PDA

View Full Version : More realistic D&D Economy?



Alent
2014-02-01, 06:57 AM
Both the "Debunk the Tippyverse" thread and a campaign I'm working on has me wondering, is there a better set of rules for a 3.5e economy somewhere? RAW doesn't just omit the very possibility of it, it takes anything resembling supply and demand and contradicts it explicitly by disconnecting resource mass from product result. (The same 3000gp of adamantine gets you a 1 pound dagger or an 8 pound greatsword, other examples abound.)

Main things I'm looking for are:

Spell reagents like diamond dust quantified by weight instead of cost.
Rules and tables for determining the yield of mines. RotD has profession(mining) rules that only cover the rock excavation part. Other professions would be nice, but mining is my primary concern as it's one of the IRL professions I know the least about.
Better spell component pouch rules.
An explanation or quantification on the "stuff" required for craft wondrous item. I like to joke that the "stuff" is a blueprint drawn in wizard's spellbook ink and purchased from an eve online player. I'd like something more plausible. :smallamused:
Mundane and Alchemical consumables that take resources to make rather than X value of GP.


My desire for a materials based economy isn't out of a desire for absurdist realism with dwarf fortress grade bookkeeping and procedural simulationism. (Although I am a simulationist!) The campaign I'm working on begins with a forward mining expedition in a barren wasteland before opening up into a sandbox, and the group will be isolated from anything resembling a city for most of the initial arc. I both want to have realistic bartering between expedition members, and create a situation where long term resource management is a factor, but not excessively complicated for the players. I'm expecting as the DM to have to do most of the community resource tracking myself, and have players only worry about whatever resources are important to them due to class features or personal interest. (Telling them would be fun- "Save some guano for the rest of us! The orcs killed our last dire bat last night.")

I'd also like to use the same system for the economy for the entire game for consistency, rather than just freeform it for the expedition only and hope nobody cared the local fiat currency was DM fiat.

So, is there anything like this out there? Or would I need to homebrew it myself?

Sam K
2014-02-01, 08:13 AM
The problem with creating a realistic D&D economy is that D&D isn't realistic! You have the vast majority of the people living at a dark ages (or for some races, bronze or stone age) level, while a small percentage hav access to 3d printing, tactical nuclear strikes and a fleet of amazon (the company, not the female warrior tribe) drones dropping off whatever you need whenever you need it.

Magic messes up supply and demand. From the humble wall of salt to organized mining expeditions to the plane of earth to secure infinite diamonds for ressurections. The two outcomes I've seen when trying to make more detailed D&D economics is either a set of arbitrary restrictions boiling down to "You cant do that because it would ruin my economic model", or the tippyverse.

That said, assuming you and your players are all willing to play along with a "realistic" economy you could probably homebrew it. It will be very vulnerable to "market manipulations" by clever players, but if they dont want to do that, no worries.

Anxe
2014-02-01, 09:08 AM
Figuring out the weight to cost ratio of gems shouldn't be that hard. It then becomes just a question of where the gems are cheaper and where they are more expensive.

I can't help you with mine yields. Consult a mine foreman?

The best way of making the spell component pouch realistic is to not have it. Your players must find/buy all the components they need.

Your last two questions are kind of the same. Mundane items are relatively easy. A suit of armor takes leather, metal, and fuel for the forge to make. You can figure out the rest. For magic, the DM has a lot of wiggle room. In my campaign giant hearts are an important component in making teleportation magical items. The bigger the giant the more you can do with it. This also introduces additional rewards for players that like to butcher their kills.

Amphetryon
2014-02-01, 09:41 AM
This is, in my opinion, one of the things Frank & K got right in their Tomes. Paraphrased, they propose something of a dual economy, where mundane things are paid for with mundane money, layered underneath a Wish economy that non-adventuring types simply never have cause or opportunity to interact with.

Slipperychicken
2014-02-01, 10:29 AM
1. Get ACKS (Adventurer Conqueror King System)

2. Read it.

3. Behold the internally-consistent economic system.

4. Cry tears of joy.

Boci
2014-02-01, 10:42 AM
The best way of making the spell component pouch realistic is to not have it. Your players must find/buy all the components they need.

I disagree. Quite vehemently. Not only does the OP now need to check every material component ever and decide whether it is available in the setting or not. Whilst doing this they need to pay attention to balance of making certain core spells unavailable.
Then once that is done they have to have a list of every material component in each settlement, the possession of each group, and where those naturally occurring can be found on the map.

This is not a good solution. A better one would be to remove it by giving all casters eschew material component as a bonus feat at level 1.

OP, regarding the constructions of magical items, is their only one way to do it, or can different casters construct the same ring of +1 protection from different ingredients?
Personally I think an almost monster hunter style use ingrediants of slain beasts could work well here.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-02-01, 10:46 AM
The arms and equipment guide has some loose guidelines, IIRC. I don't recall how good they are but it's something.

Zanos
2014-02-01, 10:56 AM
The best way of making the spell component pouch realistic is to not have it. Your players must find/buy all the components they need.
They abstracted that system with spell component pouches because it is awful.

I don't want to roleplay collecting bat guano for three weeks. I don't want to think about bat guano. I don't want my character concept interacting in any significant way without bat guano 99% of the time.

If you make material components irritating, Eschew Materials just becomes a feat tax.

Slipperychicken
2014-02-01, 11:01 AM
I don't want to roleplay collecting bat guano for three weeks. I don't want to think about bat guano. I don't want my character concept interacting in any significant way without bat guano 99% of the time.

If you make material components irritating, Eschew Materials just becomes a feat tax.

Also, people don't like roleplaying material components, especially to spells like Hideous Laughter (i.e. throw tiny tarts at the target while waving a feather at him, and then he collapses on the ground laughing for the rest of the fight). It's kind of hard to take your character seriously when you have to do that kind of silly shenanigans all the time.

Anxe
2014-02-01, 02:59 PM
It's the most significant way of balancing wizards that I've seen. Do you have a better suggestion for making spell component pouches make sense? I suppose you could give it a certain amount of uses. Good for 10 spells with components! Or it could be that it holds two spells worth of components for every spell ever. Either way is not realistic. Listing every components price and availability is realistic, but a chore. Coming up with that stuff on the fly is pretty easy though. Bat guano won't be available anywhere except at wizards guilds, etc.

Zanos
2014-02-01, 03:01 PM
It doesn't balance anything because plenty of great spells have no material components.

Boci
2014-02-01, 03:03 PM
It's the most significant way of balancing wizards that I've seen.

At that point you may as well just go through every individual spell and rebalanced the problem ones. It would probably be less effort.


Do you have a better suggestion for making spell component pouches make sense?

Remove it? Now the fact that it doesn't make sense isn't a problem, and on the plus side, this solutions will not take literally hours of out of game planning, and slow down shopping sprees.

Slipperychicken
2014-02-01, 03:34 PM
It's the most significant way of balancing wizards that I've seen. Do you have a better suggestion for making spell component pouches make sense? I suppose you could give it a certain amount of uses. Good for 10 spells with components! Or it could be that it holds two spells worth of components for every spell ever. Either way is not realistic. Listing every components price and availability is realistic, but a chore. Coming up with that stuff on the fly is pretty easy though. Bat guano won't be available anywhere except at wizards guilds, etc.

I recall some advice, which was to have casters refill their pouches each week of use (or each time they stop in town) for 5gp. In that case, it would only be fair to let them stock extra components, at a rate of perhaps 5gp per week.

I might also consider let them make survival checks (DC 15-20?) to find and create a 1d6 days worth of components in the wild, although some things might warrant a higher check or be disallowed.

watchwood
2014-02-01, 03:52 PM
After the first few levels the caster will simply throw gold at the problem, and component tracking will be something of a pointless waste of time again.

Boci
2014-02-01, 04:24 PM
In E6 for a sorcerer I could see micromanaging material components as potentially worthwhile, getting a sense of immersion, but even then its not going to be everyone cup of tea. And with a wizard/at levels.both its just not worth the effort.

Anxe
2014-02-01, 06:34 PM
I recall some advice, which was to have casters refill their pouches each week of use (or each time they stop in town) for 5gp. In that case, it would only be fair to let them stock extra components, at a rate of perhaps 5gp per week.

I might also consider let them make survival checks (DC 15-20?) to find and create a 1d6 days worth of components in the wild, although some things might warrant a higher check or be disallowed.

That's a fix that could work. Norren is this what you were looking for?

Kelb_Panthera
2014-02-01, 07:01 PM
Why do people keep thinking the balance problem with casters is in the casters themselves? It isn't and never was. The source of the balance problem with casters is, and always was, in the spells.

If you want to balance casters with non-casters you have to fix or remove the problem spells.

If you're shooting for a lower level of power than the game's baseline you can tweak the caster's class and casting mechanics -after- that.

Anxe
2014-02-01, 07:07 PM
Well, I think this was originally about the realism of a magical spell component pouch that has infinite amounts of junk in it, not balance. I just kinda took it there.

Alent
2014-02-01, 07:41 PM
Well, Firefox blew up halfway through my first reply, so... here goes take two:


The problem with creating a realistic D&D economy is that D&D isn't realistic! You have the vast majority of the people living at a dark ages (or for some races, bronze or stone age) level, while a small percentage hav access to 3d printing, tactical nuclear strikes and a fleet of amazon (the company, not the female warrior tribe) drones dropping off whatever you need whenever you need it.

Your reading of "more realistic" as "realistic" aside, your premise is flawed. We live in a world of unequal knowledge, technology, and resource distribution. Your example of what is unrealistic compared to the real world can be applied to the real world with little difficulty and demonstrate the real world is less realistic than itself. It's recursive.


Magic messes up supply and demand. From the humble wall of salt to organized mining expeditions to the plane of earth to secure infinite diamonds for ressurections. The two outcomes I've seen when trying to make more detailed D&D economics is either a set of arbitrary restrictions boiling down to "You cant do that because it would ruin my economic model", or the tippyverse.

We agreed banning the Wish/Miracle lines was a good houserule a while back, and the world is planar locked for plot reasons unrelated to economics- no one gets in or out, not even to their conjured demiplanes. That more or less sinks the major exploits I know about save wall of salt.

On that point, wall of salt is self-resolving in an actual economy. That reminds me that I need to re-read It's Hot Outside as many things from it will be relevant to the setting- it's a barren wasteland. Shapesand will be a thing alchemists get paid for, for sure.

Anything else I should be aware of, exploit wise?


That said, assuming you and your players are all willing to play along with a "realistic" economy you could probably homebrew it. It will be very vulnerable to "market manipulations" by clever players, but if they dont want to do that, no worries.

I expect my players to engage in market manipulation and smuggling, that's why I want a more realistic economy. Greed drives my players and NPCs both. :smallamused:

------


The best way of making the spell component pouch realistic is to not have it. Your players must find/buy all the components they need.

That is what I wanted to accomplish, but I assumed they would still need a container that functioned as a free action to draw spell materials from. I also am strongly considering going through the material components list and dropping or changing any spell component that looks like something out of the "An orc barbarian that thinks it's a wizard" thread. (EG: throwing Tarts and feather waving totally seems like something Thog would do.)

Of the items of my wishlist, this is the one that seems the most awkward one to realize. Trying to read the SRD spell list, I didn't realize how many spells lacked components or had components that cost more than 1gp. My table's previous DM had always overlooked them unless it dealt with resurrection.

I may just have to give up on this one, but I'll mention a few more thoughts in replies to others below.


Your last two questions are kind of the same. Mundane items are relatively easy.

Er, I was trying to say "mundane consumables". It's still simple enough, but I was trying to cover the bases. Alchemical supplies and spell components are not entirely unrelated, either, I'll add. Gunpowder rockets or wizard fireballs, they're still bat guano and sulfur.


For magic, the DM has a lot of wiggle room. In my campaign giant hearts are an important component in making teleportation magical items. The bigger the giant the more you can do with it. This also introduces additional rewards for players that like to butcher their kills.

I like this. It gives me MonHunt vibes.

------


This is, in my opinion, one of the things Frank & K got right in their Tomes. Paraphrased, they propose something of a dual economy, where mundane things are paid for with mundane money, layered underneath a Wish economy that non-adventuring types simply never have cause or opportunity to interact with.

In what ways this better or more simple than parallel Commoner, Adventurer, and Caster economies?

Where do I find them, also? They seem to be forum posts from Minmaxboards on one of their previous domain name iterations?

------


1. Get ACKS (Adventurer Conqueror King System)

2. Read it.

3. Behold the internally-consistent economic system.

4. Cry tears of joy.

I'll put that on the reading list. That's an OSR product, isn't it?

------


I disagree. Quite vehemently. Not only does the OP now need to check every material component ever and decide whether it is available in the setting or not. Whilst doing this they need to pay attention to balance of making certain core spells unavailable.
Then once that is done they have to have a list of every material component in each settlement, the possession of each group, and where those naturally occurring can be found on the map.

Actually... :smallsigh: This is part of why I was asking. I'm also splitting up the spell lists by faction as a throttle on tier 1's, so every city or nomad group logically must have ways of procuring the material components for their spells. Depending on how I decide to treat spell components, I might have to check every spell in the setting for material components. I figured this was a good time to address the quirk that is the pouch. (I liked how Kelb posted the other half of this thought while I'm proofreading.)

The world is a barren wasteland of constantly moving cities where everyone depends on conjured food and water to survive, not a regular green world. The factions each becoming different and isolationists is a natural consequence of having to constantly fight over what few resources they find, but it also makes some ordinarily common resources quite rare.


OP, regarding the constructions of magical items, is their only one way to do it, or can different casters construct the same ring of +1 protection from different ingredients?
Personally I think an almost monster hunter style use ingrediants of slain beasts could work well here.

I had hoped to find a canned system, so I really hadn't developed designs of my own on this. I don't want to go "one true way to make everything" since the campaign is about being resourceful and surviving. I really like the MonHunt idea, I will probably try that.

... Wonder if I could convince them to cut off dragon and wyvern tails before they kill the critter. :smallamused:

------


The arms and equipment guide has some loose guidelines, IIRC. I don't recall how good they are but it's something.

Noted, I'll give that a looksee. That's 3.0, isn't it?

------


It doesn't balance anything because plenty of great spells have no material components.

This. This is the one thing I'm noticing at a cursory glance. I would actually say it seems like less than 1/3rd of spells have material components, and it's utterly random if they have cost or not. :smallconfused:

------


I recall some advice, which was to have casters refill their pouches each week of use (or each time they stop in town) for 5gp. In that case, it would only be fair to let them stock extra components, at a rate of perhaps 5gp per week.

I might also consider let them make survival checks (DC 15-20?) to find and create a 1d6 days worth of components in the wild, although some things might warrant a higher check or be disallowed.

This is something to ponder. It isn't what I was looking for, but as a mechanic, it feels solid.

Shelfing discussion of material components... The one that I haven't seen much commentary on is profession(mining).

I know it's fun to argue about ways to hobble tier 1's tho'. :smallamused:

Kelb_Panthera
2014-02-01, 07:47 PM
That's 3.0, isn't it?

Technically, yes. Does it matter?

Amphetryon
2014-02-01, 07:49 PM
Where do I find them, also? They seem to be forum posts from Minmaxboards on one of their previous domain name iterations?
I believe they're affiliated with The Gaming Den. I'm not, and haven't been there very often to verify this is still the case.

Alent
2014-02-01, 07:58 PM
Technically, yes. Does it matter?

Was just curious, Hadn't looked at that book in a while. I'm pretty open to stuff as long as it's reasonable.

Anxe
2014-02-01, 08:53 PM
You could start looking on mining at the wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining). It seems like too much work for me to help you out there. Sorry.

Someonelse
2014-06-07, 12:13 AM
Re: spell component pouches

When I DM, I make spell casters buy a new component pouch every time they level up.

That's just my 2cp

Sivitri
2014-06-07, 12:30 AM
My old DM supplied me with the Pathfinder Ultimate Campaign guide, which has some nice ideas for dealing with economy, as well as landowning/running businesses on the side/armies/kingdoms...Pretty much everything to flesh out a world. It's helped me a lot.

Also, I love the idea of using MonHun strats when it comes to dealing with monster bits and pieces. That was going to be a core component to getting rare items in my campaign. You want a flaming sword? You better go get the heart of a fire elemental, then.

jedipotter
2014-06-07, 01:39 AM
1. Using spell components is a great way to balance spells. If you play a more Old School style game. In the New Way, it is a waste of time as the players will just overcome it and the DM will just let them. You get a couple of blank sheets of paper, and have the player write down everything they have in the pouch. Keep track of sizes and weights and how much is in the bag. Don't have magic marts with all the components, have the spellcaster search for some of them. And it's even better if the adventure takes place miles from the nearest store(the whole idea of shops and stores everywhere is so video game).

Suddenly lots of spells won't be able to be cast. No bulls or foxes around, you can't cast bulls' strength or foxes cunning. You'd need to find a ghoul first to cast ghoul touch. No horse hair, no mount. No mica, no glitterdust or shatter. And remember it only works Old School where if the player says ''I buy a hundred of each component''. the DM says ''No you don't''.

2. A simple, blanket rule for creation spells: it is not as good as the real thing. You could make it something like 50% as good. It is fine for an emergency, but not for long term use. Have it look and feel fake...maybe occasionally give off whisps of smoke. Have a 50% chance that they fail when used for anything.

3. Even if you used magic to make money.....there is a limit. If the town has 10,000 gold coins...well, that is all they have. So, no matter what, that is all you can make. And that assumes that every single person would buy whatever your selling.

Spuddles
2014-06-07, 01:45 AM
The problem with creating a realistic D&D economy is that D&D isn't realistic! You have the vast majority of the people living at a dark ages (or for some races, bronze or stone age) level, while a small percentage hav access to 3d printing, tactical nuclear strikes and a fleet of amazon (the company, not the female warrior tribe) drones dropping off whatever you need whenever you need it.

you must not get out much, because that is exactly what real life is like and has been for the past 100 years.

the future is here, its just not evenly distributed
--William Gibson

Boci
2014-06-07, 07:55 AM
1. Using spell components is a great way to balance spells. If you play a more Old School style game. In the New Way, it is a waste of time as the players will just overcome it and the DM will just let them. You get a couple of blank sheets of paper, and have the player write down everything they have in the pouch. Keep track of sizes and weights and how much is in the bag. Don't have magic marts with all the components, have the spellcaster search for some of them. And it's even better if the adventure takes place miles from the nearest store(the whole idea of shops and stores everywhere is so video game).

Suddenly lots of spells won't be able to be cast. No bulls or foxes around, you can't cast bulls' strength or foxes cunning. You'd need to find a ghoul first to cast ghoul touch. No horse hair, no mount. No mica, no glitterdust or shatter. And remember it only works Old School where if the player says ''I buy a hundred of each component''. the DM says ''No you don't''.

And have you actually put the work in for that? Listed every material component, where they can be bought, where they grow natural, in what quantities, the price, seasonal variance? Bear in mind you would have to redo this every time you made a new campaign world.

And them the player takes Eschew Material Component, negating all that work.

awa
2014-06-07, 09:01 AM
even when i played second edition non valuable components tended to be ignored. A few hairs or a bit of dung from a bull a player could get like 10,000 castings every time they entered a large farm. Its a lot like when i had a dm who wanted to role-play every shopping trip at best everyone but the shopper was bored at worst everyone was bored sometimes people would skip shopping just to get on with the adventure becuase no one wanted to spend 20 min so the player could replace a dagger.

Restrictions on the material components pouch (barring stuff like ice assassins or free action shenanigans) don't appreciable weaken the caster what they do is make them less fun to play it's like the bartering example the dagger price increases slightly becuase they don't want to deal with the problem.

Now if material components were interesting and the game was designed to use them as anything more then completely arbitrary in both power and availability.
For example allowing you to remove verbal components or cast more powerful spells and the game was balanced around that could be fun and interesting.

jedipotter
2014-06-07, 12:17 PM
And have you actually put the work in for that? Listed every material component, where they can be bought, where they grow natural, in what quantities, the price, seasonal variance? Bear in mind you would have to redo this every time you made a new campaign world.

And them the player takes Eschew Material Component, negating all that work.



The ''work'' is worth it. To have characters run out of components adds great fun, and even more balance, to the game. When the spellcaster can't use half a dozen spells as they can't get the components, they have to use other spells or even just think their way out of things. It suddenly makes spells with no material components or easy ones very common, and other spells very rare.

And sure they can take Eschew Components. Though note the house rule that says ''monster parts all have a value of greater then one gold''. And fix a couple of the other material components that have ''no cost''.

Gavinfoxx
2014-06-07, 12:27 PM
The problem with the Kingmaker based rules in Pathfinder's Ultimate Campaign is that it pretty much pretend magic doesn't exist.

See this thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?338281-PF-Kingmaker-very-little-talk-about-using-magic-in-kingdom-building

And ANY rules that will remove the possibility of the tippyverse and similar situations would have to look at the possibilities of problem spells on a spell by spell and magic item by magic item basis.

Look at my post scarcity handbook:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aG4P3dU6WP3pq8mW9l1qztFeNfqQHyI22oJe09i8KWw/edit

Do you take into account every single one of those magic items and every single one of those spells I mention?

Boci
2014-06-07, 12:54 PM
The ''work'' is worth it. To have characters run out of components adds great fun, and even more balance, to the game. When the spellcaster can't use half a dozen spells as they can't get the components, they have to use other spells or even just think their way out of things. It suddenly makes spells with no material components or easy ones very common, and other spells very rare.

So you've done the work, for each of your campaign settings?

Also, is it "worth it" for the non-spellcastying players, who now have to be bored to tears when the wizards plays the half hour shopping escapade whenever they are in a settlement?

Mellack
2014-06-07, 01:29 PM
The ''work'' is worth it. To have characters run out of components adds great fun, and even more balance, to the game. When the spellcaster can't use half a dozen spells as they can't get the components, they have to use other spells or even just think their way out of things. It suddenly makes spells with no material components or easy ones very common, and other spells very rare.

And sure they can take Eschew Components. Though note the house rule that says ''monster parts all have a value of greater then one gold''. And fix a couple of the other material components that have ''no cost''.

Sounds like a lot of hassle and boring shopping to me. I would probably just say "Here's 100gp, get me whatever is available." If you went to the work of deciding everything already, you can do the work of keeping track of it all.

jedipotter
2014-06-07, 02:31 PM
So you've done the work, for each of your campaign settings?

Also, is it "worth it" for the non-spellcastying players, who now have to be bored to tears when the wizards plays the half hour shopping escapade whenever they are in a settlement?

It is more like one long never ending campaign in my way, as it is always the same world. I don't start from scratch each time.

You forgot the Old School part. In modern games, the whole group would be bored as the spellcasters loked for mushrooms, and the DM-player rolled over and let this happen.

It is not this way in Old School:
Problem spellcaster player-"I want to stop and look for a cave with bats in it''
DM-"So you want to stop and derail the game to look for bats?"
Problem spellcaster player-"I need bat guano! Yes!"
DM-"Ok, you have chosen not to play the game with the other players. Your character goes and looks for caves or whatever. Please turn your chair around or leave the house. You have chosen not to play with the group. Ok, everyone else that is still playing.....the map shows an 'X' near the edge of the Far Forest..."

See Problem spellcaster player did not disrupt the game or make anyone bored.

Telok
2014-06-07, 02:36 PM
So you've done the work, for each of your campaign settings?

Also, is it "worth it" for the non-spellcastying players, who now have to be bored to tears when the wizards plays the half hour shopping escapade whenever they are in a settlement?

It's not really that bad. I've done it back in the day before 3rd ed.

What happens is the player look at his spells, decides what he needs, and asks the DM if it's available in town/shop/area. The DM thinks for a minute about what should be available (or what he wants available, plot hook: who has been buying all the pearls in town and why?) and perhaps rolls some dice. The player then buys however much he wants, can afford, or the seller has available.

It takes about five minutes, ten at the outside, if most of your party is spellcasters (not uncommon in 3.5) they can pool resources and shopping lists. Most of what the DM needs to know is the price of the various components. If you don't want to actually go through the spells lists and price everything, and you don't, you just say the base price for most components is 5 per silver and they weigh 15 items to the pound.

On the plus side it prevents casters from having infinite dragon scales, darts, quicklime, and water in a small bag.

Anlashok
2014-06-07, 02:41 PM
It is more like one long never ending campaign in my way, as it is always the same world. I don't start from scratch each time.

You forgot the Old School part. In modern games, the whole group would be bored as the spellcasters loked for mushrooms, and the DM-player rolled over and let this happen.

It is not this way in Old School:
Problem spellcaster player-"I want to stop and look for a cave with bats in it''
DM-"So you want to stop and derail the game to look for bats?"
Problem spellcaster player-"I need bat guano! Yes!"
DM-"Ok, you have chosen not to play the game with the other players. Your character goes and looks for caves or whatever. Please turn your chair around or leave the house. You have chosen not to play with the group. Ok, everyone else that is still playing.....the map shows an 'X' near the edge of the Far Forest..."

See Problem spellcaster player did not disrupt the game or make anyone bored.

So you deny the spellcaster access to his materials, and then when he tries to go find them himself you kick him out of the game?

That sounds like utterly awful DMing and still doesn't manage to make anything more balanced.

AuraTwilight
2014-06-07, 02:54 PM
It is more like one long never ending campaign in my way, as it is always the same world. I don't start from scratch each time.

You forgot the Old School part. In modern games, the whole group would be bored as the spellcasters loked for mushrooms, and the DM-player rolled over and let this happen.

It is not this way in Old School:
Problem spellcaster player-"I want to stop and look for a cave with bats in it''
DM-"So you want to stop and derail the game to look for bats?"
Problem spellcaster player-"I need bat guano! Yes!"
DM-"Ok, you have chosen not to play the game with the other players. Your character goes and looks for caves or whatever. Please turn your chair around or leave the house. You have chosen not to play with the group. Ok, everyone else that is still playing.....the map shows an 'X' near the edge of the Far Forest..."

See Problem spellcaster player did not disrupt the game or make anyone bored.

The more I read your anecdotes of how you solve problems as a GM the more I wonder why anyone plays with you. You essentially doomed that player from character creation because their only choices are going without their only class feature or dying.

Boci
2014-06-07, 03:29 PM
It is more like one long never ending campaign in my way, as it is always the same world. I don't start from scratch each time.

You forgot the Old School part. In modern games, the whole group would be bored as the spellcasters loked for mushrooms, and the DM-player rolled over and let this happen.

It is not this way in Old School:
Problem spellcaster player-"I want to stop and look for a cave with bats in it''
DM-"So you want to stop and derail the game to look for bats?"
Problem spellcaster player-"I need bat guano! Yes!"
DM-"Ok, you have chosen not to play the game with the other players. Your character goes and looks for caves or whatever. Please turn your chair around or leave the house. You have chosen not to play with the group. Ok, everyone else that is still playing.....the map shows an 'X' near the edge of the Far Forest..."

See Problem spellcaster player did not disrupt the game or make anyone bored.

Yeah, that's a totally appropriate response. Not "Okay, DC: 15 survival check, are you asking any other players to help?"

This isn't the caster not playing with the other players, this is the caster playing under the rules you put forth, and you punishing them for trying to intelligently interact with these rules rather than nerf themselves as you intended.


It's not really that bad. I've done it back in the day before 3rd ed.

What happens is the player look at his spells, decides what he needs, and asks the DM if it's available in town/shop/area. The DM thinks for a minute about what should be available (or what he wants available, plot hook: who has been buying all the pearls in town and why?) and perhaps rolls some dice. The player then buys however much he wants, can afford, or the seller has available.

Except as other people said in this thread, sometimes it was skipped because its a PITA. Or you have a GM like jedi, who has a different intention with such a rule.

pwykersotz
2014-06-07, 03:32 PM
The more I read your anecdotes of how you solve problems as a GM the more I wonder why anyone plays with you. You essentially doomed that player from character creation because their only choices are going without their only class feature or dying.


So you deny the spellcaster access to his materials, and then when he tries to go find them himself you kick him out of the game?

That sounds like utterly awful DMing and still doesn't manage to make anything more balanced.

I was introduced to D&D by a GM like jedipotter. It is awesome when done right. The immersion and the adventure feels incredibly satisfying. Abstracting away the minutiae leaves a world feeling empty and uninteresting by comparison. The accusation of 'denying' a player his class feature falls utterly flat if you even consider the paradigm.

The adventure he's talking about is one where a warrior must fight with a broken sword after the demonic follower of the dark prince shattered it. His pride and honor are such that he will not let the creature take away what is rightfully his, and so he fights on with the weapon anyway until he can get it reforged.

Roleplay can go as deep as you want it to, and not having an appreciation for it does not make someone who does 'bad' at the game.

Boci
2014-06-07, 03:34 PM
I was introduced to D&D by a GM like jedipotter. It is awesome when done right.

And is "you cannot buy it and if you try to look for it I will kick you from the game" doing it right?


The adventure he's talking about is one where a warrior must fight with a broken sword after the demonic follower of the dark prince shattered it. His pride and honor are such that he will not let the creature take away what is rightfully his, and so he fights on with the weapon anyway until he can get it reforged.

Nothing old-school only about that. "Your weapon is broken, you can fight with it as an improvised weapon". There no reason that is unique to jedi's kind of games. PCs still don't like letting evil doers go.

Anlashok
2014-06-07, 03:38 PM
Roleplay can go as deep as you want it to, and not having an appreciation for it does not make someone who does 'bad' at the game.
And someone not liking tedious bookkeeping does not mean they "don't have an appreciation for roleplaying". It seems kind of silly to throw out a complaint like that AND try to insult someone in the same fashion in the same sentence.

Nevermind that I didn't say anything about roleplaying. I commented on jedipotter's scenario of threatening the wizard's player when he wants to find more supplies on his own.

That isn't the warrior fighting after his sword is broken, this is going out of your way to make sure said warrior can't get a new sword either.

torrasque666
2014-06-07, 03:41 PM
And is "you cannot buy it and if you try to look for it I will kick you from the game" doing it right?

Depends on the situation. Using the bat guano example:

Are you in a location where caves might be? Are you in a location where the climate is such that bats might live there? If the answer to either of those is no, then you would have to leave the party to go looking. If both are met, such as in a cave/underground dungeon, or a temperate desert(as per the environment entry on "bat" in the MM) then make the check. Such a system would make a wizard more aware of his environment and very well might increase immersion. It would also make them have to weigh "how useful is this spell compared to the availability of the components?"

Boci
2014-06-07, 03:47 PM
Depends on the situation. Using the bat guano example:

Are you in a location where caves might be? Are you in a location where the climate is such that bats might live there? If the answer to either of those is no, then you would have to leave the party to go looking. If both are met, such as in a cave/underground dungeon, or a temperate desert(as per the environment entry on "bat" in the MM) then make the check. Such a system would make a wizard more aware of his environment and very well might increase immersion. It would also make them have to weigh "how useful is this spell compared to the availability of the components?"

And the most important question:

Is the effort required to answer those and adapt the rules and playstyle accordingly worth it? Answer: probably not. This is D&D, you can sleep off a dagger wound, very few wounds bleed (its an enchantment, despite the fact that mundane weapon on earth have caused bleeding without magic for many centuries). Creatures can just be scaled up, the economy makes no sense at all. Ect, ect.

Even if you do fix the component pouch, you are still left with the problem that they are kinda stupid. Wanna talk realism? Cool. What are the material component for a fireball to a tribal sorcerer who grew up on an island where bats are not native? Or are bats native everywhere?

If material components bothers you, give spellcasters eschew material component, or rework them to have a more universal version (all abjuration spells, all fire spells). If you want to balance casters, introduce proper house rules.

Don't try and balance them under the guise of realistic spell components, and certainly don't kick a player out of the game when they try and work within these restrictions (which is another point, reguardless of whether or not a wizard can find bat guano, kicking them out for trying is being heavy handed to put it mildly).

torrasque666
2014-06-07, 03:56 PM
And the most important question:

Is the effort required to answer those and adapt the rules and playstyle accordingly worth it? Answer: probably not. This is D&D, you can sleep off a dagger wound, very few wounds bleed (its an enchantment, despite the fact that mundane weapon on earth have caused bleeding without magic for many centuries). Creatures can just be scaled up, the economy makes no sense at all. Ect, ect.

Even if you do fix the component pouch, you are still left with the problem that they are kinda stupid. Wanna talk realism? Cool. What are the material component for a fireball to a tribal sorcerer who grew up on an island where bats are not native? Or are bats native everywhere?

If material components bothers you, give spellcasters eschew material component, or rework them to have a more universal version (all abjuration spells, all fire spells). If you want to balance casters, introduce proper house rules.

Don't try and balance them under the guise of realistic spell components, and certainly don't kick a player out of the game when they try and work within these restrictions (which is another point, reguardless of whether or not a wizard can find bat guano, kicking them out for trying is being heavy handed to put it mildly).

Well a tribal sorcerer wouldn't need guano as they scratch that, pathfinder knowledge leaking in.

For the tribal, maybe the just don't HAVE fireball or even know its a thing. Even if he can innately cast it, without trying to fling around some bat poop that he doesn't have access to, how does he know he can?

As for the kicking the player out, you DID see how they were insistent that they go off to find their materials right? Because then you are left with two options: Remove them from play for a bit so the character can wander off to get the hell they need, or suddenly split the game in two, switching between the caster and the party.

Boci
2014-06-07, 04:01 PM
Well a tribal sorcerer wouldn't need guano as they scratch that, pathfinder knowledge leaking in.

For the tribal, maybe the just don't HAVE fireball or even know its a thing. Even if he can innately cast it, without trying to fling around some bat poop that he doesn't have access to, how does he know he can?

This is kinda what I mean. Individually tracking material components is just scratching the surface. You now have to decide which regions cannot cast spells because they don't have access to the material component required, in turn what spells can the PCs not cast because the material component does not exist in their region? Yay, more work. But at least we are fixing an incredibly narrow inoganicness of game, ignore the far more sweeping aspects like the HP system.


[As for the kicking the player out, you DID see how they were insistent that they go off to find their materials right? Because then you are left with two options: Remove them from play for a bit so the character can wander off to get the hell they need, or suddenly split the game in two, switching between the caster and the party.

Its down time isn't it? "Make a survival check, rest of the party, anyone doing anything in the couple of hours until the wizard comes back".

torrasque666
2014-06-07, 04:04 PM
Its down time isn't it? "Make a survival check, rest of the party, anyone doing anything in the couple of hours until the wizard comes back".

Yes, because that totally won't get your party eaten when they decide to camp out in a dungeon with no safe shelter, and with a lack of any required material components, little to no magical shelter either.

Boci
2014-06-07, 04:06 PM
Yes, because that totally won't get your party eaten when they decide to camp out in a dungeon with no safe shelter, and with a lack of any required material components, little to no magical shelter either.

So how does the party normally camp?

Just carry this logic over to another class. "Ranger, your bow string snapped. You cannot use it until its fixed" "Oh dear. Hey guys, just gona nip off and craft a bow string" "You selfish PC, get out"

torrasque666
2014-06-07, 04:14 PM
So how does the party normally camp?

Just carry this logic over to another class. "Ranger, your bow string snapped. You cannot use it until its fixed" "Oh dear. Hey guys, just gona nip off and craft a bow string" "You selfish PC, get out"

I'm not saying that every dungeon is unsafe, but most are. Usually they have some sort of wandering monsters.

As for other classes, most martials carry a backup weapon. Or materials to repair their weapon(extra bow strings for example.)

Tvtyrant
2014-06-07, 04:14 PM
I think I would have the casters literally burn up gold coins as spell components rather then make them go hunting for things like bat guano... And if you really did have a bat guano economy why hasn't someone set up parts harvesting farms and started selling the parts by now? Especially in places like Sigil.

Boci
2014-06-07, 04:18 PM
I'm not saying that every dungeon is unsafe, but most are. Usually they have some sort of wandering monsters

And why is this a problem? Searching for bat guano should be done in acouple hours, why does the party suddenly need to camp? Plus if they did, its because the DM decided so, so why is the wizard to blame?


As for other classes, most martials carry a backup weapon. Or materials to repair their weapon(extra bow strings for example.)

Fine, the ranger is out of arrows. Are they allowed to go off and craft some?


I think I would have the casters literally burn up gold coins as spell components rather then make them go hunting for things like bat guano... And if you really did have a bat guano economy why hasn't someone set up parts harvesting farms and started selling the parts by now? Especially in places like Sigil.

Because the stated intention of this houserule was balance, and to make the wizard run out of components because it can be fun, or at least the threat of it can be.

Boci
2014-06-07, 04:42 PM
Anything created or transmutated must either conserve or consume weight, volume, and value. You can't turn lead into gold, unless you turn it into a small smaller amount of gold that is worth the same or less than the original amount of lead.

Yes because gold and lead totally have universal intrinsic values. Does that mean I can turn 10lbs of iron into a gram of gold in Renaissance Europe, but 10lbs of iron into 10 tones of gold in European Renaissance time South America?

Stella
2014-06-07, 04:49 PM
The problem with creating a realistic D&D economy is that D&D isn't realistic!That, and the fact that economics isn't at all fun. Well, maybe it is to an economist, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that even most economists don't care to get bogged down in a sub-game of Monster parts and Moneychanging when they had hoped to play some D&D.

Nerf what needs to be nerfed, ban what needs to be banned, and tell your players that, no, they can't buy ladders all day long and sell two 10 foot poles for a profit. This really shouldn't be terribly hard to convey.

Slithery D
2014-06-07, 04:56 PM
I think I would have the casters literally burn up gold coins as spell components rather then make them go hunting for things like bat guano...

Glenn Cook's Garrett, P.I. series has sorcery fueled (in never described ways) by silver, so the two biggest kingdoms fight a generations long war over the site with the biggest silver mines. I always thought that sort of thing could lead to a cool campaign setting.

Boci
2014-06-07, 05:03 PM
It totally depends on the scope of the campaign setting. In the setting you mention, I would take the most disadvantageous exchange rate anywhere in the world the characters could reasonably expect to travel to.

And who updates the spell on the changing perceived value of metals?

Boci
2014-06-07, 05:19 PM
Maybe oversimplified but to an extent it needs to be simplified.

It goes a bit beyond a simplification: it isn't realistic. Unless there is a supreme being imposing their will upon magic, there is no reason transmutation should ever take value into account, when changing one matter into another form. I agree it is needed, but all this demonstrates is that a "realistic" D&D economy is pretty much impossible.

Anlashok
2014-06-07, 05:22 PM
The DM. If the DM is keeping track of how the price of literally everything is changing with the value of gold changes, adjusting a short spell series in the same pattern would be a snap.

Any campaign where the value of your "gold standard" fluctuates is one where the DM is doomed to a world of self-loathing and insanity as he tries to keep up with those fluctuations. D&D simplifies this intentionally. Maybe oversimplified but to an extent it needs to be simplified.

It's simplified because it's not a core part of any mechanic, but with this houserule you're making it one. This causes strange things like the amount of gold you are able to create varying on area... oh and does dumb things like increasing the amount of gold you create based on how much gold has already been created.

Also this thread is called "More realistic D&D economy". So talking about handwaving away core economic principles is going against the spirit of the thread.

Plus the general idea of a cosmic force's power being based on partially arbitrarily defined, artificial conceptualization of value just feels off.

Anlashok
2014-06-07, 05:25 PM
D&D is definitely NOT an atheistic universe. It's kind of bizarre to try winning a D&D debate by claiming the non-existence of gods in the game.
More than a couple core settings are more or less aetheistic (dark sun, eberron, ravenloft), so not really.

Nevermind that Economic Theory is not one of Mystra's domains (and whether or not she has complete control over the weave isn't particularly well defined).

Boci
2014-06-07, 05:26 PM
There is. Her name is Mystra. Or Boccob. Or any of a number of D&D gods of magic.

D&D is definitely NOT an atheistic universe. It's kind of bizarre to try winning a D&D debate by claiming the non-existence of gods in the game.

And yet people who oppose them can still cast magic. Same result: no singular or unified will over magic means magic will not have a universal value for a metal. Just because a god is the god of magic doesn't mean they control magic down to the tiniest detail, even if they could, they don't.

Slipperychicken
2014-06-07, 05:48 PM
Wouldn't there just be spell component shops (or at least general stores which stock spell components), where our poor wizard could go and pick up some imported bat feces?

Besides, by 13th level (at the absolute latest), the Wizard can simply Greater Teleport over to his favorite bat-cave and harvest as much poo as he wants.

It might even be possible to cast Summon Monster 3 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonMonsterIII.htm) (that's the same level as Fireball!) for a dire bat, and then command it to defacate into a spell component pouch. And then this punishes the GM in return by making him think seriously about how much feces a 200lb dire bat could excrete in 30 seconds.

torrasque666
2014-06-07, 07:32 PM
But what if the bat hasn't eaten anything. which as a summon it hasn't?

Slipperychicken
2014-06-07, 09:30 PM
But what if the bat hasn't eaten anything. which as a summon it hasn't?

Who says? Summons aren't created, but pulled in from somewhere else. Surely at least some of those bats must have eaten something prior to the casting.

torrasque666
2014-06-07, 09:37 PM
Who says? Summons aren't created, but pulled in from somewhere else. Surely at least some of those bats must have eaten something prior to the casting.

No, Called creatures are pulled from elsewhere. Summoned creatures are made out of magical energy, hence why they wink out in an AMF whereas called ones don't.

RegalKain
2014-06-07, 09:49 PM
No, Called creatures are pulled from elsewhere. Summoned creatures are made out of magical energy, hence why they wink out in an AMF whereas called ones don't.

Mind telling me where I can find that tidbit? Because Summon Monster, says that they are summoned from their home plane and appear where designated, not that they are created from magical energy. Unless I'm somehow mis-reading, which I don't think I am.

OT: Our E6 group recently did the MonHunt thing, and all of us really enjoyed it, we didn't have any component heavy casters at the time, but enchanting armor and things (Like making something a +1 Fiery Long Sword) required monster parts, both for the magic of the +1 and different parts for the magic of fiery, we used a Crystal system to swap things in and out, basicially you enchanted the weapon, and that allowed it to have crystals of a higher grade and power attached to it, this allowed you to keep an assortment of crystals around for different situations, and still use the same weapon. We felt it went better with the fluff side of things like a family sword passed down through the generations etc, also allowed players to keep the weapon they had from the start and slowly upgrade it and utilize it in different ways and so forth. That said though, it took my friend and I around 12-14 hours to put what we did together, and within the first thirty minutes of gameplay we were making hot-fixes on the side as we saw problems arising, so doing this sort of economy overhaul is no small matter, but IMO it makes the game a great deal more fun.

It's been mentioned a few times in here, but once you have certain Homebrew rules, porting them from campaign to campaign is a lot easier then re-creating the system, for instance, let's say Bats ONLY spawn in the desert, and that's the ONLY place to get bat guano, or towns that import it from said desert towns, that's easy to setup in any world that has a desert, if you have a world that has no desert, or suitably equivalent place then you may have to change it some, but that's only if you get very specific, make it so they spawn in deserts and cave systems. If you are going to argue your world has neither, I'm beginning to wonder who built your world and what they were thinking.

As for the issue of "what about the shaman on the island" as someone else said, maybe he doesn't use fireball? Maybe his ancestors have researched a new version of fireball that's called waterball instead, it still explodes and has the concussive force, it just doesn't burn, it uses fish eyes instead of bat guano, this is where as a DM and as a player, you can have some fun with the world-building that D&D offers. But my players and I find theory-crafting and especially world-burning very fun that's going to vary from group to group, tell you what, if someone wants to help me compile a list of all spells with material components, we can start working on something like that, get all the currently known components listed, figure out how many variations there are etc, then go down the list of where to find them so on and so forth.

Zanos
2014-06-07, 10:07 PM
More than a couple core settings are more or less aetheistic (dark sun, eberron, ravenloft), so not really.

Nevermind that Economic Theory is not one of Mystra's domains (and whether or not she has complete control over the weave isn't particularly well defined).
For what it's worth the stated version of Mystra has the Deny Weave SDA, preventing people from casting spells at all whenever she feels like.

Slipperychicken
2014-06-07, 10:09 PM
No, Called creatures are pulled from elsewhere. Summoned creatures are made out of magical energy, hence why they wink out in an AMF whereas called ones don't.

Actually..


Summoning (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#summoning)
A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower. It is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again.

When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire. A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have, and it refuses to cast any spells that would cost it XP, or to use any spell-like abilities that would cost XP if they were spells.

torrasque666
2014-06-07, 10:29 PM
Sorry, my error. Got that info from dndwiki.com's article on Conjuring. Made it seem like they were things conjured out of thin air.

Stella
2014-06-07, 11:05 PM
Regardless of the interpretation of how Summoning Spells work, neither appears to cause bat crap generated by a Summoned Bat to disappear once the Summoning spell expires.

And... Eschew Materials ignores a pile of issues with regards to DMs attempting to screw casters over via making their spell components difficult to obtain. As if that was in any way a class balancing rule in any event, because it is not. Not by a long shot.

Telok
2014-06-08, 02:28 AM
And if you really did have a bat guano economy why hasn't someone set up parts harvesting farms and started selling the parts by now? Especially in places like Sigil.

Since there were real life Pacific islands with economies based on bird crap half a century I wouldn't scoff at a guano economy.

Thanatosia
2014-06-08, 02:48 AM
Also on the subject of Bat Guano and Realistic Economies, there's no way Bat Guano would not be readily available anywhere Wizards tend to wonder by - the gold to be made if no one else is supplying the service would blow actual farming away.

And because a Peasant's Time is worth such a miniscule amount compared to the value of a 5th level Wizard's time it would be insane for the Wizard to ever gather his own Guano - it would be like a Corporate CEO of a million dollar company spending time manning the Cash Register or Unclogging the Toilets.

Boci
2014-06-08, 06:21 AM
In any case, that one subsection of my post doesn't even have to rely on a deity (consciouysly or otherwise) manipulating metaphysical reality. It can literally be a physical trait of the planes.

So the planes, which pre-date currency, have a physical trait that takes into account the value of the metals that make currency, despite having societies that do not use gold or silver as the basis of their currency?


Or you could just ignore that sentence fragment that was picked out and note that the rest of my post stands quite well on its own merits.

Its stands quite well in an OOC balance reasoning, but not an in universe "this totally makes sense" reasoning.

Boci
2014-06-08, 06:46 AM
No, the planes are not "aware" of the currency value of anything. What they are "aware" of is the rarity of the items. The gold piece value is simply a human way of expressing that rarity. Goods are valuable (a quality expressed in dollar value in modern times) precisely because because they are rare.

What about the elemental plane of earth? Can I take a piece of never melting ice there and transmute it into a bajillion gold pieces?

Plus this means that over time you will get more and more gold out of the same amount of lead, because each time you make gold you decrease its value.

Ashtagon
2014-06-08, 07:25 AM
What about the elemental plane of earth? Can I take a piece of never melting ice there and transmute it into a bajillion gold pieces?

Plus this means that over time you will get more and more gold out of the same amount of lead, because each time you make gold you decrease its value.

Yes to both. Of course, once you make a bajillion gold pieces, you've flooded the market with gold, and as soon as people realise you have that much gold, they'll be charging you prices based on the fact that gold is no longer all that rare.

Like I said, realistic economies are way too complicated for most GMs who wish to remain sane.

Boci
2014-06-08, 07:31 AM
Yes to both. Of course, once you make a bajillion gold pieces, you've flooded the market with gold, and as soon as people realise you have that much gold, they'll be charging you prices based on the fact that gold is no longer all that rare.

Economics doesn't work that way. As long as the wizard doesn't broadcast his secret (and why would he?), he can buy what he wants and keep most of the gold in storage, barely impacting the material plane economy.


Like I said, realistic economies are way too complicated for most GMs who wish to remain sane.

Fair enough.

Ashtagon
2014-06-08, 08:02 AM
Economics doesn't work that way. As long as the wizard doesn't broadcast his secret (and why would he?), he can buy what he wants and keep most of the gold in storage, barely impacting the material plane economy.

Any reasonably intelligent merchant will note that the wizard ALWAYS has enough gold and never sells anything to acquire more gold, and can logically conclude that he has an infinite (or effectively so) supply of gold, and so would adjust his prices accordingly.

And if he isn't buying in significant quantities, then he's made gold that he isn't using, so in effect he hasn't benefited from all his work making lead (or whatever) into gold anyway.

Boci
2014-06-08, 08:09 AM
Any reasonably intelligent merchant will note that the wizard ALWAYS has enough gold and never sells anything to acquire more gold, and can logically conclude that he has an infinite (or effectively so) supply of gold, and so would adjust his prices accordingly.

No, not at all. The wizard could have defeated a party of high level adventuring party, netting themselves around 400,000 to 2 million value in coins, could be a noble in a flourishing kingdom, could have defeated a dragon and taken its hoard, could have inherited a lot of gold, could be selling magical items to a different merchant, potentially of a different race on another plane.

So no, your "logical conclusion" is anything but, and that is assuming the wizards always goes to the same merchant.

1eGuy
2014-06-08, 08:15 AM
And yet people who oppose them can still cast magic. Same result: no singular or unified will over magic means magic will not have a universal value for a metal. Just because a god is the god of magic doesn't mean they control magic down to the tiniest detail, even if they could, they don't.If the DM says they do just that, then they do.

Slipperychicken
2014-06-08, 08:15 AM
Any reasonably intelligent merchant will note that the wizard ALWAYS has enough gold and never sells anything to acquire more gold, and can logically conclude that he has an infinite (or effectively so) supply of gold, and so would adjust his prices accordingly.

Merchants don't adjust prices according to their buyers' wealth, but to demand.

If the wizard happens to be willing to throw down 10gp for a pound of bat guano (because that's pocket change to a wizard, and the wizard's time is much too valuable to spend haggling over such a measly sum), the merchant will surely notice and charge as much as he thinks will maximize his profit (keeping good relations with the Wizard, but also earning a healthy margin for each transaction).

Of course, if the wizard still acts like a penny-pinching miser in spite of his endless wealth, shopping and haggling to the bitter end for every last copper, utterly unwilling to pay one penny above market price, then the merchant won't see much benefit to charging him a premium. Doubly so if the wizard sees our hypothetical 10gp for a pound of bat guano as an insult and goes to another merchant instead (to say nothing of what would happen if the wizard perceives this as an insult and swears vengeance against the merchant for his extortionate pricing).

Boci
2014-06-08, 08:21 AM
If the DM says they do just that, then they do.

And then the DM would be expected to lay out a full list of results from such a change in setting lore, not just bring it up when they don't like a logical application of the fluff.


Not actually true. This phenomenon actually happens in the real world. Thailand is the most obvious example, but I have even observed it happening in "western" countries.

And i the wizard a tourist?

Plus that isn't all about extra wealth of tourists. Its also that tourists:

a. Are generally in a more money spending mood since they are on holiday
b. Often do not know the market price of what they are buying

Plus tourist prices is an attitude to the whole customer basis, not a individual one who happens to be very wealthy.

So its not a very good comparison at all.

And even if it were, you are still yet to justify how the merchant knows the wizard has effectively infinite wealth.

Shinken
2014-06-08, 08:22 AM
You could use the wealth rules from d20 Modern.
Also,

you must not get out much, because that is exactly what real life is like and has been for the past 100 years.

the future is here, its just not evenly distributed
--William Gibson

So sadly true.

Slipperychicken
2014-06-08, 08:33 AM
Not actually true. This phenomenon actually happens in the real world. Thailand is the most obvious example, but I have even observed it happening in "western" countries (DVD zones is the most notable example for western countries, where zone 1 and zone 2 (Europe and USA) DVDs are routinely set at higher RRP prices than other zones, in order to gouge the market for all it is worth).

http://www.travelfish.org/board/post/thailand/827_thai-price-vs--tourist-price

That works precisely because the tourists have higher demand than native thais. They're willing to pay more money for the same service.


EDIT: Also, it's typically called 'price discrimination' or 'tiered pricing'. In those cases, sellers notice that different market segments are willing to pay different prices, and charge each segment what it's willing to pay. A similar effect occurs when companies give discounts to students, children, and the elderly, because those groups don't have as much demand as the general population.

Shinken
2014-06-08, 08:36 AM
That works precisely because the tourists have higher demand than native thais. They're willing to pay more money for the same service.

But that's not what demand means.

1eGuy
2014-06-08, 08:37 AM
And then the DM would be expected to lay out a full list of results from such a change in setting lore, not just bring it up when they don't like a logical application of the fluff.Well, that's easy:

"Sometimes spells fail because the god of magic doesn't like your application of the power or because you didn't go to church or because she's in a bad mood."

Similarly, and a bit more restrictively: "The god of storms doesn't allow you to cast that control weather spell today." which isn't even much of a change to the game's assumptions. If you have gods of X, then it's not a big surprise if they control X, is it?

Anyway, logic and magic (and gods) are pretty well opposites.


And even if it were, you are still yet to justify how the merchant knows the wizard has effectively infinite wealth.Any shopkeeper knows that if someone keeps turning up and buying expensive things without even haggling then that is someone they should try selling more expensive things to.

1eGuy
2014-06-08, 08:39 AM
That works precisely because the tourists have higher demand than native thais. They're willing to pay more money for the same service.Another way of looking at it is that the tourists have a greater supply of money, so the money is worth less - which is the reason sane economists say you should avoid just printing more money when you're in trouble.

Boci
2014-06-08, 08:41 AM
Well, that's easy:

"Sometimes spells fail because the god of magic doesn't like your application of the power or because you didn't go to church or because she's in a bad mood."

Similarly, and a bit more restrictively: "The god of storms doesn't allow you to cast that control weather spell today."

That is known as DM fiat and is considered bad form by most posters on this forum. On the other hand, "I know magic can easily break the D&D economy, please don't" will generally be considered perfectly reasonable.

[QUOTE=1eGuy;17595922]which isn't even much of a change to the game's assumptions. If you have gods of X, then it's not a big surprise if they control X, is it?

Kinda is a big surprise, since its a significant chance to a setting if people with opposing aliment and goals to the God of X can no longer use X. See the Giant's take on the matter in his most recent comic page.


Any shopkeeper knows that if someone keeps turning up and buying expensive things without even haggling then that is someone they should try selling more expensive things to.

That assumes that:
a. the wizard doesn't try to haggle
b. the wizard always goes to the same merchant

And even if both of those are true, how is being offered expensive goods that bad a thing?

Slipperychicken
2014-06-08, 08:45 AM
That works precisely because the tourists have higher demand than native thais. They're willing to pay more money for the same service.
But that's not what demand means.

You sure about that?


Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand)

Demand is a buyer's willingness and ability to pay a price for a specific quantity of a good or service. Demand refers to how much (quantity) of a product or service is desired by buyers at various prices. The quantity demanded is the amount of a product people are willing to buy at a certain price; the relationship between price and quantity demanded is known as the demand.[1] (see also supply and demand). The term demand signifies the ability or the willingness to buy a particular commodity at a given point of time.


Webster's dictionary, demand (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demand)
willingness and ability to purchase a commodity or service <the demand for quality day care>



Dictionary.com, demand (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/demand)
Economics .
a.
the desire to purchase, coupled with the power to do so.
b.
the quantity of goods that buyers will take at a particular price.




The free dictionary, demand (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/demand)
5. Economics
a. The desire to possess a commodity or make use of a service, combined with the ability to purchase it.
b. The amount of a commodity or service that people are ready to buy for a given price: Supply should rise to meet demand.

ace rooster
2014-06-08, 10:35 AM
Are you looking for a way to make a functional economy in a D&D world, or a way of handling one in rules? The distinction is important, as I always just assume that a functioning economy exists, and that the rules as presented are a streamlined simplification that is only appropriate for small scale transactions (or uses in the case of spells). As such, if a player assumes that the DM is going to follow the rules for industrial applications the DM will just say "no, this is outside the scope of these rules, and no I am not going to homebrew rules so you can set up a 10ft pole factory."

The system I usually assume is based on conservation of magic, with there being processes for converting materials reversibly; for example, converting gold to lead releasing the value in magic power for use in crafting, or the reverse using the same amount of magic to transmute into gold. The processes for making things like diamonds take a very long time, and requires very specific conditions, so you cannot just transmute at will, but 1000gp worth of diamonds is something concrete.

If you are looking to actually build consistent rules (that players won't just break), then we have to start by assuming that everything costs what it does for a reason. Mostly the cost of things reflects the difficulty of crafting them, so the main difficulty is justifying why level 1 wizards charge as much as 5 days in a good inn per spell. There are plenty of them about, and they can cast at least 4 spells per day. There is no way that there is demand for that many spells at that price, as most things that mending would be used for will be less than 5gp, so it would be cheaper replacing it. There must be some other factor that causes spellcasters to hold back on casting spells, and would make it a bad idea for PCs to start undercutting them. A guild would have some impact, but I would doupt they would limit mending to only high end jewelery uses (which it would be at 5gp per casting) so there must be some other factors as well.

Magic economics can be handled by assuming that channeling enough energy to kill someone at range in 6 seconds will have some impact on the caster and the enviroment that is not covered in the rules. Something like the impact of 50 cigerettes on the casters health would not be combat relevent (hence would not appear in the rules), but would mean that casters would not want to cast spells on a daily basis. If casting spells suptly pollutes the area around in a way that is not noticable then again casters would not want to be slinging spells too much, especially if it makes casting harder in future (a high background level of magic causes spells to cast spontaniously, but adding more magic is difficult). Think effects like necromancy attracting ghouls and causing the dead to rise occasionally, but causing necromancy spells to be harder to cast in the area. Conjuration could draw through outsiders, with the evil ones happy to cause mayhem and the good ones annoyed to be stuck. Abjuration causes magic to just go mad, and transmutation could be responsible for owlbears (I can't think of any other reason for them to exist). Casters who want to stay hidden would be forced to keep their magic to a minimum, with things like dragons very easily finding the effects of long term magic use on an area.

Personally I would steer well clear of solid rules for economics, and basically say just stare at any player that tries to do anything that requires them until they change their mind. I might make up some rules relating to profession merchent and investing money on trade goods, but unless the PCs manage to set up the east india company (having shut down the pirates), the PCs will not be able influence the large scale economics of the world. Similarly I would start making rules about low level backlash if I have PCs that start overusing magic on a daily basis (This is something I make clear at the start). Expect tumors with massive SR within a year if you are casting 50+ levels of spells a day.

Hope this helps. :smallsmile:

Thanatosia
2014-06-08, 02:07 PM
Any reasonably intelligent merchant will note that the wizard ALWAYS has enough gold and never sells anything to acquire more gold, and can logically conclude that he has an infinite (or effectively so) supply of gold, and so would adjust his prices accordingly.
So do you think Big Macs suddenly cost $1,000 the instant Mark Cuban walks into the doors of a Mcdonalds? Cuz no, that's not how things work generally speaking.

If the Merchant knows for a fact that the Wizard has virtually endless money (and simply having enough gold and never selling anything is not an indicator of this - esp if the Wizard is not a well known local figure, and if he IS a local figure, screwing with him is much more hazardous), and is reasonably sure he has a complete monopoly on something the wizard needs, he might gouge the wizard to a certain degree. But more likely any overt abuse is going to result in the Wizard simply walking out of the store and offering anyone else willing to go into the nearby caves and scrape up some droppings a figure that while still completely insignificant for him, is still going to be very well worth the time of someone else to drop whatever they are doing and run for the hills with a bucket.

jedipotter
2014-06-08, 02:14 PM
Yeah, that's a totally appropriate response. Not "Okay, DC: 15 survival check, are you asking any other players to help?"

This isn't the caster not playing with the other players, this is the caster playing under the rules you put forth, and you punishing them for trying to intelligently interact with these rules rather than nerf themselves as you intended.


Well the question was not ''what if the player asked the rest of the group to help his character find some needed things. '' It was what if the whole group was bored waiting around for the one player.

I do punish people for being problem players.


The more I read your anecdotes of how you solve problems as a GM the more I wonder why anyone plays with you. You essentially doomed that player from character creation because their only choices are going without their only class feature or dying.

More accurate to say: You can't cheat and play a broken spellcaster. Is it a bad thing to drop spellcasters down to like Teir 3? I don't think so....



Even if you do fix the component pouch, you are still left with the problem that they are kinda stupid. Wanna talk realism? Cool. What are the material component for a fireball to a tribal sorcerer who grew up on an island where bats are not native? Or are bats native everywhere?



Well, it is not stupid at all. It works like this....not bats around, then no one is casting fireball. Simple. Easy. It is a great way of avoiding the ''everyone in the world knows the same twelve spells'' problem.

1eGuy
2014-06-08, 02:21 PM
Well, that's easy:

"Sometimes spells fail because the god of magic doesn't like your application of the power or because you didn't go to church or because she's in a bad mood."

Similarly, and a bit more restrictively: "The god of storms doesn't allow you to cast that control weather spell today."

That is known as DM fiat and is considered bad form by most posters on this forum.The DM is simply playing an NPC - the god - like any other; that's a big part of the DM's job.


Kinda is a big surprise, since its a significant chance to a setting if people with opposing aliment and goals to the God of X can no longer use X.Sure, but it doesn't require a detailed break down as you suggested; simply a statement that that's how this DM's campaign works. Players will be able to predict most of the details from common sense or work them out from exploring the possibilities in-game. Which is good because then the DM can introduce the exceptions as part of game play and adventure plots etc.


That assumes that:
a. the wizard doesn't try to haggle
b. the wizard always goes to the same merchantYes. I think those were the assumptions.

Shinken
2014-06-08, 02:53 PM
You sure about that?

Sorry, I was wrong. I was assuming it meant the same as its cognate in Portuguese.

Knaight
2014-06-08, 03:31 PM
Since there were real life Pacific islands with economies based on bird crap half a century I wouldn't scoff at a guano economy.
It's not just pacific islands. Peru had an economy based on bat guano for a while - they had a lot of caves, bat guano was a really good source for nitrates used in gunpowder (and other explosives), and Peru wasn't particularly wealthy at the time. So, bat guano was harvested at a mass scale, though it dwindled to some extent as Peru got wealthier, and basically vanished once the Haber Process was developed.


1. Using spell components is a great way to balance spells. If you play a more Old School style game. In the New Way, it is a waste of time as the players will just overcome it and the DM will just let them. You get a couple of blank sheets of paper, and have the player write down everything they have in the pouch. Keep track of sizes and weights and how much is in the bag. Don't have magic marts with all the components, have the spellcaster search for some of them. And it's even better if the adventure takes place miles from the nearest store(the whole idea of shops and stores everywhere is so video game).
It's a needlessly complicated way to balance spells that sucks down a huge amount of playing time. If one wants to focus on it it works just fine, but it's hardly necessary. There are other ways that work just as well for similar effects, from just powering down the spells, to geographic restrictions (a mage might get all of their wind spells from the power of the sea breeze, which means that they are going to suck something awful on an inland mountain - the easiest way to handle this would be to actually sort spells by terrain), to

As for shops and stores everywhere - I have never seen that assumed in any game. The closest I've seen is games that specifically take place in cities, wherein getting to a shop is generally pretty easy. Your depiction of the New Way doesn't even vaguely resemble any game I've ever seen.


2. A simple, blanket rule for creation spells: it is not as good as the real thing. You could make it something like 50% as good. It is fine for an emergency, but not for long term use. Have it look and feel fake...maybe occasionally give off whisps of smoke. Have a 50% chance that they fail when used for anything.
This is a pretty nice house rule. Another way would be to incorporate the spells into the economy, or restrict what spells can do. An example I've liked is with a fairly restrictive magic system - there's transmutation of materials, and that's it. You can take something and change what material it is made of. The actual shape doesn't change at all, so worked goods are still valuable - though magic is useful in worked goods, as it's much easier to shape, say, clay into a particular shape then turn it into bronze than it is to just shape bronze.

That said - the simplest method where you aren't specifically focusing on the meticulous tracking of items (and there are other things that games can focus on and still be good) is to simply pare down the spells and get rid of those that are particularly powerful. Then the rest of the economy can just be stolen from ACKS wholesale.

Thanatosia
2014-06-08, 05:52 PM
More accurate to say: You can't cheat and play a broken spellcaster. Is it a bad thing to drop spellcasters down to like Teir 3? I don't think so....
Wow, so now the Wizard is a cheater for picking Wizard? Seriously? I'm so glad I don't play in your campaign, it's begining to look like you're the classic Advisarial DM who views his players as his opponents.

As for dropping casters down a tier, there's far better ways to do it then trying to 'weaponize' what was meant to be Fluff against them. The Material components of spells are largely there for flavor, it has almost nothing to do with the spells actual power, and trying to balance the spells by them is just so scattershot and random.

awa
2014-06-08, 10:21 PM
If your goal is to drop wizards to tier 3 messing with spell components is not gonna do it most non valuable material components could be acquired so trivially and stock piled that any limitations would break suspension of disbelief so wait all the bull are bald? There arnt any spider web in the whole city? No bakers in the city no how to cook a tart even one that tastes bad?

A single feat negates the whole thing and it punishes player regardless of whether they are breaking the game or not.
You make fire ball impossible to cast becuase apparently there are no bat anywhere nearby despite them living on basically every continent and being one of the most widely distributed mammals of the real world living in forest, field, cave and more. he can just use explosive rune shenanigans for basically the same effect at much greater raw power.

Boci
2014-06-08, 10:22 PM
Well the question was not ''what if the player asked the rest of the group to help his character find some needed things. '' It was what if the whole group was bored waiting around for the one player.

I do punish people for being problem players.

So if the group is okay with a brief detour to hunt bat guano, so are you?


More accurate to say: You can't cheat and play a broken spellcaster. Is it a bad thing to drop spellcasters down to like Teir 3? I don't think so....

My wizard has taken eschew material components. What spell can he potentially not cast now?


Well, it is not stupid at all. It works like this....not bats around, then no one is casting fireball. Simple. Easy. It is a great way of avoiding the ''everyone in the world knows the same twelve spells'' problem.

So you have a list of all components and where they can and cannot be bought (can I see this list) as well as a list of what spells are not cast in a certain area because there is no necessary component there and no trade for it? (Can I see this lis


The DM is simply playing an NPC - the god - like any other; that's a big part of the DM's job.

No. When I have a 20th level wizard RAW legally teleport in, curse and geas your character, teleport out before you can react, I am not simply "playing an NPC" I am doing so in a manner that deliberatly screws over your character.


Sure, but it doesn't require a detailed break down as you suggested; simply a statement that that's how this DM's campaign works. Players will be able to predict most of the details from common sense or work them out from exploring the possibilities in-game. Which is good because then the DM can introduce the exceptions as part of game play and adventure plots etc.

No, it doesn't work that way. If Boccop, the neutral god of magic, has decided that evil and good cannot use magic, that has sweeping effects on the game that need to be discussed during character creation. This is not a minor detail, it is a setting defining attitude, it cannot simply "reveal" itself as the game plot advances.


Yes. I think those were the assumptions.

Assumptions that are not necessary correct, and even if they were I addressed why it still wouldn't be a big deal.

1eGuy
2014-06-11, 11:48 AM
No. When I have a 20th level wizard RAW legally teleport in, curse and geas your character, teleport out before you can react, I am not simply "playing an NPC" I am doing so in a manner that deliberatly screws over your character.Depends on the context. To take the example of gods: if your 20th level wizard is about to defile the temple of a deity, there's no obvious reason why that deity can not send a servant to teleport in, curse and geas you and teleport out again before you can react.

Now, whether the same god can do the same thing if you are about to defile some other deity's temple is a different issue but, as I hinted before, by the time the characters are at 20th level the players will have had lots of time to figure out, or at least closely estimate, how this sort of thing works without a 20 page hand-out or whatever you're imagining.

I do agree that it's not something you can introduce mid-campaign, but it can be there from the start without any need to explain the details.

Boci
2014-06-11, 12:15 PM
I do agree that it's not something you can introduce mid-campaign, but it can be there from the start without any need to explain the details.

Again, no. Divine intervention is not something you can just casually mention, it needs parameters.

Very few players are going to see "Occasionally deities will directly step into the material realm to prevent our counteract actions that harm their followers, establishments or portfolios" as a good piece of setting lore, and a lot will translate it as "Occasionally I will use DM fiat to make stuff happen I want it to", and you can hardly blame them.

Now compare that to: "Occasionally deities will directly step into the material realm to prevent our counteract actions that harm their followers, establishments or portfolios. Here are a brief list of the more commonly known incidents when a deity has interviewed, including the cause, who they interviewed against and what the result was" and now you have a legit piece of setting lore that players can actually understand and prepare for.


Depends on the context. To take the example of gods: if your 20th level wizard is about to defile the temple of a deity, there's no obvious reason why that deity can not

The most common interpretation is that the deity cannot/will not to that to prevent another deity from pulling something similar on one of their followers.

Larkas
2014-06-11, 01:43 PM
To make a subsystem even faintly resembling a simplified economic system, you'd have to take into account spells. And I'm not talking about simply seeing what they can do, I mean actively changing and restricting it, and how easily you can access them. (I won't even go into the spell component debate here.)

I'd probably restrict "level up spells" for wizards, maybe making them follow (probably much harder) spell research rules for those spells - or simply finding scrolls to scribe in their spellbooks. This has one advantage: I'd be able to restrict the wizard to the spells I want to see cast but not completely shut him out from all the others. With this, I could direct the player towards more "setting-friendly" spells. (Of course, this doesn't mean I wouldn't reserve myself the right to outright ban some spells, but this is a balance consideration, not an economics one). It might also be a good idea to tweak a few spells ("hmmm, this spell can be cast no problem, but it needs this costly focus in this setting", for example). Of course, all these changes would have to be informed to the player when he's choosing new spells to learn at the latest, though it might make things easier to ask the player to inform you which spells s/he's thinking of learning on level up beforehand so you can tell him what's changed and what's available.

Tweaking full divine casters might also be a good idea. Taking a page from the Archivist, maybe the Cleric will need a prayerbook, and the Druid some kind of runic staff. Mind, this isn't to introduce these casters to the risk of losing their spells: they could just as well need only to inscribe these spells as a mantra in their respective media and not need to reference them when preparing. It's just a way to say "you need to find or research this prayer before casting it".


"Magic can't be used to short-circuit the economy." As a consequence of this idea:

Food created with create food is bland and tasteless. It satisfies hunger and is nutritious, but you won't ever get any joy out of eating it.

Anything that would normally require Craft checks will still require such checks; the spell simply side-steps the time required.

Anything created that has a theoretical permanent duration instead has a duration measured in days to weeks (I secretly roll two DC 10 caster level checks for the caster. If both succeed, I multiply the margins of success together for duration in days; if one succeed, I treat that margin of success as the duration in days; if both fail, duration is one day).

Anything created or transmutated must either conserve or consume weight, volume, and value. You can't turn lead into gold, unless you turn it into a much smaller amount of gold that is worth the same or less than the original amount of lead.

As regards mining, you may be surprised to learn that the 1e DMG had detailed rules for mines.

I agree with most everything here, except for the transmutation part. I'm not so sure how I'd do it, but maybe something along these lines might make sense:

- You need a specific "philosopher's stone" for each and every kind of transmutation. Want to turn lead into gold? Nice, you'll need this stone as a focus. Want to turn copper into gold? Too bad, you'll have to find another one.

- These stones (they don't even have to be actual stones, it's just an example) must be extremely rare and expensive (if they're available in any market at all). They also can't be replicated by mortal magic (yes, including Wish).

This way, you have an extremely high fixed cost along with a mild variable cost. You should eventually be able to turn up some profit, but not so soon.

If you want to further limit things, you can say that each stone is only good for a fixed amount of transmuted matter (say, 100 lbs. of gold), going completely inert after it has been used up. This way, you can fine tune how much the stone can affect the economy.


Sorry, I was wrong. I was assuming it meant the same as its cognate in Portuguese.

Sorry, I'm Brazilian and an economist. The meaning is exactly the same in Portuguese.

VoxRationis
2014-06-11, 02:13 PM
And the most important question:

Is the effort required to answer those and adapt the rules and playstyle accordingly worth it? Answer: probably not. This is D&D, you can sleep off a dagger wound, very few wounds bleed (its an enchantment, despite the fact that mundane weapon on earth have caused bleeding without magic for many centuries). Creatures can just be scaled up, the economy makes no sense at all. Ect, ect.

Even if you do fix the component pouch, you are still left with the problem that they are kinda stupid. Wanna talk realism? Cool. What are the material component for a fireball to a tribal sorcerer who grew up on an island where bats are not native? Or are bats native everywhere?

If material components bothers you, give spellcasters eschew material component, or rework them to have a more universal version (all abjuration spells, all fire spells). If you want to balance casters, introduce proper house rules.

Don't try and balance them under the guise of realistic spell components, and certainly don't kick a player out of the game when they try and work within these restrictions (which is another point, reguardless of whether or not a wizard can find bat guano, kicking them out for trying is being heavy handed to put it mildly).

If a region doesn't have metal, the fighter can't have plate armor (save things like ironwood) or greatswords. If a region doesn't have bats, the spellcasters can't cast fireball. How is that anything but fair, consistent, and rational?

jedipotter
2014-06-11, 02:26 PM
If a region doesn't have metal, the fighter can't have plate armor (save things like ironwood) or greatswords. If a region doesn't have bats, the spellcasters can't cast fireball. How is that anything but fair, consistent, and rational?

Sounds good to me.

3E is the worst for making the whole world ''bland and the same''. Going by the rules, every place in the whole world, is rules-wise, exactly like every other place in the world. It is bad enough for things like ''the spell component pouch has tentacles, seaweed, or a live insect'' even if the caster is say in the desert or arctic. It is lots worse when ''the spell component pouch has a humanoid brain or an oni eyelash''.

And it is only worse for the dreaded optimizers. They will demand the ''best'' weapons in the book and try and quote some words and say ''if it is in the book I can have it''. Even though it makes no sense for a barbarian from a stone age tribe to have a steel greatsword (but the optimizer must have that weapon to do the most damage...er, that is ''have fun'').



So if the group is okay with a brief detour to hunt bat guano, so are you?

Yes. Though few groups of mine have bent over backwards for the spellcaster. They won't side track the game to look for stuff.



My wizard has taken eschew material components. What spell can he potentially not cast now?

All the spells with material components with a cost, plus all creature parts and any component I house rule as being worth more then a gold coin.




So you have a list of all components and where they can and cannot be bought (can I see this list) as well as a list of what spells are not cast in a certain area because there is no necessary component there and no trade for it? (Can I see this list)


Of course. It is easy enough to make. But I'm not going to post it...it is secret. A player or two might see it....

1eGuy
2014-06-11, 03:39 PM
Again, no. Divine intervention is not something you can just casually mention, it needs parameters.Well, if you mean "written rules" I don't agree. If you mean "some sort of logic", then I agree.


Very few players are going to see "Occasionally deities will directly step into the material realm to prevent our counteract actions that harm their followers, establishments or portfolios" as a good piece of setting lore,I really don't see the problem; that's what gods do in mythology all the time.


and a lot will translate it as "Occasionally I will use DM fiat to make stuff happen I want it to", and you can hardly blame them.If you have a fear of DM fiat then you need a new DM you can trust. The DM's job is to give you entertaining obstacles to overcome, not dump on you for no in-game reason.


Now compare that to: "Occasionally deities will directly step into the material realm to prevent our counteract actions that harm their followers, establishments or portfolios. Here are a brief list of the more commonly known incidents when a deity has interviewed, including the cause, who they interviewed against and what the result was" and now you have a legit piece of setting lore that players can actually understand and prepare for.That's clunky and un-needed hinting by the DM. I can't imagine any reason that new characters would need to have that signposted unless you were starting them at high level with new (to the campaign) players, in which case it's fair enough.


The most common interpretation is that the deity cannot/will not to that to prevent another deity from pulling something similar on one of their followers.Notice that I didn't suggest it happened to them while walking down the street. See my comment about trusting the DM.

Boci
2014-06-11, 04:12 PM
Well, if you mean "written rules" I don't agree. If you mean "some sort of logic", then I agree.

What is the difference in your mind between the two?


I really don't see the problem; that's what gods do in mythology all the time.

Just because it happened in mythology doesn't mean its good for a D&D game. They are two entirely separate mediums.


If you have a fear of DM fiat then you need a new DM you can trust. The DM's job is to give you entertaining obstacles to overcome, not dump on you for no in-game reason.

Right, and the setting lore you are proposing sounds like the latter, not the former. If the DM needs divine intervention to give the PCs interesting obstacles, they may want to re-examine their planning method.


That's clunky and un-needed hinting by the DM. I can't imagine any reason that new characters would need to have that signposted unless you were starting them at high level with new (to the campaign) players, in which case it's fair enough.

Because my PC, even if they are low leveled, is a part of the world and this is lore of the world? I imagine most people in ancient Greece knew not to mock the gods for example, because they had a mythology that stated that such events could lead to the gods intervening.


Notice that I didn't suggest it happened to them while walking down the street. See my comment about trusting the DM.

That changes nothing. A LG deity still may not want to intervene to save one of their temples if that means a CE deity can then do the same to prevent a paladin cleaning their temple.



Yes. Though few groups of mine have bent over backwards for the spellcaster. They won't side track the game to look for stuff.

Would they allow a ranger out of arrows to craft some new ones?


Of course. It is easy enough to make. But I'm not going to post it...it is secret. A player or two might see it....

Can you PM it to me? You're saying its a great system, and I agree. Its the work required that I'm doubtful about. If I can see a complete system I could judge how long it would take for me to do it well.


If a region doesn't have metal, the fighter can't have plate armor (save things like ironwood) or greatswords. If a region doesn't have bats, the spellcasters can't cast fireball. How is that anything but fair, consistent, and rational?

Sounds great. Now all you need is the hours of work that are left assigning this attitude to your campaign world. Remember to take trading into account, so some wizards may have bat poop despite having npo native bats because they trade for it.

Grod_The_Giant
2014-06-11, 05:15 PM
Well the question was not ''what if the player asked the rest of the group to help his character find some needed things. '' It was what if the whole group was bored waiting around for the one player.

I do punish people for being problem players.
Saying "hey, can I take 30 seconds of RL time/3 hours of in-game time to go gather components" is being a problem player? Seriously?


More accurate to say: You can't cheat and play a broken spellcaster. Is it a bad thing to drop spellcasters down to like Teir 3? I don't think so....
I swear, the number of times I've seen arguments like this... you know what, I'm proposing a new fallacy, right here and now. Call it Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use. When you do:

The disruptive munchkin ignores it, argues it, or forces the rest of the group to suffer through it. His power remains the same, and he gets more annoying to play with.
The inappropriate powergamer figures out how to circumvent the restriction. His power remains the same.
The reasonable player either figures out how to circumvent the restriction (rendering it moot), avoids the class (turning it into a ban) or suffers through it. His power remains the same and/or his enjoyment goes down.
The new player avoids the class or suffers through it. His enjoyment goes down.

Notice how the problem players feel the least impact?

And yeah, you can yell and fiat at your players all you want to stop them from "cheating" the system, but that only works if you have a reasonable group to start with-- ie, one that's not going to disrupt the game through munchkinry.

VoxRationis
2014-06-11, 10:10 PM
Sounds great. Now all you need is the hours of work that are left assigning this attitude to your campaign world. Remember to take trading into account, so some wizards may have bat poop despite having npo native bats because they trade for it.

If one doesn't feel like putting effort into one's campaign settings, that's one's own business. But it's not that difficult to deal with this line of thought. I dare to assume that a DM has an idea of where all the "warm marshes" are in their setting. A rakshasa is listed as living in a warm marsh, and only in a warm marsh. So if the only warm marshes are thousands of miles from Genericsvale, the odds of finding a rakshasa eyelash are pretty low, even if the GP limit for Genericsvale easily accommodates a spell component pouch. A DM who puts a little more effort into their campaign settings than that probably knows that rakshasas only live in a specific region, and that the equatorial marshes a continent over are not a source of rakshasa eyelashes.

Boci
2014-06-12, 05:34 AM
If one doesn't feel like putting effort into one's campaign settings, that's one's own business. But it's not that difficult to deal with this line of thought. I dare to assume that a DM has an idea of where all the "warm marshes" are in their setting. A rakshasa is listed as living in a warm marsh, and only in a warm marsh. So if the only warm marshes are thousands of miles from Genericsvale, the odds of finding a rakshasa eyelash are pretty low, even if the GP limit for Genericsvale easily accommodates a spell component pouch. A DM who puts a little more effort into their campaign settings than that probably knows that rakshasas only live in a specific region, and that the equatorial marshes a continent over are not a source of rakshasa eyelashes.

How close do you need to be to a marsh to have rakshasa eyelashes? 10 miles? 100 miles? Your saying such a system would is "not that difficult" and only requires "a little more effort". Well put your money where your mouth is. Don't just do one component at a time, take the "little effort" and apply it to them all.

Also, Europeans traded for pepper in China and India in the Renaissance era. Pretty sure that was more than 1,000 miles.

dascarletm
2014-06-12, 10:05 AM
Saying "hey, can I take 30 seconds of RL time/3 hours of in-game time to go gather components" is being a problem player? Seriously?


I swear, the number of times I've seen arguments like this... you know what, I'm proposing a new fallacy, right here and now. Call it Grod's Fallacy: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use. When you do:

The disruptive munchkin ignores it, argues it, or forces the rest of the group to suffer through it. His power remains the same, and he gets more annoying to play with.
The inappropriate powergamer figures out how to circumvent the restriction. His power remains the same.
The reasonable player either figures out how to circumvent the restriction (rendering it mood), avoids the class (turning it into a ban) or suffers through it. His power remains the same and/or his enjoyment goes down.
The new player avoids the class or suffers through it. His enjoyment goes down.

Notice how the problem players feel the least impact?

And yeah, you can yell and fiat at your players all you want to stop them from "cheating" the system, but that only works if you have a reasonable group to start with-- ie, one that's not going to disrupt the game through munchkinry.

I back this fallacy with my full support. I'm glad someone finally put it out there.

1eGuy
2014-06-12, 02:49 PM
What is the difference in your mind between the two?Written rules can not cope with the complexities of a role-played situation like this. A DM can handle it easily using the context of situation, characters, and the specific actions, not to mention their personal design for their campaign.


Just because it happened in mythology doesn't mean its good for a D&D game. They are two entirely separate mediums.They're different media but D&D is largely based on mythology - elves, magic, gods that exist, magic swords and so on. And many campaigns have Thor or Zeus running around in them.


Right, and the setting lore you are proposing sounds like the latter, not the former. If the DM needs divine intervention to give the PCs interesting obstacles, they may want to re-examine their planning method.Well, context is everything. Are you suggesting that a character directly attacking the main temple of a deity should be surprised that they get a direct intervention against them? Are you suggesting that the deity's worshippers would not expect it and probably even openly warn of it? I feel that you're saying that gods must only be played one way, and a very gamey way at that.


Because my PC, even if they are low leveled, is a part of the world and this is lore of the world? I imagine most people in ancient Greece knew not to mock the gods for example, because they had a mythology that stated that such events could lead to the gods intervening.Yes, exactly, and the players know that too. What's the point in giving them a hand out about stuff they already know. If the game is predicated on the existence of deities then the implication is that those deities may act in their own interests and the players will know lots and lots of stories about that already.


That changes nothing. A LG deity still may not want to intervene to save one of their temples if that means a CE deity can then do the same to prevent a paladin cleaning their temple."May". Again, this is my point - finding out how the balance of power between deities and clerics in game is much more interesting than slapping down a load of text for the players to read.

Boci
2014-06-12, 03:17 PM
Written rules can not cope with the complexities of a role-played situation like this. A DM can handle it easily using the context of situation, characters, and the specific actions, not to mention their personal design for their campaign.

I agree. So why are you so against a logic being worked out for the DM to operate by? It doesn't have to be written rules.


They're different media but D&D is largely based on mythology

That a game is based off mythology means very little. There are more differences then there are similarities. "The chosen one" for example is classic trope of mythology that may not work so well in a D&D game because its a group game. It still can, but it needs more care. You cannot just slap something from mythology into a D&D game and expect it to work.


Well, context is everything. Are you suggesting that a character directly attacking the main temple of a deity should be surprised that they get a direct intervention against them? Are you suggesting that the deity's worshippers would not expect it and probably even openly warn of it? I feel that you're saying that gods must only be played one way, and a very gamey way at that.

I saying dieties shouldn't be played. They work best as passive characters, unless you start at an obscenely high level, because, well they are gods. If they can influence the material world, what are the PCs needed for? The thing that stops a diety's temple from being defiled should be the followers of the diety, not the diety themselves.

Frequent divine intervention has never made a D&D game better in my experience.


Yes, exactly, and the players know that too. What's the point in giving them a hand out about stuff they already know.

The players don't know that, because every DM employs setting lore different. Unless its a pre-published setting, you're gona want to clarify things with your players.


"May". Again, this is my point - finding out how the balance of power between deities and clerics in game is much more interesting than slapping down a load of text for the players to read.

I never said the DM should explain the exact balance, but they should list well known examples, because they are well known. Just like (if its plot relevant) they should tell me the basic details about famous historical battles, then I can find out the details in game, but if its a famous battle, you should tell me upfront who fought who, who lost, some other details.

1eGuy
2014-06-14, 10:33 AM
I agree. So why are you so against a logic being worked out for the DM to operate by?I guess I just don't believe that it can be done. The DM can handle logic just fine for their game; others may make suggestions but there's a poor effort:utility reward in getting detailed.


You cannot just slap something from mythology into a D&D game and expect it to work.True, but there are certain things that are "normal", dragons and gods being two of them IMO. They just work more or less as expected.


If they can influence the material world, what are the PCs needed for?If they can't then what are the gods for? :) I'm not advocating that the gods should take a frequent direct action, but that some things are "asking for it".


Frequent divine intervention has never made a D&D game better in my experience.I agree.


The players don't know that, because every DM employs setting lore different. Unless its a pre-published setting, you're gona want to clarify things with your players.Well, I think it must be a difference in players. I know that if I have a major temple to Thoth in a city the people I play with will not enter it with the intent of burning all the books without any fear that Thoth himself will make a direct response. It can be done, and the deity can be prevented from doing so but the methods for achieving that are not public knowledge - they're not even clerical knowledge until you get to very high level. But, in any case, players generally assume that if the gods are real then you have to be careful about what you do in their strongholds.


I never said the DM should explain the exact balance, but they should list well known examples, because they are well known. Just like (if its plot relevant) they should tell me the basic details about famous historical battles, then I can find out the details in game, but if its a famous battle, you should tell me upfront who fought who, who lost, some other details.Well, "plot relevant" isn't something I worry about, so maybe that's another reason we don't quite see eye-to-eye on this. If the players' actions are heading in that direction then I assume that they'll find out what they need to know in-game. If they're were careful players in that sense, they'd not have reached high enough level to worry about how to neutralize gods in their main temples anyway.

Boci
2014-06-14, 12:08 PM
I guess I just don't believe that it can be done. The DM can handle logic just fine for their game; others may make suggestions but there's a poor effort:utility reward in getting detailed.

I don't understand what you mean here.


True, but there are certain things that are "normal", dragons and gods being two of them IMO. They just work more or less as expected.

Can you name an official setting with a precedent for the kind of divine intervention you are talking about? (Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Dragon Lance, Dark Sun?)


If they can't then what are the gods for? :)

Granting spells, legitimizing philosophies and giving epic level characters someone to interact with. And setting lore.


Well, I think it must be a difference in players. I know that if I have a major temple to Thoth in a city the people I play with will not enter it with the intent of burning all the books without any fear that Thoth himself will make a direct response. It can be done, and the deity can be prevented from doing so but the methods for achieving that are not public knowledge - they're not even clerical knowledge until you get to very high level. But, in any case, players generally assume that if the gods are real then you have to be careful about what you do in their strongholds.

Again, if this is so obvious, can you name an official setting with a precedent for this kind of divine intervention? (Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Dragon Lance, Dark Sun?)


Well, "plot relevant" isn't something I worry about, so maybe that's another reason we don't quite see eye-to-eye on this. If the players' actions are heading in that direction then I assume that they'll find out what they need to know in-game. If they're were careful players in that sense, they'd not have reached high enough level to worry about how to neutralize gods in their main temples anyway.

But doesn't it hinder roleplay to not be told stuff about the setting your character would know? Not every little detail, but then divine intervention generally isn't little.

PersonMan
2014-06-14, 04:18 PM
Any reasonably intelligent merchant will note that the wizard ALWAYS has enough gold and never sells anything to acquire more gold, and can logically conclude that he has an infinite (or effectively so) supply of gold, and so would adjust his prices accordingly.

I go to a pawn shop run by a reasonably intelligent person, and buy a few things. I return regularly, buying a few more each time. I always have enough money to do so.

By your logic, the logical response is for the prices to shoot upwards each time I go there, because I obviously have an infinite supply of money, based on the fact that I spend some without an obvious source of income.

If, in reality, I'm just a guy from another part of the country who travels to this region in the off season of my work (I come to this region during my vacation, for example), then this man has screwed himself over because by upping his prices massively to account for my infinite money that I don't have, he's lost me as a customer.

Unless people gaining infinite gold happens regularly, then the logical conclusions are more like:

-This guy is obviously a noble from a different region.
-This guy has obviously inherited a significant amount of money.
-This guy earns a lot of money via not super obvious means; he could work from home as an artist for a wealthy patron, for example.

Eventually, as those get crossed off, criminal activities or similar are the logical conclusion. "He has infinite gold, because he doesn't sell things to me or come begging" is not a logical conclusion, unless people gaining infinite gold is a normal thing or people always buy/sell everything to the same person and put their lack of wealth on display regularly.

---

Regarding gods: In a lot of settings, gods are relatively inactive on the mortal planes. If your setting has gods that do something more than once every thousand years, then it changes things, as does frequent divine communication and such.

Gods can be anything from ways to explain the unexplainable (ranging from 'why does that mountain sometimes explode' to 'why do seasons happen' to 'why can that guy close a gaping wound by touching your shoulder') to some of the movers and shakers of a setting, who regularly shape the course of history.

A lot of settings restrict divine activity for good reason - imagine if the patron deities of two regions or nations go to war with those regions/nations. Imagine if the deity of magic saw itself threatened by the rising deity of alchemists, and called for the destruction of all alchemical knowledge. Monarchies operating by divine right would experience occasional purges as the deity in question came down to the mortal world to keep some undesirables off the throne. Suddenly the world is defined far more by the whims and clash of deities than it is by mortals.

It can work, but putting active deities into an otherwise 'normal' setting makes no sense. Everything will have repercussions.

Making deities do things like protect their sanctuaries mean that temples will probably swell in size massively, becoming huge complexes where, depending on the deity and society, the rich/privileged or the common folk rush to whenever the city is under attack. Temples will probably serve other functions as well - if the throne room of King Rules In Deity X's Name is a temple of Deity X, then they're better protected and more open to Deity X's instructions.

If I'm not told anything about stuff like this, but suddenly a deity curbstomps me because I did something they didn't like in their temple, I'm going to be confused and angry, just like how if I say "I take first watch" and get a reply of "you explode, because in this world taking first watch kills you if you didn't make the fire". It's something that changes the setting and should be well known, not assumed to be a standard assumption of players.

1eGuy
2014-06-14, 05:28 PM
I don't understand what you mean here.It would take a huge effort to codify all "logical" rules for a role playing setting for little reward since the DM can do it on the fly with their intimate knowledge of their setting.


Can you name an official setting with a precedent for the kind of divine intervention you are talking about? (Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Dragon Lance, Dark Sun?)You're approaching the question as an institutionalised (late edition)D&D player. I'm talking about playing with people who are fantasy fans or even just normal people from work. They expect it to work that way because people know fantasy and mythology and real-world religious claims without having to be told some stuff about obscure (to them) fan-fic worlds.


Granting spells, legitimizing philosophies and giving epic level characters someone to interact with. And setting lore.Well, that's very limiting IMO. They're basically just vending machines/punchbags. No real religion of any substance has ever taken that approach, especially the ones that tend to appear in D&D.


But doesn't it hinder roleplay to not be told stuff about the setting your character would know? Not every little detail, but then divine intervention generally isn't little.I agree; I'm saying that divine intervention is something everyone expects unless they've been conditioned otherwise by years of playing in very artificial worlds like the ones you listed.

I've literally never played with anyone that would be surprised that defiling a major temple runs the risk of their character simply being killed by a "bolt from the blue" (something that I would not actually do, but people kida expect it when you tell them the gods are real.

I think that's the disconnect - as DM I'm saying "the gods are real" and as a jaded and experience player/DM you're saying "they're not real like an NPC cobbler is real; they're rule constructs"

ryu
2014-06-14, 05:38 PM
It would take a huge effort to codify all "logical" rules for a role playing setting for little reward since the DM can do it on the fly with their intimate knowledge of their setting.

You're approaching the question as an institutionalised (late edition)D&D player. I'm talking about playing with people who are fantasy fans or even just normal people from work. They expect it to work that way because people know fantasy and mythology and real-world religious claims without having to be told some stuff about obscure (to them) fan-fic worlds.

Well, that's very limiting IMO. They're basically just vending machines/punchbags. No real religion of any substance has ever taken that approach, especially the ones that tend to appear in D&D.

I agree; I'm saying that divine intervention is something everyone expects unless they've been conditioned otherwise by years of playing in very artificial worlds like the ones you listed.

I've literally never played with anyone that would be surprised that defiling a major temple runs the risk of their character simply being killed by a "bolt from the blue" (something that I would not actually do, but people kida expect it when you tell them the gods are real.

I think that's the disconnect - as DM I'm saying "the gods are real" and as a jaded and experience player/DM you're saying "they're not real like an NPC cobbler is real; they're rule constructs"

On the contrary what deity has time to care about some temple defiler? That's what the help is for. Why bother expending actual effort defending a place that should, by rights, be crawling with clerics, paladins, and perhaps a favored soul or two?

Boci
2014-06-14, 05:54 PM
It would take a huge effort to codify all "logical" rules for a role playing setting for little reward since the DM can do it on the fly with their intimate knowledge of their setting.

You don't have to codify all logic, but have a basic idea of how it works.


You're approaching the question as an institutionalised (late edition)D&D player. I'm talking about playing with people who are fantasy fans or even just normal people from work. They expect it to work that way because people know fantasy and mythology and real-world religious claims without having to be told some stuff about obscure (to them) fan-fic worlds.

Okay, I'll bite. What fantasy and mythology are you referring to? Greek mythology established that mocking the gods was a bad idea, but even then it wasn't an instantaneous consequence. Plus the weaver, the most famous example, she technically won, thus proving her claim right. Also LotR, another famous inspiration for D&D, has very little divine intervention (I don't know of any aside from possibly Gandalf being resurrected). Any other works you feel I've missed?

Plus as I said before, just because its in mythology doesn't mean its good in a game. Having a female cleric raped on the floor of her church by another god is straight out of Greek mythology for example.


Well, that's very limiting IMO. They're basically just vending machines/punchbags. No real religion of any substance has ever taken that approach, especially the ones that tend to appear in D&D.

I think that's a good thing. The world should be about mortals, not gods. If you want to ficus heavily on the gods either have all players be heavily religious or gods themselves. You don't need gods in the flesh to make a world interesting, and making an interesting world without gods in the flesh makes it more relocatable for the PCs.


I agree; I'm saying that divine intervention is something everyone expects unless they've been conditioned otherwise by years of playing in very artificial worlds like the ones you listed.

Err, no. The newer settings of D&D are less artificial than than previous ones. That's simply fact. There's nothing wrong with preferring them, but D&D settings have gotten less artificial overthe years, not more.


I've literally never played with anyone that would be surprised that defiling a major temple runs the risk of their character simply being killed by a "bolt from the blue" (something that I would not actually do, but people kida expect it when you tell them the gods are real.

So temple guards don't exist then I trust? Why would there be, if the god is going to personally guard each and every one.


I think that's the disconnect - as DM I'm saying "the gods are real" and as a jaded and experience player/DM you're saying "they're not real like an NPC cobbler is real; they're rule constructs"

No they exists, and you can interact with them directly, you just have to be very high level to do that.

squiggit
2014-06-14, 05:55 PM
I agree; I'm saying that divine intervention is something everyone expects unless they've been conditioned otherwise by years of playing in very artificial worlds like the ones you listed.
I'd say that backwards. The idea of gods as a common and mundane force of nature is the part that feels artificial here.

awa
2014-06-14, 06:24 PM
In regards to published setting with a lot of divine intervention planescape is the easy answer.
Dragon lance has a lot of divine intervention. forgotten realms has some pretty active deities as well off and on

Boci
2014-06-14, 06:48 PM
In regards to published setting with a lot of divine intervention planescape is the easy answer.
Dragon lance has a lot of divine intervention. forgotten realms has some pretty active deities as well off and on

And was there a system or pattern to it?

jiriku
2014-06-14, 07:09 PM
I feel a bit tentative about jumping into a 5-page thread only having skimmed the posts, but what the heck, I'm bored and it's Saturday, let's do it.

I have some suggestions based on my past 22 years of DMing experience. You may find them useful. Note that my perspective comes primarily from the storytelling school of roleplaying, rather than the simulationist school.

First, making major overhauls to any aspect of 3.5 is a lot of work and potentially encounters resistance from players. I find that it's less work and I get less resistance if I ask my players "how would you do this?" and get their ideas and input. Sometimes one of them even gets excited and writes up a big chunk of the material for me, and all I have to do is edit it. That saves me a lot of time.

In the vein of creating player agency, let me introduce the idea of Speaking Authoritatively (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?201014-3-5-Remix-The-joy-of-skills!) and how that can apply to spell component pouches, item creation, and mining. Essentially, you create a game mechanic whereby players can use Knowledge and Profession skills to add canonical information to the setting. Then, at a later time, when the player asks "How can I double production at this mine?" or "What material do I need to craft a ring of regeneration?" You can respond with, "I don't know, you tell me." The player proposes an answer to his own question, you negotiate for something that seems reasonable to both of you, then the player makes a skill check to turn his idea into canonical material and permanently add it to the setting. If the player fails the roll, you adjust the answer to something that is somewhat less favorable for the player but still reasonable, and play continues. If illogical or contradictory situations arise, you simply resolve the contradiction by turning it into a plot twist or interesting adventure (or, if you can't think of anything cool, just admit that there's a problem and implementing an out-of-character fix to solve it).

The Speak Authoritatively approach is nice because you can design the system in a piecemeal way, adding detail only when and where it's needed and putting a lot of the creative burden on your players. Additionally, you'll probably end up with a better system overall, because anything that one creative person can invent, six creative people working together can probable improve upon.

awa
2014-06-14, 07:31 PM
And was there a system or pattern to it?

not that I could see, in theory dragon lance had a balance thing going on but it got cheated all the time.

personally I kinda assume there are something's you just shouldn't do. Pcs who steal from a god's alter should expect a curse unless they have some kind of special protection.

Boci
2014-06-14, 07:39 PM
Pcs who steal from a god's alter should expect a curse unless they have some kind of special protection.

With or without a save throw?

awa
2014-06-14, 07:53 PM
usually without. Getting rid of it should take a quest (unless that would interfere of the flow of the game to much in which case paying for some kind of cleansing should be enough)

Boci
2014-06-14, 07:57 PM
usually without. Getting rid of it should take a quest (unless that would interfere of the flow of the game to much in which case paying for some kind of cleansing should be enough)

I disagree with that, it just seems pointless. If the only way the DM can think of preventing theft from an alter is to have a no save curse they they aren't making a believable world. It adds very little and is rather artificial. If the gods can no save cruse mortals, why isn't every paladin crippled with curses from evil gods? And why isn't every death knight crippled from no save curses from good gods?

awa
2014-06-14, 08:14 PM
how is a curse from stealing from an alter unbelievable? As for how can heroes avoid the curse? just don't steal from the alter kill the cultists loot their bodies but don't touch the alter with a 10 foot pole. (under normal circumstances)

In general amongst the groups I have played with its just assumed that gods will curse and when one time a player went did it anyway every one knew he was going to be cursed (even him) not because the dm said oh i'm goanna get you for that or because he had at any point specified that this was an aspect of his game but because it felt like the logical consequence for your action in a world where gods are real. For us it made gods more real and the world less artificial to think they would punish such blatant disrespect.

In regards to just wanton curses you are extrapolating abilities in an arbitrary manner because a god can curse someone for talking there stuff they must be able to curse every one at any time for any reason it not the same thing. look at fiction gods curse people for taking their stuff all the time but you much more rarely see a god just curse people for fighting their priests.

Boci
2014-06-14, 08:22 PM
how is a curse from stealing from an alter unbelievable?

It isn't, if it offers a save and has a regular duration.


just don't steal from the alter kill the cultists loot their bodies but don't touch the alter with a 10 foot pole. (under normal circumstances)

So just leave the dark temple under the city alone? Yeah sure, what harm can it do.

Furthermore, why can the god only curse people inside the temple? A temple may be too them, but it was built by mortals, its run by mortals. At what point does the deity gain some special power from the building? How far does this extend from the temple? What to stop priests from declaring an entire city a temple to X god to allow all people who do acts that do not fit his portfolio to be cursed? Who decides which god a temple is dedicated to? What happens if the high priest of Xarva converts to Juaden? Does the temple now belong to Juaden?

If you play gods as having a more background, offhand role, the above is far less problematic.

awa
2014-06-14, 08:54 PM
You can destroy the temple stop their evil just don't steal from the alter.

you seem to be forgetting that in d&d an alter is a real thing there are a small number of assorted rules referencing it.

I have a hard time taking you complaint seriously basically all of them can be sumed up with just becuase a god can do one thing does not mean he can do any of those other things.

For the rest i clarified my point while you were writing yours so i cant accuse you of not reading mine very thoroughly for the rest (except the part you quoted).

you can just have the deities as boring bland non entities that might as well not exist but in that case why have them at all?
My way a party knows a god is a being of power not to be trifled with you can killed his priest and stop their plot but he is still a power to respected and feared. Maybe its not for every one but it works well for us.

Boci
2014-06-14, 09:05 PM
You can destroy the temple stop their evil just don't steal from the alter.

you seem to be forgetting that in d&d an alter is a real thing there are a small number of assorted rules referencing it.

Yes as magical items, but as something that allows divine intervention unless I am missing something. So we are left with the rather silly situation that a god can no save curse a mortal who touches the alter, but not one who destroys the entire temple.


I have a hard time taking you complaint seriously basically all of them can be sumed up with just becuase a god can do one thing does not mean he can do any of those other things.

That is exactly my problem. There is rarely any doubt whether or not a wizard can cast a spell. The spell has a range, and area, a casting time, components and all other requirements. Now I am not asking for the same level of detail for DI, but I want a basic level of detail, along with why, if a god can automatically punish and mark people who do a certain action in their temple this doesn't lead to city leaders exploiting this.

On issues of sweeping setting lore like this, I prefer to not have artificial hand waives, which is what your approach involves.


For the rest i clarified my point while you were writing yours so i cant accuse you of not reading mine very thoroughly for the rest (except the part you quoted).

The fact that fiction often cannot handle these questions is no excuse to port these flimsy pieces of setting lore into your game. "Other people did it" doesn't negate holes in an approach. But often fiction can handle this. See for example Malazan series, or the Giant's take on the matter.


Maybe its not for every one but it works well for us.

That's fine, I just don't like that approach because it doesn't work when I sit down and think about it. That's not inherently bad, but its something I like to avoid.


you can just have the deities as boring bland non entities that might as well not exist but in that case why have them at all?

They legitimize philosophies and give high level characters something to do. I'm not against DI full stop, I just think the actions to warrant it should be "demon invasion apocalypse", not "a thief nicked 2 silver from my offering bowl".

My approach I find gives me more options. No obvious divine intervention. Is this because:

1. The gods are too weak to intervene.
2. The gods have a MAD policy, whereby if one god intervenes all other will, which would lead to a mass war that few gods are comfortable with.
3. The gods do intervene, but only in covert ways.
4. The gods do intervene, in obvious ways. Earthquakes, volcano, night and day, these are the actions of the god in this setting.

That for me works a lot more to work with than the ability to have heavy handed reminders that "hey, in edition to a fully fleshed out world there are also gods active here". Plus it increases mortal and thereby player agency.

1eGuy
2014-06-15, 05:30 AM
I'd say that backwards. The idea of gods as a common and mundane force of nature is the part that feels artificial here.When St Boniface cut down Odin's sacred tree he did so specifically because the Odin-worshippers expected him to be killed by Odin for daring (St Paul did something similar at the temple of Artemis hundreds of years earlier). Expecting divine retribution for attacks on major sites is normal human behaviour.

I'm going to leave it there.

Brookshw
2014-06-15, 07:19 AM
Sounds like what awa's going with is a combo of the SDA Lay Curse coupled with their portfolio sense (with some alterations to the SDA line of effect), not exactly unheard of and fits certain mythos.

As to the effects on player agency, its such a tiny portion of a campaign world that would be effected I'm not sure its worth complaint, sorta like you can't kill the public works crews in Sigil without repercussions but still have the rest if the multiverse to do as you like. Contingent of course upon the dm and world regarding the altars.

Boci
2014-06-15, 02:24 PM
As to the effects on player agency, its such a tiny portion of a campaign world that would be effected I'm not sure its worth complaint, sorta like you can't kill the public works crews in Sigil without repercussions but still have the rest if the multiverse to do as you like. Contingent of course upon the dm and world regarding the altars.

The player agency is a minor point next to the issue of mortal agency. I just don't see what DI adds to the campaign. I don't need gods to demonstrate their power to find them an interesting part of the setting, and in many ways it makes the setting less interesting by removing the ambiguity of the actions of their followers. The priests of a God cursing an alter thief has a lot more story potential than a god cursing an alter thief.

Alent
2014-06-15, 08:32 PM
Wow... I didn't read these forums for three or so months, I come back and find this thread on the first page... alive... somehow. :smallconfused:

I actually find myself a little disheartened seeing this since the campaign I posted this thread to get advice for never materialized, but not due to any distaste for the rules sought. The group hadn't met for a few months due to game dysphoria and IRL issues as of when I originally posted this, and when we did meet again in march I found out they had turned completely to wallethammer 40k, and remorselessly expected me to just drop money I can't spare to play with them. :smallsigh:

I appreciate all the help and feedback, I may get to put it to good use as I'm still working on this on the side, but it doesn't look like it'll be anything but a thought exercise to post in homebrew when its ready for PEACHing. :smallfrown:

LFG. :mitd:

Boci
2014-06-15, 08:56 PM
By the way, buried in a thread that was spawned by this, amongst the various "Here are my awesome houserules, aren't they awesome?", "Your houserules are bad and you should feel bad" and a strange conversation on the different definitions of cheating, was an idea for a system of 8 material components: each a crystal type that naturally occurs on one of the eights types of terrain listed in the DMG, each crystal is then a component for any spell from a specific school of magic (with universal being able to use any). I think they were:

Mountain: Abjuration (they are unyielding and block stuff)
Desert: Illusion (mirages)
Swamp: Necromancery (death and decay)
Aquatic: Divination (because water holds knowledge and the truth, like certain classes needing a pool of water to scry)
Underground: Enchantment (metaphor for the subconscious?)
Forest: Transmutation (it grows?)
Hills: Conjuration (umm, symbolism?)
Plains: Evocation (because...never mind, last one, its over)

That would allow a more hand on approach to material components without too much work.

Slipperychicken
2014-06-15, 09:35 PM
Wow... I didn't read these forums for three or so months, I come back and find this thread on the first page... alive... somehow. :smallconfused:


It's totally thread-necro, though. I didn't even notice it until I went back and checked. Someonelse is either a lucky or skilled necromancer.

Azraile
2014-06-15, 09:41 PM
A spell component bag existence is because the components where just an inside joke. If you look at them some of them make a little sense, other are just down right crazy, there just goffie things the spell creator added. Most likely because all the people going OMG our kids are casting magic spells and summoning the devil... so they added how to cast the spells!

lol

Realy though mechanically it works like this.

If there is a material component or focus listed and it dose not give a GP value of it, or the value is 1gp or less, it is considered to be in your pouch...... if you lose that pouch you can't cast the spell, but all you need is to get one to do it or the item listed I guess if you want to.

It's just a limiter... if you can't talk you can't cast a spell that needs you too, if you can't move your hands (or don't have them anymore) you can't use spells that need you to do that, if you lost your pouch you can't use ones that need it......

However if there is a component listed that cost 2gp or more, then you have to have it. This isn't just a mechanic to limit when you can cast it but how often you can cast it. It is to balance out really powerfull spells and keep you from using them over and over.

Like chain lighting, not only do you have to have your pouch, but you also have to have the crystal and the silver pins needed. If you level up you can't just cast chain lighting at your new CL unless you brought extra pins to put with the crystals.

Alent
2014-06-16, 12:45 AM
By the way, buried in a thread that was spawned by this, amongst the various "Here are my awesome houserules, aren't they awesome?", "Your houserules are bad and you should feel bad" and a strange conversation on the different definitions of cheating, was an idea for a system of 8 material components: each a crystal type that naturally occurs on one of the eights types of terrain listed in the DMG, each crystal is then a component for any spell from a specific school of magic (with universal being able to use any). I think they were:

...

That would allow a more hand on approach to material components without too much work.

Interesting, do you recall what the thread was called? I'd like to look that up.


It's totally thread-necro, though. I didn't even notice it until I went back and checked. Someonelse is either a lucky or skilled necromancer.

No kidding.


A spell component bag existence is because the components where just an inside joke. If you look at them some of them make a little sense, other are just down right crazy, there just goffie things the spell creator added. Most likely because all the people going OMG our kids are casting magic spells and summoning the devil... so they added how to cast the spells!

As I recall, and this is second hand, Spell Components came from the novels that were trendy at the time the D&D rules were being conjured, where magic was largely amplifying something of physics or psychology. Eg- Bat guano to create a small fire turned huge explosion through magic, harmlessly throwing a tart and waving a feather like an idiot to make people laugh, and so on.

The idea of Wizards "using natural laws like MacGyver" rather than "I reject your reality and substitute my own" is a good one, I think, but in depth discussion of it goes straight into wizard revamps rather than commodities. It may be futile to try to keep those two subjects separate while discussing spell components, but I really did start this thread because I wanted to see viable suggestions on the weight of spell components. :smallfrown:

Azraile
2014-06-16, 02:24 AM
just think of the spell coponet bag as one of those things that produice what ever you want when you reach in, it just can't make anything that cost more than 1gp.

Boci
2014-06-16, 05:25 PM
Interesting, do you recall what the thread was called? I'd like to look that up.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?356196-Balancing-bad-mechanics

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Brookshw
2014-06-16, 06:35 PM
The player agency is a minor point next to the issue of mortal agency. I just don't see what DI adds to the campaign. I don't need gods to demonstrate their power to find them an interesting part of the setting, and in many ways it makes the setting less interesting by removing the ambiguity of the actions of their followers. The priests of a God cursing an alter thief has a lot more story potential than a god cursing an alter thief.

Eh, its a world building preference that works for some but not others. It doesn't really do much to mortal agency if restricted to key points such as alters and to some extent empowers the mortals who create them in the first place. It also ties into various classic mythologies.

Also in terms of mechanics its does open up various story options that otherwise could be resolved with a single spell.

Boci
2014-06-16, 06:47 PM
Also in terms of mechanics its does open up various story options that otherwise could be resolved with a single spell.

I'm not so sure. Having the high priest of X denounce the PC for stealing from the alter, which results in the rest of the party needing to negotiate a service (such as fetching a granite rose from the peaks of the Rakshir Mountains) to attone for his sins has just as much story potentially as a no save quest lifted curse, and doesn't have the problematic questions the DI stuff raises.

Brookshw
2014-06-16, 07:53 PM
I'm not so sure. Having the high priest of X denounce the PC for stealing from the alter, which results in the rest of the party needing to negotiate a service (such as fetching a granite rose from the peaks of the Rakshir Mountains) to attone for his sins has just as much story potentially as a no save quest lifted curse, and doesn't have the problematic questions the DI stuff raises.

Nothing about the Di curse precludes the high priest scenario you've described, but a regular curse would be fairly easily resolved by remove curse, no? As to the "problematic" stuff you mention the MAD scenario resolves it pretty well and there's other Canon surrounding it if you want to ask Afro.

Boci
2014-06-16, 08:11 PM
Nothing about the Di curse precludes the high priest scenario you've described, but a regular curse would be fairly easily resolved by remove curse, no?

I never said cursed, I said "denounce". Its a social disadvantage, not a supernatural one. And I feel it has better story potential as such.


As to the "problematic" stuff you mention the MAD scenario resolves it pretty well and there's other Canon surrounding it if you want to ask Afro.

You're still left with the problem of what makes a temple the domain of a deity. Temples are after all made by mortals and run by mortal (usually), so when does it become linked to the deity? What happens if the head priest converts, does the temple go with them? What if the architect of the temple secretly worshiped a rival god?

I have no problem with the mortal followers of a god being stronger in the temple, but I like to leave ambiguous as to whether this is because of ritual and their belief, or actual divine presence.

Brookshw
2014-06-16, 08:49 PM
I never said cursed, I said "denounce". Its a social disadvantage, not a supernatural one. And I feel it has better story potential as such. Well we were talking about curses but regardless being decounced is still not precluded in any way.




You're still left with the problem of what makes a temple the domain of a deity. Temples are after all made by mortals and run by mortal (usually), so when does it become linked to the deity? What happens if the head priest converts, does the temple go with them? What if the architect of the temple secretly worshiped a rival god? Well if you wanted meta there's hallowed etc, if fluff I suppose centers of belief/rituals etc. Michalangelo wasn't exactly a devote Christian when he was strong armed into painting a ceiling. But even the secret architect (if one existed) just leaves room to expand the world, its not a restrictive element.


I have no problem with the mortal followers of a god being stronger in the temple, but I like to leave ambiguous as to whether this is because of ritual and their belief, or actual divine presence.

Isnt that counter to the whole point of laying it out earlier in the campaign so it wasn't ambiguous?

Wow we're off topic.

Boci
2014-06-16, 09:10 PM
Well we were talking about curses but regardless being decounced is still not precluded in any way.

No save cursed and denounced just seems heavy handed though. Denouncing is good for the game world, its reminds PCs there can be negative consequences to their actions that are not mechanical.


Well if you wanted meta there's hallowed etc, if fluff I suppose centers of belief/rituals etc.

So what does it take to convert a temple, and when does it stop allowing the old god to intervene on the site, and when does it allow the new god to do so?


Isnt that counter to the whole point of laying it out earlier in the campaign so it wasn't ambiguous?

My argument was you should tell PCs famous cases of divine intervention if your campaign features them, so they can get a feel for how it works in your setting. But my preference is to have no such events at all (or at least none triggered by events less significant than an apocalypse).

awa
2014-06-16, 10:03 PM
at what point does a building under construction become a building? Much water is necessary for running water? How much garlic is needed to lace an area? (vampire)

how long must an alter sit there for it to be considered permanent? (desecrate)

what is legitimate authority? (paladin )

The game is full of these types of things and for the most part in practice it does not matter. There is some point at which a building being made for a temple becomes more then a mere pile of stone and wood it may very well be an imprecise thing unmeasurable by any strict formula. It will almost never matter exactly when that is exactly and if it does the dm will make a judgment call.

A curse is only heavy handed if the curse is to strong/ hard to get rid of

Boci
2014-06-17, 01:57 PM
at what point does a building under construction become a building? Much water is necessary for running water? How much garlic is needed to lace an area? (vampire)

how long must an alter sit there for it to be considered permanent? (desecrate)

what is legitimate authority? (paladin )

The game is full of these types of things and for the most part in practice it does not matter. There is some point at which a building being made for a temple becomes more then a mere pile of stone and wood it may very well be an imprecise thing unmeasurable by any strict formula. It will almost never matter exactly when that is exactly and if it does the dm will make a judgment call.

None of these examples are valid comparisons, because they are minor issues that do not inform the setting lore overall. The closest that comes to this is the legitimate authority question (which incidentally should be discussed beforehand with the paladin player. They need to know that so they can play the class). A deity's relation to their worshipers and when they can and cannot influence the material realm however is important to the setting overall, and I find your approach lacking when it comes to verisimilitude. I already pointed out the problem of being able to destroy a temple just fine but being auto zapped with a curse the moment you touch an alter, and if a high priest converts, how do they go about converting the temple to serve another deity? These are important questions that shape the religion of the game world. They are only unimportant if religion is too.

awa
2014-06-17, 05:07 PM
the exact details of the temple is also a minor issue that largely doesn't matter. your previous comments in this thread make it seem like you cant function at all unless every single minutia has been explicitly laid out for you. What happens when the high priest converts its unlikely to happen and if it does the dm probably already has something in mind.

But ill humor you if the high priest converts then common sense says nothing happens there are still other priests who did not convert all the iconography is still dedicated to the former god the worshipers coming to the temple still follow the first god so nothing happens. If the priest is trying to actively turn the temple away from its master then that sounds like an adventure and it works however the dm thinks will make the best adventure. or its happening off screen and who cares either it works or it doesn't exactly when the change occurs is unimportant.

On the other hand if your fighting a vampire knowing whether a pound of garlic is enough to protect the whole room or if the water in the streets gutters or the burned down shack in the woods can stop a vampire may be vitally important and is far more likely to come up in a game.

The permanent alter will likely only come up if pcs are trying to game the system some how but as an ability they control it will still come up far more often.

So i agree the two are not comparable the difference is i feel your example is far less relevant to a game or a setting.

Boci
2014-06-17, 05:18 PM
the exact details of the temple is also a minor issue that largely doesn't matter. your previous comments in this thread make it seem like you cant function at all unless every single minutia has been explicitly laid out for you.

Just wanted to clarify this: you read into it wrong. I don't require every detail solved, I accept that there are always going to be things that slip through the cracks, and "I'll cross that bridge when I get to it" is a perfectly acceptable method of dealing with a lot of them, like the vampire issue (unless vampires are a key stone in world's creation and the specifics of their weaknesses are somehow relevant to the cosmos). All I require is that the mythology be relatively fleshed out if it is relevant to the game world, and if deities can regularly interact with the world, then it is pretty relevant, and how they do so is a pretty significant part of the setting's mythology, even if it happens to not come up in the campaign. Hence why I prefer the more ambiguous approach, as it gives the GM more options, doesn't require as much effort from them, and (although this last one is subjective) is more interesting.

Apart from that we just have 2 separate preferences for world building, and I think we've made our preferences and reasons clear. I don't see much use in continuing to compare.

Svata
2014-06-21, 10:17 AM
The DM is simply playing an NPC - the god - like any other; that's a big part of the DM's job.


Yes, but in the case of not allowing the cleric to cast Control Weather because the god of storms says no, it is also being a bit of a douche. If players are coming up with ways around the obstacles you gave them that aren't the exact one you wanted, so what? They're being creative, and thinking outside the box, which is good.

Slipperychicken
2014-06-21, 12:02 PM
Yes, but in the case of not allowing the cleric to cast Control Weather because the god of storms says no, it is also being a bit of a douche. If players are coming up with ways around the obstacles you gave them that aren't the exact one you wanted, so what? They're being creative, and thinking outside the box, which is good.

Gods can refuse to grant certain spells to their Clerics. So if Pelor wants it to be a sunny gorgeous day for his bi-annual Pelor Pride Parade, you're not getting a Fimbulwinter that month. Casting the spells is a different story, however.

georgie_leech
2014-06-21, 02:18 PM
Gods can refuse to grant certain spells to their Clerics. So if Pelor wants it to be a sunny gorgeous day for his bi-annual Pelor Pride Parade, you're not getting a Fimbulwinter that month. Casting the spells is a different story, however.

Indeed. Once you have the spell, it's basically your to do with as you see fit (aside from Miracle), provided you can handle the consequences if you use it to flagrantly defy your deity or something.

Slipperychicken
2014-06-21, 07:04 PM
Indeed. Once you have the spell, it's basically your to do with as you see fit (aside from Miracle), provided you can handle the consequences if you use it to flagrantly defy your deity or something.

I want to GM someday, so that the next time a Cleric violates his religion's edicts, his god might do something like refuse to grant his highest-level spells for a week (partly as a wake-up call, partly to remind the Cleric who's boss). That way you'd get some middle-ground between 'holy champion' and 'excommunicated' traitor'.

ryu
2014-06-21, 07:08 PM
I want to GM someday, so that the next time a Cleric violates his religion's edicts, his god might do something like refuse to grant his highest-level spells for a week (partly as a wake-up call, partly to remind the Cleric who's boss). That way you'd get some middle-ground between 'holy champion' and 'excommunicated' traitor'.

Ah but that brings up a question. Is it possible for a cleric to violate the edicts of worshiping the cause of himself?

Alent
2014-06-21, 09:02 PM
Ah but that brings up a question. Is it possible for a cleric to violate the edicts of worshiping the cause of himself?

I was always under the impression a cause had to have a certain number of followers to even be able to grant level 1~3 spells?

It came up in the thread way back about a culture built around using an imprisoned Tarrasque as a food source, building material, and god. Something about the Tarrasque needing enough divine ranks to grant spells to "his" clerics.

ryu
2014-06-21, 09:06 PM
I was always under the impression a cause had to have a certain number of followers to even be able to grant level 1~3 spells?

It came up in the thread way back about a culture built around using an imprisoned Tarrasque as a food source, building material, and god. Something about the Tarrasque needing enough divine ranks to grant spells to "his" clerics.

First off not that I know of.

Second off if we are assuming a certain amount of worshipers necessary it can be arranged.

Boci
2014-06-21, 09:51 PM
I was always under the impression a cause had to have a certain number of followers to even be able to grant level 1~3 spells?

It came up in the thread way back about a culture built around using an imprisoned Tarrasque as a food source, building material, and god. Something about the Tarrasque needing enough divine ranks to grant spells to "his" clerics.

Nope. Clerics can explicitly states clerics can worship concepts, and puts no minimum on the number of fellow followers required. Some DMs don't like this option for clerics, can't think why...

At the same time though, the Fiendish Codex notes that although Demon Princess are not gods, the Abyss lends them the power to grant their followers spells, which you could argue is an unnecessary point of information if you do not need to be at least a god to grant spells. There is evidently some lore mix up.

ryu
2014-06-21, 10:03 PM
Nope. Clerics can explicitly states clerics can worship concepts, and puts no minimum on the number of fellow followers required. Some DMs don't like this option for clerics, can't think why...

At the same time though, the Fiendish Codex notes that although Demon Princess are not gods, the Abyss lends them the power to grant their followers spells, which you could argue is an unnecessary point of information if you do not need to be at least a god to grant spells. There is evidently some lore mix up.

Possible difference between the person proper granting spells and the cause of the person granting spells.

Slipperychicken
2014-06-21, 10:14 PM
Ah but that brings up a question. Is it possible for a cleric to violate the edicts of worshiping the cause of himself?

Maybe if he's being hypocritical regarding his own professed ideals? Or is doing self-destructive things like meandering through dungeons looking for monsters to fight?

ryu
2014-06-21, 10:20 PM
Maybe if he's being hypocritical regarding his own professed ideals? Or is doing self-destructive things like meandering through dungeons looking for monsters to fight?

The first is a maybe. The second is a highly intelligent investment in obtaining all of the money and power.

Slipperychicken
2014-06-22, 11:23 AM
The second is a highly intelligent investment in obtaining all of the money and power.

It's dependent on your DM, really. If he's a pushover, then dungeon-crawling is an excellent idea which everyone should try. If he runs more challenging games, then the Cleric might be better off hawking his spells in the town square to raise funds, and arranging friendly sparring sessions with local guardsmen and martial artists (in exchange for free healing?) to level up.

ryu
2014-06-22, 11:25 AM
It's dependent on your DM, really. If he's a pushover, then dungeon-crawling is an excellent idea which everyone should try. If he runs more challenging games, then the Cleric might be better off hawking his spells in the town square to raise funds, and arranging friendly sparring sessions with local guardsmen and martial artists (in exchange for free healing?) to level up.

Even in that scenario it's high-risk high-reward rather than simply self-destructive.

Boci
2014-06-22, 11:31 AM
Even in that scenario it's high-risk high-reward rather than simply self-destructive.

It could be high risk no reward. Dungeon crawls don't mesh well with the stories some DMs want to tell. Such as those who prefer the PCs interact with other nations and groups of the world, and have goals more complex and open ended then "clear dungeon, loot".
However I highly doubt many DMs are gonna want to tell a story that involves a cleric selling their services as a spell caster and sparring to level up.