D&D 3E/3.5 (3.5e) Treasure per Experience Variant

[HoboGod]

You seem to be suggesting that the lower level characters receive the more powerful magic items (or the gold to buy them). Seems a tad unrealistic.

When a lower level character joins a group, he starts with less wealth than his higher level counterparts have already accumulated. The experience system in DND ensures that the lower level party member shall eventually catch up to the rest of the party. If everyone keeps splitting the treasure evenly, when that gap in experience is eliminated, there shall be a gap in wealth. If you don't want to award more treasure to the lower level character to bridge this gap, then that's fine. I'm not telling you to. Instead, I'd suggest that you give him starting gold as if he were the same level as the rest of the party and treat him as that level for determining loot.

The fundamental divide between the dm and the players is that the players decide what their characters do. IMHO it is absolutely not the dm's place to intervene when the pcs want to divide or sell treasure or the dead guy's gear.

Oh goodness, no. We are definitely not on the same page here. A 5th level character's wealth is between 9000 gp and 13000 gp, the average encounter at 5th level grants the party 1600 gp. The gold they've gathered represents ~6-9 encounters. To not intervene while still maintaining balance means I'm doing one of two things. Either I'm not giving them loot for a good long while and they become frustrated that their adventures aren't proving fruitful or I'm giving them reduced treasure and more difficult encounters, letting them be magic item juggernauts powerleveling through my game for an even longer while. I don't like either option, quite frankly.

None of the stuff I bolded in your quote above even has anything to do with dividing treasure, so I'm not sure what its relevance is.

It's to illustrate a parallel between "the party decides" situations and greedy players. They're one in the same, quite honestly.

 

[Crothian]

To not intervene while still maintaining balance means I'm doing one of two things. Either I'm not giving them loot for a good long while and they become frustrated that their adventures aren't proving fruitful or I'm giving them reduced treasure and more difficult encounters, letting them be magic item juggernauts powerleveling through my game for an even longer while. I don't like either option, quite frankly.

If those are the only options you see then I don't think the issue is the rules.

But to address them if the players get bored because they are not getting enough treasure then maybe you need different players. And if they are power leveling through your encounters easily maybe you need to figure out better ways to DM.

One of the great advantages to D&D is the ridiculous abundance of options for DMs to use to challenge both players and characters. A DM can do this with a group that has few magical items or with a group that has a metric ton of them. However, because the game is complex it can make it very difficult for some people to DM it well.

 

[the Jester]

It's to illustrate a parallel between "the party decides" situations and greedy players. They're one in the same, quite honestly.

Sounds like we generally have very different experiences with players. My groups always operate under 'the party decides,' and although I've seen greedy players and greedy pcs, that is far from all I have seen.

In fact, the whole "divide treasure equally by level because the higher level guys contribute more" thing is from the 1e PH.

Regardless, play however makes your group happy, but I'd never dream of dictating how my players split their treasure.

 

[HoboGod]

If those are the only options you see then I don't think the issue is the rules.

But to address them if the players get bored because they are not getting enough treasure then maybe you need different players. And if they are power leveling through your encounters easily maybe you need to figure out better ways to DM.

Okay, this post borders on the inflammatory. This thread is not about how well I can or cannot run a game. I'm offering a variant to the treasure table that links treasure directly to experience gained. I welcome comments regarding whether or not this is implementable or should be implemented. I am simply stating my reasons for the structure of this variant and openly offering alternatives to people that would want to use this variant differently. Do not, in any way, make assumptions about how I run my games and the limit of my DMing capabilities.

One of the great advantages to D&D is the ridiculous abundance of options for DMs to use to challenge both players and characters. A DM can do this with a group that has few magical items or with a group that has a metric ton of them. However, because the game is complex it can make it very difficult for some people to DM it well.

I agree. I've DM'd games where I've had to throw the DMG out the window. I've DM'd evil games where my players could steal anything they needed and could potentially have infinite magic items. I've also DM'd a game where my party had an army of fire giants to back them up wherever they go. In both cases, I still found challenges for them and I still made the game fun. However, this variant I'm suggesting isn't for the games where rules are fluid and avant garde, this variant is for purists who can afford to pay great attention to the tables in the DMG and wish to use it as a guideline without spending all their free time comparing notes and tables.

Simply put, my variant is not a variant at all, it's how the DMG suggests you as a DM should award treasure. DMG says that reaching A amount of experience requires having B encounters which average C ECL each and then give D amount of treasure for a C ECL encounter B number of times. There is direct correlation between experience and treasure, my table is the math behind that correlation which reduces it to a 1-to-1 ratio.

 

[Crothian]

Okay, this post borders on the inflammatory.

If you feel that the post was improper you can report it to a moderator.

This thread is not about how well I can or cannot run a game. I'm offering a variant to the treasure table that links treasure directly to experience gained.

These two are linked. House rules are created to fix problems in games. If this is not a problem that needs fixing in your game then why create a rule for it?

I welcome comments regarding whether or not this is implementable or should be implemented. I am simply stating my reasons for the structure of this variant and openly offering alternatives to people that would want to use this variant differently.

I don't think it should be implemented. I think it is too much control over random elements by the DM and reduces rewards to predetermined treasure parcels that offers nothing useful to the gaming table.

Do not, in any way, make assumptions about how I run my games and the limit of my DMing capabilities.

I'm just pointing out that if these are problems for you or any other DM that the problem might be other then the one you are trying to solve.

 

[HoboGod]

These two are linked. House rules are created to fix problems in games. If this is not a problem that needs fixing in your game then why create a rule for it?

I'm not fixing anything in this house rule, actually. The only problem I have is with the lack of simplicity. Treasure per experience is far less calculation and guesswork. Rather than calculating an encounter level, referring to a table, and guestimating how much treasure to give due to ad hoc experience rewards, I'm suggesting give a static amount of treasure based on experience. Less work for a DM.

I don't think it should be implemented. I think it is too much control over random elements by the DM and reduces rewards to predetermined treasure parcels that offers nothing useful to the gaming table.

Thank you for your input. I agree 100% that this gives the DM control over some random elements, but not any moreso than the DMG would give if DMs followed the guidelines to a tee. If you wish for more randomness as a DM, don't follow these guidelines to a tee either. I'm not sure how it reduces predetermined treasure parcels, however. You'll have to clarify.

 

[Crothian]

I'm not sure how it reduces predetermined treasure parcels, however. You'll have to clarify.

That was just again in reference to the lack of random treasure. You can know ahead of time that a CR5 creature will yield exactly 167gp per character then it takes some of the fun out of finding treasure. It also seems that the amount of treasure depends on who is finding it. So, it is best to travel around with many lower level characters and then after treasure is found just killing them since their shares are greater.

 

[HoboGod]

The DMG does the same, however. Page 51 illustrates a table where encounters are based on encounter level. My table is just an extension of that table. If you wish to use random treasure, one can build random tables as illustrated on pages 52-53.

I admit, I'm not one for the random tables. I just use average values. However, I'm not discouraging it in this variant. It's simple enough to implement. For example, just roll 1d6 x 10 per 50 gp and add the remainder. If the table says the players get 282 gp, give them 4d6x10 + 32 gp. At lower levels, use sp, at higher levels use pp.