhino, Moose help our friend here with all this Extra Salt. Yup, I'll take the creative use of Rule Zero over DM fiat any day.
NobodyRemembersThis 07-06-07, 02:21 PM	Yup, I'll take the creative use of Rule Zero over DM fiat any day.And the Mayor and bodyguards of an average down will be able to compete with a 13th level spellcaster (7th level spells) how?!?!?!?!? Not going to happen. 2 bodyguards (warriors likely, fighters, maybe) will get owned in less time than it takes for the mayor to bluster like that. :nonono: Thank you for perpetrating the DM vs Player mentality. And for proving the Oberoni Fallacy is still alive and well. :bored:
DarkPawn 07-06-07, 02:23 PM	And the Mayor and bodyguards of an average down will be able to compete with a 13th level spellcaster (7th level spells) how?!?!?!?!? Not going to happen. 2 bodyguards (warriors likely, fighters, maybe) will get owned in less time than it takes for the mayor to bluster like that. :nonono: Thank you for perpetrating the DM vs Player mentality. And for proving the Oberoni Fallacy is still alive and well. :bored: However, what if said guards were on Athas, and all psionic wild talents...and the aforementioned mayor was in fact a sorceror-king? HMMMMM? ;)
malignor 07-06-07, 02:31 PM	All economies in the world are producing salt and iron at zero profit. Because magic makes one wizard in one remote area able to supply the world. Hence all markets are full of salt and iron. There is no need for anymore because the market is full. If you want to take realistic economy and add magic that is what happens. Spellcasters would become merchant kings and queens, they would own the markets. The common man would not be able to enter the market. The market is dead.... and that is what happens when you include real-world concepts in a game ruled by game mechanics. Very good. Now you know why I say "follow the rules", "don't confuse reality with D&D" and "don't question the illogical and expect a logical answer".So, tell your player to go make money the old fashioned way, go kill monsters and take their crap. Again, end of story.No. When I DM, I don't do the "voice of god" trick or golden-thumb my PCs. They get satisfiable answers and reasons from me... not logical ones, but then D&D isn't exactly high on the scale of "logic" anyway. Or I let them go hog-wild and turn their money making scheme into an adventure. Complete with thieves guild extortionists, desperate merchants conspiring with necromancers to "take out the competition", barbarian raids for the abundant resource and so on.
NobodyRemembersThis 07-06-07, 02:36 PM	However, what if said guards were on Athas, and all psionic wild talents...and the aforementioned mayor was in fact a sorceror-king? HMMMMM? ;)Guards would still be pwned by the wizard. The Sorcerer-King, however, is DM Fiat at its worst, especially since you aren't really supposed to be able to beat them.
DarkPawn 07-06-07, 02:36 PM	Or I let them go hog-wild and turn their money making scheme into an adventure. Complete with thieves guild extortionists, desperate merchants conspiring with necromancers to "take out the competition", barbarian raids for the abundant resource and so on. You know that is a really novel idea. If you have the time to come up with all that stuff, more power to you. Sounds like it would be a blast!
Loki5654 07-06-07, 02:39 PM	Thank you for perpetrating the DM vs Player mentality. And for proving the Oberoni Fallacy is still alive and well. :bored: All I'm saying is that when it comes to a choice between two uses of Rule Zero (and banning the spell or "because the DM said so" are uses of Rule Zero and just as Oberoni as anything I suggested), I choose the option with a little more story and flavor.
Loki5654 07-06-07, 02:41 PM	The Sorcerer-King, however, is DM Fiat at its worst, Worse than "because I'm the DM and I said so"?
Loki5654 07-06-07, 02:53 PM	I'd like to clarify my points. Thank you for perpetrating the DM vs Player mentality. I'm not advocating a DM vs. Player mentality. I'm simply saying that in a choice between a creative use of Rule Zero (adjusting the economy) and a DM fiat use of Rule Zero (banning the spell or not allowing the sale "because I said so"), that I prefer the creative use. And for proving the Oberoni Fallacy is still alive and well. :bored: Reread the Oberoni Fallacy (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11009434&postcount=27) again. Banning the spell outright or disallowing the sale "because I said so" are just as much a use of Rule Zero as anything I suggested and just as subject to the Oberoni Fallacy.
NobodyRemembersThis 07-06-07, 03:13 PM	I'm not advocating a DM vs. Player mentality. I'm simply saying that in a choice between a creative use of Rule Zero (adjusting the economy) and a DM fiat use of Rule Zero (banning the spell or not allowing the sale "because I said so"), that I prefer the creative use.Your "creative use" is to create convoluted reasoning and actions to pretend the spell is acceptable as written. As oposed to simply admiting the spell creates unforsen mechanics breakdowns and should be modified/eliminated. Your option is the personification of the fallacy. Reread the Oberoni Fallacy (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11009434&postcount=27) again. Banning the spell outright or disallowing the sale "because I said so" are just as much a use of Rule Zero as anything I suggested and just as subject to the Oberoni Fallacy.There is a world of difference in saying "I see the problem and have used rule zero to eliminate the problem" and your option of "There is no problem because I as the DM can use my DM fiat to make it so". If you cannot see that your option uses flawed logic, then there is nothing more to discuss. There is a problem with the spell. The very fact it requires DM fiat to keep it from being broken indicates a serious flaw in the spells implementation as it creates a gap in the existing rules. That is a problem.
TheCobra 07-06-07, 03:18 PM	I don't like the Salt Guild solution. It's too contrived. That'd have to be one powerful organization. The PCs could have good reasons for wanting to oppose this group. They could sell the salt dirt cheap, helping the masses and making a handsome profit at the same. Why wouldn't they try this? They only way I can see it making sense is if the Salt Guild was actually a group of wizards keeping wall of salt profitable by controlling its use. Then they'd at least have the resources to oppose the PCs. But the PCs and masses still gain from defeating the cartel. I hate rules exploits, because they ruin suspension of disbelief. Everyone in the world should be using the most powerful tactics. NPCs aren't dumb. If the system is balanced, that's fine. If it's not, things get murky. The best way to explain it is that there's some gentleman's agreement that prevents using gate and similar cheese. It's all very dubious, but I guess that's D&D for you.
Loki5654 07-06-07, 03:18 PM	Your option is the personification of the fallacy. As is your option of banning the spell. The fallacy covers both uses (and all uses) of Rule Zero. There is a world of difference in saying "I see the problem and have used rule zero to eliminate the problem" and your option of "There is no problem because I as the DM can use my DM fiat to make it so". I am not saying there is no problem with the spell, all I've ever said is that there are more creative solutions than simply banning it. The very fact it requires DM fiat to keep it from being broken indicates a serious flaw in the spells implementation as it creates a gap in the existing rules. That is a problem. You're right, I'm not disagreeing with you regarding the spell having a problem. I'm simply saying I prefer a creative solution over a "because I'm the DM" solution.
TheCobra 07-06-07, 03:23 PM	I'm simply saying I prefer a creative solution over a "because I'm the DM" solution. I'd rather create my own set of internally consist rules. Sadly, my current players prefer the RAW. Ah well. Rationalizing each and every rules exploit is silly and requires far too much work. It's very often better to just say, "No, you can't do that." If wall of salt isn't fit for humans, it doesn't cause a problem. That's simple. You don't have to invent salt cartels and/or brain-damaged NPCs.
Surgo 07-06-07, 03:28 PM	Or I let them go hog-wild and turn their money making scheme into an adventure. Complete with thieves guild extortionists, desperate merchants conspiring with necromancers to "take out the competition", barbarian raids for the abundant resource and so on. This sounds, to me, like an even better way to deal with it than what I proposed. Turning problematic and overlooked game mechanics into an awesome adventure -- that is the way to go.
Loki5654 07-06-07, 03:30 PM	I'd rather create my own set of internally consist rules. Sadly, my current players prefer the RAW. Ah well. Ok, so you think your solution is best and I think my solution is best. Unless we meet at the same table, I can go along with that. Rationalizing each and every rules exploit is silly and requires far too much work. It's very often better to just say, "No, you can't do that." If wall of salt isn't fit for humans, it doesn't cause a problem. That's simple. You don't have to invent salt cartels and/or brain-damaged NPCs. Ooh, you had up until you started insulting my solution. They are both uses of Rule Zero, I just happen to think one is more creative than the other. There's no call for you to be insulting about it.
cjhobbitbane 07-06-07, 03:31 PM	well even if you cant sell it, should the world ever be invaded by giant slugs we have nothing to worry about. you hear that baalzebul? stay in hell, we have SALT!
TheCobra 07-06-07, 03:43 PM	Ooh, you had up until you started insulting my solution. They are both uses of Rule Zero, I just happen to think one is more creative than the other. There's no call for you to be insulting about it. I call a spade a spade. Feel free to do the same. I think the salt cartel idea as a probably as good as anyone can do with what's available, but it is silly. If you apply the same practice to all rules exploits, that could easily dominate the campaign if the players didn't ease off. As things are now, though, you basically have to trust your players not to try to break everything.
Loki5654 07-06-07, 04:00 PM	I call a spade a spade. Feel free to do the same. I think the salt cartel idea as a probably as good as anyone can do with what's available, but it is silly. There is a difference between "I think it's silly" and "It's silly". One is an opinion, the other is an insult. In order for me to "do the same" I'd first have to agree with you that it is silly, which I don't. If you apply the same practice to all rules exploits, that could easily dominate the campaign if the players didn't ease off. As things are now, though, you basically have to trust your players not to try to break everything. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I just think that when players try and get sneaky and twist the rules, its OK for the DM to twist back.
DarkPawn 07-06-07, 04:02 PM	I just think that when players try and get sneaky and twist the rules, its OK for the DM to twist back. I personally think it is okay for the DM to backhand the players and send them packing. :)
malignor 07-07-07, 02:00 PM	Geez. You guys are so confrontational.
TheCobra 07-07-07, 02:07 PM	There is a difference between "I think it's silly" and "It's silly". One is an opinion, the other is an insult. In order for me to "do the same" I'd first have to agree with you that it is silly, which I don't. Look, you made it clear which option you prefer. I've done the same. That's all. Geez. You guys are so confrontational. Welcome to the internet. You might not enjoy your stay.
malignor 07-07-07, 02:43 PM	No, I meant as DMs.
DarkPawn 07-07-07, 02:55 PM	No, I meant as DMs. As a DM, I don't allow any arguments during the session. If you want to argue later that is fine. In the end though, I really don't care what the player thinks. My world, my rules. So yeah, I would be confrontational I guess.
ArcTan 07-07-07, 02:57 PM	The reason it is applicable is because there are some (barely fleshed out) rules for handling economy in the DMG. Trying to say that those (largely incomplete) rules can't be broken as long as the DM makes houserules to govern unpredicted side effects of spells is the Oberoni Fallacy. The rules are there. They suck, but the are there. No, there are not. There are rules for how much something costs when a PC goes into a store and buys something. That's not "the economy". The DMG comes out and says that we're holding the economy, supply/demand, price wars, monopolies, and all that crap out of view for the sake of simplicity of the game -- the game assumes that the only thing PCs do in relation to the economy is go into stores and buy things for the listed price in the PHB. And there is *nothing wrong with that*, any more than there's anything wrong with the fact that the game has no rules for a PC having to go to the bathroom, or contract cancer, or become pregnant. We all acknowledge that in our imaginary game world people must become pregnant sometime or there wouldn't be a human population, but that doesn't mean we *have to have* rules for PCs getting pregnant. We all acknowledge that prices in the imaginary world must fluctuate and be affected by complex economic forces, but that doesn't mean that we *have to have* rules for deciding what, exactly, the price of an iron pot will be on any given day. Moreover, the fact that there aren't rules for getting pregnant doesn't mean that a PC can now assume that because she lives in the world of D&D she can have as much unprotected sex she wants without the risk of pregnancy, or that human beings aren't born in this world but magically pop into being in their parents' houses as young adults. Just like the fact that there aren't rules for supply and demand in D&D doesn't mean that you can assume that in the imaginary world people are compelled to pay the list price for everything no matter how many you're selling at once or how many others are available or whether they want to buy it or not. It just means those situations *aren't supposed to come up in the game*, and if they do come up you're doing something wrong, just like you're doing something wrong if the fact that a PC never has to defecate after eating and, in fact, doesn't have any maximum stomach capacity for what they eat, becomes some kind of crucial plot point ("Let's eat our way out of the dungeon!").
ArcTan 07-07-07, 02:59 PM	FWIW, I think this is a matter of perspective on how people view the real-life fact that salt is valuable (yes, even today, it's valuable, depending on where you go). Look, if there were a spell called wall of gold that made a huge amount of gold for free every time you cast it, what would be an easier solution -- banning the spell or saying that "Well, in this imaginary world, gold isn't valuable"?
sigea 07-08-07, 08:04 PM	No, there are not. There are rules for how much something costs when a PC goes into a store and buys something. That's not "the economy". The DMG comes out and says that we're holding the economy, supply/demand, price wars, monopolies, and all that crap out of view for the sake of simplicity of the game -- the game assumes that the only thing PCs do in relation to the economy is go into stores and buy things for the listed price in the PHB. And there is *nothing wrong with that*, any more than there's anything wrong with the fact that the game has no rules for a PC having to go to the bathroom, or contract cancer, or become pregnant. We all acknowledge that in our imaginary game world people must become pregnant sometime or there wouldn't be a human population, but that doesn't mean we *have to have* rules for PCs getting pregnant. We all acknowledge that prices in the imaginary world must fluctuate and be affected by complex economic forces, but that doesn't mean that we *have to have* rules for deciding what, exactly, the price of an iron pot will be on any given day. Moreover, the fact that there aren't rules for getting pregnant doesn't mean that a PC can now assume that because she lives in the world of D&D she can have as much unprotected sex she wants without the risk of pregnancy, or that human beings aren't born in this world but magically pop into being in their parents' houses as young adults. Just like the fact that there aren't rules for supply and demand in D&D doesn't mean that you can assume that in the imaginary world people are compelled to pay the list price for everything no matter how many you're selling at once or how many others are available or whether they want to buy it or not. It just means those situations *aren't supposed to come up in the game*, and if they do come up you're doing something wrong, just like you're doing something wrong if the fact that a PC never has to defecate after eating and, in fact, doesn't have any maximum stomach capacity for what they eat, becomes some kind of crucial plot point ("Let's eat our way out of the dungeon!"). :clap: Perfect. :clap:
sigea 07-09-07, 01:34 AM	I would also like to ask all those who don't believe in Rule 0 or DM fiat this. If I played in one of your games, could I create a level 1 wizard spell to conjure a flawless diamond worth 10,000gp with a negligable material component? For that matter, a level 9 spell? If not, could you please provide a justification as it is within RAW to create new spells and I do not see where this, by RAW, should not be allowed. Of interesting note, that the spell must have DM approval IIRC, but as many of you like to comment, DM decisions are wrong or lazy, so how would you ever create new spells, or do you not allow it? My point is that the game of DnD is bound ONLY by the limitations and allowances of a DM, irrespective of RAW. If you remove the DM's choice of what they do and do not allow, I fail to see how anything could not \ should not be achieved. If a DM chooses to not allow Wall of Salt, or to allow it but make it unavailable\useless for sale, then they are perfectly appropriate RULES to expect the players to abide by.
malignor 07-09-07, 02:49 AM	I would also like to ask all those who don't believe in Rule 0 or DM fiat this. [snip] If a DM chooses to not allow Wall of Salt, or to allow it but make it unavailable\useless for sale, then they are perfectly appropriate RULES to expect the players to abide by.For any one particular instance, yes. But not all gaming tables are equal. Not all playing groups are equal. Not all DMs are equal. The thing I'm addressing is to devise a satisfiable concept of the RAW, as-is, which would work for all gaming tables, all groups, all DMs. And accepting that D&D is a game with game mechanics that need not even be realistic or logical, only functional, is that ideal concept. Why is this ideal? It's not a houserule. In fact, it's a way to avoid the need for any houserules, or to justify any houserule that satisfies the particular group. Acceptance that this is a game, not to be confused with reality, is ideal. It ends virtually every argument based on perceived in-game absurdity supported by the game mechanics. You know all those times when a player or DM says "pfeh! That's stupid. It should be like this"... burrow speeds and the hitpoint system are an ideal example of in-game absurdity It avoids the need for the DM to invent convenient occurrences to cover up PC-exploits. The exploit simply doesn't work. No logical reason required. It's a game, and doesn't obey our laws of logic. Sure the DM can still do a cover-up (PCs conveniently robbed, etc.) but it's not needed per se. It works for all gaming tables, all groups, all DMs, no matter how good or how crappy.
pmurray@bigpond.com 07-09-07, 03:05 AM	In general, the existence of magic is incompatible with a medaeval/dark ages economy. It isn't hard to see why: they did not have real magic on earth back then. Remember in Star Trek nextgen, when a tycoon from the 20th century had trouble dealing with a world in which you could make anything - anything at all - with a matter thingumajig? They were right - it completely changes what life is all about, when you can just materialize a lump of gold or something as complex as a meal. The only real solution is to rule that magically conjured matter won't serve in the place of real-world matter. Magically conjured matter only stays in existence because of an ongoing spell effect, although that effect may be permanent in duration. Much like how flesh-to-stone is an ongoing magical effect. Life is magical. Your body transmutes the food you have eaten into more of you. You can't do this with conjured salt. It must either go through your body unaltered or wink out of existence when your body attempts the transmutation. Perhaps make a distinction between divine and arcane casting: divine casters can summon a meal that is healthful to eat, arcanists cannot. This allows one to rule that the gods won't allow market manipulation on a big scale.
Thiez 07-09-07, 08:07 AM	Life is magical. Your body transmutes the food you have eaten into more of you. You can't do this with conjured salt. It must either go through your body unaltered or wink out of existence when your body attempts the transmutation. Fair enough. Would this also apply to Wall of Iron (so rustmonsters cannot eat it, and players cannot shapechange into rustmonsters to eat them)? If I make a sword out of Wall of Iron, is it immune to rust (is that a magical transmutation effect?)?
malignor 07-09-07, 12:05 PM	Not to mention the complete disregard for spells with a duration of "instantaneous (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#duration)" (not permanent), such as Wall of Iron.Creation A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates (subject to the limits noted above). If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence.
DarkPawn 07-09-07, 02:52 PM	Can everyone at least agree that allowing players to make unlimited walls of iron (especially on Athas) or unlimited walls of salt for sale is wrong? Or any other money making exploit for that matter? I think any DM realizes the peril of letting players have unlimited access to money. So that being said, does the DM tool to prevent such exploits really matter? Who cares if you use rule of zero, GM fiat, come up with scientific or economic theories, have hordes of locusts, magical effects, etc... No matter how you say "no" is kind of irrelevant isn't it? The point is you just have to stop the exploit for game balance. Otherwise is it like playing a computer game and using cheat codes. In other words, go play with yourself.
Platstud 07-09-07, 03:21 PM	Okay, normally I read every post in a thread before posting, but I really don't feel like it this time as I'm at work and this thread is stupidly long, so if I'm repeating something, just ignore me. :) I often don't understand how other people seem to abide by the rules so literally. If this issue came up in my game, the conversation would go like this: Me: "I cast Wall of Salt." DM: "Why? You're not in an encounter." Me: "I'm going to sell all the salt for 500,000 gp." DM: "Huh? That can't be right." [Math break] DM: "Well, would you look at that, the salt IS worth that much. That's ridiculous, haha!" [Other players laugh at the silliness of this idea] Me: "So I sell all the salt, I get the 500,000 gp, right." DM: "No, but a farmer offers to trade you his gimpy duck...his name is Edgar." [Other players laugh and we move on with the storyline.] This is why you have a DM, people. WotC can publish things without screening every word for insane abuse possibilities. And no, it wouldn't just be better to add a line saying, "Salt is not fit for human consumption." A reasonable DM would still allow this spell to be used to create as much salt as our group would need for our own purposes, we could freely salt meat, give it to the horses for a treat, or pour it over the earth to prevent an evil plant from regrowing. The point is that when you're reasonable and don't try to exploit things, your DMs(and on a larger scale, the writers of the material) won't feel like they have to restrict you from doing anything they didn't expressly intend.
mvincent 07-09-07, 04:01 PM	Can everyone at least agree that allowing players to make unlimited walls of iron (especially on Athas) or unlimited walls of salt for sale is wrong? Or any other money making exploit for that matter?Agreed. how you say "no" is kind of irrelevant isn't it? It can be relevant. While the easiest way is to simply tell the player (out of character) that it won't work, sometimes justification is desired for verisimilitude (and can help define your would). Some other options (that may or may not have been mentioned). 1) Several Gods, high level NPC's, guilds, nations, and/or planes help ensure balance in economic matters 2) The salt is being called from somewhere that might eventually miss such large amounts. 3) The salt will run out eventually (i.e. "who moved me cheese?") 4) The nature of magic prevents such imbalances (this seems the most likely, since D&D magic is closely tied to money in other respects). 5) It does work as desired, so everyone else is already doing it. Salt is no longer a precious commodity.
malignor 07-09-07, 04:09 PM	Can everyone at least agree that allowing players to make unlimited walls of iron (especially on Athas) or unlimited walls of salt for sale is wrong? Or any other money making exploit for that matter? I think any DM realizes the peril of letting players have unlimited access to money. So that being said, does the DM tool to prevent such exploits really matter? Who cares if you use rule of zero, GM fiat, come up with scientific or economic theories, have hordes of locusts, magical effects, etc... No matter how you say "no" is kind of irrelevant isn't it? The point is you just have to stop the exploit for game balance. Otherwise is it like playing a computer game and using cheat codes. In other words, go play with yourself.Casting Wall of Iron SHOULD be able to earn you (60xCL + 25) gold per casting (and 25gp is used up in the material component). Goods and Services lists a 6th level spell as being worth that much. It's wayyyy off the value of the iron, but that's just what the book says. So unless you houserule, that's all the wall is worth. ... unless you use craft something worth up to three times that, and then sell that off. So, that being said, a 12th level sorcerer can still (literally) conjure up 60x12 = 720gp profit per casting. And at 3 castings per day, that's alot of profit (2160 gp/day). As per market price for casting a 6th level spell. All they need is a buyer.
Thiez 07-09-07, 04:12 PM	... unless you Fabricate something worth up to three times that, and then sell that off. Corrected that for you :)
DarkPawn 07-09-07, 04:15 PM	So, that being said, a 12th level sorcerer can still (literally) conjure up 60x12 = 720gp profit per casting. And at 3 castings per day, that's alot of profit (2160 gp/day). As per market price for casting a 6th level spell. All they need is a buyer. I realize that. That isn't what I just asked. My question is would you allow that player to make 2160 gp/day for an entire year if the party takes off a year in game time? A year might be extreme but often groups take off months or even a year to learn new spells, craft magical items, etc..etc.. My question is would you honestly as a DM allow the aforementioned caster to make 572,400 gp in one year by doing this? Or even more by selling a wall of salt? Would you actually allow this to happen?
Nephlite 07-09-07, 05:22 PM	I realize that. That isn't what I just asked. My question is would you allow that player to make 2160 gp/day for an entire year if the party takes off a year in game time? A year might be extreme but often groups take off months or even a year to learn new spells, craft magical items, etc..etc.. My question is would you honestly as a DM allow the aforementioned caster to make 572,400 gp in one year by doing this? Or even more by selling a wall of salt? Would you actually allow this to happen? Iron is used more than salt... as you need it to make all trhose magic/masterwork items (things do figt with weapons like Fighters and Barbarians): how much salt is needed reasonably? One must think in-game about this.
DarkPawn 07-09-07, 05:25 PM	Iron is used more than salt... as you need it to make all trhose magic/masterwork items (things do figt with weapons like Fighters and Barbarians): how much salt is needed reasonably? One must think in-game about this. Um...okay that has nothing to do with anything, but thanks for pointing that out to me. :confused:
malignor 07-09-07, 05:30 PM	Actually it have everything to do with it. When you're doing something that has a mechanical result (like making alot of money), you can't assume it all works out. Remember all those mini-adventures I was talking about? Raids, competitors (who may employ all manner of methods), etc? They also have to gather info to repeatedly find buyers (how much iron would one smithy need?). Employ means & people to store or transport or cut the metal up, possibly deal with industrial espionage, and so on. If a player wants to earn that money, they have to earn it. Now it's not a year off, it's a year with a different kind of adventure... only it's not D&D, it's "commodities and con artists"
DarkPawn 07-09-07, 06:13 PM	Actually it have everything to do with it. When you're doing something that has a mechanical result (like making alot of money), you can't assume it all works out. Remember all those mini-adventures I was talking about? Raids, competitors (who may employ all manner of methods), etc? They also have to gather info to repeatedly find buyers (how much iron would one smithy need?). Employ means & people to store or transport or cut the metal up, possibly deal with industrial espionage, and so on. If a player wants to earn that money, they have to earn it. Now it's not a year off, it's a year with a different kind of adventure... only it's not D&D, it's "commodities and con artists" Would you stop writing an essay about making money and answer the question. It is a simple question, don't read anymore into it then that. Would you let your player's cast a spell and make X amount of item over Y amount of time? Would you allow it per RAW or would you not? Would you have no restrictions or anything?
DarkPawn 07-09-07, 06:15 PM	Actually it have everything to do with it. When you're doing something that has a mechanical result (like making alot of money), you can't assume it all works out. Remember all those mini-adventures I was talking about? Raids, competitors (who may employ all manner of methods), etc? They also have to gather info to repeatedly find buyers (how much iron would one smithy need?). Employ means & people to store or transport or cut the metal up, possibly deal with industrial espionage, and so on. If a player wants to earn that money, they have to earn it. Now it's not a year off, it's a year with a different kind of adventure... only it's not D&D, it's "commodities and con artists" Also on an unrelated topic. Weren't you the one that went on and on about adding reality into the game and how it isn't reality? There's no mechanics for that. In D&D, poison follows certain rules. If you're playing "reality edition D&D" then please remove the following: - Burrowing speed for all animals. - The hitpoint system. - Poison rules. - More stuff I can't think of right now. Again, I reiterate, the only way to justify some rules in D&D is simply to force the awareness that D&D is run by mechanics (which don't have to make sense) and reality is run by the its physical laws (which do). WotC made a game that runs well, as long as you keep this in mind and just say "that's how the the game mechanics work" when situations like this come out. If the game says a spell can't produce more wealth than its economic value in gold pieces (CL x SL x 10 + matCost + focusCost / 10 + XPcost x 5), then that's all there is to it. That's the rules of the game. Any further justification is pointless and just leads to arguments based on the laws of a different universe (reality). The gaming table doesn't need that kind of confusion. So now you're adding conditions beyond what you were originally arguing against doing? So I need to go by that exact formula, can't add real-based economics, but can add all these conditions to actually sell stuff? Is this in a book somewhere? Or are you actually adding a bit of reality based economics? :eek:
malignor 07-09-07, 06:27 PM	Would you stop writing an essay about making money and answer the question. It is a simple question, don't read anymore into it then that. Would you let your player's cast a spell and make X amount of item over Y amount of time? Would you allow it per RAW or would you not? Would you have no restrictions or anything?I'd let them cast the spell, yes. I'd let them make money in the middle of game-play if the opportunity presents itself, yes. I'd let them do it all for free in an uneventful fast-forward, no (I'd have em play out stuff). There, that answers your question. Done. Drop it. Cuz I'm not talking about my games. I don't push my games and my worlds on others, or even offer them as righteous ways of handling things. I only talk about what, in the general sense, going by RAW, fits. What's allowed on a technicality and what is a reasonable expectation from the barely competent DM are different.
megeddo 07-09-07, 06:33 PM	Two words (er maybe three): DM fiat. I love these boards. People argue so much about nothing in particular. The Internet rocks.
Zurai 07-09-07, 07:02 PM	Iron is used more than salt... as you need it to make all trhose magic/masterwork items (things do figt with weapons like Fighters and Barbarians): how much salt is needed reasonably? One must think in-game about this. Uh, no, iron is not needed more than salt. Sodium Chloride (ie table salt, and what is being discussed here) is something that every red-blooded animal needs in its daily diet to survive. If you ate entirely salt-free foods and drank salt-free drinks, you would die. Additionally, salt is one of the very few ways to preserve foods in a pre-industrial society. The Roman Legions were paid in salt. Where do you think the phrase "worth their salt" comes from?
malignor 07-09-07, 07:16 PM	Also on an unrelated topic. Weren't you the one that went on and on about adding reality into the game and how it isn't reality? = = = = = = So now you're adding conditions beyond what you were originally arguing against doing? So I need to go by that exact formula, can't add real-based economics, but can add all these conditions to actually sell stuff? Is this in a book somewhere? Or are you actually adding a bit of reality based economics? :eek:Nice try. Let me show you the difference. How NPCs behave (What I advocate) PC: "Hey blacksmith. I can supply you with all the iron you'll ever want. 10% off market price!" Smith: "Wonderful. So 9cp per pound, right?" PC: "Right. Here. let me cast this..." *MAGICKATE* Smith: "Hey, I only need like a quarter of that. Anything more than that won't fit in my storage shed. Don't want it rusting in the yard or getting stolen." PC: "But that's only... 162 gold worth." Smith: "Which is coincidentally all I can afford right now. Family's gotta eat y'know." PC: "Ummm but this wall is worth... 685 gold. You can only take, like, a quarter of it?" Smith: "That's right. Get your warrior-" PC2: "Fighter. I'm a fighter." Smith: "Okay, FIGHTER buddy there, to cut up what I need with his adamantine sword there..." PC2: "I don't work for free. I want something out of this" PC: "Okay! Howabout 50 gold, for what's essentially 15 minutes of work?" PC2: "Deal." PC: "What about the rest of this?" Smith: "Well, there's Arren on the other side of town. He does all the smithing for those folks." PC: (looks at the wall) "Great. How do I transport it there?" Smith: "Not my problem. Can hire a wagon. Only cost ya like 3 gold to pull that load across town." PC: "Wonderful. I suppose he'll only need as much as you need." Smith: "I'd wager you're right. We're not high-falootin' mages. We take time and pride in our work." PC: "This isn't as easy as I hoped. Costing me half my profit just to sell it off." RESULT: Game mechanics are preserved. Action-consequence (which is what RP is all about) on a personal scale provides the complications for the players. With some ingenuity they still make a good profit, but I'll wager it's not as fun to play out as saving the town and recovering the lost artifact. How a real economy behaves (What I DON'T advocate) GM: Okay, so you cast wall of iron. Lemme do the math here... You make 11 attached sections of 2"x5'x5' wall. That's 45.83 cubic feet of iron. Calculate in the density and we have... 22550 pounds of iron, at 1sp per pound equals... 2255 gold per casting. Take away the 25gp component and we have 2230gp profit per casting of the spell PC: SWEEEEET! GM: Now I'm gonna have point out that as you sell your 11 tons of iron around town and the demand drops. Every time you sell a wall of iron, you get 80% of the previous value, as long as you're in the same region. PC: That's crappy. PC2: But now iron costs less, right? GM: Yeah PC2: So I'll wait a few weeks before I buy weapons & armor my army of followers. Hehehe. GM: Ummmm yeah, I guess so. PC: I just did the math. In the first week we make 8730 gold. Second week, 1680 gold. So that means iron now costs 4% of its initial value! PC2: Sweeeeeet. I bet more stuff will be made out of iron now. A bunch of the stuff made of stone or bronze will now be iron. GM: But everything that's crafted is still 2/3 pure labour. PC: AH! But the crafting is based on money put forward, not weight. Since the Iron to make a sword is 4%, crafting now takes 4% of the time too! It's not like suddenly you need 25 times the iron you needed 2 weeks ago to make the same sword. PC2: Holy crap! That's awesome! GM: Wait a minute... you're right. What the heck? PC2: Longswords for everyone, 6sp each! That means, as a smith, I can now make a sword in a day. NICE! GM: Something's not right here... PC: And if iron is still full price in another region, we can just do the same there! RESULT: Game mechanics self destruct by adding mechanics that don't jive with game design. GM confused, more houserules have to be added on the fly to add "realism". Game becomes far more complicated for the GM. Players still reap reward from the DM vs. PC mentality. That is until the Golden Thumb comes down from the sky, ruining the game for all.
Lixith 07-09-07, 07:26 PM	A few thoughts: 1. A trade good's price is based on supply and demand. Dump that much salt on the market all at once and supply will outweigh demand, causing the price to plummet. If you were to take your time and sell it in small quantities so as not to cause the price to change, say good-bye to your adventuring career. 2. Your character is probably not the first person in the game world to think of this. The market is aware of magical "cheats" like this and is prepared to deal with them. I'd imagine the local guilds would start a smear campaign telling the public that your salt is "tainted" and "unclean" while simultaneously hiring some people to "encourage you to get out of the business". 3. The game is called "Dungeons & Dragons" not "Markets & Moneylenders". The rules are designed for adventure and action, not double-entry bookkeeping. Remember: D&D is like pointilism, stare at it too closely and all you'll see is spots. VERY well said
Nephlite 07-09-07, 07:26 PM	Uh, no, iron is not needed more than salt. Sodium Chloride (ie table salt, and what is being discussed here) is something that every red-blooded animal needs in its daily diet to survive. If you ate entirely salt-free foods and drank salt-free drinks, you would die. Additionally, salt is one of the very few ways to preserve foods in a pre-industrial society. The Roman Legions were paid in salt. Where do you think the phrase "worth their salt" comes from? Ah, but remember Race matters for salt consumption: in real world african americans need less salt than whites: their body stores more because it is hot and losing too much would be bad for their health. Whites need more salt because we usually live in not super hot temperatures so evolved to need salt from food. Do elves need more salt or less? Heck, they are totally foreign mechanics: no sleep! Maybe they don't need salt at all. We really don't know. 1/2 Orcs need more I'd wager as they get less sun as a race (Orc). Sun makes you sweat losing salt, but not much sun where they are usually. Do abberations need salt? They aren't humanoid after all...
malignor 07-09-07, 07:28 PM	Another example of "reality vs. game mechanics". They are not the same. Don't confuse them or you end up with a big mess on your hands.
TheCobra 07-09-07, 08:32 PM	The point is that when you're reasonable and don't try to exploit things, your DMs(and on a larger scale, the writers of the material) won't feel like they have to restrict you from doing anything they didn't expressly intend. That works fine as long as everyone cooperates, but I'd prefer the rules to be free of exploits. As other have said, creating matter out of nowhere has profound implications. I think this should be dealt with or changed. The game world shouldn't break down as soon as you start to think about it.
sigea 07-09-07, 08:37 PM	malignor I like the examples of real vs game world mechanics, very nicely done. One thing though, in real world economics, just because the price of materials goes down, does not necesitate a reduction in sale price. It usually means just an increase in the sellers profit. Justs playing devils advocate.:D
CryoSilver 07-09-07, 08:54 PM	Here's how I'd handle it: Player: "I cast Wall of Salt and sell it all off." DM: "Okay, but it takes you a year to distribute that much salt; after all, people only need just so muchin any given area. Your costs equal 30% of your profits." Player:"Whatever, I have more money than Bill Gates and more gold than Africa anyways." DM: "During that year, the villain you chose to stop pursuing found the artifact he needed and blew up the neighboring nation. As a token of good faith, your kingdom has imposed a heavy tax in order to send supplies to the victims. After the tax, you make about... 30 gold."
ArcTan 07-09-07, 09:31 PM	Agreed. It can be relevant. While the easiest way is to simply tell the player (out of character) that it won't work, sometimes justification is desired for verisimilitude (and can help define your would). Some other options (that may or may not have been mentioned). 1) Several Gods, high level NPC's, guilds, nations, and/or planes help ensure balance in economic matters 2) The salt is being called from somewhere that might eventually miss such large amounts. 3) The salt will run out eventually (i.e. "who moved me cheese?") 4) The nature of magic prevents such imbalances (this seems the most likely, since D&D magic is closely tied to money in other respects). 5) It does work as desired, so everyone else is already doing it. Salt is no longer a precious commodity. 5) is the easiest answer I would give if an obnoxious player really did force me to make a direct ruling on this in-game. (Well, the Salt Mages of the Sword Coast have already been doing this for generations, you see...) Although I really wouldn't have any problem with turning around and saying "Although this spell has no magical duration and therefore can't be dispelled, the magical goods it creates nonetheless degrade very quickly over time and thus are useless for any non-temporary endeavors". This doesn't change balance radically, since the *intended* use of wall of iron and wall of salt was to make, well, walls, not to use them as a resource-mining technique.
ArcTan 07-09-07, 09:32 PM	Ah, but remember Race matters for salt consumption: in real world african americans need less salt than whites: their body stores more because it is hot and losing too much would be bad for their health. Whites need more salt because we usually live in not super hot temperatures so evolved to need salt from food. Do elves need more salt or less? Heck, they are totally foreign mechanics: no sleep! Maybe they don't need salt at all. We really don't know. 1/2 Orcs need more I'd wager as they get less sun as a race (Orc). Sun makes you sweat losing salt, but not much sun where they are usually. Do abberations need salt? They aren't humanoid after all... That doesn't matter. Even in the most cosmopolitan D&D worlds, Humans make up the bulk of the population in the "civilized lands" PCs are supposed to come from. (Hell, going by a lot of the concept art, Caucasian Humans make up most of the Human population, so that argument also goes out.)
DarkPawn 07-09-07, 09:52 PM	I'd let them cast the spell, yes. I'd let them make money in the middle of game-play if the opportunity presents itself, yes. I'd let them do it all for free in an uneventful fast-forward, no (I'd have em play out stuff). There, that answers your question. Done. Drop it. It blows my mind that you'd let someone make 500,000+ gold in a year of doing this if they played it out. I find that hard to believe but as you wish. I guess I assumed almost every DM in the world would not. I am apparently wrong, I accept that. I only talk about what, in the general sense, going by RAW, fits. What's allowed on a technicality and what is a reasonable expectation from the barely competent DM are different. This is my whole point. RAW is extremely limited and they obviously don't have every rule for every situation. So by RAW, they give rule of zero. They say as the GM take out whatever you want, add whatever, if you don't like something change it. Cuz I'm not talking about my games. I don't push my games and my worlds on others, or even offer them as righteous ways of handling things. You keep making it sound like RAW is this firm set of laws that clearly are meant to be followed blindly without question. You claim you're not forcing your style on other people but you have argued for three days straight about disagreeing with how everyone else would treat this. You claim that economics and reality has no place, yet you talk about finding buyers and roleplaying sales on open markets. I'm speechless. Half the things you stated conflict with the other half and I'm completely lost now with who I'm talking to. Let me just plead with you to accept what I stated above. Letting players abuse rules like this has the potential to wreck games and ruin the enjoyment for other players. That being said, a GM should control such things to make the game balanced, challenging, and entertaining for all players. So in summary, allowing an exploit of a poorly thought out spell can destroy a game and many months or even years of roleplaying for everyone. Therefore it just shouldn't be allowed to happen. In the end how you deal with the problem and prevent it as a GM really doesn't matter. Every GM has different levels of education and experience. Some have a grasp of economics and can use that to prevent it. Others have a grasp of science and can use that. Others have creative minds and understand game mechanics. Etc..etc..who cares. The fact that GMs are so diverse makes the game fun. The point is no matter how you prevent it and control the game is irrelevant, it is the fact that you do. ...of course you always have the option like you to allow it. That is fine, but I think you're one of a very few GMs that would do so.
malignor 07-09-07, 10:13 PM	You completely failed to understand me. Which word is giving you such a hard time?
malignor 07-09-07, 10:19 PM	malignor I like the examples of real vs game world mechanics, very nicely done. One thing though, in real world economics, just because the price of materials goes down, does not necesitate a reduction in sale price. It usually means just an increase in the sellers profit. Justs playing devils advocate.:DYou're kinda half-right. Most smart businessmen will look at a reduction in overhead, and split the difference between reduced price and increased profits. Thus they are more attractive than the competition (and thus get more sales) and make more money per item. Of course, if that overhead cost is a universal thing between all competing manufacturers, one of 2 things happen: Either they set a standard price with higher profits and all match each other, or they compete against each other's prices until they're pretty much at the same, lowest level where profit-per-unit is the same as it was before the overhead cost reduction.
HellflameArcanite 07-09-07, 10:27 PM	Where are you going to find someone or someones to buy over one hundred thousand pounds of salt?
sigea 07-09-07, 10:35 PM	malignor, yes you are somewhat correct, however, in most markets this does not happen to the extent that we, as consumers wish. Even thought we would hope that "smart businesspeoples" would lower their price to attrack more of the market, this is quickly offset by the draw of profit. This is then again offset by increase in that producers demand, which would in turn cause an increase in cost due to supply\demand principles. Other components of the work then go up accordingly, eg Taxes, fees to guilds, cost of fuels etc as those that provide goods and services to the service provider see a bigger share of profit hence market movements are almost non existent. See all the fuss on the DI and death of Dragon\Dungeon as an example. One would assume that printing and outsourcing costs disappear causing a huge reduction in price of online content, most however fear that this will not occur and just end up in Wotc pockets. Even a slight reduction in cost will not offset the overall cost to the consumer for above mentioned printing\internet costs etc. Of course my experience comes from a more "corporate" level and hence shareholders would love to see iron cost 0 and still make 15gp per longsword, it is just a greater return of profit, no reduction in costs would change the chase of the mighty dollar.:D
ArcTan 07-09-07, 11:27 PM	You completely failed to understand me. Which word is giving you such a hard time? Er, you basically said you'd give your players unlimited free gold as the result of a rules exploit. He said that that makes you very rare among DMs, most of whom find a lot of the fun of the game goes out if you get unlimited free gold from a rules exploit. I agree. Unless you were only playing devil's advocate or something, your game style sounds like something I'd run very far away from.
ArcTan 07-09-07, 11:28 PM	You're kinda half-right. Most smart businessmen will look at a reduction in overhead, and split the difference between reduced price and increased profits. Thus they are more attractive than the competition (and thus get more sales) and make more money per item. Of course, if that overhead cost is a universal thing between all competing manufacturers, one of 2 things happen: Either they set a standard price with higher profits and all match each other, or they compete against each other's prices until they're pretty much at the same, lowest level where profit-per-unit is the same as it was before the overhead cost reduction. Well, yes. This is the difference between a monopoly and perfect competition. Unless you have the one and only copy of the wall of salt spell in the world, this situation resembles perfect competition far more than it does a monopoly -- i.e. if it's possible to do this, *everyone* will do it, and prices will dive down to the minimum possible level (zero economic profit).
Feeb 07-09-07, 11:48 PM	Y'know, if this came out in game i was DM'ing, I just pause the action for a bit an explain, or re-explain my take on DM'ing. Turning Wall of Salt into gp is a product of metagame thinking. The player doing it is trying to get around the suggested wealth limits per level, which are used as a balance mechanic. I'm not ok with that. If the people at the table object, I'll ask one of them to take over. That said, if I was feeling snarky, or mean, or something along those lines, I'd let the player(s) summon up as much salt as they wanted, I'd let 'em go hog wild, maybe even play it up it bit and let it go over one or two play sessions. Then, seeing as how large amounts of salt pose serious environmental problems to flora and aquatic fauna, I'd have a small army of heavily optimized druids and druidic avenger types raid the pc's "salt compound." Maybe lead by an avatar or aspect of some forest loving deity. Is it DM Fiat? Yes, most certainly so, but at least the players get to go out with a bang as their base of operations gets put under seige by a few hundred druids and then CR 25 Aspect of Nature leader.
dragynson1 07-10-07, 12:11 AM	[b] It also includes Lead acetate, which while tastes sweet, is deadly poison. It also includes sodium hydrogen sulfate which is very acidic (it is not fully neutralized by the base. ------ Anyone who just assumes that a Wall of Salt makes edible salt, valued at very high price deserves to be killed by Lead Acetate the second they taste it (or be killed by the vengefull merchant that they sold it to). good lord please dont make the wall of salt into poison a high dc ingested sweet tasting poison? then the price goes up!! hundreds of gold per ounce instead of 5 gold a pound
ArcTan 07-10-07, 12:24 AM	good lord please dont make the wall of salt into poison a high dc ingested sweet tasting poison? then the price goes up!! hundreds of gold per ounce instead of 5 gold a pound Okay, anyone who decides that "salt" can mean anything that fits the chemist's definition of "salt" as opposed to the layman's definition (sodium chloride) is just being stupid and annoying and not worth talking to.
DarkPawn 07-10-07, 12:42 AM	You completely failed to understand me. I'm not the only one. From some of your conflicting statements I think you fail to understand yourself sometimes. :rolleyes:
DarkPawn 07-10-07, 12:47 AM	You're kinda half-right. Most smart businessmen will look at a reduction in overhead, and split the difference between reduced price and increased profits. Thus they are more attractive than the competition (and thus get more sales) and make more money per item. I assume you are referencing overhead in the same term of fixed costs. What overhead is there in magically created items? Raw materials? Well the components of the spell? This seems pretty trivial and is inelastic as you point to RAW. Cost of leasing a warehouse? Well since you can travel where you need to bring goods and make it...this is moot. Utilities and such....um yeah obviously not a factor. There is basically no overhead what to speak of. The only variable costs would be transportation if you didn't just show up and make the requested materials.
sigea 07-10-07, 01:00 AM	Well, yes. This is the difference between a monopoly and perfect competition. Unless you have the one and only copy of the wall of salt spell in the world, this situation resembles perfect competition far more than it does a monopoly -- i.e. if it's possible to do this, *everyone* will do it, and prices will dive down to the minimum possible level (zero economic profit). ArcTan, while your comments are somewhat correct, they are not necissarily true. I don't wish to get into an argument of economics but perfect competition does not lead to zero economic profit. Any business worth it's weight in salt :D will operate at a profit, whether large or small even if there is enough competition to drive the price down. An example of this would be banks, they continually increase fees in a continually aggresive and growing market, yet they do not reduce their profit margins just to get the extra customer. Why? It's just not feasable, nor is it advantages to their product. Another great example of this would be shoes, I could by a $25 pair of shoes or a $400 pair of Nikes, and while there is some difference in quality, not enough to justify a difference of $375. Part of this is due to economics, part in brand name, but most interesting is a large part of this is derived from "consumer expectation". Yes you can make a pair of Nikes and sell them for $25 but they no longer have the appeal or perceived quality of the $400 pair even if they are exactly the same. Believe it or not but there have been many tests and studies that prove that dropping the price of an expensive item does not increase profit (due to lower margins obviously) and actually has a negative impact on volumes sold. Why? Because the consumer thinks the quality is not as good. In our example of salt a consumer may think that if they buy a pound of salt for 5gp then yes it is expensive but it will be a quality product usable in cooking\preserving\livestock consumption etc. Sell the bag for 1gp per pound, especially when the commoner\merchant can see a great big wall of it behind you, then they will be sceptical of it's quality. Is it pure? could it be contaminated? will it destroy the meat I have worked so hard to hunt down so that is rotten or infested with maggots? All part of the human phsyci. What does this have to do with the argument at large? not a lot, but I thought it would be interesting to show how abuse of this spell would not necessarily drop the price of salt so the original profit may be made. The issue is more in finding who to sell it to. I am not trying to say that anyone is right or wrong, I am just stating that economics is to intense a subject to be able to implement into the game of DnD without destroying the fun. My personal suggestion in the case at hand would be to keep the market as is and just deem that the salt created is not of sufficient in quality or you cannot find the buyers to do so. Is this DM fiat or Rule 0, yes, but I have no issue with that, nor do my players. eg: PC: I am going to cast wall of salt and sell it for a profit of 500,000gp DM (me): :twitch: Reeaaaallly? PC: :bigeyes: on second thought, maybe not.
malignor 07-10-07, 01:13 AM	Er, you basically said you'd give your players unlimited free gold as the result of a rules exploit.I said I would play out the process of getting the money. That's all. Doing so could take hours or months of real-life gaming (I'm talking transaction by transaction, one at a time, complete with the headaches of finding buyers, dealing with the local lords, competition, thieves guild extortionists, raiders, marketing and so on). Meanwhile, he's getting money less quickly than if he adventured, and is also getting no XP. Likely the other players would voice their discontent within the first 30 minutes, or find their own ways to get involved and have fun with it. Either way it simply becomes a short term side-track. D&D is a game that deals alot with combat and exploration, so if the party all gets involved in the business, I'd turn their enterprise into something that requires exactly that... like the wizard in question gets his spellbook stolen, and the party has to follow the thieves through the undead-infested under-city catacombs to recover it, only to find that it's a trap to take out the competition, yadda yadda yadda. Of course, if the wizzy in question is slowing the other PCs down, and won't go with them on [quest X], I simply ignore the conjurer in favor of the players who are together on [quest X]. The conjurer has (at least temporarily) retired. I'll contrive some basics for his flourishing business after the session, including some balanced income set, as if the wizzy were paid like an NPC spellcaster (spell level x caster level x 10 + misc costs), selling 1 spell per day. Wah... hooo...
DarkPawn 07-10-07, 01:14 AM	ArcTan, while your comments are somewhat correct, they are not necissarily true. I don't wish to get into an argument of economics but perfect competition does not lead to zero economic profit. Any business worth it's weight in salt :D will operate at a profit, whether large or small even if there is enough competition to drive the price down. An example of this would be banks, they continually increase fees in a continually aggresive and growing market, yet they do not reduce their profit margins just to get the extra customer. Why? It's just not feasable, nor is it advantages to their product. Another great example of this would be shoes, I could by a $25 pair of shoes or a $400 pair of Nikes, and while there is some difference in quality, not enough to justify a difference of $375. Part of this is due to economics, part in brand name, but most interesting is a large part of this is derived from "consumer expectation". Yes you can make a pair of Nikes and sell them for $25 but they no longer have the appeal or perceived quality of the $400 pair even if they are exactly the same. Believe it or not but there have been many tests and studies that prove that dropping the price of an expensive item does not increase profit (due to lower margins obviously) and actually has a negative impact on volumes sold. Why? Because the consumer thinks the quality is not as good. In our example of salt a consumer may think that if they buy a pound of salt for 5gp then yes it is expensive but it will be a quality product usable in cooking\preserving\livestock consumption etc. Sell the bag for 1gp per pound, especially when the commoner\merchant can see a great big wall of it behind you, then they will be sceptical of it's quality. Is it pure? could it be contaminated? will it destroy the meat I have worked so hard to hunt down so that is rotten or infested with maggots? All part of the human phsyci. What does this have to do with the argument at large? not a lot, but I thought it would be interesting to show how abuse of this spell would not necessarily drop the price of salt so the original profit may be made. The issue is more in finding who to sell it to. I see your point but there are a few factors that I think change this. In normal economics I agree to an extent. However with magic all rules go out the window. Paying people to find salt or iron ore, extract it, purify it, transport it, etc...etc... all factor into the price. With magic you cut all of those costs out. Also the final product does not really appear any different. In your example you're kind of hinting at the fact that consumers would know that X-Brand Salt/Iron is natural and Y-Brand Salt/Iron is magical. In this case I would agree that people might want X-Brand because they are superstitious, skeptical, scared...etc... This would be something a smart caster would keep a secret as much as possible. Work through a proxy or pose as a mine owner (through spells or third parties) whatever. If both items are perfect substitutes then consumers would buy the Y-Brand because it was a lot cheaper. You could sell the Y-Brand at such a low cost that legitimate (labor markets) would have no choice but to shut down. Now as another economic twist, this is all based on an economy with a pure currency driven market. I would throw in the fact that many consumers in D&D settings would still be bartering for products. This would add a whole new wrinkle to the whole concept. Imagine trading Y-Brand items to farmers who want it. They trade you livestock which you then trade to Inn owners in towns for barley and ale. You then take that to dwarven miners for gems. You then take gems and bring them to jewelers to convert into gold. Ugh.....okay, I quit....I'm just going to go kill some orcs and loot their corpses. :D
ArcTan 07-10-07, 01:19 AM	ArcTan, while your comments are somewhat correct, they are not necissarily true. I don't wish to get into an argument of economics but perfect competition does not lead to zero economic profit. Any business worth it's weight in salt :D will operate at a profit, whether large or small even if there is enough competition to drive the price down. An example of this would be banks, they continually increase fees in a continually aggresive and growing market, yet they do not reduce their profit margins just to get the extra customer. Why? It's just not feasable, nor is it advantages to their product. Well, yes. That's a matter of transaction costs -- trying to calculate *exactly* by how much to change fees every quarter to wring out as much revenue as possible is out of the question for any business. All real markets can only approximate perfect competition (which is why it's called "perfect" competition). Another great example of this would be shoes, I could by a $25 pair of shoes or a $400 pair of Nikes, and while there is some difference in quality, not enough to justify a difference of $375. Part of this is due to economics, part in brand name, but most interesting is a large part of this is derived from "consumer expectation". Yes you can make a pair of Nikes and sell them for $25 but they no longer have the appeal or perceived quality of the $400 pair even if they are exactly the same. Believe it or not but there have been many tests and studies that prove that dropping the price of an expensive item does not increase profit (due to lower margins obviously) and actually has a negative impact on volumes sold. Why? Because the consumer thinks the quality is not as good. Well, sure. That's called a Veblen good. But things like consumer expectations and brand loyalty and such make competition imperfect. Things where one brand over another matters are monopolistic competition, *not* perfect competition (or a monopoly). Don't mess with me on the Econ 101. In our example of salt a consumer may think that if they buy a pound of salt for 5gp then yes it is expensive but it will be a quality product usable in cooking\preserving\livestock consumption etc. Sell the bag for 1gp per pound, especially when the commoner\merchant can see a great big wall of it behind you, then they will be sceptical of it's quality. Is it pure? could it be contaminated? will it destroy the meat I have worked so hard to hunt down so that is rotten or infested with maggots? All part of the human phsyci. This won't work in the long term, not for something as essential as salt. The things that go into liking or disliking shoes are psychological and subjective -- there is no test one can perform to prove that one pair of shoes is "better" than another. However, salt is used for purely utilitarian tasks, when you buy it in bulk. A company might try to maintain a cartel through myths and rumors about contamination, or quality, or various unethical business practices, but in the long run it remains the case that the one crazy-ass food producer who goes and buys the cheap salt and finds out it works *just as well* as the expensive salt will drive everyone who insists on using the expensive salt out of business. That's market pressure at work, and why cartels are always unstable. (Why do you think OPEC is so worried about too much oil being found in non-OPEC countries? OPEC could *try* to spread lies that other oil doesn't burn as well as OPEC oil, but it wouldn't fly -- the stakes are too high for people not to want to take the risk on buying the cheaper oil. What does this have to do with the argument at large? not a lot, but I thought it would be interesting to show how abuse of this spell would not necessarily drop the price of salt so the original profit may be made. The issue is more in finding who to sell it to. Economics isn't as flexible as all that. No one can keep the price of a basic staple like salt inflated thanks to "consumer expectation" without the very basic pressure of people *needing* the good forcing prices down. There's a reason that almost all Veblen goods are "conspicuous consumption" goods that people don't actually *need*. (Brand-name sneakers may jostle up there in the $250 price range, but cheap-ass ordinary sneakers that ordinary people wear to protect their ordinary feet nonetheless still hover at the price that generates zero economic profit, because people need shoes and someone's going to sell it to them.)
ArcTan 07-10-07, 01:24 AM	I see your point but there are a few factors that I think change this. In normal economics I agree to an extent. However with magic all rules go out the window. Paying people to find salt or iron ore, extract it, purify it, transport it, etc...etc... all factor into the price. With magic you cut all of those costs out. Also the final product does not really appear any different. In your example you're kind of hinting at the fact that consumers would know that X-Brand Salt/Iron is natural and Y-Brand Salt/Iron is magical. In this case I would agree that people might want X-Brand because they are superstitious, skeptical, scared...etc... This would be something a smart caster would keep a secret as much as possible. Work through a proxy or pose as a mine owner (through spells or third parties) whatever. If both items are perfect substitutes then consumers would buy the Y-Brand because it was a lot cheaper. You could sell the Y-Brand at such a low cost that legitimate (labor markets) would have no choice but to shut down. Now as another economic twist, this is all based on an economy with a pure currency driven market. I would throw in the fact that many consumers in D&D settings would still be bartering for products. This would add a whole new wrinkle to the whole concept. Imagine trading Y-Brand items to farmers who want it. They trade you livestock which you then trade to Inn owners in towns for barley and ale. You then take that to dwarven miners for gems. You then take gems and bring them to jewelers to convert into gold. Ugh.....okay, I quit....I'm just going to go kill some orcs and loot their corpses. :D It all balances out in the end. Basic economics still functions no matter what the conditions -- things like a barter economy can only slow the process down, not halt it. In the end, no matter what people *initially* think when you come out with magic salt, if it is actually true that magic salt is a perfect substitute for natural salt, magic salt will eventually displace natural salt in the end. It's inevitable.
sigea 07-10-07, 01:33 AM	In your example you're kind of hinting at the fact that consumers would know that X-Brand Salt/Iron is natural and Y-Brand Salt/Iron is magical. In this case I would agree that people might want X-Brand because they are superstitious, skeptical, scared...etc... This would be something a smart caster would keep a secret as much as possible. Work through a proxy or pose as a mine owner (through spells or third parties) whatever. If both items are perfect substitutes then consumers would buy the Y-Brand because it was a lot cheaper. You could sell the Y-Brand at such a low cost that legitimate (labor markets) would have no choice but to shut down. Consumers might not know about brand X or Y and how "natural" they are, I am just saying their is a "percieved" naturalness from the consumer based on price, which has been proven. But see, you are now adding that complexity back in by trying to work through proxies or maintain the illusion that you are a legitimate merchant, again adding to cost. Now as another economic twist, this is all based on an economy with a pure currency driven market. I would throw in the fact that many consumers in D&D settings would still be bartering for products. This would add a whole new wrinkle to the whole concept. Imagine trading Y-Brand items to farmers who want it. They trade you livestock which you then trade to Inn owners in towns for barley and ale. You then take that to dwarven miners for gems. You then take gems and bring them to jewelers to convert into gold. Ugh.....okay, I quit....I'm just going to go kill some orcs and loot their corpses. :D This is one of the best quotes yet and I think that a lot of us may have forgotten about a more bartering based economic system. You are right of course and by reducing the cost of salt, all you really do is make your own value less. Say you would normally swap 3 pounds of salt for a 15gp longsword (no strech of the imagination right? that is how economics used to work, Roman soldiers where not paid in coins but salt) but now because you have such an abundance of salt it only costs 1gp per pound. Now you have to give over 5 times the amount of salt for the same longsword. make salt a zero profit comodity and you could be having to swap 20\30 pounds of salt just for the longsword. Interesting.
DarkPawn 07-10-07, 01:41 AM	This is one of the best quotes yet and I think that a lot of us may have forgotten about a more bartering based economic system. You are right of course and by reducing the cost of salt, all you really do is make your own value less. Say you would normally swap 3 pounds of salt for a 15gp longsword (no strech of the imagination right? that is how economics used to work, Roman soldiers where not paid in coins but salt) but now because you have such an abundance of salt it only costs 1gp per pound. Now you have to give over 5 times the amount of salt for the same longsword. make salt a zero profit comodity and you could be having to swap 20\30 pounds of salt just for the longsword. Interesting. Yeah it gets pretty complicated if you really try to think about it. Doesn't sound like a game anymore to me. Almost sounds like Banking, Financial Institution & Money Markets, a class I have a midterm in tomorrow. :weep: Personally I'd just tell the player no you aren't making money off it, and move on with killing monsters. :D
sigea 07-10-07, 01:43 AM	In the end, no matter what people *initially* think when you come out with magic salt, if it is actually true that magic salt is a perfect substitute for natural salt, magic salt will eventually displace natural salt in the end. It's inevitable. True, which is why magic and economics do not work, hence I can see no way that you could write rules in DnD to handle this with any sort of realism. Hence my earlier comment that I would just outrightly say NO and dam the DM fiat haters out there. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
DarkPawn 07-10-07, 01:53 AM	True, which is why magic and economics do not work, hence I can see no way that you could write rules in DnD to handle this with any sort of realism. Hence my earlier comment that I would just outrightly say NO and dam the DM fiat haters out there. Don't hate the player, hate the game. No doubt, and I would never roleplay with someone that didn't like that answer anyway. My time is far too scarce now to waste arguing about rules and wasting time on players trying to take advantage of rules and break the game.
TheCobra 07-10-07, 01:53 AM	True, which is why magic and economics do not work, Magic in general isn't the problem. Magic doesn't automatically prevent the possibility of a roughly medieval economic system. Easily accessible spells that create vast quantities of various stables are what have serious economic implications.
malignor 07-10-07, 02:01 AM	Funny how you guys came to the same basic conclusion I've been endorsing since the get go (RL economics + game mechanics = complications + more problems). Just took a crapload of economic discussion to get to the same endpoint. :P
sigea 07-10-07, 02:13 AM	One other thing to remember, if you allow spells like wall of salt\iron to have an economical gain, what is to stop someone from having their wizards design a spell to create a wall of gold or platnium or a wall of gems? Now I am not suggesting players go and do this, I am just saying that allowing economics to get the better of DND will destroy your game in the end. Now should you completly remove money making schemes for cleaver players, no, but you should be able to agree on certain things without it spiraling out of control and needing a rewrite of the rules to keep everyone in line. malignor, this way my second quote foudn on page 3 so I have been advocating this from the get go. I have merely been trying to prove that economics in DnD doesn't work and there is nothing wrong with the DM saying no to making money out of this spell.
Eco-Mono 07-10-07, 02:40 AM	deleted
DarkPawn 07-10-07, 02:50 AM	Funny how you guys came to the same basic conclusion I've been endorsing since the get go. Just took a crapload of economic discussion to get to the same endpoint. :P :rolleyes: :rolleye2: :crazy:
Millenia 07-10-07, 04:17 AM	I'm sorry if anyone already said this in the six pages of this thread, but... .... How about just making any instantaneous creation spell (Wall of Iron, Wall of Salt) just have a duration (say, minutes/level)? That way, the created materials will not be much too useful, as they'd disappear eventually.
Elana 07-10-07, 04:28 AM	Wow, you are still going on about it. Well lets see how our world handled it. Salt used to be very expensive, than suddenly there was no problem getting salt anymore. And guess what, now it's dirt cheap. (Also a wall of salt is a lot better at destroying economies, just think how much acre you could make utterly worthless, just because it's now salted)
Thiez 07-10-07, 08:54 AM	I'm sorry if anyone already said this in the six pages of this thread, but... .... How about just making any instantaneous creation spell (Wall of Iron, Wall of Salt) just have a duration (say, minutes/level)? That way, the created materials will not be much too useful, as they'd disappear eventually. Brings up all kinds of problems. Suppose I had a Conjuration(Creation) spell that produced food, and it had a duration of Permanent instead of Instantaneous. If I were to feed a person with that stuff for a month, then cast dispel magic on him (always works on my own spells! :)) he'd be starving instantly. Apply to the Wall spells. Imagine losing all salt you've eaten in the last 6 months. BOOM you're dead (MDJ is a killer). Or getting your iron +5 holy axiomatic longsword dispelled. I'd hate to see that kind of stuff happen. It's not even fun. It allows for players to screw the DM and the other way round, and I doubt that improves the quality of the game. And it breaks the purpose of the walls: to be an obstacle that can't simply be removed with a dispel magic. How about this one: selling walls of Iron and walls of Salt is illegal. One wizard can make thousands of commoners lose their jobs. The government (the King :cool: ) has laws to prevent this. You are free to create walls for personal use. And in case of emergency (such as a dragon preventing merchants from reaching a town, and that town has no more salt or iron) it's allowed to sell a few walls.
lukelightning 07-10-07, 09:36 AM	So if the wall of salt is a huge money maker, would sprinkling some of this salt on your food count as "shaking your money maker"? :D
Platstud 07-10-07, 09:52 AM	That works fine as long as everyone cooperates, but I'd prefer the rules to be free of exploits. As other have said, creating matter out of nowhere has profound implications. I think this should be dealt with or changed. The game world shouldn't break down as soon as you start to think about it. I guess I just can't imagine playing in a game where everyone doesn't cooperate. Sure we have arguments, but when the DM says, "This is how it is," we move on and don't discuss it anymore. I guess what I'm asking is, "Don't you find it really frustrating having games break down into arguments and having players and DMs ****** at each other?"
malignor 07-10-07, 12:35 PM	malignor, ... I have been advocating this from the get go. I have merely been trying to prove that economics in DnD doesn't work and there is nothing wrong with the DM saying no to making money out of this spell.Cool. Guess I made a bad assumption when I saw the discussion progress where it was going. Apologies. As far as spellcasters making money... This is what the RAW says (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spell). I'm fine with PC spellcasters gaining this amount per spell, provided they go through the trouble of finding someone willing to pay them. The DM would make it as difficult or as easy as he would feel is appropriate, and likely try not to let the rest of the players sit there bored during this side-track. Wall of "X" would be no exception, and there would not be (nor should there be) a "logical" explanation as to why they don't get to calculate by density, volume, weight and cost as a trade value. D&D is a game with game mechanics, and they work as long as there's no injection of realism that breaks or overly complicates them (like RL economics). I have to admit, my 1st post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12969101&postcount=3) was a sort of challenge. I wanted to see what explanations were out there, to see if something satisfactory was already out there before I bothered coming up with my own solution. The problem with the OP was the selective injection of realism into a fantasy game (designed more for balance than realism) for his own gain. Even worse, the responses were of proposed solutions that included "DM cover up" (some convenient DM-vs. player thing happens to sabotage the scheme), or by injecting more biased realism, which traded one problem (PC money making imbalance) for a host of other complications and possible exploits that change the world. I pointed out a few problems with this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12971677&postcount=46), and even defending the fact that they are problems (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12972107&postcount=52), I clarified the mechanics vs. realism solution. Darkpawn, you just didn't get it. So I had to explain it again (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12973942&postcount=58) and again (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12976207&postcount=73) and again (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12980611&postcount=92). You seemed rather adversarial and seemed firm in not wanting to understand, So I tried from a different angle (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12980954&postcount=94), by showing how problematic and complicated (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12981838&postcount=101) things get with selective realism, and how if things progress the only way to keep the game running is via the "Golden Thumb" (DM Fiat crushing problems with contrived crap). In arguing, I realized how my solution evolved into something that would work for any gaming table (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13005687&postcount=125). Darkpawn (who seems my adamant adversary in this thread), you posed the question of the day, asking if they would allow PCs to make money through conjuration. I replied (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13011345&postcount=132) with an answer supported by the RAW (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spell), an answer which didn't satisfy you. I tried again (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13012371&postcount=137). You demanded something very black & white, yes & no. It looked like an obvious trap, but what the heck (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13013068&postcount=140), right? *sigh* no such luck (you put words in my mouth instead (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13015169&postcount=152)). Too bad ArcTan jumped in so late in the game :(. Had to explain myself to to third person (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13017173&postcount=165).:rolleyes: :rolleye2: :crazy:You're absolutely right. I can't believe I thought you came up with (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13017429&postcount=170) the same solution as me... y'know the one supported by the RAW (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spell). Wishful thinking I guess.
DarkPawn 07-10-07, 12:39 PM	Cool. Guess I made a bad assumption when I saw the discussion progress where it was going. Apologies. As far as spellcasters making money... This is what the RAW says (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spell). I'm fine with PC spellcasters gaining this amount per spell, provided they go through the trouble of finding someone willing to pay them. The DM would make it as difficult or as easy as he would feel is appropriate, and likely try not to let the rest of the players sit there bored during this side-track. Wall of "X" would be no exception, and there would not be (nor should there be) a "logical" explanation as to why they don't get to calculate by density, volume, weight and cost as a trade value. D&D is a game with game mechanics, and they work as long as there's no injection of realism that breaks or overly complicates them (like RL economics). I have to admit, my 1st post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12969101&postcount=3) was a sort of challenge. I wanted to see what explanations were out there, to see if something satisfactory was already out there before I bothered coming up with my own solution. The problem with the OP was the selective injection of realism into a fantasy game (designed more for balance than realism) for his own gain. Even worse, the responses were of proposed solutions that included "DM cover up" (some convenient DM-vs. player thing happens to sabotage the scheme), or by injecting more biased realism, which traded one problem (PC money making imbalance) for a host of other complications and possible exploits that change the world. I pointed out a few problems with this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12971677&postcount=46), and even defending the fact that they are problems (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12972107&postcount=52), I clarified the mechanics vs. realism solution. Darkpawn, you just didn't get it. So I had to explain it again (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12973942&postcount=58) and again (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12976207&postcount=73) and again (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12980611&postcount=92). You seemed rather adversarial and seemed firm in not wanting to understand, So I tried from a different angle (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12980954&postcount=94), by showing how problematic and complicated (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12981838&postcount=101) things get with selective realism, and how if things progress the only way to keep the game running is via the "Golden Thumb". In arguing, I realized how my solution evolved into something that would work for any gaming table (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13005687&postcount=125). Darkpawn (who seems my adamant adversary in this thread), you posed the question of the day, asking if they would allow PCs to make money through conjuration. I replied (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13011345&postcount=132) with an answer supported by the RAW (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spell), an answer which didn't satisfy you. I tried again (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13012371&postcount=137). You demanded something very black & white, yes & no. It looked like an obvious trap, but what the heck (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13013068&postcount=140), right? *sigh* no such luck (you put words in my mouth instead (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13015169&postcount=152)). Too bad ArcTan jumped in so late in the game :(. Had to explain myself to to third person (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13017173&postcount=165).You're absolutely right. I can't believe I thought you came up with (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13017429&postcount=170) the same solution as me... y'know the one supported by the RAW (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spell). Wishful thinking I guess. You're serious? I thought this whole time you were intentionally trying to be funny, hypocritical, erratic, and just play devil's advocate. You were actually trying to be serious? OMG! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Wow! I need whatever you're smoking! Hahaha...god I love how much time you put into all your posts and links. Yeah you sure showed all of us, you were right all along! You're so smart! :rolleyes:
malignor 07-10-07, 12:55 PM	You're serious? I thought this whole time you were intentionally trying to be funny, hypocritical, erratic, and just play devil's advocate. You were actually trying to be serious? OMG! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Wow! I need whatever you're smoking! Hahaha...god I love how much time you put into all your posts and links. Yeah you sure showed all of us, you were right all along! You're so smart! :rolleyes:Never serious, always honest ;). You know what's great? All I have to do is care, and your blatant display at flaming disrespect may actually do more than amuse me... just kidding. Even if I cared, you're only begging the thread to be locked and nothing more. Instead, perhaps you could try a novel idea: argue in an un-childish manner. Let me ask you a question. You're obviously against PCs making money. Does this extend to use of the Craft skill? Profession? Perform? Are you against the use of spells and skills as means of PC income? Why would the mechanics exist for the monetary value of skills and spells which are accessible by PCs? I see no rule anywhere, or even a suggestion that PCs shouldn't use skills or spells to make money. Please point it out for me if there is one. Believe it or not, there's more to the game than killing and looting.
ArcTan 07-10-07, 04:12 PM	Consumers might not know about brand X or Y and how "natural" they are, I am just saying their is a "percieved" naturalness from the consumer based on price, which has been proven. But see, you are now adding that complexity back in by trying to work through proxies or maintain the illusion that you are a legitimate merchant, again adding to cost. Look, no one denies that cartels have plenty of power to force out competitors in the short run. In the long run, though, they can and will totter and fall under their own weight. (*Someone* in the salt cartel must realize they can make huge profits over everyone else in the cartel if they cheat and start making the salt magically. Someone will eventually do this because someone will eventually get cocky. Once they do, the cat is out of the bag -- it's impossible to keep secrets forever, especially when the secret involves minting money hand over fist, and this person's successors will see their competitors get mad and try to steal those profits away by getting in on the magical salt-making game, and poof, magical salt-making is now the order of the day. Classic prisoner's dilemma.) This is one of the best quotes yet and I think that a lot of us may have forgotten about a more bartering based economic system. You are right of course and by reducing the cost of salt, all you really do is make your own value less. Say you would normally swap 3 pounds of salt for a 15gp longsword (no strech of the imagination right? that is how economics used to work, Roman soldiers where not paid in coins but salt) but now because you have such an abundance of salt it only costs 1gp per pound. Now you have to give over 5 times the amount of salt for the same longsword. make salt a zero profit comodity and you could be having to swap 20\30 pounds of salt just for the longsword. Interesting. Er, yes. This is why a monopolist wouldn't want to do it. We're not talking about a salt monopoly. We're talking about a world where anyone who can get this spell can make as much salt as they want. We're talking about you being *forced* to offer more salt for the longsword because there's a hundred guys in this city making salt and if you won't give 20 pounds for the longsword he'll just go to someone else who needs the longsword more than you. Again, this is basic economic theory -- it doesn't matter whether you have a currency to express price in or not, in the long run. Abundance of supply *will* drive prices down in the long run, even if people try to fight it through collusion and price-fixing and other tricks, *especially* in a situation we're talking about where the source is not physically controllable (anyone can make a copy of the spell and cast it to summon salt out of the ether -- no salt mines for you to post guards around). Barter does not change this. Of course, it's moot anyway since we know that this world -- like most fantasy worlds -- is not a pure barter economy, and a pure barter economy could not survive in a world with manufacturing as sophisticated as we know D&D's world has (D&D being at *least* as sophisticated as ancient Greece or medieval Europe). Barter may still exist to a great degree -- barter still exists to some degree in our economy, after all -- but there will *be* currency and prices set in currency, even if currency doesn't change hands ("I want 3 pounds of salt for this longsword! Everyone knows longswords are worth 18 gp and salt is worth 6 gp/pound!").
ArcTan 07-10-07, 04:14 PM	Never serious, always honest ;). You know what's great? All I have to do is care, and your blatant display at flaming disrespect may actually do more than amuse me... just kidding. Even if I cared, you're only begging the thread to be locked and nothing more. Instead, perhaps you could try a novel idea: argue in an un-childish manner. Let me ask you a question. You're obviously against PCs making money. Does this extend to use of the Craft skill? Profession? Perform? Are you against the use of spells and skills as means of PC income? Why would the mechanics exist for the monetary value of skills and spells which are accessible by PCs? I see no rule anywhere, or even a suggestion that PCs shouldn't use skills or spells to make money. Please point it out for me if there is one. Believe it or not, there's more to the game than killing and looting. There's a rule against PCs being able to make unlimited amounts of money for no work at all simply by casting the same spell over and over and over again. It's called common sense.
ArcTan 07-10-07, 04:19 PM	Cool. Guess I made a bad assumption when I saw the discussion progress where it was going. Apologies. As far as spellcasters making money... This is what the RAW says (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spell). I'm fine with PC spellcasters gaining this amount per spell, provided they go through the trouble of finding someone willing to pay them. The DM would make it as difficult or as easy as he would feel is appropriate, and likely try not to let the rest of the players sit there bored during this side-track. Wall of "X" would be no exception, and there would not be (nor should there be) a "logical" explanation as to why they don't get to calculate by density, volume, weight and cost as a trade value. D&D is a game with game mechanics, and they work as long as there's no injection of realism that breaks or overly complicates them (like RL economics). Well, no. They work if everyone works together in good faith to make sure that the world the game mechanics make feels realistic or at least not-totally-stupid to everyone. It's a convention, much as we all know there's no fourth wall on a TV sitcom set, but all the actors agree to not blatantly walk through the nonexistent fourth wall and onto the lot, laughing "Ha ha ha! I can just *walk* to my neighbor's bedroom because it's actually only ten feet away!" The problem with the OP was the selective injection of realism into a fantasy game (designed more for balance than realism) for his own gain. Even worse, the responses were of proposed solutions that included "DM cover up" (some convenient DM-vs. player thing happens to sabotage the scheme), or by injecting more biased realism, which traded one problem (PC money making imbalance) for a host of other complications and possible exploits that change the world. I wouldn't do things that obviously create dangerous chain reactions like having a super-powerful Salt Cartel of Archmages or saying that the spell creates explosive poison salt of Kill You. However, for people who are really into the simulationistic act of trying to make "logical" reasons things happen in the world that go beyond "Hey, guys, y'all agree it'd be stupid if X happened, right?" at the table, then I see no problem whatsoever with "The salt degrades in quality too quickly to use", or simply changing the spell to have a magical duration ("Duration: 1 hour/level") or simply *banning the spell*, which seems hardly intended to be the core of a Wizard's arsenal. (It's from *Sandstorm*, for cripes' sake, a crappy "regional flavor" book.) I don't know why you're counting me as an ally in your little laundry list of complaints, because I'm certainly not an ally in terms of "The RAW should work exactly as the RAW says it should work and DMs who 'nerf' it are persecuting PCs and bad DMs!" I hate that attitude. It ruins games and I want to see it scoured away.
DarkPawn 07-10-07, 04:20 PM	Never serious, always honest ;). You know what's great? All I have to do is care, and your blatant display at flaming disrespect may actually do more than amuse me... just kidding. Even if I cared, you're only begging the thread to be locked and nothing more. Instead, perhaps you could try a novel idea: argue in an un-childish manner. Let me ask you a question. You're obviously against PCs making money. Does this extend to use of the Craft skill? Profession? Perform? Are you against the use of spells and skills as means of PC income? Why would the mechanics exist for the monetary value of skills and spells which are accessible by PCs? I see no rule anywhere, or even a suggestion that PCs shouldn't use skills or spells to make money. Please point it out for me if there is one. Believe it or not, there's more to the game than killing and looting. Honestly, I thought this whole time you were being sarcastic, confrontational, hypocritical, immature, and ignorant, all in the sake of playing devil's advocate and to keep the topic hot. The fact that you now claim we all finally reached your level of understanding, with a straight face...I'm baffled, bewildered and amused. I find your convoluted mind to be hilarious and the fact that you're not even aware of it somewhat pathetic. Arguing with the village fool begs the question. Who is more of a fool? I will therefore remove myself from further arguments with you, for the sake of my sanity and just old self respect. Common sense isn't all too common apparently. ...and with that, I bid you good day! :tiphat:
ArcTan 07-10-07, 04:24 PM	Brings up all kinds of problems. Suppose I had a Conjuration(Creation) spell that produced food, and it had a duration of Permanent instead of Instantaneous. If I were to feed a person with that stuff for a month, then cast dispel magic on him (always works on my own spells! :)) he'd be starving instantly. Apply to the Wall spells. Imagine losing all salt you've eaten in the last 6 months. BOOM you're dead (MDJ is a killer). Or getting your iron +5 holy axiomatic longsword dispelled. I'd hate to see that kind of stuff happen. It's not even fun. It allows for players to screw the DM and the other way round, and I doubt that improves the quality of the game. And it breaks the purpose of the walls: to be an obstacle that can't simply be removed with a dispel magic. Is the purpose of wall of iron to be a wall that can't be removed by dispel magic? Wall of force already does that, without actually making a "nonmagical" wall -- it just says it can't be dispelled. Why not just give the wall of iron a duration but slap the same restriction on it? Or if you're okay with the wall being dispelled by dispel magic, then *yes*, you should give it a duration. That means it will *prevent* anyone from using it for the exploits you're talking about. You *can't* make stuff with the magical iron because it's magical and anyone who can cast detect magic can see it and will know it vanishes. This is, in fact, how minor creation and major creation already work, so I don't see why the existence of magical minerals that vanish after a time is so game-destroying. Also, c'mon. Salt *passes through* your body -- that's why you need to keep on eating it. If I dispelled all the salt in your body *right now* you might die, sure. But if you ate some magic salt a month ago and the ions in it ended up passing through your body and out through urine and sweat, then you're in no danger at all -- the salt already served its function and is now gone. You won't die from it vanishing any more than you'd die because the bridge that supported your weight eight hours ago has now vanished. How about this one: selling walls of Iron and walls of Salt is illegal. One wizard can make thousands of commoners lose their jobs. The government (the King :cool: ) has laws to prevent this. You are free to create walls for personal use. And in case of emergency (such as a dragon preventing merchants from reaching a town, and that town has no more salt or iron) it's allowed to sell a few walls. It sounds okay. If you want to do it, great. It's not really a "realism" factor, though, because these kinds of regulations always end up collapsing eventually in real life.
ArcTan 07-10-07, 04:27 PM	Funny how you guys came to the same basic conclusion I've been endorsing since the get go. Just took a crapload of economic discussion to get to the same endpoint. :P Er, my basic conclusion is "I'm banning wall of salt because it's stupid, and if anyone tries to use wall of iron to do this I'll just ask them nicely not to do it, and keep anyone who looks like they have the mindset to try to do it out of my game because I don't need that crap". The economic discussion is a sidenote. The end result of the economic discussion is "The PCs can't make any money doing this either way, because it's either impossible or if it's possible then salt is literally as cheap as dirt and no one will pay for it". That doesn't sound like your conclusion either. Your conclusion sounds like "PCs should be able to become insta-billionaires through the use of this spell because RAW says so and whenever RAW enables stupid things for the PCs to do it's *fun*!". Which is a conclusion that drives me to conclude you are exactly the kind of person I hate playing D&D with.
malignor 07-10-07, 04:58 PM	I don't know why you're counting me as an ally in your little laundry list of complaints, because I'm certainly not an ally in terms of "The RAW should work exactly as the RAW says it should work and DMs who 'nerf' it are persecuting PCs and bad DMs!" I hate that attitude. It ruins games and I want to see it scoured away.Actually my view is more to the tune of "The RAW works (generally). For every exploit or problem, there's a solution. All solutions are found in game mechanics or just playing it out with common sense." = = = = = Common sense: It takes alot of time and trouble to sell so much salt (or iron). Pawn shops and second-hand stores generally don't take mineral resources in bulk. Common sense: Once you sell the maximum people are willing to buy (or can afford), or they have all they want, they just won't buy anymore. Common sense: Spell prices are already listed. If you don't want them to make alot of money from the spell, there's a listed price in the RAW for spells to use as a maximum. Common sense: No need for "supply and demand", or "market value" and other realistic things, because using those will have other consequences that can be exploited, or that will require rewriting other dependent things (example: reducing value of iron via Wall of Iron sales has consequences on the mechanics of the Craft - armorsmith skill). This results in a mess of patchwork rules. Common sense: Using convenient sabotage to stop the PCs' scheme just hides the problem. It's not a solution, only a sign of adversarial DMing and laziness. Though nothing's wrong with a little laziness when you're only playing a game, there are better ways to handle it. Common sense: Banning the spell does not solve the theoretical problem. It only shows that the DM doesn't want to deal with it; a sign of adversarial DMing and laziness. Though nothing's wrong with a little laziness when you're only playing a game, there are better ways to handle it. Common sense: The DM dictates the pace of the game and dictates when a process is dismissed as successful, or requires excessive and frustratingly boring detail.
ArcTan 07-10-07, 05:21 PM	Actually my view is more to the tune of "The RAW works (generally). For every exploit or problem, there's a solution. All solutions are found in game mechanics or just playing it out with common sense." ...Not for wall of salt. Hell, not for a lot of things. The RAW works, generally, when you play D&D as what it is, a hacky-slashy-dungeon-explorin'-fightin'-game. If you try to turn D&D into a model for economic markets and how a whole civilization works, the RAW is *terrible*. Absolutely *terrible*. The RAW does things like have gold coins that are actually made of pure gold (making gold be apparently hundreds of times more common than it ever was in the real world) and have an iron pot be worth less than its weight in iron and a 10-foot pole cost more than a 10-foot ladder and crap. The RAW says that if ten thousand Wizards all over the world kept casting wall of iron every day the price of iron wouldn't change one whit. Hell, it says that even if you discovered a gigantic iron mine and started doubling the supply of iron in the world, the price of iron wouldn't change one whit. It assumes that the existence of magic fueled by gemstones that irrevocably destroys gemstones hasn't had a pretty strong impact on the market for gems. It thinks of prices as so fixed that it actually *bases spell costs and effects* on them, so that if I destroyed half the diamonds in the world I could now power raise dead with fewer diamonds (because the price of diamonds would go up) -- or, worse, that even if I destroyed half the diamonds in the world the price of diamonds would remain static. It's *stupid*. It clearly is not meant to simulate anything but going out adventuring, going back to town and selling everything, and adventuring again. The old-school 2e books even said so (that D&D's prices are "mining town" prices, prices that are distorted because they're prices for things bought and sold in the very short term by transients who go for a long time with no income and then make really big scores). Even the most basic rule about buying and selling, that selling is *always* 1/2 list price, makes no sense. Prices are prices. Selling for 1/2 list price *only* makes sense if you're a transient passing through town who wants to unload something on the first buyer. Common sense: It takes alot of time and trouble to sell so much salt (or iron). Pawn shops and second-hand stores generally don't take mineral resources in bulk. Sure, but no such provision exists in RAW. RAW says that selling just *happens* when you intend to sell something. Common sense: Once you sell the maximum people are willing to buy (or can afford), or they have all they want, they just won't buy anymore. Also no such provision in RAW. Besides, real life doesn't work like that either. There aren't hard caps. Everyone reaches a point where they could use a little more of something still but won't pay full price for it -- but wouldn't say no to paying for it at a discount. Are you seriously saying that the farmer who buys 30 pounds of salt won't *ever* be willing to buy *any* more than 30 pounds? Even if I say I'll throw on 5 more pounds for, say, 1 silver piece? Common sense: Spell prices are already listed. If you don't want them to make alot of money from the spell, there's a listed price in the RAW for spells to use as a maximum. I don't get what you mean by this. RAW says there's a list price you pay *another spellcaster* to cast a spell for you. By RAW, I could just find a Wizard who already has wall of salt, pay him to cast the spell, then take the salt and sell the salt for the list price to make a several thousand percent profit. Common sense: No need for "supply and demand", or "market value" and other realistic things, because using those will have other consequences that can be exploited, or that will require rewriting other dependent things (example: reducing value of iron via Wall of Iron sales has consequences on the mechanics of the Craft - armorsmith skill). This results in a mess of patchwork rules. Well, sure. But if you can ban realistic things like prices shifting by selling something, you can ban realistic things like being able to sell them in the first place. Saying that dumping iron on the market won't change prices "just because" is no different from saying that you simply can't sell the iron at all "just because". Common sense: Using convenient sabotage to stop the PCs' scheme just hides the problem. It's not a solution, only a sign of adversarial DMing and laziness. Though nothing's wrong with a little laziness when you're only playing a game, there are better ways to handle it. It's not "hiding the problem". The solution to most of these problems is to simply say "It's not allowed" -- that's why the DM exists as a human being rather than a computer. Playing it out with the Archmages of the Salt Guild is silly, but it is, after all, more interesting and fun than simply saying "It's not allowed". Common sense: Banning the spell does not solve the theoretical problem. It only shows that the DM doesn't want to deal with it; a sign of adversarial DMing and laziness. Though nothing's wrong with a little laziness when you're only playing a game, there are better ways to handle it. It's not "laziness". Look, a DM's time is limited, and that time should *always* be spent on things that make the game more fun and better. If patching up theoretical holes takes time and energy away from making the game more fun and better, then the DM absolutely *should* just stop messing with the stupid theoretical holes and do stuff that directly relates to what makes the game fun. It is, after all, only a game, with no goal other than to have fun. Should I also spend all my time figuring out how to fix the Frenzied Berserker rather than just saying "You know, don't use that PrC"? Common sense: The DM dictates the pace of the game and dictates when a process is dismissed as successful, or requires excessive and frustratingly boring detail. Stopping something from working by consciously choosing to make it boring is just another way of saying "You're not allowed to do it", and a far more annoying and antagonistic way -- because I'm messing with my players instead of openly stating my intentions and reasons.
robitusinz 07-10-07, 05:39 PM	Has anyone considered that maybe getting a caster to create salt using Wall of Salt at the "standard" price of of 280gp is the reason for the price of salt being what it is? 5gp is probably the market value of a pound of salt. A Wizard will never be able to selling a million tons of salt for 5gp a piece, unless he sets up his own shop and tends to it. He'd have to sell to a merchant, who'd only pay him 280gp, if he wanted to make the quick sale. Not only that, but wouldn't all the salt spoil without some distribution method? There's only so much salt that people need, after all.
ArcTan 07-10-07, 05:44 PM	Has anyone considered that maybe getting a caster to create salt using Wall of Salt at the "standard" price of of 280gp is the reason for the price of salt being what it is? 5gp is probably the market value of a pound of salt. A Wizard will never be able to selling a million tons of salt for 5gp a piece, unless he sets up his own shop and tends to it. He'd have to sell to a merchant, who'd only pay him 280gp, if he wanted to make the quick sale. ...Which disregards the possibility of a player spending a year setting up his own salt store, which he can easily afford with the wealth of a mid-level character. Yes, you can say "That's not allowed". You can also pretend you're not saying "That's not allowed" by saying "Sure, but we'll roleplay it out" and make "roleplaying it out" exceedingly boring -- which is a stupid bit of deception, since in D&D if you're allowed to do something you *are* allowed to skip roleplaying it out. (You *are*, for instance, allowed to spend months in downtime crafting magic items -- I've done that in campaigns -- without the DM painstakingly "roleplaying out" every single day's worth of work. You're even allowed to have months pass between encounters "training" -- in order to justify levelling up -- without the DM "roleplaying out" the training process.) Not only that, but wouldn't all the salt spoil without some distribution method? There's only so much salt that people need, after all. Salt doesn't spoil. That's the *point* of salt.
malignor 07-10-07, 06:08 PM	The RAW works, generally, when you play D&D as what it is, a hacky-slashy-dungeon-explorin'-fightin'-game. If you try to turn D&D into a model for economic markets and how a whole civilization works, the RAW is *terrible*. Absolutely *terrible*.Agreed. The RAW doesn't have all the answers. It's a simplified set of unrealistic rules designed to accommodate fantasy adventure games. The simplification is something that's important to keep the game running somewhat smoothly. Complicating things with more rules not only threatens the smooth-running simplicity, but can also cause problems when the RAW has all these interdependencies.Sure, but no such provision exists in RAW. I never said it did. Please direct your attention to all the headings of common sense, and the lack of headings for "RAW".Besides, real life doesn't work like that either. There aren't hard caps. Everyone reaches a point where they could use a little more of something still but won't pay full price for it -- but wouldn't say no to paying for it at a discount.On an individual basis, that's fine. But changing listed prices everywhere has side effects, and suddenly the simple rules aren't so simple anymore.But if you can ban realistic things like prices shifting by selling something, you can ban realistic things like being able to sell them in the first place. Saying that dumping iron on the market won't change prices "just because" is no different from saying that you simply can't sell the iron at all "just because".Very different. Barring economic theory is not the same as restricting a player's choice in what their character's actions are. Arbitrarily removing economic theory to keep the gameworld simple is generally good for the game. Arbitrarily cutting off the PCs options of what they can do today is generally not good for the game.It's not "hiding the problem". The solution to most of these problems is to simply say "It's not allowed" -- that's why the DM exists as a human being rather than a computer. Playing it out with the Archmages of the Salt Guild is silly, but it is, after all, more interesting and fun than simply saying "It's not allowed".Funny, coming from someone who says "it's not allowed" in his game. The conclusion I draw from this is that you don't like running interesting games, only restricted ones.It's not "laziness". Look, a DM's time is limited, and that time should *always* be spent on things that make the game more fun and better. If patching up theoretical holes takes time and energy away from making the game more fun and better, then the DM absolutely *should* just stop messing with the stupid theoretical holes and do stuff that directly relates to what makes the game fun. It is, after all, only a game, with no goal other than to have fun. Should I also spend all my time figuring out how to fix the Frenzied Berserker rather than just saying "You know, don't use that PrC"?Hey, I list what books are available in the game. I don't include, for example the Psionics Handbook. Mainly because I feel no interest in including the material in my game, and - let's be honest here - I'm too lazy to read it anyway. I'll admit it. I'll also admit that finding solutions to these problems is often fun, and doesn't take much time at all if you know the game. The "saving time and effort" argument you present is no good.Stopping something from working by consciously choosing to make it boring is just another way of saying "You're not allowed to do it", and a far more annoying and antagonistic way -- because I'm messing with my players instead of openly stating my intentions and reasons.dragging it out versus openly stating intent... you know, those aren't exactly mutually exclusive. I tend to do both: Express my sentiments against a rule-supported side-track, then if they still insist, I drag it out. Usually the rest of the party gives the insistent player a hard time within the first 10 minutes (teasing, etc.) and he gives it up. Funny how nobody complains about it.
ArcTan 07-10-07, 06:19 PM	Agreed. The RAW doesn't have all the answers. It's a simplified set of unrealistic rules designed to accommodate fantasy adventure games. The simplification is something that's important to keep the game running somewhat smoothly. Complicating things with more rules not only threatens the smooth-running simplicity, but can also cause problems when the RAW has all these interdependencies. Right. So the easiest way to solve the problem is simply to *remove a rule* -- that being the existence of spells which generate materials that cost more than the material and XP components of the spell. I never said it did. Please direct your attention to all the headings of common sense, and the lack of headings for "RAW". So why is it okay to violate the RAW for the "common sense" understanding that buying and selling don't work this way, but not the "common sense" understanding that wall of salt is a stupid spell? On an individual basis, that's fine. But changing listed prices everywhere has side effects, and suddenly the simple rules aren't so simple anymore. I never said I would actually do this. This is a reason not to include the real-life economy in D&D at all. By "the real-life economy" I mean *any* instance of PCs buying and selling things in bulk and trying to make a living through trade. You're a PC. Nothing exists in your universe but buying gear and selling loot in town, at least as long as we're in "game mode". Very different. Barring economic theory is not the same as restricting a player's choice in what their character's actions are. Arbitrarily removing economic theory to keep the gameworld simple is generally good for the game. Arbitrarily cutting off the PCs options of what they can do today is generally not good for the game. Sure it is. Players and DMs need to have a social contract about the game. Players shouldn't be allowed to introduce elements that make the game less fun any more than DMs should. A player saying "I'm going to try to become a salt merchant" is just as disruptive an action as a DM saying "There's been a general strike called and there aren't any shops open for you to buy that sword you wanted". I'll also admit that finding solutions to these problems is often fun, and doesn't take much time at all if you know the game. The "saving time and effort" argument you present is no good.dragging it out versus openly stating intent... you know, those aren't exactly mutually exclusive. I tend to do both: Express my sentiments against a rule-supported side-track, then if they still insist, I drag it out. Usually the rest of the party gives the insistent player a hard time within the first 10 minutes (teasing, etc.) and he gives it up. Funny how nobody complains about it. On the other hand, if you just say "I'm not going to do that" and your players respect you enough to respect that, no one has to spend 10 minutes doing nothing in order to punish one guy.
malignor 07-10-07, 06:38 PM	Right. So the easiest way to solve the problem is simply to *remove a rule* -- that being the existence of spells which generate materials that cost more than the material and XP components of the spell.Technically, yes. It is the easiest. But it still doesn't solve the problem for RandomGameGroup5 who actually wants to include the spell. What we do in our game groups versus what we advise others to do don't always have to be the same. The standpoint I argue from is "assuming it's already in the game". Often, you're giving advice to players who are doing the exploiting. Players don't ban things, DMs do. Saying you ban it doesn't do anything for the thread in those cases.So why is it okay to violate the RAW for the "common sense" understanding that buying and selling don't work this way, but not the "common sense" understanding that wall of salt is a stupid spell?It isn't. How, exactly, did I advocate something that violated the RAW?Players and DMs need to have a social contract about the game. Players shouldn't be allowed to introduce elements that make the game less fun any more than DMs should. A player saying "I'm going to try to become a salt merchant" is just as disruptive an action as a DM saying "There's been a general strike called and there aren't any shops open for you to buy that sword you wanted".Though the word "social contract" sounds a little too formal and authoritative, I know what you mean. Agreed.On the other hand, if you just say "I'm not going to do that" and your players respect you enough to respect that, no one has to spend 10 minutes doing nothing in order to punish one guy.Unfortunately, in my 22 years of gaming, I have yet to encounter a single game group that doesn't argue and/or demand thorough explanation when the DM bans things on the fly. Often, dealing with that is far more time consuming (and very not fun) than solving the problem head-on.
Millenia 07-10-07, 07:08 PM	Brings up all kinds of problems. Suppose I had a Conjuration(Creation) spell that produced food, and it had a duration of Permanent instead of Instantaneous. If I were to feed a person with that stuff for a month, then cast dispel magic on him (always works on my own spells! :)) he'd be starving instantly. Apply to the Wall spells. Imagine losing all salt you've eaten in the last 6 months. BOOM you're dead (MDJ is a killer). Or getting your iron +5 holy axiomatic longsword dispelled. I didn't meant "Permanent"; I meant "has a duration of days/hours/minutes/rounds per level." Which means that you can't sell Walls of Food/Iron/Salt the same reason you're not allowed to use Greater Creation to make gold and then sell it: it'll poof before anyone's been able to use it. Also note that I did not mean food-related spells. >>a
sigea 07-10-07, 07:30 PM	Cool. Guess I made a bad assumption when I saw the discussion progress where it was going. Apologies. As far as spellcasters making money... This is what the RAW says (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spell). I'm fine with PC spellcasters gaining this amount per spell, provided they go through the trouble of finding someone willing to pay them. The DM would make it as difficult or as easy as he would feel is appropriate, and likely try not to let the rest of the players sit there bored during this side-track. Wall of "X" would be no exception, and there would not be (nor should there be) a "logical" explanation as to why they don't get to calculate by density, volume, weight and cost as a trade value. D&D is a game with game mechanics, and they work as long as there's no injection of realism that breaks or overly complicates them (like RL economics). Thanks malignor, and I completely agree that the simple way to make this work is to stick to the cost per spell as you have pointed out. There is no need for reason or economic strategy just because someone who created a spell that seemed cool and had flavour (hah, get it:rolleyes: sad I know) for the setting it was placed in didn't think "oh my gosh, if some money hungry munckin wanted to sell the wall of salt, he could work out the volume and mass of the spell, divide it by X and sell it for 5gp per pound making an astronomical profit". Nor would I ever want the designers to have to think this way, just give us stuff that sounds cool and has a "feel" and forget all this rubbish about how unbalancing it is. Unfortunately I think this is degrading more into a "insult malignor" thread as opposed to dealing with the issue from the OP. From my interpretation malignor was trying to show how potential fixes to this issue and the reasoning behind them would only cause more conflict in a game that is suppose to be fun. Personally, I thank you malignor for your spin on this issue, it helps me see alternate sides to the argument which I do\do not have to agree with, but how can I make an informed decision without all the facts right?
malignor 07-10-07, 07:35 PM	Next time I make a conjurer, he's going to rever the obscure god of Wisdom, known as "Sigea", and build a shrine to him. ... out of salt. :cool:
sigea 07-10-07, 08:10 PM	:w00t: :dancin: :cheer: Next time I make a conjurer, he's going to rever the obscure god of Wisdom, known as "Sigea", and build a shrine to him. ... out of salt. :cool: :eek: :dancin: Finally I have a divine rank (until it rains and destroys my shrine at least). Thanks malignor
DarkPawn 07-10-07, 09:27 PM	Malignor please refrain from sending me any other harassing private messages. I truly think you're little unstable and want nothing to do with your obsessive and stalker like behavior. I have left you alone, now pay me back the same courtesy.
Nephlite 07-10-07, 09:57 PM	I didn't meant "Permanent"; I meant "has a duration of days/hours/minutes/rounds per level." Which means that you can't sell Walls of Food/Iron/Salt the same reason you're not allowed to use Greater Creation to make gold and then sell it: it'll poof before anyone's been able to use it. Also note that I did not mean food-related spells. >>a Minor Creation lasts 1 hr/level so you could sell it: the buyer won't find out for a day. So why should Greater Creation be different.
malignor 07-10-07, 10:59 PM	Malignor please refrain from sending me any other harassing private messages. I truly think you're little unstable and want nothing to do with your obsessive and stalker like behavior. I have left you alone, now pay me back the same courtesy.Stop trying to publicly humiliate me, DP. If you're going to argue and fight to get the last word, do it like a civilized human being, against the arguments. Not personal attacks. Stalker? I sent only this one message, because I have the decency to keep personal matters discreet:Subject: It was fun ... watching you resort to public personal attacks, that is. What's the matter? Can't keep up? Tell you what: Just take your time. The trick is to follow the argument to its logical conclusion. If you do that, you can actually come up with stuff that's not so full of holes. Practice, and we'll see if you learned anything next time.Having difficulty counting to 1? Messages means plural. I said it once, I'll say it again: Stop trying to publicly humiliate me. I have a post full of links to my arguments ready and waiting. Pick up the gauntlet or apologize.
ArcTan 07-10-07, 11:52 PM	Unfortunately, in my 22 years of gaming, I have yet to encounter a single game group that doesn't argue and/or demand thorough explanation when the DM bans things on the fly. Often, dealing with that is far more time consuming (and very not fun) than solving the problem head-on. But making something impossible by stalling until he gives up *is* banning it on the fly. You're just (very shallowly) disguising it, instead of just saying "I won't do it". If that's the kind of game you have to play to get people to accept your rulings, then fine, but it seems dumb to me.
ArcTan 07-10-07, 11:53 PM	Minor Creation lasts 1 hr/level so you could sell it: the buyer won't find out for a day. So why should Greater Creation be different. Major creation is different because the more expensive the thing you try to make the less time it lasts, which makes sense (at least to me).
Millenia 07-10-07, 11:55 PM	Minor Creation lasts 1 hr/level so you could sell it: the buyer won't find out for a day. So why should Greater Creation be different. Because gold only lasts one round per caster level. And.... you'll eventually gain a poor reputation for selling things that will poof, so you won't be able to sell even legitimate items because the others will fear being ripped off.
malignor 07-11-07, 12:01 AM	But making something impossible by stalling until he gives up *is* banning it on the fly. You're just (very shallowly) disguising it, instead of just saying "I won't do it". If that's the kind of game you have to play to get people to accept your rulings, then fine, but it seems dumb to me.I guess you just have to see it in practice. I do warn against it beforehand, too. It's not without warning or (brief) explanation. But it's a rare occurrence in my experience. Those DMs who are good at dangling the proverbial carrot in front of the party almost never have to worry about this sort of side tracking in the first place.
Nephlite 07-11-07, 12:41 AM	Because gold only lasts one round per caster level. And.... you'll eventually gain a poor reputation for selling things that will poof, so you won't be able to sell even legitimate items because the others will fear being ripped off. Depending on alignment and willinness to lie/bluff: I'll blame Dragonds stealing my gold and not that I knew the cins would disappear. Blame the Dragons!!! :D (like the saying Blame Canada)
sigea 07-11-07, 01:07 AM	But making something impossible by stalling until he gives up *is* banning it on the fly. You're just (very shallowly) disguising it, instead of just saying "I won't do it". If that's the kind of game you have to play to get people to accept your rulings, then fine, but it seems dumb to me. I can't say I agree with your line of reasoning ArcTan. I think it is perfectly resonable to show players that while they can chase the dream of making ridiculous amounts of money from abusing the system (not something I look favourably upon), that chasing said dream is not fun and not in the spirit of what playing DnD is about. If anything I would say this takes more patience and expertise for a DM to be willing to go through the pain of showing the player the truth about what they are trying to do and instead of outrightly banning the spell, showing good reason why it is not feasable to do so making them think twice before doing it again.
ArcTan 07-11-07, 06:07 AM	I can't say I agree with your line of reasoning ArcTan. I think it is perfectly resonable to show players that while they can chase the dream of making ridiculous amounts of money from abusing the system (not something I look favourably upon), that chasing said dream is not fun and not in the spirit of what playing DnD is about. If anything I would say this takes more patience and expertise for a DM to be willing to go through the pain of showing the player the truth about what they are trying to do and instead of outrightly banning the spell, showing good reason why it is not feasable to do so making them think twice before doing it again. Er, why exactly isn't it feasible? My point is that unless you actually play *everything* a PC does in real time -- so that you painstakingly roleplay out the tedious, long process of work it takes to craft a magic item, or the months of time that pass between adventures, or the hours of drills it takes to keep your fighting skills up to trim -- then there's no *inherent* reason a player can't say "Okay, I spend the next year setting myself up as a salt merchant in the big city, making connections, hiring dealers, and so on". It's really the same as "Well, I'm gonna spend the next few weeks of downtime crafting stuff" or "We hire a caravan and spend the next six months travelling to the southern continent". The only reason to painstakingly "roleplay out" the first one and not the second two is because you the DM want to *encourage* the first one and *discourage* the second two. Which means you can just say "Don't do that, it ruins the game" anyway.
robitusinz 07-11-07, 01:33 PM	...Which disregards the possibility of a player spending a year setting up his own salt store, which he can easily afford with the wealth of a mid-level character. Yes, you can say "That's not allowed". You can also pretend you're not saying "That's not allowed" by saying "Sure, but we'll roleplay it out" and make "roleplaying it out" exceedingly boring -- which is a stupid bit of deception, since in D&D if you're allowed to do something you *are* allowed to skip roleplaying it out. (You *are*, for instance, allowed to spend months in downtime crafting magic items -- I've done that in campaigns -- without the DM painstakingly "roleplaying out" every single day's worth of work. You're even allowed to have months pass between encounters "training" -- in order to justify levelling up -- without the DM "roleplaying out" the training process.) Salt doesn't spoil. That's the *point* of salt. Fine, forget salt spoiling. Your profits are still limited by your distribution system. Regardless of where a Wizard sets up his salt business, there's only going to be so many people in existence to buy his salt. If we assume he sets up shop in a metropolis of 200,000 people, and these people consume 1 pound of salt every 3 months, then he'll make 1 million gp every 3 months, or 333,000 gp a month (using nice round figures, since I don't want to have to split hairs on the arithmetic). Now, one has to wonder what the likelihood is of a Wizard being the sole salt provider in a metropolis of 200,000 people. Not only that, but if you're making 333K a month, who WOULDN'T want a piece of that? What's to keep a rival from killing the Wizard? What's to keep another Wizard from doing the exact same thing, and causing the value of salt to plummet? Not only that, but where the heck does the Wizard keep 1 million pounds of salt safely and efficiently? Maybe some massive Portable Hole? At the very least, what's to keep the general populace from simply boycotting the Wizard? If I knew a guy had 30 tons of something I wanted lying about, and I had other means of acquring the same product, I would definitely wait to see the guy drop his price. I'm just thinking that if we seriously wanted to inject a true dose of economic reality to D&D, the system would simply work itself out. If you're going to realistically model the creation of salt and iron based on a Wizard's spell output, then you will have to realistically model every other aspect of reality such output would affect. A Wizard who starts spamming Wall of Salt is going to make MAYBE 10,000 gp before the price of salt absolutely plummets, or the cost of his operation increases. Even if he simply sold to other merchants, those merchants just couldn't take the sheer volume of 1 million pounds of salt at 5gp a pound. Any merchant he approached would offer to buy salt at his typical wholesale price and volume...not 1 million pounds at 5gp a pound. "I'll give you 1.5 gp a pound for 300 pounds." = 350 gp. That doesn't sound unrealistic at all, considering that a pound of salt lasts the average household of 4 a couple of months, at least, if all they're using it for is spicing up food. A butcher, or certain farmers who cured their own meats might require more, but I doubt the deviation is that extreme. Of course, if the infallible rule is that salt costs 5gp a pound, and any merchant a Wizard goes to will buy 1 million pounds worth, then by all means, the D&D economic system is "broken" (nevermind that the DM probably has a sub-standard IQ). From wikipedia: USA: The Food and Drug Administration itself does not make a recommendation[39] but refers readers to Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005. These suggest that US citizens should consume less than 2,300 mg of sodium (= 2.3 g sodium = 5.8 g salt) per day. 1 pound = 454 grams (rounding up) At 5.8 grams per day, it would take a person (following US dietary guidelines) 78 days to go through 1 pound of salt. That's 2.5 months, so my initial calculation of a pound of salt lasting someone 3 months isn't off. So, basically, nobody's going to be buying a million pounds of salt any time soon, especially when salt doesn't spoil. There just aren't enough people that are easily accessible. Can a Wizard become rich off of Wall of Salt? Of course, but probably not much more than your typical Salt merchant. If he stuck to a single city, he might be able to make himself the single source of salt and reap huge rewards, and if he used Teleport and various portable holes to store salt in multiple cities, then he could make quite a lot of cash, but all the "Wall of Salt" spell would be doing is giving him 0 cost for the commodity he's selling. Even so, there'd still be "adventuring" inherent in doing something like this. Like I've already mentioned, said Wizard would have to fight off rivals, guilds that would want a "cut", and figure out a way to sell and distribute his product. He'd eventually have to pay underlings, and he would definitely have to pay a few people to actually unload, weigh, and parcel out the perfect 1 pound cubes of salt for sale. It'd be an endeavor that would bore all but the most gp-focused wizard. It's not something that he could do "for a month", get his money, and keep on adventuring. He either has to get serious about it to make his tons of cash, or make a quick sale at some disgustingly cheap price.
malignor 07-11-07, 01:38 PM	Fine. Fine. We'll agree to disagree on that point, ArcTan. "To ban or drag out" is not particularly relevant to this problem itself, anyway, so much as a choice of DM styles at handling problematic mechanics in general (until a real solution is worked out). Here's another angle to look at it from. Possibly another solution. I'm going to go slowly, as communication can't keep up with thought (this came to me in the under 12 seconds). So this will probably look bigger than it needs to be. Now I don't have immediate access to Wall of Salt, so we'll go with spells in general. Let's throw together a collection of 11th level characters who don't cash in on exploits, and see how much money they make. 11th level Weaponsmith (Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, Ranger, Sorcerer, Wizard) - 14 ranks, stat +3, skill focus +3, masterwork tool +2... total +22 - take 10, get a check result of 32 - Simple Weapon = DC 12 x 32 = 384sp = 38gp per week - Martial Weapon = DC 15 x 32 = 480sp = 48gp per week - Masterwork Addition = DC 20 x 32 = 640sp = 64gp per week - roughly 5.5 to 9 gp per day. 11th level Performer (Bard, Monk or Rogue) - 14 ranks, stat +3, skill focus +3, masterwork instrument +2... total +22 - take 10, get a check result of 32 - 3d6 gp per day, for an average of 10.5gp per day. 11th level Profession (Cleric, Rogue, Wizard) - 14 ranks, stat +3, skill focus +3, masterwork tools +2 ... total +22 - take 10, get a check result of 32 - 32 gp per week - roughly 4 gp per day 11th level Tumble (Bard, Rogue) as Perform substitute - 14 ranks, stat +3, skill focus +3, synergy from Jump +2 ... total +22 - take 10, get a check result of 32 - 3d6 gp per day, for an average of 10.5gp per day. = = = = = So it looks like an 11th level character can legitimately make 4-10 gold per day using skills. Now we have a standard of what an 11th level character can make for money, legitimately, per day. Now all we have to do is "invent" a reason why the conjurer can't make significantly more than that. They can make more, just not alot more. The answer is in the buyers of the conjured commodities, which the DM has arbitrary control over. What can they afford? How much do they really have a use for? Let's say you want the conjurer to be able to make around 12gp per day. 12gp/day = 2 pounds of salt, or 120 pounds of iron. Sounds pretty small for a town's daily consumption of salt or iron, doesn't it? Well that's where the "invention" comes in: That's all they need, or have use for. They'd probably buy a month's worth of that amount at a time (360gp, 60 pounds of salt or 3600 pounds of iron). Maybe the wizard can go through extensive effort to arrange to be the sole supplier for a large city, undergoing some great projects. But now it's no longer a single person. Messengers have to be hire to handle the ordering. Book keeping and so on should also be set up (tax collecters would demand as much). These cost money, for wages and renting an office. Now the conjurer can make big money, but now he's not a single person making money, he's a business owner. I'm sure the business owner of a clothing manufacturer would make similar income. Actually the conjurer pockets the difference he saves by conjuring instead of mining, so he'd make substantially more. But it would still be limited by the need for the commodity. There. An in-game solution that turns a money making scheme into the result of sensible business dealings.
sigea 07-11-07, 07:16 PM	Er, why exactly isn't it feasible? My point is that unless you actually play *everything* a PC does in real time -- so that you painstakingly roleplay out the tedious, long process of work it takes to craft a magic item, or the months of time that pass between adventures, or the hours of drills it takes to keep your fighting skills up to trim -- then there's no *inherent* reason a player can't say "Okay, I spend the next year setting myself up as a salt merchant in the big city, making connections, hiring dealers, and so on". It's really the same as "Well, I'm gonna spend the next few weeks of downtime crafting stuff" or "We hire a caravan and spend the next six months travelling to the southern continent". The only reason to painstakingly "roleplay out" the first one and not the second two is because you the DM want to *encourage* the first one and *discourage* the second two. Which means you can just say "Don't do that, it ruins the game" anyway. It's quite easy really. I have my players make a list of "assumptions" of what they do when they have a bit of down time, which means that most of them know exactly what they do with a spare day off. Some use the first day as hangover day, then the fighter will usually practice with the other fighter types or spend time helping out the lowly cleric swing that club just a bit better. The wizard has wholed himself up in his room or hired a wizards lab to start crafting. The weaponsmith does the same. with a few exceptions I don't know of that many skills that require down time to also require that you make the item as a whole - to make a long sword you don't have to spend every minute doing so, you can make a bit here, make a bit there and so on. Same with professions and performing and craft skills. Granted that magic items require an uniterupted process but this does not normally take up that much time (1 day per 1,0000 gp). Now in my game and the ones I play in, the world continues to revolve even if the characters decide that they don't want to play Hero today. If the BBEG was planning on conquering the world in 6 months time due to some castoclismic event, then he continues to do so while the party tries and sells salt to the soon to be undead abominations that will definately not need salt. Alternatively, the party can lug around a huge wall of salt and try to sell bags of it off in each little hamlet they come across. Something tells me that the logistics of this scheme just don't work. By the way, have a look at the maximum gp limit in those small villages and towns that PC come accross most often in their travels. Hence, yes, it is feasable to make them play it out, because the only way they make money from this is if they have high ranks in bluff, diplomacy and profession merchant and can find towns large enough to accomidate the profits they wish to achieve. and seeing a wizard cast a spell that instantly creates salt would cause one of two things - other wizards would pay for the spell and do it themselves, or canny merchants would go "hey, that's not real, and you can do it with ease, I will give you 5sp per pound I can sell through my channels".