What do you thin about a character earning money through taxation???

72 posts / 0 new
Last post
My 2E character that has been converted three times now, but never played in subsequent editions is now being revived in 4E. I did the whole conversion with Birthright, then I found a thread that talked about what a commoner would make in D&D income wise, and the breakdown is as follows:

Income guidelines for Balaernazaan

Average commoner makes 520 gp/year http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=719384

That will be ½ the population
5000 x 520 gp = 2.6 million gp x 1/3 tax rate= 858K gp

the other ½ will be merchants and artisans (mages, clerics, artists, fine tradesmen)

1040gp/year
5000 x 1040 = 5.2 million gp x1/3 = 1.716 million gp

2.574 million gp tax revenue

36% on military = 986,640
11% on government = 283,140
5% physical resources = 128,700 {roads, rebuilding walls, improving bazaars, state buildings etc}

My take 25% 643,500 gp/year+




Average commoner makes 260 gp/year

That will be ½ the population
5000 x 260 gp = 1.3 million gp x 1/3 = 429K gp


the other ½ will be merchants and artisans (mages, clerics, artists, fine tradesmen, this includes guild fees, tithing, temple donations)

520gp/year
5000 x 520gp = 2.6 million gp x1/3 = 858K million gp

1.287 million gp tax revenue
36% on military = 463,320
11% on government = 141,570
5% physical resources = 64,350 {roads, rebuilding walls, improving bazaars, state buildings etc}

My take 25% 321,750 gp/year+

So two scenarios for the income. My question is, does a 20th level Avenger/Wiz/Rogue who is the lord of a city of 10K have the right in game to make the 325K to 650K/ annulally without having to become an NPC?
In the breakdown of the expenses of the realm, I did include 5% for infrastructure. Also there is 23% unaccounted for for misc expenses that he doesn't keep that might come up, so that is almost another 600K gp. I got the numbers from the US Federal budget from 2009 lol. But in reality, if the character made magical items for a living, then he would make alot more then that in 1 year, why would there be a restriction on the way they spend it?If I made 5 suits bloodthread armor in a year, then I would earn more then the taxation
I think time expenditure would become the real issue. A lord of a city has a ton of day to day duties, especially if he's the sole ruler and not part of a council of lords or something. That doesn't leave much time for crafting magical items and certainly not for adventuring. Attempting to manage both careers at once just seems unfeasible. It would be like trying to play The Sims and Sim City at the same time.
excellent, thanks for your thoughts
My question is, does a 20th level Avenger/Wiz/Rogue who is the lord of a city of 10K have the right in game to make the 325K to 650K/ annulally without having to become an NPC?

As personal character funds? Absolutely not. This amounts to a whole lot of something for nothing, which is generally not okay. I would give a few options, though:

1) Assume it's zero-sum and go on from there. You're the lord of a city, it has a lot of non-monetary benefits, but the economic profits from it are effectively zero, especially once your lavish abode is factored in. There are a few reasons this is justifiable, but this is generally how I'd treat any large-scale enterprise. The party has an airship? Assume any shipping, transportation, or whatever side-businesses they have going on pay for maintenance costs, and that's that.

2) If the player wants a city-management mini-game, though, they can have a mini-game. They're still not allowed to mix those funds. I also would not allow it to take up table time. I might even take the suggestion of another thread and use a separate currency: "gold bars" to represent taxation, without providing the means for exchange.

3) As I said, though, I would allow this little city management mini-game give some non-monetary benefits, in any case. Easy access to a cleric with rituals or to merchants and armorers. A standing army that can be used to wage war. I'd allow this money to be put towards an improved stronghold or a flagship or whatnot. That should be more than sufficient.


As far as critique of your numbers, I do think you're low-balling infrastructure costs by quite a bit by using modern figures, which are essentially just age-maintenance costs, and don't figure for new work, major rebuilding, or anything like that (and, if you follow the news, is likely insufficient for that infrastructure's demands, actually). If nothing else, early cities of this size were very overcrowded, and as such, were plagued by disease and periodic fires, which are costly. Second, there's the minor issue where most of the taxation we're discussing did not take the form of cash. Much of it came in the form of goods or extended service. The lord's food stores may be overflowing, but that doesn't actually translate into free money. Lastly, yes, I would say that, between famines, fires, periodic wars, and compensation of vassals, it's very reasonable to expect the economic profits from this sort of enterprise to average to zero, just as businesses tend to in aggregate. Given the nature of medieval warfare and sieges, and the irregularity of agrarian-based economies it seems paramount to keep stores full for difficult times, so most of that net tax revenues should still be saved, unless I'm terribly mistaken.
As personal character funds? Absolutely not. This amounts to a whole lot of something for nothing, which is generally not okay. I would give a few options, though:

1) Assume it's zero-sum and go on from there. You're the lord of a city, it has a lot of non-monetary benefits, but the economic profits from it are effectively zero, especially once your lavish abode is factored in. There are a few reasons this is justifiable, but this is generally how I'd treat any large-scale enterprise. The party has an airship? Assume any shipping, transportation, or whatever side-businesses they have going on pay for maintenance costs, and that's that.

2) If the player wants a city-management mini-game, though, they can have a mini-game. They're still not allowed to mix those funds. I also would not allow it to take up table time. I might even take the suggestion of another thread and use a separate currency: "gold bars" to represent taxation, without providing the means for exchange.

3) As I said, though, I would allow this little city management mini-game give some non-monetary benefits, in any case. Easy access to a cleric with rituals or to merchants and armorers. A standing army that can be used to wage war. I'd allow this money to be put towards an improved stronghold or a flagship or whatnot. That should be more than sufficient.


As far as critique of your numbers, I do think you're low-balling infrastructure costs by quite a bit by using modern figures, which are essentially just age-maintenance costs, and don't figure for new work, major rebuilding, or anything like that (and, if you follow the news, is likely insufficient for that infrastructure's demands, actually). If nothing else, early cities of this size were very overcrowded, and as such, were plagued by disease and periodic fires, which are costly. Second, there's the minor issue where most of the taxation we're discussing did not take the form of cash. Much of it came in the form of goods or extended service. The lord's food stores may be overflowing, but that doesn't actually translate into free money. Lastly, yes, I would say that, between famines, fires, periodic wars, and compensation of vassals, it's very reasonable to expect the economic profits from this sort of enterprise to average to zero, just as businesses tend to in aggregate. Given the nature of medieval warfare and sieges, and the irregularity of agrarian-based economies it seems paramount to keep stores full for difficult times, so most of that net tax revenues should still be saved, unless I'm terribly mistaken.

I agree with all of the above and throw this in, kinda of an addendum to the infrastructure maintance. Unless you've got a really high magic world, most of your maintance is going to be performed by biological energy sources, meaning good ole fashioned elbow grease. That gets expensive FAST.
I am Blue/White
I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
Actually, I was discussing just such a thing here.

The short version is if your character is acting as the lord of some community (presumably the other PC's are involved in some way as well), then as the DM I would use a skill challenge to determine whether or not you were successful enough at running things to actually have a surplus from tax income versus overhead expenditures.

If you do poorly, then the city's money was mismanaged and there was significant waste and NPC underlings lined their pockets or gave lavish gifts to their friends. If you succeed then I would award one of the non-magic item treasure parcels for your current level in the form of a tax surplus (which you, as lord, are free to spend as you like). Thus, your party's treasure remains appropriate for it's level and had to actually work for the reward (in the form of a skill challenge).
I should also add that while I do respect Edy as a poster, I would emphatically not rely on that analysis, in a 3.5 context, much less 4e. He makes a huge number of assumptions there that really do not hold, in my opinion. Not the least of which is that it's reasonable for farmers to roll Profession (Farmer) in the off-season, because The Rules don't prevent it.

The Rules also didn't prevent someone from rolling Profession (Sailor) checks while standing naked in the desert, or rolling Profession (Miner) checks while on a ship on the high seas. The game rather relied on ordinary common sense to head those things off.

As I said, I do respect Edy as a poster, but it's hardly the first difference of opinion I've had with him, and I doubt it'll be the last (though I'm not as active in the Previous Editions forums these days...)
I did the numbers according to Birthright also, although not posted here, as to the ability and skills checks to the rating of the domain in question. I came up with a tax total of 2.12 million gp/year. The particular numbers of the budget can be explained etc, as I also don't think that the total % of the budget outlined came to 77%, with 23% in unassigned categories as of yet, there is plenty of room for tweaking. But in my estimation, I could instead of running the city be an enchanter, and would make alot more money if I charged market value for items For example, if I spent 8 hours a day doing item creation, 10 mins for enchant item ritual so say I make 4/hour, that's 32 items a day. If they were worth 10,000 gp (level 10 item) then I've made 32,000 gp that day, how can you say that 650K gp in a year is unreasonable? I could work 4 days a week, and it would take me 4 months (16 weeks) to make the same amount of money, and have 8 months of free tme to advemture. I personally thought it was conservative to go the taxation way, because I could make alot more money to item production way.
Please don't get me wrong, if the idea wouldn't be ok to most that's ok, I can still rule the city just make my money the item production route, I just thought that it was an easier and less likely to be out of control method to say taxation through population would yield a reasonable yet steady income, but I can be the Trump of Balaernazaan easily enough through item creation
you can't make money with item creation in 4e. The only way to make money in 4e is through encounters. This is because the point of the money system is to get your equipped with the right magical items.
so in our realm, if you "make" an item you can't sell it? I can't for the discussion say to a fighter,"Bring me X residium (tha mount equals the gp cost of the item) and then charge him that amount to make it? For example, bring me 2600gp of residium and I will charge you 2600 gp to make this item for you. That isn't allowed by the rules?
You could do that but why would a fighter pay you 2600 in raw materials (residuum) + 2600 in gold for a level 7 item that only costs 2600 gp + 10-30% to buy?

Creating items is not a reasonable source of income anymore because creating costs just as much as buying them if you manage to negotiate the best price. At the very best you could try to buy magic items at 20% of their cost from adventurers (that's what players expect to get for outdated equipment) and hope to find someone who needs exactly that item and is ready to buy it at full price which is exactly what NPC merchants supposedly do.

And even if we expand on the thought and assume that you create items and sell them for 120%, which is reasonable according to pricing guidelines. Assuming you are level 20, one item would net you a profit 25.000 gp. However in order to earn this sum you have to have a client capable of and willing to pay you 125.000 gp for your work. Depending on the adventurer density in your world and the ammount of competition you have to deal with, I doubt that you will see more than half a dozen customers a year. While that would be a fine income by itself, you'll have overhead and since you'll likely level more than once during that year, the amount you earn is trivialized by the galopping price increase for equipment you would want to use. (You can create more expensive items when you level but at the same time your customer base will shrink considerably.)
I see your point
you can't make money with item creation in 4e. The only way to make money in 4e is through encounters. This is because the point of the money system is to get your equipped with the right magical items.

I realize why this is true, but from an economic standpoint this is rather silly don't you think? If making magic items is really a financially stupid idea (as you only get 1/5 of what you put into an item out of it unless you're selling it to a PC at a 1:1 ratio you loose money at an alarming rate. This in my opinion begs the question, why does anyone make magic items? Who would voluntarily do something so financially suicidal? And then of course that leads to magic items being next to non existent, which mucks up the whole number system of 4e. From a mechanical standpoint I admit they did it for good reason, but once you get to metagame the idea becomes a rater bad conundrum.
This in my opinion begs the question, why does anyone make magic items? Who would voluntarily do something so financially suicidal? And then of course that leads to magic items being next to non existent, which mucks up the whole number system of 4e.

Well who would make magic items if there were none for sale? Anybody with the means to make them and the need to have some. That would be adventurers or nobles equipping their armies for most of our common magic items. With all those fallen empires that's a comfortable cache of magic equipment floating around in the world to trade around.

And that is really the key. If magic items were actually that scarce, merchants probably couldn't get away with purchasing for a mere 20%.

And even so, creating magic items is not a losing game if you work on contract and are guaranteed your share. It's just that being an enchanter is not a free ticket to being a billionaire after a year even though you only need an hour to create a piece of work valuing more than a million gp.
I personally am disappointed in the rules for 4E in this regard. Not everyone can or desires to make magic items. The old way IMHO was better. It depended on the spells you had etc. To me that was part of the fun, but another part gutted for balance and simplicity sake.
I realize why this is true, but from an economic standpoint this is rather silly don't you think?

No? Assuming perfect competition (which admittedly isn't the case in the Magic Weapons market, but whatever), economic profits average out to zero.

From a practical standpoint, someone somewhere might be making a profit crafting magic items, (and someone else suffering hideous losses), but you, the one PC with the crafting rituals, will basically break even, period. From an economic standpoint, there's no problem whatsoever.

I personally am disappointed in the rules for 4E in this regard. Not everyone can or desires to make magic items. The old way IMHO was better. It depended on the spells you had etc. To me that was part of the fun, but another part gutted for balance and simplicity sake.

Right, the good old days, when spellcasters got to make free wealth, thus breaking the one remaining mechanism for by-level balance (and one which needed to be very heavily hacked to keep non-spellcasters viable, might I add- over-wealthing non-spellcasting types was one of only a handful of halfway-effective "house" fixes. But, of course, spellcasters could make wealth for free, so that was largely moot anyway.)

No thanks, I'll take 4e's route, where spellcasters can't get the equipment of a character twice or thrice their level just because, and where I can have badass, world-renowned Dwarf-made weapons and armor without needing to justify the existence of dozens of Dwarf Wizards.
economically it's better to find an item and transfer magic to custom make what you want, but alas with the silly way that 4E has done this (IMO) I will be getting rid of those two rituals, enchant item and transfer enchantment and I will take my chances with random treasure and a whole lot of money that I'll make for assassinations which I will charge a great deal for and buy what I want. So now I'm a mercenary and not a magic wielder. (Unless of course I can convince the DM to let me tax my subjects or make money making items lol, the jury is still out on that)
economically it's better to find an item and transfer magic to custom make what you want, but alas with the silly way that 4E has done this (IMO) I will be getting rid of those two rituals, enchant item and transfer enchantment and I will take my chances with random treasure and a whole lot of money that I'll make for assassinations which I will charge a great deal for and buy what I want. So now I'm a mercenary and not a magic wielder. (Unless of course I can convince the DM to let me tax my subjects or make money making items lol, the jury is still out on that)

Just to be clear, your problem with the change is that the rituals only let you make exactly the items you want from the loot you get as rewards, but doesn't let you abuse the crafting system to make free money? I'm just wondering, because that was pretty much exactly the point of the change. To eliminate this exact sort of system abuse.


(And yes, I'm arguing that this was a system abuse in 3.5. The point of XP costs in crafting was that it was that the total costs were supposed to add up to the value of the item. That people misused the system in this way demonstrates that the designers misunderestimated the GP-XP conversion rate, and perhaps even misapprehended that they could be converted at all, given the way level lag and XP from encounters relate. It's overtly taking advantage of a system flaw to break another part of the game, and as such, obvious abuse)
No? Assuming perfect competition (which admittedly isn't the case in the Magic Weapons market, but whatever), economic profits average out to zero.

From a practical standpoint, someone somewhere might be making a profit crafting magic items, (and someone else suffering hideous losses), but you, the one PC with the crafting rituals, will basically break even, period. From an economic standpoint, there's no problem whatsoever.



Right, the good old days, when spellcasters got to make free wealth, thus breaking the one remaining mechanism for by-level balance (and one which needed to be very heavily hacked to keep non-spellcasters viable, might I add- over-wealthing non-spellcasting types was one of only a handful of halfway-effective "house" fixes. But, of course, spellcasters could make wealth for free, so that was largely moot anyway.)

No thanks, I'll take 4e's route, where spellcasters can't get the equipment of a character twice or thrice their level just because, and where I can have badass, world-renowned Dwarf-made weapons and armor without needing to justify the existence of dozens of Dwarf Wizards.

Yeah because a 20th level character with the ability to make the items is so over powered by the idea that he has the ability to do such things. Is the rogue who can sneak in and out of a crowded bazaar and pickpocket unbalanced? Is the fighter who can be a gladiator and win money by fighting for sport unbalanced? If you want to have the ability to make money by crafting magic items, doesn't it make sense that you would have to be a magic user? Oh I forgot, now a 3rd level barbarian is as adept at making magical items as a 25th level wizard. They have equal success at making items of their level, and the barbarian doesn't have to know anything about lightning bolt to enchant a sword with a lightning ability, just have the ritual. We will be talking about this in 18 months as part of what 4.5 fixed.
Just to be clear, your problem with the change is that the rituals only let you make exactly the items you want from the loot you get as rewards, but doesn't let you abuse the crafting system to make free money? I'm just wondering, because that was pretty much exactly the point of the change. To eliminate this exact sort of system abuse.


(And yes, I'm arguing that this was a system abuse in 3.5. The point of XP costs in crafting was that it was that the total costs were supposed to add up to the value of the item. That people misused the system in this way demonstrates that the designers misunderestimated the GP-XP conversion rate, and perhaps even misapprehended that they could be converted at all, given the way level lag and XP from encounters relate. It's overtly taking advantage of a system flaw to break another part of the game, and as such, obvious abuse)

What I have encountered is that people get angry when someone has ideas that are out of the box. Why should a 5th level fighter get to make the same item as a 5th level cleric? They don't have the same magical ability (presumably) I have no problem if someone says "The monetary level you want to resell the item is too much, here is where the reasonable level should be" In fact I said
I see your point

to CountessKathleen. She was talking about 10-20% profit. That is ok and I saw her point. Then the following is a bunch of "You can't, you aren't allowed" etc. But to say there can't be any profit I feel is silly. That isn't how any of the fantasy worlds work. Should I be able to make 100K on an item? If I can get the agreement why not? If I can't, then so be it. But as usual, it's people with an axe to grind from previous editions that make these rules. The DM should be able to discern why someone is trying to get something passed in their game.

If my character was going to be the ruler of a city, that I worked hard on for 5 or 6 campaigns to establish, why wouldn't I get some sort of benefit? The benefit so far is that I don't have time to adventure, or that the money is so tight I'm actually going to be in debt if I try to make items, and that commerce of an item that is in demand won't be profitable enough to bother with. I have some simple examples
1)Q'arlynd in the "Lady Penitent" series was part of a College of Divination and he latched onto them because Master Seldzsar had deep pockets. How did he make his money?
2) In D&D Manshoon has achieved high ranking as a monster, he was in charge of Zhentil Keep and the Black Network, how did he find the time or the profession to finance his abilities? Where did he get that mask? Did he make it????? Could a 30th level half-orc fighter make it as effectively?
3) Jarlaxle Baenre. He wasn't a pauper
4) Artemis Entreri See above

Why can't someone want their character to reach such heights, and not only have to defeat the monsters in the process, but the rules also. If you want your character to be Drizzt, never going any higher for 15 years that's cool, I don't begrudge you what you want for your character, but why don't I get the same benefit?
Just to be clear, your problem with the change is that the rituals only let you make exactly the items you want from the loot you get as rewards, but doesn't let you abuse the crafting system to make free money?

And that's not true. I can't make exactly what I want, If I want a magical item that goes into a different slot then defined then I can't do it. The suggestion was to make a pair of gloves that would still effectively be a neck item. I understand the conept, but that means I don't get to do what I want. In the end the hone rules will decide, not the attitudes here, but the reality is I'm tired of having to rewrite this game over and over as I have has to for three editions running. (When I say me I'm not talking me personally, but my group)
Yeah because a 20th level character with the ability to make the items is so over powered by the idea that he has the ability to do such things.

Not at all. It's only problematic when it means that the 20th level character somehow ends up equipped like a 30th-level character. That should be obvious.
Is the rogue who can sneak in and out of a crowded bazaar and pickpocket unbalanced? Is the fighter who can be a gladiator and win money by fighting for sport unbalanced?

The difference being twofold:
First, these are mediated by the all-important conflict resolution mechanics, whereas item crafting is automatic. In both of your examples, wealth for having land, and wealth for being able to craft items, you are getting something for nothing.
Second, and relatedly, these are all mediated and, to be frank, initiated by the DM. The DM is setting a difficulty, the DM is determining whether there exist the social structures exist for gladiator combat, the DM is determining whether a pickpocket's mark has anything, and whether there were any extended consequences such as getting caught, running afoul of the local Thieves' Guild, and so forth. The crafting costs and market prices, by contrast, are hard-coded into the game, and if the DM wants to exert authority over this, it's a case of the DM working against the rules-as-written, not as an initiator, but as a preventer. Many DMs, understandably, are less comfortable with using the latter tool, even to prevent abuse.

If you want to have the ability to make money by crafting magic items, doesn't it make sense that you would have to be a magic user? Oh I forgot, now a 3rd level barbarian is as adept at making magical items as a 25th level wizard. They have equal success at making items of their level, and the barbarian doesn't have to know anything about lightning bolt to enchant a sword with a lightning ability, just have the ritual. We will be talking about this in 18 months as part of what 4.5 fixed.

Let me introduce you to a little thing called Norse Myth. Or Greek Myth. Hell, pretty much any mythology features a bit about smiths that make magic weapons without being able to cast spells. Norse Dwarves and Giants worked like this, as do many other friendly fey from European folklore.

Hey, actual comparative mythology too heady for you? Then take Harry Potter, which, having heavily mined European folklore, does the same thing. That thing where the best magic artifacts were all made by goblins, even though goblins were incapable of using wizard magic? Why, that just happens to be exactly the same thing.

Hell, 3.5's Frostburn featured the hilarious Midgard Dwarves, who are in fact cribbed directly from the Norse mythology, but feature a convoluted work-around that makes them the Special Exception to the spellcasting requirements for crafting items. In 4e, it ends up, you just need to give a normal dwarf (or whatever else) the ritual.

But, yeah, you're right, it makes no sense for a Dwarf who doesn't carry around a spellbook to be able to make a hammer with thunder powers. That's never happened in any myth ever, and certainly nolthing like that has ever happened in any licensed D&D adventure or anything.
I do like the fact you left out the 4 count em 4 examples in this realm that contradict your premise, and last I looked, I'm not playing in the Norse realms am I??? Maybe you should read the little comment on RAW and the hypocrisy that follows it, you might see how silly you sound. If you don't like my ideas, don't join us on Tuesday nights NP. Other then that I have a right to my opinion.

3. RAW is a myth.
This is one of the dirty little secrets of the board. The Most Holy RAW is invoked continuously by those who want to give their arguments the veneer of officiality. The problem is, RAW is generally applied not as "The Rules as Written," but rather as "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah." The RAITAYCPIWN. Not quite as catchy an acronym, granted, but that's what it boils down to.

This game cannot be played without interpretation and the judicious application of common sense. Try to play the game strictly and exclusively by the rules as written, and you have an unplayable game.

Using "RAW" as a defense is similarly meaningless--particularly when your defense rests on interpretation. If you're going to claim that your build is RAW, you'd better be able to make sure that the rules specifically uphold your claim...not simply that they're sort of vague and COULD be interpreted in such a way as to not FORBID your claim.

This becomes particularly important when your claim is especially controversial.

Yes, builds should adhere to the rules as written. Yes, any exceptions to that should be noted. But the RAW as some sort of entity unto itself, capable of rendering a build immune to criticism, is not a useful construction, and causes more problems than it solves.

From Warweavers 10 Commandments of Optimization
Back in 2e I was a wizard. We started at 5th level and I had fireball and was thus more effective than most of the party - combined. At 7th level I had polymorph other and could instantly kill pretty much anything.

At 9th level I had magic jar and became a god. I found a creature with high hp and polymorphed him into a clone of myself. Then I stole his body and kept all of his hp, his high Str, Dex, and Con. I traded up again later to the island turtle monster. I found a spell in Tome of Magic that would allow you to give your Str, Dex, or Con to someone else. So I used Magic Jar shenanigans to transfer stats from my serfs to me. This also allowed me to use permanency constantly (in 2e it drained your Con).

You see I took Polymorph other and turned animals into people and I used my magic to create a plateau surrounded by permanent mists and prismatic walls. They worshipped me as a god. Through various wishes I became more powerful than one. The Tome of Magic had rules for becoming one. I declined because I didn't want my power to drop. At one point the DM had the world split open and I fell into the center. I clawed my way out, because afterall I didn't need food, water, or air by that point. The damage of course didn't matter, because I had permanent stoneskin and thus was immune to physical damage.

I did everything by the rules, 100% legit. In 2e wizards were quite powerful.

in 3e wizards took a huge power hit, but they were still very, very powerful.

In 4e wizards took another huge power hit. Now they are just about right.

The problem that you are having is that it can be hard to adjust to not being overpowered.
But, yeah, you're right, it makes no sense for a Dwarf who doesn't carry around a spellbook to be able to make a hammer with thunder powers. That's never happened in any myth ever, and certainly nolthing like that has ever happened in any licensed D&D adventure or anything.

Hey thanks you made my point for me. Bruennor Battlehammer had,
1) money for adventuring
2) The ability to make the items he wanted
3) Ran a city and wasn't restricted in his abilities to leave if he wanted to
4) Charged for profit the items that Mithril Hall made and mined

I apologize, you just helped me immensely
Back in 2e I was a wizard. We started at 5th level and I had fireball and was thus more effective than most of the party - combined. At 7th level I had polymorph other and could instantly kill pretty much anything.

At 9th level I had magic jar and became a god. I found a creature with high hp and polymorphed him into a clone of myself. Then I stole his body and kept all of his hp, his high Str, Dex, and Con. I traded up again later to the island turtle monster. I found a spell in Tome of Magic that would allow you to give your Str, Dex, or Con to someone else. So I used Magic Jar shenanigans to transfer stats from my serfs to me. This also allowed me to use permanency constantly (in 2e it drained your Con).

You see I took Polymorph other and turned animals into people and I used my magic to create a plateau surrounded by permanent mists and prismatic walls. They worshipped me as a god. Through various wishes I became more powerful than one. The Tome of Magic had rules for becoming one. I declined because I didn't want my power to drop. At one point the DM had the world split open and I fell into the center. I clawed my way out, because afterall I didn't need food, water, or air by that point. The damage of course didn't matter, because I had permanent stoneskin and thus was immune to physical damage.

I did everything by the rules, 100% legit. In 2e wizards were quite powerful.

in 3e wizards took a huge power hit, but they were still very, very powerful.

In 4e wizards took another huge power hit. Now they are just about right.

The problem that you are having is that it can be hard to adjust to not being overpowered.

I truly don't have that problem, as most of my characters are fighters and I have been arguing with my 3 group members that wizard are able to defeat fighters easily, and the classes aren't equal. But I'm ok with them not being equal because they are supposed to be different. My character LV is the only spellcaster that I have held onto, and the only one with "delusions of grandeur" I want the rules to reflect that each class is unique, and I have a fundamental problem with the examples I cited previously, that a barbarian is as good at making a magic item then a wiz or a cleric. Yes you'll have the oddity, as in BB from Salvatore, In 2E LV was a 21Cleric/20Wiz. He was godlike also. Now he can't make magic items for profit. Quite a trek if you ask me.
I do like the fact you left out the 4 count em 4 examples in this realm that contradict your premise, and last I looked, I'm not playing in the Norse realms am I??? Maybe you should read the little comment on RAW and the hypocrisy that follows it, you might see how silly you sound. If you don't like my ideas, don't join us on Tuesday nights NP. Other then that I have a right to my opinion.

::Sigh:: You're either missing my point or deliberately ignoring it. D&D is a game that is all about cribbing fantasy and mythological tropes from anything and everything. This is a simple truth. The idea of a craftsman who is so good at his or her work that they can make "special" things that go beyond the handicraft of mere mortals is an old, old trope- Older than Dirt, as a point of fact. Yes, the Dwarves and Elves and Giants from Norsedom (which rather directly lead to the Dwarves and Elves and Giants that we all know and love in D&D, incidentally). It shows up in Greek myth- Daedalus made a number of these, and isn't described as remotely magical, himself. It shows up, extensively, in Tolkien. As I mentioned, Harry Potter cribs obvious sources for this. Masamune and Muramasa had myriad myths about their weapons. And, yes, even in your precious Realms: note that the first page I linked above was to Icewind Dale, a rather well-received video game that uses 2nd-edition rules, and features a non-spellcasting dwarf smith (as all dwarves were non-magical back then, as you'll recall) who crafts a magic weapon out of ice. I could keep on going, this is a very very old conceit, but to be frank, the last edition or two has gotten people caught up in an extremely narrow view of what magic is and how it works.

From Warweavers 10 Commandments of Optimization

Except I was commented one one's willingness to step out of the standard DM's role and go against the written rules to shut down an abuse. I'm not saying RAW is sacrosanct, only that it carries weight to DM adjudication, and that's why it's worthwhile to limit abuse potential in the rules. None of what you quoted really applies to that discussion.
Everybody can make magic items for profit, just like everybody could theoretically pickup any other trade. The point is, that nothing ever should be more profitable than adventuring. And that's the point to it really.

If you ever have reason to say 'I'm going to be lord of the city / enchanting items / picking pockets at the market for the next three years until I have enough money to afford a +5 something' the economy has gone wrong for your game and your DM will probably soon devise a way to strip you from office so you don't get freebies anymore.

As has been said, if within the time from level 20 to level 21 you mysteriously happen not to find any treasure in your adventures but at the same time earn approximately the same amount in taxes / shop revenues, that'd be perfectly fine if it suits your group's style of play. However trying to milk the world economy for free money is essentially cheating and the rules are written in a way to make it easy for DMs to say 'It doesn't work' so they don't end up arguing with their players about economy theory in DnD.

If your DM feels that you are to be rewarded for the strong history of your character, that's probably fine and he might even give you as much as a 50% boost to monetary income it probably wouldn't break the game until you say 'Let's skip a few years and continue play when I can't lift my coffers any more' (which takes a while due to the new AD currency).

As far as creating items as a caster domain goes, Yrogerg made a few good points (though he was a bit rude about it). I always deeply resented the old way of 'You don't have a wizard, then you're screwed in situation X' (where wizard is largely interchangable with other classes depending on situation and level of play). A friend of mine was kind of upset that rogues didn't have exclusive use of Thievery but it makes just as much sense as just needing any leader to heal instead of specifically requiring a cleric. Mind you that casters are still king as it comes to enchanting items. A figher or barbarian would probably need two feats to do it (skill training Arcana or Religion and Ritual Caster), which isn't a cost to disregard as it means just about as much investment as learning some basic combat spellcasting.
And as I said before to your last post, I agree. It's when the whole RAW stuff gets cited that sends knee jerk reactions. My DM hasn't said one way or another yet. I would be fine if he says you get 5K gp for being the head of the city, because the reason I established the city wasn't for money. I was throwing out a formula that I found on this forum and wanted to hear what others said. In Birthright, my domain according to my skill checks would net me 2.12 million gp/year. That is a realm with the economy built in. I don't expect that, but would like to know how others come up with the "you get nothing" premise as there certainly is no formula for that.

As for the casting of the item, there is only 1 prerequisite for making an item, and that is "Enchant Magic Item" and then you don't even need other spells to do that.

Enchant Magic Item
Magic drawn from the warp and weft of the universe infuses
the item you hold in your hands.
Level: 4
Category: Creation
Time: 1 hour
Duration: Permanent
Component Cost: Special
Market Price: 175 gp
Key Skill: Arcana (no check)
You touch a normal item and turn it into a magic item of
your level or lower. The ritual’s component cost is equal to
the price of the magic item you create.
You can also use this ritual to resize magic armor (for
example, shrink a fire giant’s magic armor to fit a halfling).
There is no component cost for this use.

So as a poster added earlier, you don't need any magical ability to infuse the item, or the specific property, or even make an arcana check.
Hey thanks you made my point for me. Bruennor Battlehammer had,
1) money for adventuring
2) The ability to make the items he wanted
3) Ran a city and wasn't restricted in his abilities to leave if he wanted to
4) Charged for profit the items that Mithril Hall made and mined

I apologize, you just helped me immensely

Didn't he make Aegis-Fang while in service to the previous king? That's what it says here, at least. Oops.

Note also that being a 2e Dwarf Fighter, he would be completely non-magical, in every sense of the word. Funny how that managed to work out okay for him, item crafting-wise. I would think that being made of especially magically inert dwarf-fighter-stuff would be one of those insurmountable hurdles to personally crafting a magic item, if we're going to make that argument at all.
Didn't he make Aegis-Fang while in service to the previous king? That's what it says here, at least. Oops.

Note also that being a 2e Dwarf Fighter, he would be completely non-magical, in every sense of the word. Funny how that managed to work out okay for him, item crafting-wise. I would think that being made of especially magically inert dwarf-fighter-stuff would be one of those insurmountable hurdles to personally crafting a magic item, if we're going to make that argument at all.

lol, the gods infused the hammer, there are no gods in 4E that grants spells anymore, now we draw from the astral sea. And as the leader of Mithril Hall, he had CLERICS and WIZARDS to imbue the items. Funny how that worked eh? You still haven't addressed the 4 examples I cited, are you going to only speak to the points that make you look like you're right?
Didn't he make Aegis-Fang while in service to the previous king? That's what it says here, at least. Oops.

Note also that being a 2e Dwarf Fighter, he would be completely non-magical, in every sense of the word. Funny how that managed to work out okay for him, item crafting-wise. I would think that being made of especially magically inert dwarf-fighter-stuff would be one of those insurmountable hurdles to personally crafting a magic item, if we're going to make that argument at all.

lol oops The HE they are referring to was Wulfgar. Have you read the books???

Aegis-fang (derived from the mythical shield Aegis) is the weapon of Wulfgar, son of Beornegar of the Elk tribe. It was forged for him by his adoptive father Bruenor Battlehammer while he was in servitude to the dwarf king.

lol, the gods infused the hammer, there are no godfs in 4E that grants spells anymore, now we draw from the astral sea. And as the leader of Mithril Hall, he had CLERICS and WIZARDS to imbue the items. Funny how that worked eh? Yous till haven't addressed the 4 examples I cited, are you going to only speak to the points that make you look like you're right?

This was before he was the leader of Mithril Hall. That happened after the events of Icewind Dale, and Wulfgar already had Aegis-Fang by then. And Bruenor is no cleric, so who enchanted the hammer?

At any rate, my first reference was to the Icewind Dale video game, which does happen to feature a non-magical dwarf that makes a magic weapon out of special ice.
It's 1 o'clock AM where I am, I'll continue this riveting discussion after you read the books and then you can cite to me all you want about Wulfgar and the dwarven king.
This was before he was the leader of Mithril Hall. That happened after the events of Icewind Dale, and Wulfgar already had Aegis-Fang by then. And Bruenor is no cleric, so who enchanted the hammer?

lol, the gods infused the hammer,

try and keep up
The Icewind Dale Trilogy is a trilogy written by R.A. Salvatore, a SciFi and fantasy author. The events depicted in the trilogy follow the events depicted in The Dark Elf Trilogy, although it was written beforehand. It then continues from the Halfling's Gem onto the next series, Legacy of the Drow. It contains three books: The Crystal Shard, Streams of Silver, and The Halfling's Gem. The trilogy tells the tale of the legendary drow, or dark elf, Drizzt Do'Urden, the mighty barbarian warrior, Wulfgar, the tricky halfling Regis, a dwarf king, Bruenor, and Bruenor's adopted daughter Catti-brie. The first of Salvatore's Forgotten Realms series, it describes the events that created some of the best-known characters in Forgotten Realms. The final book of this series The Halfling's Gem appeared in the New York Times Best seller list. [1]

just incase you were confused
try and keep up

But how? They definitely didn't stop by in person and enchant it for Breunor. That's what spellcasters are for, at least via 2e rules. Wasn't that the whole point of this argument? Non-spellcasters shouldn't be able to make magic items, just because?

Which makes the fact that you jumped to the Icewind Dale trilogy so quickly rather hilarious. Under the ruleset at the time, dwarves couldn't use magic items, much less be spellcasters. Who lived in Mithril Hall, again? Not dwarves, I take it?
just incase you were confused

Thanks, I've read the series. The first time roughly 15 years ago. Wasn't particularly impressed, truth be told. Probably influenced my overall opinion of the Realms as a setting.

However, there was also this video game, also called Icewind Dale? That's what I linked to the first time around, and what I was actually referencing.
As for the casting of the item, there is only 1 prerequisite for making an item, and that is "Enchant Magic Item" and then you don't even need other spells to do that.

So as a poster added earlier, you don't need any magical ability to infuse the item, or the specific property, or even make an arcana check.

You're right but in order to learn and use said ritual you are required to have the aforementioned feat and skill training as a prerequisite. For the same investment of two feats you cold throw a fireball per day instead (Multiclass Wizard and Adept Power to swarp your regular daily for a fireball).

I was surprised by the lack of a skill check, too when I first glanced over the ritual. But then again blowing half a million gold pieces due to a single dice mishap pretty much sucks, too.

Indeed you are required to have magic training to create magic weapons which is represented by your investment in the appropriate feats. Like it or not but years of arcane study can now be replaced by picking a few feats ;)
And my heart hops with joy while I applaud the abolishment of requiring specific spells to create different items. The reasoning that you must be able to create devastating balls of fire out of thin air on a regular basis in order to craft a weapon that is magically hot enough to deal a bit additional fire damage was always dissatisfactory and probably just meant to nerf walking magic armories (guess what, it didn't work).

And really the only reason, the item creation feats actually still exist is so your DM isn't forced to stretch belief by making you always only find magic greataxes (or whatever your only melee characters use) in dungeon loot.
again Countess, we are in agreement.
Sign In to post comments