Post/Author/DateTime	Post
funnymanmike 11-21-06, 08:58 PM	I recently went to Weekend in Ket, i am a new player and these were my first games. At the end we were given a certification sheet for the adventure we played, and on it, said max 450 xp, 345 gp, and we were each given that amount. the question i have is during the adventure if i had found some extra items like a sword or two, could i take it with me, and at the end of the adventure sell it (record it on the sheet), and end up with more than 345gp ? part 2 of that question is if the answer is no, then can i buy stuff to bring the amount of gold down to 345g? part 3 can i just keep the item (non magical) ?
Britt 11-21-06, 09:03 PM	No to all three. The gold on the Adventure Record (AR) takes into account all the treasure found in an adventure. It's an abstracted way of doing it, but it works well for this system. Obviously, in a home game it would work differently and make more sense; but in LG, you need to just imagine that everything you found was sold and you got the money for it.
_m_ 11-21-06, 10:48 PM	basically the AR is wysiwyg. the only real exception is flavour items that have no in game effect. for example, my wiz collects a body part from EVERY monster he has ever killed. hes even got a complete list. however, anything that can have an in game effect is on the AR. if its not, you dont get it.
jstorrie 11-21-06, 11:32 PM	If you know that you've accrued more treasure than the cap (or expect to) you can always spend some of the overflow on consumables to use during the adventure - but you can't take those with you, either, when you're done. They're just for use during the adventure. The cap's the cap. You'll probably find that the most common use of over-cap gold in high level adventures is paying for raise deads, restorations, stone to fleshes and the like.
UMiskatonic 11-21-06, 11:45 PM	This is a fairness issue. There will always be stuff at the end of a mod. Say it's a magical sword. The problem is that there are six of you. So who gets it? Treasure used to be given out as items, and the result was that pushy people got a lot of gear, and nice, altruistic people were at a disavantage. So now you have the option between the 345 gold, or 295 gold and a greatsword with a cool story behind it. Fair for all parties involved.
copper_wyrmling 11-22-06, 12:05 AM	This is a fairness issue. There will always be stuff at the end of a mod. Say it's a magical sword. The problem is that there are six of you. So who gets it? Treasure used to be given out as items, and the result was that pushy people got a lot of gear, and nice, altruistic people were at a disavantage. So now you have the option between the 345 gold, or 295 gold and a greatsword with a cool story behind it. Fair for all parties involved. Mind you, it is a little annoying when (to pick a random example) you have an AR entry that says, "You have been given this silver songbird as a gift by the Archmage Rary himself", but if you actually want to KEEP the songbird, you have to buy it, and the price is prohibitive at the lowest APLs, since you don't get anything like the price of the item in treasure for the mod. My sorcerer would never ever have sold that songbird in-character, but apparently she did so. (Leading to silliness in much later Bright Sands mods, where she explains to followers of Rary that she did their lord a great service, and was rewarded with a personal mark of his favor, which then, um, disappeared.) I agree on the fairness issue. It's just a little annoying sometimes from a flavor perspective.
paigeoliver 11-22-06, 12:58 AM	Also, note that everything automatically gets sold back at half price, even if someone wanted it!! I have decided next time I am in a module with an insane amount of over the cap gold that my whole party is going to buy boats and go rampaging up and down the Nyr Dyv until the convention slot ends.
LGMoses 11-22-06, 01:44 AM	Don't suppose you could spend that overcap gold for yearly payments in a meta-org could u?
Lupo 11-22-06, 02:53 AM	Mind you, it is a little annoying when (to pick a random example) you have an AR entry that says, "You have been given this silver songbird as a gift by the Archmage Rary himself", but if you actually want to KEEP the songbird, you have to buy it, and the price is prohibitive at the lowest APLs, since you don't get anything like the price of the item in treasure for the mod. My sorcerer would never ever have sold that songbird in-character, but apparently she did so. (Leading to silliness in much later Bright Sands mods, where she explains to followers of Rary that she did their lord a great service, and was rewarded with a personal mark of his favor, which then, um, disappeared.) I agree on the fairness issue. It's just a little annoying sometimes from a flavor perspective. yea, been there, done that :D come on, the songbird was only 4 k gold for a nice flavour item. something every second level character can afford easyly ;) . . . . after some more dozen of modules if he does'nt spend a dime. i totally agree, flavour items should not be more than 50 gp, maybe up to 500 gp when enchanted with some "fancy" magic things that are of little actual use and are not game breaking but add to the flavour: e.g. an everburning torch in a special color or material, a signet ring inscribed with arcane mark, a ceremonial masterwork weapon, etc. some things can also be handed out as actual "gifts" without counting against gold cap. most of these items tend to have actual values way below 100 gp or can't be cashed in at all. ciao martin m.
Madfox11 11-22-06, 05:39 AM	LG has to follow the item creation rules of D&D, and those are for balance sake designed with the best magical items in mind and not the flavor ones. Sometimes this results in somewhat overprized items that nobody is going to buy. As for giving stuff for free, it does happen and there are people who think it happens too often ;) Although in those cases it tends to be in the form of a favor and not an item. Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns
Gwumph 11-22-06, 05:57 AM	i couldn't agree more on the flavor items. I.e. u gain access to a book that gives u a +2 to knowledge and nobility rolls. Not game breaking by any stretch of the imagination at any APL. But the cost!! 2,500 GP for a little flavor book, thats adds a +2 to a non-combat hardly used skill!! No-one is going to buy it at that price and it just is a waste of space on an AR
Mommy was an Orc 11-22-06, 08:57 AM	By the way, another question about treasure - what happens when you don't get max treasure, but that's only because treasure is calculated as if there were 6 people. As an example, playing at APL 2, we find a Circlet of Persuasion, but that's the only treasure we find in the mod because we missed something - it should sell for 2250 and there's 5 of us. Do we each get 450 gold(aka max) or do we get 375.
Britt 11-22-06, 09:52 AM	Treasure is always calculated assuming 6 players. Trust me, you wouldn't want to have to recalculate all that as a DM anytime you had 4 or 5 players. It's bad enough doing it for 6 one time as the author.
Mommy was an Orc 11-22-06, 10:07 AM	Treasure is always calculated assuming 6 players. Trust me, you wouldn't want to have to recalculate all that as a DM anytime you had 4 or 5 players. It's bad enough doing it for 6 one time as the author. Why not? You don't need to do it for each item; you only need to do it for the total amount the DM adds up. Multiply the total treasure per person found by 6, divide by the number of players. That's easy to do. Especially given how straightforward it is to divide things by 4 and 5. If you were going to have the members of the party get 999 gold, the total party gold is 5994(999*6). If there are 5 members in the party, everyone would get 1198 instead(5994/5, rounding down)
pedr 11-22-06, 10:16 AM	I believe that this was the procedure either at the start of LG or in previous Living Campaigns. Apparently it led to serious problems where players were unwilling to play on full tables of six (or possibly seven or eight, back then) as they knew they could get more treasure by playing on a table of four or five. This obviously had knock on effects for convention co-ordinators etc. In LG, the same situation was caused by the Year 4 module 'Mad God's Key' which was a joint Dungeon Magazine/Living Greyhawk adventure and gave treasure out based on the number of PCs, and this certainly did result in a reluctance to play tables of six as the module's treasure levels were scaled for four PCs. Of course these problems aren't insurmountable, but they're serious enough to make the current system perfectly understandable, even if it does require the operation of RPGA-logic!
Britt 11-22-06, 01:14 PM	Why not? You don't need to do it for each item; you only need to do it for the total amount the DM adds up. What happens when someone dies in the second combat encounter and are raised at the end of the adventure? Do they get a share of all the treasure? of only the first encounter? of the first two? What if they are not raised at all? Do they "get" shares of treasure and if so, from which encounters? And these are just a few of the problems I can think of off the top of my head; I'm sure there would be plenty of others. Since almost every adventure I've seen meets or exceeds the cap, I don't see that the benefit would at all justify the cost.
Mommy was an Orc 11-22-06, 01:28 PM	I believe that this was the procedure either at the start of LG or in previous Living Campaigns. Apparently it led to serious problems where players were unwilling to play on full tables of six (or possibly seven or eight, back then) as they knew they could get more treasure by playing on a table of four or five. This obviously had knock on effects for convention co-ordinators etc. That should be reasonably easy to solve for two reasons: You're still limited by cap. In the example above, pretend the max GP was 1350 and there were only 4 players. Even though there was 5994, which would be 1498, they only get 1350. The only time the situation comes up is when you're playing with a table that failed to achieve the major objectives of the mod *and* treasure was tight. My understanding, which could be wrong, is that cap used to be a much more flexible concept. Just institute a convention rule - if muster is complicated due to the players, the convention co-ordinator can simply say the rule isn't in effect.
Mommy was an Orc 11-22-06, 01:50 PM	What happens when someone dies in the second combat encounter and are raised at the end of the adventure? Do they get a share of all the treasure? of only the first encounter? of the first two? What if they are not raised at all? Do they "get" shares of treasure and if so, from which encounters? And these are just a few of the problems I can think of off the top of my head; I'm sure there would be plenty of others. The formula is based on number of players, not number of characters who survived the mod. If someone dies, there's still the same number of players. Yes, if only one person survives a mod, they should walk off with a lot of treasure, but for both complexity and player cooperation reasons, it should be based on players(wait, you mean I'll get half gold if I bring his body back, but I'll get cap if I don't? Hmm...)
Britt 11-22-06, 02:15 PM	The formula is based on number of players, not number of characters who survived the mod. If someone dies, there's still the same number of players. That's just what you view to be the basis of the formula. In a home game, it would definitely be based on the number of characters, not players. The purpose of the post wasn't to say it couldn't be done or that there are no answers, just that it would create a bunch of questions that would need answering, and that there would be questions that people disagree on. The only benefit you would get would be a mod every blue moon where the PCs get a couple hundred more gold. Most tables hit the cap and many or most tables have six players, so the benefit would rarely be realized, but the cost (more rules to know) would apply all the time. That doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
chesspiece 11-22-06, 02:24 PM	I'm uncertain about how the /6 is supposed to work in conjunction with over-cap GP spending. If there are 5 PCs and they get 6000gp worth of loot total (the module values it at 1000gp per person) in a 900gp-Cap module, how much is the overcap treasure? Is it 500gp (everyone has 100gp over-cap to spend)? Is it 600gp (everyone including the phantom 6th player has 100gp over-cap to spend)? Is it 1500gp (actual difference between 6000gp and 900gp*5)? If they spend 5000gp to raise a PC, how much is left for each PC? 0gp (1000gp*5 - 5000gp = 0gp/5 = 0gp)? 167gp (6000gp -5000gp = 1000gp/6 = 167gp)? 200gp (6000gp -5000gp = 1000gp/5 = 200gp)? Without Circle instruction, I'd do it in the way that favours the PCs.
Mommy was an Orc 11-22-06, 02:46 PM	That's just what you view to be the basis of the formula. In a home game, it would definitely be based on the number of characters, not players. The purpose of the post wasn't to say it couldn't be done or that there are no answers, just that it would create a bunch of questions that would need answering, and that there would be questions that people disagree on. The only benefit you would get would be a mod every blue moon where the PCs get a couple hundred more gold. Most tables hit the cap and many or most tables have six players, so the benefit would rarely be realized, but the cost (more rules to know) would apply all the time. That doesn't seem like a good idea to me. That's not the only benefit - when you've got a 4-5 player table that has a character death, they get the exact same amount of money that a 6 player table does to afford Raise Dead. If you're at a 4-5 player table that missed 100 gp of treasure, the DM doesn't have to figure out if the mod has over the cap gold or not, which would speed things up. And I would argue strenously that it should not be applied to characters present for complexity reasons. Players is straightforward and simple - you've got 4 players, multiply treasure gained by 1.5. You've got 5 players, multiply by 1.2. But you're still limited by the cap. The DM has to do almost no extra work. Make it characters, complexity skyrockets as you pointed out and it gets confusing.
_m_ 11-22-06, 06:05 PM	back on the flavour text items again: if they have an in game effect, regardless of how small (and id spend 2500 on a +2 knowledge book if it came up), its gonna be expensive. if it has absolutely no in game benefit in any situation, then fine, make it cheap. but if rarys followers say 'here, have a favour and borrow some free equipment' because you have a flavour trinket, then you should hvae gotten that trinket for free.
Mithreinmaethor 11-22-06, 06:26 PM	I doubt it would be very hard for the mod writers to split the gold into 4, 5 or 6 player party amounts. This would only affect over the cap amounts which could help in raising someone or other needed spell castings etc.
_m_ 11-22-06, 07:32 PM	I doubt it would be very hard for the mod writers to split the gold into 4, 5 or 6 player party amounts. This would only affect over the cap amounts which could help in raising someone or other needed spell castings etc. i have to agree with britt on this one. particularly at cons, it would be a real pain dividing gold that didnt ammount to cap between varying numbers of plays, including any subtracted gold for deaths / individual payments that should come out of cap.
Samwise 11-22-06, 07:37 PM	Adventures are not supposed to be written with excessive over cap treasure so everyone can get a free raise dead, remove curse, and miscellaneous healing. If adventures are written with treasure calculated for different party sizes, then you will be right back with the problem of some people demanding 4 player tables so they can get more over cap treasure, and more free healing and other sundries. Then there will be demands for xp to be divided by number of PCs so that groups of 4 can just complete half the adventure to get max xp. Then there will be complaints that the adventures are too tough for the 4 player tables. Then more complaints that 4 player tables are getting excessive rewards. Then more complaints about the complaints. The simplest way to resolve it is to have one gp and xp division no matter how many players or characters or whatever are present.
_m_ 11-22-06, 07:49 PM	Adventures are not supposed to be written with excessive over cap treasure so everyone can get a free raise dead, remove curse, and miscellaneous healing. If adventures are written with treasure calculated for different party sizes, then you will be right back with the problem of some people demanding 4 player tables so they can get more over cap treasure, and more free healing and other sundries. Then there will be demands for xp to be divided by number of PCs so that groups of 4 can just complete half the adventure to get max xp. Then there will be complaints that the adventures are too tough for the 4 player tables. Then more complaints that 4 player tables are getting excessive rewards. Then more complaints about the complaints. The simplest way to resolve it is to have one gp and xp division no matter how many players or characters or whatever are present. well said.
Mommy was an Orc 11-22-06, 08:04 PM	Adventures are not supposed to be written with excessive over cap treasure so everyone can get a free raise dead, remove curse, and miscellaneous healing. Raise Dead is more expensive per character at smaller tables, regardless of whether or not there is over the cap treasure. As a simple example, if a 6 player table gets 6000 gold and the 4 player table gets 4000 gold at APL 6, the 6 player table can afford to pay for the Raise Dead from the treasure gained from the mod, the 4 player table cannot. (edit: and if the problem is complaints from 4 player tables about excessive over the cap gold, there's a real easy way for the Circle to deal with that...) That doesn't make it free... The simplest way to resolve it is to have one gp and xp division no matter how many players or characters or whatever are present. If players complain or make muster difficult, the con organizer simply says the rule doesn't apply. Or if the Circle wants to not put it on the con organizer, simply say that if there are more than 3 tables with less than 6 in a slot, then the rule doesn't apply.
Arinaad 11-22-06, 08:13 PM	Here here. As an author (mostly retired) I can say for certain that writing mods is enough work without having to slap around a tonne of extra math trying to get multiple APLs & multiple Characters/players calculated. There are a lot of time restraints most of the time, and the added burden (ok, trivial as it seems) is more work than an author wants to worry about. Having played at several tables with rediculously stingy players (ones that wont spend 750 gp for a wand of CLW at ANY APL) I know there would be a lot of problems with subdividing and such with them. I for one, as a player and as a judge, don't want to deal with that crap. Arinaad
Samwise 11-22-06, 08:17 PM	Raise Dead is more expensive per character at smaller tables, regardless of whether or not there is over the cap treasure. As a simple example, if a 6 player table gets 6000 gold and the 4 player table gets 4000 gold at APL 6, the 6 player table can afford to pay for the Raise Dead from the treasure gained from the mod, the 4 player table cannot. That doesn't make it free... Not if the amount of treasure is divided by the number of characters. Then the 4 player table will get more overcap gold per person than a 6 player table, and the same amount of overcap gold combined. And depending on circumstances, it may be more beneficial to have each individual get more overcap gold, causing the problem. If players complain or make muster difficult, the con organizer simply says the rule doesn't apply. Or if the Circle wants to not put it on the con organizer, simply say that if there are more than 3 tables with less than 6 in a slot, then the rule doesn't apply. You can't have rules used or not used as convenient by con organizers. Even a situational breakdown like that will cause chaos when game day organizers start getting harassed about the rules. It wouldn't be worth the effort to write the rule, phrase it to avoid chaos, make sure it is understood, and have everyone run events by it.
Mommy was an Orc 11-22-06, 09:41 PM	Not if the amount of treasure is divided by the number of characters. Then the 4 player table will get more overcap gold per person than a 6 player table, and the same amount of overcap gold combined. And depending on circumstances, it may be more beneficial to have each individual get more overcap gold, causing the problem. Right. But usually, it is more beneficial to allow for the possibility of a specific action(such as a free casting of a particular spell). Honestly, I don't get the sense that LG cares that there is too much over the cap gold. I know you do, but there was a single NPC who generated over the cap gold with one item this year. And he had a twin brother who doubled it. And that wasn't even all the treasure in the mod. You can't have rules used or not used as convenient by con organizers. Even a situational breakdown like that will cause chaos when game day organizers start getting harassed about the rules. It wouldn't be worth the effort to write the rule, phrase it to avoid chaos, make sure it is understood, and have everyone run events by it. Well, then use it always. I just don't see people flocking to play 4 player tables on the possibility that they might get to play over the cap gold. In many mods, 4 player tables means the likelihood of TPK rises dramatically...
_m_ 11-22-06, 10:34 PM	Well, then use it always. I just don't see people flocking to play 4 player tables on the possibility that they might get to play over the cap gold. In many mods, 4 player tables means the likelihood of TPK rises dramatically... tru, but the more likely a tpk is, the more likely some people are to play. i love games where i'll probably die. :D + if you''re the only one who survives, it would be full party treasue divided by 1... you could buy just about anything you wanted with that much overcap, including rezz's for everyone else :D (yeah i know, it dont work like that, but shhhh)
Samwise 11-22-06, 10:37 PM	Right. But usually, it is more beneficial to allow for the possibility of a specific action(such as a free casting of a particular spell). Honestly, I don't get the sense that LG cares that there is too much over the cap gold. I know you do, but there was a single NPC who generated over the cap gold with one item this year. And he had a twin brother who doubled it. And that wasn't even all the treasure in the mod. Well, looking at COR5 adventures, except the two I'm missing, and with hefty rounding, I see: 5 at or barely over cap 1 up to 350 over cap 2 up to 1,000 over cap 1 up to 1,500 over cap 2 up to 2,000 over cap 1 up to 3,000 over cap 2 up to 5,000 over cap 1 up to 7,000 over cap 1 up to 13,000 over cap 1 up to 20,000 over cap 1 up to 24,000 over cap (and a minimum of 10,000 over cap) Naturally those are only at the highest APLs, but it looks like a majority of adventures offer a free raise dead, and several can raise multiple PCs. If there was a lot less this year, I'd take that as an indication that people in LG care about constant treasure over cap. Well, then use it always. I just don't see people flocking to play 4 player tables on the possibility that they might get to play over the cap gold. In many mods, 4 player tables means the likelihood of TPK rises dramatically... I think we both know how many people insist on playing up no matter what. The problem is not how many of those people who demand 4 player tables get their TPKed, but how many people they force out of slots by refusing to play 6 player tables at events.
clannagh 11-23-06, 11:33 PM	This is a follow on question from another thread .... The party is staying over at the Purple Spotted Dragon in City Greyhawk before setting out the next day to risk life and limb on some valiant quest or other. In the morning they intend to do a little shopping first. The party bard decides to perform at the Inn and earn some extra ( over cap ) gold to pick up a few more scrolls and potions just in case. After all if they are not used its no great loss. Would you use the LGCS calculations for money earned on perform checks to work out what gold they earn ?
funnymanmike 11-23-06, 11:46 PM	yeah does using your skills like crafting + spending time unites allow you to go over the cap??
Arvagor 11-24-06, 12:08 AM	The party bard decides to perform at the Inn and earn some extra ( over cap ) gold to pick up a few more scrolls and potions just in case. After all if they are not used its no great loss. Would you use the LGCS calculations for money earned on perform checks to work out what gold they earn ?Somewhat up to your DM, IMO, but per the LGCS, page 51:Using these skills or professions during an adventure is allowed but does not increase the maximum gold earned cap for the APL played at.I.e., if you earn the gold during the adventure, you can spend it on whatever you like, but if you don't use it, you can't keep it at the end of the adventure, unless you pay for it with the gold marked in the red "GP Gained" box on your AR. Note that the LGCS DCs are for 1 TU's worth of work (Perform, Craft, etc.). For a few hours performance, such as what you'd be able to do at the tavern the night before setting out, you're not going to earn even a potion's worth of gold. The PHB lists a maximum DC of 30, resulting in an "Extraordinary performance. In a prosperous city, you can earn 3d6 gp/day." Depending on the size of the town, the actual take can be much smaller.