Is it bad that the DM flat out admits that he's being hard on the party because me?

[Slimshanks92]

So, first thing my DM does is give us a surprise attack from a bunch of kobalds and two ogres. We end up escaping with our lives, but we're dirt poor, and he admits that the reason he's kept us poor is because there's an artificer on the team, but he also says we don't have a lot of downtime for the same reason. He lets us remedy how broke we are with a side quest of clearing ghouls out of an old mansion, but decided half way through the quest that the arrows of undead bane that I gave everyone with an infusion (one minute before we arrived at the mansion) gave us too much of an edge, so he doubled the number of ghouls without giving us any extra xp for them. He admitted he did this because of me. I think he's trying to turn the party against me, I dunno, part of me welcomes the challenge, part of me thinks we should've gotten full xp, and a vast majority just thinks he shouldn't be letting us be the veil so much. Mostly, I'm just proud that it's only been two sessions and I'm already making the DM sweat 😂😂😂

[Thaneus]

Artificers are nasty, only when used right (which I assume you do) and the rest of the party normally sucks ass, either because of optimization or plain low tier classes.

If the rest of you party is something like rogue, barbarian and ranger, then kind sir, you ARE the cause.
If the rest is Crusader-RKV, Wizard-Incantatrix, Bard-Sublime Chord (+WoC), then the DM is just plain dissing you.

Basically, I think, we need to know some more about the group-setup to come to a somewhat useable conclusion.

[ayvango]

I like the following trick: if DM seems too harsh to your party, ask him about world around you. Economics always obeys to logic. If your are poor, that the entire country should be poor too. Otherwise you ask your DM what is source of income and go to places and jobs that forms that income. If magic weapons costs 4 times its normal price - just make it yourself and sell for greater income. And insist that normal bandits could not afford such weapons, so you typical foes would not be armed as well, as they should.

[Fizban]

Artificer is a very powerful class. Weapon Augmentation, Lesser (Bane: creature I'm fighting) is the most powerful attack buff outside of Haste or tons of Inspire Courage stacking and more efficient to boot, while Armor Enhancement is likewise a massively versatile and powerful defensive buff.

Both you and your DM could use a lesson on crafting, because crafting does not entitle the party to more WBL than normal. So the DM is within their rights to reduce treasure if needed in order to compensate for excessive wealth gain, but at the same time they shouldn't be stopping you from doing it cold without that having been made a point before the game. Regardless, Artificer doesn't actually need crafting so I wouldn't really complain about it much- as long as the group is still getting the magic items they need and not being underfunded for no reason.

The DM is within their rights to adjust xp rewards as needed, and ghouls are a pretty weak monster already. With only 13hp and bane providing +9 damage, it's entirely likely that they were being one-shot by multiple party members all at the cost of a single 2nd level spell, so a 1/2 award might indeed be appropriate. The DM should have taken into account the power of the party before using the encounter, but if we're being honest I'd bet they're running "all books allowed" without actually knowing the power of much of what they're allowing. Your DM clearly didn't know what you were capable of with a 2nd level infusion, and probably thought that mitigating crafting opportunities was all they'd need to know to keep an artificier under control since crafting is what gets all the press.

If the rest of the party isn't actually up to the same power level, then the best solution is for you to accept some nerfs in order to keep everyone even, such as not being allowed the bane property.

[Zanos]

Crafting absolutely should entitle someone to more wealth than normal. Class features and feat selections are supposed to make characters stronger, not weaker.

[Slimshanks92]

Yeah, we already established that the kingdom is poor. The PCs from our last campaign looted the treasury clean 😂😂😂. He's actually making a sequel to a campaign I recently ran. So far I'm proud of what he's done with the world I made. Honestly, he's doing a splendid job overall, and rewarded us pretty generously with gold for surviving the ghoul onslaught. It was funny, at one point he mentions that time is running out on the enchantment I put on the arrows. We had about 3 minutes left on them because we'd wasted a bunch of time searching slowly and trying to be stealthy. I turned to the paladin and said, "these arrows are only gonna last so long, I say **** stealth". So the paladin stands in the middle of the hallway banging his sword on his shield, and screaming at the top of his lungs in an Irish accent, "WHO WANTS TO TALK ABOUT OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST!!!" then eight ghouls charged us, four in each side. It was glorious!

[PrismCat21]

So... your DM let y'all have much gold or magic items because you can potentially make them.
Your DM won't let y'all have downtime to prevent you from making them.
Your DM gives y'all a side quest to supposedly make up for those two issues, you have a good plan and the party prepares well, and your DM decides you prepared too well, vastly increases the challenge and gimps you for overcoming it.

That sounds like a sucky DM.

Your reaction to your DM, getting pleasure from "making him sweat", at the cost of your fellow party members makes you seem selfish.

The DM and the Players are not enemies. Getting sick pleasure from opposing each other isn't good for anyone, especially the other players.
This is a game where everyone is supposed to work together. Try it out.

[Slimshanks92]

Anyways, I'm not really complaining, mostly just laughing at the fact that I've got my DM sweating from the start. My party currently has a Druid, a rogue/scout with Swift ambusher, a paladin (he insisted 😔), a full rogue, and a cleric that has yet to join us. We all went in knowing that me, the cleric, and the druid were going to overshadow everyone eventually. We're not the most serious group. Mostly of the rp camp, but we try to follow the rules as closely as we can while still having fun.

[Jack_Simth]

Crafting absolutely should entitle someone to more wealth than normal. Class features and feat selections are supposed to make characters stronger, not weaker.
Eh, yes, and no. In a game with Ye Olde Shoppe ofe Magjickque where you can pretty much order up any old item easily? Sure (granted, this is a lot of games). In games where you sell for half, most loot is random generated, and you've got trouble switching out otherwise? Crafting is a pretty sizable advantage - you get custom equipment, rather than random equipment - even though you generally end up at approximately the same level of weatlh.

[Slimshanks92]

Also, for the sake of context, our group is made up of close friends. Mostly my own family, and the DM is our circle's renowned a hole, so we kinda knew what we were getting into. No hard feelings. I've already made negotiations with the DM to allow us to keep up with wealth by level, and that's what lead to this quest which gave us 1650 gold each and brought us to level 3. I'm really not trying to complain, just sharing a funny story. Maybe I shouldn't have phrased the title as a question. Just imagine me saying it with a grin. 😁

[Fizban]

One of the ways you can maintain measurable control on PC power is by strictly monitoring their wealth, including their magic items. Table 5-1: Character Wealth by level is based on average treasures found in average encounters compared with the experience points earned in those encounters. Using that information, you can determine how much wealth a character should have based on level.

Wealth by level measures a character's current wealth, not treasure gained. It is based on treasure gained, but is a separate figure. If the party has more wealth in magic items than the treasure averages, the WBL chart tells you what you should be steering them towards. Nothing about having a crafting feat changes this, the same way diplomancing someone into giving you a pile of gold wouldn't change it because you took diplomacy, or stealing something would change it because you specialized in being a thief, or the DM screwing up and giving out too much loot too early. Taking a crafting feat does not entitle you to more wealth unless the DM says it does, period.

Even if you can order up custom items without restriction, you still have to sell undesired items for half. Crafting lets you get the full effective value back, which is a concrete benefit even when there "mere" ability to make exactly what you want isn't valuable.

[Slimshanks92]

That's like saying making a druid doesn't entitle you to an animal companion, or making a barbarian doesn't entitle you to rage. The point of the class is to give the party an edge on equipment. It's like if the DM decided to make all the animals in the world go extinct because the party has a druid in it. That's just petty, and I got him to admit as much. Basically he's a new DM that was flexing his muscles to show that he CAN shut me down, but has relaxed since I told him I can't even start making anything valuable till level 3 anyways. The time constraint at this point is just forcing me to prioritize my crafting and focus on the few Items I can crank out in what little time I have.

[Slimshanks92]

Also, another great thing about the artificer, is that if played correctly, it can MAKE a useful party member out of a tier 5 pc. If my party members aren't bringing as much to the table as I am, I whip together something that's only really useful to them. If they're trying too hard to optimize, I just give them a buff ring that actually makes them excel at something. The entire fun of the artificer is being able to bring any party member from zero to hero with magic items.

[ayvango]

It seems you have pretty good relationship with your DM. You could find a compromise, couldn't you? If he thinks that full XP would level party too fast, then try converting exceeding part of XP to your artificer's crafting pool. So you could create some flashy beatsticks for you companions.

[Fizban]

If you can quote a passage in ECS that says the "point" of the artificer is to increase party WBL, that would be proof. Pretty sure there's no such quote though, not that I'm seeing.

You can ignore the text if you want, but WBL does not care about your feats or features. It is a purely DM-side limit that counts your wealth, and crafting feats do not contradict this. Even if you have a class feature that says "you get cash," this still doesn't mean you're immune to WBL enforcement, though it's certainly a lot more of a concrete argument in favor of an exemption.

If there was a "minions by level" that said you weren't supposed to have a certain number of minions before X, and you had a class feature that could break that but did not do so automatically, then that would be an example. Animate Dead is a lot like this, optional but capable of providing some amount of minions- but there's no minions by level chart (even though there pretty obviously should be). Meanwhile (almost) all the animal companion options are outlined right in the class and you get only one. So it's not really a comparison at all. And the barbarian try doesn't even merit a response.


What I'm hearing from your description of the entire fun of being the artificer, is getting to play DM instead of the DM- increasing WBL at your own discretion, dictating the power level of the party, etc. Sure you might be able to singlehandedly "fix" inter-party balance problems, but all you've done is give them a fish, so neither the party nor the DM get to learn what they need to learn or own their own power. And you can say you'll tone it down if it's not needed (not that you have said it), but will you really? You've just admitted that the DM is new, but you've brought a high power class with no built in restrictions for a new DM to deal with and started chafing the moment the DM suggested you might need any restrictions or be too high power. You say you're proud of making the new DM sweat after just two sessions, that they're being petty. They shouldn't be "flexing their muscle," sure, whatever that means- and you shouldn't be undermining their authority.

Yeah, I should just leave before I start going overboard.

[Necroticplague]

No, it’s not bad. It’s as it should be. A PC who is not strong enough to force The Enemy to think on their feet is an insuffeciently strong PC. The only problem is that the other PCs lack such strength and agency.

[Slimshanks92]

If you can quote a passage in ECS that says the "point" of the artificer is to increase party WBL, that would be proof. Pretty sure there's no such quote though, not that I'm seeing.

You can ignore the text if you want, but WBL does not care about your feats or features. It is a purely DM-side limit that counts your wealth, and crafting feats do not contradict this. Even if you have a class feature that says "you get cash," this still doesn't mean you're immune to WBL enforcement, though it's certainly a lot more of a concrete argument in favor of an exemption.

If there was a "minions by level" that said you weren't supposed to have a certain number of minions before X, and you had a class feature that could break that but did not do so automatically, then that would be an example. Animate Dead is a lot like this, optional but capable of providing some amount of minions- but there's no minions by level chart (even though there pretty obviously should be). Meanwhile (almost) all the animal companion options are outlined right in the class and you get only one. So it's not really a comparison at all. And the barbarian try doesn't even merit a response.


What I'm hearing from your description of the entire fun of being the artificer, is getting to play DM instead of the DM- increasing WBL at your own discretion, dictating the power level of the party, etc. Sure you might be able to singlehandedly "fix" inter-party balance problems, but all you've done is give them a fish, so neither the party nor the DM get to learn what they need to learn or own their own power. And you can say you'll tone it down if it's not needed (not that you have said it), but will you really? You've just admitted that the DM is new, but you've brought a high power class with no built in restrictions for a new DM to deal with and started chafing the moment the DM suggested you might need any restrictions or be too high power. You say you're proud of making the new DM sweat after just two sessions, that they're being petty. They shouldn't be "flexing their muscle," sure, whatever that means- and you shouldn't be undermining their authority.

Yeah, I should just leave before I start going overboard.

I've stated several times that I'm not complaining. This was meant to be an amusing story of how even a novice DM can screw with an artificer early on. We aren't a team of minmaxers, only one of us lives with their mom, and this group generally plays more for flavor and role play than anything else. The simple fact is, there is no "right" way to play D&D. The relationship I have with my fellow players and DM are that the DMs job is to provide a challenge without being an outright rocks fall TPK, and the players job is to make the DM think REALLY hard about how to do that. I just finished my round of DMing, it was a delightful hell, and while my players made it through by the skin of their teeth, I'm quite proud of every moment they congregated in the other room so I wouldn't hear their plotting(not that I would meta dm, but I got them paranoid). Also, I've already come to a compromise with him, and commended him on his DMing. He's done a splendid job of spinning a good story, balancing out the power, making wealth by level proportionate for the campaign (I did state above that the kingdom was poor), and I'm sorry, but money is to an artificer what Animals are to a druid. Without one, the other is useless (actually a druid would still be pretty badass if you removed all the animals. There's still plants, so it would be MORE reasonable to kill off all the animals). Anyways, wasn't looking for an argument, but damn you're being self righteous.

[Slimshanks92]

No, it’s not bad. It’s as it should be. A PC who is not strong enough to force The Enemy to think on their feet is an insuffeciently strong PC. The only problem is that the other PCs lack such strength and agency.



Honestly, my personal rule as a DM when I run a game is to never restrict what player can do as long as they can find a source book. If someone does something broken, just make an enemy that counteracts. for instance, in my last campaign, the players made some slightly broken bomb arrows, but they were fighting the same group through the whole campaign, so I gave the enemies a seer that knew about their love of bomb arrows, and made enchanted armor for the high guard that blocked the first 10 points of fire damage per attack. Hell, the DM for this campaign has flat out said that if the magic items get out of hand he'll just introduce enemies that like to use sunder. (My only real advice for him is to not let us all behind the veil so much)

[Slimshanks92]

Wealth by level measures a character's current wealth, not treasure gained. It is based on treasure gained, but is a separate figure. If the party has more wealth in magic items than the treasure averages, the WBL chart tells you what you should be steering them towards. Nothing about having a crafting feat changes this, the same way diplomancing someone into giving you a pile of gold wouldn't change it because you took diplomacy, or stealing something would change it because you specialized in being a thief, or the DM screwing up and giving out too much loot too early. Taking a crafting feat does not entitle you to more wealth unless the DM says it does, period.

Even if you can order up custom items without restriction, you still have to sell undesired items for half. Crafting lets you get the full effective value back, which is a concrete benefit even when there "mere" ability to make exactly what you want isn't valuable.

The wording of this excerpt implies that wealth by level should only count magic items found in encounters specifically, it doesn't mention crafting at all.

[Psyren]

I don't know if there's anything specific in 3.5, but PF says this about crafting feats:


Adjusting Character Wealth by Level
You can take advantage of the item creation rules to hand-craft most or all of your magic items. Because you've spent gp equal to only half the price of these items, you could end up with more gear than what the Character Wealth by Level table suggests for you. This is especially the case if you're a new character starting above 1st level or one with the versatile Craft Wondrous Item feat. With these advantages, you can carefully craft optimized gear rather than acquiring GM-selected gear over the course of a campaign. For example, a newly created 4th-level character should have about 6,000 gp worth of gear, but you can craft up to 12,000 gp worth of gear with that much gold, all of it taking place before the character enters the campaign, making the time-cost of crafting irrelevant.

Some GMs might be tempted to reduce the amount or value of the treasure you acquire to offset this and keep your overall wealth in line with the Character Wealth by Level table. Unfortunately, that has the net result of negating the main benefit of crafting magic items—in effect negating your choice of a feat. However, game balance for the default campaign experience expects you and all other PCs to be close to the listed wealth values, so the GM shouldn't just let you craft double the normal amount of gear. As a guideline, allowing a crafting PC to exceed the Character Wealth by Level guidelines by about 25% is fair, or even up to 50% if the PC has multiple crafting feats.

If you are creating items for other characters in the party, the increased wealth for the other characters should come out of your increased allotment. Not only does this prevent you from skewing the wealth by level for everyone in the party, but it encourages other characters to learn item creation feats.

Example: The Character Wealth By Level table states that an 8th-level character should have about 33,000 gp worth of items. Using the above 25% rule, Patrick's 8th-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item is allowed an additional 8,250 gp worth of crafted wondrous items. If he uses his feat to craft items for the rest of the party, any excess value the other PCs have because of those items should count toward Patrick's additional 8,250 gp worth of crafted items.

Though they're not quite the same game, the principle above does apply: simply taking a hacksaw to the party's treasure if they have a crafter means they might as well have spent the feats on Toughness for all the good they are actually doing, but ignoring the impact entirely means the party ends up with double WBL. (Even more than that in this case, as Artificers craft even more cheaply than standard crafters.) Neither is a particularly desirable outcome. Instead, use a rule of thumb like the one above to let crafting parties exceed WBL by a smaller amount, with the amount going up based on how many crafting feats they have - still reducing their incoming treasure, but not as drastically, so that they do feel the benefit of having those feats.

[Doctor Awkward]

So, first thing my DM does is give us a surprise attack from a bunch of kobalds and two ogres. We end up escaping with our lives, but we're dirt poor, and he admits that the reason he's kept us poor is because there's an artificer on the team, but he also says we don't have a lot of downtime for the same reason. He lets us remedy how broke we are with a side quest of clearing ghouls out of an old mansion, but decided half way through the quest that the arrows of undead bane that I gave everyone with an infusion (one minute before we arrived at the mansion) gave us too much of an edge, so he doubled the number of ghouls without giving us any extra xp for them. He admitted he did this because of me. I think he's trying to turn the party against me, I dunno, part of me welcomes the challenge, part of me thinks we should've gotten full xp, and a vast majority just thinks he shouldn't be letting us be the veil so much. Mostly, I'm just proud that it's only been two sessions and I'm already making the DM sweat 😂😂😂

He sounds like a prick to me.

Assuming that you didn't embellish any of that story for dramatic effect (you certainly seem to be enjoying yourself), he is effectively punishing the entire group for the character choices of a single player.

What he should be doing to challenge you specifically is targeting the inherent weaknesses in artificers; namely their inability to easily abuse the action economy and their reliance on items to do anything in combat. Once you become known as the guy who pulls out the toys, enemies should start sundering your toys on sight. Or attempting to pick-pocket them when you are wandering around town. Or steal them from you while you sleep. Or just have four guys tackle you and pin you to the ground.



I don't know if there's anything specific in 3.5, but PF says this about crafting feats:

Adjusting Character Wealth by Level
You can take advantage of the item creation rules to hand-craft most or all of your magic items. Because you've spent gp equal to only half the price of these items, you could end up with more gear than what the Character Wealth by Level table suggests for you. This is especially the case if you're a new character starting above 1st level or one with the versatile Craft Wondrous Item feat. With these advantages, you can carefully craft optimized gear rather than acquiring GM-selected gear over the course of a campaign. For example, a newly created 4th-level character should have about 6,000 gp worth of gear, but you can craft up to 12,000 gp worth of gear with that much gold, all of it taking place before the character enters the campaign, making the time-cost of crafting irrelevant.

Some GMs might be tempted to reduce the amount or value of the treasure you acquire to offset this and keep your overall wealth in line with the Character Wealth by Level table. Unfortunately, that has the net result of negating the main benefit of crafting magic items—in effect negating your choice of a feat. However, game balance for the default campaign experience expects you and all other PCs to be close to the listed wealth values, so the GM shouldn't just let you craft double the normal amount of gear. As a guideline, allowing a crafting PC to exceed the Character Wealth by Level guidelines by about 25% is fair, or even up to 50% if the PC has multiple crafting feats.

If you are creating items for other characters in the party, the increased wealth for the other characters should come out of your increased allotment. Not only does this prevent you from skewing the wealth by level for everyone in the party, but it encourages other characters to learn item creation feats.

Example: The Character Wealth By Level table states that an 8th-level character should have about 33,000 gp worth of items. Using the above 25% rule, Patrick's 8th-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item is allowed an additional 8,250 gp worth of crafted wondrous items. If he uses his feat to craft items for the rest of the party, any excess value the other PCs have because of those items should count toward Patrick's additional 8,250 gp worth of crafted items.
Though they're not quite the same game, the principle above does apply: simply taking a hacksaw to the party's treasure if they have a crafter means they might as well have spent the feats on Toughness for all the good they are actually doing, but ignoring the impact entirely means the party ends up with double WBL. (Even more than that in this case, as Artificers craft even more cheaply than standard crafters.) Neither is a particularly desirable outcome. Instead, use a rule of thumb like the one above to let crafting parties exceed WBL by a smaller amount, with the amount going up based on how many crafting feats they have - still reducing their incoming treasure, but not as drastically, so that they do feel the benefit of having those feats.

There is a lot of rubbish in that rules quote up there, but I wanted to single out that sentence about "optimized gear" in particular. The author is painting the concept of personalized gear in a decidedly negative broad stroke, and simultaneously suggesting that players should only expect, and perhaps be grateful for, whatever treasure the DM sees fit to award them with during the adventure. Considering the amount of equipment recommendations I see crop up around Pathfinder builds, you can imagine my amusement at such a suggestion. Additionally, there are many systems out there, such as Shadowrun, where shopping for equipment before an adventure is often an integral part of the plan. D&D is certainly capable of being played the same way, if the dozens of helpful world-building guidelines in the Dungeon Master's Guide to help newer DM's decide what equipment might be available for purchase are anything to go by.

Furthermore, the suggested fix also creates an awful generalization, which is "if a character has spent a lot of money on magic items, it probably means they are overpowered." We all know this isn't the case, especially in 3.5, as not all equipment is created equal. There are many mechanical effects of magic items that are severely over-costed, and at least as many that are far too cheap for the benefit they provide. There are entire threads dedicated to pointing these items out. Suggesting that DM's should consider equipment in such simple terms as its price does nothing but discourage them from increasing their level of system mastery, and discourages players from tinkering with the nuts and bolts of the game to see what they can discover ("don't spend too much money, kids, or Dad might get upset").

The plain truth of the matter is that the only balance that matters is the balance between party members. If everyone has upped their power-level by exceeding their Wealth-By-Level with crafted equipment, then all the DM has to do is increase the challenge of the encounters to compensate.

A DM that can't or chooses not to meet the needs of his group is a bad DM.

[/rant]

[Psyren]

There is a lot of rubbish in that rules quote up there, but I wanted to single out that sentence about "optimized gear" in particular. The author is painting the concept of personalized gear in a decidedly negative broad stroke, and simultaneously suggesting that players should only expect, and perhaps be grateful for, whatever treasure the DM sees fit to award them with during the adventure. Considering the amount of equipment recommendations I see crop up around Pathfinder builds, you can imagine my amusement at such a suggestion. Additionally, there are many systems out there, such as Shadowrun, where shopping for equipment before an adventure is often an integral part of the plan. D&D is certainly capable of being played the same way, if the dozens of helpful world-building guidelines in the Dungeon Master's Guide to help newer DM's decide what equipment might be available for purchase are anything to go by.

Furthermore, the suggested fix also creates an awful generalization, which is "if a character has spent a lot of money on magic items, it probably means they are overpowered." We all know this isn't the case, especially in 3.5, as not all equipment is created equal. There are many mechanical effects of magic items that are severely over-costed, and at least as many that are far too cheap for the benefit they provide. There are entire threads dedicated to pointing these items out. Suggesting that DM's should consider equipment in such simple terms as its price does nothing but discourage them from increasing their level of system mastery, and discourages players from tinkering with the nuts and bolts of the game to see what they can discover ("don't spend too much money, kids, or Dad might get upset").

The plain truth of the matter is that the only balance that matters is the balance between party members. If everyone has upped their power-level by exceeding their Wealth-By-Level with crafted equipment, then all the DM has to do is increase the challenge of the encounters to compensate.

A DM that can't or chooses not to meet the needs of his group is a bad DM.

[/rant]

You quoted me, but literally nothing you wrote has anything to do with what I posted. so I'm a bit at a loss as to how to even begin replying.

[Doctor Awkward]

You quoted me, but literally nothing you wrote has anything to do with what I posted. so I'm a bit at a loss as to how to even begin replying.

*headscratch*

Well... um.

You seemed to think that the suggestion from the passage you quoted was an okay idea, just adjust is slightly based on the number of crafting feats chosen(?)

I said that I don't think the idea is very good in principle for the reasons I posted.


...I guess start with where you think I made any errors in logic or in the facts in my assessment?

[Psyren]

*headscratch*

Well... um.

You seemed to think that the suggestion from the passage you quoted was an okay idea, just adjust is slightly based on the number of crafting feats chosen(?)

I said that I don't think the idea is very good in principle for the reasons I posted.


...I guess start with where you think I made any errors in logic or in the facts in my assessment?

You said "The author is...suggesting that players should only expect, and perhaps be grateful for, whatever treasure the DM sees fit to award them with during the adventure." The passage doesn't say that at all.

You then said "the suggested fix also creates an awful generalization, which is 'if a character has spent a lot of money on magic items, it probably means they are overpowered.' " It didn't say that either.

Lastly, you said: "If everyone has upped their power-level by exceeding their Wealth-By-Level with crafted equipment, then all the DM has to do is increase the challenge of the encounters to compensate." But DMs experienced enough to throw CR out the window entirely this way and eyeball everything don't need guidelines or advice to begin with. But the designers' job is to write material for the GMs that do need assistance in this manner, not those who don't - they can create their own guardrails anyway, after all.

[King of Nowhere]

Mostly, I'm just proud that it's only been two sessions and I'm already making the DM sweat 😂😂😂
Others said this already, but you are having the wrong attitude. Your task is not to mess up with the DM.
And if you trivialize the encounters too much, the DM has to give harder encounters. Either that, or he gives the party lame encounters.
You should talk and find solutions for this. I don't think your case is problematic, because you are buffing the party, so you are not overshadowing them, they still matter. But of course you must expect harder fights if you are more skilled.

[Slimshanks92]

He sounds like a prick to me.

Assuming that you didn't embellish any of that story for dramatic effect (you certainly seem to be enjoying yourself), he is effectively punishing the entire group for the character choices of a single player.

What he should be doing to challenge you specifically is targeting the inherent weaknesses in artificers; namely their inability to easily abuse the action economy and their reliance on items to do anything in combat. Once you become known as the guy who pulls out the toys, enemies should start sundering your toys on sight. Or attempting to pick-pocket them when you are wandering around town. Or steal them from you while you sleep. Or just have four guys tackle you and pin you to the ground.




There is a lot of rubbish in that rules quote up there, but I wanted to single out that sentence about "optimized gear" in particular. The author is painting the concept of personalized gear in a decidedly negative broad stroke, and simultaneously suggesting that players should only expect, and perhaps be grateful for, whatever treasure the DM sees fit to award them with during the adventure. Considering the amount of equipment recommendations I see crop up around Pathfinder builds, you can imagine my amusement at such a suggestion. Additionally, there are many systems out there, such as Shadowrun, where shopping for equipment before an adventure is often an integral part of the plan. D&D is certainly capable of being played the same way, if the dozens of helpful world-building guidelines in the Dungeon Master's Guide to help newer DM's decide what equipment might be available for purchase are anything to go by.

Furthermore, the suggested fix also creates an awful generalization, which is "if a character has spent a lot of money on magic items, it probably means they are overpowered." We all know this isn't the case, especially in 3.5, as not all equipment is created equal. There are many mechanical effects of magic items that are severely over-costed, and at least as many that are far too cheap for the benefit they provide. There are entire threads dedicated to pointing these items out. Suggesting that DM's should consider equipment in such simple terms as its price does nothing but discourage them from increasing their level of system mastery, and discourages players from tinkering with the nuts and bolts of the game to see what they can discover ("don't spend too much money, kids, or Dad might get upset").

The plain truth of the matter is that the only balance that matters is the balance between party members. If everyone has upped their power-level by exceeding their Wealth-By-Level with crafted equipment, then all the DM has to do is increase the challenge of the encounters to compensate.

A DM that can't or chooses not to meet the needs of his group is a bad DM.

[/rant]

I notice a lot of people being offended on behalf of my group. I want it known that they're enjoying the shenanigans as much as I am. I've also stated several times that me and the DM have already come to an agreement, and that I'm not complaining, just sharing what I think to be a funny story. Also, I'm really curious how normal people play this game. Cause every group I've been in, it's a crowning moment when you make the DM scratch their head over how you beasted their challenge. It's a battle of wits to my group, and we treat it as such.

[Mordaedil]

They are being offended because of the way you wrote the title of the thread kinda asks the question of "is he wrong or am I?" even if you later rescinded on wanting to know if that was the case or not.

From my point of view, if there is no problem, I would word my point a bit differently.

Also these forums love an argument, so don't take it personally if people kinda fly off on their own tangents as everyone here have experienced similar things, but usually with people they can't get along with that easily. ( a common saying is "no group is better than a bad group" )

[Doctor Awkward]

You said "The author is...suggesting that players should only expect, and perhaps be grateful for, whatever treasure the DM sees fit to award them with during the adventure." The passage doesn't say that at all.

You then said "the suggested fix also creates an awful generalization, which is 'if a character has spent a lot of money on magic items, it probably means they are overpowered.' " It didn't say that either.

Lastly, you said: "If everyone has upped their power-level by exceeding their Wealth-By-Level with crafted equipment, then all the DM has to do is increase the challenge of the encounters to compensate." But DMs experienced enough to throw CR out the window entirely this way and eyeball everything don't need guidelines or advice to begin with. But the designers' job is to write material for the GMs that do need assistance in this manner, not those who don't - they can create their own guardrails anyway, after all.


Well sure it doesn't outright say those things. But I inferred them from how the paragraph was written.

I can't imagine I am the only person in the world to do so.



Guardrails are all fine and well, but the purpose of such advice should be to encourage the GM to elevate his system mastery so that he can eventually become one of those people that doesn't need it. Beginner DM's don't buy and read guides so that they can stay beginners.

[Psyren]

Well sure it doesn't outright say those things. But I inferred them from how the paragraph was written.

I can't imagine I am the only person in the world to do so.

Well sure - if you go around looking to infer ill-will, you'll probably find it.



Guardrails are all fine and well, but the purpose of such advice should be to encourage the GM to elevate his system mastery so that he can eventually become one of those people that doesn't need it. Beginner DM's don't buy and read guides so that they can stay beginners.

It's not a dichotomy. You can run with 20-25% more WBL and then gradually increase to +50%, +75% or even +100% over time if you feel you can still challenge players with that increased level of power or utility. Better to give the lower bound as the rule of thumb so the brave can stretch their wings, than recommend everyone run a Monty Haul campaign like you're doing and have them burn out on the game that much more quickly.