Rhun
First Post
Hear? Who have you been talking to? And can whoever it is point us toward some more treasure?
So, so greedy!
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Rhun's Greyhawk ALPHA OOC Thread (ToEE) - CALLING MY PLAYERS!
- Thread starter Rhun
- Start date
So, so greedy!
Thanee
First Post
In the light of balanced treasure distribution, I still think it's best if whoever gets something from the party treasury, half the market price should be "paid" for (directly or in lowering the share from the valuables appropriately, or, if not possible otherwise, by going in debt towards the party treasury to be balanced out with future findings).
That, BTW, doesn't actually cost you anything... it's just a way to handle treasure distribution.
Like when 4 PCs find 12k gp and a ring of protection +2, one gets the ring and the other three get 4k gp each, so everyone has received a share of 4k gp worth.
"Buying" items like this is always an advantage, though, especially if you would otherwise actually buy such an item, since the price is only half the market value. If the item would otherwise be sold, the price is identical to the sell value. Either way, you can always cash it out to the appropriate value by selling it, so there is no loss at all.
Of course, I also think that items should generally go to whoever can use them best; but some fair and balanced way of distribution certainly doesn't hurt.
Bye
Thanee
That, BTW, doesn't actually cost you anything... it's just a way to handle treasure distribution.
Like when 4 PCs find 12k gp and a ring of protection +2, one gets the ring and the other three get 4k gp each, so everyone has received a share of 4k gp worth.
"Buying" items like this is always an advantage, though, especially if you would otherwise actually buy such an item, since the price is only half the market value. If the item would otherwise be sold, the price is identical to the sell value. Either way, you can always cash it out to the appropriate value by selling it, so there is no loss at all.
Of course, I also think that items should generally go to whoever can use them best; but some fair and balanced way of distribution certainly doesn't hurt.
Bye
Thanee
)Rhun,
Regarding our previous discussion/confusion as to whether Kurt had a Ring of Protection +1, I trawled this OOC thread and the previous OOC thread and finally found this:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/4764406-post1110.html
So if Kurt did get the +2 ring, then he could "sell" his +1 ring. But I suspect that Trevor should probably get it.
Regarding our previous discussion/confusion as to whether Kurt had a Ring of Protection +1, I trawled this OOC thread and the previous OOC thread and finally found this:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/4764406-post1110.html
So if Kurt did get the +2 ring, then he could "sell" his +1 ring. But I suspect that Trevor should probably get it.
Leif
Adventurer
You know it, DM Dude!
Sounds fair enough to me. I vote that Thanee continue in the role of party accountant/loot-distributor!In the light of balanced treasure distribution, I still think it's best if whoever gets something from the party treasury, half the market price should be "paid" for (directly or in lowering the share from the valuables appropriately, or, if not possible otherwise, by going in debt towards the party treasury to be balanced out with future findings).
That, BTW, doesn't actually cost you anything... it's just a way to handle treasure distribution.
Like when 4 PCs find 12k gp and a ring of protection +2, one gets the ring and the other three get 4k gp each, so everyone has received a share
of 4k gp worth.
"Buying" items like this is always an advantage, though, especially if you would otherwise actually buy such an item, since the price is only half the market value. If the item would otherwise be sold, the price is identical to the sell value. Either way, you can always cash it out to the appropriate value by selling it, so there is no loss at all.
Of course, I also think that items should generally go to whoever can use them best; but some fair and balanced way of distribution certainly doesn't hurt.
Thanee
Hmm, sounds good, but I'm not sure I like the implications of that, anyway.
I doubt if you'll have to twist his arm very hard to convince him.
Thanee
First Post
I second Thanee's treasure distribution proposal.
But it doesn't help decide who gets the ring, only how the accounting is done.
Heh. True enough.
We could make this a bit more complex, of course...
Keep a list how much "extra value" everyone got (i.e. a tally of the second half of the market price of items from the party treasury), and whenever new stuff is distributed, the ones with the lowest tally get to choose first (UNLESS it makes sense to give the item to someone specific, of course).
When someone sells an item that was taken from the party treasury, the item's sell value is deducted from the tally (it is then not worth anything extra), so only the actual extra worth of the current equipment is considered.
How does that sound? Takes a little bookkeeping, but that's really not much (I could keep a post in the RG or so to list these things).
Bye
Thanee
Good idea Thanee. I was thinking something similar, probably the same if I coudl engage my brain, in that character with lowest 'book' value of all gear would choose first - if they wanted.
Problem, like the Wands that Kurt carries and the Javelin of Lightning, they are consumable items of benefit to the party and shouldn't be counted.
Problem, like the Wands that Kurt carries and the Javelin of Lightning, they are consumable items of benefit to the party and shouldn't be counted.
Similar Threads
