Rise of the Runelords

Game Master Kevin O'Rourke 440

Sadness. :(

Can I keep the roll for later in the campaign when buying such magic items are more likely?

For now I'll just save up for a Cloak of a Hedge Wizard (2,500 gold...and at most I'll end up with about 2100 gold). So the next shopping trip.

You already found out what the gem will do when it's in a wayfinder, and you bought the gem. The only thing you missed was the wayfinder. You could say the shop owner used his wayfinder (that isn't for sale) to convince you to buy the stone?

I like how you think. :)

I don't mind spending my funds on the wand, because having it will free up Anneka's spells for other, funner things like murderous command and shadow trap. Anneka is also meant to be a support/utility character, and using the wand is consistent with that. So by investing in this wand Anneka receives a direct benefit.

Here's my problem with Azalia's approach.

We get 3-4 kinda neat things, and people take them. Then we split the cash equally amongst all of us from the other things. Let's say we find 5000 gp worth of things that someone wanted (like a +1 hammer for Drazh, or a +1 Bow for Miron), and 4800 gp of things that we sell (final sell prices, not values). We split the 4800 six ways, so we each get 800 GP. Milgen can't afford to get any magic items at all, so he's stuck with 800 gp for several weeks of real time. Next time, the same thing happens, and again Milgen (who doesn't use weapons or armor) ends up with the short end again, because the only thing he usually gets that are useful are (A) wands (which are party stuff) or (B) scrolls (which again, are consumables), or (C) Spell Books (which give him more spell options, but which he then has to pay gold for to use, because they aren't his). I've run a game where the Players did that, and the magic user got hosed over.

I do agree that consumables should NOT count against WBL, they should be party things, meaning we don't take them out of the shares of the loot at all (which is what I tried to do earlier with the wand and potion and wine). But just keeping stuff that might be useful for your martial character in an edge case, and then splitting the rest of the cash equally is basically telling the Magic Caster to go pound sand if he wants any equipment, because the AP rarely gives spellcasters anything equipment wise beyond wands, scrolls, and spellbooks (which again, are either consumable or require cold hard cash to even use). They certainly don't hand out useful things like Pages of Spell Knowledge, magical Haramaki's, or things like that. The AP's hand out magic weapons and armor and rings of protection like they were candy.

I find it interesting that you don't consider wands and scrolls the possessions of a magic user, but swords and armour are possessions of a melee character. I DO consider a caster taking a wand, or a scroll to be his possessions, not group possessions.

But, as I said, I don't like penny pinching. I infinitely prefer the caster takes a wand that's awesome, and the snazzy scrolls, and the fighter takes some cool armour and a sword, and so on and such. And whatever's left, split it even. Otherwise players are too busy worrying over what's 'optimal' or how much less money they'll get, instead of just using things cause they're cool.

If most of the players want to count down to the gold piece and do an uneven split of gold, and worry about WBL and so on, that's fine, we'll do that, but then you're doing it properly. Not skipping out on counting wands and scrolls because its consumable. Some character builds use a lot of consumables, and some use none. Not charging for consumables favours one build over the other. We're either counting everything and splitting the gold based on wealth, or counting nothing and splitting the gold evenly. One or the other please, not some weird split.

I know that Milgen and Drazh favour WBL, and Azalia and I prefer an even split, but can I ask the opinions of Anneka and Miron, please? Hopefully they turn out to be tie-breakers. Haha.

As a GM, I use an even split for the reasons Ferocia mentions, plus the fact it is administratively easier. So my vote is for that.

At this point I just want to get back to the AP. :p

Sorry for starting us down this rabbit hole

So by that attitude, the Cleric is a heal slave, and should spend all their cash on Cure wands, yes?

Anything that is bought for the group (which wands and potions usually are, they benefit the whole group) should be a joint cost thing. If the group prefers to charge individual players for the consumables, so be it. I'll sell the wand, as it's not as useful to me as it is all of you.

I suggest Anneka not buy a CLW either, as that is her throwing her money into a group item that the group is not going to take the cost of.

Done arguing, do whatever you want with the loot from now on, Ferocia. I relinquish the loot sheet to you and Azalia and Anneka. Someone else can deal with it. If I'm ripped off by other players on equipment, I'll just withdraw from the game.

My priorities with loot, with the overall goal of group enjoyment, are in descending order of importance:

a) Group effectiveness

b) Personal effectiveness

c) Even gold values

I'll explain my reasoning behind this.

Because of the nature of a normal pathfinder game, a party which doesn't use loot effectively whether directly, sale, or exchange, is going to lose effectiveness over time as enemies get stronger with level but the party falls behind.

Looking at the official GM guidelines for wealth by level, I see the following:

Table: Character Wealth by Level lists the amount of treasure each PC is expected to have at a specific level. Note that this table assumes a standard fantasy game. Low-fantasy games might award only half this value, while high-fantasy games might double the value. It is assumed that some of this treasure is consumed in the course of an adventure (such as potions and scrolls), and that some of the less useful items are sold for half value so more useful gear can be purchased.

Table: Character Wealth by Level can also be used to budget gear for characters starting above 1st level, such as a new character created to replace a dead one. Characters should spend no more than half their total wealth on any single item. For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins. Different character types might spend their wealth differently than these percentages suggest; for example, arcane casters might spend very little on weapons but a great deal more on other magic items and disposable items.

The guidelines assume that disposable items are included in the wbl figures. In theory this should even out, as items as disposed of, since that disposable-heavy PC's share is lower compared to the party's and should get a larger share of future loot to compensate. And this should be fine, since presumably those disposables were used for the benefit of the party.

The issue of whether an item benefits the entire party or not with the obvious example is a clw wand, isn't as straightforward as it might first seem. Because literally any item that is used can be benefiting the entire party. That fighter gets a shiny new sword? They can kill enemies that much more quickly, keeping the party as a whole safer. Wizard with a Wand of Grease? They shut down foes for a time, making it safer to bring them down for good.

So how to sort this out in practice?

Here's one possible solution: "Buy From Loot"

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

Far and away, the most fair system is "Buy From Loot". Everything gets sold and split evenly except if a player wants a loot item, then they pay the party half price (selling price) to take that item.

This way, it's completely neutral to the party whether or not you keep the Necklace of Fireballs or sell it, because they're making the same amount of money either way (either they sell it to you or sell it to the merchant, for the same amount either way.) And it's fair to the players, because if you wouldn't even pay half price for an item, then it's honestly not really worth keeping, now is it? (And if two+ characters want to buy the same item from loot, I suppose you could have them bid for it.)

I've played with this system and there are essentially zero arguments about loot, because it's just so fair and clear-cut.

The two flaws I can see in it is that it will require a bit of book-keeping, but that's inherent to some degree no matter what solution we choose, and that the group effectiveness will need watching.

**********************************************************************

In short, what do you all make of BFL as a solution?

BFL has my vote. Well argued

BFL was what I suggested earlier, but it was rejected.

Well, this version *would* include consumables in wbl, at least the ones that only directly benefit one character. But there is scope there for group 'purchases'. Say back to the wand of cure light wounds. The party can opt to split the 'buy cost' between them. So there is scope for both individual and party consumables.

Let's keep cool heads, people have varying levels of strong opinion about this but we're all just trying to have fun but this does impact upon characters and the game which people are thankfully invested in. But let's try to temper our passions.

Alright, unfortunately we've got an even split on how to do it... not ideal I'd generally like to leave it to the players to decide with a majority. How about everyone takes a moment to consider for themselves. If there's no change I'll have to break the deadlock... something I am loathe to do but it might be necessary.

My final $0.02 worth...

I just get frustrated because I've been here before, and every single time the person advocating for not having to take their toys out of their share ends up hogging all the loot. I'm not saying they are always doing it on purpose. Quite often they don't intend to.
But they eventually end up with 4-5 1000 GP items in their loot, and then they'll sell all 'their' equipment in one go and buy an expensive item, and after 3-4 levels, they're at 180% WBL, and someone else in the game is at 60% WBL.

It's not me that it happens to, as I'm usually the GM. But I've seen it in dozens of games over the years. I've implemented my own system for my games :

Consumables come out of the party WBL, unless they are part of a specific character archetype (IE: An Alchemist built as a bomber who buys extra alchemical weapons uses his own WBL, or a dual wand build wizard, but CLWs and potions are party equipment, because they are meant to keep the party going, same with restoration wands).

If people keep an item, it comes out of their share based on the sale value (Buy From Loot as Miron calls it).

If someone is more than 10% below the party average, they are brought up to Party Average out of the loot until they are there, and then the rest of the loot is split evenly.

The problem with Ferocia's method is that it means the person who says 'Well, if no one else wants it, I'll take it' ends up with most of the loot. There's always players who are shy, or retiring, or who don't want to argue, and they just let others have their way. That's who ends up screwed under Ferocia's method. I've seen it time and time again, in both real games and on PBP. How many times have we seen in game threads where someone says 'not really interested' and someone else says 'oh, well, if nobody wants it I'll take it' and nobody argues because they don't want to be 'that player'?

After being that GM for so long, and seeing it, I have no issue being 'that player' and calling foul on it.

Anyway, like I said, my last $0.02 worth on it. I just really don't like what it does to parties. As for the wand Milgen has, I only took it because I'm the only one that can use it for now. I have no real wish for it. I'd be just as happy to sell it and split the value. If someone else has a high enough UMD and wants it, they can have it.

Honestly, I'd be happier trading the wand we have for a CLW of the same charges and calling it a party wand, so that Anneka is not subsidizing the party out of her equipment allowance.

Having the cleric pay for the healing wands is about like having the cleric pay for the fighter's armor. Nobody would suggest that Anneka should buy Drazh's +1 breastplate out of her funds would they? (Sorry Drazh, you're the front line fighter, so using you for an example, not hating on you).

<Head pokes up> Someone is buying me something? ;)

Right I've got a proposal that might work if people find it agreeable.

Any equipment picked up a character can take up and use. Any items not claimed for use are sold off and added to the gold which is then divided evenly. If a claimed item is later sold (as a better one is found or they buy an upgrade) then the value of it is split among everyone.

If of course someone uses their share of the gold to buy an item it is their item and if later sold the gold is entirely theirs.

Consumable items get used, it's what they are there for. If you guys are buying 'group items' like the Wand of CLW ye are going to discuss it beforehand and work something out. For CLW probably everyone will pitch in... a hard rule on this isn't needed as it'll be a case by case basis. I could see a party with a sorceror and monk having just the two of them buy a wand of mage armour between just the two of them

How does this sound, I'm trying to avoid a huge post.

Right I've got a proposal that might work if people find it agreeable.

Any equipment picked up a character can take up and use. Any items not claimed for use are sold off and added to the gold which is then divided evenly. If a claimed item is later sold (as a better one is found or they buy an upgrade) then the value of it is split among everyone.

If of course someone uses their share of the gold to buy an item it is their item and if later sold the gold is entirely theirs.

Consumable items get used, it's what they are there for. If you guys are buying 'group items' like the Wand of CLW ye are going to discuss it beforehand and work something out. For CLW probably everyone will pitch in... a hard rule on this isn't needed as it'll be a case by case basis. I could see a party with a sorceror and monk having just the two of them buy a wand of mage armour between just the two of them

How does this sound, I'm trying to avoid a huge post.

I'm in.

Sounds good to me

Any equipment picked up a character can take up and use. Any items not claimed for use are sold off and added to the gold which is then divided evenly. If a claimed item is later sold (as a better one is found or they buy an upgrade) then the value of it is split among everyone.

This is the system I use in my games, and it works out fine.

Frankly Milgen I'm unsure why a system of loot distribution would enrage you to the point where you are threatening to leave the game if you are "ripped off by other players." Nothing has happened in this game to suggest that anyone is trying to rip anyone else off. Has it? You are anticipating negative behavior from this group based on your experiences with other groups. I cannot endorse that as a rational basis to support your position. It's a logical fallacy.

Problems can be addressed as we move forward, and they should be addressed calmly and rationally, as we are all adults.

I am prepared (happy) to purchase the CLW wand for the reasons stated above, though if anyone truly wants to contribute, they certainly can.

Speaking of conflict resolution, it's time to turn our attention to Thistletop!

I'm fine with that.

Frankly Milgen I'm unsure why a system of loot distribution would enrage you to the point where you are threatening to leave the game if you are "ripped off by other players." Nothing has happened in this game to suggest that anyone is trying to rip anyone else off. Has it? You are anticipating negative behavior from this group based on your experiences with other groups. I cannot endorse that as a rational basis to support your position. It's a logical fallacy.

Two reasons. 1, as I said, I've seen this happen in my own games, and it really does hit some of my buttons when I see people who, by their personalities, end up getting taken advantage of. Again, I'm not saying that the people doing it are doing it on purpose (although some of them have), but it's still happening, and that's one of my hot button pet peeves. RPG games tend to attract people who have self esteem issues, and a lot of players don't assert themselves because of these issues. Having someone else take advantage of this (even by mistake) just re-inforces this. My wife is like this, she constantly thinks she's not 'good enough' for things, and people have to reinforce that she's good at things. She's gotten better over the years, but it's been a herculean effort to get her to express her own self worth. For those who don't think they are doing this, I ask that you please stop and look at each player in your games, and try to think about if they are really not interested in things, or if they are just not assertive. People who aren't assertive tend to get walked all over by people who would never do so if they realized they were doing it.

2, I come to the boards for escape and to release tension, not to raise my blood pressure and tension levels. I have come to realize that it's best for me to back out of game situations that will push my buttons, rather than continue in them and let it fester until I explode. I don't want to stick around in a game where something is going to fester and bother me over and over again.

@GM - Your solution is perfectly acceptable to me.

Well then. We have our loot distribution method sorted out. I am certain that there was no ill intent on anyone's part. And we have a goblin infestation to deal with.

-------

Btw, Drazh's hedgehog? It is going to have this archetype:

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/familiar/familiar-arch etypes/valet-familiar-archetype/

Valet Skills: A valet treats Craft, Perform, and Profession as class skills.

Able Assistant (Ex)

A valet’s master treats the valet as if it had the Cooperative Crafting feat and shares Craft skills and item creation feats with the valet.

This replaces alertness.
Magical Manipulation (Sp)

A valet can cast open/close and prestidigitation at will.

This replaces share spells.
Teammate (Ex)

A valet is considered to have all the teamwork feats its master has.

This replaces improved evasion.
Deliver Touch Spells (Su)

At 3rd level, when delivering a harmless touch spell to a willing creature, a valet can move before and after delivering the spell, as long as its total movement does not exceed its speed.

This alters deliver touch spells.
Deliver Aid (Ex)

At 7th level, a valet can move before and after using the aid another action, as long as its total movement does not exceed its speed.

This replaces speak with animals of its kind.
Aide to All (Ex)

At 13th level, a valet can use the aid another action as a full-round action to grant up to three adjacent creatures bonuses from this action. Each bonus can apply to the same action or check or to different actions or checks.

This replaces scry on familiar.

Right now, what does this mean? Drazh won't get +2 perception and +2 sense motive. Instead he'll get +2 to his craft skills *and* will make items twice as fast. So if anyone wants masterwork armor or weapons, come talk to Drazh. He can hook you up.

Also, prestidigitation? Now his familiar can clean him after a battle, make his drinks cold, and can even make water taste like fine dwarven ale.

Quite happy to have found this archetype.

Yeah even the new rules don't do well with. I'll let you build it for half cost rather than a third at the same rate you'd make a magic item. IE 500gp and a day means 1,000gp of progress for the day.

Ok, Mithral Fullplate costs 10,500 gold. I can make it for 5,200 gold.

It would take 21 days to make it normally. With the familiar? It will now take 10.5 days to make it.

Yup...this will be doable.

You don't calculate based on the cost of materials, it's on the market value.

Also, half cost is for magic items. Mundane items cost 1/3rd, not 1/2. So you need 3,500 GP.

I had read the GM's ruling "Yeah even the new rules don't do well with. I'll let you build it for half cost rather than a third at the same rate you'd make a magic item. IE 500gp and a day means 1,000gp of progress for the day"

As meaning that it would cost me 1/2 instead of 1/3, but in exchange I'd be able to make it faster. Seemed like a fair deal to me...pay more, but actually be able to use it before the campaign is over. :P

Oh, sorry, I forgot about that. In that case, you'd be paying half cost, and taking 11 days, yes. (or 22 days, working part time).

Milgen I certainly understand where you're coming from and don't begrudge your apprehension of one system against another. You probably have more experience with tabletop than me, and/or I'm overly optimistic.

Also, ultra busy day today, please bot me as needed (I'll tend to throw up a bless first round), thank you!

Sorry to ask a dumb question, but how much gold did I get all together?

Sorry to ask a dumb question, but how much gold did I get all together?

@Milgen I'm actually getting semt messages about this too and honestly I don't know. What is everyone getting each total if you wouldn't mind?

Assuming nobody keeps anything they haven't fully claimed already, then about 1723 GP per (I updated the sheet to do a 'ideal split').

Milgen took a 50GP scroll so he can put it in his spell book. Other than that, he's taken nothing. Ferocia took a ring worth 1200 out of her share. Miron took a composite bow worth 105 gp. And Azalia took a +1 longsword worth 1389 out of hers.

So, if I added it up correctly :
Azalia : 339 GP
Anneka : 1723 GP
Drazh : 1723 GP
Ferocia : 523 GP
Milgon : 1673 GP
Miron : 1618 GP

There's another 4 GP or so rattling around after the divide, I say we toss that as the cost of dinner on our return.

Adding 126 GP from selling the wand :

Azalia : 465 GP
Anneka : 1849 GP
Drazh : 1849 GP
Ferocia : 649 GP
Milgon : 1799 GP
Miron : 1744 GP

This is using the 'buy from loot' method (which we agreed on, which ironically enough, was the one I used originally).

Except that isn't what we agreed on. The DM suggested a different approach, which was to use what we took, but it remains party treasure, so if we sell it, eveyone gets some... and all cash divided equally.

Ok, then that's fine. I thought we agreed to what Miron suggested, but I'm literally ready to quit if I have to mess with this stupid loot question anymore.

The numbers above are 8,355

Divide that by 6, and you get 1,392.5 apiece, except that you and ferocia get an extra 2500 gp worth of equipment between you.

When you two hit 2x what everyone else has, I'm quiting this game.

I am done with the loot sheet, someone else keep it up from now on.

@GM - ignore my purchasing of Pages of Spell Knowledge, I now no longer have enough GP to buy equipment.

@Drazh - Just as well you did not get the wayfinder, you can't afford it anymore.

1392.5+410=1802.5
1802.5-500=1302.5 left

If you need any gold more than happy to spot you. None of this is a big deal.

Anyways...we’ve had great momentum. Can we please not let loot derail this campaign? I really don’t care. If anyone needs gold I’m more than happy to share. Much more interested in just keeping this going.

Busy day today so no update til tomorrow.

So...it turns out that to use cooperative crafting with my familiar I need to have it to. But what I found is that I can dip into Constable Cavalier.

Heavy Armor Proficiency (needed for Mithril Fullplate), Improved Unarmed Attack (always nice to have, one can’t always be armed), and 1 free teamwork feat (Coolerative Crafting).

And it does fit the AP. I’m thinking at lvl4 Drazh could perhaps be deputized to represent the class? It would be fitting. Especially as he was already working for them repairing their gear...and he does need a new home.

A question though is what order should he take?

If you want to get started on that cooperative crafting, I say pick up that teamwork feat first.

That’s what the dip does. Tactician Class Ability gives a free teamwork feat

Ah gotcha, I picked that up wrong.

I approve of skipping over a bunch of climb and swim checks. Might as well get to anti-goblin tactics!

Just realized I haven't updated my profile for level 3. I'll get that done this weekend. My meat game got cancelled... again... so I have the time.

Milgen's effectively got a surprise round on his goblin dogs which is why they haven't started acting yet.

“Yellow Goblin Vs Drazh: 1d20 + 2 - 1 ⇒ (19) + 2 - 1 = 20 ”

That’s crazy! Between adaptation and doom, a 19 missed. Thanks Miron for that debuff

I just found out my neighbourhood won't have power tomorrow, so I won't be online. Bot me as needed! Thanks!

Hopefully it will be only a nuisance for you.

Ok, thanks for the heads up.