Essentials and Treasure Parcels Analyzed

[Kzach]

I see real value in gp not coming in multiples of 100, but otherwise I think returning to randomised treasure is a mistake.

One of the design features of 4e was the reduction in randomness and narrowing of power "spread". Randomising the party's treasure actively works against that feature.

I think the only mistake here is the assumption that somehow Essentials overrides and makes redundant the core 4e ruleset.

Really, when are people going to realise that Essentials is an ADDITION to the rules, not a REPLACEMENT.

 

[Colmarr]

Really, when are people going to realise that Essentials is an ADDITION to the rules, not a REPLACEMENT.

When are people going to realise that ongoing support is necessary for a game (iteration) to thrive/survive?

If all of WotC's future D&D releases are Essentials-based, then for most intents and purposes, Essentials is a replacement.

If not, then maybe you have a point.

But that issue aside, nothing in my post opened that particular door. I was simply commenting on Essentials as Essentials, not as a replacement for standard 4e

 

[Zaran]

As far as I can tell, the only reason why we would need to keep the old DMG is for the old treasure parcel system. Everything else we can find in the DMK. I'll probably print out the parcel system and just stick it in the treasures section of my dmk and use that.

I do have to agree that even though it is said that Essentials is not a replacement if they let the core books go out of print it pretty much does the same thing.

Noone has said that they will go out of print either but it could happen especially if they have decided not to update the core books . Why keep printing books with errors in them?

 

[the Jester]

I do get that on average you should get the same amount of treasure. But I see it as an unneeded complication. The GM doesn't need to add randomness to their work.

Yes, but some of us like added randomness.

 

[Jhaelen]

If all of WotC's future D&D releases are Essentials-based, then for most intents and purposes, Essentials is a replacement.

We already know that is not the case.

I think, I prefer and will continue to use the old method.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If all of WotC's future D&D releases are Essentials-based, then for most intents and purposes, Essentials is a replacement.

You're using faulty logic here.

If the person who needs treasure is only using Essentials (from the beginning and from here on out)... then they do not have the parcel system in their knowledge banks, and thus the random tables are not a replacement for anything. The random tables are IT for them.

If the person who needs treasure knows about the parcel system because they own the DMG1... then they now have a choice of which one they want to use.

The only person who can start getting upset about the random tables "replacing" the parcel system is the dungeonmaster who for some stupid reason has decided to run a strictly Essentials game, even if there is a bunch of stuff in it they don't like but are not willing to cherry-pick bits from non-Essentials material they own. And for those people... the ones hamstringing themselves for no reason save some bizarre need to run "pure" Essentials without houserules... they just have to deal with it.

 

[Mengu]

I just make sure at each half tier the players have their +X slots slowly filled up and upgraded. I reward stuff I know will be useful to my players. My philosophy being "if it ain't broke don't fix it", I see no reason to change my ad hoc reward system that more or less follows the DMG parcels. Back in 3.x when we had random treasure, I never used random treasure anyway, I gave out what I wanted to give out, making sure every few levels that people had equal +'s on their equipment (weapons, armor, rings of protection, etc).

I like to make sure the less accurate/less optimized people get their +X weapons and implements the earliest. Gives me a sense of balancing with external influence. Call me a control freak.

I'm glad to hear the random table averages out to the DMG guideline. If people like the randomness more power to them. As a player I care not which method a DM uses. As DM, I'll stick with my current method for the foreseeable future.

 

[Stalker0]

Really, when are people going to realise that Essentials is an ADDITION to the rules, not a REPLACEMENT.

This is true for us veterans to 4e, but not necessarily to new players.

WOTC is marketing essentials as the only books new players need to play.

And the fact that they are repeating key rules in the essentials books helps to illustrate that.


So for new players, this treasure parcel system (for good or ill) may be the only one they are familiar with.

 

[Truename]

Do they have random tables for the magci treasure? Or do they just say 1 level 8 item. If so I'll still be using Asmor's - hopefully soon to be updated - Quartermaster program ..

No random tables for magic items in the Rules Compendium. The new direction seems to be for more random tables, though, so here's hoping we see some in the future.

Thanks Truname for your example of the system in action. I see treasure #10 didn't generate any treasures. So, would you reroll that treasure or just throw it out? What if treasures #3, #5, and #7 also generated no treasures? Would you reroll them until they generated a treasure?

I throw it out. Rerolling would skew the results high.

I see real value in gp not coming in multiples of 100, but otherwise I think returning to randomised treasure is a mistake.

One of the design features of 4e was the reduction in randomness and narrowing of power "spread". Randomising the party's treasure actively works against that feature.

Given the number of rolls involved, monetary treasure is going to tend towards average. I don't think you have to worry about the power spread for monetary treasure.

Magic items are more swingy with this approach, so if you're concerned about that, you should just award the standard 4 magic items per level (n+1..n+4) and ignore that line in the table. But you still have a lot of control over magic item power, even if you follow the tables exactly, because you still choose the specific items by hand.

By the way, I use inherent bonuses in my game, which changes the distribution of magic items. If anybody else is using inherent bonuses, replace the magic item line in the table like this:

From: (13+) one magic item of level 1d4+[party level]
To: (17+) one magic item of level 1d2+[party level + 1]

This corresponds to DMG2's advice to remove the highest- and lowest-level magic item from each level's parcels when using inherent bonuses. (Note that this suggestion is from me, not the Rules Compendium. The Rules Compendium doesn't mention the inherent bonuses optional rule.)

 

[Scribble]

No random tables for magic items in the Rules Compendium. The new direction seems to be for more random tables, though, so here's hoping we see some in the future.

The problem I've always had with these kinds of random item tables is keeping them up to date.