Calculating Random Treasure from the Magic Item Compendium

[Jhaelen]

I can definitely see why using CR would be a problem... you end up with a bunch of low level gear from what was supposed to be a level-appropriate encounter.

Well, I think, it's a more 'realistic' approach but it does lead to the problem that you get lots of low-level items (which will typically get sold at the first opportunity).

Imho, if there's a huge difference between CR and EL the encounter tends to be far easier than a level-appropriate encounter. An encounter with 40 CR1 creatures may have a high EL but it isn't difficult at all. So, I prefer a treasure consisting of a large number of low level items to a single powerful one.

Actually, if you care about treasure composition for an encounter you probably won't use the random method anyway.

For intelligent foes I tend to select at least the most powerful items and only roll for the low-level stuff randomly (if at all).

 

[pawsplay]

Why is realism an issue? Larger groups of monsters are probably more able at acquiring treasure than monsters working individually.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Why is realism an issue? Larger groups of monsters are probably more able at acquiring treasure than monsters working individually.

But they still wouldn't acquire a couple of high-priced items. They would end up with lots of little items. In order to get the higher-priced item they would have to take down something a lot more challenging than them. Even with the numbers advantage, most lower CR creatures don't have the attack bonus able to consitently hit higher CR creatures. They also don't have the AC and hit points to take the punishment that these creatures can hand out.

So while they may have more treasure, I would expect most of that treasure to still be low value on a piece by piece basis.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Jebb_X]

Wow.

Having read the comment on treasure being generated by encounter level I thought that you'd lost communicaiton with thy senses; but you're right, the DMG does indeed prattle on about rolling for an encounter level... up until page 55, then, in one swifft kick, they contradict everything that they have spent the last few pages talking about and state:

"The level of the treasure is equal to the CR of the monsters in the encounter. A standard treasure (one that includes coins, goods and items) requires three rolls, one for each category." Dungeon Masters Guide, pg 55.

So I don't really know how to comment on that - I feel that if your encounter is made up of several monsters of different challenge ratings, you should roll treasure seperately for each of the monsters according to their description in the corresponding Monster Manual.

*shrug*

 

[pawsplay]

Actually, that doesn't contradict it. It just says "the CR of the monsters in the encounter" when it means EL. The rules, of course, do not define CR for more than one monster. If it meant one roll per monster, that would not be three rolls, one for each category, but rather, three rolls per monster.

 

[pawsplay]

But they still wouldn't acquire a couple of high-priced items. They would end up with lots of little items. In order to get the higher-priced item they would have to take down something a lot more challenging than them. Even with the numbers advantage, most lower CR creatures don't have the attack bonus able to consitently hit higher CR creatures. They also don't have the AC and hit points to take the punishment that these creatures can hand out.

So while they may have more treasure, I would expect most of that treasure to still be low value on a piece by piece basis.

Olaf the Stout

First of all, at least in theory, the EL guidelines should mean they are as credible threat as a monster of equal CR, so your argument is suspect on those grounds, though it might be true in some practical situations.

Second, conceptually, it does not hold water. Statistically, the chances of acquiring any specific value of item increases the more chances you have. To use an analogy, if you wanted to recruit a star basketball player, would you try out ten guys, or two hundred?

 

[Jebb_X]

Actually, that doesn't contradict it. It just says "the CR of the monsters in the encounter" when it means EL. The rules, of course, do not define CR for more than one monster. If it meant one roll per monster, that would not be three rolls, one for each category, but rather, three rolls per monster.

I disagree with you on this point; my interpretation of the wordage suggests that you should roll three times, for each monster, if the monsters tablature states "Standard".

I think it is dangerous for you to assume that they meant EL. Encounter Level is derived from Challenge Ratings, and the two are not interchangeable (usually - A CR 1 monster by itself is an Encounter Level 1 for a party of four 1st level characters).

However, as it is always with any roleplaying game, you are the final arbitrator of the game - do what you feel is right. To me, that means rolling treasure for each monster individually according to their tablature, and then assigning them into an encounter level.

 

[pawsplay]

But it does not say the CR of each monster, it says the CR of the monsters. And the same section of the rules states plainly that an encounter of EL X is treated exactly like an encounter with one monster of CR X. And page 51 states, "On average, the PCs should earn one treasure suitable to their level for each encounter they overcome." I am finding it very difficult to consider your interpretation reasonable. The quote from page 55 refers specifically to how many times to roll on the chart for a given treasure; it does not appear to me that the usage of CR is intended to be definitive, and in any case it cannot be correct (in the case of multiple monster encounters).

 

[Jebb_X]

But it does not say the CR of each monster, it says the CR of the monsters. And the same section of the rules states plainly that an encounter of EL X is treated exactly like an encounter with one monster of CR X. And page 51 states, "On average, the PCs should earn one treasure suitable to their level for each encounter they overcome." I am finding it very difficult to consider your interpretation reasonable. The quote from page 55 refers specifically to how many times to roll on the chart for a given treasure; it does not appear to me that the usage of CR is intended to be definitive, and in any case it cannot be correct (in the case of multiple monster encounters).

As previously stated, each to their own.

Having re-read that section I have come to the conclusion that we are both correct according to the Dungeon Master Guide. Although the Guide states that your methodology is more balanced, I also feel that it is more unrealistic.

"An easy approach is to determine treasure randonmly using the treasure information given in the Monster Manual for each kind of creature."

- Dungeon Masters Guide pg 53

"If you want to include a balanced amount of treaure, you can just roll on table 3-5: Treasure for each encounter according to its Encounter Level."

- Dungeon Masters Guide pg 53

Under Building a Treasure, it states that no matter which method you use, table 3-5: Trasure is used.

So while we're both correct, thematically speaking, I still think it is better to roll treasure for each creature in the encounter than for the encounter as a whole.

 

[pawsplay]

Let's say we attempted to use your interpretation of that phrase. The party encounters nine ogres. An ogre is CR 3. Since the ogre is CR 3, the "CR of the monsters" is 3, so we roll three times, once on each subchart. Thus, we discover that nine ogres have the same treasure as one ogre.

Therefore, I conclude that either that sentence was written from a theoretical standpoint of rolling treasure for solo monsters, or the phrase uses CR inaccurately either from oversight or because the term EL had not been invented when that paragraph was written.