Libris Mortis Grafts: the legal way of short chanigng your players

[elliott20]

on p79 of Libris Mortis, it states that grafts are difficult, if not out right impossible, to harvest and recover as treasure. However, it also states that it still does count against the wealth for that particular creature.

I'm aware that a stingy GM could just, you know, not give out treasure, but apparently this is a legal way of not giving the players useful treasure. Thoughts?

[Boci]

There were already ways. Make the NPCs gear aligment, class and race specific. Now its cheaper and the PCs most probably cannot use it. Vow of powerty has the same affect.

[Xenogears]

on p79 of Libris Mortis, it states that grafts are difficult, if not out right impossible, to harvest and recover as treasure. However, it also states that it still does count against the wealth for that particular creature.

I'm aware that a stingy GM could just, you know, not give out treasure, but apparently this is a legal way of not giving the players useful treasure. Thoughts?

There are also a lot of better grafts in the Fiend Folio. They also bear that phrase.

[Mushroom Ninja]

There were already ways. Make the NPCs gear aligment, class and race specific. Now its cheaper and the PCs most probably cannot use it. Vow of powerty has the same affect.

Or there's the traditional "All enemy NPCs are VoP builds, Artificiers who spent all their money and craft reserve on golems which they boost with infusions, and Kensi who spent most of their money on stat-boost tomes/wish castings"

[Foryn Gilnith]

There were already ways. Make the NPCs gear aligment, class and race specific. Now its cheaper and the PCs most probably cannot use it. Vow of powerty has the same affect.

UMD can bypass that (yay rogue!). Artificers can still disenchant those. Verisimilitude issues are raised by having the PCs constantly face alignment/race/class-homogeneous groups. Vow of Poverty requires Extremely Good, making it unfeasible for many adversaries.

But those are valid. Similarly, grafts are a valid way to give classed NPCs the wealth (i.e. power) they deserve to be challenging, while not overpowering PCs.

[faceroll]

Verisimilitude issues are raised by having the PCs constantly face alignment/race/class-homogeneous groups.

What issues, exactly?

[Boci]

Verisimilitude issues are raised by having the PCs constantly face alignment/race/class-homogeneous groups.

I don't see why. The NE half-elf / bard has gear that can only be used by a NE half-elf bard, the TN human / sorceror has gear that can only be used by a TN human sorceror, ect.

[lsfreak]

Incarnum is great for this. Not because (totemists especially) don't use items, they just don't need to quite as much. The GM can get away with equipping them with less items than, say, a fighter.

Another thing to keep wealth unavailable is not having everything on the NPC's at the same time - a wizard sure as hell won't walk everywhere with his best spellbook, and both the wealthy and the sneaky likely have a good portion of their wealth stashed in guild vaults or the like.

[Boci]

Another thing to keep wealth unavailable is not having everything on the NPC's at the same time - a wizard sure as hell won't walk everywhere with his best spellbook, and both the wealthy and the sneaky likely have a good portion of their wealth stashed in guild vaults or the like.

The wizard's spell book I get, but what is gthe point of an NPC having some wealth that is stashed away to keep the PCs from gaining too much loot? They may as well just not have it.

[drengnikrafe]

I don't see why. The NE half-elf / bard has gear that can only be used by a NE half-elf bard, the TN human / sorceror has gear that can only be used by a TN human sorceror, ect.

A wizard did it.

That being said, my theorized justification for this is that item has it's own alignment, and makes anyone who isn't that feels too sick to use it, the class is from class training that teaches a certain style of skill, and the race is from... Umm... I think magically atuned to a certain person makes more sense than all those restrictions. I suppose the same class/race/alignment (all together) would make a mind feel similar.

[Sinfire Titan]

Incarnum is great for this. Not because (totemists especially) don't use items, they just don't need to quite as much. The GM can get away with equipping them with less items than, say, a fighter.

Another thing to keep wealth unavailable is not having everything on the NPC's at the same time - a wizard sure as hell won't walk everywhere with his best spellbook, and both the wealthy and the sneaky likely have a good portion of their wealth stashed in guild vaults or the like.

+1, but when I send Meldshapers at my party I at least make sure that they can recover their WBL.


Seriously, if I want to be a jerk and gimp their characters, I'll do it some other way than tampering with the (largely irrelevant) WBL charts. I'll just send real threats at them in situations where their builds are relatively weak.

I won't deny them their treasure. Even Evil has standards.

[Rainbownaga]

The wizard's spell book I get, but what is gthe point of an NPC having some wealth that is stashed away to keep the PCs from gaining too much loot? They may as well just not have it.

Actually, this is much fairer than the other options, in my opinion. Having additional loot that is not being carried both makes sense, and opens up the possiblity that the pc's will be able to track down the hidden trove, whether or not they actually do so.

Note that none of these tricks really matter since characters assume wealth-by-level; pretty much any 'monster' fits this catagory as well. The really evil thing is to give them Vorpal Double-bladed Swords and the like, which effectively cut their treasure in half since they only get the resale value instead of the full value.

[Ashiel]

The easiest way to "shortchange" characters is to equip enemies with consumable items. This can also make them very difficult encounters to challenge party members while avoiding over-funding parties who overcome the challenges. Potions and oils, wands and staves, and similar items are notoriously good for this sort of thing.

For example, instead of carrying around magic weapons, you throw lot of oils of greater magic weapon at caster level X (appropriate to the level of +X you want), and have them apply the oils before fighting. Such spells last a long time, so if the enemy has any indication that the party is coming (IE - hear fighting down the hall, or are waiting in ambush, etc), then the enemy will be equipped with exceptionally nice gear. The joke is the gear turns out to be entirely mundane and surprisingly not even of masterwork variety. Also, the potions were consumed when they used them, so that's a portion of the treasure lost in battle.

Wands and scrolls are like this. An adept with a wand of lightning bolt with 1 charge left has 225gp worth of equipment there, but each casting not only grants the adept a powerful AoE attack, but also reduces the adept's equipment values by -225gp.

Worst yet, such consumables are also very likely to be favored by bad guys. They're fairly cheap, and if your enemies kill your minions it makes it harder for them to use their equipment against you.

Other examples are staves of power or magi, since the NPC can choose to break the staff if their health drops too low to suicide bomb the area while destroying a very, very nice piece of equipment.

There are other ways but this is probably the most realistic and rational set of examples I find which do this effectively (be that good or bad).

[lsfreak]

The wizard's spell book I get, but what is gthe point of an NPC having some wealth that is stashed away to keep the PCs from gaining too much loot? They may as well just not have it.

I might not have been clear. My point is that it's not necessarily underhanded of the DM simply to deny the PC's equipment, because it's perfectly reasonable that the NPC's they fight won't have 100% of their wealth invested in items for the PC's to take. Stashed in a vault waiting for another 2000gp so said NPC can upgrade a weapon, 1000gp invested in a nice house in the city. NPC's are not going to universally invest everything merely into their fighting equipment as PC's do. Parts of it might be elsewhere and unavailable (which the DM doesn't really need to figure out, I was just giving examples).

EDIT: And just to clarify, I'm not saying screw the PC's out of their gear. Just that if the DM realized the characters are getting too powerful, or if the DM tells the PC's ahead of time that money won't come as easily, there's excusable reasons to not have wealth available above just "I'm not giving you loots."

[Boci]

Wands and scrolls are like this. An adept with a wand of lightning bolt with 1 charge left has 225gp worth of equipment there, but each casting not only grants the adept a powerful AoE attack, but also reduces the adept's equipment values by -225gp.

An artificer with double wand wielder, reckless wand wielder, using metamagic spell trigger to empower said wands, thus draining 4 charges with the first wand used and 5 with the second.


I might not have been clear. My point is that it's not necessarily underhanded of the DM simply to deny the PC's equipment, because it's perfectly reasonable that the NPC's they fight won't have 100% of their wealth invested in items for the PC's to take. Stashed in a vault waiting for another 2000gp so said NPC can upgrade a weapon, 1000gp invested in a nice house in the city. NPC's are not going to universally invest everything merely into their fighting equipment as PC's do. Parts of it might be elsewhere and unavailable (which the DM doesn't really need to figure out, I was just giving examples).

EDIT: And just to clarify, I'm not saying screw the PC's out of their gear. Just that if the DM realized the characters are getting too powerful, or if the DM tells the PC's ahead of time that money won't come as easily, there's excusable reasons to not have wealth available above just "I'm not giving you loots."

Okay, I understand now.

[elonin]

Let me just point out that in more than a couple of games I've been made to feel poor due to tricks like this.

[Ashiel]

An artificer with double wand wielder, reckless wand wielder, using metamagic spell trigger to empower said wands, thus draining 4 charges with the first wand used and 5 with the second.

A more advanced example of what I was suggesting earlier. In this case the character is not only more powerful for the equipment he/she/it carries, but also consumes or destroys that power faster. If the party members do not put the opponent down quickly, or find an indirect way of removing their foe, they will expend valuable resources while diminishing the value of their potential reward.

While it's probably a dirty trick, this situation is exceptionally useful for dealing with the problem of players who have too much money. Humanoid or classed NPCs are notorious for pushing character WBL far over the expected values. This is a very effective method for returning balance to the game.

[Grumman]

While it's probably a dirty trick,
Yes, it is. Unless you're fighting against the local equivalent to kamikaze pilots, they should be equipping themselves as if they expect to survive. This means that unless they're going nova every battle and hoping they get enough loot to replace their single-use items (which is still going to leave them drastically below the NPC WBL), they should be equipped the same way PCs equip themselves: with reusable items.

[Xenogears]

Yes, it is. Unless you're fighting against the local equivalent to kamikaze pilots, they should be equipping themselves as if they expect to survive. This means that unless they're going nova every battle and hoping they get enough loot to replace their single-use items (which is still going to leave them drastically below the NPC WBL), they should be equipped the same way PCs equip themselves: with reusable items.

Or if they're being outfitted by their evil overmaster who secretely knows they are going to die but tells them that he is giving them this epic loot to kill the PC's with even though in reality he is expecting it to be a suicide strike.

[Coidzor]

Or if they're being outfitted by their evil overmaster who secretely knows they are going to die but tells them that he is giving them this epic loot to kill the PC's with even though in reality he is expecting it to be a suicide strike.

That only works when he wants the PCs to succeed for a little while and knows about them in advance.

And doesn't address things about what happens once he actually wants them dead.

[Temotei]

There were already ways. Make the NPCs gear aligment, class and race specific. Now its cheaper and the PCs most probably cannot use it. Vow of powerty has the same affect.

How wrong that is. :smallamused:

[Xenogears]

That only works when he wants the PCs to succeed for a little while and knows about them in advance.

And doesn't address things about what happens once he actually wants them dead.

You mean blowing a ton of money to outfit an expendable minion with limited use items intending for him to go for broke (hopefully killing the PC's but at the least ensuring they get no loot for their win) isn't wanting to kill them?

[Vaynor]

If you don't want to give players treasure from an encounter, don't.

No need for silly grafts.

[Xenogears]

If you don't want to give players treasure from an encounter, don't.

No need for silly grafts.

But. But.... Grafts are one of my favorite things in DnD...

[Vaynor]

But. But.... Grafts are one of my favorite things in DnD...

Well I'm not saying don't use grafts on your villains, but it just seems completely unnecessary as a means of withholding loot from the party.

[Xenogears]

Well I'm not saying don't use grafts on your villains, but it just seems completely unnecessary as a means of withholding loot from the party.

Oh I realized that. I just felt the need to express my love of taking my enemies flesh and making it my flesh. Or whatever their body is made of. Im not picky.

[Sinfire Titan]

Yes, it is. Unless you're fighting against the local equivalent to kamikaze pilots, they should be equipping themselves as if they expect to survive. This means that unless they're going nova every battle and hoping they get enough loot to replace their single-use items (which is still going to leave them drastically below the NPC WBL), they should be equipped the same way PCs equip themselves: with reusable items.

The MIC made this nice and easy with psuedo-consumable items.

[kjones]

+1, but when I send Meldshapers at my party I at least make sure that they can recover their WBL.


Seriously, if I want to be a jerk and gimp their characters, I'll do it some other way than tampering with the (largely irrelevant) WBL charts. I'll just send real threats at them in situations where their builds are relatively weak.

I won't deny them their treasure. Even Evil has standards.

I'm not interested in denying my players treasure, but I don't want to limit their treasure findings to stuff that the NPCs were using. Most of that ends up as D&D's equivalent of "vendor trash". I'd rather limit item use for NPCs and give them stuff I know they'll use.

[jiriku]

Expendable items are actually a great means of optimizing low-level NPC opponents to make them effective against powergaming players. A potion of bull's strength, cat's grace, or bear's endurance, used before the battle begins, duplicates an item that would normally cost 16,000gp. For a low-level noncaster NPC, a potion of invisibility is probably his best bet for escaping a battle that isn't going well. The value of scrolls of magic vestment or greater magic weapon has already been mentioned.

All of this is entirely independent of WBL, since as DM you can compensate for poor NPC loot by increasing quest rewards, if you so desire. However, if you do want to limit loot from classed NPCs, my philosophy is never use a +1 weapon when masterwork will do, and never use a masterwork weapon when a normal one will do. +1 weapons are a terrible deal for a low-level NPC anyhow: the money could be better spent on a brace of potions or a wand, either of which might last many encounters.

[Lapak]

Yes, it is. Unless you're fighting against the local equivalent to kamikaze pilots, they should be equipping themselves as if they expect to survive. This means that unless they're going nova every battle and hoping they get enough loot to replace their single-use items (which is still going to leave them drastically below the NPC WBL), they should be equipped the same way PCs equip themselves: with reusable items.Only if the NPCs are, themselves, metagaming. In logic that is internal to the game world, choosing to invest in consumables that allow you to nova much more powerfully than permanent items makes a significant amount of sense - combat is DANGEROUS. Avoiding combat as much as is humanly possible and being able to absolutely unload on enemies when it does come up is an entirely rational thing for people in the gameworld, who don't have a concept of the XP mechanic. They don't think 'I need to be able to fight 13 challenging encounters to become more powerful,' they think 'I need not to die.' Let's say you're a villain who wants to take over the city council, but there is some chance that you'll be confronted by vigilante adventurers along the way. You can upgrade your sword to masterwork with 300 gold, giving you a slight boost in hand-to-hand combat, or you can buy a Potion of Invisibility with the same 300, drink it at the first sign of danger, and avoid combat entirely. Or if you are going to fight, a potion of Bull's Strength gives you twice as much to-hit AND a bonus to damage.

Consumables make a lot of sense for anyone who doesn't make a career of combat. Bandits should invest in permanent upgrades; mercenaries certainly should, as should warlords and bodyguards and so on, whether they use magic or muscle to do their job. But thieves and scoundrels and masterminds shouldn't, and strike squadrons or commando groups shouldn't, and a whole array of other people shouldn't.

[Curmudgeon]

There are assumptions behind some of the arguments here that aren't being stated.

NPCs have only about 30% of the wealth of PCs of the same level. Does this mean they only want to live 30% as much as PCs do?
PCs have an expectation of some number of encounters with monsters/NPCs daily, so they ration their supplies accordingly. What's the average number of daily encounter with PCs for NPCs? If it's only 1/4 days, shouldn't the NPCs use up more of their supplies per encounter?

[sonofzeal]

Be aware that grafts are thorny. At some point in 3.5's development, they radically changed the way Grafts were handled but didn't update the old rules or even try for compatibility.


OLD STYLE GRAFTS

-Fiend Folio (Aboleth, Illithid, Beholder, Fiendish, Maug, Undead, Yuan-Ti)
-Libris Mortis (Undead)
-Lords of Madness (Aboleth, Illithid, Silthilar)
-Serpent Kingdoms (Yuan-Ti)
-Underdark (Illithid)

- All created by a single "Craft Graft" feat, but there special restrictions on who can make each graft.
- Don't have any item slot association at all (and often none is possible)
- Fleshwarper uses this system, by allowing you to by bypass the restrictions.



NEW STYLE GRAFTS

-Magic of Eberron (Deathless, Elemental, Plant)
-Races of the Dragon (Dragon)
-Faiths of Eberron (Construct)

- Created by a different feat for each type
- Limit of 5 grafts total
- Can't have grafts of two different types
- Grafts have item slots, and two grafts can't share a slot (but can share with a regular item).
- Grafts cost a certain number of hitpoints, and may impose an ability score penalty
- Gain a synergy bonus if you have several grafts of the same type
- Doesn't work at all with Fleshwarper, as it doesn't gain the necessary feats.


Recommendation: Old-Style Grafts and New-Style Grafts should be considered totally separate things. New-Style Graft rules apply to New-Style Grafts, and you get the added benefit of synergy between grafts of the same type. Old-Style Grafts meanwhile should continue acting the way they always have, and are subject to none of the new limitations. Alternatively, talk to your DM. YMMV.