am i doing this right?

[StreamOfTheSky]

No, people ditch treasure in Diablo 2 because they have a strictly limited carrying space, so they only take back the most valuable things. The fact it's a group of ravenous individuals rather than a cohesive party also helps. You have to move quick and have open space for a good item, lest someone else snatch them all up first.

I agree that for classed NPCs where their gear is their treasure (and their gears is from the NOC gear table), you should give them that amount, and if the PC's sell it all, they get half the value. This is still >standard treasure. But for monsters with no class levels, but who happen to use items, like an Ogre, it's just plain not fair to count the gear's full market value towards the treasure total. They're supposed to have Standard treasure, and if you give them a bunch of items the PC's have no use for (a fairly common occurance, IME) and count the item's full value towards the "Standard treasure" amount, you basically just cut the PC's treasure in half. There's no sugar coating it, you did.

Of course, treasure is a game where the whole matters more -- if you throw lots of dragons (triple standard) at the party and avoid enemies that give none like most undead (or say they have some laying around from previous victims that's just not being used), you can engage in this and the party should come out about even, which is what ultimately matters. If you aren't slightly rigging things this way, andhave an even mix of no treasure and higher than standard treasure monsters, then this practice IS cheating them.

 

[Runestar]

Put it to him this way - they just got a masterwork great sword for free (which most 2nd level PCs will not be able to afford). I find it difficult to believe that some PC in the party couldn't use a masterwork greatsword. No barbarian PCs? Remember that since it is masterwork - it can eventually be made magical.

Umm...a masterwork greatsword has a market price of only 300+gp. A 2nd lv PC is supposed to start with 900gp worth of gear, so masterwork armour is pretty much standard issue for him (A 2nd lv fighter can expect to start with masterwork weapon, armour and shield).

It is not entirely impossible. The party fighter could be specializing in a different weapon (either he took weapon focus in another weapon and/or using sword+shield style). Clerics can't use martial weapons anyways (barring war domain). Much less needs to be said for rogues and wizards. Since they opted to sell the sword, I believe it is safe to conclude that their party indeed had little/no use for the greatsword.

 

[krupintupple]

i think i should weigh in:

while some of the treasure cannot be used by all due to completely random fluke, or a character who could use it chosing not to (fighter preferring to use hand axes instead of greatsword, ect.), i do try to include things that someone in the party could definitely use, such as scrolls and potions: i've found almost no adventurers who'd be willing to pawn off a potion of cure moderate wounds, nor any group with two dedicated arcane casters who'd want to turn that scroll of fireball into 187.5gp - if they chose to do this, that's their problem, not mine.

i also do work 'rewards' into the game, should they come up short for honest reasons, such as crafting, theft or just plain mismatched loot (orcs who use clubs and hide armor are little use for an axe-loving, iron-clad dwarf), mostly coming from NPC benefactors they've helped, or rescued, ect.

it's interesting how divided this seems to be, i'd appreciate anyone weighing in a little more, as this has become a fairly interesting topic!

 

[Ranes]

What irdeggman said. (in other words, OP, you're right.)

 

[Nonlethal Force]

it's interesting how divided this seems to be, i'd appreciate anyone weighing in a little more, as this has become a fairly interesting topic!

Yeah, I find it interesting, too. In the end ... so long as the party wealth level approximately equals the wealth guideline table listed in the DMG times the number of players - does it really matter how they get it? Does it matter whether they get it evenly from each combat or all from one? And, if a party wants to sell everything and buy what they actually want - why does that matter? It's not inherently wrong. Different, yes. Wrong, no.

I guess as a DM I'd rather have players excited about every aspect of their character than sitting there saying to themselves that they're going to be sorry selling off the weapon that the DM gave them because it'll short them in the end.

I'm not saying there is a right way or a wrong way. I'm just saying that the game goals should match the party wealth distribution. If the gaming goals are to adhere to realism, then grant treasure that way. If the gaming goals are to have players enjoy their characters, give treasure that way ... too (Within the guidelines of the overall wealth tables in the DMG, of course).

The original OP question is "Am I doing this right?" With regard to treasure distribution, I think treasure should be given out according to the goal of the game. And I know that is a topic that is widely split. Perhaps why this topic is also widely split. People game for diferent reasons. Thus, people hand out treasure with different premises.

 

[Runestar]

i do try to include things that someone in the party could definitely use, such as scrolls and potions: i've found almost no adventurers who'd be willing to pawn off a potion of cure moderate wounds, nor any group with two dedicated arcane casters who'd want to turn that scroll of fireball into 187.5gp - if they chose to do this, that's their problem, not mine.

I would. Potions of cure moderate wounds are hideously overpriced for their effect, and practically impossible to use properly during combat (because you provoke an AoO). For the same amount of money (or 2 potions, if you sell them), you could be getting a healing belt or a fully charged wand of vigor or cure light wounds instead. Alternatively, by selling one, you have enough money to cover the gp cost of crafting one (the xp is peanuts, and you eventually get it back anyways thanks to the self-correcting nature of xp gain in 3.5, plus 1 day downtime is not that hard to get). I cannot imagine anyone who would turn up such a deal.

In the same vein, a scroll of fireball has a dc of just 14, and deals a crummy 5d6 damage. Selling it would give me the money to scribe a scroll with a much better effect, one which is less reliant on caster lv and save dcs, such as haste.

I would say that it is partly the fault of both parties. Why would they want to sell their eq? The most obvious answer would be because their existing gear sucks, and they want to trade their way up to better eq instead.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yeah, I find it interesting, too. In the end ... so long as the party wealth level approximately equals the wealth guideline table listed in the DMG times the number of players - does it really matter how they get it? Does it matter whether they get it evenly from each combat or all from one? And, if a party wants to sell everything and buy what they actually want - why does that matter? It's not inherently wrong. Different, yes. Wrong, no.

I guess as a DM I'd rather have players excited about every aspect of their character than sitting there saying to themselves that they're going to be sorry selling off the weapon that the DM gave them because it'll short them in the end.

I'm not saying there is a right way or a wrong way. I'm just saying that the game goals should match the party wealth distribution. If the gaming goals are to adhere to realism, then grant treasure that way. If the gaming goals are to have players enjoy their characters, give treasure that way ... too (Within the guidelines of the overall wealth tables in the DMG, of course).

The original OP question is "Am I doing this right?" With regard to treasure distribution, I think treasure should be given out according to the goal of the game. And I know that is a topic that is widely split. Perhaps why this topic is also widely split. People game for diferent reasons. Thus, people hand out treasure with different premises.

I agree, all that really matters is that on average at any given time, they have the amount of wealth total that they should (whether it's what the DMG says or what you want, if you're doing a high or low treasure game). I don't think there's a "right" way to handle the issue of sold item's actual treasure value, I'm just saying the reasons I have for doing it as I do. Again, if the Ogre gives standard treasure, and it all comes in gear the party sells for half, resulting in them getting half the standard treasure...they didn't actually get standard treasure. That's all I'm saying.

The thing is, any arguments about treasure are always going to be a metagame, out of character thing. In character they have no idea it's a game and they're predetermined to gain a rough estimate of gear as they fight. So in character arguments like, "they just got a free masterwork sword" don't really work. And again, I'd rather the perspective of items they hold on to be that it's a gift, something that's a boon to pick out of the hoard instead of a shop. Not that by taking it, they're staying even with what they'd have gotten if it was a gem.

 

[dontpunkme]

IMC, I roll all treasure randomly from the MIC tables and whatever rolls up, generally goes (I re-roll psionic items as I don't allow psionics IMC). I've never had a single player complain about treasure levels. Nor can I think of a game where ANY player has complained. I've played a dirt poor fighter that was happy to have his composite long bow at 7th level. I also don't allow the magic item Walmart IMC. Almost any magical item can be useful and 90% of the rest of the population will likely never interact with one.

IMHO you need to tell your players to stop being babies and just be happy to get anything at all. And the only players that take half-value for an item are a) in a rush to dump it ASAP; and b) aren't willing to haggle.

 

[krupintupple]

...And the only players that take half-value for an item are a) in a rush to dump it ASAP; and b) aren't willing to haggle.

I did mention this to them several times. Basically, I felt that if something's over 100gp, or masterwork, they could haggle it, because I didn't want them to haggle over piddly things and waste the whole evening.

They're newer to 3e so the highest charisma in the group is 9 and noone has any ranks in diplomacy - haggling isn't an option. I also explained that they could either hire someone to do it for them, at a premium, or we could pick a few items per night and they could RP the sale (a really quick-witted story that was enjoyable for everyone involved would probably be considered a 'pass' and i'd dock the price), instead of roll the diplomacy DC, but they didn't want to do that either. one player (7 Cha) spoke with me privately about attempting the RP thing in the future because he said he acted hastily and i said sure. I also suggested that in the future, it doesn't hurt if at least one person in a four-man party is the 'face' or has some diplomacy/charisma.

 

[Runestar]

IMHO you need to tell your players to stop being babies and just be happy to get anything at all. And the only players that take half-value for an item are a) in a rush to dump it ASAP; and b) aren't willing to haggle.

The thing here is that the cr guidelines assume that your PC is appropriately equipped for his wealth guidelines. Thus, they should not only get eq, but also ensure that the eq they have suits their character build. Unless you adjust the crs of encounters to compensate, lacking suitable gear may make them too weak for their level.

Nor is dnd supposed to be about haggling. The point of the economy and city wealth limits is exactly to offer you a ready means of quickly disposing of the magic items you don't want and easily acquiring the magic eq that you do want, so that you can resume adventuring. It does not necessarily have to be in the form of a magic item shop (could be crafting, fencing, commisioning a wizard to make one etc), but the underlying principle is fundamentally the same.

Likewise, I don't exactly see what is wrong with a magic item shop (in that it solves the problem of how best to go about equipping your party), but I suppose that is another debate for any thread.