am i doing this right?

[Nonlethal Force]

Just because the group wants to sell the items they acquire isn't justification to change the economic system of the game.

Exactly. The DMG has wealth guidelines per character per level. The rules assume that there is a certain amount of wealth in a party. If the party makes bad choices and purchases poor equipment for the task at hand - that's their fault.

But if the DM gives them treasure that they don't want and they become underequipped according the the DMG guidelines - I don't fault the players. The DMG assumes a personal wealth level, and the DM should make sure that the guidelines are at least approximated. But that's just my take on it.

Others are welcome to disagree. As I've said ealier, there's room for all kinds of games and approaches tothis issue. I like a game where the players are equipped as the DMG assumes and they are equipped with what they want.

 

[Runestar]

But remember the OP's point that one of his players was insisting (well questioning) that the "wealth" value was only 1/2 because they were going to sell it.

The point I was trying to get to was that it was "their choice" and it wasn't like the items were "useless" to them. They were just "not preferred" which is entirely different.

I am not really seeing the choice here. Typically, you would sell gear only if your party can use it effectively. Else, the party would likely keep it. How would you define useless then? Because by your analogy, even a wizard could in theory find use for a greatsword, even if he is not proficient with its use, or wear armour, even when it obviously interferes with his spellcasting.

For example, lets say that the PCs are expected to get roughly 4000gp of treasure per encounter. Say the DM has to decide between gloves of str+2 or a pearl of power2. The wizard would have use for the pearl of power, thus they would likely hold on to it instead of selling it.

But say the DM gave them gloves of str+2 instead. The fighter and cleric in the party both already have one each. And the other 2 PCs (lets say 2 wizards in this case) certainly don't need one. But if they sell the glove, they get only 2000gp on spend on upgrading their existing gear (assume there is nothing to sell here), which means they are getting less gear that what they are supposed to have had the DM chosen to give them a 4000gp magic item they could use effectively in the first place.

Granted, it is not always as straightforward (for example, if you give the fighter a +2 weapon, you might need to factor in the money he may get from selling his existing +1 weapon, or the cost of upgrading it instead, assuming he does not hand it down to the next PC). But the fact remains that the wealth a PC gets can swing wildly depending on whether he decides to sell the gear or hang on to it.

The thing here is not whether he ought to have sold it or not. But now that he has sold it, what should be done with regards to the discrepancy in the suggested wealth guidelines that was created?

 

[krupintupple]

i think i should weigh in on this issue with perhaps a little further information:

one player in my group likes saving up for very long term item purchasing, and typically will refrain from accepting anything for four or more adventures, so as to buy a slightly higher-powered item. naturally, he sells most of his share.

another player refuses to adventure or take up quests of a specific nature, and really is only attracted by quests that involve melee-centric challenges, being a fighter himself. while i try to balance the NPC's dropped loot, it makes little sense that if 8 straight encounters are with a warrior-like group of orks in the foothills of a snowy mountain, that many of them would be carting around scrolls and wands. given, i can claim that they've looted them from vanquished foes, but typically, such a melee-centric campaign arc would result in a larger benefit for the fighter and less for those typically opposed or poorly suited in melee.

also, i should mention that we play in a fairly stereotypical medieval europe type setting, so naturally magical suits of chain mail and longswords are a shade more common than say, enchanted alanic helmets, lamellar armour and kukris. i explained that such things exist, but not to be upset if every third encounter doesn't come up with a pair of +1 flaming nunchucks, or a +2 keen jovar or whatever other weird non-core splatbook weapon they've been using.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

i think i should weigh in on this issue with perhaps a little further information:

we play in a fairly stereotypical medieval europe type setting, so naturally magical suits of chain mail and longswords are a shade more common than say, enchanted alanic helmets, lamellar armour and kukris. i explained that such things exist, but not to be upset if every third encounter doesn't come up with a pair of +1 flaming nunchucks, or a +2 keen jovar or whatever other weird non-core splatbook weapon they've been using.

This is cool. But it isn't the fault of the characters that they are in this setting. And you can't really expect the players to play characters that can always benefit from the status quo equipment - because that can get boring.

So ... what you do is hand out equipment and let the players sell what they will. And then do a party wealth inventory and learn to compensate. I've never once said there's anything wrong with yoursetting or your methods. Just periodically do a wealth analysis and make sure that they are close to the DMG guidelines. Your players will be happy and so will you.

 

[krupintupple]

oh, i've recently come to love the joys of wealth auditing - especially with players who have horrid writing and have chickenscratched incomplete information down on their character sheets!

but anyhow, if some people appear to be below the norm (i discovered that ironically, out of my four PCs, three were about 700gp over the limit and the one who was originally complaining was 400gp, fairly significant for 4th level) i'd try to adjust it via pittance, rewards, bounties, wills, stupidly gold-dripping monsters, gifts and basically anything else where it still 'makes sense', but isn't completely obvious.

ironically, the PC who was under-valued, being a fighter wanted nothing to do with any of the scrolls that the other 3 eagrely clawed over, and their wealth skyrocketed because of his reluctance to deal with some minor magic items.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Well then, in that case, you tell your players that you've got itunder control and they need to quite their whining. If their wealth is average or above - you're doing fine!

 

[nathreet]

(doube post)

 

[nathreet]

This is covered in the Player's Handbook, in the section on adventuring. When dividing the loot, you count the value of each item at its selling price (half the buying price). If more than one player wants something, they bid and the value of that item increases. If this happens, you re-total and re-divide the loot.