|
|
Post by lakeel on Jul 14, 2016 12:47:10 GMT -7
Many people may have felt that it seems rather off that you haft to pay 50% of the money for items that you alone found in the middle of nowhere with no reason as to why your paying this money or to who. Its great to find items out in the wild unknown that are worth more than everything you own on your person but is absolutely terrable that it comes at the cost of you needing to sell everything you currently own and then having to pay several sessions more worth of gold just to have something that cant even cover all the stat losses you suffered from selling everything else. Not only that but all your items can still be destroyed or stolen from you, yes GMs and people are highly discouraged from doing so, but it can still happen. "like sundering someones +10 sword all the way down to zero/destroyed can essentuially destroy 100000 gold they spent months amassing. or the bane of all players magic items "mages disjunction" which can potentially destroy a vast majority of a players wealth. Thus I with the slight aid of GM or two to refine the idea a little (who shall remain nameless for the sake of their integrity) have come up with a suggestion(s)
The Eramar Banking & Insurance System! (The E.B.I.S sounds threatening like a threatening acronim dosn't it?)
This system could provide the much needed justification to the 50% system that i (personally) find to be rather bullcrap. The EBIS is essentially an insurance system for PC's and NPC's items functioning as both a Bank and an Insurance company. In a nutshell whenever an item is aquired in an adventure the 50% goes toward registering that item with EBIS so that should that Item ever get destroyed, spent, or broken beyond repair the PC or NPC can aquire an exact duplicate or repair the old item to normal condition with no charge at the end of the session. (just like insurance)
How they are able to do this Is because they use the 50% they take as investment money [like a bank] in order to generate more. Due to the low frequency of items being broken and decent rate of items being registered they are able to maintain a positive curb on the available money they have to the point that should a player get all their magic items wiped, the EBIS can 'somewhat begrudgedly' pay to replace all those items as Per the Policy with the PC/NPC.
Crafted/purchased items and magic items fall into the EBIS policy system as well. For RP reasons they allow crafted item into the system for free for some reputation reason. "making their number of registrations look bigger to the public" and/or "encouraging magic item crafting so that when that adventurer dies some other adventurer can find it and pay 50% on it later as loot"
This system would universally apply to anything worth at least 1000gold and would not apply to found that would be a one time use or items that seem redundant to have insurance on. For example, capital (you wouldn't pay insurance on 50 crates of nails you found would you?), potions (economicaly unfesable for the bank to replace it every time you drink it or its stolen by another adventurer), Scrolls (same as potions), and random other crap (like carts, tools, food, books, clown costumes for chickens, and [depending on value and properties] furniture)
In turn this means that PCs have the option not to pay for the insurancne on found items and keep them for themselves without having to pay a single copper. But! this means that should this item ever be destroyed they WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT get a new one and the item is gone for good, forever in the void of your sadness. In order to keep track of all this however I would suggest the creation of a forum thread similar to the 'characters' thread where each person with insured items will put down the item on their post with a link to the session report next to it. that way each player is liable for their insurance policy instead of GMs and said GMs will be able to use this list to check if a player has a certain item insured or not.
(Secondary Suggersion) not as important as the first but still worth mentioning. (also I don't know if this is already implimented or not)
Bank Loans. To keep it simple any PC of decent power/reputation (level 5 and up so that the PC is out of the new character danger zone) may take out a loan equal to their player wealth as per level from EBIS. The PC may only have one loan at a time and must pay it of in a way similar as to how one would pay off a template purchase. (its 20% of your session income right?) till you pay off the amount you borrowed plus an additional 10 to 20% as per interest. Again PC's should make a post on their insurance tab that they have a loan and how much they still owe updating it whenever they can)
(any questions?)
|
|
Zanos
Leadership Council
No
how did i get here i am not good with computer
Posts: 684 
|
Post by Zanos on Jul 14, 2016 14:26:40 GMT -7
Many people may have felt that it seems rather off that you haft to pay 50% of the money for items that you alone found in the middle of nowhere with no reason as to why your paying this money or to who. Who other than yourself has taken issue with it? That's a choice that you can make. Nobody is forcing you to do that. Furthermore, the current system allows GMs to occasionally place expensive magic items as treasure without entirely breaking wealth progression by forcing people to pay an opportunity cost. Sure, it's arbitrary, but it's balanced. Consider it covering your party members opportunity cost of not getting the magic item, or something. I have literally never seen or heard of a players magic items destroyed in game. The item gets a save, and it only targets a single item. There are much worse things a 17th level arcane caster could do than force one of your magic items to be destroyed. I, again, have never seen or heard of this happening on DG. If they believe in this idea they shouldn't have any problems putting their names on it. I'm going to assume that only you are pitching this unless anyone else comes forward to support it. Items never get destroyed. Nobody will use this. GMs will place much fewer magic items in sessions because placing them creates potentially huge spikes in player wealth, and one PC claiming the item has no opportunity costs which are difficult to solve with the other characters due to our flat session reward system. Loans are dumb. |
|
|
|
Post by lakeel on Jul 14, 2016 15:40:05 GMT -7
Who other than yourself has taken issue with it?
"need i make a list of people who have never been able to afford/aquire an item because the would haft to do another 1-3 levels worth of sessions in order to be able to afford it. [one example being the Bioa +3 adamantine greatsword incident. a topic that was settled long ago and dosn't need to be pulled out of its grave any more than to be used for example]
That's a choice that you can make. Nobody is forcing you to do that. Furthermore, the current system allows GMs to occasionally place expensive magic items as treasure without entirely breaking wealth progression by forcing people to pay an opportunity cost. Sure, it's arbitrary, but it's balanced. Consider it covering your party members opportunity cost of not getting the magic item, or something.
"more along the lines of cruel since people quite easily decide between themselves who gets what items. should they reach an impass it literally takes 5 seconds for them to '/roll 1d20' under GM supervision at the end of the session and see who gets the item with the higher roll. because at the moments its a system of "who can fork out the most money to pay the 50% tax first"
I have literally never seen or heard of a players magic items destroyed in game.
because as many Gms have told me there is a silent agreement between all Gms at sign up that your certainly allowed to break player items just "don't be a dick" meaning "don't" in general because they'd lose the items and complain for days. but Pcs can certainly break other PCs items with all the methods mentiond above its just people do as the Gms do and don't even consider breaking peoples items. Yet I'm sure people would be beyond pissed if I or someone else sundered someones weapon till it was destroyed in combat and it was gone for good. at the point the only way to get it back is to find a new one and pay 50% or buy it.
The item gets a save, and it only targets a single item. There are much worse things a 17th level arcane caster could do than force one of your magic items to be destroyed. I, again, have never seen or heard of this happening on DG.
"yes there are much worse things they could do but a smart and strategic person cripples his enemy before outright killing them. even if its one at a time or more (if more casters or scrolls) simply progressively taking away an enemys abilitys can be very VERY problimatic for them" [and as stated before its never happened because Gm's have been told no to under threat of ban]
If they believe in this idea they shouldn't have any problems putting their names on it. I'm going to assume that only you are pitching this unless anyone else comes forward to support it.
I personally thought it would be a bad idea to bring up the other GM names in order to prevent initial bias agenst a suggestion. because I know that bias happens and that some gm's rather hate eachother and constantly oppose eachother like democrats and republicans. All You need to do is wait for them to log on and they'll be here.
Items never get destroyed. Nobody will use this. GMs will place much fewer magic items in sessions because placing them creates potentially huge spikes in player wealth, and one PC claiming the item has no opportunity costs which are difficult to solve with the other characters due to our flat session reward system.
(they can be, just people have been told not to) (also i beg to differ, everyone would use it since they already pay the 50% no matter what) (it wouldnt generate spikes because of the flat session reward system and them still paying the 50% for the item and the uninsured item either not being sellable or getting stolen or destroyed later leaving the player wither having to find or buy another one)
Loans are dumb.
Glad you think so~ cause its based Exactly on the same principle as Templates are~ but you don't see me complaining about those yet do you? people borrowing 70 grand (ontop of the 50 they paid) in order to get what is essentially a magic item. its the exact same system that would be used for loans. borrowing gold in exchange for reduced session rewards in order to get magic items~
|
|
Zanos
Leadership Council
No
how did i get here i am not good with computer
Posts: 684
|
Post by Zanos on Jul 14, 2016 16:57:18 GMT -7
"need i make a list of people who have never been able to afford/aquire an item because the would haft to do another 1-3 levels worth of sessions in order to be able to afford it. [one example being the Bioa +3 adamantine greatsword incident. a topic that was settled long ago and dosn't need to be pulled out of its grave any more than to be used for example] You cannot claim mass support for an issue for which mass support does not exist. So yeah I'm gonna ask other people to throw their hats in if they think this is a good idea. Also TBH, no DM should have dropped an item worth that much in a session who's wealth/level was that low. The fact he even got a chance to acquire it is unusual. Getting salty over not being able to afford it is just being really entitled, especially considering how generous DG already is with wealth. You are describing not being able to afford a powerful magic item as cruel. I'll leave it to you to contemplate how incredibly absorbed your own statement is. Being able to spend money to get the item is far more fair than a random d20 roll. You can repair damaged/destroyed magic items with make whole and greater make whole, or even pay an NPC to cast those spells for you. Even without the fallback of those spells, I've been playing 3.5 and PF for over a decade and can honestly count the number of times I've seen a DM sunder a players gear on one hand, outside of DG. Disjunction was more common at high levels, but was significantly nerfed in pathfinder to be much less of a problem. PvP isn't really expected, encouraged, or supported in DG, which is why I'm not really going to consider "A PC could destroy another PCs gear" as a valid argument. That's honestly just trolling in most cases. Pretty sure you're just making stuff up now. Also, how can an agreement be both silent and under threat of ban? Nobody has threatened to ban DMs for destroying players gear. Even IC, most combats only last 2-5 rounds. Using your very limited actions to throw out your limited 9th level spell slots to destroy one piece of the dozens the opponent has per round is a poor use of actions and magical resources. It is not tactically sound, especially considering the item gets a save anyway.Okay, I'll get my popcorn. If you find a powerful magic item in a session and get it for free, that is a power spike. Wow, it's almost like I explicitly opposed that system and continue to do so. Fuck you Zanos, for being internally consistent and not changing your mind! |
|
|
|
Post by lakeel on Jul 14, 2016 18:07:55 GMT -7
Attempting to keep this calm and peaceful...mainly cause I think your angry. You cannot claim mass support for an issue for which mass support does not exist. So yeah I'm gonna ask other people to throw their hats in if they think this is a good idea. Also TBH, no DM should have dropped an item worth that much in a session who's wealth/level was that low. The fact he even got a chance to acquire it is unusual. Getting salty over not being able to afford it is just being really entitled, especially considering how generous DG already is with wealth.[yes we shall wait] actually the bioa thing was the inverse. bioa as a GM put in mobs that dropped two of those swords and everyone in the party wanted to sell them for 50 somthing thousand gold they were both worth (together) at selling price instead of going back to the quest giver and claiming reward. [again this is an incident that is old and no linger bothers me, just an example] [small side discussion here, don't get mad for me asking,but you believe that giving people a fixed amount and taking away the potential for vast gains or possible poverty is generous?] You are describing not being able to afford a powerful magic item as cruel. I'll leave it to you to contemplate how incredibly absorbed your own statement is. Being able to spend money to get the item is far more fair than a random d20 roll.Name a single thing that has ever been more fair than an un-rigged chance at getting something? both parties had an equal chance of winning. where as if you go by a 'who can buy it first system' the poorer man of the two [in gold and item value] is far more likely to lose unless he somehow manages to crank out sessions far faster than the competition. most combats only last 2-5 rounds. Using your very limited actions to throw out your limited 9th level spell slots to destroy one piece of the dozens the opponent has per round is a poor use of actions and magical resources. It is not tactically sound, especially considering the item gets a save anyway.For one person yes that's a terrable idea and a lone mage wouldn't do that when he could simply explode the whole area. multiple casters however and this plan would be very feasble. upon checking mage's disjunction it is actually an AOE attack of 25ft+5/2 levels. and it says every magic item and effect in the area except the casters must make a will save. one can directly target a lone item with mage's disjunction and make it suffer a -5 will roll instead of all the items being targeted. www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/mage-s-disjunctionOkay, I'll get my popcorn.
*offers popcorn and churros* If you find a powerful magic item in a session and get it for free, that is a power spike.A power spike that can be just as easily lost as it was gained. Plus as you have said before it is up to the GM as to how much power they are willing to give to PCs
Wow, it's almost like I explicitly opposed that system and continue to do so. Fuck you Zanos, for being internally consistent and not changing your mind!
I Have always been told you were the one that made the template system the way it is today. This time is the first I've head that you were the opposeing the oridgional changes to the template system. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael T on Jul 14, 2016 18:31:28 GMT -7
My 2 Cents:
My character got really pissed when he defeated a powerful creature (CR 8) in single combat at level 7, with the knowledge that I would be able to keep the equipment, and could not keep the +3 greatsword it had.
As a player I understand that the GMs have to balance wealth given to players.
As a hopefully future GM I would like the opportunity to give the bad guys magic items without having to worry about unbalancing the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by lakeel on Jul 14, 2016 19:45:37 GMT -7
My 2 Cents: My character got really pissed when he defeated a powerful creature (CR 8) in single combat at level 7, with the knowledge that I would be able to keep the equipment, and could not keep the +3 greatsword it had. As a player I understand that the GMs have to balance wealth given to players. As a hopefully future GM I would like the opportunity to give the bad guys magic items without having to worry about unbalancing the game. mmmm...yes~ rub those two pennies together~ You see the issue with this being that as a GM if you want to give your mobs nice things to fight with your going to either haft to visably take the items away from the players so they can have them... or pick and choose what items you can use on the mobs the players can possibly afford. |
|
Zanos
Leadership Council
No
how did i get here i am not good with computer
Posts: 684
|
Post by Zanos on Jul 14, 2016 20:02:08 GMT -7
Attempting to keep this calm and peaceful...mainly cause I think your angry. That's my secret, cap. I'm always angry. Accusing other people of being angry is a great way to keep a conversation civil, by the way. What? The poorer man has either not saved his wealth or not played as many sessions. We reward play. That seems fair to me. While gambling has fair odds, it does not, in my opinion, provide fair results. Same reason we don't use random dice rolls for chargen like old editions did. Read the spell, man. The 25+5/2 is the range, not the AoE. It only forces saves vs permanent destruction if it's targeted on a single object. The AoE can destroy items only if they roll a nat 1 on the save vs being temporarily suppressed. Most characters of that level are rocking rerolls, too. As I've mentioned and you don't seem to understand, destroying items is both uncommon and tactically unsound. Nope. The version I originally pitched never saw the light of day. It was originally an up front payment of 150k, because that provided a significant opportunity cost of magic items, but wasn't permanently crippling like LA was in previous editions. Wizardfrog(RIP) later suggested that they monetary cost be reduced to I believe 50k, and then people thought they're should be an XP cost, so we included the atunement sessions. I complained that this would actually make players relatively more powerful if they had templates, because a templated player would be the same level, but have a template and 10 sessions(-50k) of gold compared to a player of their same level. Others disagreed, and the first iteration of the templates were born, until Xem rewrote most of the mechanics but kept the acquisition system. I'm not certain at what point players were able to put off the gold cost, but I did object to it and was again overruled. My 2 Cents: My character got really pissed when he defeated a powerful creature (CR 8) in single combat at level 7, with the knowledge that I would be able to keep the equipment, and could not keep the +3 greatsword it had. As a player I understand that the GMs have to balance wealth given to players. As a hopefully future GM I would like the opportunity to give the bad guys magic items without having to worry about unbalancing the game. Sorry about that, I think that's more of a GM mistake for placing extremely high value single items in a session. Thanks for understanding. mmmm...yes~ rub those two pennies together~ Again, what? |
|
Ash
Approvals
This world is only big enough for one loli.
Posts: 277
|
Post by Ash on Jul 14, 2016 20:41:10 GMT -7
What would clear this issue up real fast is if only GMs could make suggestions related to GMing.
|
|
|
|
Post by lakeel on Jul 14, 2016 20:48:13 GMT -7
The poorer man has either not saved his wealth or not played as many sessions. We reward play. That seems fair to me. While gambling has fair odds, it does not, in my opinion, provide fair results. Same reason we don't use random dice rolls for chargen like old editions did.
or poorer man didn't know cheeper ways to aquire items, has died plenty, dosent participate in downtime, or all of the above.
Read the spell, man. The 25+5/2 is the range, not the AoE. It only forces saves vs permanent destruction if it's targeted on a single object. The AoE can destroy items only if they roll a nat 1 on the save vs being temporarily suppressed. Most characters of that level are rocking rerolls, too.
Oh hey~ its actually a 40ft burst. even better! but question is if they can reroll for their items will save or even better if thy have enough rerolls to cover all their magic items.
Nope. The version I originally pitched never saw the light of day. It was originally an up front payment of 150k, because that provided a significant opportunity cost of magic items, but wasn't permanently crippling like LA was in previous editions. Wizardfrog(RIP) later suggested that they monetary cost be reduced to I believe 50k, and then people thought they're should be an XP cost, so we included the atunement sessions. I complained that this would actually make players relatively more powerful if they had templates, because a templated player would be the same level, but have a template and 10 sessions(-50k) of gold compared to a player of their same level. Others disagreed, and the first iteration of the templates were born, until Xem rewrote most of the mechanics but kept the acquisition system. I'm not certain at what point players were able to put off the gold cost, but I did object to it and was again overruled.
Well I was not aware of this~ I personally was going to buy a template till they were nerfed beyond being economically feesable for me to get. Im not paying that much money just so i can say i 'look' undead and have +1 caster level which an ieon stone can do for cheeper.
Again, what?
You seemed to have missed the joke I was trying to make there....two cents.....two pennies...aint got two pennies to rub together... the joke is ruined now that iv'e had to explane it. :C
|
|
|
|
Post by lakeel on Jul 14, 2016 20:52:23 GMT -7
What would clear this issue up real fast is if only GMs could make suggestions related to GMing. That seemes kinda anti-democratic...only allowing the GMs to suggest things for the system they run when other peoples opinions have an equal amount of value. If I was a GM like people have been telling me to try out would my suggestion matter then? |
|
Ash
Approvals
This world is only big enough for one loli.
Posts: 277
|
Post by Ash on Jul 14, 2016 20:58:05 GMT -7
Being a GM means at the very least you're trusted enough to make decisions related to GMing, which means you're less likely to put forward crazy ideas like this because you understand the horrible effects they would have if implemented.
|
|
|
|
Post by lakeel on Jul 14, 2016 21:14:05 GMT -7
Being a GM means at the very least you're trusted enough to make decisions related to GMing, which means you're less likely to put forward crazy ideas like this because you understand the horrible effects they would have if implemented. calling my ideas crazy dosen't exactly help advance the conversation to edit and alter the idea into something that works. And do mention what horrendous side effects this 'insurance' idea would have. the only one that i can see is that characters would actually be able to aquire every item presented to them by a GM in sessions. an occasion which is seemingly uncommon. |
|
Ash
Approvals
This world is only big enough for one loli.
Posts: 277
|
Post by Ash on Jul 14, 2016 21:38:45 GMT -7
The current system is fine. Just because it doesn't pander to you doesn't mean it doesn't work. Your idea will have several effects:
Boosting WBL even higher than it already is if players choose not to get "insurance"
Potentially discouraging GMs from placing magic items in their sessions for the above reason
Cause arguments over who gets items because now the disparity between players will be even higher if free shit is being given out to only one character in a session
GMs will now be encouraged to try to destroy player items.
|
|
|
|
Post by lakeel on Jul 14, 2016 22:43:47 GMT -7
The current system is fine. Just because it doesn't pander to you doesn't mean it doesn't work. Your idea will have several effects: Boosting WBL even higher than it already is if players choose not to get "insurance" Potentially discouraging GMs from placing magic items in their sessions for the above reason Cause arguments over who gets items because now the disparity between players will be even higher if free shit is being given out to only one character in a session GMs will now be encouraged to try to destroy player items. - the first issue is true, yes player wealth would spike but they take the risk of losing the items. it can be stolen, broken, set on fire, whatever that would result in loss causing a wealth spike downwards. at which point they haft to find a new one or buy a new one if they so desire. - Gms already rarely put Magic Items in their sessions for players to take much less use. they would possibly be encouraged to give out magic items sence people wouldn't complain anymore about not being able to even afford the item. plus everyone would have access to this system, everyones wealth would spike fairly evenly depending on what the GM responcibly decides to give them. You know.. with actual RPG looting... that thing no ones does anymore cause they have a fixed income no matter what they do. -There would be no need to argue if there are either A. multiple of the item available, B Just have the PCs that want the item roll for it, draw stick, rock paper scisors something that has a winner and then that person gets the item. if they lose they have no right to complain about it once the dice have been cast. - lastly they arnt being encouraged to destroy players items. its just they're finally being allowed to do so. thus, yes the amount of items breaking would increase exponenially cause it would go from none to actually happening. |
|
Ash
Approvals
This world is only big enough for one loli.
Posts: 277
|
Post by Ash on Jul 14, 2016 22:58:20 GMT -7
Items are already at risk of being destroyed. GMs just don't because it's dick.
Nobody other than yourself has claimed this is an issue except for these unnamed people you also claim exist.
The current system is better than luck of the draw. Again, you're the only one complaining about it.
This is like talking to a brick wall, you've already been told why it's a bad idea and all you do is repeat yourself.
|
|
Zanos
Leadership Council
No
how did i get here i am not good with computer
Posts: 684
|
Post by Zanos on Jul 14, 2016 23:04:49 GMT -7
I've said my piece so I won't likely be further responding to this thread. Casting a vote of "No" for the record.
|
|
Geckilian
Leadership Council
Empires Mierely require time.
Posts: 1,026
|
Post by Geckilian on Jul 15, 2016 9:25:18 GMT -7
This is an interesting thread. I similarly vote no.
|
|
Abron
GM
Heretic
Lore-Master General
Posts: 250
|
Post by Abron on Jul 15, 2016 12:30:00 GMT -7
Not sure if it matters at this point, but i will toss in a vote of "NO" as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by sythus on Jul 16, 2016 3:37:58 GMT -7
Every time Lakeel writes a paragraph, a grammar nazi explodes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haskalah on Jul 18, 2016 14:12:32 GMT -7
To add a small point to the "Enemy has good gear I can't have" part, players are already generally so overpowered for their level with the problem growing rather ridiculous past about Lv. 10 that enemies have to have great gear or it's just boringly easy to defeat them. The real choice for a GM is either to bump the CR up by another +5 or so, or give the enemies better gear than they'd typically have if players weren't (again, generally) min/maxing.
As for the problem of "buying" good gear, the easiest way to maintain some sense of 'realism' is to consider that the amount of loot available from any given job/mission/etc. equals just enough gold and treasure to pay everyone. If someone wants something, they give up the appropriate share of gold because the item would've otherwise been sold to pay for their half. The hand-wavey part is dealing with selling the stuff no-one wants.
From what I gather of the other point lakeel may have been making, part of the end-of-session item grab is that generally the first person to declare they're paying for something is the one to get it. Since it's pretty rare for session reward item (at 50% cost) to cost more than the session reward typically is, or more than at most 2 sessions, I don't think there's any argument about who has the money to pay for it. In most cases that I've seen, the items are available after session and if multiple people want something there's a roll anyway. If it's first-post-first-served, that's not very fair, especially since some sessions go so late that people log out before the session reward is posted. Otherwise, if someone's offering an item that players have to pay more than 1-2 session reward's worth of gold for (and is worth more than that), that's something else entirely to look into. I think that, aside from some end-of-arch rewards that players spent several sessions working toward, this doesn't usually happen.
|
|
xemadus
Leadership Council
Sure
5000
Posts: 798
|
Post by xemadus on Jul 19, 2016 16:47:26 GMT -7
I also vote no, for reasons that have been mostly covered in this thread.
Think of it this way, do you really want characters who are already mechanically optimized to have the ability to completely destroy WBL without taking advantage of longterm investments?
It took Rainen nearly 2 years and 22 levels of play to get to where he is today. Do you want to see people running around with his level of wealth without nearly that much investment?
|
|
haksanlulz
Approvals
Filthy deviant plagiarist
Posts: 191
|
Post by haksanlulz on Aug 4, 2016 13:47:03 GMT -7
If we did do this all the rule change would really add is that all magic items have enchantments that they self destruct upon user death. it would utterly destroy WBL, in a home campaign it's okay because a gm can control the wealth in other areas, but DG gives constant session rewards. You're never in a drought for cash.
|
|
