retraining landlord

[drack]

Yo, arguing this with a player and thought I might get a few more opinions. :smallbiggrin:

Can you, and if so what happens to you beautiful new house.

[Asheram]

Yo, arguing this with a player and thought I might get a few more opinions. :smallbiggrin:

Can you, and if so what happens to you beautiful new house.

As a DM I'd say that someone comes for back taxes, or turns out that that money was a loan (with interest, great plot starter), or that the landlord just simply wants the house back.

Personal opinion, I'd rather not let them.

[mattie_p]

The DM is so interwoven in that book (Stronghold Builder's Guide) that it should be completely up to you whether that feat is eligible at all, much less for retraining. If successfully retrained away, stronghold and all accessories should be repossessed (probably in a kingdom, the royalty grants that land to someone else), any PC funds sunk into the stronghold due to matching funds should not be refunded, and they are permanently out that WBL.

[Morcleon]

Yo, arguing this with a player and thought I might get a few more opinions. :smallbiggrin:

Can you, and if so what happens to you beautiful new house.

Landlord doesn't actually give you money. It gives you effective money for the purpose of building a starship stronghold.

Which means that, while you can, you would lose the benefits of the feat (ie, the stronghold), as per the retraining rules (lose feat, lose benefits). The house is destroyed by natural disaster, raid, petty and bored demon lord, back taxes, bureacracy, etc... :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

[drack]

It gives you effective money for the purpose of building a starship stronghold.

darn you for stealing one of my future plot ideas for a game :smalltongue:

Anywho thanks guys, jut wanted to get a second opinion. Personally going the rout that it can't be retrained.

Edit: ah yeah, thank ye all for your time.

[Spuddles]

The DM is so interwoven in that book (Stronghold Builder's Guide) that it should be completely up to you whether that feat is eligible at all, much less for retraining. If successfully retrained away, stronghold and all accessories should be repossessed (probably in a kingdom, the royalty grants that land to someone else), any PC funds sunk into the stronghold due to matching funds should not be refunded, and they are permanently out that WBL.

Why?

Hdhehsjsndndje

[Morcleon]

darn you for stealing one of my future plot ideas for a game :smalltongue:

I've been making starships from strongholds since I got that book. :smalltongue:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Why?

Hdhehsjsndndje

Because you can't have something for nothing and should face unpleasant consequences for trying.

That said, a permanent ding in WBL is a bit much. Not getting it all back immediately is a given, but too long a stretch without appropriate equipment could get ugly pretty quick.

[Flickerdart]

Thieves hijack the stronghold and drive it into a wall.

[drack]

I'll admit the game in question being epic I had considered a subplot about either heaven or hell demanding that a loan that the character had no idea they had made being demanded back in full least they attack the player's nation (yup, one of those games, and they used it for infrastructure...)

[ShadowFireLance]

I'll admit the game in question being epic I had considered a subplot about either heaven or hell demanding that a loan that the character had no idea they had made being demanded back in full least they attack the player's nation (yup, one of those games, and they used it for infrastructure...)

Hehehehee, That sounds..Oh, Im not supposed to be here am I?
:smalltongue:

Though, as a Dm, I would make them Pay a loan or something of that sort, Perhaps a Soul?

[drack]

Hehehehee, That sounds..Oh, Im not supposed to be here am I?
Eh, doesn't matter. When I post something here I figure a player or two will stumble on it. :smallbiggrin:

[Hirax]

and they are permanently out that WBL.

Why on earth would it count against their future WBL, when it provides no current benefit? That'd be like counting expended potions and scrolls against WBL.

[Chilingsworth]

It's this kind of abuse that makes dm's reluctent to let PC's have nice things.

Don't let them retrain the feat, then let them know that the universe became aware of their attempt to cheat, and give them a (relatively) light punishment* if they persist in arguing with you about it. :smalltongue:


*Say, an immense horde of advanced contract-enforcing inevitables attacking them.

[Slipperychicken]

Inevitables repossess the stronghold, claiming the PC no longer owns the property due to failing to fulfill the requirements for ownership.

[Flickerdart]

Inevitables repossess the stronghold, claiming the PC no longer owns the property due to failing to fulfill the requirements for ownership.
Real estate inevitables? Must have been a slow day on Mechanus.

[toapat]

Real estate inevitables? Must have been a slow day on Mechanus.

Its mechanus, Its always a slow day there, all the work was done several billion decades ago and so now all the work done there is just aimless repacking of boxes

[Deophaun]

Real estate inevitables? Must have been a slow day on Mechanus.
Impossible. All days on Mechanus are strictly regulated to precise durations with an exacting number of work units to be completed. Half of the plane is, in fact, devoted to maintaining and enforcing those regulations.

[mattie_p]

That said, a permanent ding in WBL is a bit much. Not getting it all back immediately is a given, but too long a stretch without appropriate equipment could get ugly pretty quick.


Why on earth would it count against their future WBL, when it provides no current benefit? That'd be like counting expended potions and scrolls against WBL.

Because if it is not counted against future WBL, they might try to retrain another feat into landlord at a later date and regain their feif, with all the improvements they already made, and then have everything again with the bonus WBL that they already spent.

Sorry, a stronghold is not a consumable.

It's like no one ever tried to abuse retraining ever!

[drack]

It's like no one ever tried to abuse retraining ever!
I hear ya mate. :smallsigh:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Because if it is not counted against future WBL, they might try to retrain another feat into landlord at a later date and regain their feif, with all the improvements they already made, and then have everything again with the bonus WBL that they already spent.

Sorry, a stronghold is not a consumable.

It's like no one ever tried to abuse retraining ever!

If they took landlord again, why would you give them the same stronghold back?

That stronghold is gone and you're not getting it back along with any expenses payed into it out of WBL. If, after you've recovered from the initial WBL hit, you take landlord again, you're not suddenly going over WBL.

That's like saying that if you take brew potion at level 9 you suddenly get back all the cash you spent on potions from levels 1-8. Better example. If you've trained away leadership and your followers and cohort have abandon the cause, why would those same followers and cohort come right back when you picked up leadership again later?

Honestly though, eating into your own WBL when building a stronghold seems like a monumentally bad idea. You don't go on adventures in your stronghold even if the (mobile) stronghold is parked right outside the dungeon.

[mattie_p]

That's like saying that if you take brew potion at level 9 you suddenly get back all the cash you spent on potions from levels 1-8. Better example. If you've trained away leadership and your followers and cohort have abandon the cause, why would those same followers and cohort come right back when you picked up leadership again later?

Leadership and landlord feats are so heavily DM fiat that the equivalence is striking - retraining almost certainly should not be allowed.

But if you (the PC) foolishly spent your own money to buy your cohort a magic trinket or ten, then retrained leadership - tough luck, Mr. Optimizer. Same with landlord. I (the DM) don't have time to calculate the sum of your wealth, compare it to everyone else's wealth, and then make up the difference because you tried to cheat game the system. I give you and the party enough wealth per encounter (on average) to maintain the WBL per the DMG or the level I am comfortable with. What you do with it at that point is up to you.

If a 10th level PC wants to spend all their money on consumables, which they burn in 2 days, does that mean you augment their wealth over the next couple of encounters to make up the difference in their WBL?

In my opinion, the landlord feat is the DM saying "here is a piece of land, build a castle on it - really, go hog wild." If the player isn't happy with that, they don't have to take the feat in the first place.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Leadership and landlord feats are so heavily DM fiat that the equivalence is striking - retraining almost certainly should not be allowed.

But if you (the PC) foolishly spent your own money to buy your cohort a magic trinket or ten, then retrained leadership - tough luck, Mr. Optimizer. Same with landlord. I (the DM) don't have time to calculate the sum of your wealth, compare it to everyone else's wealth, and then make up the difference because you tried to cheat game the system. I give you and the party enough wealth per encounter (on average) to maintain the WBL per the DMG or the level I am comfortable with. What you do with it at that point is up to you.

If a 10th level PC wants to spend all their money on consumables, which they burn in 2 days, does that mean you augment their wealth over the next couple of encounters to make up the difference in their WBL?

In my opinion, the landlord feat is the DM saying "here is a piece of land, build a castle on it - really, go hog wild." If the player isn't happy with that, they don't have to take the feat in the first place.

The DM doesn't decide how treasure gets distributed amongst the party though. If the player that retrained landlord for something else bums the money off the other players to get himself closer to their level in gear, -everyone- ends up behind standard WBL, not just the guy who's trying to game the system.

This is why, instead of calling for the occasional audit, I keep a running tally of everyone's current wealth; wealth being the value of their current permanent and semi-permanent magic items. I don't count expendables or liquid assets that don't contribute directly to the PC's in-combat survivability.

It's also not generally that hard to pick out extra treasure for the treasure drop that would appeal to the character that's behind more than the others. If -they- have no sympathy for his poor financial decisions, this extra gets sold and the proceeds divided evenly. If they go significantly over WBL as a result, say hello to the rust monster, sunderer, and competent thief encounters. If instead they squander their share on expendibles and other non-wealth items, the player that's behind can save up until he catches up.

If none of that works, then by the choices of the party and the player, himself, he stays behind WBL.

WBL is a part of a character's expected power, by forcing him to stay below it you're forcing him to be less powerful than his level would suggest he should be.

And of course, he's not really gaming the system anyway. He's made an irreversable decision that lowered his available resources considerably. How is that gaming the system?

[crazyhedgewizrd]

The DM doesn't decide how treasure gets distributed amongst the party though. If the player that retrained landlord for something else bums the money off the other players to get himself closer to their level in gear, -everyone- ends up behind standard WBL, not just the guy who's trying to game the system.

It is true that the DM, does not tell the players how to split the treasure. Any treasure that is found is divided by how the characters would do it, Once the players start talking how the treasure to be divided out of game thats called metagaming and should not be allowed. There is no standard WBL, it is what the GM, DM or Storyteller says it is.

In games i have played or ran, There has been players with twice to thrice the wealth of another player(s). Players have even lost wealth through taxes, i.e. The players reaching a large town after successfully exporing a ruined castle with a run down mine close by, the tax was about 10% of the suspected wealth.

The landlord feat is more or less saying you have been given favor from the King or Noble, to move to some land to pacify it, develop it and collect taxes. If a player wants to retrain the feat they have to have a good reason way and suffer the loss of favor they been given. You can get some good story lines from it, i.e having to run from the kings knights and assassins to keep alive.


ps it has been afew months since i been here and WBL keep getting mentioned.

[Kelb_Panthera]

There is, in fact, a standard WBL. It's printed in the DMG on page 135 as a table.

This is the approximate amount of wealth a character is supposed to have at each level and if a character is significantly ahead or behind for his level then his power and abilities will be out of alignment with what the designers expected, making the CR system less accurate.

A skilled DM can make a workable game without it, but it'll require more attention to the details of various foes.

[crazyhedgewizrd]

A skilled DM can make a workable game without it, but it'll require more attention to the details of various foes.

As i said it up to the DM to determine what is appropriate for his or hers game.

[Ashtagon]

Thieves hijack the stronghold and drive it into a wall.

Thieves highjack the starship and drive it into the stronghold. Works either way.

Also, Module S4.

[Ashtagon]

If a player sinks some of his WBL into a castle, he is entering into a contract with the GM that a meaningful number of encounters will involve that castle. That castle's fortifications and halls, are, in effect, an obstacle that any hostile force would have to negotiate in order to hit him, exactly like his plate mail is an obstacle to be negotiated.

If the GM chooses not to involve the castle, the GM is in effect telling the player he wasted his WBL.

So yes, I count a castle against a character's WBL total. The feat just gives him more effective WBL to spend on that castle.

If a player chooses to lose the feat, a campaign event will cause him to lose that castle. Available wealth found in adventures will increase until he has caught up with the rest of the party, compensating for the wealth he invested in that castle, but NOT compensating the extra virtual wealth gained as a result of the Landlord feat.

[rweird]

Okay, bringing up another thing. What if the player losses landlord some other way (energy drain), would you take the stronghold away then.

[crazyhedgewizrd]

If the GM chooses not to involve the castle, the GM is in effect telling the player he wasted his WBL.

Even if you are not at the castle, your Castellan will run it and generate you wealth. You can get your Castellan to order magic items for you and get other stuff. If you are high enought level you can just teleport to get it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If a player sinks some of his WBL into a castle, he is entering into a contract with the GM that a meaningful number of encounters will involve that castle. That castle's fortifications and halls, are, in effect, an obstacle that any hostile force would have to negotiate in order to hit him, exactly like his plate mail is an obstacle to be negotiated. I heartily disagree that this is implicit. Such an agreement -must- be verbally discussed. Just because a player took the landlord feat and built a keep doesn't mean that keep has to be involved in any adventuring. He burned a feat to have a base of operations for himself and his party, but this needn't be more than a passive boon; a place to rest between adventures, an avenue for people to get in touch so you can learn of adventures from further away, a place to house the followers from your leadership feat, etc. Without an explicit discussion on the matter, there's no reason for a DM to assume that you intended anything more in taking the feat and sinking real WBL into it afterward could simply be regarded as a curious choice to improve a passive feature of your character, like spending gold on magical augmentations to appearance.


If the GM chooses not to involve the castle, the GM is in effect telling the player he wasted his WBL.Sometimes players waste money. A DM can't be held responsible for every poor financial choice a player makes. Warning him that you don't intend to show the keep much action before the player starts sinking major resources into the thing would certainly be a courtesy to consider, but it shouldn't be required.


So yes, I count a castle against a character's WBL total. The feat just gives him more effective WBL to spend on that castle.

If a player chooses to lose the feat, a campaign event will cause him to lose that castle. Available wealth found in adventures will increase until he has caught up with the rest of the party, compensating for the wealth he invested in that castle, but NOT compensating the extra virtual wealth gained as a result of the Landlord feat.

Unless it has been decided that the keep -will- play a role in the adventure to come, counting it against WBL is a bit vicious, IMO. If not including the keep in adventures is telling him he wasted WBL then this is telling him he's taken a feat to actually be less capable most of the time.

IMO, you should only count the keep and any modifications to it against his WBL if you intend for it to be part of the adventure. Then if he later loses the keep, either from retraining the feat or just poor tactical choices getting it overrun by the enemy, you take steps to help him get back to WBL if the keep is irrecoverable.

[Tanngrisnir]

I've never seen the landlord feat before and I'm intrigued. Can someone kindly either confirm or deny that I am understanding it correctly?

I have a 15th level character. If I take the Landlord feat, I get given the equivalent of 250,000gp to spend on making whatever type of stronghold I feel like, (subject to DM approval, of course).

I would have the option to spend my own money on it, but wouldn't need to if I didn't want to, and each level I go up I get a small increase in what I can spend on the property.

I get to choose how big it is, where it is situated, what is contained within it and what materials it is made out of, (again, all subject to DM approval).

Is all of that correct?

[Ashtagon]

I heartily disagree that this is implicit. Such an agreement -must- be verbally discussed. Just because a player took the landlord feat and built a keep doesn't mean that keep has to be involved in any adventuring. He burned a feat to have a base of operations for himself and his party, but this needn't be more than a passive boon; ....

A castle is as much a base of operations as a tent and sleeping bag is. Do you count a character's bedroll against WBL? Why? Or why not?

[UnjustCustos]

I've never seen the landlord feat before and I'm intrigued. Can someone kindly either confirm or deny that I am understanding it correctly?

I have a 15th level character. If I take the Landlord feat, I get given the equivalent of 250,000gp to spend on making whatever type of stronghold I feel like, (subject to DM approval, of course).

I would have the option to spend my own money on it, but wouldn't need to if I didn't want to, and each level I go up I get a small increase in what I can spend on the property.

I get to choose how big it is, where it is situated, what is contained within it and what materials it is made out of, (again, all subject to DM approval).

Is all of that correct?

Pretty much.

[Deophaun]

A castle is as much a base of operations as a tent and sleeping bag is. Do you count a character's bedroll against WBL? Why? Or why not?
Only at level 1, because otherwise the price of the bedroll is trivial.

Besides, I've never conducted planar bindings in my bedroll. Alright, besides that one time with the succubus...

[Kelb_Panthera]

A castle is as much a base of operations as a tent and sleeping bag is. Do you count a character's bedroll against WBL? Why? Or why not?

No. As I said before -I- only count permanent and semi-permanent gear that contributes directly to the character's personal power.

A bedroll is permanent but doesn't contribute to his personal power (though that one magic bedroll that cuts sleep down significantly would).

A potion contributes to his personal power but isn't even semi-permanent, barring a truenamer buddy.

A wand of bull's strength is semi-permanent and contributes directly to the character's personal power and is therefore wealth to be counted against WBL. (a wand of CLW or lesser vigor moves from semi-permanent to expendable as HP's increase.)