Post/Author/DateTime	Post
nightmareoracle 03-27-07, 05:47 PM	Hiya All, I just read the article entitled "Loot" on the D&D homepage and am more then a little worked up about it. I have been playing D&D for almost 2 decades and have been in every role and almost every situation. And yes, I have colected much, much loot. The first thing that bothered me was the PC complaining about the loot not being for his class. I'm sorry, but with the advent of 3rd edition, class restraints are almost nonexistant. Your bard could learn to use a halberd if he/she wanted to. And heck, the bard might even make a more effective front-line then the fighter if his skills are used correctly, so that ring of protection could apply as well. Stop complaining and be creative. And you could always sell something. Second, there is no reason that one PC should get an item before another can claim it. Honestly, there is no way that a group could filter through a dragons hoard without someone picking up something the other could use. If my paladin found a dagger of backstabbing first, then he has the dagger, It is up to him if he wants to give it to the rogue. I created a unique way of treasure dispersion to avoid the, "that sword is mie!" issue. I put al the treasure in an encounter, along with al the relevant carry out props (discarded bones, hides, trash, etc.) onto little folded pieces of paper. The pcs then rolled initiative and proceeded to choose items out of a hat based upon initiative. When they got something someone else wanted, they could do with it what they wanted. I had one enterprising rogue sell items he didnt want to other pcs, basing how much gold he got on how much they wanted the item. In conclusion, pcs shouldn't gripe. Be inventive with your items, trade 'em off. There is no reason anyone should have a feeling like they aren't getting what they want, noone may get what they want. Half of role-playing is what you do with what you have/get, not magic-item grinding and aways getting what you want.
CharlieRock 03-27-07, 05:53 PM	I ran off fake 'money' before. But that was because players weren't keeping track (at least, not to my standard.) Really havn't gotten around to spray painting poker chips ,yet. But something I want to try.
Onikani 03-27-07, 05:57 PM	I created a unique way of treasure dispersion to avoid the, "that sword is mie!" issue. I put al the treasure in an encounter, along with al the relevant carry out props (discarded bones, hides, trash, etc.) onto little folded pieces of paper. The pcs then rolled initiative and proceeded to choose items out of a hat based upon initiative. When they got something someone else wanted, they could do with it what they wanted. I had one enterprising rogue sell items he didnt want to other pcs, basing how much gold he got on how much they wanted the item. YOINKED!!!! Awesome idea for big hordes... :cookie:
Crimson_Concerto 03-27-07, 06:03 PM	My PCs are fortunately mature enough to handle treasue distribution without much difficulty. They usually appraise the gp value of items in game and distribute so that everybody has an equal share. There have been times when a PC wanted more of a share, because some items were just very appropriate for them, but then they get docked in the future to make up for it, and it always works out fine. I guess we're lucky we've never had a PC who wanted to keep everything he found for himself, and if we did, I imagine we'd deal with it as an out of character courtesy issue, not in-character excuses.
DarkRhystar 03-27-07, 06:06 PM	The first thing that bothered me was the PC complaining about the loot not being for his class. When George and Anne each find a treasure, split it equally, and George is forced to sell part of his since he can't use it... there is inequality. When George finds an item that he cannot or for other reasons will not use, he is forced to sell it off. This leads to inequality. You can say the PCs should find inventive uses or just "trade 'em off" but you're still left with a slightly unfair situation and a bad taste in someone's mouth. In a good DM's game, these inequities often correct themselves and it simply becomes a matter of patience. In a bad DM's game where the DM simply says "You get what you get" and problems such as these may persist, the players are fully justified in complaining. Second, there is no reason that one PC should get an item before another can claim it. Most groups I've played with simply say "Does anyone need/want this?" and that's it. If your players are fighting tooth and nail for every item that tells me two things: treasure distribution is seen as neither adequate nor equal. This can reflect poorly on the players, the DM, or both.
UAMDB 03-27-07, 06:21 PM	If your players are fighting tooth and nail for every item that tells me two things: treasure distribution is seen as neither adequate nor equal. This can reflect poorly on the players, the DM, or both. I had problems with players wanting everything that was found for themselves. But then I left Junior High and went to High School and the problems stopped. I point is that kind of problem typically happens in groups where the players are immature. Not always, but most of the time. Its the same as Pkilling. After I graduated High school and went to college (several years ago) I never had a party that wanted to Pkill. They saw it as a waste of energy.
Kyoti00 03-27-07, 06:33 PM	In our group it's real simple. The DM prints of all of the unique treasure, he reads the description and the abilities, there is no GP value, we all get a change to see the items and see what we want most, then we go around the table and pick loot. If two people want the same thing, or three or four for that matter, we roll off and high roll gets the item. If for some reason a person wants more items than the rest, or if something doesn't really fit, the player can either take an additional pick and forego a potentially better pick next time, or forego a pick this time for an uncontested first pick next time. All coin/gems is devided evenly. We are very much need before greed, and I feel sorry for groups that fight over a hoard.
Drag0nUL 03-27-07, 06:36 PM	I am fortunate enough not to have any loot problems in any of the two groups I am currently playing. We usually divide the loot by the following three rules(not explicitly stated, but mostly agreed upon by everyone): 1. If somebody needs something he will get it. For example, about 2 weeks ago the party(level 2) came across some loot consisting of a +1 half plate and some minor items. We have a cleric and a paladin that could use heavy armor, but the paladin didn't like the idea of wearing black spiked armor,so the armor went to the cleric. despite that fact putting him way ahead of us in wealth. 2. If it is an item of general use to the party(such as a Daern's Instant Fortress or Decanter of Endless Water) it usually goes to a random party member(usually by agreement or decided by dice if more players want it). 3. Everything else goes to the shop,the loot being split more or less evenly, depending mostly on immediate needs(if a character needs something urgently-like a restoration- it is usually bought from the party pool and the the rest is shared). So far we have gone without any significant arguments regarding the loot(well there was one in a previous campaign, when both the CE barbarian and the LE Dwarven Defender fought over a +1 flaming vorpal greatsword, but this was an exception)
CharlieRock 03-27-07, 06:43 PM	When George and Anne each find a treasure, split it equally, and George is forced to sell part of his since he can't use it... there is inequality. Why? George has simply to commision the construction of a new item with the proceeds from selling the unwanted item. In fact, given the amount of choice George has over his item-to-be he has a (slight) advantage over Anne now.
DarkRhystar 03-27-07, 06:49 PM	Why? George has simply to commision the construction of a new item with the proceeds from selling the unwanted item. In fact, given the amount of choice George has over his item-to-be he has a (slight) advantage over Anne now. This would be true if the D&D buy/sell ratio was even.
UAMDB 03-27-07, 06:51 PM	Why? George has simply to commision the construction of a new item with the proceeds from selling the unwanted item. In fact, given the amount of choice George has over his item-to-be he has a (slight) advantage over Anne now. Except he sells for half price, and buys for full price. He also has to be in a town large enough to be able to purchase said item.
fatal error 03-27-07, 06:51 PM	Why? George has simply to commision the construction of a new item with the proceeds from selling the unwanted item. In fact, given the amount of choice George has over his item-to-be he has a (slight) advantage over Anne now. Except George lost half the item's value in selling it. I usually make customs items, generally by taking a stock item and tacking on some minor effects, and make sure that someone in the party will find it useful. I mean, if you hit a big horde then sure, items that you can't use are fine. But I usually only give out a couple items an adventure, and who's suspension of disbelief is taking a critical from actually being able to use a piece of loot they get?
chava 03-27-07, 06:53 PM	Why? George has simply to commision the construction of a new item with the proceeds from selling the unwanted item. In fact, given the amount of choice George has over his item-to-be he has a (slight) advantage over Anne now. Okay - assuming 4,000 gp horde half in items and half in gp. Anne gets item 1 = 1,000 gp and 1,000 gp George gets item 2 = 1,000 gp and 1,000 gp But george doesn't like/can't use item 2 - so he sells it. However, unless George's DM as an odd system all George gets for item 2 is 500 gp - putting him 500 gp behind Anne (even if he can buy something he likes for 1,500 gp - she still has 1,000 gp to buy something she likes). Thus Anne has more than George. Which is why the system would have worked like this in my game. Anne like item 1 and group chooses not to sell. No one want's item 2 so it is sold for 500 gp. Party treasure is now 3,500 (item 1 and 2,500 gp) - each player gets 1,750 gp - anne gets item 1 and 750 gp - george gets 1,750 gp.
Icewraith 03-27-07, 07:20 PM	Actually, the PHB/DMG already has this covered. This whole issue bothered me so much that I looked it up, and I found an entry suggesting that kept items be priced at half, to prevent an unfair distribution of loot. In other words, the entire treasure is valued and distibuted based off of what it can be sold for, instead of what the market price is. This way, people who have to hock loot and GP to getwhat they need don't lose half of their allocated treasure.
Magnus_the_Mad 03-27-07, 07:41 PM	Actually, the PHB/DMG already has this covered. This whole issue bothered me so much that I looked it up, and I found an entry suggesting that kept items be priced at half, to prevent an unfair distribution of loot. In other words, the entire treasure is valued and distibuted based off of what it can be sold for, instead of what the market price is. This way, people who have to hock loot and GP to getwhat they need don't lose half of their allocated treasure. exactly. I had played D&D for years and loot was never an issue until I ran a campaign and a cleric in the party was getting a majority of the loot. Not that no one else could use it, it's just that they didn't want it and the cleric spoke up to take it. Before long, the cleric had 8 magic items to everyone else's two. So my wife looked in the PHB real close and found the loot distribution rules in there. We sat down and discussed it and decided that the rules were the best to keep loot balance between players and the game as well. This nonsense about a player getting the short end of the stick by taking an item that they can't use is how I used to see the game as well when it came to loot, but if you price everything at half value (because essentially that it what it is whether you sell it or keep it) you avoid all the hassle. Total up the value of all coins, gems, artwork and magic items and divide the number by how many folks are splitting the loot. That is how much each player gets. If a player really wants an item that costs more than their fair share then they put in the difference to the party pool and the rest of the party gets an even cut from that as well. In the end, it keeps treasure fair and you can keep game balance all at the same time. Of course, those who can create magic items do tend to come out slightly ahead later on in the game because they can then bankroll their coin and create exactly what they want for their PC. But hey, for being patient that's not bad at all.
green_yawgmoth 03-27-07, 08:07 PM	Game. Fun. Enjoyment for all. Heard of it? It's up to everyone to make the game fun, and if someone's being a douche by taking an item that they can't use and selling it off despite there being a party member who would make good use of it, or a DM who won't give them anything they can ever use, then they should taste the business end of a shovel. This isn't a PUG in WoW, these are your friends and you should be want them to enjoy the game. I don't understand where these mentalities of "make due with what I give you or you'll get nothing!" and "I'm gonna have all the money because I can [yell out that I] grab it first!" come from. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Thomar_of_Uointer 03-27-07, 08:29 PM	My PCs are fortunately mature enough to handle treasue distribution without much difficulty. They usually appraise the gp value of items in game and distribute so that everybody has an equal share. There have been times when a PC wanted more of a share, because some items were just very appropriate for them, but then they get docked in the future to make up for it, and it always works out fine. I guess we're lucky we've never had a PC who wanted to keep everything he found for himself, and if we did, I imagine we'd deal with it as an out of character courtesy issue, not in-character excuses. Same here. If the party is up in arms every time they find something shiny, you've got other problems.
Tonil 03-27-07, 08:41 PM	I just have to tell you about my group's "problem." The players are not greedy enough. Sometimes we find magic items and nobody is willing to say "I want that." We have carried around useful items that members could use, only to sell them when we get to a large town. I think part of the issue is player personalities, i.e., shyness. Some of it is that some players are not powergamers, and they do not plan out "if only I could get magic item x, then I would be strong." Some may be players not being sure how to fit the item into a strategy. Recently we had some gold to spend on items. After we bought what people wanted we had lots of gold left over. It remains unspent. So what is the problem? I want the other players to be strong too. It keeps my character alive.
DarkRhystar 03-27-07, 09:29 PM	Actually, the PHB/DMG already has this covered. This whole issue bothered me so much that I looked it up, and I found an entry suggesting that kept items be priced at half, to prevent an unfair distribution of loot. In other words, the entire treasure is valued and distibuted based off of what it can be sold for, instead of what the market price is. This way, people who have to hock loot and GP to getwhat they need don't lose half of their allocated treasure. Okay. George no longer has only half the value of the treasure due to selling stuff. Anne now has double the value of the treasure by not selling anything. Nothing has changed about the situation. Your view point has only changed just enough to feel better about George which lasts only as long as Anne stays out of the picture.
Augurer 03-27-07, 09:42 PM	Okay. George no longer has only half the value of the treasure due to selling stuff. Anne now has double the value of the treasure by not selling anything. Nothing has changed about the situation. Your view point has only changed just enough to feel better about George which lasts only as long as Anne stays out of the picture. Exactly. If you want a fair loot system that still has "random" loot from encounters, you have to allow the players to sell it all at market price. I honestly don't see the reason for magical items being sold at half price. In any decently large city, if you're willing to take the time, you should be able to negotiate something very reasonably close to market value. Is there some balance reason for forcing loot to be sold at 50%? I just don't see it. Seems to me that a "fairer" system would allow players to take advantage of high Appraise, Diplomacy, and Bluff skills to get something between 50 and 99% of market value.
chava 03-27-07, 10:00 PM	But the key is taking the time. The 50% value comes from the fact they assume you are selling to a merchant - thus for the merchant to make a profit he can only afford to pay half what he is going to sell it for. (bc he has other expenses - such as taxes and rent - that cut into that profit margin) Now if the PC are willing to stick around a city for a month or two to find someone who is looking to buy one or two pieces of your loot then they might get something closer to full price. (of course they might also **** off guilds or need to pay taxes - things that are avoided by being adventurers and not sticking around town too long) Then there is also PC who loot every body they come across - thus are trying to sell 5 full plates, 15 studded leather, and 20 shields. Simple fact - you aren't going to even get half-price for all of that because you are flooding the market and the merchants you are selling to are going to expect a lowered price bc they are buying in bulk.
Magnus_the_Mad 03-27-07, 10:03 PM	Okay. George no longer has only half the value of the treasure due to selling stuff. Anne now has double the value of the treasure by not selling anything. Nothing has changed about the situation. Your view point has only changed just enough to feel better about George which lasts only as long as Anne stays out of the picture. How did you come to that conclusion? Read the loot section in the PHB. Anne did not double her loot value. Anne and George should get an equal cut. They don't both get 2000gp each, they each get 1500 gp worth of loot using the items in your example. The magic items are calculated at half value. If Anne keeps her item and gold she has 1500 gp worth of loot and coin. If George sells his item and takes all cash he has 1500 gp worth of coin. They have an equal amount. Magic items are not worth their full value to any PC who is interested in being an adventurer. Think of it as depreciation. A brand new Nissan is no longer worth the price you bought it for the second you drive it off the lot. It loses a few grand in value instantly. While this does not compare to the extreme half value of magic items, DMs need to realize that this is a game and mechanics need to be in place to keep one player from getting more powerful than another player to the point that game balance is now looming over their group. Are the rules for loot in the PHB hard and fast? No. No one has to use them. If DMs want players selling their stuff at full value then by all means do it. The players will be happy thats for sure but can the DM handle it?
Eightbitmage 03-27-07, 10:17 PM	What my groups do is divide up the magic items according to who wants what. If two people want one thing they decide what would be best for the party. Anything nobody wants counts as half value and is sold. Although the loot is used on the way back to town it isn't offically split until they know how much they get from selling useless crap.
navar100 03-27-07, 11:18 PM	With my group some items have been "obvious" as to who should get it, and he gets it. Otherwise, we often just ask ourselves who wants an item. Usually only one wants it, and he gets it. If more than one wants it, they work it out. Sometimes one decides he'll be happy having something else; othertimes it's "dibs" on a future pick. Sometimes a player says he doesn't want anything and is happy. Some items no one really wants an item, but the item is useful enough to keep. We accept it as a party item anyone can use upon asking. One character will end up holding it the longest because someone has to carry it, but it's agreed it's a party item. Currently, a spy glass and a ring of jumping has the status of party item. NPC party members are treated equally. They can make a claim without malice. Sometimes they're offered an item. A non-party member NPC who for whatever reason is travelling with us a bit or gets caught up in a battle also gets a fair share. We don't care about the gp value of items. We only care about who can benefit from said item coordinated with who wants it. Goldpieces are divided evenly enough, and we also have group treasure for monetary costs the party needs such as rooms and goods. Only once have we lost our cooperation. Last campaign there was a treasure hoard which was an overabundance of good stuff that everyone wanted of almost everything, and no one would budge. We managed to calm down before it got too out of hand and got back to what was really important. We were able to narrow everyone's claim to what they really, really, really wanted as opposed to just really want, and the hoard was divided up with everyone happy.
coyote6 03-27-07, 11:20 PM	I'm curious as to how a helm of telepathy was that big of a problem. In a campaign where PCs have 27,000 gp hats, the villains can't make DC 13 Will saves?
Magnus_the_Mad 03-27-07, 11:42 PM	I'm curious as to how a helm of telepathy was that big of a problem. In a campaign where PCs have 27,000 gp hats, the villains can't make DC 13 Will saves? I think I missed something. Who are you responding to with your comment?
coyote6 03-27-07, 11:49 PM	I think I missed something. Who are you responding to with your comment? Sorry -- I was responding to the original article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20070327a), and not so much the thread. Probably should've started a new thread.
Salla 03-28-07, 12:39 AM	Groups I'm in rarely have trouble with loot distribution ... we can usually figure out who can put an item to best use, past that there's a secondary issue of personal style. If there's a 'tie' for usefulness, we usually get into 'you take it, no you take it' rather than 'mine, no mine'.
CharlieRock 03-28-07, 12:57 AM	Okay - assuming 4,000 gp horde half in items and half in gp. Anne gets item 1 = 1,000 gp and 1,000 gp George gets item 2 = 1,000 gp and 1,000 gp But george doesn't like/can't use item 2 - so he sells it. However, unless George's DM as an odd system all George gets for item 2 is 500 gp - putting him 500 gp behind Anne (even if he can buy something he likes for 1,500 gp - she still has 1,000 gp to buy something she likes). Thus Anne has more than George. Which is why the system would have worked like this in my game. Anne like item 1 and group chooses not to sell. No one want's item 2 so it is sold for 500 gp. Party treasure is now 3,500 (item 1 and 2,500 gp) - each player gets 1,750 gp - anne gets item 1 and 750 gp - george gets 1,750 gp. Actually, the PHB/DMG already has this covered. This whole issue bothered me so much that I looked it up, and I found an entry suggesting that kept items be priced at half, to prevent an unfair distribution of loot. In other words, the entire treasure is valued and distibuted based off of what it can be sold for, instead of what the market price is. This way, people who have to hock loot and GP to getwhat they need don't lose half of their allocated treasure. Okay. George no longer has only half the value of the treasure due to selling stuff. Anne now has double the value of the treasure by not selling anything. Nothing has changed about the situation. Your view point has only changed just enough to feel better about George which lasts only as long as Anne stays out of the picture. How did you come to that conclusion? Read the loot section in the PHB. Anne did not double her loot value. Anne and George should get an equal cut. They don't both get 2000gp each, they each get 1500 gp worth of loot using the items in your example. The magic items are calculated at half value. If Anne keeps her item and gold she has 1500 gp worth of loot and coin. If George sells his item and takes all cash he has 1500 gp worth of coin. They have an equal amount. Magic items are not worth their full value to any PC who is interested in being an adventurer. Think of it as depreciation. A brand new Nissan is no longer worth the price you bought it for the second you drive it off the lot. It loses a few grand in value instantly. While this does not compare to the extreme half value of magic items, DMs need to realize that this is a game and mechanics need to be in place to keep one player from getting more powerful than another player to the point that game balance is now looming over their group. Are the rules for loot in the PHB hard and fast? No. No one has to use them. If DMs want players selling their stuff at full value then by all means do it. The players will be happy thats for sure but can the DM handle it? That and this unbalanced situation is not likely to happen, and when it does it doesn't stay in place: *Suppose the two items were not of equal original value, and Anne's was twice (or half) the value of George's item? Should they be forced to sell both (though George does love his magical lute) and divide that amount? What if they run into another two items of unequal value? Should they then repurchase the first two items to combine with the second two items for a (further) equal dispersement? *Suppose the two items were not equal value, but before George could sell off his magical lute (that he hates now) they find a third item? Wouldn't George now get first choice on this item and still be balanced? If you endeavor to totally balance out life for one moment, that effort will be wasted the next moment as life has already changed.
DarkRhystar 03-28-07, 01:46 AM	How did you come to that conclusion? Read the loot section in the PHB. Anne did not double her loot value. Anne and George should get an equal cut. They don't both get 2000gp each, they each get 1500 gp worth of loot using the items in your example. The magic items are calculated at half value. If Anne keeps her item and gold she has 1500 gp worth of loot and coin. If George sells his item and takes all cash he has 1500 gp worth of coin. They have an equal amount. This assumes: George and Anne decide not to split treasure up immediately. George and Anne decide together what they will keep and sell. George and Anne split the treasure based on its value after being sold. Fair assumptions in reasonable groups I'd say. That and this unbalanced situation is not likely to happen, and when it does it doesn't stay in place: *Suppose the two items were not of equal original value, and Anne's was twice (or half) the value of George's item? Should they be forced to sell both (though George does love his magical lute) and divide that amount? What if they run into another two items of unequal value? Should they then repurchase the first two items to combine with the second two items for a (further) equal dispersement? *Suppose the two items were not equal value, but before George could sell off his magical lute (that he hates now) they find a third item? Wouldn't George now get first choice on this item and still be balanced? If you endeavor to totally balance out life for one moment, that effort will be wasted the next moment as life has already changed. On the one hand, I disagree as I believe that a DM should try to keep things even whenever possible rather than play the "who gets shafted treasure-wise today" game. On the other hand, I agree that these matters often sort themselves out... probably because I said the exact same thing 25 posts ago. Behold: In a good DM's game, these inequities often correct themselves and it simply becomes a matter of patience.
CharlieRock 03-28-07, 01:55 AM	This assumes: George and Anne decide not to split treasure up immediately. George and Anne decide together what they will keep and sell. George and Anne split the treasure based on its value after being sold. Fair assumptions in reasonable groups I'd say. On the one hand, I disagree as I believe that a DM should try to keep things even whenever possible rather than play the "who gets shafted treasure-wise today" game. On the other hand, I agree that these matters often sort themselves out... probably because I said the exact same thing 25 posts ago. Behold: I like to think my team is reasonable. :) I don't feel much responsibility to keeping loot balanced as it is ultimately up to the team. If Anne and George happen upon equal items of equal personal value to each, they could still junk up the whole effort between themselves and I don't have any influence over that. I once had a player (monk character, which I thought was amusing considering the nature of the complaint) tell me that he didn't have enough magic items. I told him this was mainly due to his XP level being two. His reply:"But my other character has magical armor." There is nothing I can do to stop a player from percieving imbalance if that is what they are inclined to see anyway. "Why does his magic sword do more damage then mine? That's not fair." "Because it is a magical greatsword, yours is a rapier." "That's still not fair. He is doing more damage then me." Way more often then not, the players themselves balance the loot they find. Even when I wasn't trying to consciously balance it.
Magnus_the_Mad 03-28-07, 02:01 AM	This assumes: George and Anne decide not to split treasure up immediately. George and Anne decide together what they will keep and sell. George and Anne split the treasure based on its value after being sold. Fair assumptions in reasonable groups I'd say. The group I run for just lumps the loot into one pile and then they hash it out after they have gone back to town between adventures. If some loot is too heavy to carry around, they come back and nab it later. At any rate, all the players agree that any items that can be used while adventuring should be used. It would be foolish not to do so. Also, consumables don't count as they benefit the party as a whole. They really like the PHB loot rules and follow it religiously now because it works for them.
Magnus_the_Mad 03-28-07, 02:15 AM	I like to think my team is reasonable. :) I don't feel much responsibility to keeping loot balanced as it is ultimately up to the team. If Anne and George happen upon equal items of equal personal value to each, they could still junk up the whole effort between themselves and I don't have any influence over that. I once had a player (monk character, which I thought was amusing considering the nature of the complaint) tell me that he didn't have enough magic items. I told him this was mainly due to his XP level being two. His reply:"But my other character has magical armor." There is nothing I can do to stop a player from percieving imbalance if that is what they are inclined to see anyway. "Why does his magic sword do more damage then mine? That's not fair." "Because it is a magical greatsword, yours is a rapier." "That's still not fair. He is doing more damage then me." Way more often then not, the players themselves balance the loot they find. Even when I wasn't trying to consciously balance it. Oh I agree that magical items are not created equally. To answer your question (er, statement?) in your previous post about the balancing of items of different value I can say that it happens to run really smooth with the PHB rules. For example, lets say you have a +1 long sword, a wand of Magic Missle 5th at full charges, 3000gp and a +1 light steel shield as a treasure for a party of four (this is just an example). The longsword is 2315gp, the wand is 3750gp, and the shield is worth 1,159gp. Divide all values in half which gives us 1157gp and 5sp for the longsword, 1875gp for the wand and 579gp and 5sp for the shield. Your total loot value is 6612. Divide that by four. Each person gets 1653gp in loot value. Now, this lets say the party wizard wants the wand of magic missles. He has gone over his cut of 1653 by 222gp. In order for him to take the wand, he has to pitch in that much gold out of his own pocket (not what the party found as coin) to call it square. The party then adds the 222gp that the wizard coughed up into the pool and splits it evenly. Sometimes all a party member gets is cash but like it has been said before, they can then craft or buy what they want at that point giving them more options than the other players at times. Really, it doesn't take long at all to do this math. That's why the party elects a treasurer and they sit at the computer with Excel pulled up to calculate items as they get them identified (which comes out of any coin the party finds before they split loot so no one gets shafted). It really works out and it's faster than one would think.
CharlieRock 03-28-07, 02:28 AM	Oh I agree that magical items are not created equally. To answer your question (er, statement?) in your previous post about the balancing of items of different value I can say that it happens to run really smooth with the PHB rules. For example, lets say you have a +1 long sword, a wand of Magic Missle 5th at full charges, 3000gp and a +1 light steel shield as a treasure for a party of four (this is just an example). The longsword is 2315gp, the wand is 3750gp, and the shield is worth 1,159gp. Divide all values in half which gives us 1157gp and 5sp for the longsword, 1875gp for the wand and 579gp and 5sp for the shield. Your total loot value is 6612. Divide that by four. Each person gets 1653gp in loot value. Now, this lets say the party wizard wants the wand of magic missles. He has gone over his cut of 1653 by 222gp. In order for him to take the wand, he has to pitch in that much gold out of his own pocket (not what the party found as coin) to call it square. The party then adds the 222gp that the wizard coughed up into the pool and splits it evenly. Sometimes all a party member gets is cash but like it has been said before, they can then craft or buy what they want at that point giving them more options than the other players at times. Really, it doesn't take long at all to do this math. That's why the party elects a treasurer and they sit at the computer with Excel pulled up to calculate items as they get them identified (which comes out of any coin the party finds before they split loot so no one gets shafted). It really works out and it's faster than one would think. I usually have my brain turned off when the team is splitting their loot. I think that is similar (not exactly) what they do. Through human error once I noticed the loot was split between more people then I remembered playing with. This was because one player included his cohort into the split. After the game wrapped I told him that wasn't exactly fair to the other players, as his cohort was an extension of his character through a feat .That shouldn't negatively impact the other characters who didn't select that feat. I may be wrong in that assumption. But it seems more right to field and equip personal troops from your personal budget, not the team's.
Magnus_the_Mad 03-28-07, 02:34 AM	I usually have my brain turned off when the team is splitting their loot. I think that is similar (not exactly) what they do. Through human error once I noticed the loot was split between more people then I remembered playing with. This was because one player included his cohort into the split. After the game wrapped I told him that wasn't exactly fair to the other players, as his cohort was an extension of his character through a feat .That shouldn't negatively impact the other characters who didn't select that feat. I may be wrong in that assumption. But it seems more right to field and equip personal troops from your personal budget, not the team's. I'd have to agree with you on that point. It's your cohort, you take care of them, not me. It may seem a bit snide to some players and DMs but you are right. The character chose to have a follower therefore they are responsible for them.
CharlieRock 03-28-07, 02:49 AM	I'd have to agree with you on that point. It's your cohort, you take care of them, not me. It may seem a bit snide to some players and DMs but you are right. The character chose to have a follower therefore they are responsible for them. That and I don't want to ever hear: Ace:"Okay, I have fifty guys in my cohort. So I get fifty shares." Buzz:"What? Are you counting the donkey, too?" Ace:"His name is Kong." Buzz:"Whatever. Did Kong actually 'do' anything in that last fight?" Ace:"I would never endanger my beloved animal companions in such a cruel fashion. Besides PETA would sue me." Charlie:"We're counting animal companions ,too? Then I get forty shares since I have a squad of Druids and Rangers."
TJJM 03-28-07, 03:37 AM	Loot in my current D&D campaign is distributed by who needs it and it always remains in-game. Whoever needs the item gets it and what ever they replaced gets put back into the treasure pool or sold and the money from the sale get distribute evenly amongst the rest of the party. We are all adults and we've honestly have never really had an issue with loot. I've even given magic items/money away that i really like out of game to other group members or important NPC's because it's what my character would do because they need it more than i did. I guess my point is that i feel loot and distribution thereof should be left totally In-game and done from a roleplaying standpoint, not from out of game greed of the player. I guess i'm jsut lucky enough to have a mature group that is able to handle it that way.
Augurer 03-28-07, 10:04 AM	How did you come to that conclusion? Read the loot section in the PHB. Anne did not double her loot value. Anne and George should get an equal cut. They don't both get 2000gp each, they each get 1500 gp worth of loot using the items in your example. The magic items are calculated at half value. If Anne keeps her item and gold she has 1500 gp worth of loot and coin. If George sells his item and takes all cash he has 1500 gp worth of coin. They have an equal amount. But 1500 gp is useless on its own. And if George spends his gold on an item that he finds useful, his character's net market value increase is only 750, compared to Anne's 1500. If George doesn't spend his gold, his effective value to the party has gone up not at all. They don't have an equal amount. Look at it this way: two villains with the same stat block, one of which has 20,000 GP, and the other has items worth 20,000 gold. Which poses the greater threat to the PCs? The really sad part in the above example, the villain that is more dangerous to the PCs is quite likely less profitable for the PCs to eliminate.
Magnus_the_Mad 03-28-07, 10:37 AM	But 1500 gp is useless on its own. And if George spends his gold on an item that he finds useful, his character's net market value increase is only 750, compared to Anne's 1500. If George doesn't spend his gold, his effective value to the party has gone up not at all. They don't have an equal amount. Look at it this way: two villains with the same stat block, one of which has 20,000 GP, and the other has items worth 20,000 gold. Which poses the greater threat to the PCs? The really sad part in the above example, the villain that is more dangerous to the PCs is quite likely less profitable for the PCs to eliminate. Not sure where you are getting a net market value of 750gp. Can you explain that one. I'm not following you. At any rate, how long do you think the PCs will hold onto their gold? I've had players go three levels before they actually wanted to buy something. A wizard doesn't need treasure to do their job well at any level, but the fighter does need better weapons and armor and their level increases because they rely on their gear and feats to be effective. Before long, an item will be found in a treasure that you will want and will get. The thing about your example is that you seem to be assuming that the same player gets shafted every time loot is found and that they will not get items ever only gold. I can assure you that this has never happened in any of my games. Every player gets magic items eventually regardless of how they get it.
Aminvelos 03-28-07, 10:53 AM	I like the whole, roll with the punches motto; makes the game more real. I mean what happened to the role-playing? Do you honestly keep track of every nickel and dime your friends owe you? Sometimes I get the tab, sometimes he gets the tab, but we don't keep track. Barter for the item, maybe a trade or bargain can come to pass. See what the group says, play paper rock scissors, roll some dice. I would hate to role-play with people that nit picky. My character would hate the other you picky characters. I don't know, I'm just not the kind of friend to rain on my friend's parade. Of course, if this is a hack-n-slash game I don't really see this as being as much of an issue.
Augurer 03-28-07, 10:55 AM	Not sure where you are getting a net market value of 750gp. Can you explain that one. I'm not following you. Lets say you find two +1 Longswords. They have a Market Value of 2365 each. Lets say Anne is a Fighter and she likes her longsword, so she keeps it. If we use the system you're suggesting, her net market value increase is 2365/2, or 1182.5. George is a Wizard, who can't use a +1 longsword. Obviously he's going to sell his longsword, and also has a net market increase of 1182.5. But his net market increase is actually useless/meaningless, becuase gold isn't going to accomplish anything for him (unless you're playing a political campaign, in which not many magical items are going to make a whit of difference). So George spends 1,000 gold on a Cloak of Resistance +1. But using your rules, his net market value increase is now only 500 + 182.5, or 682.5. That's substantially lower than Anne's value. At any rate, how long do you think the PCs will hold onto their gold? I've had players go three levels before they actually wanted to buy something. A wizard doesn't need treasure to do their job well at any level, but the fighter does need better weapons and armor and their level increases because they rely on their gear and feats to be effective. Before long, an item will be found in a treasure that you will want and will get. The thing about your example is that you seem to be assuming that the same player gets shafted every time loot is found and that they will not get items ever only gold. I can assure you that this has never happened in any of my games. Every player gets magic items eventually regardless of how they get it. Yes, the DM can arbitrarily build loot tables such that all characters receive useful items over any arbitrary period of time they choose. But that's not only more work for the DM, but also likely to result in players that aren't as satisfied, compared to if all items were bought and sold at the same value.
Augurer 03-28-07, 10:57 AM	I like the whole, roll with the punches motto; makes the game more real. I mean what happened to the role-playing? Do you honestly keep track of every nickel and dime your friends owe you? Sometimes I get the tab, sometimes he gets the tab, but we don't keep track. Barter for the item, maybe a trade or bargain can come to pass. See what the group says, play paper rock scissors, roll some dice. I would hate to role-play with people that ****. My character would hate the other **** characters. More power to you. Are you harmed in any way by players who don't want to "roll with the punches" and instead choose which magical items they want to play with?
Aminvelos 03-28-07, 01:46 PM	If they're playing with me Augurer, yes, but only if we are role-playing. -In edition If they aren't willing to "roll with the punches" with items, this usually gets worse when death and experience comes in or if someone else is just playing their character better.
Augurer 03-28-07, 02:09 PM	If they're playing with me Augurer, yes, but only if we are role-playing. I'm not a big fan of role-playing intra-party conflict. I do that in real life enough as it is. I don't think that many people can truly distance themselves from their in-game personas that much that events wouldn't spill over into the "real world". This type of role-play, in my experience, just breeds conflict. I certainly believe people can come to amicable compromises with loot, but that's almost always done out of character from my experience. I've never met a person who's playing a CN or TN Rogue that actually rp'd what his character would do and not had it generate distrust/dislike from the other players. I acknowledge some people might like to rp that way, but I don't. -In edition If they aren't willing to "roll with the punches" with items, this usually gets worse when death and experience comes in or if someone else is just playing their character better. What's death and experience have to do with getting the magical items you want? Or playing your character poorly? A person who has the items they want is more likely to play their character better, and thus less likely to die. At least that's how I see it.
Morits 03-28-07, 02:45 PM	1) Divvy the money, gems etc. 2) Hold an auction among the party for stuff that anyone wants 3) Divvy the money from the auction 4) Sell unwanted stuff 5) ??? 6) Profit
DarkRhystar 03-28-07, 03:32 PM	I like the whole, roll with the punches motto; makes the game more real. I mean what happened to the role-playing? Are you asserting people role-play better with a poorly thought out treasure distribution? Do you honestly keep track of every nickel and dime your friends owe you? Sometimes I get the tab, sometimes he gets the tab, but we don't keep track. Every nickel and dime (copper and silver)? No. When we start dealing in hundreds of dollars (gold and platinum), you can be darn sure I'm keeping track though. In my game though? I usually in put lots of coins and sell-able things as treasure. Makes it easier for my group to split and lets them eventually buy the things they want themselves.
Derren S. 03-28-07, 04:22 PM	Are you asserting people role-play better with a poorly thought out treasure distribution? Imo people role-play better when the world does not feel like a total video game where everything is made to fit the PCs perfectly.
Augurer 03-28-07, 04:25 PM	Imo people role-play better when the world does not feel like a total video game where everything is made to fit the PCs perfectly. It feels more like a video game when the loot is determined randomly (even worse if it's arbitrarily decided by the DM), and you have to settle for items half as valuable if you don't want the one you got. In real life, I'll go down to the market, sell my item for roughly market value, and then buy an item I do want of roughly equal value. This is especially true since the advent of ebay and other large-scale auction facilities. Such might not realistically exist in the world you're "playing" in, but this is a game in the end, where the ultimate purpose is to have fun. Not everyone has fun using items half as powerful as their neighbor.
Nathreet 03-28-07, 04:36 PM	There's already a solution in the PHB, similar to Crimson_Concerto's solution: 1. Add up the value of all loot. Equipment is valued at HALF (i.e., what you can sell it for). 2. If two PCs want the same item, they bid on it using the gpv of their shares of the loot. That item is revalued at the winning bid. 3. Sell anything nobody wants. Add up the value of the loot again, since some items are now valued at more gp. Split treasure evenly among all players.
Augurer 03-28-07, 04:45 PM	There's already a solution in the PHB, similar to Crimson_Concerto's solution: 1. Add up the value of all loot. Equipment is valued at HALF (i.e., what you can sell it for). 2. If two PCs want the same item, they bid on it using the gpv of their shares of the loot. That item is revalued at the winning bid. 3. Sell anything nobody wants. Add up the value of the loot again, since some items are now worth more. Split treasure evenly among all players. Deleted... this actually does appear to result in a "fair" distribution. Those who want items are penalized, but not by much. It does require the characters to have a fair amount of gold on hand, however.
darkhellion21 03-28-07, 05:11 PM	I hate to sound cruel, but if your players are having problems dealing with the treasure they get, just make sure that they all have bags of holding and give them currency (or gems of an appropriate amount). It makes no sense to me why anyone would have a problem with any of the ideas here. - If a player wanted a specific item and talked to you about it, I don't think that they will feel cheated as long as that item was earned after a particularly difficult challenge. - People are constantly changing their minds about what they do and do not want. Players are no exception and to constantly be giving them the specific treasure they want is going to get frustrating for you and boring for them. As one of my professors told me, "variety is the best part of living." If they can't deal with it, then that's their problem.
Nathreet 03-28-07, 05:20 PM	Deleted... this actually does appear to result in a "fair" distribution. Those who want items are penalized, but not by much. It does require the characters to have a fair amount of gold on hand, however. Bids are done with gpv of treasure, not gp. Treasure is distributed between quests, when players can sell items or reach their gold stashes.
Augurer 03-28-07, 05:25 PM	Bids are done with gpv of treasure, not gp. Treasure is distributed between quests, when players can sell items or reach their gold stashes. What do you mean with gpv of treasure? For the system to be fair, players have to be paying the value they bid out of their own pocket at some point. Thus, the characters need a relatively large quantity of gold. Please describe how the system works step by step, with Anne (Fighter) and George (Wizard) who find 2 LS +1s (market value of 2365 each) and 1000 gp.
CharlieRock 03-28-07, 06:34 PM	Lets say you find two +1 Longswords. They have a Market Value of 2365 each. Lets say Anne is a Fighter and she likes her longsword, so she keeps it. If we use the system you're suggesting, her net market value increase is 2365/2, or 1182.5. Yes, the DM can arbitrarily build loot tables such that all characters receive useful items over any arbitrary period of time they choose. But that's not only more work for the DM, but also likely to result in players that aren't as satisfied, compared to if all items were bought and sold at the same value. What is Anne and George to do when they find a stash of scrolls then? Is George to sell off half of them so Anne can have her share ,too? Players can usually come up with a balance of loot amongst themselves. If they can't even do that then how are they supposed to act as a team when it really matters (I.e. lives are on the line)? Players are also more interested in the story they are building with their characters. If the story is good enough they are more willing to play patiently when it comes to 'useful' items. Players also make use of items that I may find useless. I tossed in a ring of jumping one time. I figured it was a fairly useless item unless you found yourself on one side of a pit-trap or something. Oh, was I wrong. The Monk latched onto that thing and turned into Spider-Man. Jumping here ,there, and everywhere. Some items I place that may have x as a market value, but infinitely more valuable as a keystone item for the dungeon itself. Like, a necklace of fireballs for a team that otherwise has no offensive flame weapons in a dungeon that has mummies as the feature monster. Regardless of what you think they might be able to sell it for (and to their PoV it is what it is , loot) they are going to need to use it a level or so further down. Like, if Anne and George find two LS +1s. They split them up (George is now salty about his split, btw). Then an ogre sundered Anne's LS+1. Is George supposed to sell her his LS?
aotrscommander 03-28-07, 07:05 PM	Groups I'm in rarely have trouble with loot distribution ... we can usually figure out who can put an item to best use, past that there's a secondary issue of personal style. If there's a 'tie' for usefulness, we usually get into 'you take it, no you take it' rather than 'mine, no mine'. What my groups do is divide up the magic items according to who wants what. If two people want one thing they decide what would be best for the party. Anything nobody wants counts as half value and is sold. Although the loot is used on the way back to town it isn't offically split until they know how much they get from selling useless crap. Likewise. These days, pretty much everything goes into party funds first, then gets divved out later in a reasonable fashion. Anything left gets sold off or whacked into storage (genera depending). (It does occur infrequently when a character gets shed load more kit than the rest, but that usually doesn't cause much more hassle that some light ribbing.) We do have but one problem player out of two groups, who is naturally just a greedy little devil (regardless of what character is playing). He does, at least, acknowledge this. We deal with him in a variety of fashions, up to and including a smack upside the head and shouting "stop being a greedy little bugger, you!" However, seeing as his greed can often get the party in trouble (last time he got the entire part arrested - again - bickering over a 10 gold crown ring in Warhammer!) it becomes a self-correcting issue...
Magnus_the_Mad 03-28-07, 07:45 PM	George is a Wizard, who can't use a +1 longsword. Obviously he's going to sell his longsword, and also has a net market increase of 1182.5. But his net market increase is actually useless/meaningless, becuase gold isn't going to accomplish anything for him (unless you're playing a political campaign, in which not many magical items are going to make a whit of difference). So George spends 1,000 gold on a Cloak of Resistance +1. But using your rules, his net market value increase is now only 500 + 182.5, or 682.5. That's substantially lower than Anne's value. Or George may have the craft wonderous items feat and will only pay 500gp to create a cloak of resistance +1 and walk away with 1182.5 in net value still. I'm not saying that you will stay equal when all is said and done because some players may make stupid decisions with their gold while others will make smart decisions. What I am saying is that when the time comes to split loot, everyone getting an equal cut is more fair than one player taking most items and becoming more bad ass than everyone in the party. Why doesn't George scribe scrolls with his cut of the money? Talk about boosting your power and flexibility! How about researching new spells to give him a broader selection of spells to choose from? The weapons will benefit the melee types in combat, but spells can do so much more in any given situation.
Augurer 03-28-07, 09:05 PM	Or George may have the craft wonderous items feat and will only pay 500gp to create a cloak of resistance +1 and walk away with 1182.5 in net value still. Anne still has a net value of 2365. It costs George a feat and XP to even the odds. I definitely don't think that's fair at all. Why doesn't George scribe scrolls with his cut of the money? Talk about boosting your power and flexibility! How about researching new spells to give him a broader selection of spells to choose from? The weapons will benefit the melee types in combat, but spells can do so much more in any given situation. He very well might be scribing scrolls. If you feel Wizards are over-powered compared to Fighters, I suppose screwing them on items would be one way to "balance them". But George isn't guaranteed to be a Fighter. George could just as easily be a Monk. Monks don't scribe scrolls, or use LS +1s (not usually, at least).
CharlieRock 03-28-07, 09:14 PM	Anne still has a net value of 2365. It costs George a feat and XP to even the odds. I definitely don't think that's fair at all. How many items is it really going to take before I get tired of George's whiney attitude and boot him from the game? Let's ask Mr. Owl.
Augurer 03-28-07, 09:18 PM	How many items is it really going to take before I get tired of George's whiney attitude and boot him from the game? Let's ask Mr. Owl. That's certainly your prerogative, if you're not concerned with game balance and/or player satisfaction. I think the simpler solution is to find a system that doesn't penalize players for how they want to play the game. I personally am fine with the way the PHB says to do things, as most DMs and other players will work around the system such that everyone is happy. But there's little to no reason not to take steps to make it fair from the get-go..
CharlieRock 03-28-07, 09:27 PM	That's certainly your prerogative, if you're not concerned with game balance and/or player satisfaction. I am. And the players would be much more satysfied playing the game without George and his illusions of game balance.
Magnus_the_Mad 03-28-07, 09:49 PM	Anne still has a net value of 2365. It costs George a feat and XP to even the odds. I definitely don't think that's fair at all. How do you figure? You even said in your other post that Anne has half of the swords value, not the full. Why would she have full value of the sword? He very well might be scribing scrolls. If you feel Wizards are over-powered compared to Fighters, I suppose screwing them on items would be one way to "balance them". But George isn't guaranteed to be a Fighter. George could just as easily be a Monk. Monks don't scribe scrolls, or use LS +1s (not usually, at least). Who's screwing over players? You are very presumptuous and stupid. How's that for assuming false information? I never said that wizards were overpowered either. I said that scribing scrolls was power. Big difference. I don't tell the players how to split the loot, they decide how to do it. Any DM who steps in and assigns loot to players after they score it is a jerk and needs to back off. George isn't a fighter in this example, he's a wizard (not my example) so he isn't screwed at all. I think you are assuming stuff from my posts that I never hinted at or misled people to believe. Really, you are bordering on belligerent with your responses here. If you don't like the way I am discussing loot (oh wait, you said in a another post that you like the PHB way of doing things. Hmmm, that's funny since that is what I am saying that my party uses) that's fine, but don't assume anything about my DMing and my group.
CharlieRock 03-28-07, 10:03 PM	It's not that I am unconcerned with the overall balance of the game. I am, in its most general sense. I also know that George is being a disruptive player if he is always salty about his perception of balance: "Hey, Anne's share of the loot is more valuable than mine. I have to sell off my sword, while she can use her's." "Well, maybe next time ..." "No, screw next time. I'm talking about right here and now. I demand an equal share." "George, I'm sure Anne won't mind picking up the tab for ..." "But that isn't fair. I need items. And I'm not spending any Feats to Craft my own." "Maybe the both of you should sell ..." "And Anne got to make 5 more skill checks then I did. Your involving her character more in conflict resolutions." "How did you .." "And Anne's mother was the NPC who gave us this mission. I want my backstory more involved." "We can do that." "And Anne has more HP and better AC." "George, she is a Fighter. Of course, once you count in your spell power ..." "It's not fair!" This is an exagerration, but only in that it would come up all in one conversation (which, then again, it could). But it is still not an attitude I feel any need nor responsibility to placate. If George derives no pleasure from combined story-telling/role-playing and just after some balance of numbers on the character sheets (like some kind of RPG tax assessor) then there really is no satisfying that style (for me) and I'm not going to waste effort in the attempt.
Magnus_the_Mad 03-28-07, 10:08 PM	It's not that I am unconcerned with the overall balance of the game. I am, in its most general sense. I also know that George is being a disruptive player if he is always salty about his perception of balance: "Hey, Anne's share of the loot is more valuable than mine. I have to sell off my sword, while she can use her's." "Well, maybe next time ..." "No, screw next time. I'm talking about right here and now. I demand an equal share." "George, I'm sure Anne won't mind picking up the tab for ..." "But that isn't fair. I need items. And I'm not spending any Feats to Craft my own." "Maybe the both of you should sell ..." "And Anne got to make 5 more skill checks then I did. Your involving her character more in conflict resolutions." "How did you .." "And Anne's mother was the NPC who gave us this mission. I want my backstory more involved." "We can do that." "And Anne has more HP and better AC." "George, she is a Fighter. Of course, once you count in your spell power ..." "It's not fair!" This is an exagerration, but only in that it would come up all in one conversation (which, then again, it could). But it is still not an attitude I feel any need nor responsibility to placate. If George derives no pleasure from combined story-telling/role-playing and just after some balance of numbers on the character sheets (like some kind of in-game tax assessor) then there really is no satisfying that style (for me) and I'm not going to waste effort in the attempt. You know, that's just it CharlieRock. Making a big fuss about Anne and George is really childish. Seriously, it's not as if there is always a magic item for everyone in every horde that the party finds. That's why gold and gems exist. The players can buy what they want. Comparing buying a shiny new item to finding one is stupid really. Player A found something they could use, player B bought something they could use. How is this unfair? I just don't see how anyone could argue that it's screwing over other players while favoring certain ones.
feartheinvinceblehamster 03-28-07, 10:19 PM	I choose loot based on whether or not the PCs can use it. For example, a party consisting of a Fighter, a Samurai, and a Barbarian are going to get tons of potions, wonderous items, money, and enchanted weapons and armor. On the other hand, a party of 3 sorcerors is going to tend to get wands, scrolls, staves, potions, and wonderous items. A bunch of rogues are going to tend to get enchanted daggers, crossbows, and similar weapons. Most of my campaigns are just massive dungeons. Fun as hell, but somewhat lacking in plotline. So yeah, if a PC tends to use greatswords, he might find a +2 greatsword in a treasure stash.
navar100 03-28-07, 11:41 PM	Oh I agree that magical items are not created equally. To answer your question (er, statement?) in your previous post about the balancing of items of different value I can say that it happens to run really smooth with the PHB rules. For example, lets say you have a +1 long sword, a wand of Magic Missle 5th at full charges, 3000gp and a +1 light steel shield as a treasure for a party of four (this is just an example). The longsword is 2315gp, the wand is 3750gp, and the shield is worth 1,159gp. Divide all values in half which gives us 1157gp and 5sp for the longsword, 1875gp for the wand and 579gp and 5sp for the shield. Your total loot value is 6612. Divide that by four. Each person gets 1653gp in loot value. Now, this lets say the party wizard wants the wand of magic missles. He has gone over his cut of 1653 by 222gp. In order for him to take the wand, he has to pitch in that much gold out of his own pocket (not what the party found as coin) to call it square. The party then adds the 222gp that the wizard coughed up into the pool and splits it evenly. Sometimes all a party member gets is cash but like it has been said before, they can then craft or buy what they want at that point giving them more options than the other players at times. Really, it doesn't take long at all to do this math. That's why the party elects a treasurer and they sit at the computer with Excel pulled up to calculate items as they get them identified (which comes out of any coin the party finds before they split loot so no one gets shafted). It really works out and it's faster than one would think. With my group, the dedicated warrior gets the sword and shield, the wizard gets the wand, and the money, since it's "only" 3,000gp, gets put into our group treasure account to pay for group incidentals. Everyone is happy. Those who did not get anything are happy. They'll get something next time. The dedicated warrior will acquiesce to the others next treasure division because he got two items this time. If there happens to be a better weapon, and no one else in the party can use it or want it, he'll take it and everyone is happy. Someone might even be willing to take his old +1 long sword for the sake of having some magic weapon if he really, really, needs to swing with a pointy stick at some point. Alternatively, the +1 long sword might be placed into party treasure to be used as a future trading item. Maybe the dedicated warrior just keeps the +1 long sword anyway. Either way, everyone is happy.
Toloran 03-29-07, 12:09 AM	Here is how my group runs it: Any item that is specifically for a certain character role (Ie, gloves that give lockpicking bonuses, items that affect your ability to turn undead, etc) go to the character who can use if if they want it. If it is an item that several characters can use, then whoever the leader of the group is decides who gets it. The leader is generally the whoever A) has the most gameplay experience or B.) Whoevers character it makes sense to be leader (So even if that 6 int and 8 wis barbarian's player is the most experienced he generally won't be leader). The only items we will occasionally argue over are items that give AC bonuses that aren't armor or shield bonues (like rings of protection and amulets of natural armor).
eof 03-29-07, 09:31 AM	Glad to see I'm not the only one that reacted to the article. It's not that I am unconcerned with the overall balance of the game. I am, in its most general sense. I also know that George is being a disruptive player if he is always salty about his perception of balance: You said it was exaggerated, and I agree. It is also somewhat flawed. I perfectly agree that dealing with a player like that would be a pain. OTOH, that player would no doubt be disruptive in other ways as well. However, you make it sound like it's just a whiny player. What if the player is justified? The player actually has the same motivations as his character: He does not want to be treated unfairly. The player wants to have fun, and empowering his character through magic items is a valid way to do so, but being marginalized and never getting any good stuff while the other players' characters rake it in will typically be the opposite of having fun. Seen from a IC perspective, it is also quite understandable that the character does not want to be shafted on the magic items all the time. Money is just means to an end, and in the long run most of a character's wealth will be invested in magic items, either directly (items found) or indirectly (items purchased or created). In the original article, it seemed like the bard pretty much never got anything except for the scraps that no-one else wanted. Unless there is some greater quest that is the ultimate goal for the PCs, what are the bard's IC motivations for sticking with a group that just leaves him with the scraps? A lot of adventurers are in it for the money, after all. Anyhow... It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding (at least as I see it) about how treasure should be rewarded, and the DMG (page 54 in particular) is somewhat fuzzy about it. First, it lists "Expected Wealth Gain" and "Treasure per Character," and mentions that some of the treasure found (about 10% of the value) will be used to buy potions, food and so on, and so the tables are slightly padded. And so you add up Expected Wealth Gain and end up with the "Character Wealth by Level" (on page 135). And everything seems fine and dandy. Wrong. First of all, as has been pointed out, D&D is not M&T---Merchants & Traders. That's why you get 50% of an item's value when you sell it. It's why most games (and rightfully so) will not deal with character taxation, cost of keeping a business and other, "boring" issues. It's greatly simplified, and would never work in reality, but then again the focus of the game is elsewhere. Now, the idea of "Character Wealth by Level" is a means to make sure that characters on a particular level have equipment that "correspond" to that level. Sure, it says wealth, but what it effectively means is equipment. Character level plus equipment together form a baseline for comparison against Challenge Ratings, so that it should be easy to determine how difficult a particular encounter will be for a group of adventurers. If the group has better equipment than expected, the encounter will be easier than indicated, and similarly worse equipment will make the encounter more difficult. And as already was pointed out, if all wealth the group collectively owns is in coins, then the group will probably screwed when facing what should be a typical encounter. So "wealth" actually means "equipment." If your characters don't invest in useful equipment, whatever liquidated assets they have are insignificant. The same goes for "useless" items. These two things are in direct conflict. If a character wants to, he could theoretically sell an item for 50% of its market price, buy it back for 100%, and repeat the process until he was more or less broke. Of course, no sensible character would do this, but it is possible, it's how the system works. Now, it would be perfectly correct to say that if you do something stupid like that, you deserve what you get. But that's not what the system says. To quote the DMG (from page 135): "Using that information, you can determine how much wealth a character should have based on her level" (emphasis mine). "Should" is of course open to discussion (what if you effectively "throw away" your wealth), but since the system also tells you that doing so and so "should generate enough treasure [...] to keep characters abreast of the wealth figures described in Table 5-1" (DMG page 54; table 5-1 is the "Character Wealth by Level" table), the goal is to make sure the PCs have enough treasure (i.e., useful equipment) that they can take on the challenges they're supposed to be able to handle. If the PCs manage to squander their entire wealth, it's the DM's job to bring them back up to par (obviously not just like that, but reasonably quick). You might ask how that works; where does the extra treasure come from, and where does the squandered wealth go, but again, this is D&D, not M&T. In other words: giving out treasure is a continous process; it's the job of the DM to continously adjust the wealth level. If the PCs sell stuff (or if one PC does it), it's your job (hopefully with the understanding of the players) to make sure that player is compensated with some extra cash the next time they find treasure (or reasonably soon, at least). You can't just say "I give out as much treasure as I'm supposed to per encounter" and wash your hands of the issue. You might think it's not fair to have to compensate for the players throwing away some or all their wealth, but it is. Vice versa, I'm sure some DM has had a player with a "get rich quick" scheme, with or without merit (such as setting up a business), and I'm sure that DM was terrified about letting that scheme succeed and have that character accumulate wealth far beyond what he should have at his level. If you restrict their wealth upper limit for game reasons, you should also restrict their wealth lower limit for game reasons. Additionally, there might of course be game reasons why the characters lose everything (taken captive at level 10 and sold off as slaves), and you'd hardly force the PCs to work with subpar equipment for the rest of their adventuring career in that case either, would you? Obviously, all this goes out the window if your players are greedy ("why should he get more cash, he's got more items than anyone except he keeps selling them!") but in that case you will have problems balancing the treasure beyond buying/selling anyway. Of course, you could just houserule that you both buy and sell at 100% and the problem goes away. As already mentioned, we don't play M&T after all. Item creation is another thing, but as far as I'm concerned XP spent has market value. If you have an NPC cast a spell with an XP cost, they charge you money for the XP spent. It just so happens that the GP/XP is identical to the difference between market price and creation cost + XP cost, which is hardly a coincidence. So when you create an item, you spend another form of "wealth" to do so, fair and square; hopefully you should get as much benefit from the item as you spent XP to create it, and then it all evens out. Hard to say, my players haven't done much item creating, but it seems like you have to adjust for it if it becomes a very large issue. (Interesting enough, an item costing M GP and N XP to create can only be sold for M GP (50% market value)... so who would have an incentive to create items in the first place? For profit, I mean?) On a somewhat related note, if the players have trouble splitting the treasure I think it can be useful to let temporary items be in a party pool, regardless of who uses it. Yes, you, the DM, still have to adjust for them when adjusting for party wealth. But, 50 charges later the wizard has a pretty stick, while the fighter still has his Longsword +1 and Shield +1. At least in my games, the temporary items are always the last to be picked (no matter how useful they are), and the ones that see the least use (unless sold right away, of course). After all, at 420 GP per charge, how exciting is that Wand of Wall of Ice, really?
Augurer 03-29-07, 09:43 AM	I had no intention to imply anyone participating in the conversation didn't care about their players. I suspect most DMs do care, and are spending time to ensure all players feel they are getting useful magical items. My point in this discussion is that these DMs are spending time to "fix" the system. They are arbitrarily building loot tables such that each character [eventually] gets something they can use of [roughly] equal value. If you don't mind "fixing" the system, that's fine. My first post in this thread contained a simple question: Is there some balance reason for forcing loot to be sold at 50%? I still haven't seen an answer to this question. We've gotten derailed on specific short-term examples that really have little bearing on the question I posed. My apologies for being "belligerent".
CharlieRock 03-29-07, 10:22 AM	You said it was exaggerated, and I agree. It is also somewhat flawed. I perfectly agree that dealing with a player like that would be a pain. OTOH, that player would no doubt be disruptive in other ways as well. However, you make it sound like it's just a whiny player. What if the player is justified? I doubt that the player would be justified. In my game. If the player is justified, then most likely the DM is doing it on purpose and there is no cure for jerkheadedness (on the DMs part). "Why is my character always getting shafted with the treasure rolls?" "Because Bards suck and I hate them." George (or whoever) may just be screwed in that case. I roll a lot of the treasure unless there are items I 'need' to place down (like keystone items). I also run modules. The last one we finished was The Goblin Fair (AirWeaver Games) and didn't have a ton of loot. Except for what you got at the fair itself, which was almost anything available in the books. The only complaint I've had was with the overall number of items. Until I turn into Monty Haul I don't think that ever has a chance of changing (I know most of my players pretty well). I had no intention to imply anyone participating in the conversation didn't care about their players. I suspect most DMs do care, and are spending time to ensure all players feel they are getting useful magical items. My point in this discussion is that these DMs are spending time to "fix" the system. They are arbitrarily building loot tables such that each character [eventually] gets something they can use of [roughly] equal value. If you don't mind "fixing" the system, that's fine. My first post in this thread contained a simple question: Is there some balance reason for forcing loot to be sold at 50%? I still haven't seen an answer to this question. We've gotten derailed on specific short-term examples that really have little bearing on the question I posed. My apologies for being "belligerent". The balance reason for selling at 50%: So you cannot get an equal value artifact, wondrous, or other item to the one you turn in. Player choice is a devious animal and letting them constantly "choose" their own treasure will cause problems.
Augurer 03-29-07, 10:30 AM	The balance reason for selling at 50%: So you cannot get an equal value artifact, wondrous, or other item to the one you turn in. Player choice is a devious animal and letting them constantly "choose" their own treasure will cause problems. Why will it cause problems? Because one player might make better choices than others? And under such a system, once a player realizes his choice wasn't as good as another's, he's free to change his choice for an item of equal value the next time they're in a city. Up the CRs of encounters if the PCs are breezing through them. Maybe my group is atypical, but I think they could handle the situation without causing problems. I'll get a shot at it in a few months to see first hand how they handle having that level of choice. I intend to make all items in the DMG available in large cities, so the only items that will have a "sell" value different from their "buy" value will be those that I create or pull out of non-core sources (their buy value will be priceless, as they will be unique).
CharlieRock 03-29-07, 10:51 AM	Why will it cause problems? Because one player might make better choices than others? Well, that's one I didn't think of. I meant like, someone cashing in their items and walking out with a Rod of Lightning Bolts, and a Wand of Cure Moderate Wounds. Because I know what kind of game I'll be in when someone picks those items. Also, you'll be spending all that time you saved by having a balanced loot system going around behind the players as they cash in those items you thought they were going to use and saying :"No Deck of Many Things." "No stacking twelve necklaces of fireballs." Or whatever else they will pull out of the book at you.
Dragon Eye 03-29-07, 11:17 AM	IMO, the main reason for the 50% rule is that it provides the force that drives the market. If a merchant could only sell merchandise at the same price he bought it, how would he make money? Now, 100% profit margin may be a bit extreme, but for simplification, 50% is an easy number to deal with. It also gives plenty of wiggle room for negotiation or supply and demand factors. I also agree with CharlieRock in the sense that it makes found treasure more valuable. Without a sell off penalty, there is little reason for a DM to include anything but gold in a treasure. Player 1: “Oh look, another short sword +1.” Player 2: “No it’s not. It’s 2000GP in a light-weight, compact, and easy to carry form.” Player 1: “Yea! Instead of carrying around all this heavy gold that does us no good in combat, we should exchange it for easy to carry magic items.”
eof 03-29-07, 11:23 AM	The balance reason for selling at 50%: So you cannot get an equal value artifact, wondrous, or other item to the one you turn in. Player choice is a devious animal and letting them constantly "choose" their own treasure will cause problems. I guess that depends on your players. Apart from that, it is still the DM that decides what is available in the shop. Houseruling "items sell at 50%" to 100% (or heck, say "items sell at 50%, but trade in at 90%") doesn't change that. If you allow them to buy anything from any book just because they are in a city big enough, it's going to become a problem at some point regardless of whether the sell rate is 50% or 100%. (And there are solutions for that problem anyway.) Having said that, selling stuff at 50% (and never getting compensation, see my post above) typically also mean that the PCs will never invest in "marginally useful" stuff if they can help them in this adventure, but probably not in the next one. "Sure, that set of four Rings of Waterwalking would be nice now that we're investigating these underground lakes, but it's not going to help us smash face in the next 20 dungeons we're in, so why should we buy it again?"
tharivol266 03-29-07, 11:37 AM	personally i haggle whenever a player is selling something. that way if someone has been hogging everything i can give them less money than that person who has been getting left overs. on the average sale ill start the price at about 40% and work from there. if it is a poor player ill start at 50% and go up if it is a rich player ill just pick a number usually around 25%
CharlieRock 03-29-07, 11:40 AM	I guess that depends on your players. Apart from that, it is still the DM that decides what is available in the shop. Houseruling "items sell at 50%" to 100% (or heck, say "items sell at 50%, but trade in at 90%") doesn't change that. If you allow them to buy anything from any book just because they are in a city big enough, it's going to become a problem at some point regardless of whether the sell rate is 50% or 100%. (And there are solutions for that problem anyway.) Having said that, selling stuff at 50% (and never getting compensation, see my post above) typically also mean that the PCs will never invest in "marginally useful" stuff if they can help them in this adventure, but probably not in the next one. "Sure, that set of four Rings of Waterwalking would be nice now that we're investigating these underground lakes, but it's not going to help us smash face in the next 20 dungeons we're in, so why should we buy it again?" Oh, don't go accusing D&D of having simplistic rule designs. *coughACandHPcough* Edit: or background concepts *coughSpeakCommoncough*
Dragom 03-29-07, 12:09 PM	The Anne and George example is flawed. 2 items equalling 2,000 in a 4000 gp treasure stash. As it is a an important stash, one worth all this conversation it must be a BBEG's vault probably in a 3rd level adventure. Now I must ask, wheres the beef? The potions, the scrolls, the base consumables that PC's actually run on. Cause isn't the bulk of the problem the concentrion of wealth in single items? Increasing the chance of uselessness of much of the treasure? The problem isn't that one item is better then the other, the problem is that the DM only wanted to use two rows in her margin to describe a treasure.
CharlieRock 03-29-07, 12:19 PM	The problem isn't that one item is better then the other, the problem is that the DM only wanted to use two rows in her margin to describe a treasure. :heehee
Aminvelos 03-29-07, 01:03 PM	I'm not a big fan of role-playing intra-party conflict. I do that in real life enough as it is. I don't think that many people can truly distance themselves from their in-game personas that much that events wouldn't spill over into the "real world". This type of role-play, in my experience, just breeds conflict. I certainly believe people can come to amicable compromises with loot, but that's almost always done out of character from my experience. I've never met a person who's playing a CN or TN Rogue that actually rp'd what his character would do and not had it generate distrust/dislike from the other players. I acknowledge some people might like to rp that way, but I don't Well were are at an impasse due to opposite experiences and subjective tendancies. What's death and experience have to do with getting the magical items you want? Or playing your character poorly? A person who has the items they want is more likely to play their character better, and thus less likely to die. At least that's how I see it. It has to do with "getting what you want", few people want to die or have less experience and be behind on levels. If you have a good player he'll to tend to have more experience, die less, have better items, and have more fun playing because he has more knowledge of the game. While an average or bad player is most likely going to be have less and make some not so great choices which may lead to death. A good player also realizes the odds and knows that sometimes their just going to roll some 1s and have some close calls that may lead to death. They won't whine because they understand it's all part of the game and worse comes to worse they'll have to roll up a new character or a new campaign will begin. But if players are whining over gold and items then I'd hate to see what happens to this player when he dies and rolls a 1 on his save for a disenigration. What??? I died because of a dice roll???? He should just be happy when he gets crappy rolls on items it doesn't kill you. And my group doesn't just roll completely random the dm takes whatever he was wearing "use some logic" of course anything in a bag is rolled but logic is still used to modify whats possible. Monsters generally don't give anyhing unless they're gaurding something or have had recent victims for breakfast, or other adventures died here ect.. And now about your other question There of course is the roleplaying bit that I have trouble getting past, unless your a merchant already set up in a town your going to have trouble selling something as soon as you bring it into the store for full market price. E-bay takes weeks of course there is no ebay so u have to sit in a store for 3 weeks, or try to find a buyer but it's going to take some time and not the instant gratification of 50% worth it's price. Of course if it's an extremely expensive item you might actually want try to find a buyer.(assuming no one can use it) If you want to throw away the role-playing aspect there are still some problems several were already mentioned by previous posters. Is there some balance reason for forcing loot to be sold at 50%? And if I remember right u wanted to have everything available to players. But before we get too far into it lets talk about what you nerf by doing so. First of all you just killed the bartering, throw away another use for another underused skill. Crafters take a hit since everyone sells at market price now. They will also be able to buy specific items to be tailored against future fights, this as I see it is the biggest problem with a good group. First of all lets all just buy cloaks of true-strike shall we 20+ to attack rolls, and not that much money for it either. 2000gp by standard dmg 8000gp recommended by srd. Whatever nifty things can we buy at cheap prices?? This unfortunately is just one small example of how allowing them to buy anything they want will be a campaign ruined. Also buying enhancements on every part of your body for the same attribute also does the samething. You are effectively making it very easy for them to build "campaign smashers" Not necessarily as bad as the ones on the thread but still quite harmful. Now lets just assume you retract the whole buy anything you want and stick with money. The group could still find a crafter and pay them privately to make the item, but they'd have to wait. So either way they can get it, which screws up the game. The first question I'd ask is have you run any tests to show that selling at 50% doesn't unbalance character lvl to CR ratio. Considering given statics everyone should eventually get their fair share but some of that fair share is going to be useless essentually cutting down their total wealth. I suppose you could just give them all a smaller percentage of gold to begin with but how would you do items? This is an example to explain a point, nothing more. For instance as far as the boog goes. Jill is a wizard and gets a wand worth 3750 josh is a fighter and gets an useless item 2000 Jill is a wizard and gets a useless item 2000 Josh is a fighter and gets a Weapon 3750 Both netting 5750 but wait they both sell their useless item bring them down to 4750, well in your game they'll have more wealth which is going to create alot more work for the dm. I'll come back with more later
Elthbert 03-29-07, 03:12 PM	My PCs are fortunately mature enough to handle treasue distribution without much difficulty. They usually appraise the gp value of items in game and distribute so that everybody has an equal share. There have been times when a PC wanted more of a share, because some items were just very appropriate for them, but then they get docked in the future to make up for it, and it always works out fine. I guess we're lucky we've never had a PC who wanted to keep everything he found for himself, and if we did, I imagine we'd deal with it as an out of character courtesy issue, not in-character excuses. Same here, I have never had a problem. But of course my players spell casters will also make magical items t cost for party members, without even an XP surcharge.
navar100 03-29-07, 09:41 PM	Random treasure is fine to add spice. Players can have fun finding a use for an item they at first didn't think would be useful. However, if the dedicated warrior has been using a normal greatsword for the first 5 levels, even spent feats on it, and treasure indicates a +1 weapon, would it really kill the game for the DM to decide by fiat it's a +1 greatsword instead of the +1 trident that was rolled? Is it really such a tragedy for a DM to put in treasure hoards items players actually want?
Dragom 03-29-07, 10:45 PM	Is it really such a tragedy for a DM to put in treasure hoards items players actually want? No but it is a shame is every item is tailored to a specific character. Just as in life we don't always get what we want, as it is in the game. Cause seriously, do you remember the last time you found a 20$ bill in the gutter? I do. And I know I only remember it because it only happened once. 'cause sometimes you really do just have to buy or commission or pay for the modification of the things you really want. And who uses a normal greatsword at level 5? You should be able to buy a masterwork Greatsword by level 2. And it takes 2 grand and a 2 day wait to get the +1, easily affordable at level 3 and 4. If your character is a weapon specific build, why would you wait for a hand out?
DarkRhystar 03-29-07, 10:59 PM	No but it is a shame is every item is tailored to a specific character. Just as in life we don't always get what we want, as it is in the game. Why? Because something sucks in real life, it should suck in the game too? That's one of the worst arguments I've ever seen. Seriously, one of the best features of games are that they're not real life.
Dragom 03-29-07, 11:15 PM	Because the base mechanic of "fun" in this instance is flow from -Wanting Then moving to -Trying to get And after a lengthy amount of energy -Finally recieving What's the point if you skip straight to get? Besides plot advancement by convienience and resolution of problems by blessed miracles of coincidence aren't in style anymore.
DarkRhystar 03-30-07, 12:45 AM	Because the base mechanic of "fun" in this instance is flow from -Wanting Then moving to -Trying to get And after a lengthy amount of energy -Finally recieving What's the point if you skip straight to get? That's a good question, but I've got a better one: What kind of DM's base mechanic of "fun" flows solely from treasure?
Dragom 03-30-07, 01:05 AM	What kind of DM's base mechanic of "fun" flows solely from treasure? That's the base mechanic for fun items. I generally embrace the idea of the base machanic of fun in combat as a "percieved or actual possibility of death" which allows for a thrill of fear, the frustration of being challenged and the sensation of victory. The base mechanic of fun in story telling is a realization that previous conceptions are false, like the punch line in a good joke or a twist in a M. Night Shamalayn movie. Like a Villains clever deception being revealed, or the realisation that a trusted patron has knowingly and intentionally sent the party to it's supposed doom. To be honest my entire DMing repetoir is those basic principles and elaborations on them. I think there may be better DM's out there, but I'm confident in my ability to set up a good game.
navar100 03-30-07, 01:21 AM	No but it is a shame is every item is tailored to a specific character. Just as in life we don't always get what we want, as it is in the game. Cause seriously, do you remember the last time you found a 20$ bill in the gutter? I do. And I know I only remember it because it only happened once. 'cause sometimes you really do just have to buy or commission or pay for the modification of the things you really want. And who uses a normal greatsword at level 5? You should be able to buy a masterwork Greatsword by level 2. And it takes 2 grand and a 2 day wait to get the +1, easily affordable at level 3 and 4. If your character is a weapon specific build, why would you wait for a hand out? Some DMs don't like Ye Olde Magic Shop where you can buy whatever magic item you want. Even if you can buy a magic item it has to be in a logical place, such as a large city or maybe the strange old hermit. The party is not always conveniently located near such places. It's also not the DM's job to frustrate the players. It's not the DM's job to force players to use a weapon he wants them to use, which is what the DM is doing if he nevers puts in a magical greatsword in treasure when the dedicated warrior prefers that weapon. There doesn't have to be a silver greatsword and a cold iron greatsword and a magic greatsword and a holy greatsword and a name your DR greatsword, though there's nothing inherently wrong with that if that were the case. A player character having to play against his normal operating procedure for a combat can be fun for that player, so if the dedicated warrior has to put away his greatsword to use a holy cold iron morningstar, so be it. However, if there's never a better greatsword around than what the player's character is using, re a non-magical one, the DM is being a jerk.
Dragom 03-30-07, 01:31 AM	Some DMs don't like Ye Olde Magic Shop where you can buy whatever magic item you want. True, if you are unable to buy or commision or find the item or even prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somewhere in the game world it exists and said item is essential to the character, like your better then masterwork greatsword, then yes your DM is being a jerk. It's also not the DM's job to frustrate the players. Mind you it isn't to coddle them either.
Magnus_the_Mad 03-30-07, 02:01 AM	I am running the "Shackled City" adventure path and I have found that I like the rules that are written for "Skie's Treasury" For those who have played the adventure you may know what I am talking about. For those who haven't played it, the system they have is pretty cool. A local magic shop in the city of Cauldron is run by an ex-adventurer named Skie. The players can buy and sell magic items there but there are limitations. First, Skie only keep 50,000gp in items in stock plus 10,000gp additional for every chapter the players complete. So if they complete three chapters, Skie will have (hopefully) 80,000gp in value of merchandise. If the PCs get in good with Skie (I won't go into the rules but they are provided in the adventure) then they can buy magic items and 10% off of the full DMG price and can sell items for 60% their market value. Furthermore, there is a 25% chance that any item in her store will be sold off to someone else. If Skie's stock starts to dwindle, there are rules to allow you to restock magic items. Yes, this is a lot more work for a DM to do but if you are willing to try it out it actually works very well. PCs can only sell so much to Skie though (I believe she has a total of 20,000gp on hand in gems and coins) so this keeps her limited. The PCs will then have to go elsewhere if they want to sell the rest of their stuff but it will be at the standard 50%. This gives a more "realistic" (if you like) feel to the game. The players get a valued companion and trustworthy magic item broker.
navar100 03-30-07, 09:10 PM	Mind you it isn't to coddle them either. Agreed.
CharlieRock 03-30-07, 09:29 PM	Random treasure is fine to add spice. Players can have fun finding a use for an item they at first didn't think would be useful. However, if the dedicated warrior has been using a normal greatsword for the first 5 levels, even spent feats on it, and treasure indicates a +1 weapon, would it really kill the game for the DM to decide by fiat it's a +1 greatsword instead of the +1 trident that was rolled? Is it really such a tragedy for a DM to put in treasure hoards items players actually want? If it was a treasure from a Goblin Den then yeah. Probably not going to find that Greatsword of Mighty Hewing. They would prefer to keep smaller weapons. Orcs, or totally random encounters, have better chances of having magical two-handed weapons. That's why the halfling player shouldn't get all kinds of bent out of shape if the Frost Giant's Lair turned out to not contain a suit of (S)Plate Mail +3. Sorry, might have to go buy that one.
navar100 03-31-07, 03:44 AM	If it was a treasure from a Goblin Den then yeah. Probably not going to find that Greatsword of Mighty Hewing. They would prefer to keep smaller weapons. Orcs, or totally random encounters, have better chances of having magical two-handed weapons. That's why the halfling player shouldn't get all kinds of bent out of shape if the Frost Giant's Lair turned out to not contain a suit of (S)Plate Mail +3. Sorry, might have to go buy that one. The giants could have killed some halflings, one of whom had that armor, and the giants kept it as a possible trading item. Still, the giants wouldn't likely have a +1 trident either. It makes sense to place items in treasure that would logically be there, but that's being deliberate, not randomness. If you are using a random method to determine treasure, "another" +1 trident or +1 haldberd or +1 shortsword gets old real fast when the greatsword wielder still has his non-magical greatsword from character creation.
CharlieRock 03-31-07, 09:00 AM	The giants could have killed some halflings, one of whom had that armor, and the giants kept it as a possible trading item. Still, the giants wouldn't likely have a +1 trident either. It makes sense to place items in treasure that would logically be there, but that's being deliberate, not randomness. If you are using a random method to determine treasure, "another" +1 trident or +1 haldberd or +1 shortsword gets old real fast when the greatsword wielder still has his non-magical greatsword from character creation. That's a good reason to write some 'downtime' into a storyline and give the characters a rest break (preferably in a small-to-middling sized town). You can sell that sackful of +1 Daggers for a nice <whatever>.