Bahamut's Budies...Platinum Knight vs Vassal of Bahamut

[Galahad_Knight]

Actually, Ess..that's already explained.
If you don't spend the money wisely (or, presumably, if you break your vows) then you must repay the amount.

And Dragons coming to collect from you is not an idiotic half-baked excuse.
It's right in the class abilities.

If you screw up, there's going to be a couple gold dragons showing up wanting their stuff back. Simple as that.

And considering Bahamut's entry in Deities and Demigods says "His lair is littered with the bones of would-be thieves" I think that's all the encentive in the world to give back anything you bought and/or start caughing up your share of the treasure.
Dragons don't take debtors lightly

[Username17]

Here's what the rules say on enforcing treasure by level:

Monitor the progress of treasure into the hands of the PCs. For instance, you may want to use lots of high-treasure or low-treasure monsters, yet still hand out a normal amount of treasure overall.

So the guidelines indeed suggest that if someone were to get a lump sum award from whatever that in order to maintain balance the DM should set the party against Oozes and other creatures with little to no treasure for a while.

Yeah, as written the Vassal's ability is that he personally gets a portion of the party's upcoming treasure haul in a single strings-attached lump sum upon gaining a level.

Now, an individual DM is free and clear to ignore those guidelines - but making value judgements one way or another about a published class after you have essentially changed the rules for how it works is somewhat sketchy. At that point there is no difference between that and people arguing whether or not various Prestige Classes are broken or underpowered because of how they interact with their house rules core classes.

It probably makes sense from the standpoint of your personal game - but it makes little sense as a standalone rules discussion. In the context of the actual rules and guidelines as actually published - the Vassal's "shared hoard" ability is a modest disadvantage for him and the entire party.

That's what it really says - debates as to "meaning" are subjective and can be directed to the circular file.

-Username17

[Essence]

So instead, if you can't pay them back because you've invested your money in something and don't have any liquid funds, you either get your ass kicked by some dragons, or you have to kill them, which ruins any attempt you had at redeeming yourself and getting back into the class...

...speaking of which, if you could get back into the class, they have to give you the money *back again*.

Which means that, if someone was put into a situation where they had to disobey their superior for whatever reason, they would have to find some way to pay up (or get their ass kicked, assuming they're not willing to kill off the collection crew), then get back into the class, then get the money back. Except that, most likely, in order to pay off the dragons, a character would have to sell a magical item at half the value that he bought it at...which means he has to sell off itemry worth twice the value of the class feature. Which means that when he regains the class, even if they give him the original value of the money back, all they are doing is returning him to where he should be on the wealth-per-level guidelines if he never took the class in the first place...so losing the class and regaining it is largely the same as never having taken it in terms of that class feature.

The whole idea of giving money as a class feature of any class you can lose the abilities from is just painfully and needlessly complicated, even if you assume that the wealth-per-level guidelines are being deliberately circumvented. If they aren't being circumvented (and there's no evidence that they are), it's merely pointless as well as painfully and needlessly complicated.


Essence

[Galahad_Knight]

I still don't buy it. There's a difference between treasure and a class ability.

Why in the hell would a DM dock a player for getting money as a class ability when he has absolutely no problem giving him a super-powered suit of armor for free?

Are you hoinestly suggesting that because a PERK from the class comes in the form of money instead of a physical object, that it must be completely negated? If you give him a 2000GP weapon, that's just fine, but 2000Gp is wrong?

But, wait a sec, you can find armor and weapons in treasure too. So why not dock him for his cool armor too?

The rule was obviously not meant to apply to this situation and it;s downright petty to assume otherwise, especially when it turns a good class into a class that sucks.

[Username17]

Interesting note: in 3.5 you don't lose class abilities of PrCs if you lose the prereqs of the class. In fact, you don't even lose the ability to take more levels of that class.

So if you are evil, become an Assassin, and then think better of it - not only do you not lose your Assassin skills - you don't even lose your ability to take more levels of Assassin. The only thing you need the prereqs for is taking the very first level of the class - taking the second level only requires a pile of XP and the first level.

So if you take a level of Vassal - and then turn EVIL, you can keep taking levels of Vassal - periodically stealing small amounts of platinum from the great sky dragon while lesser Gold Dragons trickle in to try to get it back from you. Only to be impaled upon your blades of fury!

Alternately, you can be a Blackguard, and become Good - and then eventually pick up a Fiendish companion who will feel constantly betrayed by your lethargy in pursuit of villainy.

-Username17

[Username17]

There's a difference between treasure and a class ability.

Not when the class ability is just a pile of treasure.

-Username17

[Galahad_Knight]

1070599530[/unixtime]]So instead, if you can't pay them back because you've invested your money in something and don't have any liquid funds, you either get your ass kicked by some dragons, or you have to kill them, which ruins any attempt you had at redeeming yourself and getting back into the class...

It only says you have to repay the money.
Nowhere does it say the dragons will murder you for not paying back what you don;t have. Nor does it say you have to kill them. It just dsays you have to pay it back.

If you honestly don;t have the money, then you would have to give them a share of whatever you earn, or you;'ll have to do work for them until your debt is paid.

You only end up in clnflict with the dragons if you actively REFUSE to repay themk, which has already killed your chances of getting back into your class.

I cannpot believe how needlessly complicated people are making this.

It's only complex if you mnake it that way, for crying out loud.

The player gets bonus money. In addition to hos normal money.
Simple so far, ne?

He spoends the money wisely, upgrading his gear and whatnot. Still simple.
Class doesn't such as much now.

The power level of the party is not threatened because without the money the class would suck.

You screw up and loose access to the class, or you spend your money unwisely.
You have to pay it back. You can give them whatever you purchased with the money and/or an equal value of treasure, or you could work it off if you had to.

So far we;re not really any more complicated than a paladin who loses his abilities and must work off his spiritual debt in order to atone.

Honestly, it only starts getting complicated if you decide to be petty and screw your player out of a class ability that wasn;t even unbalancing in the first place.

[Galahad_Knight]

1070600090[/unixtime]]

There's a difference between treasure and a class ability.

Not when the class ability is just a pile of treasure.

-Username17

Could you define treasure for me?
If it;s just coins then any time a rogue steals someonels coin purse, an orc destined to e killed loses a few GP.

Also, if it;s just coins, then no magical item in a treasure hoard counts against player wealth.

If it's coins *and* goods then siddenly the more powerful and better-trained a druid's aniomal companion gets, the less money monsters will have.

And we'd be quibbeling about the value of the platinum armor while we're at it.

And every tiune a wizard makes a magic item, he pays half the price in money and half the price in treasure that her will gain in the future.

[Essence]

It only says you have to repay the money.
Nowhere does it say the dragons will murder you for not paying back what you don;t have. Nor does it say you have to kill them. It just dsays you have to pay it back.

This post is intended strictly as a joke. Do not take it seriously.

You're absolutely right. There's no mechanics text attached to the payback.

Which means there's no mechanical effect for not paying it back.

Which means there's no reason to ever do so, since, as Frank pointed out, you aren't unable to keep taking levels in the class just because you don't meet the prerequisites.

Hell, it's like killing the VengeSims in Perfect Dark: if you take this class, take Bahamut's money, disobey orders, and never pay up, you've basically just bought yourself a free ticket to XPville in the form of a never-ending stream of increasingly-powerful gold dragons coming to collect. What more could a munchkin ask for?


Maybe a few levels of Talon of Tiamat to make killing those damn metalheads a bit easier?


Essence

[Maj]

bought yourself a free ticket

[Username17]

I cannpot believe how needlessly complicated people are making this.

By "people" you must mean "Galahad Knight".

The guidelines are simple: if the PCs get a pile of money that exceeds their current wealth/level guidelines for any reason, the party gets relatively smaller piles of money on their next excursions until it balances out.

Lots of classes have "class features" which are either flavor only or outright disadvantageous. Most saliently obvious is the Dying One's "ability" where they frickin die - but also in the running is that Beholder Thrall class where one of your first level abilities is that you have to obey every Beholder that orders you around.

And heck, who can forget that all those classes that turn you into an Outsider generally give you large amounts of DR or agelessness, or both, at the same level - as being an Outsider is just generally sucktastic compared to being a Humanoid.

You are indeed making this vastly overcomplicated. There doesn't need to be some vast conspiracy of secret rules to make otherwise crappy or disadvantageous class features be necessarily beneficial. No special covenant was made that guaranteed you access to classes that don't suck.

I mean, this is the same book that contains the Skylord - a class which every level gives you either a half strength skill focus to Ride that only works on Mounted Combat rolls or a single level increment to your paladin spellcasting - and not both, and nothing else.

Yes, there are ten level PrCs that happen to hand out in ten levels a list of abilities I would feel jilted for getting in three. I don't understand why you think this is such a crushingly large dealio that this one class doesn't give a decent class ability in the same level as it also hands out one of the better vision powers available in the game.

-Username17

[Galahad_Knight]

If the ability sais "A treasure of platinum pieces equal to 100gp per character level appears" then I could now see how that would fall under the *guidelines* on average treasure and whatnot.

But, it's not called a treasure, thus it is not treasure

[Essence]

If it's coins *and* goods then suddenly the more powerful and better-trained a druid's animal companion gets, the less money monsters will have.

Except that there's no translation given between a Druid's companion and money -- because you can't ever buy a Druid's companion. And you can't ever buy a Vassal's platinum armor, because there's no GP value associated with it. So neither of those class features have any relevance to the wealth-per-level guidelines.

And every time a wizard makes a magic item, he pays half the price in money and half the price in treasure that he won't gain in the future.

This is absolutely true. The advantage in item creation feats isn't in the money saved (though it feels like it to the player); it's in being able to choose exactly what items your character will have.

What's more likely: is the GM going to add up the rough GP value of every item a character has, go through and figure out what they acquired through adventuring and what they got from features or item creation, halve the values of the items they made themselves, subtract the values of any items she got due to feats/class features/etc., and then figure out about how much money to keep giving the PCs?
Or is she going to add up the rough GP value of every item a character has, and then figure out about how much money to keep giving the PCs?



Essence

[Essence]

Hey Frank -- where is this "dying one" from? I'm incredibly curious to see the rest of this class...


Essence

[Galahad_Knight]

Since I've established that the vassal's cash isn;t treasure, that means it must be wealth. The only thing I found on wealth in the DMG is a paragraph that reads:

One of the ways in which you can maintain measurable control on PC power is by strictly monitoring their wealth, including their magic items. Table 5-1: Character Wealth by Level is based on average treasure found in average encounters compared with the experience points earned in these encounters. Using that information, you can determine how much wealth a character should have based on her level.

Emphasis mine

So, in fact, there's no rule thaqt says you can;t have more or less wealth than average.
In fact, the term 'average' suggests that some people *will* have more or less than that.

The closest thing is a loose guideline meant as a way of balaincing character *power*.

If your character is not overpowered then his treasure is not an issue.

If the character is overpoweered then the DM *can* if he wishes, start reducing future treasure earned until he's back on average.

But since we've established that the class *sucks* without the bonus money, then this is not an issue.

Thus, the DM *CAN* screw over his player if he wants to, but there's no reason for him to do so within the structure of the class itself.

[Galahad_Knight]

So, in short: If the character gets too big for his brithces then the DM has the *option* of reducing treasure awards to mantain average wealth. The same option applies to every character.

But nowhere does it say that the DM *must* keep all his players exactly on average. The wealth by level table is only there to keep PC power in check. If the PC is not overpowered, then it does not apply

[Username17]

"The Dying" is from AEG's UNDEAD.

You get cursed with a sickness like unto Mummy Rot, and get a bunch of cool abilities while you slowly wither away and die. Onc eyou take the class, you can't stop taking the class. When you get to level 10 - you die.

Don't expect an Epic Level progression for this one.

-Username17

[Username17]

GK - so your basic point is that the DM can change things as he sees fit, and is well within his rights to let you walk off free and clear with 9000 gold worth of platinum whether or not you take this class.

This is true. Trivially so. It's called the Oberoni Fallacy - please shut up now.

-Username17

[Galahad_Knight]

1070602614[/unixtime]]GK - so your basic point is that the DM can change things as he sees fit, and is well within his rights to let you walk off free and clear with 9000 gold worth of platinum whether or not you take this class.

This is true. Trivially so. It's called the Oberoni Fallacy - please shut up now.

-Username17

Not only are you being fantastically rude, you're also misusing the oberoni fallacy and completely missing my point... All at the same time!
God, you're so multitalented!

My point is that nowhere in the rules does it day that the DM MUST make this money go away.

Yes, a DM can habd you 9000 GP if he wants to. But that's not at issue here.

You are arguing that the rules say that the character must have average wealth.
I'm arguing that the ONLY thing that supports your arguement is an optional rule that is meant to be sued only as a way of keeping player power in check.

Since power is not at issue, and there's a REASON for the character to have the money, there's no reason for the DM to take it away.

If you're going to concede a debate, at least have the tact to do it graciously.

Telling me to shut up because you can;t come up with a decent arguement not only fails to endear me to you, but it also does you a disservice. It makes you look petty and childish, and I'm trying not to believe that.

[Username17]

My point is that nowhere in the rules does it day that the DM MUST make this money go away.

The rules also don't say the DM must let you play the class. In fact, the rules specifically don't say that the DM must do anything at all.

That's the Oberoni Fallacy. As soon as you rely upon the DM's all powerful status to make any of the guidelines in the book go away (as indeed everything is simply a guideline in the face of mighty rule zero), you are by very definition right.

And once you predicate your argument on a tautology, you can logically claim anything at all. By arguing from the standpoint "The DM can do anything at all, therefore XXX can be done." you are simultaneously correct and completely full of shit. And that's the Oberoni Fallacy, start to finish.

Any possible discussion of what rules say or do has to be put in the context of the guidelines actually present in the book. It can be put in the alternate context of what a DM could do by changing those guidelines - but then it has significantly less meaning.

And of course, since you are arguing that the money works one way within the context of the DM changing the guidelines of how money works - that reduction in meaning is as close to one hundred percent as makes no odds.

For what it's worth: you are correct. he DM is well within his or her rights to do that. The DM is also equally well within his or her rights to allow Paladins to cast spells like Clerics and Monks to cast spells like Wizards.

-Username17

[Galahad_Knight]

Honestly, Frank...you;re grasping at straws here, and completely misunderstanding what I'm saying.

The guideline isnpt a RULE!
Bu its very nature, what with it being a *guideline* it is subject to subjective use by the DM. You're the one arguing that you can't keep the money, within the guideline. I'm not the one who started that line of thinking.

nor am I citing that the DM can CHANGe any rule or guideline, because he can; But that's not the point here. You can;t start an arguement based on a guideline, then call my counterarguement invalid based upon the SAMe guideline.

If you're right then we shouldn't even be having this conversation because it should never have started. Which means I was right from the beginning.

My point is that the guideline applies only as a means of checking power within a default, average-power setting. If having the money isn't overpowered in an AVERAGE setting, the guideline does not come into play at all.

Yes, a DM could rule that in his setting, giving a paladin full cleric casting isn;t overpoewered. But it WOULD be overpowered in an average setting.

This class, with its bonus money os *not* overpoweered in a standard setting, thus the guideline does not apply. Since we can;t cite individual campaigns or DM decisions we must fall on the law of avcerages.

Considering the averagte power of other PrCs, from which we derive that this class sucks without the money, having the money does not overpower the character. Thus there is no need to call in the guideline, thius it is perfectly fine to keep the money in an average setting.

[Maj]

But don't forget, there are strings attached.
by taking this money, the PC puts himself in debt to a dragon...not just any dragon, a dragon *gawd* who leaves the corpses of theves to rot into bones on the floor of his lair.

I disagree, actually. From what the book says, it sounds a lot like a reward:

At 2nd, 5th, and 8th level, a Vassal of Bahamut recieves a modest lump sum reward for his loyal service.

This would imply to me that the Vassal is being paid because Bahamut is indebted to the Vassal, not the other way around.

[Galahad_Knight]

Well, yes.
Except for the part that says this...

If the money is spent frivelously or unwisely, Bahamut sends a loyal representative [...] to demand repayment.

Likewise, if you break your vows you no longer qualify for the class, which means the money, as a class ability, is lost. Presumably in the afforementioned manner.

while this money is not a loan or anything, it does put the player in debt to Bahamut in that should he misuse the money or break his voes, then he has to repay it.

His debt is good behavior (wise spending and adherence to vows). The money is colateral.

[Maj]

Yeah... Obviously you're rewarded for being good, so if you're not good, then you're not rewarded.

That doesn't seem like a debt, though... More like retail shopping.

I mean, if my friends pay me to make food because they think it's yummy, and then I start making bad food - they're gonna want their money back. Likewise, if I buy a Pocket Dragon, and it arrives broken, I send it back.

[Galahad_Knight]

That's different though.

It;s not a case of "You weren't good today, so you don't get any money" it's a case of "You already have the money, and you've been bad...give it back. All of it, every dime of it. Not just for last time, but since we met."

In this case if, at any point in time, your pocket dragon breaks, you can send gold dragons to make the merchant give you your momey back. And if he's broken his promises to you, the consumer, you can also demand all the money you ever paid him for anything back.
And if he refuses to pay, well...there's the gold dragons to deal with

From the player's perspective it's a bit more serious than simple retail arrangements. But it is a decent analogy.