To Reimburse or Not to Reimburse?

[Tequila Sunrise]

One of the specific complaints I've seen leveled against 4e is that it does not reimburse PCs: you get your parcels every level, which follow strict guidelines, and if you sell something or buy a consumable you never see that bling again. If you sell something that you end up regretting, or if you buy too many potions or whatever, too bad -- that's cash down the toilet.

Whether it officially worked differently in 3e is debatable, but some DMs run it differently at any rate: the DM compares the value of your stuff to the WBL chart, and if it doesn't match up you get less or extra loot to make up the difference. So if you sell something you regret or buy something useless, you only suffer the consequences for about a level.

(All I remember is a bunch of random loot tables from 2e, and I don't know how earlier editions dealt with this.)

What do you think? Should players be punished until the campaign's end for lapses in financial judgment, or should DMs enforce the consequences of poor financial judgment?

 

[Dice4Hire]

One of the specific complaints I've seen leveled against 4e is that it does not reimburse PCs: you get your parcels every level, which follow strict guidelines, and if you sell something or buy a consumable you never see that bling again. If you sell something that you end up regretting, or if you buy too many potions or whatever, too bad -- that's cash down the toilet.

Whether it officially worked differently in 3e is debatable, but some DMs run it differently at any rate: the DM compares the value of your stuff to the WBL chart, and if it doesn't match up you get less or extra loot to make up the difference. So if you sell something you regret or buy something useless, you only suffer the consequences for about a level.

(All I remember is a bunch of random loot tables from 2e, and I don't know how earlier editions dealt with this.)

What do you think? Should players be punished until the campaign's end for lapses in financial judgment, or should DMs enforce the consequences of poor financial judgment?

This would totally up to the DM of the game. If my DM had items 'disappear' once sold, I would be annoyed at the lack of realism there.

Honestly, if a DM held strictly to the 20% sale rule, I would question the realism of the game. I know it is the rules, and I know what it was done, but it is a major sticking point with 4E for me. IMCs I give a higher amount for stuff converted, and then a bit less later on. I'd much rather the party use/sell/buy items in a more realistic fashion, than feel they are getting screwed every time they sell an item.

 

[FireLance]

Whether it officially worked differently in 3e is debatable, but some DMs run it differently at any rate: the DM compares the value of your stuff to the WBL chart, and if it doesn't match up you get less or extra loot to make up the difference. So if you sell something you regret or buy something useless, you only suffer the consequences for about a level.

Arguably, in 4E you suffer the consequences for about 5 levels: that's about the time it takes to either find a weapon, implement, suit of armor or neck slot item that has the next higher plus, or for the item to become "cheap" enough (relatively speaking) to buy it back with the gold you have found. In any case, the marginal difference between having an item and not having one (or having the next best one) is usually quite small (I'm sure exceptions exist, though).

I'm quite alright with the PCs being slightly less than completely optimized, even if they are permanently so. An RPG should be robust enough that total optimization is unnecessary, IMO.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think this is something up to the group. It's built into 4E that class level = equivalent power for everyone that level. And I doubt many groups reward XP individually for differing class levels to result in the same game. But it sounds like item loss is still possible so, while a player can lose influence in the game there is with no ability to gain more from than one's level allows. That's my understanding anyways. It's not my ideal.

 

[Freakohollik]

20% sale rule seems to me to be an attempt at forcing the characters to use whatever they find as in 1e/2e. 3e's 50% sale rule was always enough of an incentive for me to use what I found, while still getting enough gp for crap. I don't think there would be noteworthy balance issues if you wanted to bring 50% sale value to 4e.

As for not being reimbursed on potions and consumables, those are player decisions. If you buy potions, you know what you're getting. If your DM is handing out potions of fire resistance while you're exploring the arctic, then yeah you should be reimbursed, or at least given better than 20% sale value.

I also question how much this really matters. Magic items are of reduced importance in 4e, and it seems like you'd have to get a lot of crap treasure before this sort of thing would start to make a difference.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

This would totally up to the DM of the game. If my DM had items 'disappear' once sold, I would be annoyed at the lack of realism there.

To be clear, I'm not talking about items magically disappearing after being sold. I'm concerned with this kind of situation:

PC: I'll sell you this 20th level sword.
Merchant: I'll give you 25,000 gp for it.
PC: Done. Now I'd like to buy twenty-five Potions of Healing.
Merchant: That'll be 25,000 gp.
PC: Done. Goes adventuring

PC comes back the next day but can't find the same merchant.
PC: I need a 20th level sword. You can have these twenty-four noob potions, one of which didn't save my companion's life.
Merchant: That'll be 125,000 gp, minus the sell value of those potions.
PC: *sigh* Done.

It's an extreme situation, but there ya go. Should the PC be 20k behind expected wealth for the rest of the campaign, or should the DM cut him some slack the next time he plans a loot drop?

 

[Vegepygmy]

Whether it officially worked differently in 3e is debatable, but some DMs run it differently at any rate: the DM compares the value of your stuff to the WBL chart, and if it doesn't match up you get less or extra loot to make up the difference. So if you sell something you regret or buy something useless, you only suffer the consequences for about a level.

FWIW, I have never played D&D that way, in any edition.

It's an extreme situation, but there ya go. Should the PC be 20k behind expected wealth for the rest of the campaign, or should the DM cut him some slack the next time he plans a loot drop?

No slack, IMO. Be more careful with your money.

 

[Dausuul]

It's an extreme situation, but there ya go. Should the PC be 20k behind expected wealth for the rest of the campaign, or should the DM cut him some slack the next time he plans a loot drop?

As DM, I have better things to do than keep track of the PCs' finances. That's the players' job. I hand out the loot, what you do with it is up to you. Players have to live with the consequences of their decisions; if you poke the ancient dragon in the eye with a sharp stick, it'll roast you alive, and if you sell your fancy magic sword, it'll stay sold. I'm not going to give you sudden magic fire resistance, and I'm not going to give you extra loot either.

The flip side of this is that if you come up with a clever way to get more loot than the book says you should, that works too. If a 5th-level character comes up with some incredibly ingenious ploy to con the ancient dragon out of its hoard - congratulations, you've got yourself an ancient dragon's hoard.

(To be honest, I don't even bother with treasure parcels any more. I just try to make sure everybody's "pluses" are about where they should be for their level. In my next campaign, I intend to implement the DMG2 rules for inherent bonuses, so I don't have to worry about that either.)

Edit: In addition to the above, I don't dictate how treasure is distributed within the party. So if I did hand out extra loot, it would affect all the PCs, not just the guy who screwed up and wasted his money... and since my PCs typically distribute plunder evenly, that guy would still end up behind. He's free to cadge whatever he can from the other players, though.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

It's an extreme situation, but there ya go. Should the PC be 20k behind expected wealth for the rest of the campaign, or should the DM cut him some slack the next time he plans a loot drop?

I think the PC should deal with the consequences of his or her choice. Keep in mind that in D&D, character growth is exponential. Therefore, the relative magnitude of shortfalls decays exponentially over time. At level 11, a five-PC party finds 18000gp in treasure per the DMG. By level 16, a single parcel can have 25000gp in value. By level 21, the smallest parcel is 250pp = 25000gp. By this point, even losing the full 20k would be a distant memory and have a negligible effect on the PC's ability.

 

[firesnakearies]

I'm strongly in the "not reimburse" camp, myself.