I am interested in the actual gold and actual items value of rewards expected per level.
From my reading, there is a 300-400% difference between the two sources. In the below examples I am using a level 3 party with four members.
_________________________________________________________
Aim: Determine Item Rewards Total Value per Level
_________________________________________________________
GMG - TREASURE BY ENCOUNTER (pg 51)
_________________________________________________________
Extra Treasure is directly advising the expected value of items rewarded, so this is dead simple. (This value is also included within the Total Treasure per Level)
- A level 3 party should expect to find 100 gp worth of items.
_________________________________________________________
CRB - PARTY TREASURE BY LEVEL (pg 501)
_________________________________________________________
Party Currency is the expected amount of actual gold rewarded. (This value is also included within the Total Value). Therefore the value of items is not stated outright, but this is a trivial equation.
- (Total Value 500 gp) - (Party Currency 120gp) = 380 gp
- A level 3 party should expect to find 380 gp worth of items.
_________________________________________________________
As you can see, the two sources produce significantly difference results, and a similar disparity will occur when you attempt to work out the *actual* gold to reward.
No amount of bonus xp, treasure, or variations between per encounter vs per level differences, can reasonably account for this difference.
I suspect I have erred fundamentally here, but this is pretty straightforward wording and math. At least I thought so! Can someone please break down where I am going wrong?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think you've got a fundamental misreading of the Extra Treasure column on GMG p51
Extra treasure is just what you need to add to a level to get to the CRB value if you build all your treasure by encounter, not an expected value of items. In fact it explicitly says you need to combine treasure from encounters to get items using the system. The 100gp is just an additional floating bit.
If we go from level 3 to level 4 the CRB says expected treasure is valued at 500.
A moderate encounter is worth 80 xp, it takes 1000 xp to level so that's 12.5 encounters.
A moderate encounter is worth 50gp so that's 625 + 100gp in extra treasure = 725 if all our experience came from encounters.
So clearly some xp is expected to come from Accomplishments & Hazards. If we want to hit 400gp from 50gp encounters that gives us 8 encounters for a total of 640xp. That leaves us 360xp to gain from some combination of hazards and accomplishments.
As a note a severe encounter is worth 50% more xp and thus 50% more gold. Extreme and Low are also appropriately scaled.
CRB wrote: As a general guideline, in a given game session, you’ll typically give several minor awards, one or two moderate awards, and only one major award, if any. Let's say we get through the equivalent of 2+2/3s moderate encounters on average a session, If we give 2 minor awards along with a moderate award with major awards being about 1/level that gives us 3 sessions to give out 920xp (after subtracting 80 for a major quest)
Our 2 minor awards and moderate award take care of 50xp a session and our encounters take care of 640 total leaving us 130xp to cover which fits 1 hazard per session, averaging party level.
Obviously exactly how many accomplishments and hazards and the exact xp of encounters varies.
What did we learn from this little math excursion? PF2 expects about 2/3rds of your xp to come from encounters with the remaining from a balance of hazards and accomplishments.
Also your I think your CRB page reference is wrong, mine is 509
Or for my purposes, only about 2/3 of the encounters will include rewards :P. 12.5 encounters x 50 gp = (625 + 100) = 725 * 0.33 (¬30%)= 478.50.
So yeah, about 2/3 of the 500 gp, and as you say it will vary, and the book also indicates to include encounters without treasure.
Unless I am still on the wrong page, then they have included part (but only part) of the expected items worth in the per encounter valuation columns? That is where my confusing came from.
I really do not understand that decision. While the math now adds up, in my opinion that approach is both confusing and provides less utility over simply keeping items and treasure values separate.
I understand there is no hard science to this, but this is effectively mixing a relatively easily defined category (treasure/gp) with a much more nebulous one (items). In the process of doing so, both are now less well defined.
Irrespective of this, it could also be indicated much more clearly how many encounters on average are expected to provide rewards (of any kind), or not.
Thanks for clearing that up!
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Just like in 3.x and PF1e, the "expected treasure by encounter" will total more than "expected wealth by level" due to three factors:
1) A portion of the "expected treasure by encounter" is basically a replacement for resources used by the PCs (consumables, expensive material components, etc.).
2) Not every group of PCs will find, recognize, or have the means to transport every valuable object that is included in the "expected treasure by encounter" numbers.
3) The PCs may not keep and use every item found, so they will not get "full value" when they sell the ones they don't keep (other than "art objects, gems, and raw materials").
I always assumed the amounts given are the amounts the players acquire. Rather than the amount in the dungeon they have the potential to find.
The way most adventures are designed, the BBEG is at the back, and you have pretty much to go through the dungeon to reach it, and I don't really want players saying "ok, now the boss is done, we go back and clear". It's just time consuming, like those video game dungeons when you get the loot then spend time running back through to the entrace to go home and suck up all the missed loot on the way back.
krobrina wrote: I always assumed the amounts given are the amounts the players acquire. Rather than the amount in the dungeon they have the potential to find.
The way most adventures are designed, the BBEG is at the back, and you have pretty much to go through the dungeon to reach it, and I don't really want players saying "ok, now the boss is done, we go back and clear". It's just time consuming, like those video game dungeons when you get the loot then spend time running back through to the entrace to go home and suck up all the missed loot on the way back.
That's why you clear the entire dungeon before entering the room that the BBEG is obviously in. ;)
There's nothing wrong with the PCs knowing standard Adventuring tropes, just like the kids in Scream knew standard Horror tropes.
Paizo does a good job of arranging the dungeon maps so the boss is somewhere near the end and the sub-encounters are somewhat linear. Some people think their maps can be a little railroaded because of this. The abandoned hellnite citydel in age of ashes 1 looks great but there's not many paths through it because of how the stairs are.
Dragonchess Player wrote: Just like in 3.x and PF1e, the "expected treasure by encounter" will total more than "expected wealth by level" due to three factors:
1) A portion of the "expected treasure by encounter" is basically a replacement for resources used by the PCs (consumables, expensive material components, etc.).
2) Not every group of PCs will find, recognize, or have the means to transport every valuable object that is included in the "expected treasure by encounter" numbers.
3) The PCs may not keep and use every item found, so they will not get "full value" when they sell the ones they don't keep (other than "art objects, gems, and raw materials").
I'm aware, and none of which is relevant to my criticism, if anything it arguably strengthens it. The way it's presented is unclear, and provides significantly less utility. The desire to have this easily defined category isolated would be incredibly common for the exploration/sandbox style games this is explicitly intended to help enable.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
