PDA

View Full Version : On Wealth By Level



shadow_archmagi
2010-01-17, 08:37 AM
Let's imagine a party of four. They're all level five, and so they should have 9000 gp in items each at this point.

Party Member 1 is a fighter who doesn't get along with the wizard, so he spent all his money on potions of Bulls Strength and Haste, which he drank at any encounter where he thought it'd be helpful. Now he has no potions and no GP.

Party Member 2 is an artificer. He kept all the coins the party found, and then used the 9000 gp to make a pair of +3 cloaks of resistance. He lets the party fighter wear one, but insists that they are both legally his to loan, retract, or sell at his whim and the party agrees.

Party Member 3 is a bard. He's been collecting all the random bits of loot the rest of the party didn't want, (A magic belt of this, boots of that, and so on) so he has about 12,000 gp worth of items, although many of them are extremely circumstantial and can't be used at the same time (he has fourteen different pairs of magic boots!)

Party Member 4 is a wizard. He spent all his money on buying scrolls and scribing them into his spellbook. He still has the spellbook, but the scrolls are long since gone.


Where does each party member stand in terms of WBL and what is the appropriate action to take?

Runestar
2010-01-17, 08:43 AM
That is a pretty screwed up party you have there...:smallsigh:

Sliver
2010-01-17, 08:51 AM
It's just guidelines for starting a campaign, assuming the party members just met and survived before or didn't dislike each other..

mostlyharmful
2010-01-17, 08:57 AM
yup, answer is whatever you want. unfortunately.

Each has a measure of power (what WBL is actually about) but your question is about short term burn versus permenant gear which gets into how fast you want to refresh their wealth. Each strategy has its uses in terms of using up WBL and its unreasonable for the DM to completely ofset each 'use up' instantly but it's also crappy to never let them get new stuff as each class benefits from different wealth use.

I'd go with a position that each has used WBL and consider them even but set up future rewards to favour permenant stuff that benifits the melee characters using it.

The Artifacer is built around WBL manipulation, it's only fair that he sees some payoff for it,

The Meleer has made some bad choices and needs to work on his long term strategy, he's not going to be motivated to do that if he never feels the burn. point out to him that it's his problem to mend bridges with the mage.

the rogue is over WBL sure but chances are that none of it's all that useful, seeing as how WBL is actually about power I reckon it shoud be GEAR by level, if he starts selling it for stuff he can use then theres no problem so just set up the exchange rate to favour rebalancing.

The Wizard has spells in his book, he still has the permenant additional power of the WBL in his potential versitility, that should be taken into account but at a reduced rate from the scrolls since it's only potential power rather than actual power to be yanked out at a moments notice.

jmbrown
2010-01-17, 08:57 AM
WBL is an inherently flawed system and only serves as a guideline as what people should get. If someone spends the entirety of their wealth on potions or scrolls, then their entire WBL went to a consumable item and they're less effective than a like character with the same wealth who bought permanent items.

If you, as DM, want to "balance" things out then give the fighter in your scenario more permanent treasures. The wizard isn't worse off because his spells are permanent and the artificier can screw up WBL from the start anyways.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-17, 08:58 AM
It's just a guideline.

I play in one game that adheres closely to RAW...and loot is generally rolled up randomly, and found in cashes/on bodies. Some members of the party are kleptos, while others barely manage to pay off their rez bill. Overall, the party probably follows WBL, more or less, but some are above and some are definitely below.

Massive consumable use is tempting early on, as it can make you relatively uber....but it's a bad practice to continue, at least, if you like gear.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-17, 09:11 AM
At this point, the fighter is sort of screwed. Correcting this may be a good idea. Don't boost him up to full WBL - he used consumables, he had a temporary advantage, he should pay the price now. But some small permanent bonuses here and there, representing the magical residue left on his soul by all the potion use, could be useful to restore balance. Hell, you could even make a prestige class tailored to his potion-scarfing ways.

Penitent
2010-01-17, 09:29 AM
Over the next couple encounters you should come up with the following things:

1) 2250gp.
2) 4500gp worth of magic items for the fighter, IE a suit of +1 fullplate and a +1 Sword and 1000gp in potions.
3) 9000gp worth of Wizardly items.
4) The normal treasure expectation of the encounters if they had all started at full WBL.

You work people up to full WBL. Overuse of consumables is something that you just have to hope your players don't do.

In this case, the Fighters use was not bad enough to justify retribution.

2xMachina
2010-01-17, 09:34 AM
Drop him some gear, and less gold.

Unless he's selling useful gear, this will limit his potion drinking.

Jack_Simth
2010-01-17, 10:20 AM
It's just guidelines for starting a campaign, assuming the party members just met and survived before or didn't dislike each other..

It's ... slightly more than that, actually.

See, Wealth is one of the ways character power is measured. As the party gets progressively more off WBL, then the CR system becomes progressively less useful (not that it's overly useful as is... but that's beside the point).

In making the game, the designers had a choice:
1) They could design the game assuming negligible wealth - in which case, when characters got useful wealth, game balance would become worse (things get too easy).
2) They could design the game assuming some particular wealth progression - in which case, things are harder for the characters that don't have as much as expected, and easier for those who have more than expected.

Option 1 will break most games - as almost every DM will put wealth into the party.
Option 2 will break some games - but it at least lets the DM reward the party with cool stuff without breaking the game every time. As a side effect, though, you have questions like this: What to do with the guy who sqanders, or what to do with the guy who's particularly canny? Additionally, players end up with a sense of entitlement, and magic items don't seem quite so magical.

There's no good answer outside of individual gaming groups.

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-17, 11:51 AM
I disagree with most of the posters here. Drop the same amounts of cash as you always would. If the Artificer is over WBL, well, that's a class feature. The Bard is going to great lengths to save cash, let him benefit from it. The Wizard still has the cash, it's just all invested in his spellbook instead of in scrolls. And the Fighter focused on the short term, he needs to reap the rewards of that style of thinking.

Lapak
2010-01-17, 12:41 PM
In making the game, the designers had a choice:
1) They could design the game assuming negligible wealth - in which case, when characters got useful wealth, game balance would become worse (things get too easy).
2) They could design the game assuming some particular wealth progression - in which case, things are harder for the characters that don't have as much as expected, and easier for those who have more than expected.
***
There's no good answer outside of individual gaming groups.
Sure there is.
Modified Option 1 / Option 3: Wealth is not convertable into adventuring power. Design the game assuming wealth is not directly connected to personal power. If the players have it, they can acquire indirect power like estates and businesses; if they don't have it, it doesn't materially affect their adventuring. Also known as the "magic items are available for purchase" theory.

And in this case, I think that's the route to go down to solve the hypothetical party's balance problems: the next few treasure hauls should include useful permanent gear that the fighter can make the best use of. The bard is fine, the artificier will balance out as the cash flow is reduced, and tossing a (semi)permanent item or two the wizard's way wouldn't be a bad thing either.

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-17, 12:47 PM
And in this case, I think that's the route to go down to solve the hypothetical party's balance problems: the next few treasure hauls should include useful permanent gear that the fighter can make the best use of. The bard is fine, the artificier will balance out as the cash flow is reduced, and tossing a (semi)permanent item or two the wizard's way wouldn't be a bad thing either.Why? Why should the DM fix their character decisions for them?

Tyndmyr
2010-01-17, 12:53 PM
I disagree with most of the posters here. Drop the same amounts of cash as you always would. If the Artificer is over WBL, well, that's a class feature. The Bard is going to great lengths to save cash, let him benefit from it. The Wizard still has the cash, it's just all invested in his spellbook instead of in scrolls. And the Fighter focused on the short term, he needs to reap the rewards of that style of thinking.

Im with this. Chugging potions IS rewarding in the short term, at the expense of some long term power. But hey, that's a valid tactic to take, just as the penny pincher who scrips now trades short term power for power later.

Otherwise, by trying to "fix" it, all you're doing is encouraging consumable abuse.

Doug Lampert
2010-01-17, 01:35 PM
Im with this. Chugging potions IS rewarding in the short term, at the expense of some long term power. But hey, that's a valid tactic to take, just as the penny pincher who scrips now trades short term power for power later.

Otherwise, by trying to "fix" it, all you're doing is encouraging consumable abuse.

Second.

Consumables run roughly 20x to 50x as much BANG for your buck on any one encounter. That's a BIG gain in power. You only have 13 encounters per level, and then at the next level the rewards are much larger. In terms of actual power someone who uses consumables wisely is ALWAYS ahead of someone who hoards.

At even vaguely reasonable usage, by the time consumable use noticably impacts wealth you've got lots more wealth which can be spent on more consumables.

Granted, potions are (relatively speaking) crap. You actually can fall behind since they're only about 10x the bang for the buck. But your fighter shouldn't be bankrupt, he should have his entire share from the LAST adventure in additional consumables for the NEXT adventure.

Given the rapid wealth escalation of D&D this actually means he has a substantial fraction of his expected wealth by level, and it's ALL in the bigger bang for a buck potions and oils and the like. Don't give any additional boost to consumable usage by "making up" for some imaginary disadvantage to consumables.

IME the only consumable expense that matters is the cost of the Resurection magic you need if you used too few OTHER consumables in that last encounter. (I've seen MULTIPLE deaths in a single campaign I ran directly attributable to someone saying something like: "those last few HP aren't worth a CLW charge off the wand, I'll go on this way", and then dieing by LESS than the unimportant HP they retained. I actually pointed out to the party that those particular characters had clearly COST themselves something like 60,000 GP saving a handful of 15 GP wand charges and could they please SPEND THE BLOODY CHARGES ALREADY, they were still reluctant to "waste" consumables. Morons.)

Consumables are good enough. You get what you pay for.

MickJay
2010-01-17, 01:41 PM
The thing is, chugging potions is, indirectly, benefiting all of the party, including the wizard. The wizard, on the other hand, by withdrawing his support, is effectively deducting the cost of potions from fighter's wbl, thus making him (and the party as whole) less effective. The fighter could just announce one day "that's it, I can't afford the potions anymore, and with my current equipment, I'm more than likely to die. I'll be using my bow and stand behind the wizard instead of protecting him in front".

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-17, 01:45 PM
The thing is, chugging potions is, indirectly, benefiting all of the party, including the wizard. The wizard, on the other hand, by withdrawing his support, is effectively deducting the cost of potions from fighter's wbl, thus making him (and the party as whole) less effective. The fighter could just announce one day "that's it, I can't afford the potions anymore, and with my current equipment, I'm more than likely to die. I'll be using my bow and stand behind the wizard instead of protecting him in front".How? The Wizard is putting all of his money into long-term power boosts(in the form of more spells known). The Fighter is spending large amounts of money per fight, leaving him with less for later fights. The Wizard is working for the long-term benefit of the party, the Fighter for the short-term.

Crow
2010-01-17, 01:48 PM
I don't see a problem here with WBL. You awarded them treasure, and they used it however they saw fit. If they're under-equipped due to their own spending habits, that's not your problem. You've done your job already.

The best thing to do would be to try and foster a little team spirit, because the characters sound like holes. The bard is fine, and the artificer is at least helping out his buddies, even though the "cloak is still mine" thing is a little gay. The wizard and fighter on the other hand...are just ridiculous. You have to step back a moment and ask, "Why are these guys even adventuring together?". If I were the fighter, I'd take my next haul of treasure and just go buy a farm somewhere.


The Wizard is working for the long-term benefit of the party, the Fighter for the short-term.


Wrong. The wizard is working for the benefit of himself. If he gave two-****s about the party, he wouldn't be refusing to buff the fighter and leaving the fighter to waste all his WBL.

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-17, 01:56 PM
Wrong. The wizard is working for the benefit of himself. If he gave two-****s about the party, he wouldn't be refusing to buff the fighter and leaving the fighter to waste all his WBL.I read the OP as saying "The fighter is refusing buffs from the Wizard, saying 'I can do it myself' and using potions". Though in retrospect, I can see how you could get the other impression. OP? Which is it?

'The Cloak is still mine' is saying "I'm not a computerized NPC, if I give you an item to help you, I expect you to use it as long as you need it and return it when you don't. Don't sell it, and if I need to sell it, I will. Its not a gift, it's me trying to help you out by sacrificing my own power, and I'll want that power back at some point."

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-17, 01:58 PM
I disagree with most of the posters here. Drop the same amounts of cash as you always would. If the Artificer is over WBL, well, that's a class feature. The Bard is going to great lengths to save cash, let him benefit from it. The Wizard still has the cash, it's just all invested in his spellbook instead of in scrolls.
This is true. However...


And the Fighter focused on the short term, he needs to reap the rewards of that style of thinking.
He's a Fighter. And he has no wizard support, and now no magic items. He sucks. He's not focused on the short term, he's taking a hit because he's roleplaying the part of his character that dislikes the wizard. Don't punish him for that.

Crow
2010-01-17, 01:59 PM
I read the OP as saying "The fighter is refusing buffs from the Wizard, saying 'I can do it myself' and using potions". Though in retrospect, I can see how you could get the other impression. OP? Which is it?

My bad, yes I was looking at it from a different perspective than you were. Clarification from the OP would be great.

Jack_Simth
2010-01-17, 02:12 PM
Sure there is.
Modified Option 1 / Option 3: Wealth is not convertable into adventuring power. Design the game assuming wealth is not directly connected to personal power. If the players have it, they can acquire indirect power like estates and businesses; if they don't have it, it doesn't materially affect their adventuring. Also known as the "magic items are available for purchase" theory.

In which case, wealth is effectively not useful, and thus, nonexistent outside of flavor. Which is option 1 again, where the dice meet the table. People will search out better defenses and offenses (especially if they've recently had a close call) ... and when the Paladin/Fighter/Cleric/whatever wants to purchase/steal/commission/craft a suit of fullplate, it tends to break verisimilitude when that plate has no mechanical impact. It also tends to break verisimilitude when it cannot be purchased/stolen/commissioned/crafted - except in fairly specific settings, anyway. So if there aren't specific rules for putting on steel plates, DM's will make them up when it is totally reasonable for it to happen... and you've got the same problem in that now the character has picked up some useful wealth, and the system isn't really designed to handle it.

tyckspoon
2010-01-17, 02:13 PM
At even vaguely reasonable usage, by the time consumable use noticably impacts wealth you've got lots more wealth which can be spent on more consumables.

Going strictly by what the OP said, what the fighter is doing isn't vaguely reasonable. It's dumb- if he keeps on his current course, he's going to need to use more and more and more expensive consumables every fight, expending more and more buff rounds (potions are horribly inefficient ways to get spells going..) where he could have been doing something useful, just to keep pace with the numbers he should have been getting as static bonuses from his gear.

Of course, dear OP didn't provide enough details to say absolutely that this is what the fighter is doing. Is he converting *all* of his wealth into consumables, even liquidating solid assets in order to feed his potion habit? That's self-defeating, and unfortunately probably not fixable just by placing some treasure with a huge "USE THIS FIGHTER" beacon- he'll just sell it for more crack potions. If he's just using his own portion of the liquid treasure to buy potions (art objects, coinage, magical trinkets that even the bard doesn't have a use for) that's not a major problem.

I also agree that party dis-unity is a major contributor. The Bard's got 12k worth of mostly-useless magic crap, the party has an Artificer. In a party that is actually working together the Artificer could turn that stuff into 16-20k worth of whatever the party wants or needs.

Penitent
2010-01-17, 02:20 PM
Am I the only one who thinks this is a hypothetical situation created to get opinions about WBL, and not an actual party?

shadow_archmagi
2010-01-17, 02:21 PM
OP? Which is it?


At this point I could just say "We are *imagining* this party. They're just a variety of various scenarios that represent the sort of things that might come up in a game.

Or I could say that the Fighter started it and then the Wizard aggravated it.

I'm actually quite surprised at the prevalent "The fighter should be punished for his foolishness in just letting his item stockpile crumble away, while the wizard has done rightly in spending investing his items towards a brighter future" attitude.

Personally I had been leaning towards the attitude that once a consumable has been used it is no longer part of your wealth and should be replaced eventually. That is to say, if I buy, say, a powerful scroll of fireball instead of a weaker wand of fireball, I'm paying a serious opportunity costs. There will be fights where instead of getting to use my shiny swag I have to say "No, this is not serious enough to warrant spending" and, if I do end up using it, there will be fights afterwords where I say "I sure do wish I still had that scroll."

That delay between "I have used my consumables!" and "I have gotten my money back!" seems to me to be enough of a drawback.

But the forum seems to disagree with me. Very interesting indeed. A shame there is no philosophical smiley.


EDIT: Penitant has correctly noted that my post starts with the word "imagine"

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-17, 02:24 PM
Am I the only one who thinks this is a hypothetical situation created to get opinions about WBL, and not an actual party?That's what I suspect, too, but we still need to know whether it's the Fighter being an idiot or the Wizard being a jerk. Both are possible, but if it's the Wizard being a jerk, then my response would be very different, and would probably involve OoC talks.

Also, remember that consumable wealth is built into the system. The average rewards per encounter over the course of a level work out to more than the increase in WBL over that same level. The designers anticipated a certain use of consumables.

Edit: The fighter made a decision to trade long term power for short term. Just like if the Wizard took Precocious Apprentice, which is a waste after level 5 but matters at level one, and such a decision should be treated the same way.

mostlyharmful
2010-01-17, 02:32 PM
That delay between "I have used my consumables!" and "I have gotten my money back!" seems to me to be enough of a drawback.

But the forum seems to disagree with me. Very interesting indeed. A shame there is no philosophical smiley.

Not all the forum, I think we're in loose agreement but I can see the merits of both positions.

Lapak
2010-01-17, 02:46 PM
Why? Why should the DM fix their character decisions for them?
Well, partly because of this:


The thing is, chugging potions is, indirectly, benefiting all of the party, including the wizard. The wizard, on the other hand, by withdrawing his support, is effectively deducting the cost of potions from fighter's wbl, thus making him (and the party as whole) less effective. The fighter could just announce one day "that's it, I can't afford the potions anymore, and with my current equipment, I'm more than likely to die. I'll be using my bow and stand behind the wizard instead of protecting him in front".
If you want the team to function AS a team, they all have to be able to contribute. It's great in theory to say 'the fighter made his bed, now he has to lie in it,' but not only is that no fun for the player who may have invested quite a bit of time in his character and now finds he cannot contribute, it hurts the ability of the party as a whole to function. The first priority should not be 'play right'; it should be 'have fun.' If the fighter made mistakes, I don't need to leave him permanently behind in WBL to punish him for it. And if you reduce the amount of incoming cash, he can't have his cake and eat it to by continuing to expend consumables.


In which case, wealth is effectively not useful, and thus, nonexistent outside of flavor. Which is option 1 again, where the dice meet the table.Wealth is certainly still useful; the man who owns a major trading cartel has options his impoverished-traveler buddy who blew every reward in taverns does not, and a mage who rules a barony has hugely significant support options when compared with one who lives alone in a tower. But that usefulness isn't adventuring-combat-rounds usefulness.

Note that I'm not saying this is an option in 3.5; the designers DID make wealth-as-raw-power part of the system there. I'm just saying it's a third option in RPG design in general.


People will search out better defenses and offenses (especially if they've recently had a close call) ... and when the Paladin/Fighter/Cleric/whatever wants to purchase/steal/commission/craft a suit of fullplate, it tends to break verisimilitude when that plate has no mechanical impact. It also tends to break verisimilitude when it cannot be purchased/stolen/commissioned/crafted - except in fairly specific settings, anyway. So if there aren't specific rules for putting on steel plates, DM's will make them up when it is totally reasonable for it to happen... and you've got the same problem in that now the character has picked up some useful wealth, and the system isn't really designed to handle it.I'm referring mainly to extraordinary/magical influence here, not mundane equipment.

lsfreak
2010-01-17, 02:53 PM
Personally I had been leaning towards the attitude that once a consumable has been used it is no longer part of your wealth and should be replaced eventually. That is to say, if I buy, say, a powerful scroll of fireball instead of a weaker wand of fireball, I'm paying a serious opportunity costs. There will be fights where instead of getting to use my shiny swag I have to say "No, this is not serious enough to warrant spending" and, if I do end up using it, there will be fights afterwords where I say "I sure do wish I still had that scroll."

That delay between "I have used my consumables!" and "I have gotten my money back!" seems to me to be enough of a drawback.

The thing is, there's kind of a balance you have to make.

One character keeps a small stash of potions just in case - a couple of cure light wounds for getting people conscious, and then has invisibility, protection from evil, and fly just in case.

Another character puts a large potion of his gold into potions, and blowing a potion of haste once a day isn't uncommon. He uses potions of cure serious wounds after combat in order to heal up, and has even used a couple higher-level potions of greater magic weapon.

These are two completely different situations. The first uses potions wisely, using potions rarely and only in emergencies. It's a hundred gold for every 3-4 encounters, at most. This is supportable in the long term, and replacing these little expenditures has little to no downside. The latter, however, is blowing through potions like crazy, and quite frankly the DM isn't in a position to keep up his habit even if he wanted to because of how much it would screw with WBL for the other characters.

Ideally, the DM or the other PC's point out to the potion addict how unsustainable it is before it becomes a problem. Push comes to shove, the DM can provide the addict with an item that's not outside of WBL but still good enough he won't want to sell it for potions, such as a nerfed version of boots of haste that last 5 rounds a day (as good as one of those 750gp potions!)

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-17, 03:14 PM
The problem about letting the fighter fall behind is that he's a fighter. A Tier 5 class. He has a pronounced dearth of options compared to the Wizard, the Artificer, and the Bard. The fighter was chugging potions, which made him powerful... but he was refusing wizard support, which means that the net bonus he got from the WBL and his roleplaying is about as much as the Artificer got.

So fighter nerfs himself (refusing magic support) for the sake of RP, spends WBL trying to remain competitive, and is now a Tier 5 gimp without magic items or magic support. I think that giving him a custom "Potion-Touched" template or something might be appropriate.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-17, 03:17 PM
The fighter who insists on refusing free help, but instead, blows all his money to replicate that health, is an idiot, and his subsequent shortage of money is realistic, and expected.

The fact that the player is "roleplaying" him as an idiot does not make those actions any less bad.

Characters should suffer the logical consequences of their actions. If roleplaying a chaotic stupid pryomaniac results in consequences, so should the wizard hating fighter with an addition to potions.

MickJay
2010-01-17, 03:18 PM
How? The Wizard is putting all of his money into long-term power boosts(in the form of more spells known). The Fighter is spending large amounts of money per fight, leaving him with less for later fights. The Wizard is working for the long-term benefit of the party, the Fighter for the short-term.
& @Lapak

The impression I got from the orignal post is that it's the wizard who's refusing to help the fighter, thus forcing him to spend more money and thus weakening the team as whole.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-17, 03:21 PM
Or I could say that the Fighter started it and then the Wizard aggravated it.

About that impression...


The thing about punishing the fighter for his actions is that it's not just punishing the character for being a spendthrift. It's punishing the player for playing a fighter. If he played a druid who refused magical help, he'd be just fine with his lack of gear. But since he chose a class that sucks, he gets to suck even more now. It might be "deserved", but a course of action that emphasizes the main problem with 3.5 is not a course of action I can endorse.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-17, 03:23 PM
& @Lapak

The impression I got from the orignal post is that it's the wizard who's refusing to help the fighter, thus forcing him to spend more money and thus weakening the team as whole.

I got the eaxct opposite. The Wizard spent all of his money on scrolls to scribe spells, but didn't say if he was or wasn't willing to help the Fighter. The Fighter took this as a "no" and bought potions to try and close the gap, not realizing that it would bite him in the ass later.

Edit: And he could just ask the Bard for buffs, you know?

lesser_minion
2010-01-17, 03:31 PM
Also, remember that consumable wealth is built into the system. The average rewards per encounter over the course of a level work out to more than the increase in WBL over that same level. The designers anticipated a certain use of consumables.

Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure a character who pops into existence at a certain level has a fair chance of being more powerful already, in comparison to one played to the same level.

There are more options available, for a start, and there are also fewer necessary expenses.


If characters are played stupidly and squander money, I would consider allowing them to be punished, although I would try to give them fair warning. If characters are forced to behave that way because another character is being played by a jerk, then I would be tempted to stop inviting that player to sessions (preferably with an OOC discussion).

Not everyone is the best player in the world, but I'm not going to spend an entire game babysitting a character who doesn't make proper use of what he has available.

Sliver
2010-01-17, 03:33 PM
If the fighter can't count on the wizard's buffs, he should consider doing something else rather then adventuring with said wizard, like, join the circus or something.

Now, I know that it is not a real game or anything, but if the wizard doesn't buff the fighter, it means he is probably destroying the encounters along with the artificer. That means the fighter gets to hoard his useless potions because until he finishes drinking his set of minimum needed potions to be of any use, the fight is over. The hypothetical situation isn't really valid.

Also, there is no chance that the wizard can spend all his gold to get scrolls to learn spells because there aren't that many that he needs, and he is a fool if he just gathers a large sack of spellbooks that are filled with spells he is never going to prepare, because he is an adventurer, not a wizard's guild (and there is no profit in selling said spellbooks, only a loss) and he should be paying the artificer to craft him scrolls of any spells he want (if that is allowed, I heard some rule that you can't learn from artificer's scrolls because they aren't really 'arcane')

The bard is just half-dragon and probably knows what he does is foolish, and probably accepts the punishment. Expecting that the DM will give you free stuff because you won't sell your junk to get stuff you actually need is ridiculous.

The artificer is pretty much the only reasonable one.. Although he probably couldn't craft that much at once, not with xp costs anyway, and probably has other stuff besides those cloaks..


In a case where the wizard is a fool who refuses to buff and casts bad spells that can't finish the encounter quickly, he probably is going to get attacked while the fighter is still drinking potions (with no good armor or weapon, you can't blame the fellow) and won't be ably the use all his gold on scrolls, but will need to get stuff like healing belts, or pay the artificer to heal him (because he should. If he denies buffs to the fighter, why should the artificer heal him for free?). The bard quickly dies due to no useful items, the fighter gets insta-killed by any CR appropriate ambush because he needs a lot of rounds to reach any level of usefulness, the wizard probably sucks, flees or gets hit quickly because he has no one to stand in front of him, and the artificer is left to die alone.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-17, 03:36 PM
Also, there is no chance that the wizard can spend all his gold to get scrolls to learn spells because there aren't that many that he needs, and he is a fool if he just gathers a large sack of spellbooks that are filled with spells he is never going to prepare, because he is an adventurer, not a wizard's guild (and there is no profit in selling said spellbooks, only a loss) and he should be paying the archivist to craft him scrolls of any spells he want (if that is allowed, I heard some rule that you can't learn from archivist's scrolls because they aren't really 'arcane')


It's actually not that hard to blow a substantial chunk of change on scribing spells and scrolls. I mean, if you didn't want a good variety of spells, you'd play a sorcerer, not a wizard. So, the usual response to downtime is "grab as many are as available". You scribe the seldomly used things to scrolls, and put everything available into your spellbook(s).

It shouldn't be all your gold, no...but dropping say, 25% of your WBL on scrolls, spells, and wands isn't unlikely at all.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-17, 03:36 PM
(if that is allowed, I heard some rule that you can't learn from archivist's scrolls because they aren't really 'arcane')
Indeed. Archivists' scrolls aren't really arcane. They're divine, just like Archivist spells.
Artificers' scrolls are iffy. They are indeed untyped and therefore possibly ineligible for scribing, but I don't have a citation for that.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-17, 03:37 PM
@Sliver: Artificer, not Archivist. World of difference there.

Sliver
2010-01-17, 03:46 PM
:smallredface:

Damn..

Crow
2010-01-17, 03:48 PM
You realize this is all pointless. The original post is essentially a hypothetical situation that could go either way. Without the OP to answer questions/clarify the hypothetical situation, it may as well be a troll post.

lesser_minion
2010-01-17, 03:54 PM
(if that is allowed, I heard some rule that you can't learn from artificer's scrolls because they aren't really 'arcane')


My understanding was that the artificer chooses whether other characters treat his scrolls as arcane or divine. The artificer himself doesn't actually care.

That was how the FAQ put it, anyway. I'm not sure whether or not the sage cited anything there.

Sliver
2010-01-17, 03:59 PM
Not that it was the point, or a question.. :smalltongue:

Wulfram
2010-01-17, 04:19 PM
I'd give the fighter some items with 3 times per day self-buffs, in the hope of weening him off the potion habit. As long as that happens, one of the virtues of the way prices increase exponentially is that in a few levels the money he's blown should be peanuts to him.

I'd also try to sell the Bard something that would be very useful to him, but he needs to flog some of his assorted shoes to afford - he'll go down in nominal value, since he's only getting half price for his stuff, but probably be more effective

Jack_Simth
2010-01-17, 04:43 PM
Wealth is certainly still useful; the man who owns a major trading cartel has options his impoverished-traveler buddy who blew every reward in taverns does not, and a mage who rules a barony has hugely significant support options when compared with one who lives alone in a tower. But that usefulness isn't adventuring-combat-rounds usefulness.

Sure it is.

If I have a dozen paid men-at-arms at my beck and call who stand in the back and shoot arrows at my opponents, and another dozen paid men-at-arms who carry tower shields and swords, and who's goal it is to keep anyone from getting to the archers by way of putting a physical wall in the way, I'm usually going to be much more effective in battle than is the guy who can't scrape together two coppers for a cup of poor ale at the tavern.

Oh wait, that's a factor of that barony I have (personal guard, something any baron should have) - my wealth - as they're paid men.


Note that I'm not saying this is an option in 3.5; the designers DID make wealth-as-raw-power part of the system there. I'm just saying it's a third option in RPG design in general.

I'm referring mainly to extraordinary/magical influence here, not mundane equipment.
Doesn't much matter. It's still mechanical crunch.

For example, in 3.5, there's little in the way of a practical difference between a suit of Fullplate and +2 Banded Mail (same ACP, same AC, same ASF - okay, the weight is different by a whopping 15 lbs, but that's pretty much it). A +1 Light Steel Shield has little mechanical difference from a Masterwork Heavy Steel Shield. About the only time you can find a mechanical difference between a +1 Heavy Flail and a Masterwork Greatsword is when you're dealing with incorporeal critters, DR, or similar.

To use an extreme example to note how mundane equipment still makes a difference, compare two Human Warrior-1's, identical except for their equipment:
Stats:
Str: 15, Dex-12, Con-14, Int-10, Wis-11, Cha-8
HP: 10 (they both rolled a natural 8 on their hit die - they are NPC's, after all)
Feats:
Improved Unarmed Strike, Dodge

Warrior-P has nothing but the clothes on his back (AC 12 vs. Dodge Target, attack +3 for 1d3+2)
Warrior-W has Masterwork Chain Shirt, and a Masterwork Greatsword (AC 16 vs. Dodge Target, attack +4 for 2d6+3)

Armor selected to handwave away any mobility advantages.

Warrior-P gets, at most, 5 damage on a non-crit. He needs two really good hits before he can KO the other guy... 1:3 per blow to get the max damaging blow, needs a 13 to actually land it. The chance of him whittling away Warrior-W's HP by round 2 is very low.

Warrior-W gets, on average, 10 damage per hit. He only needs an 8 to hit the other guy. The chance of him whittling away Warrior-P's HP by round 2 is very high.

Mundane equipment is still quite crunchy, and still makes quite a difference. Whether it's "magic" or not doesn't really matter.

tyckspoon
2010-01-17, 04:57 PM
Sure it is.

If I have a dozen paid men-at-arms at my beck and call who stand in the back and shoot arrows at my opponents, and another dozen paid men-at-arms who carry tower shields and swords, and who's goal it is to keep anyone from getting to the archers by way of putting a physical wall in the way, I'm usually going to be much more effective in battle than is the guy who can't scrape together two coppers for a cup of poor ale at the tavern.

Oh wait, that's a factor of that barony I have (personal guard, something any baron should have) - my wealth - as they're paid men.

And then something casts Fireball or breathes on them or looks at them funny with a gaze attack and you lose two dozen men in a single fight and get a reputation as that jerkass who orders his closest men into certain doom. At least in the D&D paradigm, by the time you are wealthy/badass enough to purchase/earn a position of authority like that you are also so powerful that your hired men have a very hard time being a meaningful factor to any fight that you couldn't handle alone.

Jack_Simth
2010-01-17, 05:28 PM
And then something casts Fireball or breathes on them or looks at them funny with a gaze attack and you lose two dozen men in a single fight and get a reputation as that jerkass who orders his closest men into certain doom. At least in the D&D paradigm, by the time you are wealthy/badass enough to purchase/earn a position of authority like that you are also so powerful that your hired men have a very hard time being a meaningful factor to any fight that you couldn't handle alone.
Potentially. But then, the argument is not necessarily specific to D&D, nor is it necessarily specific to any particular character level.

If the party is facing a opponents that have area-attacks? Sure, bringing 24 mooks isn't necessarily a good idea. Even then, though, those two dozen men-at-arms that got slaughtered... usually cost the attacker a very valuable action (not always, granted, but usually). Those two-dozen men at arms had "adventuring-combat-rounds usefulness" that Lapak was saying you don't get from having a "major trading cartel" or by being someone "who rules a barony".

If the party is facing single opponents that don't have area attacks? There's a pretty good chance those archers will have a notable impact - especially for lower-level adventurers.

The point is not necessarily how much mundane wealth can be used to affect combat, but that it very easily can, to the point where it makes one character noticeably more powerful than another.

shadow_archmagi
2010-01-17, 05:38 PM
You realize this is all pointless. The original post is essentially a hypothetical situation that could go either way. Without the OP to answer questions/clarify the hypothetical situation, it may as well be a troll post.

I take offense to that. And, yeah, I didn't really want to make it clear who started it because no one started it because it never happened. The intent wasn't so much "What to do if the wizard is an ass" as "What is the appropriate response to the use (or over-use) of consumables? How much of my wallet is 'filled' by the ghosts of empty wands?"

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-17, 06:28 PM
I take offense to that. And, yeah, I didn't really want to make it clear who started it because no one started it because it never happened. The intent wasn't so much "What to do if the wizard is an ass" as "What is the appropriate response to the use (or over-use) of consumables? How much of my wallet is 'filled' by the ghosts of empty wands?"

Wands are generally considered an acceptable consumeable investment. You just need to be careful with what spells are in them.

Oslecamo
2010-01-17, 06:43 PM
I say to fill the fighter's addiction to potions!

Every ecounter they win wields even more tasty potions!

Eventualy, the party uncovers a secret society who had uncovered a way to make cheap fast but powerfull potions trough evil means, and the party gets the choose to join them, destroy them, conquer them, loot them or do whatever they feel like doing.

Kelb_Panthera
2010-01-17, 06:59 PM
The near constant use of potions only puts the fighter at a severe disadvantage in an ambush or otherwise unexpected encounter, otherwise it's no different from how a wizard needs a few rounds to get buffs up before engaging the enemy. I'm more concerned about the wizard buying scrolls to get spells in his book.
Spells Copied from Another’s Spellbook or a Scroll

A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard’s spellbook. No matter what the spell’s source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings, above). Next, she must spend a day studying the spell. At the end of the day, she must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell’s level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from her specialty school. She cannot, however, learn any spells from her prohibited schools. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into her spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook, below). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.

If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. She cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until she gains another rank in Spellcraft. A spell that was being copied from a scroll does not vanish from the scroll.

In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to the spell’s level × 50 gp.
Independent Research

Emphasis mine. I'm assuming that the wizard's buying his scrolls from another wizard or two. Unless he's filling his book with universally useful spells, the wizard's not doing much better than the fighter since he's "wasting" all of his wealth on consumables too.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-18, 12:06 AM
The near constant use of potions only puts the fighter at a severe disadvantage in an ambush or otherwise unexpected encounter, otherwise it's no different from how a wizard needs a few rounds to get buffs up before engaging the enemy. I'm more concerned about the wizard buying scrolls to get spells in his book.

Emphasis mine. I'm assuming that the wizard's buying his scrolls from another wizard or two. Unless he's filling his book with universally useful spells, the wizard's not doing much better than the fighter since he's "wasting" all of his wealth on consumables too.

So? You just need to be careful with the spells you pick. Reading the GOD or Batman handbooks is all it takes to weed through a majority of the crap/good spells.

term1nally s1ck
2010-01-18, 12:19 AM
WBL is NOT the amount of money you should earn over a campaign. In fact, based on the encounters you have to defeat to get to level X, and the loot you usally get from them, you should be spending about 1/4-1/2 of your money on consumables, and the rest on long-term equipment.