Class Feature Items: Yes/No

[PhoneLobster]

Dude, this is what RPGs are all about.

No. You specifically said you could just give a "gold piece value" to a feat that gives you an item and all problems would be solved. (Which as a side note gives us the added fun that you SEEM to be speaking in 3.X-lish.)

So go ahead. Do that, "solve" our problems, give us a solid conversion between GP and Feat value and visa versa. For 3.X. We could use it for so many things.

We're waiting for you to do that.

So... we can start our exciting new feat/gp investment and speculation racket...

[Swordslinger]

No. You specifically said you could just give a "gold piece value" to a feat that gives you an item and all problems would be solved. (Which as a side note gives us the added fun that you SEEM to be speaking in 3.X-lish.)

So go ahead. Do that, "solve" our problems, give us a solid conversion between GP and Feat value and visa versa. For 3.X. We could use it for so many things.

As a base number offhand I'd probably set the feat to grant a 25% increase in overall character wealth.

Given the assumption that sword guy is probably going to invest about 25% of his total wealth in the sword, it'd probably be reasonable to let him pay a feat for a level appropriate sword and get that for free.

That seems to balance fairly okay with having item crafting feats which let you create multiple items at half price. Instead this ability gives you a rather expensive signature item (worth 25% of your WBL) for free.

[...You Lost Me]

No guys, swordslinger is totally right.

I mean, look at the value of Natural Spell. It's like 5000gp, right? I can spend feats and buy Natural Spell as a Druid for money and it's totally not broken and haphazard and some random quasi-artifact of a poor attempt at a cruddy point buy system.

... right, guys?

... guys?

[Foxwarrior]

Well, if your enemies abuse Sunder to its fullest potential (and it remains accessible while in wildshape), and it takes at least a standard action to put on your spare, then sure, sounds fun.

[Swordslinger]

One thing that's important to note is that the value of a feat is not static, but rather dependent on player level.

At 3rd level, a feat may only be worth 1000 gold. At 20th level, you may well see a feat worth over 50,000 gold.

This means generally that magic items shouldn't grant feats, but feats can grant magic items (the magic items will scale to get better).

[PhoneLobster]

Pop quiz.

I have a magic sword is worth (apparently) a +25% increase in character wealth. According to the, now I come to think of it, rather ironically named "sword slinger".

Q1) So what is Craft Magic Arms and Armour worth? Why can I buy it with the same feat cost?

Q2) Why can't I just spend 25% of my wealth on the sword item instead and reserve the feat for something non-interchangeable and otherwise better?

Q3) Why CAN I seemingly spend 50% of my wealth and buy a better sword? Better than the one gained by spending a portion of my MUCH more limited feat budget.

Q4) Since you say GP value feats are awesome and specifically getting sword specifically is worth SOMETHING does that mean that the "I get a random guaranteed magic weapon" feat should give me a weapon worth +30 Percent wealth per level? Is the "Cash in hand" feat worth +75% character wealth? Why can't these exist?

Q5) If my wealth changes is the sword ALWAYS worth +25%, so I just need to save up EXTRA cash to make my sword bigger? If it doesn't scale with increases in wealth is the ability worth proportionally LESS the larger my wealth. Especially when I then spend that wealth on five times the number of swords that are all better than the lame level capped sword??

Q6) If wealth by level is wracked with problems how does tying level based advancement mechanics like feats to it's sinking ship sound like a good idea to anyone over the age of 12?

[Swordslinger]

Q1) So what is Craft Magic Arms and Armour worth? Why can I buy it with the same feat cost?

I would think roughly the same amount, assuming you don't go crazy and throw down tons of cash just into armor/arms creation. If you build a magic weapon or armor for a few dudes at half price, you maybe make up 25% extra character wealth.

My approximation may be off by a little somewhere, but whatever, you fine tune that shit as you go. 1st editions are rarely perfect, but you can't have 2nd editions without them.

Q2) Why can't I just spend 25% of my wealth on the sword item instead and reserve the feat for something non-interchangeable and otherwise better?

You can, but then you have only 75% of your WBL to spend on other items instead of 100%. That's why they call it a choice.

Q3) Why CAN I seemingly spend 50% of my wealth and buy a better sword? Better than the one gained by spending a portion of my MUCH more limited feat budget.

You can, then you're left with less money to get other stuff. Again, choices. Also the sword you purchased with your wealth won't auto-upgrade either because it's just a shelf bought magic item and not a feat ability.

Q4) Since you say GP value feats are awesome and specifically getting sword specifically is worth SOMETHING does that mean that the "I get a random guaranteed magic weapon" feat should give me a weapon worth +30 Percent wealth per level? Is the "Cash in hand" feat worth +75% character wealth? Why can't these exist?

You could have a "Rich" feat that just gives you bonus cash each level that increases your WBL. Fundamentally there's little difference than just getting a free 25% WBL in a sword or getting it in coin. The sword just has the added perk of being upgradeable by you. The drawback is that it always has to be a sword. The sword also (as a feat) would be replaceable, but the coin would not.

Q5) If my wealth changes is the sword ALWAYS worth +25%, so I just need to save up EXTRA cash to make my sword bigger? If it doesn't scale with increases in wealth is the ability worth proportionally LESS the larger my wealth. Especially when I then spend that wealth on five times the number of swords that are all better than the lame level capped sword??

It scales such that it's always 25% of your current level's WBL. So at level 1 it may be worth 50 gp, at level 5, it might be worth 2000, and so on. And it continually upgrades. It's not just a one shot deal.

Q6) If wealth by level is wracked with problems how does tying level based advancement mechanics like feats to it's sinking ship sound like a good idea to anyone over the age of 12?

You live with the assumptions of the game you're playing. WBL is a fact of the system. If you don't like it, find a new system.

Gold -> magic items -> power. Live with it dude.

[Winnah]

Q6) If wealth by level is wracked with problems how does tying level based advancement mechanics like feats to it's sinking ship sound like a good idea to anyone over the age of 12?

Uhhh...You do realise that wealth by level is a level based mechanic that has multiple feats and class features attached to it already?

Without WBL, you require another method of scheduling the aquisition of gear, assuming that is even a relevant objective in an RPG that uses levels to advance character abilities.

A gaming paradigm where gear and the aquisition of wealth is not a major priority is certainly possible, but such a system is not on discussion here.

Dividing mundane wealth and magical wealth into seperate categories is also possible. However, resolving issues that arise from their interaction is bound to cause headaches. I still can't see a balanced method of distributing magical wealth that is not simply another version of WBL.

Perhaps it is magical items that require redefinition. Making items bland (as in 4e items) is not an answer that I enjoy. Giving items levels, like characters could be an answer. Magic item level = character level, so the item grows or is reduced in power depending on it's wielder. Then divide available items into powerful gear and minor crap with bland, but situationally useful powers. Such an option will not conserve book space, nor will it reduce accountancy issues.

[Username17]

Wishlists only make sense in the context of a WBL system. If there isn't a level where you are supposed to have +3 equipment, then there can't be a point where you are supposed to have any specific piece of +3 equipment.

If you say that you're against WBL, you are by definition against wishlists too. You can do WBL without wishlists, but you can't do wishlists without WBL.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

Wishlists only make sense in the context of a WBL system. If there isn't a level where you are supposed to have +3 equipment, then there can't be a point where you are supposed to have any specific piece of +3 equipment.

If you say that you're against WBL, you are by definition against wishlists too. You can do WBL without wishlists, but you can't do wishlists without WBL.

Wrong. You can always ask the GM to give you something, no matter the system. 2E, 3E, whatever - there's nothing preventing the GM from asking "What kind of loot do you like?", and the players answering.

Not to mention that "wishlists" also are closely related to "feedback". For many there's not really much of a line between "I'd like more opportunities to use my social and performance skills" and "I'd like to see more two-handed swords drop".

And a smart GM will ask his players what they like, dislike and miss in his game. That's how you make the game more fun for everyone.

[hogarth]

Wishlists only make sense in the context of a WBL system. If there isn't a level where you are supposed to have +3 equipment, then there can't be a point where you are supposed to have any specific piece of +3 equipment.

In 1E AD&D, there was no such thing as wealth by level. And, for example, iron golems required +3 swords to fight and they were classified as "Dungeon Level X" creatures (or whatever). Therefore, by the time your party is on Dungeon Level X, you should have +3 swords.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Wishlists only make sense in the context of a WBL system. If there isn't a level where you are supposed to have +3 equipment, then there can't be a point where you are supposed to have any specific piece of +3 equipment.

In 1E AD&D, there was no such thing as wealth by level. And, for example, iron golems required +3 swords to fight and they were classified as "Dungeon Level X" creatures (or whatever). Therefore, by the time your party is on Dungeon Level X, you should have +3 swords.

There wasn't wealth by level because there was wealth by level? Hmm...

[hogarth]

Wishlists only make sense in the context of a WBL system. If there isn't a level where you are supposed to have +3 equipment, then there can't be a point where you are supposed to have any specific piece of +3 equipment.

In 1E AD&D, there was no such thing as wealth by level. And, for example, iron golems required +3 swords to fight and they were classified as "Dungeon Level X" creatures (or whatever). Therefore, by the time your party is on Dungeon Level X, you should have +3 swords.

There wasn't wealth by level because there was wealth by level? Hmm...

Ah, I didn't realise that Frank was changing the definition of "wealth by level" from the 3E definition.

Yes, it is generally the case that if you assume a tautology then you get the result you expect.

[talozin]

And, for example, iron golems required +3 swords to fight and they were classified as "Dungeon Level X" creatures (or whatever). Therefore, by the time your party is on Dungeon Level X, you should have +3 swords.

That's an odd way of phrasing it, and, more importantly, it's a notion that was at best implicit, rather than explicitly enshrined in the rules. The notion that characters should, as a basic principle of game design, have the capability to effectually engage anything they encounter in combat is kind of a new one, relative to the age of AD&D. The very existence of monsters like the Water Weird and Wind Walker was a giant fuck-you to the idea that you could, or should, expect to be at least theoretically capable of beating down whatever you encountered.

Historically, if you ran into an iron golem, you might or might not have +3 swords. One guy in the party might have a +3 weapon, and it might not even be something he had proficiency in. Or you might not have anything that could dent an iron golem, and your choices were either to run away, hope the DM had placed it as a puzzle monster and try to figure out the expected answer, or die.

Not until 3rd edition was there any sort of formalized expectation that you would have a certain amount of stuff at a certain level. And even when you have it, you can still get boned by a DM who gives you n gold pieces worth of valueless crap that does not include weapons you "need" to fight at your level.

[Maj]

You can always ask the GM to give you something, no matter the system.

I have yet to participate in a gaming group where this does not happen. It doesn't matter what the system is, either.

[Winnah]

Asking is easy. You can ask for anything. Anything.

The assumption that you are going to get what you ask for without compromise is a ludicrous assumption. Especially when your requests are beyond the basic assumptions of existing game rules.

[Fuchs]

Compromise is needed when what you are asking is detracting from someone else's wishes.

If you want more social scenes and someone else wants less social scens a compromise needs to be reached.

If you ask for more swords to drop and no one else has a problem with that, no compromise is needed.

[Maj]

The assumption that you are going to get what you ask for without compromise is a ludicrous assumption. Especially when your requests are beyond the basic assumptions of existing game rules.

The basic assumption of the game of Christmas (at least in my family) is that you will receive a present. With that in mind, how far back are you going to roll the definition of "what you ask for" in order to get to the point where there's no compromise?

Sample items for a Christmas wishlist:

[*]2005 edition, signed copy of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel
[*]2005 edition of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel
[*]Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel
[*]A book by Jared Diamond
[*]A book
[*]A present

I'm asking this because I'm genuinely baffled by things like "no compromise" and "beyond the basic assumptions of existing game rules."

[Swordslinger]

Historically, if you ran into an iron golem, you might or might not have +3 swords. One guy in the party might have a +3 weapon, and it might not even be something he had proficiency in. Or you might not have anything that could dent an iron golem, and your choices were either to run away, hope the DM had placed it as a puzzle monster and try to figure out the expected answer, or die.

Not until 3rd edition was there any sort of formalized expectation that you would have a certain amount of stuff at a certain level. And even when you have it, you can still get boned by a DM who gives you n gold pieces worth of valueless crap that does not include weapons you "need" to fight at your level.

Yeah, back in older editions, getting magic gear was less about staying level appropriate and more just getting useful goodies. You could be okay numerically with a +1 sword for virtually your entire adventuring career, because monster ACs just didn't rise that quickly.

[Winnah]

D&D is not Christmas, or Yule or even Saturnalia for that matter.

Pandering to gamers like spoiled children is a concept I can't grasp. I can't see how playing that kind of game would be even remotely engaging for an adult.

But hey, I'll play. You want an answer to how far back you should strip your expectations in a game? If I were running the game?

Expect nothing beyond what the rules say you get. If the rules say you get something specific, then expect something specific. If the rules say nothing, expect nothing. Those expectations may or may not be regularly met according to a number of variables, not limited to the other players. Who knows, maybe they like the look of your gift better than theirs, so they leave you with nothing. Maybe you neglect to take the gift out of your stocking. Maybe your expectations are exceeded.

FYI I am not Christian. So if I have a fucked up interpretation of your orgy of consumerism and gluttony, blame it on ignorance.

[A Man In Black]

FYI I am not Christian. So if I have a fucked up interpretation of your orgy of consumerism and gluttony, blame it on ignorance.

FYI my way of playing is so much better than your way of playing because of my [religion/gender/nationality/race/preferred football team/hometown/handedness/eye color/number of vowels in my middle name].

[Winnah]

FYI my way of playing is so much better than your way of playing because of my [religion/gender/nationality/race/preferred football team/hometown/handedness/eye color/number of vowels in my middle name].

I think that people that expect reward without effort lack maturity. I guess that makes my gaming experience better, but that is hardly an objective statement.

An objective statement would be, "my gaming experience is better when people leave their entitlement issues at the door".

But seriously. Not a Christian. Don't understand the whole gift analogy beyond noticing children nagging some guy in a red suit at shopping complexes this time of year. Is the DM supposed to be Jesus or Santa?

[Chamomile]

Not having picked up on even the basic fundamentals of how Christmas works would require an incredible amount of willful ignorance.

[Fuchs]

It's still easier than not having picked up how people play games with friends. I think he's just trolling, to be honest, I can't imagien anyone as socially dysfunctional actually playing an RPG.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Not having picked up on even the basic fundamentals of how Christmas works would require an incredible amount of willful ignorance.

Yeah, all of the non-Jewish Atheists I know (and a few of the Jewish ones) celebrate Christmas. At this point the 'Holy Day' is almost aggressively anti-religious.