Talk:Balanced Wealth (3.5e Variant Rule)

Ratings
== Interaction ==

Weird interaction question: since an attuned item loses it's enhancement in the hands of others, what happens to an attuned item that has been boosted with additional enchantments that gets stolen? Does it retain the additional enchantments and function with them alone in the hands on anyone else even without their meditating? Can someone else meditate on it to stack their bonus with the inherent bonus of the item, and if so can they exceed the previous owner's meditated bonus (since the additional enhancements would be more expensive with the greater initial meditation bonus)? And does that mean that any regularly magical item is technically a meditation +0 item that can be made to accept additional meditation points by paying the additional difference in costs? TarkisFlux 06:28, September 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * If it was stolen and re-influenced when it already had enchantments on it, it could be influenced up to the level it was crafted for. So if someone stole a +2 Flaming Frost weapon that had been crafted for someone who could influence an item up to +3, they could at most make it a +5 Flaming Frost weapon (2+3), even if they were able to influence the item up to +4 or higher. If they could only influence it to +1, then it would become a +3 Flaming Frost weapon (2+1). Un-influenced, it would work as a simple +2 Flaming Frost weapon that cost a lot more than it was worth.
 * I don't reall understand what you mean by the rest, but does that answer the majority of your questions? Anything else? --Ghostwheel 06:42, September 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * If someone who could influence up to a +4 took a weapon that had been +3 influenced and then added to, could they pay the extra money to make it influencable up to +4? TarkisFlux 17:01, September 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep --Ghostwheel 18:33, September 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * So regular magic items are just influence +0 items that can be made into better items using less cash and your available item influence... just making sure I understand the weird things here before I look into abusing them. TarkisFlux 19:43, September 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, basically. --Ghostwheel 20:01, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

DMG Treasure Tables
Not so much abuse, but you're probably going to need to redo or completely scrap the monster treasure table as well if you push this forward. People probably shouldn't be finding all the standard magical trinkets if you expect them to outfit themselves at 0 cost. They get way more than they're expected to with those tables, which they can then turn into better than anticipated stuff with their influence. - TarkisFlux 02:29, September 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * Added it, as well as a small variant for the (tons and tons of) DMs who can't seem to be bothered with CWBL at all. --Ghostwheel 09:29, September 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yay 30% decreases in wealth.
 * Am I reading the variant right in that you don't have to spend your enhancement bonuses on improving the quality? You just sorta get one with your +1 and it improves when your enhancement improves?
 * Nit-pick: The spell resistance you wrote scales with half level (since it gets 2 points per +1), and will quickly fall behind CL and be more or less useless (at level 10 you have SR 15 against casters who get d20+10 to match it, and it just gets worse for you). 8 + 4 points per +1 would re-match CL at levels that you improve it, keeping you between 45% and 25% immune to spells from equal level casters instead of decreasing as you level up. - TarkisFlux 16:12, September 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's basically it for the variant of the variant (heh). But that's basically for DMs who completely forsake CWBL. And the only reason I used that formula for SR is because it follows the one set forth in the DMG. Blame it, not me :-P --Ghostwheel 18:49, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Epic Levels
You might want to note how this scales for epic levels. I'm assuming they have a pattern, but I'm too lazy to look and see, but it should be shown if there is anyways. --Havvy 09:57, September 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really know epic level balance (if there is even such a thing) or CWBL/items appropriate for epic levels to really make a ruling on that... Could anyone more familiar with epic-level play comment? --Ghostwheel 10:10, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Initial Items
Does a character have to purchase the initial masterwork items in order to have them enchanted (ie. a masterwork set of armor and a masterwork weapon)? That would mean nobody can afford full plate until level 5. --Andrew Arnott (talk, email) 15:52, April 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, since weapons become enchanted normally (mechanically, not flavorfully) by just touching them, upgrading every X levels. For a masterwork system that works better with this variant, this is what's meant to be run alongside it. --Ghostwheel 18:01, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Crafting
Trying to think of a way for item crafting to be viable. How about making minimum crafting level 3, and every level a character with the craft feat can create an item of their level or lower? So from levels 3-8 you could create a least item, 9-14 you could create a lesser item, and 15-20 you could create a greater item? (On a DM-approval basis as to what counts as each those levels, of course.) And perhaps a potion or three at each level as well? What this would do is A. give more choices in that you can choose what items you make (rather than having ones handed out by the DM), and B. versatility since you get a wider choice of items to switch out in certain situations. --Ghostwheel 15:58, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Crafting as it stands is either just a way to squeeze extra power out of your WBL (by making items at half and doubling the value of your gp) or a way to get things you want instead of what you were given (by selling at half and then making something else at half). Since the first is out in this setup, the only thing you would even need crafting for is PC item customization / trading. Since you've already said that they get X items, making them take feats for item customization seems a bit excessive since they could have just had a chat with the DM in the first place. I don't even know why you'd need hard rules for it aside from "Players can trade out gear for equivalent gear, and the campaign should be structured to allow these occurrences. Players are also allowed to influence the narrative to spontaneously generate equipment that they like if they have an open slot in their gear. This might mean forging a shield for a year and a day in special circumstances (if there's that much time to use in the campaign) or declaring that the sword that slayed the red dragon absorbed some of its power and now burns, or whatever." If you want PCs to have potions and wands and scrolls on top of the other stuff at that point, all you need to do is write in some form of conversion for existing items or a misc. equipment column that they can use to get them with. Then they'll either make use with what they find, trade out what they find for other things, or otherwise generate stuff on their own. You really don't need feats to do it though, and in this system where you can't game WBL in the first place I don't see a benefit to requiring feats at all. - TarkisFlux 20:42, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * First, that sounds like a really good idea, letting everyone "craft" (via narrative) their own magic items as needed. The only reason I bring it up is because recently I showed someone the variant and they complained that they couldn't craft things anymore via feats and such. Perhaps they were just looking for another power boost.
 * At any rate, that gives me an idea; what about for all major magic items (ie. non-consumables) you can manipulate the narrative/craft them yourself to get them, but consumables are different. To craft consumables (potions), take a modified Brew Potion feat. This feat can be used 1/day and requires 4 hours of brewing to create any combination of potions equal up to 3 levels. Level 1 potions last 1 day, level 2 potions last 2 days, and level 3 potions last 3 days. And... reading what I just wrote I suddenly realize that it doesn't work since there are a number of low-level wizard spells that I don't want characters gaining access to virtually at will :-/ --Ghostwheel 22:12, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Explanation
I came across this and was wondering how the WBL chart listed in the DMG was skewed in favor of casters. From my personal experience I have never really seen this in the campaigns I have played in. I, as a person who plays only casters, have always had to squeeze out the big six while maintaining a few other specialty items that I might not be able to get with gear. The meleers have had to purchase the big six to further what they do as well. Maybe someone could give me a tangible example of skewed wealth by level.


 * Firstly, spellcasters only truly care about one ability score - their casting stat. Due to access to polymorph, wild shape or just ordinary buffs if you're not very smart, other stats can be a much higher number than printed. Fighting men of all sorts, lacking access to all the above, must also invest in Strength, Constitution and more than likely Dexterity as well, thus requiring three times as much expenditure already.


 * Secondly, casters don't need +x weapons - melee guys do. Possibly more than one. This also means that fighting guys end up spending even more money on 'essentials' than casters do. You cannot survive as a melee dude without an appropriately-plussed item, but as a caster? No worries!


 * Lastly, spellcasters have, well, spells, which provide level-appropriate abilities at all times, and scale pretty well. Fighting men simply don't, especially at higher levels, because nobody has the balls to let them fly under their own power, self-heal or anything of that nature, without connecting it to an item. However, high-end challenges require this kind of thing, which means fighting men spend more money having actual class features, whereas casters, having such things already by virtue of being casters, get this without paying a dime.


 * Hopefully this makes it more clear. - MisterSinister 07:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The requirement of fighting men to invest in Strength, and Con is matched with the Casting stat and Con. This need to focus on multiple stats rises with certain casters. A caster has to spend money on items that enhance their special abilities as well. Whether their job is combat, or utility, or subterfuge, casters have to invest in maybe Caster level boosters to get through SR there are too many different options for a caster to go and a lot of them require an investment in gold to get the job done.


 * Casters may not need the plussed weapons depending on their role, but it certainly won't hurt having one. I think it's important to note that a caster may not always have their spells with them while a fighter guy will. Super stated armor and such are good and all, but that stays with the fighter across all encounters. As opposed to spells whose durations may not last that long.


 * The system as I see gives everyone the same amount of wealth and they have to choose on how to spend it. If the caster wants to make himself an adequate melee combatant then that his choice. He has spells to back him and the armor, but the caster has probably made the same investment that fighter man has made. If the casters spends all his gold on purchasing scrolls, then so be it. That is where his wealth goes. I am just not seeing the imbalance as everyone is given the same amount of gold. Each class has different places to spend their money depending on their role to make them adequate at the job. Also the big six in this context seems a little off. Plus five natural armor at level twenty? Hardly matters as many effects ignore that, or stopped caring about AC a long time ago.


 * Casters can lay down save-or-sucks/save-or-dies, summon hordes of monsters, bind tons of creatures to their service, and cast spells that deal hundreds if not thousands of points of damage in a single spell. All they really need is their casting stat--the rest are "nice to have, but not necessary". This isn't the case with meleers though, who actually NEED other stats just to get by, be effective against the monsters of their level that they're fighting, and actually survive encounters. When an item is "essential" to one class, they have to buy it. When it's "optional", you don't have to buy it, and can buy other stuff that gives you a ton more options and makes you a lot stronger. A caster is rarely going to be in melee with all their tricks, and between all their defenses is rarely going to even take damage (just look at Mirror Image as an example of an excellent defensive spell), and thus can afford not to increase their con by much. And there are easily spells that can get through SR without having to go for items that increase CL--assay spell resistance (SpC) and true casting (CM) are two prime examples. The only reason a spellcaster would need magical arms and armor is if he's going into melee--and then he's actually gimping himself forcibly. At his best he doesn't need any of those--or just casters Greater Magic Weapon/Vestment and has magic stuff without having to pay for them at all. That make sense? --Ghostwheel 20:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Casters got shafted in one case: they run out of spells. They only seem to do that in magic for D&D, and what it ends up doing is creating a world where mages are big news from whenever they get up to about 3 in the afternoon. Yes spells can do Micheal Bay 'Splosions and bend reality to shear ridiculousness, but an effective spell caster knows that 'SPLOSIONS! is not the right answer to everything, and force themselves to save magic for when they need it. A smart spell caster will often charge into melee with a bunch of orcs, not only because he knows there are 347 in this dungeon but that Archmagus Count Badass de Yo-Face might being watching and is hoping to give of a very wrong assessment of his capabilities.
 * So yes, caster need all the big six items, because disintegration and flinging fireballs is all good fun, but spells have an expiration date in D&D and it comes up fast. --Change=Chaos. Period. SC 02:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Then you should be happy and always use this variant. It allows casters to not die as fast in melee. Which you seem to think they should do. All the time. Because there's a voyeur. Watching them. ...Yeah... [/sarcasm] --Ghostwheel 02:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah, I just know that blaster wizards die quickly as soon as a non-idiot enters the field, and intelligent wizards conserve fireballs for when a catapult and a bucket of oil will NOT suffice.
 * Besides, I was merely supporting a valid and correct point of view that I agree with. Your view is also valid and correct, but not one I agree with. Hence the thesis fail you have committed. While wealth by level IS retarded as written and should go of to a little corner somewhere and DIE, it is NOT for the reasons you have presented. --Change=Chaos. Period. SC 03:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * To put it simply, blaster wizards suck every cock. If you're not a complete retard, you'll understand that the way wizards, and indeed, other spellcasters who don't fellate their paternal ancestors or my butt alternately, win combats is by laying down ONE spell that ends it, like stinking cloud or wail of the banshee, or by buffing themselves into the stratosphere by somehow cheating the buffs onto all-day mode (such as through wild shape or DMM Persist). If spellcasters in your game fellate designer intent and blow limited resources to blow goats for pocket change, you'll obviously not understand why the system needs correcting.


 * I've tried to reasonably explain why there is a problem. You don't seem to think the problem exists - fine. Clearly, you have your own solutions, a la the Paizils and the 4rries. Hence, please stop shitting up the talk page of a suggestion which (while not 100% to my taste) is actually helpful and reasonable, to say nothing of effective. - MisterSinister 03:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What MS said. That and your point of view is incorrect, wrong, and not valid whatsoever. Yes. Opinions can be wrong. There, I said it. If you say something is better, and believe in it... show proof. If you can't actually give any proof to back yourself up, then any points you bring up are invalid and can be dismissed out of hand. I've given a number of reasons and evidence for my point of view, as well as ways in which it fixes a number of problems that I've identified in the system. Have you...? *looks up* Not really. --Ghostwheel 05:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I should have sigged myself, or leaving myself open to the kind of abrasive comments above, but moving on. If the wealth system is biased in favor of casters, why does your system not affect the fighters more? You seem to hand the Cleric all of these items so he doesn't have to buff himself nearly as high, leaving him to buy other things. Maybe Ioun stones and such. Things that don't really affect the fighter men in the first place. It has already been said that spells have an expiration date, and even in some cases a caster has to invest greatly in keeping their staying power. A wizard, even with the ability to bend reality has to invest time and money in pearls of power, more scrolls, more spellbooks(which the current price for adding spells is obscene) and at the end of that he is left with still a few times per day he can either go nova, or bend reality. The system as I see asks casters to service creatures from other planes and asks them to create massive undead hordes, just so they can have a meaningful contribution to encounters.


 * The variant suggested seems to make everyone the same. I do appreciate the effort to try and make me see things from another light though. Maybe you can explain what a fighter man buys since he is freed from having to buy this sort of gear? He could theoretically purchase other kinds of gear. Specialty items? I guess in the games I play, I am usually having to purchase armor for some undead mount I made and other misc gear for other potential undead, so that is where my money goes towards. Gangrian 05:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Gangrian


 * [Shifting the alignment to be more sane] The thing is, for a fighting man, something like a +1 sword is absolutely vital, in the sense that your numbers simply don't add up otherwise, and you die to level-appropriate encounters. For a spellcaster, something like a pearl of power is optional - you can still face level-appropriate stuff just fine without it. Likewise, clerics being given this stuff for free actually means almost nothing - with magic weapon and magic vestment, they actually pay nothing for their armour that they wouldn't have already anyway.


 * What fighting men are now freed up to buy is stuff with lets them do something other than 100% deadly necessities - things like feather tokens, phoenix cloaks, instant fortresses and other things which are cool, but not 100% vital. This is a step in the right direction, as it means that people don't see the boring, but necessary, items as more important than the more fun ones.


 * As for equipping undead - there's an easier way. Planar bind an ifreet, and wish for all this stuff. Cheaper that way, and totally available to your average wizard. If you're a cleric, you can be even more of a whore and just planar ally for this stuff instead, with less chance of failure. - MisterSinister 05:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the argument is certainly a compelling one, so much so that I think it may have changed the way that I see the wealth by level. I think when I take into account my suggestion for rewriting the current "Balance Point" system I will use this system as opposed to the currently published CWBL. This is becasue, as I stated before, it put everyone on equal footing, as in, it makes available the ability to purchase less-than-essential tools.


 * In my above example I was talking about low levels like five and six. As playing a Dread Necro, I had available the "whore" method of getting things. I will now stop derailing this discussion.


 * Would it be all right if I took into account this system Ghostwheel in my hopefully more objective analysis of the classes?Gangrian 06:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Gangrian

The Technocracy
This does not tackle the root problem of wealth by level: wealth by level is arbitrary. Giving prices to magic is stupid. D&D has made magic into technology.

Fun little factiod- it would take a first level character with an evil player three years game time to equip himself with level 20 stuff. All it would take is ranks in any Craft or Profession skill, or maxed ranks in Diplomacy and taking 20. All because the wizards on the coast gave prices to magic items and lets people pay for others to cast spells.

And this doesn't solve that problem, unless I am missing something. --Change=Chaos. Period. SC 07:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * While I agree with your initial premise, fact of the matter is, 3.5 is written in such a way that magic items are necessary, especially at higher-levels. By removing prices from them and making them all unique, you're essentially telling people that at higher levels, they only play by GM pity. That's not the kind of game I support, and frankly, neither should you. What you are proposing is a game that is significantly different from the core assumptions of 3.5, and so can't actually use most of its content as-written, whereas this relatively-minor modification retains this.


 * As for the factoid: It takes a 1st level character 3 rounds to become Pun-Pun. Whatever retarded player-end exploit that involved is not only objectively inefficient, it's also highly dumb, as this is basically telling your GM that you wanna break their setting more than you want to game. Additionally, the fact that magic items have prices is a very minor aspect of that exploit - the Craft, Profession and Diplomacy skills are much bigger, and more retarded, culprits here. Please blame the right problem, not the wrong one. The reason this system doesn't solve this problem is because that your exploit is based on stuff far outside the scope of this particular fix. - MisterSinister 07:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Consumable Items
I'm worried about how this system handles consumable items. The text states that "For the purpose of this limit, one-use items (such as potions and scrolls) don't count towards your five magic item limit" as of 4/3/11. However, there are some very powerful magic items. A level 9 scroll, for example, is a one use item. There is no apparent limit on potions. A player could have theoretically inifinite numbers of wands, and would merely need to spend a few minutes swapping out for a wand with a more appropriate spell. In essence, this system completely removes the core mechanic behind limited use items; namely that they exchange gold for a limited amount of extra power.

To revisit the potions issue: the brew potion feet allows the player "to brew one potion of each tier he has access to". However, all potions are lesser items based on the rough gold values provided. Scrolls aren't much better; allowing a wizard to craft three scrolls of any level daily gives them a HUGE power boost. Can you think of any other feat which lets you cast disintegrate three more times a day? --HighTechnocrat 21:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I see where the problem is, since people who use wands are effectively giving up one of their few, precious magic item slots, while all giving up a feat gives the caster 3 extra spells per day, which isn't very much in the long run. Could you explain where you see the problem being? --Ghostwheel 00:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Because magic items can be swapped out by spending two minutes out of combat, players have access to a theoretically infinite supply of spell-casting. The players can fully heal between nearly every fight, and items with per day uses can be swapped out for identical items. Take, for example, the Heartseeker Amulet (See Magic Item Compendium) allows you to turn one attack into a touch attack 3/day. Because this can be swapped out between fights, this turns into 3/encounter essentially. This is, in my oppinion, absurdly powerful, especially considering the item is a least magic item. The wand only takes up one of their magic item slots if they take it into combat. And even then, they can swap it for a full charged wand for free at the end of the fight.


 * The issue with the 3 free spells isn't that it's just any three free spells; it's potentially three copies of that spellcaster's BEST spells. This potentially hands the wizard 3 encounters which he can instantly end with any number of options. Also, the lack of limitation on single-use items potentially allows players to have infinite scrolls of any given level, basically abolishing the spell-per-day limitations. Combined with the ability to fully heal between fights, this could potentially allow parties to fight without stopping for anything except food and an occasional nap. --HighTechnocrat 23:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Two issues here then; for the first, the DM is the one who gives out items; I don't see a DM giving out a dozen of those amulets. Another fix for them is to make it so that it's actual uses per day--make it so that even if you pick up a duplicate item, the first one's uses per day apply to the second. So if you use 2 charges, if you switch to a different one you still only have 1 use left. And wands have enough uses that even in "regular" D&D it's effectively the same as having unlimited uses of said spell.
 * The second issue doesn't sound like it's a problem with items, but instead with wizard-level spells. I agree, I don't think most wizard spells are balanced. But that's more of a problem with the spell, rather than a problem with the item. Also note that many/most of those spells require a save, while something like a 7th level wand is going to have a DC of 10 (base) + 7 (spell level) + 3 (ability mod required to cast said spell) = 20, which should be fairly easily passed for most level 15 characters. Finally, the infinite scroll thing isn't a problem since scrolls become useless after a day, meaning that effectively casters are only going to have 3 total.
 * Finally, as far as healing goes, that's not a problem but a cornerstone of D&D. Just going by core-only, buying a wand of cure light wounds will cost you 750 gp and fill all your healing needs for a long time. If we bring in SpC, you can get a wand of lesser vigor, and get 550 hp of healing for a measly 750 gp, so that's not something I'm necessarily overly concerned about. Does that help clear things up at all? --Ghostwheel 00:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Significantly, with the exception of the scroll issue. Because there isn't a limit on single-use items, couldn't you just have like 80 tons of scrolls in your bag? And if the scrolls become useless after 3 days, how does one purchase scrolls and take them on quests? Is the ability to do that essentially lost? Also, there are numerous other single-use items which I could point to, like pearls of power. With no limitation on how many a player could have, or on their value, why couldn't a first level character carry around a bunch of higher level items? I realize that no sane DM would allow that, but where do you draw the line? --HighTechnocrat 06:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * For the scroll bit, I personally prefer to use these overall for utility-oriented abilities. So the ability being lost doesn't hurt players that much.
 * As for many one-use items, sure they can have them. But when they use them up they're gone without DM intervention and loading them up with tons more, so unless the DM is rather foolish that won't be too much of a problem. --Ghostwheel 06:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Monsters & NPCs
Even if they don't get actual items, should monsters and NPCs get access to the first table for stuff? If yes, should it be based on their CR? ECL? HD? Pros/cons? --Ghostwheel (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Leaning towards treating monsters and NPCs as PCs with their level equal to CR for the purpose of the chart... thoughts? --Ghostwheel (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Item Limit
So I want to add items that don't count against the limit. In general, they're either wieldable items that don't grant a constant bonus, or ones that take a standard action to activate, or something like that. For example, I would see Boots of Speed filling a slot, but not a metamagic rod or horn of blasting.

What's a good way to word it so? How do I cover all the possibilities? --Ghostwheel (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)