View source for Talk:Balanced Wealth (3.5e Variant Rule)

== 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? [[User:Tarkisflux|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? --[[User:Ghostwheel|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? [[User:Tarkisflux|TarkisFlux]] 17:01, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

::: Yep --[[User:Ghostwheel|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. [[User:Tarkisflux|TarkisFlux]] 19:43, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

::::: Yeah, basically. --[[User:Ghostwheel|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. - [[User:Tarkisflux|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. --[[User:Ghostwheel|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. - [[User:Tarkisflux|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 --[[User:Ghostwheel|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.  --[[User:Havvy|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? --[[User:Ghostwheel|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. --[[User:Aarnott|Andrew Arnott]] ([[User Talk:Aarnott|talk]], [[Special:EmailUser/Aarnott|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, [[Masterwork_Variant_(3.5e_Variant_Rule)|this is what's meant to be run]] alongside it. --[[User:Ghostwheel|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? --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 15:58, September 3, 2010 (UTC)