Wbl pooling. How would you respond?

[Talakeal]

So i have one player who is playing a "tier 1" caster. He is claiming that the partyy should spend virtually 100 percent of their wealth on pearls of power and scrolls for him because it is simply more effective, and if need be he can replicate most any effect the item would have had with buffs.

He claims that this is the most efficient use of the parties wealth, and the most likely to lead to victory. And the thing is, he is probably right. From a minmax perspective a tier one character with 5x normal wbl is probably more powerful than a balanced party.

I have had to step in and say no, i am forcing them to stick to the wbl "rules", which feels cheesy, but is needed to preserve the spirit of the game imo. What would you have done?



Note, before anyone familiar with my threads asks, my game is currently on indefinate hiatus so this is not a pressing problem, just a matter of curiosity.

[valadil]

Eat him. That'll teach the players to put all their eggs in one basket.

-- edit --

With all due respesct to that player, I've seen the reverse and it seemed ok. I was playing a wizard. The fighter wanted GMW cast on him every day. He bought my spell slot by giving me a POP. Seemed like a fair trade, although I probably would have given him the slot to begin with.

I think this works if players do this one transaction at a time. But if all their loot ends up here, go with my first idea. Or just dispel them if you're feeling nice. If all their wealth is going towards POPs for buffs, you don't even need disjunction anymore.

[Alaris]

So i have one player who is playing a "tier 1" caster. He is claiming that the partyy should spend virtually 100 percent of their wealth on pearls of power and scrolls for him because it is simply more effective, and if need be he can replicate most any effect the item would have had with buffs.

He claims that this is the most efficient use of the parties wealth, and the most likely to lead to victory. And the thing is, he is probably right. From a minmax perspective a tier one character with 5x normal wbl is probably more powerful than a balanced party.

I have had to step in and say no, i am forcing them to stick to the wbl "rules", which feels cheesy, but is needed to preserve the spirit of the game imo. What would you have done?

Note, before anyone familiar with my threads asks, my game is currently on indefinate hiatus so this is not a pressing problem, just a matter of curiosity.

I cannot blame you at all for stepping in. People should be spending gold on themselves. WBL is factored in for how powerful classes are (Fighters need their magic weapons and armor, wizards need their pearls of power, etc).

I mean, think of it from an IN-GAME perspective. Would all of these character spend their entire life savings to buy this Wizard all of these magical doodads? Probably not.

I'm not saying you can't have people pool their WBL. But the game generally isn't built around that. And I wouldn't recommend it. People should use their WBL on stuff for themselves. And that's how I would rule.

[Tanuki Tales]

Eat him. That'll teach the players to put all their eggs in one basket.

I agree with this.

Let them sink all their wealth into him and then out-Tier 1 his character.

[TheStranger]

In a normal group, I'd say there's nothing wrong with with some amount of wealth pooling. I played a barbarian once who bought the party wizard a pearl of power, just so I could have a guaranteed GMW every morning. Nor would I have a problem with pooling gold to get an expensive item a little early. Of course, with your group, I think you rightly suspected shenanigans and responded appropriately.

I don't really think it's optimized anyway. At some point, the action economy kicks in - the wizard can only do so much, and buffs don't last forever. And how is that fun for the other players? At that point, they're basically playing henchmen for the wizard.

[valadil]

I've also done WBL pooling in the opposite manner of buying a POP for the buffer. As the ogre barbarian it was my job to make sure the cleric always ran out of spells. I convinced him to buy me better armor so he could keep some spells for himself.

[Talakeal]

I don't really think it's optimized anyway. At some point, the action economy kicks in - the wizard can only do so much, and buffs don't last forever. And how is that fun for the other players? At that point, they're basically playing henchmen for the wizard.

Speaking of henchman, I have had a related problem with that. What do you do if the players refuse to give a cohort a share of the treasure?

By RAW a henchman is entitled to a half share, but the players IC won't pay it, and grumble about me railroading them if I say they have to pay it.

I even tried giving them extra treasure to make up for it, but then they just want to keep the extra treasure for themselves and continue to screw the follower.

[lsfreak]

This sounds like a huge red flag to me. Without knowing anything else, I'd say watch the player closely because it sounds like he's playing the game as a personal power trip, not just having fun with friends. You don't pick a T1 caster and then ask for more unless you're trying to "win D&D."

EDIT: The follower leaves, and they have trouble recruiting more. There are potentially repercussions with professional guilds that mean they get a very bad reputation, pay more for items, etc in areas where these guilds have significant influence.

[Alaris]

Speaking of henchman, I have had a related problem with that. What do you do if the players refuse to give a cohort a share of the treasure?

By RAW a henchman is entitled to a half share, but the players IC won't pay it, and grumble about me railroading them if I say they have to pay it.

I even tried giving them extra treasure to make up for it, but then they just want to keep the extra treasure for themselves and continue to screw the follower.

I agree with Isfreak. The Follower/Henchman will leave the party without a word. Make it in the middle of the night or something, so they don't try to kill him or anything (if you're afraid of that).

Then have him spread word that these people don't pay their employees, and treat them badly, etc. They will have massive trouble hiring henchmen in the future, until they repair their reputation.

Edit: Bonus points if the follower steals exactly his share of gold/treasure when he leaves.

[Mordar]

This sounds like a huge red flag to me. Without knowing anything else, I'd say watch the player closely because it sounds like he's playing the game as a personal power trip, not just having fun with friends. You don't pick a T1 caster and then ask for more unless you're trying to "win D&D."

This was my thought as well...that, or "Is the player 14 years old?"

I'd laugh (in a friendly fashion) if one of my co-players suggested this, and be stunned if they were serious.

I guess the best response might be to agree, then not adventure with him and expect 1/5th share of all rewards (okay, maybe slightly less because of the initial "start up" expense of basic mage training). They've purchased a 20% share in him and thus should view the transaction as an investment and wait on their dividends, and with a pooled 80% majority they can set themselves up as the Board of (Mage) Directors and go from there...

Either that or say "Okay, you win. Let's play a new campaign now!"

- M

[valadil]

By RAW a henchman is entitled to a half share, but the players IC won't pay it, and grumble about me railroading them if I say they have to pay it.


In character reactions are appropriate. If the players hire a mercenary and then shortchange him, there's no way he's sticking around, and there's a very high chance his mercenary buddies will hear about this and exact revenge.

[TheStranger]

Speaking of henchman, I have had a related problem with that. What do you do if the players refuse to give a cohort a share of the treasure?

By RAW a henchman is entitled to a half share, but the players IC won't pay it, and grumble about me railroading them if I say they have to pay it.

I even tried giving them extra treasure to make up for it, but then they just want to keep the extra treasure for themselves and continue to screw the follower.

The henchman packs up and leaves, and future henchmen ask for payment up front. Are you talking about cohorts gained with the Leadership feat? If so, your RAW justification (not that you need one) is that, by not giving the cohort his half share, they're not meeting the requirements of the feat, so they lose the benefit. If you're feeling particularly mean, don't give them another follower at all.

Alternately, let them do whatever they want; a cohort with lousy gear is going to be much less useful, and will probably get killed off sooner rather than later.

I wouldn't give extra loot in any case. The Leadership feat is powerful enough as it is, and the extra set of actions is more than worth the half share.

[sleepyphoenixx]

In character reactions are appropriate. If the players hire a mercenary and then shortchange him, there's no way he's sticking around, and there's a very high chance his mercenary buddies will hear about this and exact revenge.

There's also a very high chance that he'll leave in the middle of the night and take his payment with him... along with extra payment for "emotional damages" :smalltongue:

Depending on alignment he might also sell the party out to their enemies or simply murder you in your sleep and take your stuff.

[Segev]

I tend to agree that, if the party isn't giving the cohort a half-share of treasure, it becomes the responsibility of the cohort's Leader (the PC with Leadership) to outfit him. Which means it's coming out of that PC's treasure alone. Honestly, that's more balanced, to my mind, than insisting the party give a full half-share to the cohort; the PC with Leadership brought in the cohort, so he should not get to demand his feat gets some of the others' loot.

If the PC outfits him well, he'll have a more effective cohort. If he doesn't, he gets less out of his cohort.


As far as pooling wealth like this...I'd let them. It's the players' choice. Just run the game normally. "Breakfast spells" are rare for wizards, at least insofar as they can share them with the other PCs. This means he'll need time to get the buffing done before fights. He's also, as others have noted, where all the party's "eggs" are located; if he breaks...

This is a valid - if not optimal - party strategy. IT is only optimal for very particular play- and DM-styles, and as DM, if you find that this really is overpowering, think about how you run your NPCs and monsters. Are they really being in-character? Perhaps they might use different strategies, especially if they're aware of this particular strategy and its employment by this party.

Do remember, too, that Pearls only recover spells; they don't let you memorize new ones. They also take actions, themselves, to use.

[lsfreak]

This is a valid - if not optimal - party strategy. IT is only optimal for very particular play- and DM-styles, and as DM, if you find that this really is overpowering, think about how you run your NPCs and monsters. Are they really being in-character? Perhaps they might use different strategies, especially if they're aware of this particular strategy and its employment by this party.

I agree that it's a valid playstyle, but there's a big difference between "hey, if you give me a pearl of power I can cast GMW with it and still have the second ray of exhaustion I'd normally prep, and you save most of the cost of additional +1's on your weapon" and "give me your wealth, I use it better anyways."

[Segev]

I agree that it's a valid playstyle, but there's a big difference between "hey, if you give me a pearl of power I can cast GMW with it and still have the second ray of exhaustion I'd normally prep, and you save most of the cost of additional +1's on your weapon" and "give me your wealth, I use it better anyways."

There certainly is. But that's a matter of intra-party dynamics. The DM probably should ask if the players are really okay with that, but he shouldn't tell them, "No, you can't agree to that, because he suggested it like a jerk."

Let them decide if the wizard player's being a jerk to them or not.

[Kornaki]

A wizard with 5x WBL would probably be invited to a gathering of the archmagi, and when he arrives they kill him and split his stuff

[Asheram]

Wealth pooling to boost the wizard to boost everyone else.

I think the only proper question to ask is "Is the group ok with that?"
D&D is supposed to be Fun For Everyone, and if the group approves of the idea and, after play, is still fine with the idea then I say go for it.

edit:
It's they who are supposed to decide what their characters do after all and if they aren't fine with pumping up the wizard then. *Shrugs*

[Darth Stabber]

I see no problem with doing this on a very small scale, like the aforementioned pearl of power for GMW. I played a wizard/warweaver who got 3 4thlevel pearls that way. The fighter wanted an extended gmw on his spiked chain, and upon seeing the efficacy of this arrangement, the rogue "obtained" 2 for his daggers. Seemed a bit much, especially considering that they were all getting 2-4 buff spells at the beginning of every fight, but they were paying, so who am I to turn them down. I briefly considered taking extra spell (magic vestments) to see if I could get 3 more that way (fighter, rogue, and druid), but opted not to, and quicken spell was a much better investment.

[Belril Duskwalk]

Others have said it already, but on a small scale I'd say it was fine. Actually, on the small scale examples it's virtually the same as them buying something for themselves, they just add an intermediary that ups efficacy of the purchase.

On a larger scale I'd start to get a little leery of the whole situation. However, if the players are good with it I'd just point out the risks inherent to the plan (reduced action economy, the possibility that the Hyper-wealthy Mage gets separated or killed first leaving the rest of the party to be ripped apart by reasonably equipped enemies). If the players aren't okay with it they will fix the problem themselves by telling the Mage they don't want to do it that way.

As for the player trying to stiff his henchman; it is entirely justified and within character of a henchman to abandon a master that won't pay his promised wages. Particularly noble henchmen may simply announce their grievances then leave if their demand of payment goes unmet. Slightly less noble henchmen might leave in the middle of the night, possibly robbing the party treasure chest of the amount of payment he is owed. Particularly vile henchmen would likely leave in the night and rob the party blind and then hire assassins with the parties own loot to go kill them for daring to fail to pay Nodwick the Chest-carrier.

In all cases, the henchman would logically tell others in the adventuring game to never trust that group of players, as they never actually pay up. If the players want new henchmen, the NPC should demand payment up front or simply refuse to join because the PCs are untrustworthy. The fix to this would be that the PCs must seek out and repay the NPC the amount owed.

[Barsoom]

If the other players are on board and it's all done in good spirit, I think the DM should roll with it. Of course, if it comes down to one player basically going on a power trip and bullying the others, the DM should stop it, OOC preferably. Partly because I can't think of an ingame way to say "no, Joe can't give his money to Bill", but mostly because such bullying is an OOC issue and should be treated as such.

[Alabenson]

Regarding the party wizard wanting all the treasure for himself, I think one of the key questions is how did the rest of the party react to his "suggestion"? If for some reason they all think its a great idea and are fine with it, then I'd just let them go ahead with it, although this is one of the rare times I'd be seriously tempted to nail a PC with disjunction. On the other hand, if the party didn't go along with the wizard's "all your treasure is belong to me" plan, and he continues to bring it up, then I'd consider talking to the player out of game if it becomes a recurring issue.

As for the party not wanting to give the cohorts their share of the treasure, I'd like to know if this was a cohort gained through Leadership, a hireling, or an NPC that was thrust upon them. If the cohort was gained via Leadership, then the PCs really don't have any room to complain; Leadership is a very powerful feat, and if they don't want to meet the treasure requirements then they shouldn't receive the benefits of having a cohort. Similarly, if the PCs hire someone, then they should not be surprised if said hireling expects to be paid. On the other hand, if they did not have a choice in having the NPC join them, then I might be able to understand their frustration.

[molten_dragon]

So i have one player who is playing a "tier 1" caster. He is claiming that the partyy should spend virtually 100 percent of their wealth on pearls of power and scrolls for him because it is simply more effective, and if need be he can replicate most any effect the item would have had with buffs.

He claims that this is the most efficient use of the parties wealth, and the most likely to lead to victory. And the thing is, he is probably right. From a minmax perspective a tier one character with 5x normal wbl is probably more powerful than a balanced party.

I have had to step in and say no, i am forcing them to stick to the wbl "rules", which feels cheesy, but is needed to preserve the spirit of the game imo. What would you have done?



Note, before anyone familiar with my threads asks, my game is currently on indefinate hiatus so this is not a pressing problem, just a matter of curiosity.

I wouldn't have done a thing. The other players would likely have told him to go piss up a rope, and that would have neatly solved the problem.

[angry_bear]

From an RP perspective, I see no logical reason other than a couple of well aimed suggestions by the wizard for the party to do what he wants. Honestly, I'm having a tough time seeing why they would want to even adventure with a character like that in the first place.

From an optimization perspective, it also doesn't make a lot of sense to anyone but the wizard... And that's only if he screws the party over and doesn't do what he promised to do. Not only is he going to have to buff their weapons, but their armour as well. Not to mention any other magical items the party would want/need to get, is now the wizard's job of taking care of. If I were another player in that party, I would probably treat him as a bag of holding as well as the guy who gives me all of my magical buffs.

On a side note, which setting are you using? Because a lot of games an item as useful as a pearl of power isn't going to be lying around at Mojos R Us for any scrub to buy off the street. It should be something that a player has to work at getting, and mooching off of the rest of the party isn't exactly what I would describe as work towards getting that kind of equipment...

[erikun]

So i have one player who is playing a "tier 1" caster. He is claiming that the partyy should spend virtually 100 percent of their wealth on pearls of power and scrolls for him because it is simply more effective, and if need be he can replicate most any effect the item would have had with buffs.

He claims that this is the most efficient use of the parties wealth, and the most likely to lead to victory. And the thing is, he is probably right. From a minmax perspective a tier one character with 5x normal wbl is probably more powerful than a balanced party.

I have had to step in and say no, i am forcing them to stick to the wbl "rules", which feels cheesy, but is needed to preserve the spirit of the game imo. What would you have done?
Well, first, I would not step in and directly say that the players should not do this. It's up to the players to decide how to handle things like intra-party wealth distribution. This decision can be made out of game and with DM input - I've had games where the party has a "group wealth pile" that they decide to make purchases from - but it should still be the decision of the people running the PCs.

Second, while a single 5x WBL Wizard may be better than a full party, this doesn't mean that such a Wizard would play nice with other party members. Sure, 24-7 Fly and Improved Invisibility are great for the spellcaster, but rather lackluster for everyone else who isn't.

And third, how is the party handling this? I've seen games where one spellcaster is a crafter, and just takes all the money and crafts equipment for everyone. On the other hand, just taking all the money and turning it into Pearls of Power just sounds like a terrible idea. One group dispel or anti-magic aura will eliminate the buffs on everyone, forcing the Wizard to run through their spell slots to re-buff the party. Unless they have some way to run all-day, then simply throwing more encounters at them (possibly even at a lower CR) or a few ambushes will make casting buff spells before each fight impractical.


Speaking of henchman, I have had a related problem with that. What do you do if the players refuse to give a cohort a share of the treasure?

By RAW a henchman is entitled to a half share, but the players IC won't pay it, and grumble about me railroading them if I say they have to pay it.

I even tried giving them extra treasure to make up for it, but then they just want to keep the extra treasure for themselves and continue to screw the follower.
If the henchman isn't being paid, then they leave. Period. The party will need to find a new henchman.

If multiple henchmen are not being paid, then the party will have difficulty hiring future henchmen. Their reputation shall proceed them. Most henchmen that they do hire will either be a considerably lower level, or demand payment up-front to ensure that they get any money at all.

And no, I don't care if it is a Leadership feat or class feature. Said feature assumes that you are treating the henchman well. If you are treating them poorly, then you will not retain them and have difficulty replacing them.

[Fyermind]

Eat him. That'll teach the players to put all their eggs in one basket.


Assuming this refers to the player, and not the character, I am in support of this idea. Killing characters because they make the game un-fun is silly. It's like kicking a friends dog because your friend took a dump on your carpet.

[Coidzor]

In the example I'd point out that the rest of the group isn't going to have very much fun running around in rags and wielding mundane clubs.

Now if it was something like pooling wealth for something like group transportation or healing resources, that's stuff I'm all for as both as player and a DM.

[Nettlekid]

I can only agree with the general consensus of the thread, that it's a lame and un-fun thing for that player to do. It's basically just one step away from "I'll be a Wizard, and all of you play Warblades so you can WRT me and give me your turns, because we know I can use them better than you can."

Then again, are your players actually going along with this suggestion? If IC the Wizard says "I can make you strong if you pay me," and the characters think "That sounds good," and the players are okay with it, then...although I still dislike it, there's really nothing wrong if that's what they decide to do. And if not, then there's no problem.

I had an almost similar but still different situation in one of my campaigns were one player loved making custom magic items and tricking out his assassin, in a low-to-moderately optimized way but with a great following of Rule of Cool, which I approve of. After going through all his gold, he IC offered to help another character (who both IC and OoC is very uninterested in much, just kind of goes along with stuff) go shopping, and in the process, stole like half his gold. OoC, the assassin's player made clear what he was doing, and the other player and I were both fine with it, since the other player just bought a decent weapon and didn't care about getting any more magic items. That was a case where pooling wealth turned out fine for all involved. But that doesn't sound like your case.

[Zombimode]

So i have one player who is playing a "tier 1" caster. He is claiming that the partyy should spend virtually 100 percent of their wealth on pearls of power and scrolls for him because it is simply more effective, and if need be he can replicate most any effect the item would have had with buffs.

Are you sure he knows how Pearls of Power actually work? Because they don't give extra spells slots.

[ahenobarbi]

I'd say no to wealth pooling, because:
* As described it sounds like Wizard player would ruin others fun to give his(her? its?) character more power. Even if others agree to do it I probably wouldn't allow. Because it's to easy to talk someone into playing game they don't want (once I was talked into playing cleric when I wanted to play arcanist. And almost left the group because I didn't enjoy (decided to retire character and play what I wanted instead)).
* It doesn't make sense tactically. Sure, casting some buffs is a great idea. Getting some pearls of power so wizard can cast those buffs is a good idea (Grater Magic Weapon, some flight method, ...). But how does the player plan to replace everyones Amulets of Tears, Anklets of Translocation, anti-deth-effect-protection...?
* It makes no sense in-character. So I'm risking my life for riches, tell me more how I'll just hand all of it over to you.

[Darth Stabber]

Are you sure he knows how Pearls of Power actually work? Because they don't give extra spells slots.

They effectively do. If I would normally prep 2 hastes/day I can prep 1 and pearl it. This frees up a slot for GMW. It only works if you would prepare more than one spell of that level, but that isn't exactly a rarity. If you have 2 players wanting GMWs and they both give you a pearl, you can pearl the first GMW, anad recast it, aand still have the other pearl to "double prep" a spell.

In some ways the pearl is better than a regular slot, since you can decide it's contents later. If you prepped a fireball for a specific purpose later in the day, you can cast it then and pearl it back for when you think you are going to need it.

[Zombimode]

They effectively do. If I would normally prep 2 hastes/day I can prep 1 and pearl it. This frees up a slot for GMW. It only works if you would prepare more than one spell of that level, but that isn't exactly a rarity. If you have 2 players wanting GMWs and they both give you a pearl, you can pearl the first GMW, anad recast it, aand still have the other pearl to "double prep" a spell.

In some ways the pearl is better than a regular slot, since you can decide it's contents later. If you prepped a fireball for a specific purpose later in the day, you can cast it then and pearl it back for when you think you are going to need it.

I know how the pearl works. The point is, you can't rely on a large number of pearls to reproduce a large number of different buffs. That is why I'm saying that Pearls of Power don't give spell slots. Your number of different spells is limited by the number of your actual spell slots.

Thinking that Pearls of Power actually giving spell slots is a common mistake, thats why I'm bringing this up.

[Darth Stabber]

I know how the pearl works. The point is, you can't rely on a large number of pearls to reproduce a large number of different buffs. That is why I'm saying that Pearls of Power don't give spell slots. Your number of different spells is limited by the number of your actual spell slots.

Thinking that Pearls of Power actually giving spell slots is a common mistake, thats why I'm bringing this up.

True enough. The last wizard I played was a war weaver, so GMW (unsharable via eldritch tapestry since it targets weapons not allies) was not a spell I would have prepped, but a pearl of power was just the right sort of bribery to make me cast that more selfish spell.

[nedz]

In any other party I would say that this is none of the DM's business; but Talakeal's party is quite infamous :smallamused:

I think you have to teach them the hard way: simply have them meet an encounter where Dispels are very common. Ideally a series of encounters against an evil church, some Kobold sorcerers, etc.

The easiest way of stopping this is for the POPs/Scrolls/etc. to be in limited supply: So they can't do this for logistical reasons.

Oh, and the Henchman leaves, hires lawyers and sues for breach of contract — OK he comes back with some friends to steal back his share, of course his new friends require paying also. Since all their wealth is in POPs: two birds one stone.

[Segev]

About the only thing I really think the DM should do here is make absolutely sure everybody in the party understands how the Pearls of Power work. Then enforce that as you continue to hit them with normal encounters.

[bookguy]

My players are all pooling their wealth and spending it on items the whole party needs (like a healing wand since they don't have a cleric). They're also making big purchases they couldn't make if each player spent their money separately. I don't think there's anything wrong with this, even when they spent most of the money on a stat boost for the sorcerer. The group makes decisions as a whole so they all have to agree on a purchase before they buy something. If your players are all okay with weakening themselves to make one person epic, I think it's okay.

[DR27]

I know how the pearl works. The point is, you can't rely on a large number of pearls to reproduce a large number of different buffs. That is why I'm saying that Pearls of Power don't give spell slots. Your number of different spells is limited by the number of your actual spell slots.

Thinking that Pearls of Power actually giving spell slots is a common mistake, thats why I'm bringing this up.If they really want the spell slot for some reason instead of the spell, there's also the Memento Magica - sure, you have to prep the spell out of combat and don't have it ready right away, but it's still a pretty nice thing to have for your lower level slots. Wizards always find a way around problems :p

[Yukitsu]

I can report that this is in fact a much more efficient way to spend a large chunk of wealth in a campaign. Depending on how actually buff crazy that individual is, it is a suitable way to constantly have effects as or more powerful than an equivalent cost worth of gear. It simply requires sufficient integrity on the wizard's part.

[Segev]

At what point does a Ring of Wizardry for a given level of spells become this "more efficient" situation?

[brujon]

The answer is, for me, obvious.

Wealth by Level is NOT a welfare check the players receive, and then go into the matrix weapon room and choose whatever they want and please.

No. Wealth by Level is meant to represent the wealth a player has acquired with time, through his adventuring career. It is meant to represent a given standard of equipment "power level" that the game expects the players to have in that level bracket.

Do you think a 20th level Wizard, who has created countless magic arms and armors cares about 100,000 gold pieces? That weights 2000 pounds. He won't take 100,000 gold pieces as a payment for that über whatever you're wanting to buy.

No, for a high-level wizard, cleric, sorcerer, druid or artificer that creates these magic arms and armor, wondrous and alchemical items, what is far more valuable, is rare ingredients or items of power. Above a certain level, magic items can no longer be acquired in stores, unless said stores are located in extremely high-level and high-powered areas, such as The Nine Hells, the Abyss, Celestia, Efreeti Bazaars and so on.

But getting to those areas? That, in and of itself, is an adventure. But on the Prime Material, at least for many settings, you simply are unable to go to some marketplace on Whatevertown and buy that +5 Thingmajob.

That is why WBL isn't something the players can "pool" together at character creation. During the game, it is possible that the players try to pull something like this in-game. If that's the case, then what do you do?

Well, it's simple... Restrict access to magic items. Let them fall behind the WBL curve. Soon, the players who donated their money for the other player, will want to access that WBL because they are now falling behind the curve, and the player who pooled it all is too powerful compared to them. When they finish redistributing accordingly, you then work to try and get back to the appropriate curve.

Or, target them with a Disjunction! Start spamming AoE's and use the rules for affecting items. Make the saving throw for every single one of them, and watch the players complain a lot about the destroyed loot. Get enemies that use Sunder.

Later on, you can redistribute items as appropriate. But most importantly, tell them that Magic Marts do not exist, except on High Power Dangerous Area Number N. If they want to redistribute wealth, they'll have to travel there, and that entails a quest. When they get there, simply have the merchants not particularly interested in stuff the players have to bargain. So on, and so forth.

Do it with fluff, and they'll have nothing to complain about. It makes sense.

[sleepyphoenixx]

That's highly campaign dependant.
In the standard D&D cosmology you can plane shift to the outlands (and thus, go shopping in Sigil) as early as level 9.

And pooling WBL at character creation makes sense if the party is an actual group of adventurers (and not a bunch of people who meet only once the campaign starts).
Buying a Pearl of Power so the Wizard or Cleric can cast GMW or MV for you is just smart use of resources.
Pooling money to acquire a Portable Hole early on to haul loot is an efficient investment.
Having the party pitch in for a lesser Rod of Chain Spell so a single spell slot buffs the whole parties armor + shields with MV is a lot cheaper than buying everyone +1 armor and a +1 shield.

So the party wants to take it to the extreme. I say let them. There's plenty of stuff they'll still want items for while magic takes care of the basic stat boosts that are necessary to function.

[TriForce]

as a player, i would say "my character thinks that would degrade him to being your moneycow, and trusts you less for even proposing something so absurd"

as a DM, i wouldnt do much to stop it from happening, i WOULD however, show everyone why that is a horrible horrible idea. one disjunktion alone would cripple the party, what happens if the party gets ambushed while the magic man is sleeping? worse, what if he gets kidnapped? if the players decide to use this strategy, over a short time, their opponents will learn about it, then, all they need to do is prepare something specifically to target the overpowered tier 1 character, and they win.

this isnt "picking on the player" its a simple case of intelligent opponents making use of a glaring weakpoint in the players strategy

[Amphetryon]

From the other POV:

I've actually required WBL pooling in some games, but only during the creation phase. Telling your group that they collectively have 500gp to spend on their starting equipment can encourage them to work together on the creation process, and make them think about their available resources to minimize gaps in their basic needs, while also minimizing overlap. It doesn't work for every group, party or campaign - particularly if one Player is trying to "win D&D" - but it can be an effective tool.

[Kudaku]

It depends on what level the party is, how the party forms up and how long they've known each other.

If I have a player starting at, say, level 9, he has a WBL of 46 000 GP. Odds are he's going to spend that money on the best items available, and you can't really blame him for it. Mithral this, adamantine that, all built to his specific build, exacting standards, fitting his feats and so on perfectly.

However, if we compare his shiny new loadout to other party members that had to scrounge, trade, pillage and custom order their stuff, odds are he's going to have nicer equipment than them.
The new character didn't make it to level 9 spending 0 WBL. He didn't travel around at level 9, naked and completely broke, and then stumble across 46 000 GP two weeks before he joins the party.

My solution to this was to ask players to sort out their WBL in increments, and not spend more than a set percentage on each part of their equipment.
For instance I might ask a fighter to spend no more than 35% of his WBL on a weapon, no more than 35% of his WBL on armor, 10% must be consumables and the rest is up to him.

I enacted that rule after I had an 8th level party member join wearing celestial plate armor (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-armor/specific-magic-armor/celestial-plate-armor). Considering the best armor the rest of the party were using was a +2 breastplate, there was some concern raised.

As for WBL pooling... It depends on how well the party knows each other and if it actually makes sense in-character for the party members to do so. For example most of my parties tend to pool funding for cheap healing (wand of Infernal Healing or CLW) as soon as they can.

[Segev]

I would note that wealth-by-level is what they're supposed to have left over after spending stuff on expendable items, stays at inns, services from NPCs, etc. So in practice, the guy who's played from level 1 should have MORE gp have passed through his hands than the guy who is created at level 9 HAS to buy equipment with. In fact, the first guy's wealth should be significantly higher even NOW if he kept most of what he found, rather than selling it off for half price to liquidate and buy custom. This is effectively what the guy starting at level 9 has done.

[Krobar]

I would leave a decision like that completely up to the party. If they want to forego magic items and treasure so the wizard can have it, that's their decision.

But there is definite risk involved in consolidating all of your assets in one place.

[Dimers]

@OP: Heck, if I could get my parties to work together even that much, I'd love it!

[Talakeal]

I can only agree with the general consensus of the thread, that it's a lame and un-fun thing for that player to do. It's basically just one step away from "I'll be a Wizard, and all of you play Warblades so you can WRT me and give me your turns, because we know I can use them better than you can."


Funny you mention that...

[Tvtyrant]

Funny you mention that...

I just realized this is a Talakeal thread. My suggestion is to stop giving them gold and start just giving them suitable items. If they want to go through all of the side-quests it would take for them to sell their keen energy swords for full GP value and then buy the Wizard spell stuff, that is their prerogative.

[Talakeal]

Funny you mention that...

To further explain, in my campaign I use the psion casting system for all spell casters, including arcane and divine. The sorcerer in question also wants their cohort (the same one they are refusing to pay) to play another sorcerer who does nothing but cast a custom version of Dweomer of Transference all day, essentially doubling the sorcerers spell slots in exchange for a single feat. I put my foot down and said no, which pissed the player off royally.

[Yukitsu]

To further explain, in my campaign I use the psion casting system for all spell casters, including arcane and divine. The sorcerer in question also wants their cohort (the same one they are refusing to pay) to play another sorcerer who does nothing but cast a custom version of Dweomer of Transference all day, essentially doubling the sorcerers spell slots in exchange for a single feat. I put my foot down and said no, which pissed the player off royally.

To be honest, it's stronger for the cohort to actually cast the spells in combat, simply because the sorcerer cohort would grant doubled action economy compared to what he's doing.

I'd also prefer doing that in character as the cohort, as it leaves no real chance for me to get killed.

[Segev]

...okay. Is this "cohort" that they're "refusing to pay" somebody's actual, Leadership-Feat-granted cohort? Or are you using the word differently? Is somebody actually playing this "cohort" as their PC, or is it an NPC? How does the party come by this character's presence?

[sleepyphoenixx]

...okay. Is this "cohort" that they're "refusing to pay" somebody's actual, Leadership-Feat-granted cohort? Or are you using the word differently? Is somebody actually playing this "cohort" as their PC, or is it an NPC? How does the party come by this character's presence?

The question is why they still have a cohort at all imo.

[nedz]

To be honest, it's stronger for the cohort to actually cast the spells in combat, simply because the sorcerer cohort would grant doubled action economy compared to what he's doing.

I'd also prefer doing that in character as the cohort, as it leaves no real chance for me to get killed.

this really — unless the PC Sorcerer has a habit of running out of spell slots ?

[Talakeal]

...okay. Is this "cohort" that they're "refusing to pay" somebody's actual, Leadership-Feat-granted cohort? Or are you using the word differently? Is somebody actually playing this "cohort" as their PC, or is it an NPC? How does the party come by this character's presence?


It is a bit more complicated than that. Basically, we had a small party that was not well rounded, there was no one to play the "leader" or "defender" role.

So I told people that they could have the leadership feat for free, and I would give them extra loot to equip the cohorts, but on the condition that the cohorts had to fulfill the "leader" and "defender" rolls.

The cohorts, IC, are loyal life long friends of the party.

The sorcerer took a knight cohort. Bought them +5 armor and shield and a +6 constitution item. After that the sorcerer refused to give her cohort any further money or gear because it "isn't worth the cost" as it does not directly increase AC or HP, which is "all a tank needs".

The sorcerer has been spending all of the cohorts wealth on pearls of power, and has been making her cohort stop taking knight levels and instead take sorcerer levels solely for the purpose of transferring spell slots.

The sorcerer claims that as knights are a lowly tier 5 she is a far more effective "defender" by giving resources to the sorcerer than keeping them for herself.

Further, the sorcerer was working on persuading the rest of the party to follow suit, to start spending all of their WBL on pearls and start taking levels of sorcerer to give him spell points will help the party accomplish missions far more than taking levels of their own "muggle" classes.


Note that the pure sorcerer can cast ninth levels spells, while the sorcerer/knight can only cast fourth level spells. Thus the SP in the hand of the sorcerer are far more effective than they are in the hands of the knight, even with action economy.

[Qwertystop]

I just realized this is a Talakeal thread.

Wait, there's more of these?

[TuggyNE]

as a DM, i wouldnt do much to stop it from happening, i WOULD however, show everyone why that is a horrible horrible idea. one disjunktion alone would cripple the party, what happens if the party gets ambushed while the magic man is sleeping?

For what it's worth, disjunction can and will cripple most of even a normal party, since it blasts an 80' area with magic-trashing deathbeams*. How do you like losing half the party's WBL in one go?


*Loosely put.

[nedz]

I just realized this is a Talakeal thread.Wait, there's more of these?

Yes, and this ones fairly tame.

[Traab]

Regarding the party wizard wanting all the treasure for himself, I think one of the key questions is how did the rest of the party react to his "suggestion"? If for some reason they all think its a great idea and are fine with it, then I'd just let them go ahead with it, although this is one of the rare times I'd be seriously tempted to nail a PC with disjunction. On the other hand, if the party didn't go along with the wizard's "all your treasure is belong to me" plan, and he continues to bring it up, then I'd consider talking to the player out of game if it becomes a recurring issue.

As for the party not wanting to give the cohorts their share of the treasure, I'd like to know if this was a cohort gained through Leadership, a hireling, or an NPC that was thrust upon them. If the cohort was gained via Leadership, then the PCs really don't have any room to complain; Leadership is a very powerful feat, and if they don't want to meet the treasure requirements then they shouldn't receive the benefits of having a cohort. Similarly, if the PCs hire someone, then they should not be surprised if said hireling expects to be paid. On the other hand, if they did not have a choice in having the NPC join them, then I might be able to understand their frustration.

The problem with the disjunction solution is, its very mean spirited and it would have pissed the party off less if you had just said no at the start. The very idea of a dm doing that because he doesnt approve ticks me off. If you dont want them to do something, tell them they cant do it. Dont quietly arrange their doom several hours later after they finished setting up whatever it is you didnt like.

[Alabenson]

The problem with the disjunction solution is, its very mean spirited and it would have pissed the party off less if you had just said no at the start. The very idea of a dm doing that because he doesnt approve ticks me off. If you dont want them to do something, tell them they cant do it. Dont quietly arrange their doom several hours later after they finished setting up whatever it is you didnt like.

Normally I would never consider using disjunction under any circumstances. However, should the party pool a significant amount of their resources towards becoming reliant on one single uber-tactic, and said uber-tactic has a single, glaring flaw that could turn their reliance on the tactic horribly against them, then I feel almost obligated to use that flaw against them.
Essentially, while a DM shouldn't go out of their way to screw the party over, the party shouldn't tempt fate like that either.

[Traab]

Normally I would never consider using disjunction under any circumstances. However, should the party pool a significant amount of their resources towards becoming reliant on one single uber-tactic, and said uber-tactic has a single, glaring flaw that could turn their reliance on the tactic horribly against them, then I feel almost obligated to use that flaw against them.
Essentially, while a DM shouldn't go out of their way to screw the party over, the party shouldn't tempt fate like that either.

True, but its still an insanely harsh way to handle it. Its not like throwing in a few fights where the single tactic wont work, like making a diplomancer cheese fest face golems and such from time to time, instead you just flat out destroy their adventure by using disjunction. Seriously, Its better to just say, "Hey guys, this tactic is cheesy and unbalances the game too much, im not going to allow it." Rather than to say nothing, let them get a few hours into the game, and basically declare, "Rocks fall, everybody dies."

[Hamste]

Another funny way to deal with them to show just how bad of an idea it is, send in a sundering based combat. Make the sunderer focus on the thing that the caster is most dependent on (either holy symbol or spell component pouch). Less harsh and without their caster for a little bit (until they can replace the important item) they realize how bad of an idea it is to put all their eggs in one basket.

[Segev]

No, even with that discrepancy, the only reason your cohorts are more effective giving power to the PC sorcerer is because they've crippled themselves with bad multiclassing. The action economy should be ripping them to shreds if you send CR-appropriate encounters at them in CR-appropriate numbers. Particularly since they've so gimped their cohorts. Remember that the cohorts DO count as a present character for determining CR.

Honestly, the best way to illustrate the folly is probably the classic "mirror party." But in this case, the party should be built with the PCs matches in classes, while the cohorts are built the way they "should" have been built. Wealth is shared appropriately with the "cohorts" in the anti-party, so they are all armed appropriately. Build with whole-party synergy in mind, and have them use their actions to their fullest.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Disjunction screws the party even if they rely on magic items. It's the strategic nuke of antimagic spells. It will also generate similar outrage if you use it.

A greater dispel with a decent CL should be sufficient for this and is also quite reasonable to expect.

[TuggyNE]

Normally I would never consider using disjunction under any circumstances. However, should the party pool a significant amount of their resources towards becoming reliant on one single uber-tactic, and said uber-tactic has a single, glaring flaw that could turn their reliance on the tactic horribly against them, then I feel almost obligated to use that flaw against them.

As I posted earlier, I don't see what gaping flaw WBL pooling adds that wasn't already there: you can already trash almost as high a percentage of party wealth in a perfectly normal party just by using disjunction with a modicum of tactical sense and a smidge of (bad) luck, so that's really not all that big a difference. That is, the glaring flaw already exists, and it's called "doesn't have immunity to disjunction".

[LordBlades]

As I posted earlier, I don't see what gaping flaw WBL pooling adds that wasn't already there: you can already trash almost as high a percentage of party wealth in a perfectly normal party just by using disjunction with a modicum of tactical sense and a smidge of (bad) luck, so that's really not all that big a difference. That is, the glaring flaw already exists, and it's called "doesn't have immunity to disjunction".

This. Putting all items on a character makes the party no more susceptible to Disjunction than having them on more characters that fit in a 40 ft. radius burst (which a lot of parties do most of the time). On the contrary, putting items on the wizard ( which most likely has a better Will save bonus than most of the party) actually makes them less susceptible to Disjunction.

[Lord Vukodlak]

You know what I love... walls of dispel magic, also these golems i designed whose slams add a targeted greater dispelling which lets them absorb for various effects. Also dispelling screen is very nice, there are many ways to hit a whole party with dispelling effects so as to remove as many buffs as possible.


This. Putting all items on a character makes the party no more susceptible to Disjunction than having them on more characters that fit in a 40 ft. radius burst (which a lot of parties do most of the time). On the contrary, putting items on the wizard ( which most likely has a better Will save bonus than most of the party) actually makes them less susceptible to Disjunction.

No but the party being more dependent on wizards buff spells(which are automatically dispelled) rather then magic items(which can survive). Makes them more vulnerable to disjunction.

[sleepyphoenixx]

No but the party being more dependent on wizards buff spells(which are automatically dispelled) rather then magic items(which can survive). Makes them more vulnerable to disjunction.

A disjunction cast by a appropiate CR threat will destroy at least half the magic items of the characters who don't have good will saves.
As a player i'd rather lose all my buffs. In that case the party can retreat and formulate a counter strategy without really losing anything, assuming the wizards will save is high enough to protect the pearls of power.
All you need is having a teleport prepared and you can come back the next day and simply counterspell the disjunction now that you know to expect it.

If most of your party loses the majority of their equipment you're screwed.

Also, if the party goes with that strategy it's reasonable to assume that the wizard will invest in CL boosters and other dispel protection.
Not doing so would be a mistake that they'll learn the first time they meet an enemy with dispel.

I still don't really see it as a problem since there are effects you simply can't get through buffs. They'll still need to buy items so giving the wizard all of their WBL just isn't going to happen.

[ahenobarbi]

As I posted earlier, I don't see what gaping flaw WBL pooling adds that wasn't already there: you can already trash almost as high a percentage of party wealth in a perfectly normal party just by using disjunction with a modicum of tactical sense and a smidge of (bad) luck, so that's really not all that big a difference. That is, the glaring flaw already exists, and it's called "doesn't have immunity to disjunction".

Well disjunction flat removes buffs and only has chance to destroy gear, so they would be even more vulnerable to disjunction than most parties.

However they are more vulnerable to various dispels too. So using those from time to time is good too.

[Pickford]

That's highly campaign dependant.
In the standard D&D cosmology you can plane shift to the outlands (and thus, go shopping in Sigil) as early as level 9.

Plane Shift requires a focus:

A small, forked metal rod. The size and metal type dictate to which plane of existence or alternate dimension the spell sends the affected creatures. Forked rods keyed to certain planes or dimensions may be difficult to come by, as decided by the DM.

So I'd say ymmv regarding the ability to even use plane shift, let alone reach a particular plane.