To Reimburse or Not to Reimburse?

[keterys]

You don't like the idea of cool bling -- and by that I mean items that the PCs can't make -- for high epic characters? I realize that it's outside of RAW, but I do think it's in the spirit of 4e's "every PC should have a special toy or two that can't be made" philosophy.

Whether I like it or not, the items don't exist and it's not really fair to just assume the DM is going to give out several times as much treasure at those levels instead of just giving items that do exist...

But, maybe they'll just be artifacts of some randomness or other, which might travel on or not, but whose impact is difficult to foretell.

The only change I made to the default parcel system is to assume that the DM converts half of each level's monetary parcel into an item equal to the PCs' level -- so that each character gets a new toy every level. It ends the "Sorry Timmy, it's your level to lose out" situation, and it makes the math simpler -- but not different.

Yeah, I'm with you there, and it ends up with the nice lvl+2 parcel as you hit each level, which works nicely.

Beyond that, my chart is written with the assumption that weapon/implements, armors and neck items will be sold every 5 levels, and that other items will be sold every 10 levels. That still might be a bit generous, but it is by no means outside of the game's assumptions.

But you're not taking into account at all the impact of not getting the perfect bundles, which is a very large effect. Consumable and ritual use will have a varying impact by group, but I'd be willing to handwave it at 2% or less for most groups so it's barely a blip on the radar compared to the ranger who 'has' to use frost weapons so needs to spend money/residuum to upgrade at least half of his weapons.

If you say it is so, then it must be so. Yet I wonder whether your DM really is using the default parcel system, and whether you're using the new PC guidelines that I'm thinking of (one item of level +1, one item of level +0, one item of level -1, and cash equal to the value of the latter). Because using the default parcel system a 14th level character should have about 12 items, plus cash parcels.

Only if you assume every item was actually worth keeping. A 14th level character will have gotten thirteen items, but potentially retired six of those (3 +1s, 3 +2s), nevermind more lateral changes like selling a found Boots of Freedom of Movement to purchase Boots of Eagerness, or direct upgrades like upgrading heroic Iron Armbands for paragon Iron Armbands.

Or maybe you're simply a wiser spender than the other players. (Or maybe the DM's been giving the other players crap items.)

Their items aren't hand-chosen, or when they wanted hand-chosen they had to sell at 1/5. That certainly makes a huge difference. But I've never actually been in a game in which 100% of treasure was chosen by the players (and only run one, once, in 3rd edition).

So I have a +3 Radiant Weapon instead of the +3 Mordant of another player, which is a better energy type and lets me deal extra damage. That other player has an Eladrin Ring of Passage that I don't, which helps him out some, but I'll certainly take +3 damage (+8/+13 against undead) over +1 to a couple teleport powers. I've got Healer's Brooch +3 which adds 3 to all my heals, while another character has a Torc of Fortune +3 which is actually a totally neat item, but mechanically speaking I'll just get more out of what I have, even though they're even level. Etc.

They did have something like 57000g to spend each, so the DM has been giving out a ton of money and that money is actually, what, 75% of the total value of my items... but in a lot of cases they're not going to 'waste' a perfectly good +3 by selling it for 20% value and buying another +3 that does something just a little bit better.

Organic treasure is just very very much not as perfect as you're thinking it is. Even on a character who gets to pick every single item they get, you'll get some waste, especially if they want to bump their enhancement bonuses as soon as possible. For example a twf ranger has four items to bump up every 5 levels, in theory. Looking at an example ranger progression on another board where he's using gp for items and try to compare that to what you end up with for bundles and it's a bit crazy - he's got a ton of low level items that are actually doing a fair bit for him (dragonshards, etc) that you'd have to sacrifice valuable higher level bundles to use: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

And obviously with frost shards, wintertouched, lasting frost, he really is invested in certain items. If he's wielding a +2 Frost weapon in his off hand and the DM hands out a +3 Mordant, there's a pretty good chance he'll pass it up... and four more other level 13 items later, he can convert them into a +3 Frost for his off hand Unless you're arguing that in a group that is using all frost weapons with lasting frost and wintertouched that _all_ they ever find is frost weapons, several per level band?

 

[Impeesa]

Sometime I'm going to run a goofy Diablo style campaign, so I can say "Let's cut the crap: you know what you want, and I want to give it to you. So when a monster dies, you get to choose which item mysteriously pops out of its corpse."

Hah, I'm basically doing this right now. It's an intentionally lightweight, videogamey campaign, and when they loot a body I say "he has a bunch of crap, you pick it up." When they arrive in town to unload, I say "all the crap you've looted becomes about a level-appropriate set of gear." I gotta say, it's really nice on the bookkeeping. After playing the 3E adventure path 1-20+, I looked at my scrap paper notes and such, and there were just pages and pages of recorded loot. At one point it got so extensive I had to spreadsheet and categorize it to straighten out what we need to divide up and unload. As a related point, when I (and probably others) say 'crap' loot, we're not talking about Decanters of Endless Water. Those are awesome. We mean grabbing your hundredth pair of Bracers of Armor +1 off some mook, after a certain point they just become the next denomination of currency.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Hah, I'm basically doing this right now.

I'd totally play if you ran your game in upstate NY.

Whether I like it or not, the items don't exist and it's not really fair to just assume the DM is going to give out several times as much treasure at those levels instead of just giving items that do exist...

True, there are no official post-epic items. But if a DM wanted to give them, he could simply add an enhancement bonus to a few epic items and that'd make a lot of players happy.

But you're not taking into account at all the impact of not getting the perfect bundles, which is a very large effect.

Only if you assume every item was actually worth keeping.

Their items aren't hand-chosen, or when they wanted hand-chosen they had to sell at 1/5. That certainly makes a huge difference. But I've never actually been in a game in which 100% of treasure was chosen by the players (and only run one, once, in 3rd edition).

Unless you're arguing that in a group that is using all frost weapons with lasting frost and wintertouched that _all_ they ever find is frost weapons, several per level band?

Unlike previous editions, 4e does assume that players get items all handpicked for their characters -- if not exactly what they want.

Organic treasure is just very very much not as perfect as you're thinking it is.

I don't recall promoting organic treasure.

Even on a character who gets to pick every single item they get, you'll get some waste, especially if they want to bump their enhancement bonuses as soon as possible.

Which I assume, and have taken into account.

 

[keterys]

Unlike previous editions, 4e does assume that players get items all handpicked for their characters -- if not exactly what they want.

No, it doesn't. Much like it doesn't assume that they find every single possible treasure bundle.

This is a frequent mistake inferred from the treasure rules, however. The treasure bundles are useful, certainly, and wish lists help a DM to give some things out that people want, but even a DM picking from wish lists is only giving out some of the items that someone wants and there's still a lot of slack in terms of getting the right weapons, armor, neck and in upgrading those.

There's a _ton_ of room between optimized treasure choices and not.

Which I assume, and have taken into account.

And so does the DMG method. You just disagree to the extent that it matters.

Much like you think the DM should replace money spent on consumables.

And money lost from mistakenly selling an item.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

No, it doesn't. Much like it doesn't assume that they find every single possible treasure bundle.

This is a frequent mistake inferred from the treasure rules, however. The treasure bundles are useful, certainly, and wish lists help a DM to give some things out that people want, but even a DM picking from wish lists is only giving out some of the items that someone wants and there's still a lot of slack in terms of getting the right weapons, armor, neck and in upgrading those.

We'll just have to disagree then. To me, 4e has clearly thrown aside the pretense of realism that previous editions tried to embrace. The logical extension of the "Equal fun for all!" ideal is that players should get what they want in terms of loot.

That's not to say it's wrong to play differently, as I play it differently, but I think playing it differently contradicts the game's default assumptions.

There's a _ton_ of room between optimized treasure choices and not.

Which nicely explains why your freshly created character has such awesome bling, despite your DM going above and beyond the default parcel system for the old characters.

And so does the DMG method. You just disagree to the extent that it matters.

Keep in mind that before 4th level, the DMG guidelines create overpowered PCs. So yes I strongly disagree that those guidelines are anything more than an incredibly rough stab at 'simulated' wealth. They exist so that you can join a game-in-progress without spending an hour spending a fat wad of cash.

Much like you think the DM should replace money spent on consumables.

And money lost from mistakenly selling an item.

In fact, I haven't claimed any such thing. I have no strong feelings on the subject, so I started this thread to get others' opinions. Clearly, you feel strongly about it.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Sometime I'm going to run a goofy Diablo style campaign, so I can say "Let's cut the crap: you know what you want, and I want to give it to you. So when a monster dies, you get to choose which item mysteriously pops out of its corpse."

Thats pretty much how we settled on doing loot in our game. When we finish a battle we randomly choose who gets the next loot drop (keeping a list so we don't repeat before everyone gets a turn) and the GM tells us what item we get to choose from. If you get a 14th level item and only want a level 13 one, then you get to pocket the difference in gold.

Sure, it doesn't make much logical sense...but it works for us.

DS

 

[keterys]

We'll just have to disagree then. To me, 4e has clearly thrown aside the pretense of realism that previous editions tried to embrace. The logical extension of the "Equal fun for all!" ideal is that players should get what they want in terms of loot.

That's not to say it's wrong to play differently, as I play it differently, but I think playing it differently contradicts the game's default assumptions.

*looks over a mountain of evidence in published modules, LFR campaign, DMG treasure suggestions, etc*

I'm pretty sure the default assumptions are very much not 'The players choose exactly what they get at all times'

Which nicely explains why your freshly created character has such awesome bling, despite your DM going above and beyond the default parcel system for the old characters.

Mostly I think it was them not wanting to waste money - if they were 15th level, I suspect people would have picked up a couple 15th level items, but only 14th so not yet.

Keep in mind that before 4th level, the DMG guidelines create overpowered PCs. So yes I strongly disagree that those guidelines are anything more than an incredibly rough stab at 'simulated' wealth. They exist so that you can join a game-in-progress without spending an hour spending a fat wad of cash.

It still takes a bit even at higher level, but fair enough

In fact, I haven't claimed any such thing. I have no strong feelings on the subject, so I started this thread to get others' opinions. Clearly, you feel strongly about it.

I don't really feel strongly about how people do their games. I feel more strongly about making game _design_ decisions on bad assumptions. Basically, I've found that in actual games (across five or so campaigns by different people) that treasure is nowhere near as optimized as being able to choose precisely what you have, and even to just get a decent sized amount of cash is a big deal.

I did misunderstand you on the refunding money for consumables and refunding sold items, based on your earlier example and statements. Sorry about that.

For example, people in an actual game get items like Wavestrider Boots and Maps of Orienteering that don't show up on perfect lists, and pass up a +3 neck to keep their +2 cloak of survival. Or burn stupid amounts of gold to keep a frost weapon upgraded every five levels. The DM's got them covered on many things, certainly, but even just a simple matter of the party wants 10 13th level items and they get 4... and hey, that's 6 items less, oops.

Basically, the 20% sell price is _specifically_ so that found magic items are more interesting than what the party could optimize by selling and getting their own stuff. That rule wouldn't exist if the party was expected to have perfect bundles.

 

[Prism]

The 20% price is not that unreasonable...

Just think about the risk the merchant takes, buying an item which he may or may not sell ever again...

For me the 20% is just about spot on. I cannot remember a single occasion where a PC buys a premade magic item that someone else has previously sold. They always either find or make their stuff. Even when the party doesn't have an item crafter they commision one to make their stuff. Premade stuff would probably be have to set at about 50% just to interest them. Its therefore quite understandable they only get 20% for their stuff - no one actually wants to buy magic items

And in game terms as several have said it certainly encourages keeping of the more unusual items

 

[the Jester]

I have found that pcs are far more likely to disenchant their lesser magic for the residuum than they are to sell it, but that's a side point.

I think that pcs that complain about this suffer from a certain sense of entitlement that seems to have grown up around 3e and continued in 4e, since they are the first editions to have WBL guidelines. However, those are and always have been guidelines for the dm to use, not rules for the pcs to point at.

I've little to no sympathy for pcs that are broke or under-equipped. Go on a damn quest for loot, then!

One of the most fun campaigns that I've run (according to my players, anyhow) had the nickname "no money, no prizes". The entire party (of 8) had prolly less than 200 gp at 5th level!

 

[Dausuul]

One of the most fun campaigns that I've run (according to my players, anyhow) had the nickname "no money, no prizes". The entire party (of 8) had prolly less than 200 gp at 5th level!

One of my favorite campaigns ever (back in 2E) had a notoriously stingy DM. It was a running joke that our characters went around saying, "I wield PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER... can you spare me a copper piece so I can buy a cup of coffee?"