A 4E magic item conundrum

[Morrus]

My post is relevant because had Morrus' player's characters had the correct amount of magic items for second level characters, they most likely would not have died

I can assure you that's not the case. They died solely because I screwed up - I threw two encounters at them at once because I deemed they made too much noise breaking a door down. Had they fought the encounters one at a time, as the module intended, it would have been a piece of cake.

 

[Falstaff]

I can assure you that's not the case. They died solely because I screwed up - I threw two encounters at them at once because I deemed they made too much noise breaking a door down. Had they fought the encounters one at a time, as the module intended, it would have been a piece of cake.

Oh I see.

Are you against rewinding everything and picking the campaign back up right before they start breaking the door down?

 

[SteveC]

One of my players (and fellow GM) noticed this issue as well. Simply put, the treasure parcel system doesn't match up with the creating advanced characters at low levels. Things tend to even out at high heroic or paragon levels, but if you create a character you'll end up with a lot more treasure than you would if you played them.

This isn't too big of an issue for me, but for some groups I imagine it would be a real problem. I'd just go with total magic items = the total number the group should have by the parcel system.

Just my $.02,

--Steve

 

[billd91]

I can assure you that's not the case. They died solely because I screwed up - I threw two encounters at them at once because I deemed they made too much noise breaking a door down. Had they fought the encounters one at a time, as the module intended, it would have been a piece of cake.

Wait a minute. Did they make enough noise breaking down the door to potentially activate 2 encounters? If so, that's their screw-up and not yours.

There is such a thing as playing too rough, but reasonable responses from non-terminally-stupid monsters doesn't qualify.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Wait a minute. Did they make enough noise breaking down the door to potentially activate 2 encounters? If so, that's their screw-up and not yours.

There is such a thing as playing too rough, but reasonable responses from non-terminally-stupid monsters doesn't qualify.

I second this sentiment. A failure to plan and anticipate consequences on the part of the PC's does not equal a screw up by the DM. Just as a curiosity, was it at all possible for the party to retreat from combat and get away? If so, and they chose to face excessive odds then its doubly not your fault.

 

[Morrus]

Wait a minute. Did they make enough noise breaking down the door to potentially activate 2 encounters? If so, that's their screw-up and not yours.

There is such a thing as playing too rough, but reasonable responses from non-terminally-stupid monsters doesn't qualify.

Well, I wasn't really asking for advice on adjudicating that situation; I was just discussing the peculaiarity of the treasure rules which became apparent.


In the end - eveyrone just came back with new characters with the same amount of quipment the old characters had. Worked out OK.

 

[silentounce]

Actually, it does. Unless, of course, my calculations are off (which is highly likely).

At the point where it mentions the characters might have enough XP to level up, each of the Parcels have been awarded.

Yes, they've been awarded, but with underpowered magic items that your party may not even be able to use.

Since someone already forked this into another thread, see here for my analysis:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?p=4388808#post4388808