Wealth by level as enforced cap.

[TiaC]

I was thinking of running an Eberron game, and two of the problems I had were that Artificers can be overcomplicated and badly broken and that it would be hard to have players interact with the economic aspects of the setting without them easily breaking WBL. This was on top of the normal problems with wealth that has characters who wear a king's ransom but don't own a home. So, here's my proposed solution, straight from my houserule doc.


3.5/Pathfinder has problems with wealth and verisimilitude. Money is power in 3.5/Pathfinder, and so players must either spend their money in a way that it becomes power, or be at a disadvantage compared to players who did. Thus, the term “Murder Hobo”, players tend not to spend their fabulous wealth on the sort of things that people buy with wealth. Why buy a mansion when you could buy another wand or magic sword? There have been many attempts to fix this problem, from giving players wealth that can only be spent on property, to the Automatic Bonus Progression rules removing the easiest avenues to improve gear, to systems that just say that the effects of magic items are inherent to the character and all gear is mundane.

None of these quite work for Eberron. This is a setting where magical items are everywhere, where they are an expected part of characters and a motivation for plots and persons, but where it would be all too easy to have players walking around with a library of scrolls answering any problem.

Thus, I would like to present my own solution, Wealth By Level as Hard Cap. A character can only use and benefit from a certain amount of magic items at once. If a character has magic items worth more than the amount of wealth corresponding to the level one above theirs on the character advancement chart, some of those items (User’s choice) go dormant, and cannot be reactivated for an hour after they leave that character’s possession unless the character is dead.

Each item is attuned to its user when first used or worn at the beginning of the day. Should a character wish to attune a new item over the course of the day, he or she can do so by unattuning items sufficient to keep the total value below his or her limit. However, this can only be done if the new item has never been attuned to the character before. Charged items are always considered to be fully charged for purposes of calculating their value. Single use items continue to count against a character’s attuned items for one week after being used.

Only the magical properties of an item count for determining its value towards the cap (E.g. a magic sword with a valuable gem in the pommel does not count the gem’s value towards the cap). In addition, certain magic items do not count towards this cap: Magical vehicles do not count towards this cap. Certain large, immobile, magic items such as enchanted buildings do not count towards this cap. Artifacts do not count towards this cap. Constructs do not count towards the cap. New feats, Craft Vehicle and Craft Monument would be used to create these items.

Each Item Creation or Item Mastery Feat possessed by a character increases the cap by 10% of its base value for that character.

[unseenmage]

On Artificers, has been my play experience that they require time, money, and access to materials. Deny access to any of those and it drops half a tier to an entire tier.

Routine surprise attacks deny them prep time for combats limiting abuse of Bane weapon enhancement.
Time sensitive missions limit crafting downtime.

Limited WBL or low magic loot inhibit crafting and retain essence shenaniganery.

Dropped in the wilderness even making potions becomes a challenge.
Additionally, good luck finding rare infusion components without a magic mart.


This post is less advice, more my play experience.


For my opinion, just ban the stuff you dont feel comfortable GMing. As a player who has had their superpowers nerfed after they were originally okayed I'd not recommend such to another's game.

[TiaC]

On Artificers, has been my play experience that they require time, money, and access to materials. Deny access to any of those and it drops half a tier to an entire tier.

Routine surprise attacks deny them prep time for combats limiting abuse of Bane weapon enhancement.
Time sensitive missions limit crafting downtime.

Limited WBL or low magic loot inhibit crafting and retain essence shenaniganery.

Dropped in the wilderness even making potions becomes a challenge.
Additionally, good luck finding rare infusion components without a magic mart.

This post is less advice, more my play experience.

For my opinion, just ban the stuff you dont feel comfortable GMing. As a player who has had their superpowers nerfed after they were originally okayed I'd not recommend such to another's game.
I want to play with artificers. It's a PF game, so I'm actually porting the artificer. I don't mind the artificer being effective, my main problem is the spreadsheets and complication of running one. The whole point of this is that my players can invest in businesses or cart off an ancient dragon's hoard and end up with a million gold without it breaking the game.

[unseenmage]

Are you familiar with the Eberron Pathfinder (https://sites.google.com/site/eberronpathfinder/)? Our resident rules guru says its OP but that might just make it a faithful conversion of Eberron proper. :smallsmile:

[TiaC]

Are you familiar with the Eberron Pathfinder (https://sites.google.com/site/eberronpathfinder/)? Our resident rules guru says its OP but that might just make it a faithful conversion of Eberron proper. :smallsmile:

I am, I've been using it and Prime32's work (http://pf-eberron.wikidot.com/classes) to help me as I try to convert everything. I'm at 30,000 words of converted material and intend to get the rest.

[unseenmage]

I am, I've been using it and Prime32's work (http://pf-eberron.wikidot.com/classes) to help me as I try to convert everything. I'm at 30,000 words of converted material and intend to get the rest.

Very cool! Are you fixing as you go (adjusting power levels and such to suit your needs) or just straight converting for now?

[TiaC]

Very cool! Are you fixing as you go (adjusting power levels and such to suit your needs) or just straight converting for now?

I am. I'm aiming for a balance point appropriate to a DSP-using game, so it might be a bit strong for other games. When I'm a bit farther along, I'll release it for other's to use.

[unseenmage]

I am. I'm aiming for a balance point appropriate to a DSP-using game, so it might be a bit strong for other games. When I'm a bit farther along, I'll release it for other's to use.
Very cool, I look forward to seeing it. I've always enjoyed Eberron material and have been lately porting some of it whole cloth into our PF games.

[Florian]

When you're thinking about using WBL as a hard cap anyways, why not do away with money as a whole at the point? In a recent campaign, the only loot were consumables and unique items. nothing else. Between sessions, players could recalculate their current wealth and go shopping, provided the session did not end in a dungeon or so. It was actually pretty good to not talk about the vast sums a PF character tends to lug around.

[Quertus]

I want to play with artificers. It's a PF game, so I'm actually porting the artificer. I don't mind the artificer being effective, my main problem is the spreadsheets and complication of running one. The whole point of this is that my players can invest in businesses or cart off an ancient dragon's hoard and end up with a million gold without it breaking the game.

So, I've played with WBL hard cap rules before, and I'm liking your take on them, on making wealth valuable outside of personal items. I'm less certain what the value of playing an Artificer is, though, under such rules, when everyone already has as mountain of gold, and three copies of every item that they'd ever want, just in case they drop the first two in a volcano or something.


Charged items are always considered to be fully charged for purposes of calculating their value. Single use items continue to count against a character’s attuned items for one week after being used.

I've never had issues with expendable items in my games, so I really don't see the point in the second part of this. In fact, since you allow people to swap out items daily, it seems odd that items you aren't using count against you for a week if they're used potions or scrolls.

Now, I suppose I could get behind Wizards or Archivists counting scrolls learned against their WBL for an extended time - perhaps even forever. In fact, I'd consider it bad for game balance if it didn't count against them forever.

And why oh why would you ever count a wand with one charge left against its full value? This hurts muggles (who need multiple wands for when they fail their UMD, and can no longer use the wand, and have to switch to their backup) worse than it impacts casters who use the wands natively, and makes low-charge wands a huge liability.

If you tell me I've got two balanced characters, both "worth" 1,500 GP, I'm gonna cry foul if one has 2 charges of spells, and the other has 100 charges of the same spells.

[Sleven]

Enforcing WBL is already part of the rules. The DMG brings it up repeatedly in 3 separate sections (maybe even more).


For many items, the market price equals the base price. For example, a cloak of elvenkind has a market price (and base price) of 2,500 gp. Making one costs 1,250 gp in raw materials plus 100 XP. Armor, shields, weapons, and items with a value independent of their magically enhanced properties add their item cost to the market price. The item cost does not influence the base price (which determines the cost of magic supplies and the experience point cost), but it does increase the final market price.

Same quote is in the DMG, but I'm too lazy to find it. The MIC cribs most of its rules text from the DMG anyways, and just updates the random treasure charts.


Table 5–1: Character Wealth by Level (page 135) shows the total value of a player character’s gear at a given level.


One of the ways in which 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 her level.

As we can see, "the total value of a player character's gear," is the measure of their Wealth by Level and market price/value is used when calculating Wealth by Level. Therefore, crafted items must be weighed at market value in order to appropriately measure a character's Wealth by Level. Simple.

The whole, "crafters can ignore WBL," thing is a myth. Of course, you're free to run your game anyway you want.

Here's another quote from a different section, just to keep reinforcing the point:


PCs and NPCs, victories and defeats, awards and afflictions, treasure found and treasure spent—all these aspects must be monitored to maintain balance. No one character should become significantly greater than the others.

If a character has twice the magic item value of another character, that one character is significantly greater than the others. So once again, crafting should not allow one to exceed WBL according to the DMG.

Still not on board? Here's an official "Ask Wizards" response to a question as to what the purpose of crafting was if it can't be used to get rich:
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070303a

It took me maybe... five? minutes to find this. I'm sure you could find more if you really dug into the rules.

[unseenmage]

On the Paizo boards you can find dev explanations that players beginning play at higher levels should be allowed to use crafting feats to get items on the cheap before play even starts because to fo otherwise would negate those feats effectiveness.

Not sure if that is actually counter to WBL limits or intended to be used alongside them in some convoluted manner.

[TiaC]

Very cool, I look forward to seeing it. I've always enjoyed Eberron material and have been lately porting some of it whole cloth into our PF games.
Thanks.

When you're thinking about using WBL as a hard cap anyways, why not do away with money as a whole at the point? In a recent campaign, the only loot were consumables and unique items. nothing else. Between sessions, players could recalculate their current wealth and go shopping, provided the session did not end in a dungeon or so. It was actually pretty good to not talk about the vast sums a PF character tends to lug around.
While this does fix many problems, and is basically what we're using in the game I'm currently a player in, I don't think it works for Eberron. As I said "This is a setting where magical items are everywhere, where they are an expected part of characters and a motivation for plots and persons". Abstracting it away like that makes it difficult to tell many stories that would be appropriate for the setting

So, I've played with WBL hard cap rules before, and I'm liking your take on them, on making wealth valuable outside of personal items. I'm less certain what the value of playing an Artificer is, though, under such rules, when everyone already has as mountain of gold, and three copies of every item that they'd ever want, just in case they drop the first two in a volcano or something.

Well, first, due to this bit "Each Item Creation or Item Mastery Feat possessed by a character increases the cap by 10% of its base value for that character." the Artificer's bonus feats do let them use more items. Second, Artificers have options that let them use items more effectively. Third, I'll be updating Artificer infusions, and this allows me to make them a bit less clunky and more effective. I could also give them a unique class feature that increases their effective WBL.


I've never had issues with expendable items in my games, so I really don't see the point in the second part of this. In fact, since you allow people to swap out items daily, it seems odd that items you aren't using count against you for a week if they're used potions or scrolls.

Now, I suppose I could get behind Wizards or Archivists counting scrolls learned against their WBL for an extended time - perhaps even forever. In fact, I'd consider it bad for game balance if it didn't count against them forever.
The issue is that a pile of scrolls that you replace daily is more powerful than a permanent item of the same cost. Thus, I want it to be a little harder to just use scrolls all the time. I thought that scrolls would be replaced from adventure to adventure, rather than day to day. Consumables are a little too effective if you can replace a +1 on your sword with being a wizard for a day and then do it again tomorrow.

I was planning on just saying that spellbooks count as magic items and that preparing from one counts as using it. (I suppose I'd have to do something about someone who doesn't bind them and tried to claim that they should only count the spells they used that day.)


And why oh why would you ever count a wand with one charge left against its full value? This hurts muggles (who need multiple wands for when they fail their UMD, and can no longer use the wand, and have to switch to their backup) worse than it impacts casters who use the wands natively, and makes low-charge wands a huge liability.

If you tell me I've got two balanced characters, both "worth" 1,500 GP, I'm gonna cry foul if one has 2 charges of spells, and the other has 100 charges of the same spells.
Because otherwise it's a really effective strategy to only use wands with 5 or fewer charges. Wands are cheaper per charge than scrolls and easier to use, so if it was too easy to use nearly drained wands, everyone would use them for everything. When your wand gets low, you sell it and buy a new one. NPCs will still buy it from you. I didn't want wands to just be treated like at will items, and it's awkward to deal with WBL freeing up over the course of the day. I could put in a bit allowing you to consolidate charges from identical wands so that you can do something with your low-charged items. Yes, it's not perfectly fair, but the second character does get something for only having 2 charges left, they get 1,470gp. They might not be able to use what they buy with that right now, but they can just buy two wands with 49 charges each to use when the first two wear out.


Enforcing WBL is already part of the rules. The DMG brings it up repeatedly in 3 separate sections (maybe even more).
One, this demand either a very heavy handed DMing style or a very high degree of abstraction (which is not perfectly RAW itself). Two, it doesn't deal with the problems I'm trying to deal with, as it still has characters wearing every last gp they own as magic items. Three, your delivery is rude enough that even if this would work for me I wouldn't want to hear it.

[Florian]

On the Paizo boards you can find dev explanations that players beginning play at higher levels should be allowed to use crafting feats to get items on the cheap before play even starts because to fo otherwise would negate those feats effectiveness.

Not sure if that is actually counter to WBL limits or intended to be used alongside them in some convoluted manner.

That topic also came up back with WotC and was anderes in a similar way (especially since in both cases, the answer was given before stuff like retraining was included): You take a very limited resource (feats) and specialize in something, that something can also be WBL. Thus, a Cleric with Craft Magic Arms and Armor should get the 50% rabat calculated into it.

[Crake]

The way I run wbl as a cap in my game is that each equipped magic item consumes a portion of your chakra energy. You can have as much equipment as you want, but you can only equip as much as your chakra allows (as determined by your level). Consumables don't eat up your wbl chakra, so you can have as many of those as you'd like, and players can also spend xp to gain certain benefits (as per the pathfinder automatic bonus progression system) when their chakra isn't fully utilized. The level of their automatic bonus progression bonuses equals their current WBL - their current equipped WBL, and then compared to the WBL table to see which level the remainder corresponds to (+2 to account for the "no magic item" variant, after all, if you're completely unequipped, you should have the full bonuses for someone without any magic items).

For example, a level 7 character, who's normal WBL is 19k, but who maybe only has 5k worth of magical gear (mundane items don't count, yes, even a set of mithril fullplate, i know it makes things a big higher power, but I'm fine with that), that means he has 14k worth of unallocated WBL. Looking at the chart, 6th level is 13k, so the character would get the automatic bonus progression of a 6th level character with no magic items (8th level on the table).

[TiaC]

The way I run wbl as a cap in my game is that each equipped magic item consumes a portion of your chakra energy. You can have as much equipment as you want, but you can only equip as much as your chakra allows (as determined by your level). Consumables don't eat up your wbl chakra, so you can have as many of those as you'd like, and players can also spend xp to gain certain benefits (as per the pathfinder automatic bonus progression system) when their chakra isn't fully utilized. The level of their automatic bonus progression bonuses equals their current WBL - their current equipped WBL, and then compared to the WBL table to see which level the remainder corresponds to (+2 to account for the "no magic item" variant, after all, if you're completely unequipped, you should have the full bonuses for someone without any magic items).

For example, a level 7 character, who's normal WBL is 19k, but who maybe only has 5k worth of magical gear (mundane items don't count, yes, even a set of mithril fullplate, i know it makes things a big higher power, but I'm fine with that), that means he has 14k worth of unallocated WBL. Looking at the chart, 6th level is 13k, so the character would get the automatic bonus progression of a 6th level character with no magic items (8th level on the table).

Nice to know that others are using a similar system. However, I think I'll stick to counting consumables, as I'm trying to really limit the ability to dump all your wealth into personal-use items.

[Crake]

Nice to know that others are using a similar system. However, I think I'll stick to counting consumables, as I'm trying to really limit the ability to dump all your wealth into personal-use items.

The problem with counting consumables though, is how do you justify it in game? What's actually stopping you from loading up on consumables? Do they spoil if you carry too many? What if you put them into a wagon rather than keeping them on your person? What if you load them onto a pack mule? It causes far too many in game questions. Of course, if you're the sort of DM who just handwaves those questions, that's fine, but for me, I found it easier to just allow as many consumables as players wanted. I've never really had a problem with characters loading too much on consumables before.

[TiaC]

The problem with counting consumables though, is how do you justify it in game? What's actually stopping you from loading up on consumables? Do they spoil if you carry too many? What if you put them into a wagon rather than keeping them on your person? What if you load them onto a pack mule? It causes far too many in game questions. Of course, if you're the sort of DM who just handwaves those questions, that's fine, but for me, I found it easier to just allow as many consumables as players wanted. I've never really had a problem with characters loading too much on consumables before.

A Handy Haversack will hold hundreds of scrolls and always give you the one you want. It's really not much of a problem to abuse.

If players don't try to abuse consumables I won't be particularly strict about it, but I'd rather have the rule and not need it than have to add it mid-game. (Even more true with artificers in play, because they're really consumable-dependent and their power is strongly tied to wealth.)

[noob]

I was planning on just saying that spellbooks count as magic items and that preparing from one counts as using it. (I suppose I'd have to do something about someone who doesn't bind them and tried to claim that they should only count the spells they used that day.)

That would be absurd unless you apply that to druids and clerics too somehow
like "Your god is worth 1440000 gp(calculated by assuming a divine rank is worth two levels but if you consider it is -1 level per divine rank because divine ranks makes people weaker then it is only 360000 gp for a god) so now you can not ever use magic items ever again"
or "Nature in the material plane is worth as much as the sum of the costs of all the plants and animals in it so now you can not ever use magic items again"
or else it will just be nerfing wizard relatively to druids and clerics for no reason whatsoever: why would the source of spells for wizard be counted but not the source of spells for druids and clerics.

[Crake]

A Handy Haversack will hold hundreds of scrolls and always give you the one you want. It's really not much of a problem to abuse.

If players don't try to abuse consumables I won't be particularly strict about it, but I'd rather have the rule and not need it than have to add it mid-game. (Even more true with artificers in play, because they're really consumable-dependent and their power is strongly tied to wealth.)

I think you misunderstood what my point was with that post. I wasn't talking about the logistics of carrying the consumables, but rather the in-game effects of "limiting" the consumables somehow. If the method of limiting them is that the consumables are spoiled if you carry too many, what's to stop you from loading your consumables into a wagon, and only actually carrying your limit around on your person? Then after a combat, or hell, even a day of adventuring, go to your wagon filled with consumables and re-stock yourself. I can't think of a decent, in game solution that would stop it, the only one I can think of is a meta, out of game "you can't do that", which is fine for some people, but I prefer to have in-game reasons to back up my rules like this. Most of the in game reasons that stop players from stacking up consumables too much is simply the lack of supply, if players want a load of consumables, they need to make them themselves, which, if they want to spend the xp and time, sure they can do, but if you want hundreds of scroll, you're looking at hundreds of days of crafting. Fine in a solo game, good luck getting the other players to wait around in a group game.

[TiaC]

That would be stupid unless you apply that to druids and clerics too somehow
like "Your god is worth 1440000 gp(calculated by assuming a divine rank is worth two levels but if you consider it is -1 level per divine rank because divine ranks makes people weaker then it is only 360000 gp for a god) so now you can not ever use magic items ever again"
or "Nature in the material plane is worth as much as the sum of the costs of all the plants and animals in it so now you can not ever use magic items again"
or else it will just be nerfing wizard relatively to druids and clerics for no reason whatsoever: why would the source of spells for wizard be counted but not the source of spells for druids and clerics.

Why is that a nerf? That's how it works in the unmodified game too. Clerics and druids just get their spells, Wizards have to study a spellbook, which costs money to scribe spells into.


I think you misunderstood what my point was with that post. I wasn't talking about the logistics of carrying the consumables, but rather the in-game effects of "limiting" the consumables somehow. If the method of limiting them is that the consumables are spoiled if you carry too many, what's to stop you from loading your consumables into a wagon, and only actually carrying your limit around on your person? Then after a combat, or hell, even a day of adventuring, go to your wagon filled with consumables and re-stock yourself. I can't think of a decent, in game solution that would stop it, the only one I can think of is a meta, out of game "you can't do that", which is fine for some people, but I prefer to have in-game reasons to back up my rules like this. Most of the in game reasons that stop players from stacking up consumables too much is simply the lack of supply, if players want a load of consumables, they need to make them themselves, which, if they want to spend the xp and time, sure they can do, but if you want hundreds of scroll, you're looking at hundreds of days of crafting. Fine in a solo game, good luck getting the other players to wait around in a group game.

Spoiling? Where did you get that idea? In my system, if you are capped out one wealth and you try to use a scroll, it just doesn't work. You don't have enough essence or whatever you want to call it to resonate with the scroll. Nothing meta about it. It's the exact same mechanism that happens when you pick up a magic sword while capped out on wealth. To you, the sword's just masterwork, you cant activate the magic. Limiting supply doesn't work very well in a setting that is defined by having magic be commonplace and a part of everyone's life.

[Crake]

Why is that a nerf? That's how it works in the unmodified game too. Clerics and druids just get their spells, Wizards have to study a spellbook, which costs money to scribe spells into.



Spoiling? Where did you get that idea? In my system, if you are capped out one wealth and you try to use a scroll, it just doesn't work. You don't have enough essence or whatever you want to call it to resonate with the scroll. Nothing meta about it. It's the exact same mechanism that happens when you pick up a magic sword while capped out on wealth. To you, the sword's just masterwork, you cant activate the magic. Limiting supply doesn't work very well in a setting that is defined by having magic be commonplace and a part of everyone's life.

Spoiling was an example, because I wasn't sure how you were handling it. But if you're simply having it not work, then what's to stop your character from keeping a horde of supplies NOT on their character, and restocking whenever necessary? Or just dumping all their consumables on a PAO mule who follows them around, handing them the particular consumable they want at any given time? That way they would only ever need enough "space" in their essence or whatever, enough to use a single consumable, since they themselves aren't carrying it. My ultimate point is, if your players are going to "abuse" consumables (I don't honestly think that such a thing is really possible anyway), then they can find a way regardless, all you're doing is making it inconvenient (see: Grod's Law).

Also, the limiting supply thing was just an example from my setting, I don't expect it to be applicable everywhere.

[TiaC]

Spoiling was an example, because I wasn't sure how you were handling it. But if you're simply having it not work, then what's to stop your character from keeping a horde of supplies NOT on their character, and restocking whenever necessary? Or just dumping all their consumables on a PAO mule who follows them around, handing them the particular consumable they want at any given time? That way they would only ever need enough "space" in their essence or whatever, enough to use a single consumable, since they themselves aren't carrying it. My ultimate point is, if your players are going to "abuse" consumables (I don't honestly think that such a thing is really possible anyway), then they can find a way regardless, all you're doing is making it inconvenient (see: Grod's Law).

Also, the limiting supply thing was just an example from my setting, I don't expect it to be applicable everywhere.

After they use a consumable, it still counts against their possible essence for a while. Yes, they can carry tons of them and have a perfect answer, but they can't do this for everything, as it will cause their essence to all get locked into expended consumables. It's not carrying consumables that makes them count, it's using them. Also, of course someone can abuse consumables. Carrying 100 scrolls of Gate or SMIX on a level 10 character will break a game easily. Also, when your alternative is to just forget about even trying to balance it, I'll stick with trying to do something.

Edit: Also, I don't think Grod's Law applies, because saying "If you use a consumable, you can't replace it until the end of the adventure" is not balance by making consumables annoying to use. It's balance by not letting people treat consumables as at-will items that let them cast 9th level spells every round of every day. I picked one week because I don't see individual adventures going longer than that without downtime. So, there should be no real need to keep track of exactly when you used each scroll, only the total value of the ones you've used this adventure.

Edit2: I also found out that if you google Grod's law, you get a bunch of Google Book's results from law texts where bad OCR turned "God's law" into "Grod's law", which I found hilarious. For example, "As Grod's law demands justice, so should man's", "It would require a fanatic to find Grod's law assailed by any ordinary Act of Parliament", "What Grod hath joined together, let not man put asunder.", or "O Eternal Grod, Creator and Preserver of all mankind. Giver of all spiritual grace, the Author of everlasting life"

[noob]

Why is that a nerf? That's how it works in the unmodified game too. Clerics and druids just get their spells, Wizards have to study a spellbook, which costs money to scribe spells into.

The spellbook does cost money only for additional spells but the spells on level up costs no money to add but now you are going to count those spells against their wbl while before it was in addition to their wbl.
A typical level 1 wizard have 50 cantrips and a bunch of level 1 spells(usually 6) which now means that this wizard can not use magical items until level 5 if he stops adding spells to his spellbook at level 1 and by level 5 he will have added for free 16 levels of spells which takes 16 more pages and so removes 1600 gold from his wbl which means that at this level he have only 1800 gold usable on magical items while the cleric have 9,000 gold usable on magic items.
So you made wizards weaker relatively to clerics and druids than they were before.
In fact even worse you made the class dysfunctional: the wizard does not have the right to use his starting spellbook until level 5 so he can not prepare spells until he makes a second spellbook with less spells and destroys his starting spellbook.

[Quertus]

Well, first, due to this bit "Each Item Creation or Item Mastery Feat possessed by a character increases the cap by 10% of its base value for that character." the Artificer's bonus feats do let them use more items. Second, Artificers have options that let them use items more effectively. Third, I'll be updating Artificer infusions, and this allows me to make them a bit less clunky and more effective. I could also give them a unique class feature that increases their effective WBL.

Ah, I missed the cap increase bit.


The issue is that a pile of scrolls that you replace daily is more powerful than a permanent item of the same cost.

OK. So, if you've got a mountain of gold, and as many consumables as you can carry, how much is Fireball 1/day worth?


Thus, I want it to be a little harder to just use scrolls all the time. I thought that scrolls would be replaced from adventure to adventure, rather than day to day. Consumables are a little too effective if you can replace a +1 on your sword with being a wizard for a day and then do it again tomorrow.

Having never had problems with consumables in 3e (other than people never using them, and treating them as identical to gems or art objects), I'll admit that I can't relate. Heck, I'd almost be willing to just let everyone bind X consumables for free, just to get them to use the bloody things.

But you bring up an odd point - what feel are you after? Do you want consumables to have the feel of an unused, even 4e, with its at will / encounter / daily powers, "quest power" feel, that only replenishes in town, like a videogame stockpile of potions of "soft"?

If that's what you're after, 3e D&D may not be a good fit. Characters can craft expendable items faster than that.

I think that your best bet is to figure out what value "burning hands 1/day" actually has, and price consumables accordingly.

Or figure out what value "cure light wounds, maybe, or maybe nothing, or maybe accidentally cause light wounds" has, and price muggle / cross-class bindings of consumables accordingly.


I was planning on just saying that spellbooks count as magic items and that preparing from one counts as using it. (I suppose I'd have to do something about someone who doesn't bind them and tried to claim that they should only count the spells they used that day.)

Actually, that's... probably the best option. Every spell is in its own "book", you count what you used. Otherwise, to get this one spell from my enemy's looted spellbook, I have to pay for the other dozen spells I'll never use / that duplicate my existing spellbook / whatever.


Because otherwise it's a really effective strategy to only use wands with 5 or fewer charges. Wands are cheaper per charge than scrolls and easier to use, so if it was too easy to use nearly drained wands, everyone would use them for everything. When your wand gets low, you sell it and buy a new one. NPCs will still buy it from you. I didn't want wands to just be treated like at will items, and it's awkward to deal with WBL freeing up over the course of the day. I could put in a bit allowing you to consolidate charges from identical wands so that you can do something with your low-charged items.

OK, I've been looking at this from the PoV of rule of cool world building, with Smaug level treasure hoards, where the correct response to this rule is, after you use a charge, you break the wand, and bind a new one from your stockpile of a hundred identical wands.

So, again, what problem are you trying to solve? And would this problem be better solved by correctly valuing consumables, possibly at the value of an x/day ability?

Again, I'm not seeing the problem, as about the only consumable that regularly sees play as my tables is a Scroll of True Resurrection.


Yes, it's not perfectly fair, but the second character does get something for only having 2 charges left, they get 1,470gp. They might not be able to use what they buy with that right now, but they can just buy two wands with 49 charges each to use when the first two wear out.

So, if you're trying to have them do stuff with their money outside of buying items, then it's, say, 100,000 GP vs 101,490 GP.

Also, if you're trying to Incentivize them to use their gold elsewhere, then having them constantly losing money selling their wands back is counterproductive to your stated goals. Similarly, it means that you can have 2 actually identical characters, with identical items, only one has 1,500 GP less, because, in the past, he used two wands. (EDIT: to solve this in my games, I made magic items free. That's right, they had negligible GP costs - the only cost was the cost to bind them).

So think carefully about what you are trying to accomplish with these changes. Is your higher purpose balance? verisimilitude? Emulating video games?

Knowing that will help inform your decisions.

[Crake]

After they use a consumable, it still counts against their possible essence for a while. Yes, they can carry tons of them and have a perfect answer, but they can't do this for everything, as it will cause their essence to all get locked into expended consumables. It's not carrying consumables that makes them count, it's using them. Also, of course someone can abuse consumables. Carrying 100 scrolls of Gate or SMIX on a level 10 character will break a game easily. Also, when your alternative is to just forget about even trying to balance it, I'll stick with trying to do something.

Ah ok, that's a reasonable method for it to work, similar to how an erudite has all his powers available at the start of the day, but as he uses them, he becomes more and more limited.


Edit: Also, I don't think Grod's Law applies, because saying "If you use a consumable, you can't replace it until the end of the adventure" is not balance by making consumables annoying to use. It's balance by not letting people treat consumables as at-will items that let them cast 9th level spells every round of every day. I picked one week because I don't see individual adventures going longer than that without downtime. So, there should be no real need to keep track of exactly when you used each scroll, only the total value of the ones you've used this adventure .

With your explanation, I would be inclined to agree, and may actually implement it into my setting.


The spellbook does cost money only for additional spells but the spells on level up costs no money to add but now you are going to count those spells against their wbl while before it was in addition to their wbl.
A typical level 1 wizard have 50 cantrips and a bunch of level 1 spells(usually 6) which now means that this wizard can not use magical items until level 5 if he stops adding spells to his spellbook at level 1 and by level 5 he will have added for free 16 levels of spells which takes 16 more pages and so removes 1600 gold from his wbl which means that at this level he have only 1800 gold usable on magical items while the cleric have 9,000 gold usable on magic items.
So you made wizards weaker relatively to clerics and druids than they were before.

Maybe then only include spells added beyond normal free levelup spells? Also, get a blessed book.

[noob]

OK. So, if you've got a mountain of gold, and as many consumables as you can carry, how much is Fireball 1/day worth?
14.4 times more gold than a scroll of fireball.(in practice for many other spells the gap is lower because you will give yourself the means to get two times more price reducers with the help of a second artificer and so have an item worth at most a few gold coins)


Ah ok, that's a reasonable method for it to work, similar to how an erudite has all his powers available at the start of the day, but as he uses them, he becomes more and more limited.



With your explanation, I would be inclined to agree, and may actually implement it into my setting.



Maybe then only include spells added beyond normal free levelup spells? Also, get a blessed book.

You can not at level 5 a blessed book exceeds your level 5 wbl so blessed books does not changes anything for low levels.
(so you keep the disfunction that the wizard can not even cast spells with his starting spellbook at level 1 until he get a second spellbook and copies only the spells he needs in it)
Also it never says the cost of the spells in the blessed book does not participate in its cost and they even say that if you find one as loot it is empty suggesting that in their mind it was supposed to increase in value with the number of spells in it(and so for convenience in random loot tables they made it always empty for not having one version with more spells at each above category of loot)

[TiaC]

The spellbook does cost money only for additional spells but the spells on level up costs no money to add but now you are going to count those spells against their wbl while before it was in addition to their wbl.
A typical level 1 wizard have 50 cantrips and a bunch of level 1 spells(usually 6) which now means that this wizard can not use magical items until level 5 if he stops adding spells to his spellbook at level 1 and by level 5 he will have added for free 16 levels of spells which takes 16 more pages and so removes 1600 gold from his wbl which means that at this level he have only 1800 gold usable on magical items while the cleric have 9,000 gold usable on magic items.
So you made wizards weaker relatively to clerics and druids than they were before.
In fact even worse you made the class dysfunctional: the wizard does not have the right to use his starting spellbook until level 5 so he can not prepare spells until he makes a second spellbook with less spells and destroys his starting spellbook.

Hm, good point. I suppose I could just say that free spells remain free. I'll have to work on the language.


OK. So, if you've got a mountain of gold, and as many consumables as you can carry, how much is Fireball 1/day worth?
According to the rules for permanent items, 3*5*1800*.2=5,400. So, letting players have it for 375 seems like a steal.


Having never had problems with consumables in 3e (other than people never using them, and treating them as identical to gems or art objects), I'll admit that I can't relate. Heck, I'd almost be willing to just let everyone bind X consumables for free, just to get them to use the bloody things.

But you bring up an odd point - what feel are you after? Do you want consumables to have the feel of an unused, even 4e, with its at will / encounter / daily powers, "quest power" feel, that only replenishes in town, like a videogame stockpile of potions of "soft"?

If that's what you're after, 3e D&D may not be a good fit. Characters can craft expendable items faster than that.
Consumables should be 1/adventure for the most part. Since players don't use them much, I think I can have them still be a powerful option. (As shown above, for the price towards the cap of a 1/day item you can fit enough scrolls to use two scrolls a day under my rules.)


I think that your best bet is to figure out what value "burning hands 1/day" actually has, and price consumables accordingly.

Or figure out what value "cure light wounds, maybe, or maybe nothing, or maybe accidentally cause light wounds" has, and price muggle / cross-class bindings of consumables accordingly.
If I wanted people to use consumables every day that would be true.


Actually, that's... probably the best option. Every spell is in its own "book", you count what you used. Otherwise, to get this one spell from my enemy's looted spellbook, I have to pay for the other dozen spells I'll never use / that duplicate my existing spellbook / whatever.
Or you just copy it into your book, where it will be written in your notation and everything. It gets a little bookkeeping heavy to do it page-by-page.



OK, I've been looking at this from the PoV of rule of cool world building, with Smaug level treasure hoards, where the correct response to this rule is, after you use a charge, you break the wand, and bind a new one from your stockpile of a hundred identical wands.

So, again, what problem are you trying to solve? And would this problem be better solved by correctly valuing consumables, possibly at the value of an x/day ability?

Again, I'm not seeing the problem, as about the only consumable that regularly sees play as my tables is a Scroll of True Resurrection.
I want wands to still fill the role of "You can use this a lot, but you can't just constantly spam it." So they would end up closer to the "refill whenever you have a bit of time in town" item. (I mean, if you aren't massively over WBL, they don't change much.)



So, if you're trying to have them do stuff with their money outside of buying items, then it's, say, 100,000 GP vs 101,490 GP.

Also, if you're trying to Incentivize them to use their gold elsewhere, then having them constantly losing money selling their wands back is counterproductive to your stated goals. Similarly, it means that you can have 2 actually identical characters, with identical items, only one has 1,500 GP less, because, in the past, he used two wands. (EDIT: to solve this in my games, I made magic items free. That's right, they had negligible GP costs - the only cost was the cost to bind them).

So think carefully about what you are trying to accomplish with these changes. Is your higher purpose balance? verisimilitude? Emulating video games?

Knowing that will help inform your decisions.
Sure, using wands costs money. But, as long as you can hit your cap it doesn't make you weaker so it shouldn't impact balance. Hopefully, you use those wands to do something that earns you money. Making items free breaks a lot of underlying economic assumptions. My higher purpose is telling the sort of pulpy stories that Eberron was made to tell without completely wreaking balance. I want to be able to have my players become nobles, rob banks, invent new technology and so on without it becoming a balance issue.


Ah ok, that's a reasonable method for it to work, similar to how an erudite has all his powers available at the start of the day, but as he uses them, he becomes more and more limited.

With your explanation, I would be inclined to agree, and may actually implement it into my setting.
I'm glad I was able to explain things in a way that makes sense as a thing to do.


Maybe then only include spells added beyond normal free levelup spells? Also, get a blessed book.
I'll probably do this.


14.4 times more gold than a scroll of fireball.(in practice for many other spells the gap is lower because you will give yourself the means to get two times more price reducers with the help of a second artificer and so have an item worth at most a few gold coins)
Well, one effect of this rule is that price reducers don't increase WBL.