Cheiromancer said:Is Anubis going to post his suggestion in this thread?
Or has he done so, and I managed to overlook it?
ciaran00 said:Anu-WHO?![]()
Upper_Krust said:So far I have noted and implemented the changes based on feedback from four people, I am working on the changes mentioned by the fifth (our old friend Anubis as it happens), I am still waiting on feedback from one of the other volunteers.
Something Anubis pointed out was a possible flaw in the Treasure system, and he actually emailed me a working solution which I am testing at the moment. However I am not sure if there is a flaw.
Essentially if we want to determine the Treasure from a group of mixed CRs we can simply work out the treasure for each monster individually and add it up. I should have perhaps made that clearer in the text though.
Wulf Ratbane said:Hey UK...
Wulf Ratbane said:My time has been fairly tight here, I haven't had a chance to really dissect the document.
Wulf Ratbane said:But I will say this, even on the first read through, I noticed some things that just need an editor. (I consider that a different issue than comments on the system, but just as important). So-- proofread.![]()
Wulf Ratbane said:I wish you'd figure out the formula behind the core treasure allocations and give me that.
Wulf Ratbane said:Some of us don't play those high-powered epic games, you know.![]()
Wulf Ratbane said:Something in me tells me that it is better to tie treasure to EL.
Wulf Ratbane said:There is a difference between CR8 (a group of 12 orcs, EL7) and CR8 (a single creature, EL13).
Under a system that awards treasure based on CR, both encounters grant the same reward, when they are clearly not equal risks.
Wulf Ratbane said:Now, looking at your table, it seems it is already exponential-- meaning, you can't just add up all the CRs and get the same result.
Wulf Ratbane said:Not sure what I am trying to say here. I guess my instinct (based on the way that group EL is determined) is that the CR-to-Treasure chart could work the same way. It doesn't, though, so I'd either add some very clear instructions and multiple group examples, or I would adjust the table to work on EL.
Wulf Ratbane said:As a GM I'd prefer to award treasure, like XP, based on EL-- especially since there are "situational modifiers" to EL, you may want to consider those when the PCs get their reward.
EL Treasure Value Treasure Level
==================================================
1 210 1
2 300 1 (+90 gp)
3 390 1 (+180 gp)
4 480 1 (+270 gp)
5 570 2
6 840 3
7 1,110 4
8 1,470 5
9 1,830 6
10 2,730 7
11 3,810 8
12 5,070 9
13 7,320 11
14 10,920 12
15 15,240 14
16 20,280 15
17 29,280 16
18 43,680 18
19 60,960 19
20 81,120 20
21 117,120
Cheiromancer said:Upper_Krust, you are a genius!
At 13.333 encounters per level and a 4 PC party, the total amount of treasure awarded is _exactly_ the recommended PC treasure for that level!
Very elegant design.
One minor quibble- anyone who remembers their order of operations will misread the expression (90*CR+1*CR) +30 as being equivalent to (90*CR)+(1*CR)+30. What you want to say is something like 90*CR*(CR+1)+30.
[edit]
Welcome back Anubis!
If treasure is awarded according to party level, it all works out. A level 1 party (no matter what their ability scores) that gets 2800 gp before advancing to second level will have the appropriate amount of treasure.
Not coincidentally, 13.3333 encounters each of which provide 210 gp will yield exactly 2800 gp.
Similarly for other levels.
[/edit]

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.