![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Join Date: Jan 2008
|
![]() Quote:
This is okay because between "For You, A Special Price" (+1 to effective Wealth ~50% of the time, per Exploits pg 16) and "Haggling" (also +1 to effective Wealth and 50% of the time, also on Exploits pg 16), Very Wealthy is redundant 75% of the time anyway--you can't sell for more than 100%. If you count black markets, it's redundant 90%+ of the time. I agree that Thieves are pretty terrible, but Wealthy Elven Bards are awesome. Last edited by sjmdw45; 06-08-2023 at 11:19 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
![]() Quote:
You'll find a big discussion of the topic (with input from Kromm) here, and a summary by me here. Social dynamics can get interesting when a party has delvers of very mixed wealth levels...
__________________
T Bone GURPS stuff and more at the Games Diner: http://www.gamesdiner.com RSS feed | Site updates thread | Twitter/X: @Gamesdiner (dormant until the platform is well again) (Latest goods on site: No Big New Content of late, but the blogroll has returned to the sidebar, this page collects content edits/updates, and this page hosts minor notices and side thoughts of the sort that used to go to Twitter/X.) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | |
Join Date: Jan 2008
|
![]() Quote:
"somebody playing the cleric who shells out for Power Investiture 5 and lots of Energy Reserve to Bless people all the time and walk around at -1 to spells" because if you're Blessing "people" that's more than one Bless so you'll be at -2 or greater to all spells. I'm 90%+ sure that Kromm is not suggesting that spells "on" are counted per-skill and not per-instance, and even if he were suggesting that I would veto it for my own games anyway as overpowered. I think he probably meant "-1 to spells per Bless" and just didn't write that. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
![]() Quote:
If the cleric did place Bless on n people simultaneously, then yes, that should mean -n on further spells, for as long as those Blesses remain in effect.
__________________
T Bone GURPS stuff and more at the Games Diner: http://www.gamesdiner.com RSS feed | Site updates thread | Twitter/X: @Gamesdiner (dormant until the platform is well again) (Latest goods on site: No Big New Content of late, but the blogroll has returned to the sidebar, this page collects content edits/updates, and this page hosts minor notices and side thoughts of the sort that used to go to Twitter/X.) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
Join Date: Jan 2008
|
![]() Quote:
It's -1 per Bless, not -1 total, isn't it? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
![]() Quote:
In fact passing a note telling them how much the loot sold for, rather than revealing it to the party as a whole, is a perfectly reasonable way to handle this as the GM. If they then want to lie, you should let them.
__________________
-- MA Lloyd |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
![]()
Maybe poor wording here. By "simultaneously" I mean multiple subjects "wearing" Bless at the same time. The actual castings would indeed be successive, taking many minutes per person, one at a time.
__________________
T Bone GURPS stuff and more at the Games Diner: http://www.gamesdiner.com RSS feed | Site updates thread | Twitter/X: @Gamesdiner (dormant until the platform is well again) (Latest goods on site: No Big New Content of late, but the blogroll has returned to the sidebar, this page collects content edits/updates, and this page hosts minor notices and side thoughts of the sort that used to go to Twitter/X.) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Join Date: Jan 2022
|
![]()
The idea of the wealthy character keeping more of the coin has always confused me.
Here's the situation: • The wealthy character can sell loot for 1.5x what it would have sold for • The wealthy character is less powerful; thus less effective at acquiring loot • The non-wealthy characters are more powerful; thus more effective at acquiring loot • There are more non-wealthy characters than wealthy characters Here's roughly how I think this plays out: 4 non-wealthy characters and a wealthy character go into a dungeon. They all risk their lives and pull out a 100g worth of treasure. The wealthy character can get the best price for it (60g instead of 40g). The wealthy character might say "If I didn't have wealth, we would receive 40g, and you all would receive 8g. Instead, I have wealth and we receive 60g. I propose you each get 9g and I get the remaining 24g." The archer could pipe up "I could have taken wealth as well but didn't, and as a result we earned more treasure for you to sell. Had I also been a Bard, we might have died or been unable to find some of the treasure we did". The cleric could pipe up "I could have taken wealth as well but didn't..." ---- The more mercenary conversation looks like: "If you don't give us our equal share, the four of us will forcibly take it from you." Additionally, the wealth itself tends to be best spent on the non-wealthy; they probably spent the points on dungeon-useful areas rather than selling-things-for-more, and giving them better armor or a more powerful weapon or whatever is a force-multiplier. The dynamic this creates is that money optimizers feel optimization pressure to delegate one of their members to be wealthy and that player is forever ~4 weapon skill behind all of the other ones (which is a massive difference). If your table experiences this tension and players don't want to be mr moneybags but feel like someone has to because it's ridiculously effective, I advocate for removing the option and splitting the difference: stuff just sells for 50% instead of 40% or 60%. Has the advantage of easier mental math too. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | ||
Join Date: Jan 2008
|
![]() Quote:
(1) It's not like wealthy elven bards don't pull their own weight, especially if they use some of their wealth for things like universal Bless scrolls to help the party, or paut, or better weapons and armor; or put Resist Sound up on everybody and then chuck Concussions. (2) Even if it happens to be an adventure where archery is better than whatever the bard does, it's not like more treasure magically appears just because the delvers are deadlier. In some cases, the archer's remarks could be fair and true after a given adventure (e.g. archer's arrows brought down a flying gryphon and the lich-king on it, who had powerful and valuable items on his person), but it's a niche scenario. And it's mostly a moot point because a Scout can't take Wealth anyway. Positive Wealth is only on the bard and thief templates. Quote:
Stupid betrayal leads to stupid betrayal. Last edited by sjmdw45; 07-06-2023 at 12:09 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|