The big realism question


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 550 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:


When he's hanging out with the JLA, it's even more obvious than in his own titles.

In the various JLA animated series, it's played with a mixture of drama and comedy.

Shadow Lodge

Kirth Gersen wrote:

In 1st ed., crafting was insanely difficult - you had to be very high level and jump through a lot of hoops, not just grab a feat. Likewise, it was assumed you couldn't just buy magic items (although you could sell them and count the proceeds as xp). So you made use of the stuff you could and sold the rest. Interestingly, a lot of the random results that weren't potions or scrolls ended up being... arms and armor. So, yeah, the AD&D rules were intentionally rigged so that martials ended up with the bulk of the gear. It should also be noted that every magic sword had an x% chance of being intelligent and able to heal the wielder, or let him teleport, or whatever -- so, sooner or later, your fighter was going to get handed those abilities on a plate.

And fighters had the best save progression, and automatically acquired armies, and could have a giffon or pegasus mount without the need for investing skill points in Ride or picking a cavalier artchetype or whatever. And they could move and full attack.

Meanwhile, casters' spells failed if they took 1 hp damage that round -- no concentration roll allowed, and a thrown dagger was much faster than a 3rd+ level spell. And you couldn't just copy spells into a spellbook -- you had to roll to see if you could learn them. And there were strict Int-based limits about how many spells total you could know, and no Int-boosting magic items. Also, spell DCs didn't scale with Int or spell level; they were a flat quantity.

Finally, 10th-14th was considered high level. Most adventurers retired by then, so you generally never saw 8th and 9th level spells in actual play.

So, although 1e was still somewhat imbalanced, it wasn't quite as bad as what we see starting in 3.0, because almost everything that used to balance things somewhat was intentionally removed.

A lot of us who grew up with that paradigm keep playing as if many of the old rules were still in place, even though they're not. The game functions pretty well if you do so. The many comments above regarding...

Kirth, You and everyone else who mentioned the pre-3e stuff I agree with.

Shadow Lodge

Was this party agreement to weird for everyone?

In most groups I've been in, we've had an agreement that a magic item went to the person who could put it to the best use. If he didnt want it someone else could ask for it. If no one wanted it it was sold. When all wealth items where sold we divided the cash equally plus a full share to the 'party pool'. The 'party pool' was used to buy wands and potions and such, and was used to pay for raises, restores, etc.


Jacob Saltband wrote:

Was this party agreement to weird for everyone?

In most groups I've been in, we've had an agreement that a magic item went to the person who could put it to the best use. If he didnt want it someone else could ask for it. If no one wanted it it was sold. When all wealth items where sold we divided the cash equally plus a full share to the 'party pool'. The 'party pool' was used to buy wands and potions and such, and was used to pay for raises, restores, etc.

That sounds about right, except that if say a Fighter took a +3 weapon it would be counted for the full value and however much extra it was over the rest of the party's split would be held against them next time. A party pool to maintain wands of cure light wounds and other assorted party items was also divided evenly in cost. So no one ever really ends up ahead of anyone.


It's sad that the thing that is the mechanically closest to Batman when it kicks super asses is a prepared caster

When dealing with low- or non-powered enemies he's just an Investigator/Monk multiclass


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Entryhazard wrote:

It's sad that the thing that is the mechanically closest to Batman when it kicks super asses is a prepared caster

When dealing with low- or non-powered enemies he's just an Investigator/Monk multiclass

he's a wizard who can only prepare his spells in his home base and has full BAB (or is twice everyone's level)... hmmm i might look into something like that seems like an interesting idea.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:

Was this party agreement to weird for everyone?

In most groups I've been in, we've had an agreement that a magic item went to the person who could put it to the best use. If he didnt want it someone else could ask for it. If no one wanted it it was sold. When all wealth items where sold we divided the cash equally plus a full share to the 'party pool'. The 'party pool' was used to buy wands and potions and such, and was used to pay for raises, restores, etc.

That sounds about right, except that if say a Fighter took a +3 weapon it would be counted for the full value and however much extra it was over the rest of the party's split would be held against them next time. A party pool to maintain wands of cure light wounds and other assorted party items was also divided evenly in cost. So no one ever really ends up ahead of anyone.

The magic items werent counted againt anything and maybe its just the groups I've played with but no one was all that worried about WBL.


Jacob Saltband wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:

Was this party agreement to weird for everyone?

In most groups I've been in, we've had an agreement that a magic item went to the person who could put it to the best use. If he didnt want it someone else could ask for it. If no one wanted it it was sold. When all wealth items where sold we divided the cash equally plus a full share to the 'party pool'. The 'party pool' was used to buy wands and potions and such, and was used to pay for raises, restores, etc.

That sounds about right, except that if say a Fighter took a +3 weapon it would be counted for the full value and however much extra it was over the rest of the party's split would be held against them next time. A party pool to maintain wands of cure light wounds and other assorted party items was also divided evenly in cost. So no one ever really ends up ahead of anyone.

The magic items werent counted againt anything and maybe its just the groups I've played with but no one was all that worried about WBL.

Please read more closely. It's not against WBL it's against their share of the loot. The Fighter can get a +3 Greatsword. Assuming that remaining items when split and sold comes to only 30,000 gp, the rest of a four person party will each take 10k GP, while the Fighter gets the +3 Greatsword. However, the Fighter is now in debt to the party pool 8,000 GP which will be deducted from their next share. Super straight forward and fair.


Jacob Saltband wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:

Was this party agreement to weird for everyone?

In most groups I've been in, we've had an agreement that a magic item went to the person who could put it to the best use. If he didnt want it someone else could ask for it. If no one wanted it it was sold. When all wealth items where sold we divided the cash equally plus a full share to the 'party pool'. The 'party pool' was used to buy wands and potions and such, and was used to pay for raises, restores, etc.

That sounds about right, except that if say a Fighter took a +3 weapon it would be counted for the full value and however much extra it was over the rest of the party's split would be held against them next time. A party pool to maintain wands of cure light wounds and other assorted party items was also divided evenly in cost. So no one ever really ends up ahead of anyone.

The magic items werent counted againt anything and maybe its just the groups I've played with but no one was all that worried about WBL.

We mostly played the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
The magic items werent counted againt anything and maybe its just the groups I've played with but no one was all that worried about WBL.

Same here. Heck, I've actually had players that wanted to divide loot before it was identified. That made for some interesting times.

But under no circumstances did anyone try to "kelly blue book" it to find the estimated price they could get for the sale and then expect the player to owe that much to the group.


Jacob Saltband wrote:

Was this party agreement to weird for everyone?

In most groups I've been in, we've had an agreement that a magic item went to the person who could put it to the best use. If he didnt want it someone else could ask for it. If no one wanted it it was sold. When all wealth items where sold we divided the cash equally plus a full share to the 'party pool'. The 'party pool' was used to buy wands and potions and such, and was used to pay for raises, restores, etc.

That's pretty much how are group has done it.


Tormsskull wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
The magic items werent counted againt anything and maybe its just the groups I've played with but no one was all that worried about WBL.

Same here. Heck, I've actually had players that wanted to divide loot before it was identified. That made for some interesting times.

But under no circumstances did anyone try to "kelly blue book" it to find the estimated price they could get for the sale and then expect the player to owe that much to the group.

And you don't charge any additional gold they got against later loot divisions? That seems incredibly unfair to well... everyone. From an RP perspective how would you act if out a 4 person group that contributed equally, one person got a car worth $35,000, while the other three people only got $25,000 in cash. And then next time that person who got the car gets the same pay as everyone else? Would you be OK with that? Really? I know I wouldn't be.


In their defense Anzyr, it only seems unfair if the group is keeping track of the value of equipment characters get.

In the playstyle they're using, the only person keeping track of this stuff is the GM. The players get what they get, and they either like it or petition the GM to give them the opportunity to acquire what they do want.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

just appraise items, don't even have to identify them, if the price is in the thousands it's a magic item.


"Whoever needs it" worked great in 1e (especially given how the magic item tables were rigged). It fails in 3.X because you can simply sell everything for half price, craft at half price, and break even, so it encourages everyone to expect an even value of loot -- and they even provide WBL tables to reinforce that expectation.

One way to address it would be to maybe have a baseline WBL table, and then give all martial classes perks like the paladin's bonded weapon -- but active all the time, not just x rounds per day. And expand the abilities to include stuff that martials need to keep up -- heal or teleport 1/day, or overland flight, or whatever. In other words, classes that need more stuff would get that stuff by the rules, not by group agreement.

Alternatively, get rid of crafting and go back to a "what you find is what you get" system -- although for a lot of reasons, that's less satisfying to me as a solution.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

In their defense Anzyr, it only seems unfair if the group is keeping track of the value of equipment characters get.

In the playstyle they're using, the only person keeping track of this stuff is the GM. The players get what they get, and they either like it or petition the GM to give them the opportunity to acquire what they do want.

Why would the group, competent adventurers who are out for profit, not keep track of the value of their haul? I honestly can't wrap my head around this. (Around their group's PCs not keeping track, not your post.)


Anzyr wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

In their defense Anzyr, it only seems unfair if the group is keeping track of the value of equipment characters get.

In the playstyle they're using, the only person keeping track of this stuff is the GM. The players get what they get, and they either like it or petition the GM to give them the opportunity to acquire what they do want.

Why would the group, competent adventurers who are out for profit, not keep track of the value of their haul? I mean it's just crazy. If you were risking your life and dragging stuff out, you'd damn well want a fair cut.

Don't ask me, I'm explaining the playstyle of those players not the characters' intellectual process.

It's a semi-common method actually, I know I've seen and spoken to a pretty significant number of people who like to play without concern for that sort of thing.


Anzyr wrote:
Why would the group, competent adventurers who are out for profit, not keep track of the value of their haul? I honestly can't wrap my head around this. (Around their group's PCs not keeping track, not your post.)

Metagame reasons that involve nudging the game in a less broken direction. The gods somehow sway everyone to think it's better if the fighter, rogue, and monk get 9/10 of the loot.

Hey, it's not my preferred method, but I can understand it.


Anzyr wrote:
And you don't charge any additional gold they got against later loot divisions? That seems incredibly unfair to well... everyone. From an RP perspective how would you act if out a 4 person group that contributed equally, one person got a car worth $35,000, while the other three people only got $25,000 in cash. And then next time that person who got the car gets the same pay as everyone else? Would you be OK with that? Really? I know I wouldn't be.

Nope - some times one character gets a really good item, some times a different character gets a really good item.

From an RP perspective, my characters are trying to survive. They generally want their allies to have the best equipment possible to ensure that the team, and by extension them self, live through the day.

Also its worth noting that in the games I've played in, you can't automatically sell expensive magic items, as the towns you generally have access to don't have tens of thousands of gold on standby.


Tormsskull wrote:
From an RP perspective, my characters are trying to survive. They generally want their allies to have the best equipment possible to ensure that the team, and by extension them self, live through the day.

If that's the goal, to survive, the best move is to fire the fighter, monk, and rogue and replace them with a druid, a cleric, and a summoner. But that's not an outcome that most players want to see.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

i've mentioned before that it breeds resentment and favoritism, just look at anzyr to understand what it does to some people.(a lot of people don't say anything about it because they don't like having to ask to be thrown a bone, and so they keep quiet, festering)

i've also mentioned that this doesn't favor character's who don't need common items, unless you happen to find the extra special rare items that work for that person.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
From an RP perspective, my characters are trying to survive. They generally want their allies to have the best equipment possible to ensure that the team, and by extension them self, live through the day.
If that's the goal, to survive, the best move is to fire the fighter, monk, and rogue and replace them with a druid, a cleric, and a summoner.

Or at least a Paladin, Warpriest and Inquisitor/Bard


Tormsskull wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
And you don't charge any additional gold they got against later loot divisions? That seems incredibly unfair to well... everyone. From an RP perspective how would you act if out a 4 person group that contributed equally, one person got a car worth $35,000, while the other three people only got $25,000 in cash. And then next time that person who got the car gets the same pay as everyone else? Would you be OK with that? Really? I know I wouldn't be.

Nope - some times one character gets a really good item, some times a different character gets a really good item.

From an RP perspective, my characters are trying to survive. They generally want their allies to have the best equipment possible to ensure that the team, and by extension them self, live through the day.

Also its worth noting that in the games I've played in, you can't automatically sell expensive magic items, as the towns you generally have access to don't have tens of thousands of gold on standby.

A large town *does* have 10,000 GP on standby. It's literally the town's purchase limit. Keep in mind that's for a single item. So if you need to sell 4 items for 10,000 GP each, you can do so in a large town. A large city has a whopping 50,000 GP purchase limit. And by the time you hit 9th level (well before you need to be selling worth 50,000), you have easy access to Metropolis(es), which have a purchase limit of 100,000 GP. So, this has never been an issue in our games ever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Anzyr, he said 'in the games he's played in.'

As in the GM screwed with those expectations.

You've got to stop assuming these oldschoolers are playing by the RAW xD.


Yeah, I've personally seen plenty of problems with just doing ad-hoc distribution of items, since it can easily lead to players feeling like they're not getting a fair share and/or the GM is playing favorites. I know I got rather annoyed in one game where my bard didn't have any proper magic items at level 12, while the frontliners were swinging custom magic weapons and getting toys like rings of regeneration.


Bandw2 wrote:

i've mentioned before that it breeds resentment and favoritism, just look at anzyr to understand what it does to some people.(a lot of people don't say anything about it because they don't like having to ask to be thrown a bone, and so they keep quiet, festering)

i've also mentioned that this doesn't favor character's who don't need common items, unless you happen to find the extra special rare items that work for that person.

Fairness is a big thing for me. I don't care that literally every single GP be divided neatly, but I would certainly object to someone getting 1.5x more then everyone else.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Anzyr, he said 'in the games he's played in.'

As in the GM screwed with those expectations.

You've got to stop assuming these oldschoolers are playing by the RAW xD.

But... but... the settlement limits... *deep breath* Even then though I'd still track the items value because of the above, but I guess they can do it that way. *shrug*


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

i mentioned my tananim barbarian, for anyone who isn't clear, tananim are a dragon like race, that like bears can do things with their fore limbs but mostly walk on 4 limbs. they also don't like most armor obviously. they also change size every few levels... didn't really get anything usefull ever and was left with my "share" of the gold we found.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
From an RP perspective, my characters are trying to survive. They generally want their allies to have the best equipment possible to ensure that the team, and by extension them self, live through the day.
If that's the goal, to survive, the best move is to fire the fighter, monk, and rogue and replace them with a druid, a cleric, and a summoner. But that's not an outcome that most players want to see.

There's actually no way to identify someone's class aside from guessing, OOC knowledge, or house rules. By the time you get enough observational evidence they aren't pulling their weight anymore you're on like book 4-5 of the adventure path and have already given them 10s of thousands of gp in loot. If not 100k+. If you kick them out now, you're not getting any of that back. And if you kill them - well that's evil (which is a problem if your party isn't). No, the best course of action is to stick with that guy until his inevitable demise, at which time you can make your case to his spirit why it should refuse resurrection (so we can't say you didn't try) and just let you take all his worldly possessions that he'll no longer need in the paradise of afterlife.

In all seriousness though, in the RP perspective kicking a guy out of the party gives you no guarantee of finding someone more capable to replace them. The people you need are extremely rare individuals, especially those of a level where martial are no longer effective. Only OOC do you know that player can just make another PC of the same level, or maybe 1 level less - whatever the DMs rule is.

Shadow Lodge

Anzyr wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

In their defense Anzyr, it only seems unfair if the group is keeping track of the value of equipment characters get.

In the playstyle they're using, the only person keeping track of this stuff is the GM. The players get what they get, and they either like it or petition the GM to give them the opportunity to acquire what they do want.

Why would the group, competent adventurers who are out for profit, not keep track of the value of their haul? I honestly can't wrap my head around this. (Around their group's PCs not keeping track, not your post.)

Not everyone has mercenary mentalities. The style 'we' usually played was that the group was long time friends and magic items werent considered cash until no one wanted them. Maybe thats a meta-game reason I dont know.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

IC knowledge would be that this guy needs to have me cast magic on him to survive, and frankly all he does is fight, we should be paying him bodyguard wages if anything.

(though i quite frankly find this rude OOC)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:

"Whoever needs it" worked great in 1e (especially given how the magic item tables were rigged). It fails in 3.X because you can simply sell everything for half price, craft at half price, and break even, so it encourages everyone to expect an even value of loot -- and they even provide WBL tables to reinforce that expectation.

That is definitely not a given in most aps. And again WBL is a guideline for generic campaigns. Paizo AP's as written generally tell those assumptions to take a hike.

Shadow Lodge

When 'we' got together to play our characters were out for adventure and while profit was a part of that adventure it wasnt in any way THE thing that mattered.

Now I admit that it didnt always work out that way, but more often then not it did.

And this was as recent as 2 years ago with PF.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

"Whoever needs it" worked great in 1e (especially given how the magic item tables were rigged). It fails in 3.X because you can simply sell everything for half price, craft at half price, and break even, so it encourages everyone to expect an even value of loot -- and they even provide WBL tables to reinforce that expectation.

That is definitely not a given in most aps. And again WBL is a guideline for generic campaigns. Paizo AP's as written generally tell those assumptions to take a hike.

actually most APs assume the GM to add side quests and what not for loot and exp, since the written material is way below WBL and the amount of exp needed to level to the guidelines.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

In their defense Anzyr, it only seems unfair if the group is keeping track of the value of equipment characters get.

In the playstyle they're using, the only person keeping track of this stuff is the GM. The players get what they get, and they either like it or petition the GM to give them the opportunity to acquire what they do want.

Why would the group, competent adventurers who are out for profit, not keep track of the value of their haul? I honestly can't wrap my head around this. (Around their group's PCs not keeping track, not your post.)
Not everyone has mercenary mentalities. The style 'we' usually played was that the group was long time friends and magic items werent considered cash until no one wanted them. Maybe thats a meta-game reason I dont know.

Exactly. "adventurers who are out for profit" is the breaking assumption here.

Yes, if your motive for adventuring is profit, then not splitting the profits fairly is hard to understand.

If you're on a quest to stop the witch queen from plunging the world into eternal winter, for example, dividing up the gear for maximum group effectiveness might be a higher consideration.


Bandw2 wrote:

IC knowledge would be that this guy needs to have me cast magic on him to survive, and frankly all he does is fight, we should be paying him bodyguard wages if anything.

(though i quite frankly find this rude OOC)

Yeah the OOC reason is that it's rude to tell someone he can't play that character, and you can work things out to cover a weakness unless the DM is really going all out. Also, in actual play not every character is equally optimized or interested in winning fights and accomplishing party goals so a fighter can end up being more effective than a high level wizard in some parties.


Anzyr wrote:
A large town *does* have 10,000 GP on standby. It's literally the town's purchase limit. Keep in mind that's for a single item. So if you need to sell 4 items for 10,000 GP each, you can do so in a large town. A large city has a whopping 50,000 GP purchase limit. And by the time you hit 9th level (well before you need to be selling worth 50,000), you have easy access to Metropolis(es), which have a purchase limit of 100,000 GP. So, this has never been an issue in our games ever.

I'm assuming you typically play in Golarion and you typically play APS? Then all of what you said makes sense.

I can count on one hand with fingers to spare the number of metropolises that I've been in as a character. Large towns are also fairly rare.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
You've got to stop assuming these oldschoolers are playing by the RAW xD.

That's a very good point. The more I read about different play styles and things, the more I am convinced that its almost two completely different games. I'm starting to see why I don't seem to encounter most of the issues/problems/imbalances that people are always complaining about.


Well when it comes to general discussion, you generally assume RAW because house rules vary from place to place. The one exception is PFS but that is because of the mass proliferation of PFS groups.

Shadow Lodge

PIXIE DUST wrote:
Well when it comes to general discussion, you generally assume RAW because house rules vary from place to place. The one exception is PFS but that is because of the mass proliferation of PFS groups.

When what the poster is clearly talking about isnt anywhere near RAW why would assume their posting about RAW?

But your aright, alot of post arent clear so assuming RAW is normal.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

even in my homebrews most towns are metropolises' with smaller towns in between.


Jacob Saltband wrote:

OK heres a question....

How long has the disparity been around. Is it more of a recent thing or has it been around all along?

It's always been there, but became markedly egregious with 3rd Edition and the removal of the traditional followers and holdings rewards, on top of the miscellaneous quality of life improvements that by and large removed what little restrictions on the cssters were in place and shifted things further with the increase of save or die/save or sick and the more aggressive shift away from blaster casters to Schroedinger's Wizard with the Quantum Spellbook of Inconspicuous Convenience.

Also CoDzilla.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

In their defense Anzyr, it only seems unfair if the group is keeping track of the value of equipment characters get.

In the playstyle they're using, the only person keeping track of this stuff is the GM. The players get what they get, and they either like it or petition the GM to give them the opportunity to acquire what they do want.

Why would the group, competent adventurers who are out for profit, not keep track of the value of their haul? I honestly can't wrap my head around this. (Around their group's PCs not keeping track, not your post.)

It's weird to me too. My players are like this though...they pay little to no attention to the value of items...they just give the item to the character who speaks up as needing it the most. They then divide loot evenly....Even when I point it out "Ya know that cloak was worth 8,000gp" they pay no attention.

It's basically left to me to balance them out with the types of items I drop.

Shadow Lodge

Larkspire wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

In their defense Anzyr, it only seems unfair if the group is keeping track of the value of equipment characters get.

In the playstyle they're using, the only person keeping track of this stuff is the GM. The players get what they get, and they either like it or petition the GM to give them the opportunity to acquire what they do want.

Why would the group, competent adventurers who are out for profit, not keep track of the value of their haul? I honestly can't wrap my head around this. (Around their group's PCs not keeping track, not your post.)

It's weird to me too. My players are like this though...they pay little to no attention to the value of items...they just give the item to the character who speaks up as needing it the most. They then divide loot evenly....Even when I point it out "Ya know that cloak was worth 8,000gp" they pay no attention.

It's basically left to me to balance them out with the types of items I drop.

OK.. so what are you balancing?


Jacob Saltband wrote:
Larkspire wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

In their defense Anzyr, it only seems unfair if the group is keeping track of the value of equipment characters get.

In the playstyle they're using, the only person keeping track of this stuff is the GM. The players get what they get, and they either like it or petition the GM to give them the opportunity to acquire what they do want.

Why would the group, competent adventurers who are out for profit, not keep track of the value of their haul? I honestly can't wrap my head around this. (Around their group's PCs not keeping track, not your post.)

It's weird to me too. My players are like this though...they pay little to no attention to the value of items...they just give the item to the character who speaks up as needing it the most. They then divide loot evenly....Even when I point it out "Ya know that cloak was worth 8,000gp" they pay no attention.

It's basically left to me to balance them out with the types of items I drop.
OK.. so what are you balancing?

The value or quality of items given to each character.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Larkspire wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Larkspire wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

In their defense Anzyr, it only seems unfair if the group is keeping track of the value of equipment characters get.

In the playstyle they're using, the only person keeping track of this stuff is the GM. The players get what they get, and they either like it or petition the GM to give them the opportunity to acquire what they do want.

Why would the group, competent adventurers who are out for profit, not keep track of the value of their haul? I honestly can't wrap my head around this. (Around their group's PCs not keeping track, not your post.)

It's weird to me too. My players are like this though...they pay little to no attention to the value of items...they just give the item to the character who speaks up as needing it the most. They then divide loot evenly....Even when I point it out "Ya know that cloak was worth 8,000gp" they pay no attention.

It's basically left to me to balance them out with the types of items I drop.
OK.. so what are you balancing?
The value or quality of items given to each character.

So, if the players dont see a problem why do you feel a need to balance what the players dont see as an imbalance?

If one player has 5k gp and the others have 8k gp and everyone is having fun and enjoying the game without complaint....


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Larkspire wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Larkspire wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

In their defense Anzyr, it only seems unfair if the group is keeping track of the value of equipment characters get.

In the playstyle they're using, the only person keeping track of this stuff is the GM. The players get what they get, and they either like it or petition the GM to give them the opportunity to acquire what they do want.

Why would the group, competent adventurers who are out for profit, not keep track of the value of their haul? I honestly can't wrap my head around this. (Around their group's PCs not keeping track, not your post.)

It's weird to me too. My players are like this though...they pay little to no attention to the value of items...they just give the item to the character who speaks up as needing it the most. They then divide loot evenly....Even when I point it out "Ya know that cloak was worth 8,000gp" they pay no attention.

It's basically left to me to balance them out with the types of items I drop.
OK.. so what are you balancing?
The value or quality of items given to each character.

So, if the players dont see a problem why do you feel a need to balance what the players dont see as an imbalance?

If one player has 5k gp and the others have 8k gp and everyone is having fun and enjoying the game without complaint....

means you have to worry less about encounter creation


Bandw2 wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Larkspire wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Larkspire wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

In their defense Anzyr, it only seems unfair if the group is keeping track of the value of equipment characters get.

In the playstyle they're using, the only person keeping track of this stuff is the GM. The players get what they get, and they either like it or petition the GM to give them the opportunity to acquire what they do want.

Why would the group, competent adventurers who are out for profit, not keep track of the value of their haul? I honestly can't wrap my head around this. (Around their group's PCs not keeping track, not your post.)

It's weird to me too. My players are like this though...they pay little to no attention to the value of items...they just give the item to the character who speaks up as needing it the most. They then divide loot evenly....Even when I point it out "Ya know that cloak was worth 8,000gp" they pay no attention.

It's basically left to me to balance them out with the types of items I drop.
OK.. so what are you balancing?
The value or quality of items given to each character.

So, if the players dont see a problem why do you feel a need to balance what the players dont see as an imbalance?

If one player has 5k gp and the others have 8k gp and everyone is having fun and enjoying the game without complaint....

means you have to worry less about encounter creation

But having now come full circle in this discussion - Is balancing everyone's WBL the best way to balance encounters or given that players are okay with not having equal value gear would it make more sense to use the dropped gear to boost weaker characters and actually balance the group that way?


Jacob Saltband wrote:
Larkspire wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Larkspire wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

In their defense Anzyr, it only seems unfair if the group is keeping track of the value of equipment characters get.

In the playstyle they're using, the only person keeping track of this stuff is the GM. The players get what they get, and they either like it or petition the GM to give them the opportunity to acquire what they do want.

Why would the group, competent adventurers who are out for profit, not keep track of the value of their haul? I honestly can't wrap my head around this. (Around their group's PCs not keeping track, not your post.)

It's weird to me too. My players are like this though...they pay little to no attention to the value of items...they just give the item to the character who speaks up as needing it the most. They then divide loot evenly....Even when I point it out "Ya know that cloak was worth 8,000gp" they pay no attention.

It's basically left to me to balance them out with the types of items I drop.
OK.. so what are you balancing?
The value or quality of items given to each character.

So, if the players dont see a problem why do you feel a need to balance what the players dont see as an imbalance?

If one player has 5k gp and the others have 8k gp and everyone is having fun and enjoying the game without complaint....

It's an effort to be fair. It's all fun and games until someone dies. The games I run can get pretty violent...and I don't want anyone to be tangibly handicapped.

Some players are more aggressive and/ or charismatic than others...over the course of a campaign a shrewd player can accrue quite an advantage over his or her well intention-ed comrades.
So I make sure that the wallflowers get a chance to have nice things too.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

@thejeff, they said they don't have the magicmart at their local market center.


Bandw2 wrote:
@thejeff, they said they don't have the magicmart at their local market center.

So?

Doesn't mean the GM can't drop useful stuff and tailor it for the weaker characters - rather than tailoring to keep WBL even.


I don't make a point of dropping +5 magical crutches to patch up peoples non-functioning character designs. Everyone gets the same allotment. It's a resource management game too.
Seems like a form of "Molly-coddling" to basically reward characters for sucking. *shrug*

451 to 500 of 550 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The big realism question All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.