|
Situation:
Players open door, defeat monster, and then either
A) Forget to look for a valuable magic item on the body, or
B) Fail the Perception check to find it.
The grey area comes in when the scenario says, “If the players defeat the monsters reward them with…” It does not name the finding of the item that would presumably lead to the gold value of the encounter in the requirements of getting the gold for the encounter.
I could see GMs approaching this in different ways:
1. Hand wave the finding of the item and grand full gold and gear to the players.
2. Give the players full gold but cross out the items on the Chronicle as they can’t be purchased if unfound.
3. Cross out the items and record less gold equivalent to the item value.
What have you actually done or seen done?
I presume that number 3 is the ‘official’ correct answer. However, the amount the PCs gain from encounters does not always line up with the value of the item. This is easily apparent as the rewards don’t change with table size. So if there are multiple treasure items and one is left behind should I just put out my best guess as to what the value I should deduct is? That seems a bit subjective, but I don’t see any other way to do it.
I presume the answer will be yes, but I at least wanted to ask the question incase others would also benefit from the conversation.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Number 2 is the correct answer.
Items found in the scenario are separate from the gold piece rewards for overcoming each encounter. If they met the conditions of the encounter, they get the full gold reward. It is not reduced by any of the items they did or did not find. Unless part of the encounter goal was finding said item.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I don't know if I've ever seen a scenario list the Perception DC to find the bad guys' gear. Even if it did, I think it's safe to assume that the characters are all taking 20 to search the bodies for loot and clues (unless they are specifically in a major hurry, and don't have 2 minutes).
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Number 2 is the correct answer.
Items found in the scenario are separate from the gold piece rewards for overcoming each encounter. If they met the conditions of the encounter, they get the full gold reward. It is not reduced by any of the items they did or did not find. Unless part of the encounter goal was finding said item.
^^^^This
|
|
^^^^ThisNumber 2 is the correct answer.
Items found in the scenario are separate from the gold piece rewards for overcoming each encounter. If they met the conditions of the encounter, they get the full gold reward. It is not reduced by any of the items they did or did not find. Unless part of the encounter goal was finding said item.
Interesting. There are definitely a few GMs, including VOs and those with high numbers of stars (though none in my region--I've only seen it at Gencon), who have been using option #3, so it might be a good idea to make this announcement as public as we can.
|
|
Alternatively, there are scenarios that have a monster in a room and treasure hidden in the room, but not on the monster. (That’s more what I was implying with option B.) It specifically says “If the PCs find the treasure reward them with…” Should this be treated the same as the above situation?
It feels like the writers have just enough leeway in the wording of treasure rewards to be confusing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In addition, I've run a few scenarios where the players skipped some of the rooms altogether and moved to the final encounter (whilst still running near the end of time [during a convention, so I couldn't give them too much leeway or we'd've run the risk of pushing the next slot]). In situations like this, I was taught to just subtract any rewards (gold or otherwise) that they would've been rewarded after searching those areas from the final total. I crossed off specific items that weren't found as well as subtracted the gold reward from the final gold count as they never explored those areas.
Essentially, they came, they saw, they conquered - all while skipping the illustrious loot.
I hate to say this but I have never seen a GM give anything less than the maximum amount of gold. They sometimes mark off items but only when specifically instructed to do so.
|
|
When the party is under a tight time constraint and they do not indicate they are taking the time to search for treasure or loot the bodies, I assume they are leaving it.
But if the party does not have to rush and can take a few minutes to scavenge everything, they can always take-20 when searching. I assume any group of pathfinders will do this and award the treasure accordingly.
Of course if the perception check is a high DC, say 30+ it is always good to see if the group has someone who can meet this number when taking 20.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Mike:
There are recent scenarios, such as First Steps, where after the critter is defeated, there's a high Perception DC to search the room for gold. If we're intended to give out that gold automatically, why is there a Perception roll DC?
--+--+--
There are scenarios which require the PCs to steal from honest businesses or innocent NPCs to pick up the gold for an encounter.
If they don't steal stuff, I've been assuming that they do not choose to take that gold.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
A good example of gold that needs to be found/taken.
When I came across it the first time, my first thought, even when playing it, was "well, that was stupid" concerning having to steal the gold from the virtual collection plate.
The second time I played it, none of us took the money, and we got less because of it.
|
|
A good example of gold that needs to be found/taken. First Steps Pt III. The <spoiler omitted>
When I came across it the first time, my first thought, even when playing it, was "well, that was stupid" concerning having to <spoiler omitted>
The second time I played it, none of us <spoiler omitted>, and we got less because of it.
You only loose out on the gold if
|
|
I hate to say this but I have never seen a GM give anything less than the maximum amount of gold. They sometimes mark off items but only when specifically instructed to do so.
I think allot of this depends on when you started playing. I started at Gencon during season 1, next time I played was Gencon season 2. It seams overall most of the mechanics for gold have been streamlined a little more. I think I played 3 slots each year, I ended up being level 3. As far as wealth I think I only received around 1/2 my total gold during these two years.
I have deduct gold and cross off items, I would imagine it would be 20% of the time.
There should't be that much difference out there. It is pretty easy if party completes X they earn Y. Some players have a sense of entitlement, they want all the gold, all the PA, some will argue about creative use of skills for faction missions, etc.
GM's should not punish players, bad guy drinks his potion you all loose 50 gp 1/6. They should run the scenario's as presented and be prepped for them.
There are some scenarios that have less gold if you don't make a perception check. As well as some if you fail the last encounter you can forfeit 3/4 of your total gold.
I think if the scenario's keep getting better, monetary placement of treasure should be distributed among all the encounters. I think that the optional encounters should award more gold, or at least a boon.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I think if the scenario's keep getting better, monetary placement of treasure should be distributed among all the encounters. I think that the optional encounters should award more gold, or at least a boon.
I disagree. I don't think players should be penalised for playing in a tight time spot, or at a full table, or with fairly new players at the table. All of those make it more likely that you might have to skip the optional encounter, while a table with only four players (and the ability to run long, if necessary) probably won't have to.
|
|
Yeah, I agree to some extent. What if one party TPK's on the optional encounter, while the other group misses it due to being in a 4 hour slot.
It seems hard to find a good middle ground.
Awarding gold to an optional encounter would be could reward players who had actually encountered them. The long range problem would be people would be focused on the optional encounters. Or feel cheated if they missed them.
In traditional games players would get EXP, for the optional encounter.
A good example of gold that needs to be found/taken. First Steps Pt III. The <spoiler omitted>
When I came across it the first time, my first thought, even when playing it, was "well, that was stupid" concerning having to <spoiler omitted>
The second time I played it, none of us <spoiler omitted>, and we got less because of it.
You only loose out on the gold if
** spoiler omitted **
From memory:
Which is the second pass or fail possibility in that encounter in regards to gold.
