So, I have an idea for a loot "treasure" system that states that anyone can keep any loot that is dropped during the adventure, so long as that PC buys out the rest of the party for it.
The high concept is to ensure that everyone who wants to sell an item is able to acquire their split of the sell-value of an item regardless of whether it is kept by someone or not.
In practice is works like this:
Treasure is sold upon returning to town--if in town this means you can more or less sell treasure after leaving dangerous areas--and all items are sold at 1/2 value.
If someone wants to keep an item, they deduct the sell value of an item from their total gold (including the money they will get from selling things that they are not keeping) thereby ensuring everyone else gets the gold for the item. Basically, this makes it so the rest of the party gets the money as if the item had been sold, but it also makes it so that if the character who kept said item wants to sell it the party is not cut into the sale as normal since they were already compensated for it.
This system eliminates arguing over gear, and it also allows characters to get gear for roughly 1/2 the buying price
What do you guys think?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Buying out sucks if you give high value items to the party. Give the players an item a level or 2 ahead of the curve and suddenly no one has the cash to pay the rest of the party.
I would be careful with this, for the reasons Caineach said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really, whatever works for the group is good. I prefer a straight up, who needs this right now kind of system. If multiple people need it, they roll to determine who gets it.
Buying out sucks if you give high value items to the party. Give the players an item a level or 2 ahead of the curve and suddenly no one has the cash to pay the rest of the party.
Not sure why this is an issue, with the exception of a greedy group. As it is, our groups would loan money to each other.
Example: If two characters want a belt upgrade +2 to +4, this cost 12k. Instead of both players waiting to get the 12k, at 6k each, one loans the money to the other one. Then when they get their money they loan it back. Player 1 gets his belt in half the time and Player 2 gets it in the normal amount of time. Next time, they switch off who loans to who first.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually of the opinion short of parry conflict the dm has no say in how treasure is divided. It ultimately should be an in character thing.
I will say though in my view the best systems encourage treasure to be used. But at the end of the day some SMS roll everything randomly and feel a +1 flaming burst greatclub is good treasure value.
If you need to design a subsystem for fairly dividing loot because your party is incapable of working it out themselves then the root of your problem isn't something solvable by a subsystem.
This is a way of working it out. Are you assuming it's being forcibly imposed by a GM?
When I started playing, the group had a simple rule - anyone who wanted to use an item could have it. If multiple people wanted it, highest roll on a d20 got it. Anything leftover was divided up equally or put into the party fund. If you sold an item that you had used, you kept all the money.
There was nothing in this system to make it 'fair'. If you kept finding items that the same person could use, they'd get richer and richer and you'd stay poor. I was quietly resentful of this system. Everyone else seemed to assume that it would average out. I eventually accepted it. (And then I had my soul devoured because of a failed save because I'd had to skimp on my Cloak of Resistance.)
Like others, I've recently started (as the loot-tallying player) to reduce everything to selling price, giving out shares, letting party members buy out loot at selling price (auctioning where necessary), and extending credit on future loot shares for big items.
Other than that, I've played a lot of Loot Communism. To each according to need, sell the trash, every sale is group property...it makes the party stronger.
|
I GM and rarely get involved in treasure splits; that's something for the players to figure out. they typically use a "who benefits most from this item right now" system, which seems to distribute items pretty well (and leads to a lot of items swapping between characters).
If I perceive that there are any imbalances, I can adjust the loot I hand out to even things out.
-Skeld
If you need to design a subsystem for fairly dividing loot because your party is incapable of working it out themselves then the root of your problem isn't something solvable by a subsystem.This is a way of working it out. Are you assuming it's being forcibly imposed by a GM?
When I started playing, the group had a simple rule - anyone who wanted to use an item could have it. If multiple people wanted it, highest roll on a d20 got it. Anything leftover was divided up equally or put into the party fund. If you sold an item that you had used, you kept all the money.
There was nothing in this system to make it 'fair'. If you kept finding items that the same person could use, they'd get richer and richer and you'd stay poor. I was quietly resentful of this system. Everyone else seemed to assume that it would average out. I eventually accepted it. (And then I had my soul devoured because of a failed save because I'd had to skimp on my Cloak of Resistance.)
That's basically what we do, but I haven't noticed any resentment yet--maybe it's too quiet.... But there hasn't really been any conflict as to who gets what.
I suspect group size contributes somewhat, as it's much more likely that two characters will want the same item when two characters' roles start to overlap. The manner in which treasure is distributed by the GM matters a great deal as well; if the GM hands out enough of the right stuff to cover the party, the party will usually figure out how to distribute it. If the GM hands out a lot of random loot without thinking about it, disputes may come up.
I'm a fan of the party handling these things themselves, if there is a conflict - then that's a great chance for some good/memorable roleplaying.
It's also something the pro adventurer could/should keep in mind to settle when signing up with a new group.
Isn't that how most groups split loot?
Anyway when you buy out an item you should pay* 3/4 of the sell value and not the whole sale value, because 1/4 of the money gained by selling it would go into the PC buying it out.
*assuming 4 person party
This is how my group handles treasure distribution. It's fair, and everyone gets an even value of items, although it does requires a little more bookkeeping. When multiple people want the same item we just talk it out. Usually one needs it more than another. We also consider healing items as "party loot", distributed to characters as appropriate (cleric gets the wand of cure light wounds, party splits potions evenly).
The way we handle items worth significantly more than everything else is to withhold them from the loot distribution until we have more loot. For example if the loot has a +2 sword (~4,000gp) and ~2,000gp of other items, we'll split up the 2,000gp of items as usual, let one player carry and use the sword until we get more treasure. Once we get more treasure we divide everything else as usual.
I find it amusing that some people think that I am actively forcing people to use the system I have offered. In reality it is a suggestion. The "loaning" idea by Slacker2010 resolves the issues brought up by
Caineach, since if a high coin item was discovered then the PCs can utilize it by being loaned the money--at no interest, and in good faith--by the other PCs.
Of course, I almost never drop permanent items such as magic weapons or armor because I am of the belief that all drops should be consumable or temporary. If the PCs want their money then they have to not use the consumables.
Of course the consumables are extremely useful. A magic item with Breath of Life and contingency cast so that it can bring a killed character back to life and has X charges is my sort of magic item that would be dropped as loot.
Flaming Swords, magical armor, etc. are for being bought or made.
leo1925: The PC pays the sell value because he hasn't sold the item. In the math he effectively pays himself while not gaining the money for his 1/4 (Assuming party of 4) of the sell value.
1/4 -> Party Member A
1/4 -> Party Member B
1/4 -> Party Member C
1/4 -> Party Member D (Keeps item)
When the item is sold, Party Member D keeps the entire sell value since members A, B, and C have already been compensated, and D makes the money he spent on keeping the item back in full.
This is more or less a recommendation, since once people can start shifting the items around if they bring in other characters at WBL they artificially inflate the gold in the party.
E.G.
Party (A, B, C, D)
The party finds items that mostly Martials can use (A and B), but that are neigh on worthless for Casters (C and D), so C and D pass on them letting A and B have the majority of the treasures.
A and B do not have to compensate C or D for the treasures they are being given. There is the argument that the "DM should change the treasure tables to more focus on C and D" but ultimately this is extra word for minimal reward.
The issue comes in when either C or D or both die. The party is not above level 1. Do I start them at level 7 with starting gold for their class and demand that they inherit the gold of all of their gear sold at full value? This means they might be a level 7 character with 1/4 or less the gold of WBL since all of that wealth is currently being carried around by A and B.
This proposed system instead ensures that the wealth of the party is split, fairly evenly I might add, between the party so even if A and B are keeping those super powerful items dropped early that the wealth is still given over to C and D.
I would still have a treasure tracker so I know exactly how much money new characters should start with to make them equal with old characters.
Partially this is because some people love having their characters horde all the items, then sell them without keeping the rest of the party in the loop. They simply assume ownership without objections, and then those small trivial items add up to being a sizable difference after a while. Having a group agreed upon system to keep the moneys of the party roughly equal is a fairly important requirement if you want to ensure everyone is fairly being treated treasure wise.
I tend to have a mixed bag of power gamers who want to WIN for various reasons, such as keeping the story going (I am a rampant power-gamer b/c I want to know what happens next with characters I love), people who more or less treat D&D as a social event (perfectly fine, they add more fun), and people who are there purely to roleplay with mechanics and such being secondary (Also, perfectly fine, they add the extra elements that my power gaming self tries to add, but at higher degrees. Where they fail, I succeed, where I fail, they succeed, and the middle group of socialites are there to be mortar between brick and brick.)
My big concerns about this type of system tend to come from if the party tries to hold too closely to it. If it is fairly loose or is used as a guideline, you don't usually have problems. I can definitely see it resolving issues with a group that likes to stealthily steal loot from others. That isn't an issue I have run into in games. Generally, people ask if anyone else wants something before any loot is sold. After it leaves party loot, the only time I see things sold in my games is when someone trades something back in to grab an upgrade from party loot, like throwing your +1 ROP in to grab a +2 from the newest loot. Almost nothing gets sold as individual loot.
Ok you are right, i was mistaken with my numbers.
I let my players decide how to split stuff i consider it part of the roleplay. In the two games where i play atm. We are mercenaryes in one there we use a system like what you suggest here. In the other my figther made the others sign a contract, where all lot became group property until a 5 year period have passed and at that tome we Will split the stuff evenly. So there everybody is on a 5 year contract.
If you need to design a subsystem for fairly dividing loot because your party is incapable of working it out themselves then the root of your problem isn't something solvable by a subsystem.This is a way of working it out. Are you assuming it's being forcibly imposed by a GM?
When I started playing, the group had a simple rule - anyone who wanted to use an item could have it. If multiple people wanted it, highest roll on a d20 got it. Anything leftover was divided up equally or put into the party fund. If you sold an item that you had used, you kept all the money.
There was nothing in this system to make it 'fair'. If you kept finding items that the same person could use, they'd get richer and richer and you'd stay poor. I was quietly resentful of this system. Everyone else seemed to assume that it would average out. I eventually accepted it. (And then I had my soul devoured because of a failed save because I'd had to skimp on my Cloak of Resistance.)
Or maybe you just rolled poorly? Your share of the loot could have been spent buying that cloak - we'll assume you purchased something else with it!
If I remember correctly, when a roll off was done for an item everyone would want, like an upgrade to a cloak, The person getting it almost always offered their existing lesser cloak to the person that didn't get it!If you didn't like the rule you could have suggested an alternative and also could have imposed a different way of doing it when you DM-ed the following adventure - which you didn't! And yes I was the DM in question.
Edit.
Also we run AP's where the loot is pretty much designed to cover all the main class types. I can't remember anyone ever being either poor or richer and richer - it pretty much balanced out.
Death happens, that's what all the 'bring you back to life' spells are for!
|
Putting loot systems in place with out-of-game rules just complicates things more. People want loot all the time and they should get it based on in-game needs/discussions. If the group agrees on paying for loot IN GAME that's fine. Most of the time players just end up being civil when it comes to loot and gladly give each other gear they found. It's not like just one player benefits from a new piece of loot either, the whole party benefits by that player doing more damage/being more durable. I don't see why just one person'd have to pay for that. In the end it all evens out anyway, with people getting loot at various points in the game.
The only problem that arises every now and then is when 2 or more people want the same item. In that case, they have to solve that in game. If and only IF no solution can be reached and it starts to bubble in to an out-of-game discussion will I step in as a GM, thankfully this has never happened.
Worst thing I've seen is a Fighter and Barbarian that both wanted the same weapon. The Fighter had the worse weapon between the two so the Barbarian gave it to the Fighter, managed to do so in an in-character way "Huh, puny guy, I don't need a new weapon to kill my prey." After which the Fighter offered to help buy the Barbarian a new weapon. Behaviour like that gets rewarded by me.
|
|
@Taku, This system actually seems to skew wbl a good bit.
Normally you have 10k worth of loot and it sells for 5k. A group of 5 gets 1k gold a piece.
In this system, if there were say a 5k gp item in that loot that a player wanted, they purchase it at 2.5k which goes to the rest of the party.
The remaining 2.5k (half sale value) gets split between everybody.
So now you have 2.5k split between five players (This is 5k gp in treasure that nobody wanted).
And 2.5k split between 4 players (This is the sale value if the 5k gp single item in the treasure pile that one player purchased from the horde by paying the party).
Then you have one player with a 5k gp item that only cost him 2.5k.
If that player originally had 10k gp the normal purchase of the item would cost them half their wealth and after the loot sale they'd end up with 6k gold. In this case, the cost of the item leaves them with 7.5k gp and they get 500 from the remaining loot. Now this player has 8,000 gp and the item.
What this means is that four people in the group get 1,125 gp instead of 1,000 gp.
A fifth person in the group gets 2,000 gp.
Of course, finding treasure you want and can make good use of (a longsword that you have weapon focus in rather than a club which you don't) is always going to favor the player in terms of wealth if they just keep the item. However, I think that the system assumes that most treasure found is sold at half value and wbl is determined from that.
(And then I had my soul devoured because of a failed save because I'd had to skimp on my Cloak of Resistance.)Or maybe you just rolled poorly?
Maybe you told me it was a Will save to negate and then, a couple of rounds after I'd been disintegrated, noticed it was actually a Fortitude save. Who can say?
Well that can't have happened based purely on your rules lawyering! If I had a pound for every time you told me a rule... LOL!
Fun times indeed!
Hope you and yours are well!
@Taku, This system actually seems to skew wbl a good bit.
---examples---
Not sure how this is a problem. Clever players are going to get more out of their treasure. The key here is any item that you "use" isn't being sold for half. So you really get more from your loot.
A +2 Great Axe will sell for ~4k. If the BSF decides to use it instead of having to have a Great Sword then he saves 4k not having to buy the custom weapon. This is why my group tries to put all of our magic items to use. Also, why I prefer not to pigeon hole myself into a weapon if I can avoid it.
|
|
Yeah, but this does not work for many builds or even some classes and certainly several feats and archetypes.
Finding magic gear you can use is great! You come out ahead of the curve. Sometimes substantially so. But if you're a color spray-scythe user, finding a nice magical dagger helps you how? Conversely, if you're a knife fighter rogue, or barbarian built around two handed fighting to maximize power attack and shield of swings and some other feats, that +2 or +3 short sword does nothing for you...doesn't matter that you can use any given two handed weapon. The short sword is one handed only.
And while you're bound to find a magical two hander eventually, it is problematic when you consider very common feats like weapon focus or classes that benefit mostly from use of a deities favored weapon, or proficiency....
I don't think that these are all pigeonhole moves. Yes, some characters (especially casters) can use whatever magical weapon they are proficient with and everything is fine. However, I would argue that a substantial portion of martials and a smaller but reasonable number of spell endowed classes rely on a weapon of choice to be at their most effective or even reasonably so in combat.
Avoiding the pigeonhole effect would mean losing out on the benefits of quite a lot of archetypes, class features and feats. That said, having a generic secondary weapon as backup is always a good idea. And it pays for that weapon to be as strong as excess wealth allowed to be possible but mostly to compensate for the fact you aren't using the one that you actually know how to use to good effect due to your investment.
But if players want more wbl than normal and are in a home game, they can definitely get it but why offer it for free when you could make them role play their way to financial freedom and that dungeonside villa overlooking the corpses of adventurers past?
@Taku, This system actually seems to skew wbl a good bit.
---examples---Not sure how this is a problem. Clever players are going to get more out of their treasure. The key here is any item that you "use" isn't being sold for half. So you really get more from your loot.
---examples---
This is actually why I love to drop powerful consumables with limited uses in its life-time, while forcing player characters to buy permanent things.
Magic Wand that somehow casts the level 5 Raise Dead spell and has 2 charges for X gold. It is stupidly useful and the party, for all extents and purposes wants to keep it around, but then again it is also worth an exorbitant amount of money for their level (pre casting level 5 cleric spells) so it is a give and take. Limited security VS Permanent Power.
I ~never~ drop permanent items. If there is a +2 Great Axe in the treasure horde of something (such as in a module or AP) it is changed to be a x-charges item of equal sale value. I am actually loathed to include permanent items. If the PCs are going to encounter something where the AP/Module/Scenario drops lots of (material, E.G. Silver or cold iron) weapons then I turn them into some sort of item or oil that will last long enough. I am not against an oil that lasts for 1 day and makes the weapon be treated as silver or cold iron, but still it makes it a consumable that is equal in value.
Also, I think there is a massive misconception with how this works.
Item costs X, lets use RMcD's example:
10,000 treasure made up of
5,000 useless trinket
5,000 awesome itemNo one claims useless trinket.
Player A claims awesome item.Useless trinket is sold for 2,500 and split up among the party.
Each member has 500 each.
Player A claims awesome item of (sell value) 2,500 or (value) 5,000. Giving them a total of 3,000 or 5,500, rest of party have 500.
With the buy out of 2,500 to the entire party each gets 625 putting them at 1125.
Unless she gives each party member 2,500 then she is going to have a considerably higher WBL.
Ok, so addressing this step by step:
10,000 treasure made up of <<Ok, great.>>5,000 useless trinket <<Ok, so a painting.>>
5,000 awesome item <<If this is a permanent item, such as a +1 longsword then I should sheath said longsword and hit you with it until you realize you shouldn't drop permanent items. Of course, this is mitigated if someone in the group can craft +1 longswords, since they can make it for 1/2 value anyway.>>
No one claims useless trinket. <<Well, of course. What adventurer carry's around a useless painting.>>
Player A claims awesome item. <<Which SHOULD be consumable, and have x number of uses before it becomes worthless.>>
Useless trinket is sold for 2,500 and split up among the party.
Each member has 500 each. <<Assuming party of 5, yes.>>
Player A claims awesome item of (sell value) 2,500 or (value) 5,000. Giving them a total of 3,000 or 5,500, rest of party have 500. <<Yes.>>
With the buy out of 2,500 to the entire party each gets 625 putting them at 1125. <<No. The rest of the party gets 500 gp (bringing them to 1,000 gp) since you are using a party of 5 not 4, thereby it is 2,500/5 not 2,500/4. I figured you would be smart enough to realize that this system was worded, like the CR system, around the assumption of 4 players. The current owner buys out everyone, including himself, yet does not receive any gold from his "cut" since that is stored in the item, however if he sells the item then he will receive all of the profits thereof. Then again, maybe I am misreading your intention and my wording above was unclear--a possibility--and therefore I apologize for my malicious nature. ^_~*>>
Unless she gives each party member 2,500 then she is going to have a considerably higher WBL. <<If you make poor decisions and drop permanent upgrades for your party then you are naturally going to have issues with ~any~ loot system. NEVER under any circumstances drop permanent items. If you want to have magic weapons that have enchants the PCs cannot normally access, such as the Keen Longbow in Dragon's Demand, then fantastic, add a sage that can make it happen instead of dropping the item. I was also a fan of PFS's buying items that dropped to keep them.>>
The overarching point of this system is to ensure that if someone dies and has to bring in a new char that I can tell him what to add to his Starting gold.
The interesting thing about the Treasure System is that it does not reflect WBL. The Treasure system actually shorts the PCs money, and you have to bring them up to WBL with quest rewards or just by encouraging crafting thereby making them have an excess of money compared to WBL.
Also, above all, NEVER drop permanent upgrades...EVER. Honestly it is just damn lazy because you could whip up something that is going to be FAR more useful to the party than an upgrade to someone's weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but this does not work for many builds or even some classes and certainly several feats and archetypes.
If a PC hyper-specializes in one weapon, they should not be surprised that they can't always find the best available weapon of that type that they want. That should go without saying.
Otherwise, you might as well just go the route of writing down what magic items you want, handing it to your GM, and having him/her make sure you get them.
But if you're a color spray-scythe user, finding a nice magical dagger helps you how? Conversely, if you're a knife fighter rogue, or barbarian built around two handed fighting to maximize power attack and shield of swings and some other feats, that +2 or +3 short sword does nothing for you...doesn't matter that you can use any given two handed weapon. The short sword is one handed only.
Also, why I prefer not to pigeon hole myself into a weapon if I can avoid it.
Thats one advantage of not going that route. The advantage you get from specializing so much is use of those nifty feats.
And while you're bound to find a magical two hander eventually, it is problematic when you consider very common feats like weapon focus or classes that benefit mostly from use of a deities favored weapon, or proficiency....
You dont have to choose weapon focus, and Clerics favorite weapon is the only full class that has that issue. I know Kensai (magus) and the Sword Saint (Samirai) are some archtypes but thats far from common. Those classes get some great stuff for being pigeon holed. Clerics dont have to use the gods favorite weapon. some times those weapons are not good, its a bonus.
I don't think that these are all pigeonhole moves. Yes, some characters (especially casters) can use whatever magical weapon they are proficient with and everything is fine. However, I would argue that a substantial portion of martials and a smaller but reasonable number of spell endowed classes rely on a weapon of choice to be at their most effective or even reasonably so in combat.
I disagree with "substantial", should use the word "some".
But if players want more wbl than normal and are in a home game, they can definitely get it but why offer it for free when you could make them role play their way to financial freedom and that dungeonside villa overlooking the corpses of adventurers past?
Not sure what you are saying here.
EDIT: Ninja by Tormsskull, he said it in alot less words
|
After 17 levels, I am happy to report that our characters are within about 30k of each other in retail value of items. The "build/craft" values vary by over 150k (because some people kept items that were not built, such as the ring of splendid security). But overall, a well balanced party heading out of the Throne series and into the "upset the balance in Cheliax with a five step program" series of (now mythic) adventures.
Step #1 - steal spellbooks from every mage in town.
Step #2 - win each of the quarterly blood sport events.
Step #3 - kill off as many diabolist clerics as we can.
Step #4 - upset the house of thrune (ie. assassinate/kill/remove them to remote islands or different planes)
Step #5 - at the end of the year blood sport event, dump out all the spell books, and then blow them up with delayed blast fireballs, setting the entire coliseum ablaze in a huge KABOOM!
Mind blank mantles were made prior to the thefts. After only 2 high level thefts and one high level killing of a diabolist cleric (and his two swordsmen who can't see a light in the dark! +3 perception lvl 20 fighters? WTF. And two lower level clerics who were present (lvl 15) - almost didn't get these guys but ghost touch armor and weapons is a wonderful thing (from Throne series, as an added boon)... anyway... ) we had enough gold value to craft three rings which allow crazier things and are more mythic. Our reps are now 60 in our homelands, but Cheliax barely knows we are operating there (thanks to mind blank and greater teleports). Cheliax will change... but we've screwed up a few things along the way that will have lasting impact for Korvosa as well... End of it all - so far, we have managed the money distribution pretty fairly.
I mean, what do you do when you get to the upper levels and someone wants that 205,000 gp ring? You have to be fair.
I mean, what do you do when you get to the upper levels and someone wants that 205,000 gp ring? You have to be fair.
Party works it out in some way.
By the time items of 205,000 gp value begin to drop the PCs should have a well adjusted idea of where the loot goes.In short it would work like this: since "buying out" the other PCs (costs 25,625 gp/person at 4 pcs, or 102,500 total) is going to be difficult, most of the time I assume this will become everyone has joint ownership, meaning that they know, pointedly, that the item is partially all of theirs, and therefore some of the gold "stored" in the item is still being added to their total gold tally and they are just permanently loaning the person said gold.
|
Buying out sucks if you give high value items to the party. Give the players an item a level or 2 ahead of the curve and suddenly no one has the cash to pay the rest of the party.
My Jade Regent GM(Asurasan here on the boards) told me one particularly nasty horror story he read about that happening in another JR game.
Yeah, any system like this would need to be handled with extreme care.
I suppose that would work. I'm not that experienced when it comes to 'everyone for themselves' loot distribution.
In our group it's never about getting an 'even split'... some treasure clearly benefits a particular party member in which case they get it without a word, the assumption being that it'll all eventually even out. What's sold goes into a party fund where gear is then purchased to try to get everyone more or less properly equipped for their role. There are often temporary occasions where one player has drastically more or less magical gear than everyone else but since the focus tends to be more on what you can do than on what you can buy, no one is ever really concerned about it.
Buying out sucks if you give high value items to the party. Give the players an item a level or 2 ahead of the curve and suddenly no one has the cash to pay the rest of the party.My Jade Regent GM(Asurasan here on the boards) told me one particularly nasty horror story he read about that happening in another JR game.
Yeah, any system like this would need to be handled with extreme care.
If you virtualized the gold, such that each person had an independent pool of it, that would probably mitigate the issue. For every 1 gold in value of items you have, your pool goes down 1 "gold". Then for every item someone else keeps, your pool goes up by your share of the value. Then, when you need to decide who gets something, you look at who has the highest pool and they get first dibs on it, since by nature of having the highest virtual pool, they've gotten the least treasure.
To avoid confusion, we can call this virtual pool of gold something different. Since a lot of treasure comes from killing dragons and other monsters, we should reference that. Perhaps, Dragons Killed something or other. Points, maybe. Dragons Killed Points? Nah, that's clunky. Dragon Kill Points. Much better. We could even shorten it to DKP for simplicity.
And when someone does something silly like throwing a fireball at a red dragon, the group leader could deduct fifty DKP for their stupidity. Heaven help you if you accidentally aggro the whelp cave, because that kind of mistake isn't even remotely imaginable.
|
|
@RMcd Dunno if you were just copying what I said as a joke or attempting to clarify it by saying the exact same thing without the clutter of everything else I said. I'll assume the later and say thanks. :)
Or maybe you had the exact same thought in the same way and missed my post. *shrug*
@Taku I love your idea on consumable loot. It allows and encourages PC's to buy the gear they want while making them appreciate the value of and decide between the use of consumables.
The example that RmcD and I both gave used the information provided. We used a five man party (though I did it because at the moment 5 was easiest for me) for the math convenience.
You did not mention that the player was paying his own buyout as well. This would lead to other questions like (where does that players buyout share of the gold go, etc).
@Tormskull & Slacker
Being a ranger means your pigeonholed because your bonus feats are all about a specific classes of weapons? Yes, you may use something other than a weapon that the bonus feats work with but most other rangers who didn't do that will be dramatically superior to you in combat.
Fighters ignoring weapon focus and weapon training and weapon specialization are going to hit less often and do noticeably less Damage than all of the fighters who did take those feats in more cases than not.
This is a much more significant issue if you choose almost any fighter archetype. You're expected to select a one handed weapon and not use a shield, or to use only two handed weapons or to use piercing weapons only, or spears, or close weapons or unarmed strikes or natural weapons.
Monks have limited weapon choices and usually need every bonus to hit (weapon focus) they can get. Furthermore, depending on build they'll need to focus on a specific weapon or two (unarmed, kusari gama, shuriken, etc). These choices matter and that same monk just grabbing a shortbow or javelin because it dropped is mathematically inferior in a very noticeable and readily measurable way than the monk who actually has feats or class features or enhancements (usually a combination) devoted to the use of said specific weapon or two. Being good with a reach trip weapon and having the feats to use it only to pick up a dagger because it is +1 better makes the character worse. Many people with a monk are selecting specific weapons for use.
Rogues....several efficient rogue builds, indeed some of the best builds, require the use of a single weapon or two. Being an enforcer build automatically limits what kind of weapons and what sorts of feats you're likely to take and get use out of in combat (and in some cases out of it). The same is true for some rogue archetypes.
Alchemists- just grabs any weapon instead of a bomb? Sorry, he is usually going to be better with bombs but some builds can make great use of two handed weapons...either way you're looking at narrow weapon selection for efficiency.
These are just the obvious class choices that come to mind and were not already mentioned....and I haven't touched on the specific weapons or feat types that are in use that demand a very real degree of speciliazation ranging from a couple of feats to entire chains. In fact, even wizards and Sorcerors tend to focus on the use of a single type of weapon when they choose to do so..most select a ranged one or natural attacks, and when selecting ranged they often go with rays or crossbows. I can give common examples of specialization all day. This is common...maybe where you guys play people don't focus on 1-2 weapons and are fully effective no matter which class they play or what weapon happens to be in their sheathe...but this is not true for a large portion of players. And even the ones who are of a class that is so good at DPs that any object in hand is lethal (magus, cleric, some oracles and bards, Paladins Smiting with toothpicks) it doesn't change the fact that these classes/characters all become measurably better when selecting particular weapons with which to employ their abilities because those particular selections were made with an advantage and concept in mind designed to provide syngery with other choices.
Keep in mind that by focus or specialization I am also simply referring to someone's decision to use a great sword because they get more benefit from a +1 great sword than from most of the +2 or +3 weapons that are dropping as loot. Greatswords are dumb and do immense damage. It is a huge gap to make up for when that short sword drops. Most characters are going to either sell the short sword, completely change styles to go sword and board or use the short sword as a backup weapon. In most cases that shortsword is not going to compete with the +1 greatsword. Even if the greatsword were only masterwork it still almost as good or better in most situations. Either way, they're focusing on something.
Yes- plenty of players never take any focused feats. They grab toughness, improved initiative, combat reflexes, combat expertise, cleave, power attack, iron will, and they can switch their styles with whatever is best at the moment based on loot drops or items given to them or allies suggestions. I've seen it. I am not saying that it does not exist or can't be done. But let's not sit here and pretend that some substantial attention to specific weapons (1-2) or small groups of weapons is not a very large part of standard gameplay for a large number of players....or that it is not built into a very sizable number of classes and feats and archetypes. I was just being modest before but since you called me on it, I've listed several above and those were just off the top of my head. I could have (and just using classes only to prove my point) mentioned cavaliers, certain prestige classes like the duelist and arcane archer, gunslingers, ninjas at least one or two paladin archetypes, no fewer than two wizard archetypes (never mind that plenty of wizards naturally focus on a weapon at low to mid levels as mentioned above)......I was not exaggerating in the least when I said 'substantial'. I was just giving deference to your opinions and arguments while asserting a modestly healthy place for mine because of....well, all the gosh darn examples I listed. That's why I didn't list all of this before.
@slacker I was just saying that in a home game, creative players are capable of earning wealth in so many different ways and can do so in amounts that utterly ignore the wbl guidelines. A party of burglar thieves dead-set on cleaning out town after town can come out quite rich, as an example. Players who create organizations or products have potential to earn plenty of excess wealth before they should normally have it. This, you cannot do in society play-no matter how clever you are or good your role playing is.
I only pointed this out because I had mentioned it in regards to wbl being skewed by the system suggested but I wanted to counter that aspect of my own argument but saying that players in home games can ignore wbl if they're clever and whatnot, so skewed wbl was not such a heavy foundation for my point as I had made it out to be.
@RMcd Dunno if you were just copying what I said as a joke or attempting to clarify it by saying the exact same thing without the clutter of everything else I said. I'll assume the later and say thanks. :)
Or maybe you had the exact same thought in the same way and missed my post. *shrug*@Taku I love your idea on consumable loot. It allows and encourages PC's to buy the gear they want while making them appreciate the value of and decide between the use of consumables.
The example that RmcD and I both gave used the information provided. We used a five man party (though I did it because at the moment 5 was easiest for me) for the math convenience.
You did not mention that the player was paying his own buyout as well. This would lead to other questions like (where does that players buyout share of the gold go, etc).
Yeah, I suspected as much since it makes perfect sense in my own mind so there are bound to be things lost or overlooked in translation--this is why I tend to leave a disclaimer, though with a party of 5 I can see why and how it could have been perceived logically.
The buyout the player pays to himself is stored in the item. if he sells it he will unlock it. Basically, he is paying the other characters the cut they would have received if he had actually sold the item, so that when he does actually sell the item that he makes his money back that he gave to the other PCs and has his cut then.
Party (A, B, C, D).
D keeps the item.
D pays A, B and C all 1/4 the sell value of the item, and also "loses" the 1/4 for himself from his money pool since the item was never actually sold. When he sells the item he gains 4x 1/4 the sell value (so all of the sale value) which is when he regains the money he paid A, B and C, and regains the 1/4 he lost by keeping the weapon.
So, basically,
Sell value of item = A, Number of PC = B.
To keep an item you lose gold equal to A. Divide A by B, and that is the amount of money the other characters all gain, but you do not receive a "cut" of this since technically the item is standing in for your cut.
When you decide to sell the item you gain all of A since the party already received their "cut" of the sale ahead of time.
Does that work?
This system enables me to know how much money a new character should have in the event that the old character dies. Anything that modifies the cost of crafting things, such as Spark of Creation, is kept on the character. If a super crafter character who has more money than the other PCs because he was extremely industrious and convinced them to buy everything from him when he has something like Spark of Creation that reduces the crafting prices dies then the money he "made" by his discount to crafting is lost with him. The 5% discount is kept on the crafter instead of being distributed to the other PCs. They will always still pay 1/2 the base cost of magic weapons or 1/4 the cost to craft mundane items, while the crafter gains .25% the cost to craft the magic item or .125% the cost to craft a mundane item.
A small compensation for playing a "gimped" character who makes everyone else badass.
Worst loot problem I ever had in a game was actually the opposite of loot greed. My players were so wrapped up in bashing in enemy skulls and completing the story that nobody felt like recording the items they found because nobody prepared identify spells. A couple levels later they are complaining that it has been forever since they got better gear. When I asked them what they had done with all the items they should have recovered they looked at one another and asked who had been writing it down. Thankfully I was a kind GM and after I called them idiots I gave them a couple things they would have picked up. Moral of the story: GMs work hard, players are lazy.
This story NEVER gets old, every time I hear it I start cracking up. That's Jack, Rob, and Drew in a nutshell. XD