|
Post by Pikachu on Oct 6, 2010 1:42:06 GMT -5
There's an advantage to creating a higher level character because you can map out certain progressions that would be difficult if you had to play through them, but not if you just start with the assumption that it's already happened in your character's past. I might make the case for stockpiling feats that you do have to suffer levels where you don't have your due feats. Personally, I'd make someone get their due feat at a minimum later time (so if they want to "stockpile" it, they need to wait another 6 levels, for example).
And like I said, when you delay an action, you move your initiative to the point in the round where you act, and your stuns are timed accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by feedback on Oct 6, 2010 20:20:47 GMT -5
This is also why most of us hate starting at low levels. Suffering through your prereqs that won't be useful in say 1-4 levels really sucks. You could always asks Chip what his rules on retraining stuff (skills, feats, spells) is. I know there are optional rules for it somewhere and if not they're easy enough to make up since Pathfinder removed all xp costs.
|
|
|
Post by Duragar on Nov 13, 2010 14:26:57 GMT -5
Just in case you didn't get my e-mail: sites.google.com/site/thaelianrhapsody/Let me know if there's information you're looking for that isn't up here. It's fractured and incomplete, much how my thought process works, but it should answer most of your immediate questions about the game.
|
|
|
Post by Pikachu on Nov 15, 2010 2:10:55 GMT -5
In response to the Economy article, divided by section, with the disclaimer that I don't necessarily know the person who wrote it, and that I am in no way attacking this person directly, although I question his core assumptions. He has obviously put thought and effort into this, which I respect, but when the process itself is flawed, well, I have more than 2 platinum to add to it:
EDIT - Hella long, scroll down for TL;DR.
Economics - Making Sense of it All
I'm a bit baffled by the assumptions made here. Sure, we can take the weight of gold, translate it into a value relevant to today. What does that speak of the buying power, though? I can only conclude that this is an article written by someone steeped in science, given the knowledge of what a Troy ounce actually is, but also betrayed by the assumption that currency is a metric that isn't at the mercy of relativity.
Where do the other assumptions of rarity/scarcity, as well as size come from? I thought each game would be its own universe. Why the immediate blanket statements?
Wish and the Economy
Wish takes 5000 xp, a representation of an expenditure of power, and an expenditure not easily regained. Expenditure of power, therefore, contributes to scarcity, and the idea that there can be an Efreet factory so simply put together is rather silly.
One thing I agree with here is that 15000+ gp items are not assembled easily. This should be obvious because these are already amounts of money that are worth more than entire villages. Why the special attention to it as if it impacts the economy? Defense contracts in the real world are worth a lot more. Even in the "bad old days", a lot of money could be spent on items of war - whether costs are spread out over a set of items versus concentrated on one single object is irrelevant. Possessing that amount of wealth alone is indicative of having a network capable of producing goods well out of reach of commoners.
Wartime Economies make for Shortages
Yes, absolutely. I agree with the fixed cost of a Masterwork upgrade being ridiculous.
There's no need to drag wartime contexts into explaining the cost of Masterwork weapons and armor - such items are worth more than their weight in gold because the labor adds value to the object. This doesn't require deep thought.
Coins are big and heavy
Sure. I'm not sure what the point of this section is - people rarely carry all their wealth around at once, regardless of weight. Assuming there are enough coins being transported where weight is an issue, the parties involved ought to have the means to make these issues irrelevant. These can include bags of holding, portable holes, shrinking spells, and so forth.
There were also two things to "live with" mentioned here. One was that treasure troves are small and unexciting, and the other is that they can be ridiculous and we live with players being so filthy rich it changes the way they interact with the world.
If we need a trove to be small due to weight, then make something hyper-valuable be the sum of the reward. I'm sure a +6 diadem of intelligence would do. It's light, and above the 15k gp mark.
The second statement is obviously made by a person who is not only fortunate enough to be steeped in a scientific background, but has spent too much time in the middle class of the first world. If we want to use RL for a comparison, this individual should understand that:
1. The minimum wage income of an American already puts them at a level of wealth that changes how they would interact with society, if we take a global perspective.
2. There is a segment of human beings who are, in fact, so ridiculously wealthy that their very perspective of daily economics are skewed, thus affecting how they interact with society. While they are outliers, shouldn't we consider these special adventurers, a part of a game, a part of an outlier group?
The conclusion I'd draw is this - an adventurer is a middle class American, already very, very distinct in terms of the cosmic scale of things, and not subject to the forces of the world that affect "normal" people. Comparisons to peasants, therefore, shouldn't be treated as apples-to-apples.
When Brendeis Frostfeuer is level 20+, he is going to roll around in ridiculous wealth. This isn't anything to "live with", because the context in which such a character exists can't even be measured by most mortal standards. How do things such as weight and local peasant economies factor into his thoughts when he is not a character bound by planes of existence?
So once we get to this point, why did we write anything on it at all?
Bad money drives out good: The penalties of paper
When I reached this point, I hoped for an actual discussion of buying power.
Rather, I see circular discussion on how going toward paper is (I assume) supposedly the answer for how much coins weigh, and how paper money is just a promise that no commoner would buy into. But if that were the case, how did we ever get to a point where we could get away with it. A tipping point where is is acceptable behavior clearly exists because we've proven it. Why does this person insist it can't happen in D&D merely because the DM says so?
My other disappointment here is not in the article, but for this person. He almost touched upon an actual insight into the "lie" of money - but stopped short of addressing the concept of credit and equity. That would have been good discussion for D&D implementation.
But anyway, yes, even if we had paper money valid for one kingdom, if there were no diplomatic ties with another kingdom for an exchange rate, then the money would be worthless. I think my one-shot addressed this - use that money locally, make a precious metals withdrawal at a discount if you need it for extraplanar travel. This makes a banking system.
And it is with this section that I really express my displeasure at the tone of this article: a whole slew of problem listing with the veneer of insight when the problems are:
1. Addressed easily. 2. Do not apply to special individuals that are your adventurers. 3. Make for fantastic plot hooks. If the players serve a kingdom, tell them to form diplomatic ties and negotiate a trade deal. It'll be like Episode I, but good.
Conclusion here - Just because paper money isn't universally accepted, DM magic can make it so, or just allow for a system where outside trade is merely inconvenienced, as I outlined. Any society that is sophisticated enough to get here has the financial tools to adapt.
Powerful Characters and Powerful Economies
Why wouldn't I want 100k gps just because I'm powerful? Yes, perhaps I may want 50k gp, plus an item or service, but again, I think I've already demonstrated that characters who are at this level of wealth shouldn't worry about such mortal worries as weight. Shrink the damned thing and move it. Create a service among the ridiculously wealth where they do this and call it a transaction fee. You think banks don't do this even for digital money in the billions of dollars?
One cannot, in the same breath, talk of fantastic levels of power and existence while mentioning the constraints of the mundane.
Gems
Again, an assumption that D&D makes participants in its economy unwilling/unable to recognize the value in gems. Why disregard the DM?
But if we must - diamonds are a lie perpetrated by the wealthy. They do have actual, valuable use, though, so the price isn't unreasonable. In this person's own words, demand is what a person is willing to pay for it, and if people are willing to pay for it, that's that.
Here's what bothers me: why is it that precious metals have value, easily accepted, and not precious stones? Why is there a discussion about this? How can a gp be of use to a peasant and not a ruby, in a non-paper money system? And seriously, if diamonds are a lie, make it so in your world.
I'm also disturbed by this "wish based economy" supposition. Even with wish, it is a form of labor, however fantastic, that is limited by the expenditure of power. XP gain requires time, and time is money, friend.
I get that the progression of this article seems to encourage the use of gems as a more efficient means of barter at higher levels, btw. We really didn't need a lot of exposition to come to this conclusion. Players ought to be able to make use of this method on their own.
Magical Currency
Alternative forms of currency. We get it. If you want more people to use them for the sake of adding realism, then make your NPC's demand it. There is no need for a flawed economic exposition to get to this point.
If your players don't cooperate, Gaes/Quest them. This is a DM enforcement issue, not an economic one to be blamed on D&D or one's own lack of insight.
The Service Economy
Of course the profession rules suck. This is why you're an adventurer. This is why minimum wage sucks and we get careers leading out of them. Adventurers are the exception to the rule.
One note to such DM's who need to dance in the shit to justify their vision: just do it. If you want to make your players powerless, do it, and tell them why. If they don't want to play, don't try to use academics, because when you make things fun and powerful, then rules are broken. You can still break them in realistic ways if you're a stickler for it. I think I've demonstrated a few of these aspects very well in my post-Arcadian Shadows adventure, in terms of money, transport, and society.
And off that side thought... this stuff is already found in the DMG. It's nothing new.
One thing that's missing from this section: cultural value placed on a profession. Teachers get paid a lot more in Asia, and lawyers are underpaid in India, as examples.
Running a Business
Alright, I haven't seen the DMG2, but really, if you were looking in a WotC book for business realism... that's just not the right place.
It seems like there are some rules for capitalization where one can reinvest money into the business and get larger and larger payoffs. Wait.. how is this not realistic?
The issue here has to do with scale. A smaller business does have the need to put money back into itself for operational costs (this is a COST not capital). The subsequent payoff just might be the guarantee that the future months and years will merely produce at a given rate. Larger businesses (as well as funds), however, are ridiculous because their reinvestments are much, much larger, and therefore can affect itself to the point where the intake of money is increased. Thus, anyone investing into a business assesses scalability for this very reason, and this is how people get ridiculously rich.
Is it that ludicrous for a level 20 character to have access to all this? Wealthy people have trouble spending their money as is, so they have all the things they want. If this is a game balance issue, put money sinks, or simply give them what they want and threaten them and tell them they need a hall pass.
As a side note - players who purchase their items are technically reinvesting... in themselves. In turn, they are making money at a much greater rate. If one criticizes the ROI a player gets on business, then include adventuring in that discussion as well. I'd like to see how constructive that actually is for D&D.
Good points - I like the discussion of risk. This makes for fun adventures, I think, if you need to defend your business. The bottom line here is the need for a mechanic to justify how much players get back, and it's the first time in the entire article where I am seeing an actual solution rather than a tirade of non-issues.
And then the discussion on resources...
I don't know where the author gets the idea that profits are limited to 1/10th of the value of one's business resources. Again, this is a scalability issue, not a realism issue.
Plus, he gave up another opportunity to have an actual deep discussion. He mentioned the need to house ones inventory. Here's a fun thought: how does the existence of extra-dimensional spells affect this aspect of business? Moreover, how does the fact that this is a powerful cost-cutter drive wizards to research more spells that help in this area? What might be consequences of it?
Growing the business
Franchising and growth are not the only solutions - make something self-sustaining and take a cut as a hands-off owner. More plot twists abound, not to mention the potential for creating a kingdom.
Profit Size
How does a person delve into this much thought and remain bound by the limitations of space and time? Good system, good thought, no regards on how to break the rules.
What, then, is done about an assassin's guild placed in the middle of nowhere? That's a business. Must there be limitations on business based on population, then?
I love the idea of having a d20 roll, but there needs to be other considerations as to the type of business. If you were selling consumer goods, you'd do better in Sigil than in some hamlet. On the other hand, if you were a business-to-business service, population may not play quite the same role at higher levels.
Command Economies
Thank you. This part makes sense.
Bringing the World of out the Dark Ages
Can this person stop using "noone" for "no one"?
Again, why the assumption that D&D cannot run any of the "isms" he lists? Isn't this up to the DM? And what about other planes of existence where people are more "sophisticated"?
TL;DR - Everything is solved by DM magic.
I spent the time to hit each section, however, to cover all the bases in case people want to dispute DM magic. My absolute fundamental problem with this article is that it prattles on about things that are non-issues, and assumptions that do not need to be set in stone. If there is a certain style of economy that a DM wishes to enforce, just do it, and know why that state of economy exists. If a DM is not knowledgeable on how to justify it, humbly ask the players to just play along and suspend disbelief.
At the same time, if one wants to lift the curtain on the reasoning of DM magic, then make sure you have a much more airtight set of assumptions. This is one instance where, if I were a player in such a game, I'd rather not have known. The flow of thought has too many holes in it. Had it not been exposed, I would have probably happily gone with the results as a matter of fate.
|
|
|
Post by Duragar on Nov 16, 2010 14:15:25 GMT -5
... Dandy. Now I have to re-evaluate my economic standpoint for my game. Thanks for being intelligent, insightful and a bearer of common sense, Josh. Guess that's what I get for glossing over lapses in logic and not thinking about what I'm putting up too deeply. I'll try to cut the fat on the article and keep the stuff that's worthwhile, once I have time to deviate from the game itself. ... -_-;
|
|
|
Post by Pikachu on Nov 16, 2010 15:39:56 GMT -5
I'm just disputing the logic just to be argumentative, really. The one thing I can definitely understand is to make the game less lame with an infinitely stocked general store in every town like a video game might, and that's perfectly cool.
If you wanna use more gems (not smeg), make it more difficult to find people to make our magical items, or have NPC's leverage our wants in return for a favor, you have my full support. These twists make a game fun because players suddenly need to be resourceful or die/suck/die some more. There's just no need for an economic discussion for it.
Here's one idea that can help a lot if you want to make rarer items readily available to players without making them too common: use consignments, keep their source a secret, and force players to figure out who to contact for similar services. The process makes your game seem more fleshed out (nh), deeper (again nh), and creates relationships (nh, nh, nh) with NPC's out of necessity.
EDIT- Added nh.
|
|
|
Post by dyuman on Nov 16, 2010 15:48:09 GMT -5
Don't think you have to necessarily re-assess it, but just state it as DM magic. As long as it is consistent in the world that is fine.
The biggest thing would be to not stop players from accumulating wealth. In a sense, Bruce Wayne spent billions on the bat cave/the watch tower. With time, we should be able to do the same.
At level 20, if we're greedy, or if we're organized, we should be able to buy half the town and every whore in the kingdom. In such a situation, we are the Richard Branson's of that world.
Biggest concern for me was you should still let us be millionaires. Eventually there is a point where we can have anything we could ever want financially, but there are things that are no longer available for any price, and enemies who are motivated by pure evil. If it's concerns from an item stand point, I would just make the known crafters cap out at a certain point.
If we want something better, either we have to take the crafting skill and be better at it on our own (making the skill worth something), or have to find it in adventuring. This is a big DM thing though. I'm not sure if it's commonly done in D&D as I have little experience in the world.
So in my game for example in a D&D context: Avana only has the ablity to make masterwork items. They don't know about making magical weapons. Raven and Fightmaster found their weapons while adventuring. Old Mathrinar can create basic level magical weapons Present Mathrinar can create moderate magic weapons/soul weapons.
Training endlessly, players can surpass the skills of the local crafters at the cost of skill points, and create items at wholesale.
GodSlayer stashes omg awesome items that are inconceivable to mortal men.
On this note, I was wondering if we can do some house rules for crafting to make it more appealing? Might add in some variety of skills if someone can get some HP for being a blacksmith, or if making items is significantly cheaper / better. Something along the lines of DAOC or WoW style of crafting - cutting edge items with reduced costs.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by feedback on Nov 16, 2010 21:09:47 GMT -5
Crafting doesn't really need a huge boost. It already has the huge power to create anything you want at half the listed price. With character power being measured in gold and Pathfinder removing the associated xp cost this already makes crafting more appealing than D&D. A sufficiently wealthy crafter who is given enough time can now deck themselves out in magic gear.
Granted it is still best on a caster, but they did take some steps to help non-casters craft some neat gear. Re you burn another feat so you can craft the good stuff. The only real downside to crafting is you don't really see a good return on your investment until mid-late game. Early game your skill just isn't high enough to consistently craft anything cool (unless it's alchemy or poison).
|
|
|
Post by Pikachu on Nov 17, 2010 3:12:42 GMT -5
Crafting takes a lot out of you as is. It's "easy" only in the sense that when you assemble necessary scrolls/spells/reagents/ingredients, you spend a few days to put it together. There's very little need to pursue the investment of making yourself good at making a longsword when these are readily available. Being a wizard who has the necessary feats and spell list - that's real value.
There's no need to add any bonuses to crafting or think about creating weapons wholesale. If I can craft, my payoff is what I craft. If I'm good at making a longsword, I go off to find some special materials to craft the longsword. That's not something to be done wholesale, because that's so... common. And if I'm level 20, why do I want to spend all my time making weapons, unless it's for a very, very special reason? That special reason tends to be that better gear makes for better adventuring, and hence a better influx of loot.
In short, crafting is already appealing, at least for wizards. Forgive my bias on this.
Having location-based specialties is already a common feature in D&D, beyond just masterwork or adding magical properties. The use of alternative materials is, in my mind, one of the best excuses to send people off to some exotic location and get into lots of trouble for it. One of the pitfalls of our group is that we like to fight evil and just get into vendettas. There's no reason not to have greed as a motivator every now and then.
As for wealth accumulation - it is very relevant even at epic levels. The only cap that exists is in your mind. The article was short sighted not because it argued against letting players be millionaires, per se, but also that money lost its use after a while.
But that's ridiculous. Go forge some epic level items. Upgrade what you already have so your item slots serve a larger purpose. Keep charges of emergency spells so you can get away from incredible bullshit. Plot something fun and interesting and go settle some vendettas with that money. You think you can get that far without making enemies? You think you can tie up all the loose ends every time? If so, your adventure sucks. Victor needed every last ounce of wealth to fund a war and defend his home. Brendeis? He'd probably be pooling the dough toward epic spells, creating his own plane, and figuring out how to get powerful enough to kill Demogorgon. A few extra clones, contingent spells, and maybe an item with permanent mind blank would be good too, and that would take hella money. Come to think of it, putting a Concordant Killer on retainer would be hilarious.
High level characters have *agendas* to spend on. There's no cap. That's just all in your head.
|
|
|
Post by dyuman on Nov 17, 2010 13:16:40 GMT -5
I could see crafting being awesome sauce if you were a wizard, sorc, or other spell caster. My point of view was as a Monk, and the lack of being able to apply spells to make magic gear made it more or less useless late in the game (this goes along with the whole group members dominantly unwilling to provide spells without anything in return).
With my current stat spec after racial and theme music bonus' I'll have a lot of skill points to burn. I suppose part of the issue is being a Monk, I don't need as much gear as well.
18,18,18,8,18,6 As is, 8 skill points per level.
I suppose I'll focus on knowledge skills rather than craft in this case given my difficulties at end game to get a lot out of it.
|
|
|
Post by feedback on Nov 17, 2010 23:10:11 GMT -5
Crafting is really only easy if you're a wizard or cleric really. Sorcs just don't have the required spells most of the time to craft anything useful. As for non-spellcaster crafting, they somewhat addressed this in pathfinder by adding the Master Craftsman feat. It allows you to substitute your crafting skill for spellcaster level when creating magic gear.
As for having skill points to burn... You're a monk/rogue. Why do you have skill points to spare? Even assuming that we ignore most of your rogue talents your monk skill list alone should keep you occupied. You will want Perception, Acrobatics, Stealth, Sense Motive, and probably Intimidate. There's five skills already. You also want to drop points into Use Magic Device because it is the I win skill and you get it class from rogue. There. 6 skills that you will probably want to max or at least invest heavily in for a few levels.
Then after that you have your rogue skills to dabble in along with some other non-class skills that can be useful. Skills such as Appraise, Bluff, Climb, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Disguise, Escape Artist, Fly, Knowledge (Any that are class, some that aren't), Linguistics, Ride, Sleight of Hand, and possibly swim for some reason.
Now you also have the option of taking crafting skills. No you won't be as good as a spellcaster, but if you're wiling to burn a feat then you can specialize so you can create some magical gear. Now you're only penalized for having a low int so your skill roll won't be as good.
That said, don't worry about crafting because it isn't going to come into effect until mid game at the earliest. Nobody has the spare points for it at low levels unless its part of their backstory and even then they won't make much more than a masterwork item if even that.
Your concerns about 'unhelpful' party members is just speculation at this point. I'm not trying to be mean, but the most of us don't even know what kind of personalities we are going to be playing (or at least I don't). So most of us have no idea whether or not we'd be willing to cast stuff for you for free or even at cost. Some of it is player greed, some of it is character interaction. Without seeing how your character acts (and knowing how I'd respond), I can't tell you off hand whether or not I'd be willing to buff you when you asked. This is one of the issues with new groups forming unless people have common backgrounds. We're all starting off as strangers or perhaps at best members of the same guild.
As far as needing gear goes. You still need gear, you just get to skip buying armor. You will need a way to bypass early DR which you can get from various monk weapons. You need standard adventuring gear so food, camping gear, ect. You're part rogue so you could focus a bit more on the nifty gadget side and get thieves tools, disguise kits, or something else depending on where you put your skill points. Saving your money for later is still an option. Having cash on hand is never a bad thing, but I'd probably buy a masterwork weapon if you have more than 600g sitting around. +1 to hit at this level is pretty important especially since you'll be taking a -2 from flurry or be attacking as a 3/4 bab. Get some cheap alchemical items like tanglefoot bags, alchemists fire, holy water, sunrods, ect. At level 2 this stuff is still very useful.
|
|
|
Post by Pikachu on Nov 17, 2010 23:26:25 GMT -5
I think you're missing my point.
You mentioned the need for players to be wealthy, but then talked about burning the cash on stuff that isn't going to be significant. On the other hand, if you have money, then you are providing someone with a reason to imbue your items with the properties you need. What I also was emphasizing was that if you were to put your money in this direction, you should never be rich enough to satisfy to desires, hence money never being a useless gain.
You're also extrapolating a few things here that aren't accurate. If you have the feat to create something, you can have someone provide the spell, at no effort on their part except casting it, when you want to imbue something. A teammate can easily provide this, and it isn't a problem.
The problem you're thinking of, when it comes to the selfishness of a spell, is in the heat of combat, and relying on someone for it constantly. These are two different issues.
No one has no need for gear. You may not want weapons or armor. That does not mean you don't want gear. I really suggest you look into what items exist.
|
|