starting gold, and how it's messed up.

[Pax]

Re: Re: Re: starting gold, and how it's messed up.

According to the sidebar on page 54 of the DMG, the encounters necessary to gain a level should yield slightly more gold than neceaary to follow the expected "wealth by level" value.

[...]

The difference is explained by the fact that characters use expendable items, food, spell components, ammunition and so on.

Then where's the problem?

However, a couple of things throw a wrench in that theory :
1) A significant percentage of treasure is hidden, and PCs will not often find all of it.

Then the DM needs to put out more treasure. If his PCs regularly find, say, half the treasure ... then the DM needs to double the treasure he puts in each place.

The treasure per encountr is an AVERAGE value, not an absolute. And it's what's supposed to make it's way into the PC's hands, not merely into the DM's notes. MY DM nots, for example, often make mention of the treasuries of often-wealthy nations. Does all that count against what I've given the PCs, simply because it's in my notes, associated with a map location?

Good lord, I hope not, or they won't see a copper piece until they rob the local king ... !!

2) At least in WotC published adventure, there is way over 10% of "expendable" items, so people will come away from an adventure with less treasure than they seem to think.

Don't use WOTC adventures, then. IMO, they tend to overbalance to one-shot and other expendable items because they're trrified of being labelled "monty haul" by giving out coin, tradegoods, jewelry, art objects, and so on.

3) The rules encourage a style of play where PCs sell most of their "loot" at half price and then buy what they want with the cash.

I don't see a problem with this concept. Why do you?

Number 3 is the most important point here because, assuming you do get enough gear to get your 6000gp of treasure, chances are you won't want or even be able to use more than 50% of it, unless your DM tailors all treasure to the PCs. So, assuming you sell half of your treasure and keep the other half, you actually gain only 4500 gp and are now behind the sacred "expected wealth per level" table.

Simple rule of thumb: if you, as DM, know that the party will NOT use a magic, say ... warhammer ... then only count it's SALE value towards the treasure allotment for any encounter(s) thatinclude that warhammer.

Starting from the theory that a magical item you choose will be more useful than one you find randomly, and the fact that the rules say that you can basically sell items you don't want for half price, then it makes sense that while a character built at 1st level and raised to, let's say level 12, should have around 88000gp of randomly generated stuff, or 44000 gp of chosen stuff, or more likely a mix of the two.

Only of the DM is a real bastard, and enjoys screwing the players.

No offense, but ... my first 3E GM played this way, and it's a very 2E playstyle: he handed out a few items here nad there, and we were supposed to be grateful for every damned +1 dagger. The problem is, 3E isn't built the same as 2E, and handing out treasure needs to be done entirely differently.

Anecdote time: the DM threw our party against a Diamond Golem. We ddn't have a SINGLE weapon which could pierce it's not-inconsiderable DR. Not one. And we weren't high enough level to MAKE one on the spot with GMW, either.

Of course, there was an outcry -- faced with a foe who dropepd our PRIMARY fighter in one full attack routine, realising that even HIS weapon (then the best in the party, a +2 at the time) wasn't enough to punch through the DR ... we were absolutely TICKED that he'd throw us against such a beast, with no appreciable hope of victory (we had to run away, and that hosed our quest but GOOD).

He looked at us like we were ungrateful @$$wipes for daring to complain we couldn't HOPE to hurt the golem, with the attitude of "what? I gave you a +(whatever) weapon two sessions ago ... that woudl work against this!"

*SIGH* ... nevermind that NOONE in the party wielded anything REMOTELY like it (every one of us was either a spellcaster - and thus loathe to enter melee with a friggin' golem - or had expended a not-inconsiderable number of feats on fairly SPECIFIC weapon types (exotic WPs, WFocus feats, WSpecialisation for one or two of us). Nevermind the fact that the weapon (a warhammer, ofc) was useless to us in general, and so, we'd sold it -- which bought, amusingly, the +2 weapon ineffectually wielded by our party's "anchor" fighter.

Yet, his position was, he'd deigned to place a single weapon of sufficient power to bypass the Golem, and counted the full value of the weapon against our cumulative treasure even though we'd sold it for half. A SINGLE weapon, for a party of six, half of themfighter-types.

WTF, the rest of us should've made popcorn, and watched the one properly-armed fighter get turned to hamburger in solo combat with a critter 3 or 4 CR's above his level?

Well, when all was said and done, can you say "H.M.S. Bounty" ... ? I dunno about you be we did.

And the paradigm you're espousing was the one we as a group had to rebel against.

If you let a newly generated character choose 88000gp of equipment, they will clearly be way overpowered compared to one that actually adventured for 12 levels.

Only if the DM is a bastard and has been screwing his players (see anecdote above).

The most realistic approach would then be to roll up magical items randomly until the player character has 88000gp worth of them, then the player could sell those he doesn't want for half price and get what he wants instead.

Only if the DM is a bastard and enjoys screwing his players (see anecdote above). If a player can be expected to sell item X, then item X should only count for it's SALE VALUE, not it's purchase value. After all, regardles sof the shape ofit ... if you hand a double-sword-wielding fighter a +4 Warhammer worth 32,300-odd gold, you can EXPECT them to sell the damned thing, so all you're REALLY doing is giving them 16,250-odd gold, in a hammer-shaped ingot.

Or just give newly generated characters half treasure and let them choose.

Again ... only if the DM is a bastard and enjoys screwing his players.

The Wealth-by-level tables assume and intend that players have THAT much gold in stuff ON HAND, not "accumulated to date". If you sunder the Barbarians +5 Battleaxe, you're fairly obligated to arrange for hm to find something that will make up the general value (though not, of course, identical).

And with the specificity that many characters get in terms of the weapons they wield -- which is a near-inevitable outgrowth of the feat system -- it woudl be wholly and grossly unfair to not either (A) tailor the found magic items to them as much as you can swallow, and/or (B) only count the stuff you can about GUARANTEE they will sell, as the SALE value, not the market value, towards what they have been doled out.

After all, after the fighter takes exotic weapon (double sword), two-weapon fighting, improved two-weapon fighting, greater two-weapon fighting, weapon focus (double-sword), weapon specialisation (double-sword), and improved critical (double-sword) ... and they spend their saved-up gold on a +2/+2 double-sword of force ...

... you'd have to be friggin' NUTS to expect them to KEEP a +5 flaming greatsword[/b]. Even if it DOES have 3 more enhancement. And EXPECIALLY with the changes to tehcurrent DR system.

And you'd have to be a real rat-bastard GM (in a BAD way, rather than the exected half-funny way), in order to count the gratsword's FULL value against the treasure you hand out to the party, if they DO turn around and sell it.

You might as well cut all COIN treasure in half, too, at that point.

 

[green slime]

In my experience, players that create high level characters tend to forget many details. So that although they may equip themselves with the fanciest armour, and baddest sword they can afford, they forget the protections and potions, and other little details which help the "oldtimers" survive.

 

[HeavyG]

Re: Re: Re: Re: starting gold, and how it's messed up.

Then where's the problem?

Wait a minute, I'm just laying the basework to my argument by this time.

Then the DM needs to put out more treasure. If his PCs regularly find, say, half the treasure ... then the DM needs to double the treasure he puts in each place.

I agree, but is this explained anywhere ?

The treasure per encountr is an AVERAGE value, not an absolute. And it's what's supposed to make it's way into the PC's hands, not merely into the DM's notes. MY DM nots, for example, often make mention of the treasuries of often-wealthy nations. Does all that count against what I've given the PCs, simply because it's in my notes, associated with a map location?

It depends. If "The Kingdom" is one of the EL whatever encounters your PCs use to gain a level, by the rules, it should be.

Don't use WOTC adventures, then. IMO, they tend to overbalance to one-shot and other expendable items because they're trrified of being labelled "monty haul" by giving out coin, tradegoods, jewelry, art objects, and so on.

Okay, by that point, I'm starting to think you missed the whole point of my post.

I don't see a problem with this concept. Why do you?

I see no problem with the concept except insofar as it affects expected treasure by level and nobody seems to have taken that into account.

Simple rule of thumb: if you, as DM, know that the party will NOT use a magic, say ... warhammer ... then only count it's SALE value towards the treasure allotment for any encounter(s) thatinclude that warhammer.

WTF ? That is pretty much how I do it when I run a campaign. Well, I have a slightly more accurate way, but mostly...

Please tell me where I said that was how I did things ?!? I never said anything of the sort, I was explaining why "treasure by level" as explained in the books, is screwed up. [OCG]You assume too much, grasshopper.[/Old Chinese Guy]

Only of the DM is a real bastard, and enjoys screwing the players.

Here we go.

Okay, I will explain the point of my post, spell it out very clearly so there is no misunderstanding.

My point is not that about what any single DM (good or bad, bastard or otherwise) will do. It's about what the books tell you, and thus what a new DM will be doing, I guess. Of course, an experienced DM will compensate for this.

No offense, but ... my first 3E GM played this way, and it's a very 2E playstyle: he handed out a few items here nad there, and we were supposed to be grateful for every damned +1 dagger. The problem is, 3E isn't built the same as 2E, and handing out treasure needs to be done entirely differently.

I always had way more magical items in 2E. Different strokes I guess.

Anecdote time:

Completely irrelevant to what is written in the books, although...

the DM threw our party against a Diamond Golem. We ddn't have a SINGLE weapon which could pierce it's not-inconsiderable DR. Not one. And we weren't high enough level to MAKE one on the spot with GMW, either.

In 3.0, you should start carrying a scroll of greater magic weapon (caster level 9) ASAP, IMX.

And the paradigm you're espousing was the one we as a group had to rebel against.

lol

Fight the power !

Only if the DM is a bastard and has been screwing his players (see anecdote above).

Not me, the rules. You see to be confused those two.

By the way, you seem to really like saying that. Since I do not endorse that particular rule, I am not offended, but if I was, it would be pretty insulting. Why are you trying to insult me ?

Only if the DM is a bastard and enjoys screwing his players (see anecdote above). If a player can be expected to sell item X, then item X should only count for it's SALE VALUE, not it's purchase value. After all, regardles sof the shape ofit ... if you hand a double-sword-wielding fighter a +4 Warhammer worth 32,300-odd gold, you can EXPECT them to sell the damned thing, so all you're REALLY doing is giving them 16,250-odd gold, in a hammer-shaped ingot.

Okay, I already said I agree with that so, good call !

Again ... only if the DM is a bastard and enjoys screwing his players.

That was not in the rulebook, by the way, but my extrapolation of the logic contained in the rulebook. Which I (and you apparently), disagree with. It will be reexplained in simpler terms at the end of this post, don't worry.

The Wealth-by-level tables assume and intend that players have THAT much gold in stuff ON HAND, not "accumulated to date". If you sunder the Barbarians +5 Battleaxe, you're fairly obligated to arrange for hm to find something that will make up the general value (though not, of course, identical).

I would say that you are not obligated to do squat, but it would be pretty nice of you. I'd probably do this, but that wouldn't be automatic. What about the cash spent to raise dead ? What about a PC that puts most of his treasure earned into scrolls and uses them every game ?

And with the specificity that many characters get in terms of the weapons they wield -- which is a near-inevitable outgrowth of the feat system -- it woudl be wholly and grossly unfair to not either (A) tailor the found magic items to them as much as you can swallow, and/or (B) only count the stuff you can about GUARANTEE they will sell, as the SALE value, not the market value, towards what they have been doled out.

Reiteration GOOD ! [/Frankenstein's monster]

... you'd have to be friggin' NUTS to expect them to KEEP a +5 flaming greatsword. Even if it DOES have 3 more enhancement. And EXPECIALLY with the changes to tehcurrent DR system.

You seem to think I'm against people selling what they find to buy personalized stuff and I really wonder where you got that impression from.

And you'd have to be a real rat-bastard GM (in a BAD way, rather than the exected half-funny way), in order to count the gratsword's FULL value against the treasure you hand out to the party, if they DO turn around and sell it.

Or, you'd have to follow the rules.

You might as well cut all COIN treasure in half, too, at that point.

Now, where did that come from ?


Okay, since it's painfully obvious that my argument was too complicated, I will reiterate in a simpler way.

Here is what the rules tell us :

1) At each level, there is an expected value of gear a PC needs to be balanced. (DMG p.135)
2) On average, going through enough encounters to raise a level should give you randomly generated items worth the difference needed to follow that expected value of gear. (DMG Sidebar p. 54)

Those are the rules. I realize you can break them, but that is not what this is about.

If you take both of those together, the implication is that a character at level X should have accumulated Y amount of randomly generated treasure.

3) The rulebooks tell you that you can sell magical items you don't want for half price and buy more appropriate ones with that cash.

I'm sorry, I don't have a page number on that one. Anyway, assuming that it's true, we can only assume that a random magical item is balanced with a chosen magical item of half it's price, by the rules. I would agree with that.

Thus, by the logic contained in the core books, a character, by level X, should have accumulated Y amount of loot, sold most of it, and bought some better items with the cash, thus having somewhere between 0.5 Y and 1 Y in equipment gold value.

However, the "Creating PCs above 1st level" page says that level X PCs should have Y amount of picked items. Thus, we have the following two positions :

a) At level X, you should have Y amount of randomly picked stuff. Some or most of that should be sold for half price to get more appropriate stuff.

b) At level X, you should have Y amount of stuff you chose. Presumably, you found way more treasure than that in your adventuring career, but you sold some to buy that.

The "adventuring" rules bring you to conclusion a), while the "creating PCs above 1st level" rules bring you to conclusion b). Hence, there is an anomaly in the rules. Thus, either the "starting gold" rule is too generous, or the "treasure per encounter" rule is too cheap. Presumably, the "treasure per encounter" rule is the right one because it's not in an "optional rules" chapter and it's in a sidebar named "Behind the curtain : Treasure values". Thus my conclusion that starting character should get less gold value since they pick their gear.

However, my personal opinion, which coincides with yours, apparently, is that PCs should have the full amount of equipment in gear they have mostly chosen.

Your point seems to be that the rules are whacked and cheap, thus a good DM has to adjust his campaign accordingly, and that WotC published adventures are too. I agree with that, it's been my point all along. It really should be in the books, though, because new DMs are going to be really puzzled as to why their players always seem to have less equipment than they should have, even though they follow the rules to the letter.

 

[Pax]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: starting gold, and how it's messed up.

I agree, but is this explained anywhere ?

Poorly, but yes; the wealth by level table indicates what they should HAVE, total, at each level. Not lifetime-accumulated-stuff. On hand stuff.

It depends. If "The Kingdom" is one of the EL whatever encounters your PCs use to gain a level, by the rules, it should be.

My point here is, a given article of treasure -- be it a bent coppr piece of an artifact -- doesn't count as GIVEN to the party, until the party GETS it. If they never find it, they never get it, so it was never given ... only offered.

I see no problem with the concept except insofar as it affects expected treasure by level and nobody seems to have taken that into account.

Or (to paraphrase myself) the designers are real bastards, and enjoy screwing the players.

WTF ? That is pretty much how I do it when I run a campaign. Well, I have a slightly more accurate way, but mostly...

Please tell me where I said that was how I did things ?!? I never said anything of the sort, I was explaining why "treasure by level" as explained in the books, is screwed up. You assume too much, grasshopper.

I was using "you" in the general, not the specific, sense.

My point is not that about what any single DM (good or bad, bastard or otherwise) will do. It's about what the books tell you, and thus what a new DM will be doing, I guess. Of course, an experienced DM will compensate for this.

The specific bastard DM I described knew full wELL this process. He was a bastard, though, and didn't care. *shrug* REal shame, 'cause the game was a LOT of fun in most other ways.

Completely irrelevant to what is written in the books, although...

No, it's not irrelevant at all. This was a case of a GM following the wealth-by-level, but missing the part where it said that was supposed to be what each character HAD, not their share of what had been writtin into his NOTES over the lifetime of the campaign.

In 3.0, you should start carrying a scroll of greater magic weapon (caster level 9) ASAP, IMX.

And where were we supposed to find one? As for buying it ... coin was almost as hard toc ome by as useful magic items.

Besides; said GM was also averse to the purchase of anything much above potions of cure light wounds -- and even then, they were amazingly rare: in a city of 10,000+ ... we bought out their ENTIRE supply. All six of them.

Not me, the rules. You see to be confused those two.

By the way, you seem to really like saying that. Since I do not endorse that particular rule, I am not offended, but if I was, it would be pretty insulting. Why are you trying to insult me ?

Hmm, I've said "the DM" several times, in a non-salutory context,and you think I'm insulting you.

...

Since when did every other DM on the planet (myself included) die off? Did I miss a memo?

I would say that you are not obligated to do squat, but it would be pretty nice of you.

So, you would simply readjust that characters personal wealth-by-level down by the value of that weapon ... forever? Yeah, that works ... (note: dripping sarcasm)

I'd probably do this, but that wouldn't be automatic. What about the cash spent to raise dead ? What about a PC that puts most of his treasure earned into scrolls and uses them every game ?

Wealth used up, wealth replaced. You shouldhave on-hand a given amount of treasure. If a player is making IYO excessive use of consumables ... take them aside, before or after the game, and explain the difficulties this is causing you.

Okay, since it's painfully obvious that my argument was too complicated, I will reiterate in a simpler way.

Now who's being insulting, eh?

Here is what the rules tell us :

1) At each level, there is an expected value of gear a PC needs to be balanced. (DMG p.135)
2) On average, going through enough encounters to raise a level should give you randomly generated items worth the difference needed to follow that expected value of gear. (DMG Sidebar p. 54)

2 does not trump 1. If the process of 2 has failed to meet the requirements of 1, then, additional treasure needs to be distributed through the mechanismof above-average-treasure encounters, until the difference is made up.

Basic logic.

If you take both of those together, the implication is that a character at level X should have accumulated Y amount of randomly generated treasure.

Only if the DM is a real bas- ... oh, you know the drill.

The point is, some DMs are bastards, and will find the least-favorable-to-the-player interpretation possible.

The rest of us realise that fairness is something to be valued, too.

I'm sorry, I don't have a page number on that one. Anyway, assuming that it's true, we can only assume that a random magical item is balanced with a chosen magical item of half it's price, by the rules. I would agree with that.

I assume no such thing, and do not agree with that in the slightest. IMO, 10,000gp of magical gear is 10,000gp of magical gear ... found or bought makes no difference.

Thus, by the logic contained in the core books, a character, by level X, should have accumulated Y amount of loot, sold most of it, and bought some better items with the cash, thus having somewhere between 0.5 Y and 1 Y in equipment gold value.

Only if the D- argh, AGAIN: you know the drill by now.

 

[S'mon]

ok, I have a couple of issues regarding starting gold.

1. I'm having a new character join my game the other players started at 1st, and are now 5th level, the new guy is coming in at 5th, when I got his character sheet, I was struck by the extreme disparity his equipment has with the other characters. Do you guys take away some of the starting gold in a situation like this?

Give the new PC less gold (be a rat bastard GM & enjoy it). I give starting PCs wealth as if they were monsters of CR= their level, eg 5800gp at 10th. Heh heh heh.

 

[Darklone]

I don't like the 3rd edition politics that tells DMs: "Hey, you gotta allow players to buy each spell they want and each item they want or let them build one by themselves."

It does not fit many worlds out there. I do see the problem of a fighter specialised towards one certain type of weapon. But IMC, the fighters rather stay a little less focused on their weapon of choice and wait what they will find.

Since I am no real bastard DM, they will usually get a choice weapon (with the possibility to upgrade it) around level4.

The new DR system looks pretty much like my 3.0 houserule. It's main purpose was to give everyone the chance to have a suboptimal choice of weapons but still being able to kill monsters with DR.

As for the money... who cares. I look for balance in the group and balance towards the NPCs who are built similarly, and then I let the group loose against the world where not every encounter is CR customized.

I don't see it as "playing against the rules", it's just no typical dungeon crawling D&D but a living world.

 

[S'mon]

I don't see it as "playing against the rules", it's just no typical dungeon crawling D&D but a living world.

Hear hear - me too!

 

[Geoff Watson]

The 'expected treasure by encounter' table ends up with more than the 'expected gear by character level table'.
It is assumed that some stuff is used up(expendable items) or sold (to get stuff more suited to the character), or destroyed (rolling 1 on a saving throw), etc.

Geoff.

 

[Cedric]

We don't particularly favor Monte Haul campaigns...or games where tons of treasure are handed out.

And yet, I've never played in a game where 12th level characters that were played up from 1st level didn't end up with more items in terms of gold piece value then the book recommends at that level.

Where you get the advantage is being able to decide where each one of those gold pieces is spent when you select your items.

The GM just has to be make sure he is fairly adjudicating the new characters item selection process so the new character doesn't stack a bunch of loopholes and cheap but incredibly useful items together to become overpowered.

Cedric