|
During my many years of gaming, we have come across encounters where there wasn't enough treasure to go around after the battle was over. Well usually what we do is we have everyone say what item they want and if someone else wants it then they have to roll for it.
Sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn't because people tend to get angry when someone else gets something someone else wanted.
How do you deal with this in Pathfinder?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Add more treasure.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You make sure the treasure is balanced to the group. If you put a magic greatsword in for the barbarian this session, you put in some scrolls for the wizard next session. So long as it all balances out, and the players trust that you will make it so, there's no issue. If two players want the same item, put in a duplicate later. Maybe you should also ask them why they both have characters that want the same stuff to the point that they can't come to an agreement.
In most groups I play with, loot is given out in a party vote system. The fighter and the barbarian both want the +1 ring of protection? Group says the barbarian needs the AC more so he gets it, and the next one goes to the fighter.
Normally in my past groups the players let it go to whoever needs it the most or who it would benefit the group best to give it to, unless that PC already has a considerable amount more than everyone else. In that case it goes to the 2nd PC that needs it or would be most beneficial to the group. If neither of those works, they may bid on it, even trading in current magic items to get it*. Sometime's a player has also agreed to not be a part of the next few treasure splittings if the item is a high value one.
*What I mean by trading in magic items is the person might agree to sell a item they have to pay off the group or the person the really wants the item once they get back to town.
|
|
AC is a lost cause on a barbarian anyway.In most groups I play with, loot is given out in a party vote system. The fighter and the barbarian both want the +1 ring of protection? Group says the barbarian needs the AC more so he gets it, and the next one goes to the fighter.
It was an imperfect example. Replace "barbarian" with "guy-who-wants-AC #1" and "fighter" with "guy-who-wants-AC #2".
In our group it usually goes to the guy who needs it the most. If there is no clear need for a item it then goes to the person who wants it the most. IF two or more people want the item it becomes a roll off. Often times when this happens the person who gets the item in question will give the loser an item of lesser value.
ex. player one wins roll off he takes the cloak of resistance +4. He then gives player two his cloak of resistance +3. If she already has one she can keep it and sell it at a later point in time.
|
|
In out group it usually goes to the guy who needs it the most. If there is no clear need for a item it then goes to the person who wants it the most. IF two or more people want the item it becomes a roll off. Often times when this happens the person who gets the item in question will give the loser a item of lesser value.
ex. player one wins roll off he takes the cloak of resistance +4. He then gives player two his cloak of resistance +3. If she already has one she can keep it and sell it at a later point in time.
We do this as well except if there is an item left then it goes in the kitty to pay for Raise Dead or anything else we may need as a group.
Add more treasure.I don't add treasure for the hell of it,it has to make sense in our games. Maybe I should have used magic items in my opening instead of treasure.
Magic items make sense? ;)
Okay, but seriously, add more items wherever they make sense. Well, as much sense as treasure in D&D ever makes. [Read: not much.] As Riuken said, just make sure everyone gets their own toys.
Someone in the party needs to make a spreadsheet. Everyone's gear should be inventoried and items should be identified as to which are personal possessions and which are party items. The player can have a party item become a personal possession by paying the party the value they would get for selling the item (typically half-price).
When new loot is obtained, the value should be calculated (using price for selling the item, 1/2 price usually). Each party member gets their share of the loot, they may take this in the form of currency or items. This division can be done at a later time if not convenient or not enough loot to warrant it at the moment (in which case items are considered party loot even if used by individuals).
|
|
I once gamed under a GM who (imho) chronically under-funded the party with the whole of the available treasure. When my character finally (after a year) scraped up enough to afford actual leather armor, he then acted surprised that she couldn't afford to ride in the cushy compartments of the lightning rail, and ended up riding with the other commoners in the last car. He had to make some unwanted quick changes in how a fight broke out in that car.
The point I'm trying to make is, don't totally starve your party for treasure. It can make for cranky players and the feeling that one's risking their character's life isn't worth it if there's not even a tiny payday coming.
Simple... divide treasure fairly.
Let me elaborate since that might not be obvious to a lot of people.
-Tally the full gold value of all treasure looted. This means FULL value such as over 2000gp for a +1 sword.
-Let the people who can use the item best use it during the adventure. If more than one can use it then majority vote decides.
-When the party reaches a location where gold can be spent, divide the treasure equally. For example the group of three adventurers finds a 6000 gpv magic item, a 3000 gpv magic item, three art pieces worth 200 gpv, 400gpv and 400gpv respectively, and 6000 gold. Pete was using the 3000 gpv item and wanda was using the 6000 gpv item, but since it is now time to divide treasure they both put the items back in the pile. Each player declares any items he or she wants from the pile. Pete and Fred lay claim to the 3000 gpv item and have to dice off to see who gets it (Fred gets it). Wanda lays claim to one of the art pieces (200gpv) she wants to add to her noble outfit and the 6000 gpv item. Nobody wants the other two art pieces. The undesired items are sold off at half value. The total value of the haul is now 15600 gp. Divided by 3 that's 5200 gold each.
Fred's share is the 3000 gpv item and 2200 gold.
Pete's share is 5200 gold.
Wanda's share is a 200 gpv art piece and the 6000 gpv item. But wait that is 6200 in value! Fred and Pete are going to end up 500 gp short because there isn't enough gold in the pile. Wanda owes each of them 500 gp. She only has 600 gold from earlier. So she opts to pay them each 300 gp and owe them 200 each out of her next treasure share.
The most popular method of dividing goods (in my experience) is to get group consensus on who gets the item, generally based on who needs it the most with a view towards equalizing treasure values between PCs.
The second most popular method I've seen is to calculate equal shares of treasure based on the sale value of the item, and then if a PC wants to keep the item he will owe the rest of the PC's that much gold out of his future treasure shares. Basically, what pres man described.
The second is probably the fairest, although it tends to result in selling off all but the best magic items (which could be good or bad, depending on your taste).
I've never used the roll-off technique. It sounds terrible and punishes people for having bad luck with dice.
The second most popular method I've seen is to calculate equal shares of treasure based on the sale value of the item, and then if a PC wants to keep the item he will owe the rest of the PC's that much gold out of his future treasure shares. Basically, what pres man described.
I've never used the roll-off technique. It sounds terrible and punishes people for having bad luck with dice.
You shouldn't use the sale value of the items it is inherently unfair to the people who don't get the items. You should always use full market value. That way if someone didn't get the cool toy they could always find a way to buy one and won't be thousands of gold worse off then the guy who ended up with the item.
I like rolling off because it IS more fair than players pick who gets the toy. Sure sometimes a person might have a streak of good luck. But contrast that against the group where some people like their close friends more than their friendly acquaintances. As a result certain items may ALWAYS go to a specific character or his cronies. For example a group with two mages but one is better liked as a player than the other... It usually ends up with the better liked player's character getting first pick at all the wizard stuff.
You shouldn't use the sale value of the items it is inherently unfair to the people who don't get the items.
But then if the player who took the item can no longer use it, he's worse off than the player who took the cash instead. That's just silly.
Another silly example:
PC Art and PC Bob find 2,000 gp and a headband of intelligence +2 (worth 4,000 gp retail/2,000 gp resale). Bob wants the headband, but he also has the feat Craft Wondrous Item.
Under your proposal, the best strategy for Bob is to sell the headband, get 2,000 gp in cash, and then craft a new headband! Because if he kept the original headband, then he'd owe Art 1,000 gp...
But contrast that against the group where some people like their close friends more than their friendly acquaintances.
I've never been in a group like that, thank god.
You shouldn't use the sale value of the items it is inherently unfair to the people who don't get the items.But then if the player who took the item can no longer use it, he's worse off than the player who took the cash instead. That's just silly.
Which makes it more likely that it will be used, than merely selling it.
Basically a sword in hand is worth 2 in the bazaar.
The Headband only sells for 1000 gp. The crafting costs 1000 gp... why is that advantageous?
Why would you take an item you couldn't use? If he has craft wonderous and the ability to make a Headband +2... then he wouldn't take the headband from the treasure.
The Headband only sells for 1000 gp. The crafting costs 1000 gp... why is that advantageous?
The headband sells for 2,000 gp and costs 2,000 gp to craft.
Case #1 (keep the headband):
Bob keeps the headband (worth 4,000 gp retail), so his share is 4,000 gp. Art gets the 2,000 gp in cash, so Bob owes Art 1,000 gp (because each share is worth 3,000 gp).
Case #2 (sell the headband):
Bob and Art sell the headband, so they have 4,000 gp to distribute between the two of them. They each get 2,000 gp cash, and Bob uses 2,000 gp to craft a headband.
Um...no thanks.
The Headband only sells for 1000 gp. The crafting costs 1000 gp... why is that advantageous?
Why would you take an item you couldn't use? If he has craft wonderous and the ability to make a Headband +2... then he wouldn't take the headband from the treasure.
Headband +2 has a market value of 4000 gp, not 2000 gp.
So under your model the loot looks like:
2000 gp
headband worth 4000 gp
total value 6000 gp
divided evenly that means each person gets 3000 gp of value.
Player Bob wants the headband. If he takes it that means he is over his allowed value by 1000 gp. He now owes Player Art 1000 gp.
Instead player Bob says, "We should sell the headband."
Option 1: Art says, "Ok."
Now the party gets only 2000 gp for the headband giving the entire party wealth 4000 gp. Each person gets 2000 gp. Bob then uses his 2000 gp to craft his own +2 headband. He gets the headband anyway without owing Art anything.
Option 2: Art says, "No. I want it."
Bob says great. He instead take the 2000 gp. Art now owes him 1000 gp (having gone over his 3000 gp share). Bob then crafts his own headband with the 2000 gp. He ends up with the headband anyway + 1000 gp of Art's future shares.
The value added is from the Craft feat which allows people to exceed the normal wealth they would have. Just because crafters throw off normal wealth calculations it's not an excuse for using sale price versus market price.
Realistically once you remove the crafting feat it looks like this:
Option 1: One of them keeps the head band and owes the other 1000 gold... but he has a headband he IS going to use. The other guy CAN'T have a headband yet since he can't raise the 4000 gold to buy one.
Option 2: They both sell the headband and take 2000 in gold each. But no one has a headband.
Which makes it more likely that it will be used, than merely selling it.
This is the truth of why full market value is good. Items taken from the group loot pile will only be ones they want to USE not sell.
This is the truth of why full market value is good. Items taken from the group loot pile will only be ones they want to USE not sell.
They will only keep items that have immediate and frequent uses and they will sell any item that is a bit unusually and only good in rare situations under the model of using full price. Why pay full price for an item that you might only use once? Doesn't make sense, might as well sell it. But if you could get that item for (effectively) 1/2 price, then you might hang on to it just in case that rare situation comes up where it would be handy.
It is more of a personal preference. I would rather my players be tempted to hold onto unusual loot they run across, then just see them as gp if the item isn't immediately an optimal choice.
I see it as fairness over preference.
Fighter 1 and Fighter 2 both want a +1 sword. It would help either of them greatly. But they only found one +1 sword. How is it at all fair to give one the sword and the other one only half the money needed to buy one to keep up?
We usually just go "Hey a +2 Sword! The fighter can use that." Etc.
I see it as fairness over preference.
Fighter 1 and Fighter 2 both want a +1 sword. It would help either of them greatly. But they only found one +1 sword. How is it at all fair to give one the sword and the other one only half the money needed to buy one to keep up?
Because later down the line when both have much better weapons, how much is that +1 sword worth now? Half price. So you are seeking fairness at the moment and sacrificing fairness down the line. While in my model, I am seeking fairness in the long run while sacrificing fairness at the moment.
This is the truth of why full market value is good. Items taken from the group loot pile will only be ones they want to USE not sell.
The problem is that there are are lots of items in the Core Rulebook that I'd prefer to keep instead of selling the item for half price, but for which I wouldn't want to pay full price.
E.g. Suppose my party finds a pair of boots of levitation (=7500 gp) and my PC would be willing to pay up to 5,000 gp for that pair of boots. Well, too bad -- my choice is to either be unhappy overpaying for the boots, or to be unhappy when the party sells the boots for less than I think they're worth (=3750 gp, effectively destroying 1,250 gp in wealth as far as I'm concerned).
I toyed with something similar once Grimmy... but more extensive. Where treasure was never truly ever divided. It ALL stayed group treasure forever, with whoever needed it at the time using it. The only trouble with it is it isn't one player playing five characters. It is five players each one wanting the best stuff for their own character. So the idea failed.
I don't see your fairness in the long run pres man.
One bought one his magic sword and one got the treasure pick. Now later when they both have better weapons they both only get 1/2 price on the first sword... BUT fighter 2 had to buy his +1 sword so it STILL isn't fair for him. He is still 1000 gold behind.
The only way your model holds up is if no one EVER buys from a store and simply waits for whatever the treasure gods deliver.
The best way, imo, is to have the group roll for loot order, and let them pick what they want. If you are worried about encounters that don't have a balanced amount of loot to distribute, then keep track of loot order and who's next looter. That way, it stays balanced across your encounters.
I don't see your fairness in the long run pres man.
One bought one his magic sword and one got the treasure pick. Now later when they both have better weapons they both only get 1/2 price on the first sword... BUT fighter 2 had to buy his +1 sword so it STILL isn't fair for him. He is still 1000 gold behind.The only way your model holds up is if no one EVER buys from a store and simply waits for whatever the treasure gods deliver.
Not at all, because later he will get different item that is cheaper than what he would have bought it at (thus saving gp and making that extra 1000 gp he spent up). You do have to spread out the items that are picked up. Sure it doesn't work out if player A always gets the item and player B always gets the gp.
Ultimately, either way is probably even out in the long run.
My way just motivates keeping items that are unusual but are not immediately useful. The full value way demotivates that. Also reduces the "specialness" of items being found. I mean if you are basically "paying" the same for the magic sword found in the dragon's horde as you would going into a Swords-R-Us, then the one from the horde doesn't seem nearly as special.