Is the character wealth/level ratio too high? [Archive]

Prince Zahn

2011-05-30, 09:42 AM

Sorry if there is/was a thread like this, but -
On page 135 of the DMG there's a convenient table labeled "Character Wealth By Level" which shows how much - by D&D standards - a character should make from his adventures at any non-epic given level in gold, gems, art, magic items and/or etc.

With that said, I have a good DM and all, but he refuses to follow said chart, under the following points:

"My (his) DM is very experienced, and somewhat a realist during the session, and he never followed such a chart."
"Gold Pieces are rare and hard to obtain, Be thankful to have 1,000 GP at your level" (level 6 - by the way).
"The magic items you have are part of your rewards, and they count towards said value on the chart" ( party's MI prices+total gold checked - not really.)
"You want to RAISE Orgrathar? well then, first you need to find a Cleric powerful enough to cast 7th level spells, then bring him 10,000 GP worth of diamonds, plus an extra 720 GP for him to cast it for you, PLUS convince him that the spell-phobic Goliath barbarian won't crush him on sight. Even if you DO gather your money as a team... just trust me, your friend is better off making his new character anyway..." (does this sound fair? how does a 5th level barbarian crush a 13th level cleric anyway? how are we supposed to raise him if you charge us full price? why wouldn't we be able to find a 13th level cleric if we nearly died against a 14th level sorcerer, a mindflayer, and a nightwalker WITHIN 4 SESSIONS?!?)

Now, he is nice with his rewards, I won't argue with that - as he gives us the kinds of things we could use... although it is not worth all that which he we could have should we have access to said chart.

I did not make this thread only to rant about my DM, but I mainly wanted to know the playground's opinion on the matter.

So, in short - My DM Prices high and gives low, did this ever happen to anyone else here? is there a way I could convince him otherwise? is his decision somewhat fair? other thoughts and/or comments?

Shpadoinkle

2011-05-30, 10:00 AM

"My (his) DM is very experienced, and somewhat a realist during the session, and he never followed such a chart."
Rule 0. Anything in the books is a suggestion, not a law that must be followed or the universe will collapse.

That said, the game was designed assuming you have a certain amount of wealth that you can use to enhance your abilities, and if you have half of the WBL you're expected to have and he's still throwing stuff of CRs equal to your level at you with no compensation, then he should be aware he's basically actually sending stuff at you that's effectively 2 or 3 CR higher than it should be. It should be noted some DMs are fine with that, though.

"Gold Pieces are rare and hard to obtain, Be thankful to have 1,000 GP at your level" (level 6 - by the way).
I've seen some other DMs express this sentiment as well. I personally thnk it's stupid and I have no idea where it comes from, but as long as you have solid assets appropriate for your level it's not a big deal.

"The magic items you have are part of your rewards, and they count towards said value on the chart" ( party's MI prices+total gold checked - not really.)
He's right.

"You want to RAISE Orgrathar? well then, first you need to find a Cleric powerful enough to cast 7th level spells, then bring him 10,000 GP worth of diamonds, plus an extra 720 GP for him to cast it for you, PLUS convince him that the spell-phobic Goliath barbarian won't crush him on sight. Even if you DO gather your money as a team... just trust me, your friend is better off making his new character anyway..." (does this sound fair? how does a 5th level barbarian crush a 13th level cleric anyway? how are we supposed to raise him if you charge us full price? why wouldn't we be able to find a 13th level cleric if we nearly died against a 14th level sorcerer, a mindflayer, and a nightwalker WITHIN 4 SESSIONS?!?)

Clerics aren't charities and I don't think it's unreasonable for them to expect to ask the people who want their friend raised to actually provide the material components (or reimburse them for it.)

As for the "How do I know he won't crush me even though he's basically a gnat compared to my power" thing... I have to agree. That's just stupid. If he STILL isn't swayed by you saying what you wrote here to him, I can't give you anything that's going to convince him.

So, in short - My DM Prices high and gives low, did this ever happen to anyone else here? is there a way I could convince him otherwise? is his decision somewhat fair? other thoughts and/or comments?

Are you getting good, usable equipment from enemies? Does the total value of those items add up to anything close to what you're expected to have at your level? If yes, then there's not a huge problem, though I can appreciate that it can be frustrating having to make do with what he decides to give you instead of what, exactly, you want.

If your total WBL (remember that stuff like magic items you find count towards this) is off by more than... maybe 10 to 15%, I'd say that yeah, you're having an unnecessarily had time because he's deliberately gimping you.

Coidzor

2011-05-30, 10:07 AM

"My (his) DM is very experienced, and somewhat a realist during the session, and he never followed such a chart."

Realist is a rather bad sign when that's what one cloaks one's intentions with.

"Gold Pieces are rare and hard to obtain, Be thankful to have 1,000 GP at your level" (level 6 - by the way).

He can make them be that way, but there's really no point to it except for taking as much choice away from the players as possible so he can have his way easier and lazier.

"The magic items you have are part of your rewards, and they count towards said value on the chart" ( party's MI prices+total gold checked - not really.)

Then he's either lying or unable or unwilling to do basic math.

convince him that the spell-phobic Goliath barbarian won't crush him on sight.

Why is one of your players actively blocking another player being raised from the dead? That's just rude. If it's a DMPC, you need to get him to stop showing you the discourtesy of hanging such an albatross around your neck or leave and start a new game.

So, in short - My DM Prices high and gives low, did this ever happen to anyone else here? is there a way I could convince him otherwise? is his decision somewhat fair? other thoughts and/or comments?

Maybe, but he sounds like someone who likes having his power trip, so I don't think it's likely that any reasonable methods would convince him, certainly nothing would be accomplished without getting the rest of the group involved.

No, his decision might have been fair if you all had agreed to the setup from the get-go, but instead he decided to, in the most probable interpretation, lie to you about it, discrediting him and showing that he did not show you good faith as a DM.

Prince Zahn

2011-05-30, 10:44 AM

Are you getting good, usable equipment from enemies? Does the total value of those items add up to anything close to what you're expected to have at your level? If yes, then there's not a huge problem, though I can appreciate that it can be frustrating having to make do with what he decides to give you instead of what, exactly, you want.

If your total WBL (remember that stuff like magic items you find count towards this) is off by more than... maybe 10 to 15%, I'd say that yeah, you're having an unnecessarily had time because he's deliberately gimping you.

Yes, we mostly get good, usable items from our enemies, but it does not add up... we are a party of 7(I know, big group), and our total WBL is decent - for a spread equal to that of 3-4 players our level, that is.

Why is one of your players actively blocking another player being raised from the dead? That's just rude. If it's a DMPC, you need to get him to stop showing you the discourtesy of hanging such an albatross around your neck or leave and start a new game.
Perhaps I should clarify - The Spell-Phobic Barbarian IS the dead character in question. your other points seem right to me though...

ILM

2011-05-30, 10:52 AM

Perhaps I should clarify - The Spell-Phobic Barbarian IS the dead character in question. your other points seem right to me though...
I can see a DM wanting to go low-magic (or low magic equipment, at least) as part of his campaign. I definitely agree with him on clerics not handing out freebie resurrects unless you've done them some kind of huge favour (one worth approximately the amount required by the material components). However, this is the one big alarm bell for me: why is the DM declaring how a PC will or will not react? :smallannoyed:

137beth

2011-05-30, 10:54 AM

The table is a suggestion. If he is giving you less treasure, than either
1. He is sending easier monsters, or
2. He is trying to increase the difficulty of the game.

Both of these are perfectly acceptable. Particularly at higher levels, increasing the difficulty is not a problem.

Talya

2011-05-30, 11:08 AM

Coidzor

2011-05-30, 11:12 AM

I can completely understand limiting access to Ye Olde Magick Item Emporium. I don't think magic items should be hard to get, I just don't think players should be able to pretty much customize everything to their liking (without substantial experience cost and opportunity cost in feats for some crafter, anyway). However, the WBL guidelines are fairly well thought out when it comes to things like resurrection costs and the like. Giving gold and loot at WBL isn't a problem so long as you limit what players can do with it.

Being able to choose your own gear isn't a problem so long as everyone's abiding by "Rule -1: Don't be a ________________." :smalltongue:

Which is more of a thing born from class and feat combinations than gear, generally, anyway.

Kalaska'Agathas

2011-05-30, 11:16 AM

The table is a suggestion.

No it isn't. It's an agreement - when the DM says I'll be running a D&D 3.5 campaign then it is reasonable for the players to assume that they will be playing by the standard rules set, including wealth by level, unless the DM tells them otherwise from the get go. It seems to me that the OP's DM is using a variant of the WBL table (doing it ad hoc being the variant in question) without informing his players prior to the start of the game, which is an issue. Behavior like this can only be dealt with in two ways, either the DM chooses to inform his or her players from the get go, or the players ask "What house rules are in effect?" (and this is most definitely a house rule) before the start of the game. That way everyone knows what they're getting into.

If he is giving you less treasure, than either
1. He is sending easier monsters, or
2. He is trying to increase the difficulty of the game.

Both of these are perfectly acceptable. Particularly at higher levels, increasing the difficulty is not a problem.

You are correct here, except that it seems the OP's DM is not sending easier monsters and hasn't informed his crew that they're playing with the difficulty on 'high'.

However, this is the one big alarm bell for me: why is the DM declaring how a PC will or will not react? :smallannoyed:

This would worry me also, far more than not being informed of some pertinent house rules before the game started.

Veyr

2011-05-30, 11:18 AM

Nitty-gritty, low-magic, "realistic" gaming is entirely and completely incompatible with D&D 3.5 and should not ever be attempted for any reason whatsoever. Tell your DM to find a system that actually supports the game he wants to play, 3.5 ain't it.

The game's design depends on the ubiquity of magic items. It depends on access to magic. It depends on players getting access to items not only of an appropriate value but also as is appropriate for their characters — for the most part, most of the items a player is wearing should have been directly chosen by the player (whether it be through "wish lists" that the DM sprinkles in the loot he gives you, or full-on Magic Mart, the player should be getting that choice the majority of the time).

The game simply does not work as designed without these things. You can change the entire system around if you really want, but you really have to overhaul everything — at which point you're better off finding a system that better matches your desires to begin with.

But just not giving the party the appropriate amount of magic items and calling it a day, leaving the rest of 3.5 as-written, is basically bad DMing.

Shpadoinkle

2011-05-30, 11:31 AM

However, this is the one big alarm bell for me: why is the DM declaring how a PC will or will not react? :smallannoyed:

Uh... I didn't get that. What I got was that the cleric they want to raise the barbarian won't do it because he (the cleric) thinks that's how the barbarian will react.

Seerow

2011-05-30, 11:32 AM

dextercorvia

2011-05-30, 11:41 AM

Talya

2011-05-30, 11:43 AM

For the record, WBL represents an average of (1) what each member of a party of 4 would get as their share from randomly rolled treasure (both money and items) based on enough encounters to reach their current level, subtract (2) the average amount of consumables used to get there.

How they determined (2) i have no idea, but (1) wouldn't be hard to mathematically figure out, so long as you assume standard treasure table for all creatures fought. It isn't a guideline for "This is how much you should give your players." It's a statement that if you use the random treasure tables, as an average, this is how much they will have.

If you roll really low on those tables, players will have less. If you roll really high, they'll have more. If you're very stingy/smart about how you use consumables, you'll have more.

If you start at a higher level, utlizing the WBL table allows you to simulate starting with what players should have gotten while levelling. Once again, however, smart purchasing means you're probably starting off better than if you'd actually rolled treasure randomly while levelling up.

Firechanter

2011-05-30, 11:49 AM

The problem with the WBL table is that it isn't printed in the PHB, when in fact it is by design an integral part of character advancement. :smallmad:
A lot -- too many -- DMs think they can ignore the WBL table and deal out whatever they feel like. With a particularly stingy DM, that works well enough for low levels but the game will come apart at mid- to high levels.

Let me put it that way: ignoring WBL and handing out decidedly less loot (of course items do count) is the same as ignoring class features or denying a character his BAB increase on levelup. The difference is that probably no DM ever had the idea of saying "No, Fighter player, your BAB doesn't go up this time" but there is a large percentage who don't see the problem in saying "No, Fighter player, your AC doesn't improve".

Add to the problem that all classes are not created equal. Some classes, particularly full casters, are much less dependent on WBL grear than others. So we simply don't find better than +1 weapons or armour? My Cleric could care less, he just casts GMW and MV and is done with it. You, however, dear Fighter or Rogue, are screwed.

If you want to play a low-wealth game and make it work, you have to adjust the system accordingly. If you don't want to have AC gear in your game, you need to give classes inherent AC progressions, just like BAB the other way round. Conan D20 shows how a gear-independent D20 game can work.

Coidzor

2011-05-30, 11:54 AM

Uh... I didn't get that. What I got was that the cleric they want to raise the barbarian won't do it because he (the cleric) thinks that's how the barbarian will react.

Which is equally borked. If the Barbarian didn't want to be raised he wouldn't respond. Further, they wouldn't go to the trouble because his player is right there and conveniently accessible on the issue.

Frozen_Feet

2011-05-30, 11:59 AM

The WBL system is all kinds of borked. But not because it gives the players vast amounts of wealth, no - it's because prices of darn near everything are out of whack. The non-magic and magic economies are so far apart, it isn't even funny. Which, among other things, leads players to spend so much on semi-useless trinkets that they could've comfortably bought a small town with the cash.

My own solution has been to just make all magic items save for consumables invaluable - meaning that they can't reliably be traded for any amount of coin, and no amount of coin can be reliably traded for them.

However, this division doesn't mean the players don't have anything to spend the cash on - quite the contrary. You'd be surprised how much money a party can burn through spending on such mundane things as ships, land, animals, armies of people to take care of them, and mountains of food to feed them all. Now, I can understand if this kind of playstyle doesn't appeal to everyone - it's a far cry from dungeon crawling, or epic feats of epic inviduals. The micromanaging especially consumes time - sometimes, it takes hours of real time for my players to manage their assets. But it's not antithetical to roleplaying - quite on the contrary. The choices of what they buy and why often add great depth to their characters.

It should be noted that initially, I was very leery of handing down money to my players as well - I thought that without really expensive magic items, they'd have nothing to spend it on, and I wanted to keep money "special". Only through extended play did I realize that even tens of thousands of gold pieces tend to just evaporate when your players decide to buy a frigate and sail the seven seas for months to an end (both in-game and real life time). Though I understand a playstyle where weeks fly by without anything but random encounters providing intrigue might not appeal to everyone either...

Malimar

2011-05-30, 12:01 PM

Veyr

2011-05-30, 12:03 PM

I believe the intent is that mindless, Treasure: None creatures are typically found in dungeons where there's treasure at the bottom. Those creatures don't have it, but they are in between the players and it.

Glimbur

2011-05-30, 12:09 PM

I had decent success with a short campaign giving the PC's two different kinds of wealth. They could of course loot gold, gems, art, etc from fallen foes. But intrinsically magical creatures, when killed, spilled a thing much like mercury which was liquid magic. It could be used by anybody to make magic items; and came in units of effective gp. Intelligent but inherently mundane foes could be carrying jars of the stuff. The party didn't gain more than a few levels, but it seemed like a decent solution to the problem of swords being worth as much as cities.

Curmudgeon

2011-05-30, 12:21 PM

If I know the campaign is going to be short on loot, I'll pick a higher tier spellcasting character rather than my usual Rogue preference. Rogues enhance their capabilities by acquiring useful stuff; after all, they've got the class abilities to be good at doing that. If there's simply not much stuff around, it avoids frustration to just go with a character who doesn't need as much. A Cleric with either Force or Spell domains can cast Mage Armor (armor bonus to AC), and all Clerics get Magic Vestment (enhancement bonus to AC). A Druid with Natural Spell can acquire a tougher form through wild shape and then spend their time being a spellcaster.

Firechanter

2011-05-30, 12:22 PM

I would assume that experience accrues as much slower for a 7-person party as treasure does. Which is to say, if he's giving standard treasure-per-encounter, and he's giving standard XP-per-encounter, they should both be lower per person than standard for a 4-person party. Should they be about equally so, still leading to the expected WBL per person in the end? Or does the math just completely fall apart?

Normally / statistically it comes down to the same thing. Let's assume an encounter that yields 2000XP and 2000GP altogether. If a 4-head party wins this encounter, each gets 500XP and 500GP. If a 7-head party does the same, everyone gains 285XP and 285GP.

If all encounters in the world remain the same, the party of 7 will level somewhat more slowly. However, once they start falling behind on levels, they get more XP for a given CR. They will keep lagging behind, but at some point the gap will not increase further.

big teej

2011-05-30, 12:36 PM

Yes, we mostly get good, usable items from our enemies, but it does not add up... we are a party of 7(I know, big group), and our total WBL is decent - for a spread equal to that of 3-4 players our level, that is.

this right here could be your issue.

I DM for a big group (7-8 people regularly)

and it didn't occur to me until about...... level 4 (maybe late level 3)

that I hadn't adjusted the amount of treasure on the charts for how many characters I had.

granted, I've since fixed this problem.

but it's at least worth checking...

Prince Zahn

2011-05-30, 01:13 PM

OP, you said when you add up the item values in the party, it turns out the group as a whole has gotten magic loot appropriate for their level if they were a standard 4 person party... but they're a 7 person group. It seems to me that the GM is following the standard treasure rules and forgetting to include extra due to more people to split between.

Did you actually try going back to the DM after actually adding up the value of loot, and pointing out that it was below what was expected. If not, I'd actually recommend going to him and pointing this out, and see what his reaction is before judging him as harshly as most here are doing, because it could well be an honest mistake. When you point out WBL and he says "No it's covered in items" that seems to me that he's a reasonable fellow who may have simply not realized that what has been handed out isn't quite enough.

this right here could be your issue.

I DM for a big group (7-8 people regularly)

and it didn't occur to me until about...... level 4 (maybe late level 3)

that I hadn't adjusted the amount of treasure on the charts for how many characters I had.

granted, I've since fixed this problem.

but it's at least worth checking...
You guys may have something there... I'll check, but not with my hopes up... thanks everyone so far.

Nitty-gritty, low-magic, "realistic" gaming is entirely and completely incompatible with D&D 3.5 and should not ever be attempted for any reason whatsoever. Tell your DM to find a system that actually supports the game he wants to play, 3.5 ain't it.

The game's design depends on the ubiquity of magic items. It depends on access to magic. It depends on players getting access to items not only of an appropriate value but also as is appropriate for their characters —
*sliced*

+1, my thoughts exactly.

Big Fau

2011-05-30, 02:29 PM

Amphetryon

2011-05-30, 03:03 PM

I would assume that experience accrues as much slower for a 7-person party as treasure does. Which is to say, if he's giving standard treasure-per-encounter, and he's giving standard XP-per-encounter, they should both be lower per person than standard for a 4-person party. Should they be about equally so, still leading to the expected WBL per person in the end? Or does the math just completely fall apart?

I know it's a houserule, but as someone who regularly DMs for a party of 12ish people, I just make every encounter equal to 1/13th of the XP difference between current and next level, and try to keep the treasure roughly at that same pace. It keeps me from having to fiddle too much with the math based on how many people deign to show up on a given game day.

Rhothaerill

2011-05-30, 03:07 PM

And then they turned around and gave you magic items out the wazoo in their premade modules.

My wife is starting to DM (her first time) a new 3.5e campaign set in my homebrew world and noticed the Granite Mountain Prison I had placed next to a major city. When I told her it was from an old Dungeon magazine (#36 to be exact) she was intrigued and wanted to run the adventure.

She started looking through it and asking me about some of the conversions to 3.5e.

Wife: "What is a robe of the archmagi?"
Me: "Umm, this is a 5th level adventure right?"

Yep, in that adventure your spellcaster can pick up a robe of the archmagi at 5th level!

ericgrau

2011-05-30, 03:31 PM

DMs with a warped vision of what fantasy "should" be do this a lot without thought of what it will do to game balance. If you can't get him to stop then just play a sorcerer or etc. Or tell him he needs to try it with a different game system.

Since everything is used for magic items all it really does is take the toys away from those who don't already have magic. If you think magic is necessary to survive and casters are an issue then the answer is to increase wealth/level and magic items so that everyone can overcome the stranger encounters. You can't decrease wealth without removing magic and casters as well, or it screws with the game mechanics and makes things unfair. Or more unfair for those who think casters already have a leg up; at least others had the option to fly and so on when they had money.

Xyk

2011-05-30, 03:55 PM

Big Fau

2011-05-30, 04:00 PM

Well that's just untrue. All it takes to play a low-magic campaign is to ignore or adjust challenge ratings and certain abilities that monsters have. For instance, creatures that have damage reduction 15/magic or something like that would be changed to 15/silver or something. I DM mostly realist games and it works out fine.

I don't appreciate you telling me how to play my games.

Ok, and how do you deal with Flying Spellcasters With Teeth™?

Or anything with a Fly speed higher than 60ft, for that matter. Or anything Incorporeal? Or with Ability Drain? Or Energy Drain? Or dozens of other problems that Low Magic campaigns cause (most of which can be solved with an adequate WBL)?

Seriously, low-magic campaigns usually translate into "Play a Warblade or VoP Incarnate, because almost every other class gets screwed".

Amphetryon

2011-05-30, 04:17 PM

Ok, and how do you deal with Flying Spellcasters With Teeth™?

Or anything with a Fly speed higher than 60ft, for that matter. Or anything Incorporeal? Or with Ability Drain? Or Energy Drain? Or dozens of other problems that Low Magic campaigns cause (most of which can be solved with an adequate WBL)?

The general solution to those problems, in a low-magic campaign, is not to include them in the world. Low-magic aficionados will probably point out that a particular spell, item, monster, or ability's inclusion in [3.5 sourcebook] does not mean it's required to make an appearance.

Eldariel

2011-05-30, 04:21 PM

I can see why the DM would do that. CR is already worthless so you lose nothing on that front. And 3.5 has pretty sick expectations for how much magic items character of a given level should have.

Thing is, that really doesn't work in a mixed group. You have top tier spellcasters who are much stronger than other characters even fully equipped; they are hurt much less by not having as much wealth so losing out on wealth effectively increases the gap between high tier and low tier characters massively.

Wealth acts as a sort of a buffer that allows weaker classes to catch up to the stronger classes (of course, stronger classes can maintain the gap if spending their wealth intelligently). Wealth By Level chart is obviously just a guideline, and an approximation (since the amount of consumables and the amount of treasure varies wildly so you can go anywhere from 70% to 130% of the written wealth easily in a RAW game), but it does serve an important function for mixed tier games of keeping the various classes closer to each other.

Of course, for maximum balance in a mixed group, you'd just dial it up to eleven and give completely ridiculous amounts of treasure to characters, enough so to drown any effect of character class out of the game.

If you have a party of just one-two tiers all relatively optimized, you can give them any amount of wealth and things will work out quite well. Low wealth, they'll be weaker but that doesn't matter since you control the world and what can be encountered. Since CR is useless anyways, you have no more or less work to do than normally. High wealth, they'll be stronger with the same considerations.

Generally, classes within the same tier have similar benefits of increased wealth, and thus parties within a similar tier remain balanced regardless of WBL considerations. Parties further apart will be hurt more by lower wealth and helped more by higher wealth. Just some considerations. D&D 3.5 isn't balanced and WBL helps it be slightly more so.

Remmirath

2011-05-30, 05:23 PM

"My (his) DM is very experienced, and somewhat a realist during the session, and he never followed such a chart."

The realist part is a bit odd, but there is absoloutely nothing that says you must follow the Wealth By Level chart. I can assure that neither I nor most DMs I know follow it, and it does work out for us. It's a little less busted up than the CR system, but it is still fairly messed up, in my opinion.

"Gold Pieces are rare and hard to obtain, Be thankful to have 1,000 GP at your level" (level 6 - by the way).

Heck, I have 300 gold at level 9 in one game I'm playing in (although that does feel a bit tight) - but if that's the entire party, it does seem rather low.

"The magic items you have are part of your rewards, and they count towards said value on the chart" ( party's MI prices+total gold checked - not really.)

I'm pretty sure that is how it works, but since I don't use WBL in my games I haven't actually read the chart in a long time.

"You want to RAISE Orgrathar? well then, first you need to find a Cleric powerful enough to cast 7th level spells, then bring him 10,000 GP worth of diamonds, plus an extra 720 GP for him to cast it for you, PLUS convince him that the spell-phobic Goliath barbarian won't crush him on sight. Even if you DO gather your money as a team... just trust me, your friend is better off making his new character anyway..." (does this sound fair? how does a 5th level barbarian crush a 13th level cleric anyway? how are we supposed to raise him if you charge us full price? why wouldn't we be able to find a 13th level cleric if we nearly died against a 14th level sorcerer, a mindflayer, and a nightwalker WITHIN 4 SESSIONS?!?)

It really depends on the kind of game he's running. It sounds fine if he is running a game where coming back from the dead is supposed to be a rare and difficult ordeal - but since this isn't standard, he really should've been up front about it. I'd say pulling it in the middle of the game with no warning is a bit shady.

(I assume the character in question's remains were in such a state that a Raise Dead won't suffice, or you should be able to get it at least cheaper than that.)

Now, he is nice with his rewards, I won't argue with that - as he gives us the kinds of things we could use... although it is not worth all that which he we could have should we have access to said chart.

Getting nice things you can actually use is far better than the DM giving a seemingly endless stream of +1 crossbows and greatswords (none of which anybody in the party can use) and then shrugging and saying you've got the right wealth for your level... when you can't find a merchant who actually sells anything decent. Yes, that did happen to me once.

So, that doesn't sound too bad.

So, in short - My DM Prices high and gives low, did this ever happen to anyone else here? is there a way I could convince him otherwise? is his decision somewhat fair? other thoughts and/or comments?

It has happened to me, but was more annoying because we never found anything any of us could use than because of the pricing.

If it is really causing a problem, as in some characters are falling behind and becoming less useful because of it, then you might want to approach him and point this out. It could work. You'd probably at least get some explanation as to why he is doing it that way.

I think the decision is fair and reasonable, really - it's his campaign, and nobody is obligated to use WBL or play by RAW. However, it is polite to let the players know what house rules you have, and he should probably explain what he's changing in a general way so there aren't any more nasty surprises.

Veyr

2011-05-30, 05:29 PM

Well that's just untrue. All it takes to play a low-magic campaign is to ignore or adjust challenge ratings and certain abilities that monsters have. For instance, creatures that have damage reduction 15/magic or something like that would be changed to 15/silver or something. I DM mostly realist games and it works out fine.

I don't appreciate you telling me how to play my games.
D&D 3.5 is not intended as a low-magic, "realistic" game, and is entirely designed around the ubiquity of magic.
Other systems are intended for low-magic, "realistic" games, and therefore are entirely designed around the lack of magic.
These are fact. The opinion I'm asserting is that it makes no sense to try to change Fact #1 considering the veracity of Fact #2.

To make 3.5 work as low-magic, you would need to change every spell, every class that accesses spells, every creature that emulates spells, every creature with non-spell abilities to 1. fly, 2. burrow, 3. be incorporeal/ethereal, 4. modify terrain, as well as every encounter in every published module ever. And that's the short list.

Eldariel

2011-05-30, 05:48 PM

D&D 3.5 is not intended as a low-magic, "realistic" game, and is entirely designed around the ubiquity of magic.
Other systems are intended for low-magic, "realistic" games, and therefore are entirely designed around the lack of magic.
These are fact. The opinion I'm asserting is that it makes no sense to try to change Fact #1 considering the veracity of Fact #2.

To make 3.5 work as low-magic, you would need to change every spell, every class that accesses spells, every creature that emulates spells, every creature with non-spell abilities to 1. fly, 2. burrow, 3. be incorporeal/ethereal, 4. modify terrain, as well as every encounter in every published module ever. And that's the short list.

Well. All that is really ridiculously easy. Just a flat ban on classes with supernatural/spellcasting capabilities (or making them inaccessible to PCs, or forcing non-casting ACFs which exist for most semi-casters) accomplishes the low-magic PCs goal, and things like flight, burrowing, incorporeality, spell-likes and terrain modifying capabilities don't really need to be changed, just considered a different scale of challenge.

After all, just because you play with martial heroes doesn't mean that they can't be faced with a Demon; the Demon is just a threat of a whole different scale when it gets to play a game several magnitudes more powerful than the PCs. And yet, many can still be defeated. So creatures have to be considered differently. But since there's no good way of considering them in RAW 3.5 anyways, that's not much of a loss.

And hell, you can just remove spellcasting from Dragons. Bam, instantly reasonable opponents without being overpowering. Sure, extremely dangerous schemers and planners and with flight, an ability you cannot easily match (without things like flying mounts which would just get charred; and you have no Feather Fall), but defeatable. Or you can keep it there and simply hold back to make them even more special.

The better question is why to use D&D 3e (or what remains of it after the bans; there's still a reasonable number of stuff and it's not like low-magic means there are NO magic items/spells, just less of them) over another system and there definitely needs to be an answer for that if you do decide to play low-magic 3e D&D. However, there are simple reasons like lacking system familiarity in a more appropriate system (honestly, changing 3.X to play it low-magic is fairly easy if you have deep system mastery; less work than learning most systems most definitely) or preference for certain aspects in 3.X (I really like ToB and thus am playing a low-magic 3.X game with expanded ToB currently; I found converting ToB more work than making 3.X low-magic).

Mayhem

2011-05-30, 06:53 PM

Something I just thought of, is your DM aware that magic items' "wealth value" is half their listed price? Because that might be half your wealth right there.

Other than that, I agree with Eldariel.

kardar233

2011-05-30, 07:11 PM

If DMs want to play a gritty, low-magic campaign I always suggest Monte Cook's Iron Heroes system. It's based on a little-to-no magic setting and there is only one spellcasting class in the base book, who is dangerously unpredictable and also optional. It's worked well for me.

Curmudgeon

2011-05-30, 07:13 PM

Something I just thought of, is your DM aware that magic items' "wealth value" is half their listed price?
It doesn't work like that. If you find a magic item and you use it, you're getting full value. If you decide to sell it you get whatever gp you receive from that transaction. So the value to the PCs is somewhere in between.

Doug Lampert

2011-05-30, 07:22 PM

In pre 3.x D&D magic items were rare, and the notion of a magic shop was somewhat limited. Most old school DM's were pretty tightfisted. The 2.0 DMG called generous magic items "Monte Haul" style, and it was somewhat disparaging. There were no guidelines for what was appropriate.

Sure there were, there were random treasure tables, which if followed resulted in mid level characters equiping entire companies of henchmen with magical weapons and armor.

There were modules which if followed were EVEN MORE GENEROUS!

There was lots of guidance, and NONE of it matched the claimed "low magic" and "few items" setting.

And then they turned around and gave you magic items out the wazoo in their premade modules.

Wife: "What is a robe of the archmagi?"
Me: "Umm, this is a 5th level adventure right?"

Yep, in that adventure your spellcaster can pick up a robe of the archmagi at 5th level!

Sounds pretty stingy compared to 3.5. :)

I started playing D&D in 1974, I started GMing in 1977. Please don't try to tell me about how stingy the old days were, I may laugh myself silly remembering that the main use of bags of holding was to store all the crap magic items you had no use for until you built a stronghold but kept finding. You couldn't step outside a town wall without tripping over all the +1 swords if using the random treasure tables, and modules were far worse.

DougL

Big Fau

2011-05-30, 07:29 PM

The realist part is a bit odd, but there is absoloutely nothing that says you must follow the Wealth By Level chart. I can assure that neither I nor most DMs I know follow it, and it does work out for us. It's a little less busted up than the CR system, but it is still fairly messed up, in my opinion.

Except that the game was designed with the WBL in mind. Forgoing it (or neglecting it) means you are cutting out a huge portion of the game itself, weakening the characters who have no means of coping without magic items.

Heck, I have 300 gold at level 9 in one game I'm playing in (although that does feel a bit tight) - but if that's the entire party, it does seem rather low.

Shoot your DM, preferably with a hammer. Specifically of the M.C. variety.

NineThePuma

2011-05-30, 07:33 PM

Just gonna throw out; if you like 'low magic' type areas, play D20 modern; it's easy to adapt to a medieval setting.

The Glyphstone

2011-05-30, 07:38 PM

Eldariel

2011-05-30, 07:49 PM

Except that the game was designed with the WBL in mind. Forgoing it (or neglecting it) means you are cutting out a huge portion of the game itself, weakening the characters who have no means of coping without magic items.

As long as everyone is on the sameish tier, it should provide about equal detriment to everyone and thus the challenges can be decreased appropriately. You only need magic items to gain abilities you need to play in a game with higher tiered classes, after all. But in a group not exposed to the online hivemind, yeah, it's gonna screw things up (or if someone *shudder* uses CR for something).

Shoot your DM, preferably with a hammer. Specifically of the M.C. variety.

Maybe the 300gp is only his actual gold allotment and he's wearing a Christmas tree? 'cause it seemed like OP only calculated his actual wealth instead of wealth + items, which is what WBL measures :smallwink:

Frozen_Feet

2011-05-30, 08:09 PM

To make 3.5 work as low-magic, you would need to change every spell, every class that accesses spells, every creature that emulates spells, every creature with non-spell abilities to 1. fly, 2. burrow, 3. be incorporeal/ethereal, 4. modify terrain, as well as every encounter in every published module ever. And that's the short list.

Wrong. You don't need to change those elements. You just don't use them. 3.5 D&D is incredibly wide and powerful system, with characters and obstacles being available for nearly every imaginable level of play. Even cutting or using the magical stuff very sparingly, you can still plot and hold many different kinds of games.

Really, considering the sheer amount of support for the system, you can still end up with more usable material to work with than many less common, specialized game systems.

crazyhedgewizrd

2011-05-30, 08:55 PM

all rules are a guideline, you can follow them or not. with WBL half should be spent on BEER AND WHORES. If you are not doing that why wary about money.

Coidzor

2011-05-30, 08:57 PM

Maybe the 300gp is only his actual gold allotment and he's wearing a Christmas tree? 'cause it seemed like OP only calculated his actual wealth instead of wealth + items, which is what WBL measures :smallwink:

The OP said he counted liquid wealth+items and it didn't add up.

Big Fau

2011-05-30, 08:58 PM

Maybe the 300gp is only his actual gold allotment and he's wearing a Christmas tree? 'cause it seemed like OP only calculated his actual wealth instead of wealth + items, which is what WBL measures :smallwink:

So melees in his DM's campaign would be doing their job: Standing there looking pretty until the ornaments catch fire.

Veyr

2011-05-30, 09:00 PM

The general solution to those problems, in a low-magic campaign, is not to include them in the world. Low-magic aficionados will probably point out that a particular spell, item, monster, or ability's inclusion in [3.5 sourcebook] does not mean it's required to make an appearance.
But that is something like 80% of the system. The level-of-detail once that has been removed is very much not what it could be; another system would suit that game better.

Moreover, at least in the OP's case, there still are Clerics and Wizards.

dextercorvia

2011-05-30, 09:27 PM

Sure there were, there were random treasure tables, which if followed resulted in mid level characters equiping entire companies of henchmen with magical weapons and armor.

There were modules which if followed were EVEN MORE GENEROUS!

There was lots of guidance, and NONE of it matched the claimed "low magic" and "few items" setting.

Sounds pretty stingy compared to 3.5. :)

I started playing D&D in 1974, I started GMing in 1977. Please don't try to tell me about how stingy the old days were, I may laugh myself silly remembering that the main use of bags of holding was to store all the crap magic items you had no use for until you built a stronghold but kept finding. You couldn't step outside a town wall without tripping over all the +1 swords if using the random treasure tables, and modules were far worse.

DougL

I do remember throwing +1 swords and shields into a trapped room in one module, because we were trying to figure out what would stop it. I just assumed based on what I read in the PHB/DMG that I always played under generous DMs.

Remmirath

2011-05-30, 10:21 PM

Except that the game was designed with the WBL in mind. Forgoing it (or neglecting it) means you are cutting out a huge portion of the game itself, weakening the characters who have no means of coping without magic items.

Ah, you're assuming that I meant you should have less wealth. :smallwink:

No, I just don't think the exact numbers are important; so long as your fighter-types and so forth are getting the magic items they need to survive and prosper, it's all good. I was mostly referring there to people who feel the need to stick by the precise guidelines and sometimes even take away wealth if it's too much according to the WBL. I think it does more or less work as a chart of 'I should be giving my players at least this much, since they're 5th level', but I also think that becomes mostly instinctive once you've been DMing for a while.

I do also think that every game is different and for some people it might work out to have less wealth, but I personally wouldn't do it. It's their game, though - assumptions that hold true in most games don't hold true in some. In the original post, though, it is obviously something of a problem since at least one person is unhappy with how the wealth is being handled.

Shoot your DM, preferably with a hammer. Specifically of the M.C. variety.

Tempting. :smallamused: It's a pretty minor complaint, all things considered, though; I've got enough stuff (and I'm the fighter of the group and already one of the two characters who are actually... well, killing things and not nearly dying in every fight), and taking into account some of the things this particular DM was once guilty of years back it's nothing. The rest of the campaign's fine.

Geigan

2011-05-30, 10:33 PM

Except that the game was designed with the WBL in mind. Forgoing it (or neglecting it) means you are cutting out a huge portion of the game itself, weakening the characters who have no means of coping without magic items.

Shoot your DM, preferably with a hammer. Specifically of the M.C. variety.

How would not touching him help? I would think you would be more inclined shoot him with a regular hammer.

ericgrau

2011-05-30, 11:36 PM

Ok so generally low wealth/level is a recipe for disaster, but if you want to ditch them then you must remove: all casters, all special encounters and related monsters mentioned above, and the attack bonus / AC system (AC will never increase). The last two seem daunting but I can tell you that PC AC and average monster AB scale at roughly 1-1.25 per level. So you increase one or reduce the other accordingly. Maybe invent "BAC" (like BAB) which is 1/level for all classes you didn't remove, or 1.25/level rounded down with a shield. Likewise add at least 0.25/level to saves, maybe 0.3/level.

There, now all you have to do is carefully check every single monster and dungeon you use for special abilities or terrain. And heaven help you if they depend on something not so easy to notice like strength or size category. Ya, best select only monsters that swing and deal damage and nothing else, much like the few classes and PC special abilities you have remaining... you still sure D&D is the system you want to use for this kind of campaign?

Big Fau

2011-05-31, 12:27 AM

How would not touching him help? I would think you would be more inclined shoot him with a regular hammer.

Because he's been complaining about the misses. /Bad Pun.

tyckspoon

2011-05-31, 12:30 AM

I just assumed based on what I read in the PHB/DMG that I always played under generous DMs.

Nah. It's just that while the PHB suggests and the DMG rules for item creation would enforce a low-magic world (because, seriously, who the hell would ever use those item creation rules unless somebody was extorting and/or mind-controlling them to do it? Con drain to have a non-guaranteed chance to make an item after like a year of work?) Most sensible people realized that.. well, that would turn out pretty boring. There were all these really nifty things magic items could do; what would be the point if players never got to actually *use* them?

Tavar

2011-05-31, 12:48 AM

Listening to these stories, I'm willing to bet the designers just didn't want to deal with PC's making items, so made PC item creation really difficult, and assumed NPC's used some other method.

ericgrau

2011-05-31, 01:29 AM

Geigan

2011-05-31, 01:36 AM

NPCs have more time and a lower income expectation. Crafting and profession are good money for the average joe. Magic item crafting, if willing to wait years for a buyer who will pay the 100% markup, is a great way to become wealthy. They also last a long time without wearing out; most items might be eons old. Adventurers OTOH make the most from adventuring b/c they have the skill and willingness to risk their lives against amazing challenges.

I personally am more willing to believe that they'd wait for a commission. Seems easier to tailor to what the customer needs and it means you'll never have wasted materials on something no one will ever buy.

ericgrau

2011-05-31, 02:23 AM

Oh ya that too of course. They'd probably only make the "cheaper" items ahead of time, like scrolls and such.

Grommen

2011-05-31, 08:59 AM

Our recent campaigns, I don't think we have any character even close to the WBL chart. Just never occurred to us to play that way. I try, but it never works out that way. Truly does not seem to hurt my games, or the games I play in. I do use it as a guide line when I write material for my games.

As a DM I'm contently evaluating weather the players are close in power to each other, and able to overcome the obstacles placed in front of them. If it looks like they need a boost, they get it. If they are running amuck in the game. They get diddly squat. And I tell them that.

In one campaign the DM, a good friend of mine, went out of his way to make sure we didn't get magic items. Even to the point where we got enough money to buy items, he cursed them all. :smallmad: The campaign went just fine because the bad guys, including the casters, didn't have squat either. Yes the casters were tougher to beat but not impossible.

Pathfinder even goes on to make 3 charts for experience and wealth (Low, normal, and WhooT!). It's a good idea if you ask me.

Firechanter

2011-05-31, 12:10 PM

Well, I guess WBL also assumes random loot distribution, so it is to be expected that a significant portion of your acquired gear will not be optimal for your character. So you're supposed to be alright if you have 100% WBL worth of gear that's on average only, say, 66% effective for you.

Conversely, that should also mean that having 66% WBL worth of exclusively custom-made gear, of which each piece is 100% effective, should also be fine.

In which case, 100% WBL of custom-made 100%-effective gear would result in a somewhat (not tremendously) overpowered character.

It's a bit tricky and I don't know the official stance on this; but characters created at higher levels are supposed to be outfitted with their choice of WBL gear, i.e. 100/100, and thus are better off than chars who actually were played up all the way.

Hecuba

2011-05-31, 01:19 PM

Curmudgeon

2011-05-31, 02:15 PM

Assuming that custom items can be crafted is not the same as assuming that items specifically designed to fill PC needs will show up, already crafted, in the treasure of wandering monsters. Purpose-crafted items will need to be commissioned and paid for at full price, often by selling other items at the usual discount.

Kantolin

2011-05-31, 03:16 PM

"You want to RAISE Orgrathar?

Personally, I wish when DMs said things like that, they'd just say, "I don't want people being raised very easily in my setting."

Then you could have a reasonable discussion about, "We really like that character, can we do something to bring him back?" leading to possibly a neatish quest or something, or possibly get this decision changed.

Or just officially accept that there's now a revolving door of characters and whenever someone dies, in comes someone new to promptly fill the gap.

...or I suppose, tell John the player that he's not allowed to play anymore his character died, go find something else to do on Friday evenings, but I don't think that one happens terribly often.

But bah. Comments like that result in responses as thought that was actually the problem. Suddenly, nobody cares about getting the artifact of sokoban since now half the PCs are busy trying to go to various cities and make gather information checks to find a high level cleric and robbing banks to get the money and using interplanar discussion to ensure the barbarian won't attack people (Which he won't as the player wants to keep playing his character), while the rest of the party is bored silly and the DM keeps throwing up roadblocks after roadblocks of varying levels of reasonability to get his game back towards aims he actually wants to run...

It's like when people say, "Sorry, I can't come, I don't have a ride." When they actually mean, "I don't want to." Due to saying the former, the solution of 'Okay I'll get you a ride' might drag them to something they don't want to be at. :P

El Dorado

2011-05-31, 03:23 PM

I might have missed this, but are the characters actually having problems overcoming the encounters that they are facing? I mean, if the characters are burning through most of their daily resources to survive one or two fights, or the DM is throwing out monsters that require magic weapons and magic weapons aren't available, that could be a problem. Also, if the DM wants to run a grittier campaign that challenges the players' critical thinking skills, low wealth goes a long way to achieving this goal.

Typewriter

2011-05-31, 03:56 PM

My main problem I have isn't with WBL charts specifically so much as it is the 'magic mart' mindset.

I don't want to give my players 20,000 gold and tell them to have a field day with the magic items they can buy because I don't believe in magic marts as a concept. That means I can give them 20,000 gold and then tell them they can't find anything they want to purchase, or I can give out random loot of misc. value and enough gold to allow people some degree of customization and to get necessities I may have missed.

Sometimes that works out with the party being 'poor', sometimes it winds up with the party being ridiculously rich.

I hate WBL as a system because it tries to baseline treasure when it's really something that should be handled on a case to case basis by DMs who know their groups.

/2 cents

Curmudgeon

2011-05-31, 04:07 PM

I hate WBL as a system because it tries to baseline treasure when it's really something that should be handled on a case to case basis by DMs who know their groups.
So you want DMs to micro-manage PC gear? That's something I really hate. As a player I want as much control as possible over what my character can do. I don't want to see the DM's hand in anything except equipping enemies with what gear makes the most sense for them. I suggest cutting the puppet strings early on.

Kantolin

2011-05-31, 04:17 PM

My main problem I have isn't with WBL charts specifically so much as it is the 'magic mart' mindset.

Personally, I don't literally have magic marts, it's just that my group generally has more interesting things to do than go on a moderate quest to find a +3 flaming sword to replace the +2 one the party has.

Now, we do have some haggling or searching. There was a neat discussion with someone who had god-theft staves, which are basically divine runestaves with a less than on-the-level bent to them, which was fun. The group also has had to have lengthy talks with nefarious or more pleasant shopkeepers who were unwilling to release something, or who were helping the PCs track down a something. There are searches for legendary weapons lost to the ravages of time all over my settings, and PCs have a ton of fun searching for them and tracking down clues.

But usually? Whatever, you can spend your gold between runs on practically whatever, be sure you clear it with me first for balance reasons, okay now let's go back to the diplomatic tension between the elven king and the dwarven queen that you all sat down for.

If need be, I've had both the, "The equipment you ordered from your organization has finished being constructed." and the "During the week of downtime, you are assumed to have walked or teleported around the place to find where all of these eclectic pieces of equipment you now have are."

I also a few times have had a literal store where you could walk in and buy a wide array of things.

But usually, most of that isn't very interesting - we want to get back to killing drow or courtly intruigue or other such plot. :P

Typewriter

2011-05-31, 04:30 PM

So you want DMs to micro-manage PC gear? That's something I really hate. As a player I want as much control as possible over what my character can do. I don't want to see the DM's hand in anything except equipping enemies with what gear makes the most sense for them. I suggest cutting the puppet strings early on.

I don't know about you but I think the DM going through your character sheet and totalling your loot totals so that he can give you a specific amount is a lot more 'micro managing' than simply winging it and giving the party stuff.

I find it amazing that out of what I said you got micro managing and puppet strings. Thanks.

@Kantolin

I roll randomly for most of the treasure the party gets, but I don't roll randomly on specific parts. If the party needs a bastard sword then the random sword is going to be a bastard sword. If the bonuses aren't what the player wants then he can try to sell it - at a loss. Same with most other loot. I make sure the party gets stuff they want/need but I don't allow them access to simply have X amount of gold in Y amount of desires.

Kantolin

2011-05-31, 04:52 PM

I roll randomly for most of the treasure the party gets, but I don't roll randomly on specific parts. If the party needs a bastard sword then the random sword is going to be a bastard sword. If the bonuses aren't what the player wants then he can try to sell it - at a loss. Same with most other loot. I make sure the party gets stuff they want/need but I don't allow them access to simply have X amount of gold in Y amount of desires.

I've become really hesitant to have rolling designate the primary source of most character's wealth due to seeing the effect this had on various fighters.

It's because certain classes (Fighters are one of my favorite classes in the game, so that may be where part of this comes from) get fairly fiercely hurt if they don't get somewhat specific gear. I know whenever I make an AC-monkey, I have to really sit on appropriate gear - get more plusses on shield, more plusses on armour, ring, amulet, the works.

Meanwhile, whenever I play a (say) cleric, I don't care nearly as much about what I get. I can snag that kinda wonky weapon that showed up, and a couple spells later it's +5 and ready to go.

So I dunno. If a fighter really could use a [specific piece of equipment, say celestial armour so he can fly] and doesn't get it, he's slightly weaker due to not having it (Darn the enemies are over there, if only I could fly...). If a wizard really could use a [specific piece of equipment, say a magic carpet so he can fly] and doesn't get it, he'll just shrug and do something else in most cases [Like just memorize overland flight that morning]. :P

But hey, if it works out in the end, then sure. You could, instead of wealth per level, just have a wishlist of what people want and then give it to them directly through random monsters and treasure piles, allowing a similar 'wealth per level' system without any actual gold pieces being involved.

...now, if the limitation is 'to prevent broken equipment comboes', then that's the broken equipment combo's problem, not wealth per level.

Curmudgeon

2011-05-31, 05:06 PM

I don't know about you but I think the DM going through your character sheet and totalling your loot totals so that he can give you a specific amount is a lot more 'micro managing' than simply winging it and giving the party stuff.
The DM shouldn't ever do that, either.

Wealth by Level is only a useful tool when creating characters above 1st level. All a DM needs to do is pay attention to Table 3–3: Treasure Values per Encounter (page 51 of the Dungeon Master's Guide) and make sure there's enough income opportunity for the characters. That's it. Let the players handle the rest of it.

Typewriter

2011-05-31, 05:12 PM

That's what I mentioned giving the party a certain amount of extra money for. I want them to have to be able to do the things they want to do, I just don't want them to have everything they want as prescribed by a chart.

If the fighter wants the ability to fly he'll have enough money to find a way to do it, or the party wizard will buff him, and he'll spend his money upgrading his sword/armor (I allow people to upgrade equipment as opposed to having to start completely over).

I mean what I say when a DM should handle things dependent on his group. If your group wants WBL then maybe WBL is what you should use. If your group is like mine, it's not what you should use. I actually had a player complain to me about WBL in the one campaign I did implement it. He said it removed strategy because instead of the party working together everyone just had identical gear (to a certain degree) and everyone could accomplish stuff on their own without working together.

The OP said that his DM doesn't use WBL but he also implied to be taking down high CRs. What is WBL going to do to improve the situation? Make it easier? Sure, the party should be able to quest or gather wealth enough to raise their ally if they want, but if the group is doing fine with 20,000 gold worth of gear at this level what improvement is 10,000 gold going to do other than make it easier? Chances are it wouldn't even do that because his DM would then just make challenges more... challenging.

The DM shouldn't ever do that, either.

Wealth by Level is only a useful tool when creating characters above 1st level. All a DM needs to do is pay attention to Table 3–3: Treasure Values per Encounter (page 51 of the Dungeon Master's Guide) and make sure there's enough income opportunity for the characters. That's it. Let the players handle the rest of it.

There's no such thing that a DM should or shouldn't do other than determine what works for his group and do that. I don't really care what works for your group, I was stating what works for mine.

Doug Lampert

2011-05-31, 05:20 PM

The DM shouldn't ever do that, either.

Wealth by Level is only a useful tool when creating characters above 1st level. All a DM needs to do is pay attention to Table 3–3: Treasure Values per Encounter (page 51 of the Dungeon Master's Guide) and make sure there's enough income opportunity for the characters. That's it. Let the players handle the rest of it.

Yep, IIRC wealth by level is pretty well dead on what happens if you get random loot, spend 10% on consumables, and custom make your own gear to replace any stuff you sell at half price.

It doesn't require micromanaging or magicmart at all. It requires a reasonable distribution of loot and one character in the party with each of the useful craft item feats (it only takes one each since cooperative manufacture is allowed so the wizard can provide prereqs for the cleric's crafting and vice versa).

It's not just what they've designed arround, it's also the natural result of the game RAW.

At really high level you won't have TIME to craft (baring Genesis shenanigans), but at really high levels you can divine where a seller is, planeshift to his plane, and greater teleport to his location (or just use gate). So not having magicmart at that point is just plain silly.

Magicmart actually leaves characters short on WBL, it's a trap. You are selling for 50% and buying at 100% and you need full value to stay on the expected curve.

DougL

Talakeal

2011-06-02, 04:23 PM

Veyr

2011-06-02, 04:25 PM

I just read the treasure section of the DMG, and I think people are taking too much stock in it. It repeatedly refers to itself as a guideline that the DM should follow, I never noticed anywhere that it says that it is a rule or that the DM must follow it. Likewise I only see that the DM should give out treasure atleast as high as the expected WBL, never that the DM should compensate the players for money they lose on consumables or the 50% loss they get when selling items for those they don't want.
This comes from experience: unless you have extremely good 3.5 system mastery, messing too much with WBL is a recipe for disaster.

WBL has problems. The way magic and magic items work in 3.5 isn't great. But like it or not, messing with it is extremely ill-advised. It's just built in to far too many of 3.5's assumptions.

Talakeal

2011-06-02, 04:33 PM

I agree that it isn't a good idea, but a lot of people in this thread are acting like a DM is cheating his players and / or lying to them if they don't hand out treasure exactly by the book.

Veyr

2011-06-02, 04:41 PM

I agree that it isn't a good idea, but a lot of people in this thread are acting like a DM is cheating his players and / or lying to them if they don't hand out treasure exactly by the book.
Without explicitly stating it as a houserule before hand? Yes, I agree with that. Players reasonably expect the WBL guidelines to be followed, because not doing so is a phenomenally bad idea unless you are extremely careful and really know what you're doing.

Talakeal

2011-06-02, 04:48 PM

Without explicitly stating it as a houserule before hand? Yes, I agree with that. Players reasonably expect the WBL guidelines to be followed, because not doing so is a phenomenally bad idea unless you are extremely careful and really know what you're doing.

Exactly my point, it isn't a "houserule" because a guideline is not a "rule" at all. The DMG has dozens upon dozens of guidelines in it, and I do not think I have ever ran or played in a game where the DM didn't ignore atleast a few, nor do I think the DM ever informed the players of this before hand, let alone asked permission.

Now, if the players directly ask the DM which guidelines they are following and the DM gives a false answer than that is lying, although not cheating, but I have never seen that happen.

As an analogy, I went into a restraunt a couple of weeks ago and ordered a steak. When the steak came it was covered with a sauce which I couldn't stand. Now, in this case, most steaks do not have sauce, I did not enjoy the sauce, and the menu didn't specify it came with sauce. I sent the steak back and requested a plain one, but I didn't accuse the restraunt of lying to me or cheating me, it was merely a failure in my expectations and the restraunts style, and the people I was with told me that it was my fault for not asking before ordering.

Doug Lampert

2011-06-02, 04:49 PM

I agree that it isn't a good idea, but a lot of people in this thread are acting like a DM is cheating his players and / or lying to them if they don't hand out treasure exactly by the book.

If you roll random loot you'll come close enough. I don't think anyone on this thread seriously disputes that although I don't plan to reread all of it to check.

In fact IIRC one of the points that's been made repeatedly is that you don't need to micromanage the loot since it comes out alright if you just hand stuff out at an appropriate rate.

Nor do you need to compensate for use of consumables or for selling at half price, hardly anyone uses consumables at a rate as high as is assumed in the WBL table (except for a UMD monk buying partially charged wands who will fall behind), in real games characters come out ahead on the expected consumables budget.

And selling for half price just means you need to have a crafter and a fairly minimal amount of downtime in order to stay even. And core only a Wizard doesn't really have anything better to do with his feats then get nearly every craft feat in the PHB.

But to quote, well, you:

I just read the treasure section of the DMG, and I think people are taking too much stock in it. It repeatedly refers to itself as a guideline that the DM should follow, I never noticed anywhere that it says that it is a rule or that the DM must follow it. Likewise I only see that the DM should give out treasure atleast as high as the expected WBL,....

And that's the kicker. Almost everyone who wants to mess with WBL wants to decrease it. Often dramatically. And that simply breaks the system.

The ONLY part about WBL that's important is, don't grossly under-reward the characters over the long haul.

The fighter and rogue can keep up with a blaster wizard and a healbot cleric (and I'd guess that's probably the most common game in real life). But that's only true as long as everyone gets gear! The casters can get by without the gear, but the "mundane" classes need that gear, badly. Especially if playing with a blaster and healbot rather than a buffing batman and a buffing melee cleric.

DougL

Veyr

2011-06-02, 04:52 PM

Exactly my point, it isn't a "houserule" because a guideline is not a "rule" at all. The DMG has dozens upon dozens of guidelines in it, and I do not think I have ever ran or played in a game where the DM didn't ignore atleast a few, nor do I think the DM ever informed the players of this before hand, let alone asked permission.

Now, if the players directly ask the DM which guidelines they are following and the DM gives a false answer than that is lying, although not cheating, but I have never seen that happen.

As an analogy, I went into a restraunt a couple of weeks ago and ordered a steak. When the steak came it was covered with a sauce which I couldn't stand. Now, in this case, most steaks do not have sauce, I did not enjoy the sauce, and the menu didn't specify it came with sauce. I sent the steak back and requested a plain one, but I didn't accuse the restraunt of lying to me or cheating me, it was merely a failure in my expectations and the restraunts style, and the people I was with told me that it was my fault for not asking before ordering.
A DM tells me he is running D&D 3.5, I expect to be playing that system.

Dramatically changing WBL means we aren't playing 3.5 anymore, and as such, yes, I expect to be told that we're playing "3.5 except with (low|high) wealth". Because telling me 3.5, and then not giving me 3.5, is basically lying to me. How much wealth I can expect dramatically affects my choices as a player.

Talakeal

2011-06-02, 04:54 PM

stuff

I agree with you, a DM SHOULD give appropriate WBL, all I am saying is that guidelines are not rules and ignoring them is not cheating or lying.

Recently I played a game of Monopoly where one player refused to make deals with any other player as she SHOULD have if she wanted to win the game. It made the game really crappy for everyone involved as no one could get any monopolies without her help and the game dragged on until everyone got bored and quit, but in no way was she CHEATING by doing so.

Big Fau

2011-06-02, 04:59 PM

And that's the kicker. Almost everyone who wants to mess with WBL wants to decrease it. Often dramatically. And that simply breaks the system.

That first part isn't true. I mess with the WBL by expanding upon it; providing my players with more means I don't have to worry about running multiple no treasure encounters (since my players tend to fair poorly against mindless things, what with their addiction to Mind Thrust).

Talakeal

2011-06-02, 05:17 PM

A DM tells me he is running D&D 3.5, I expect to be playing that system.

Dramatically changing WBL means we aren't playing 3.5 anymore, and as such, yes, I expect to be told that we're playing "3.5 except with (low|high) wealth". Because telling me 3.5, and then not giving me 3.5, is basically lying to me. How much wealth I can expect dramatically affects my choices as a player.

I don't know how else to say this, but a guideline is just that, a guideline, not a rule. You are not cheating unless you break RULES, and it is rude to call someone a cheater just because you disagree with their style.

Yes a DM should follow the guidelines, although they should never do so blindly, as some groups will require different guidelines. I would expect a good DM to adjust their play style each session to reflect minor changes in the campaign world and party balance, and not only do I not expect them to divulge this information before each session, but I would want them not to as it would spoil some of the mystery.

No DM I know has EVER followed the wealth guidelines exactly by the book. I have played in high wealth games and I have played in low wealth games. I have never had a DM tell me how much treasure they would give out before hand, and players have been upset about the wealth amounts, complaining is frequent, and I have even seen people leave games over it, but I have never seen anyone so rude as to accuse the DM of cheating or lying over it.

I normally ignore most of the guide lines in the DMG. The CR system is broken for 90% of the monsters, the demographics tables make for a world where powerful NPCs are in every town and make the PCs feel weak and worthless, and I like handing out treasure so I generally go well above the WBL tables. Sometimes players complain, they always do, and when they do I hear them out. However, following the DMG guidelines in my experience CAUSES more complaining than it alleviates, for example the 5% of encounters that should be almost unwinnable which I regularly ignore. I can tell you that if a player did call me a cheater or a liar for the way I set up the adventure that, unless they were a close friend, they would be thrown out of my house so fast they wouldn't get a chance to tell me they quit my campaign. Those are some very harsh charges to through around, especially about something that isn't even a rule in the first place.

Veyr

2011-06-02, 05:21 PM

Firechanter

2011-06-03, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by Doug Lampert
And that's the kicker. Almost everyone who wants to mess with WBL wants to decrease it.

That first part isn't true. I mess with the WBL by expanding upon it;

Which part isn't true? Doug is exactly right. If _you_ give out more treasure than WBL, then good for you and, more precisely, good for your players. But that doesn't change the empirical fact that _most_ DMs who don't adhere to WBL do so by dramatically cutting it.

Generally on-topic:
The WBL "rules" are labelled as guidelines because it's impossible to stick to them to the copper if you also follow the DMG loot tables, which involve random loot rolls. But that's not saying you can ignore these guidelines altogether. If by WBL a character should have 90K and in fact he has only 70K, that's still acceptable (but the DM should take note and throw some extra stuff his way soon). But if the character has only, say, 20K, then there's a serious problem.

I totally agree with Veyr. DMs need to tell their players beforehand if they want to make changes to WBL. However, stingy DMs unfortunately are so frequent (you might think they have to pay the loot out of their own pockets) that I've made it a habit of asking beforehand if we can expect WBL, and if not, I want to know what precautions are taken to keep the game working.

Typewriter

2011-06-03, 08:39 AM

And in every instance, I have used phrases like "dramatically changing wealth". I'm not talking about strict adherence to the guidelines, I'm talking about not ignoring the guidelines altogether.

Yes, they are guidelines, in that you don't need to have exactly as many gold pieces as indicated in the table at every level. They are wealth values that your wealth should approximate, more or less, at every level.

And if my wealth in no way is going to approximate the wealth indicated by the guideline, I fully expect to know about that ahead of time. Springing this on me in the middle of the game when I notice it is very likely to at the very least have me expecting to rebuild my character accordingly.

You plan your character based around the equipment you hope to be able to buy in the future?

So... if a plot point came up and you wound up running out of money you would expect reimbursement? Or you would have a character that you would rather kill (or at the least rebuild) than continue playing?

To you WBL is ordinary, to me WBL is not. You have certain expecations of your group, I've never played in a group that used WBL as a rule.

You can say it won't work or people will be upset, but that's not every case. That's your case. It doesn't make you right, it doens't make me right. Each group is different.

Veyr

2011-06-03, 09:08 AM

It makes my way the way the game was designed, and your way a specific change to the game's design for your house, a "houserule", if you will. Players ought to be appraised of any significant changes to the system or rules, and deviating too far from WBL very much is that.

I expect a DM to work wealth into the storyline. It's a part of his job. Yes, sometimes wealth will be less, sometimes it will be more, but it should fluctuate around the expected values, and on average should be quite close to them.

This is what the DMG says. It's a part of the system. It's a fundamental assumption that influences the balance of every class, every monster, every encounter, and every adventure ever printed for the game.

To do otherwise is to houserule, and if that is all you are changing about 3.5, then I'll take that information and decide not to play, because that does not sound like an even-remotely-fun game to me.

Typewriter

2011-06-03, 09:11 AM

It makes my way the way the game was designed, and your way a specific change to the game's design for your house, a "houserule", if you will.

And you miss 2 points.

1. It's a guidline not a rule. So no.
2. The OP was asking if there were downsides to doing this, if it was fair, etc. The answer some gave to this was yes, others say no. You're arguing that the people who say it's fine are wrong because it's not what you prefer - not an actual argument.

Veyr

2011-06-03, 09:16 AM

And you miss 2 points.
Cut the condescension.

1. It's a guidline not a rule. So no.
No, the specific values given on page 135 are a guideline. The way treasure tables work, the way wealth works, the way buying and selling and crafting work? Those are rules. The "guideline" is the specific number. The rule is to give adequate wealth for the PCs' level. The guideline suggests an approximate number for adequate. Being somewhere near the number is within the guidelines and rules.

Being nowhere near it is not within the rules. That is changing the rules.

{Scrubbed} Are you seriously arguing that you need to not warn your players about this? What, are you afraid they'll up and leave? If that's your worry and your answer is deception, you have bigger problems in your campaign.

2. The OP was asking if there were downsides to doing this, if it was fair, etc. The answer some gave to this was yes, others say no. You're arguing that the people who say it's fine are wrong because it's not what you prefer - not an actual argument.
No, I am arguing that those who say that it works fine within 3.5 are wrong because they are. The game was designed around certain wealth values. Changing those values dramatically means you aren't playing 3.5 anymore. You're playing something even more poorly designed than 3.5 was to begin with, unless you're offsetting those changes with enormous changes to the various fundamental designs that are based on the assumption of WBL.

Facts:
In a well-designed game, various rules take into account various other rules to ensure balance.
In 3.5, enormous amounts of the game assumed roughly WBL while designing other features. Thus, they did take this into account.
If you change wealth without changing all of those rules, you have a mis-match between what those rules were designed for, and what the wealth actually is.

My argument is that given 1, 2, and 3, you have a worse-designed system than 3.5 is by default. Which is saying something, because 3.5 is rather poorly designed to begin with.

And before someone flips out about it, I use italics and bolding for emphasis, not for shouting.

Typewriter

2011-06-03, 09:30 AM

Cut the condescension.

No condescension intended. You keep making arguments that aren't against what people are saying. It's pretty annoying to have someone say "It's not a rule", and then you reply with "Yes it is because I say so". You're not arguing a point, you're just saying things.

I apologize if it came out ruder than I intended.

No, the specific values given on page 135 are a guideline. The way treasure tables work, the way wealth works, the way buying and selling and crafting work? Those are rules. The "guideline" is the specific number. The rule is to give adequate wealth for the PCs' level. The guideline suggests an approximate number for adequate. Being somewhere near the number is within the guidelines and rules.

Being nowhere near it is not within the rules. That is changing the rules.

So you're arguing that there is a specific 'loot quantity' that you need to give players, but that it's undefined, aside from a guideline that is not a rule?

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} Are you seriously arguing that you need to not warn your players about this? What, are you afraid they'll up and leave? If that's your worry and your answer is deception, you have bigger problems in your campaign.

No, actually that's what I'm trying to tell you that you keep missing - I do not have a problem. My group works just fine. Every group I've played with in the last 8-10 years has worked just fine. You are the one assuming that loot is as big of a deal to everyone as it is to you, and you keep acting like D&D is going to fall apart if loot distribution doesn't match what you think it should be.

No, I am arguing that those who say that it works fine within 3.5 are wrong because they are. The game was designed around certain wealth values. Changing those values dramatically means you aren't playing 3.5 anymore. You're playing something even more poorly designed than 3.5 was to begin with, unless you're offsetting those changes with enormous changes to the various fundamental designs that are based on the assumption of WBL.

And I disagree completely. I don't think any loot is required to play D&D. You can rant and rave about it all you want but there is nowhere that says "LOOT MUST BE DISTRIBUTED IN X QUANTITIES OR YOU ARE NOT PLAYING D&D". That just doesn't exist, and you keep acting like it does.

Facts:
In a well-designed game, various rules take into account various other rules to ensure balance.

D&D is not a well balanced game. At all. I would argue that loot is actually one of the worst 'internally balanced' mechanics in D&D.

In 3.5, enormous amounts of the game assumed roughly WBL while designing other features. Thus, they did take this into account.

How so? If a level of 5th party adventurers are generally able to take out half the things in the monster manual with minimal difficulty how is WBL balanced? You don't need the WBL to down a tarrasque, or any other monster. The amount of loot given should be based around the party and the group. I asked earlier what the problem was with the OP if he was taking out challenges harder than he normally would have. Loot isn't going to balance things, they're going to unbalance them further.

If you change wealth without changing all of those rules, you have a mis-match between what those rules were designed for, and what the wealth actually is.

No, you have a roleplaying game in which loot is more interesting than "I know I'm going to have enough gold to get item X at level Y".

My argument is that given 1, 2, and 3, you have a worse-designed system than 3.5 is by default. Which is saying something, because 3.5 is rather poorly designed to begin with.

And that's not my experience. You saying so doesn't make it true. If that's how it's worked for you then goody, but don't tell me that I'm doing it wrong or that I'm "Not playing D&D".

Calimehter

2011-06-03, 11:17 AM

I've had some success at using lower WBL, and it doesn't require anything near the extensive work level or system mastery that some of the responses seem (from my reading) to be implying.

You do need to do some work above and beyond just hainding out less treasure - but you don't have to take levels in some sort of real-life Ph.D./Macgyver gestalt class to do it. Relatively simple fixes like going E6 (my method) or just eliminating the availability of mismatched Tier classes (IIRC Eladrial discussed this more thoroughly) would get most of the job done as far as balance between characters. Adding a couple of simple fixes to the Item Creation system to justify stuff being rare from a "crunch" perspective (feat taxes, cranking up XP item creation cost, making items "decay" quickly over time, etc..) and Bob's your uncle.

At that point, its really just a matter of letting the players know what you are trying to achieve in terms of storytelling style and setting (which is true of any setting, not just low-wealth homebrew ones). This makes things fair for them when generating characters, lets them plan their progressions to whatever level they desire, *and* makes ad-hoc rulings for things the DM overlooked during world building (there's almost always something - the "Raising is tough to do" example running through this thread seems to fit the bill) fit in more with the setting than simply being just knee-jerk 'nerfs'.

Our group ran a bunch of low-WBL campaigns using D&D game mechanics as sort of an anti-reaction to the "Monty Haul" FR modules we all grew up on, and we had a lot of fun with it. I encourage people to try it if they think they will enjoy it :smallsmile: and not get too discouraged by some of the "ZOMG you are messing with forces that *I* know you don't understand!!!!" sentiment that I sensed in this thread.

Darth Stabber

2011-06-03, 01:05 PM

As a gm I tend to stick close to WBL, and since I run a sanbox style game, where the PC's quests tend to be contracts from NPCs (they could go out and just go monster hunting, but the current PCs are easy fish for a good plot hook), and I can quickly adjust a dip in WBL by offering a bigger payout on the contract (I haven't had it be too low). It gets weird though when most of the players' wealth is still in cash and gems (almost a quarter of the DN's wealth is tied up in onyx). The whole party is effectively tier 3 (DN, UASS, and a psion with a bad PRC), and they do not have good equipment for their level (again mostly coin), but they still fight like they were a 4man party 2 lvls higher, and it is the first D&D campaign for two of them. I guess if you count minions as wealth they come in higher (2 wights, owlbear skeleton, zombie white dragon, quasit familiar), but those are really all part of the DN's class features.

Hecuba

2011-06-03, 02:16 PM

A beginner's guide to WBL, by Hecuba (author of "How to Bark Like a Dog"):

1) The purpose of Weath is for PCs to have a way to have and get cool things. If your players have widely differing ideas of what range of things constitutes "cool things," there will be issues.
2) If your PCs regularly have more Wealth than they seem to have interest in spending, they might have too much: you want them to both have cool things and want cool things that they cannot yet have.
3) If your PCs cannot afford any of the cool things they want, you might not be giving out enough Wealth.
4) When players' idea of "cool things" directly relates to "powerful things," you might need to hedge expectations to tailor power levels. When your players' idea of "cool things" has little mechanical relevance to the game, you might need to provide them with needed items directly as a form of WBL to attain balance.

Darth Stabber

2011-06-03, 02:54 PM

There are some situations where you may need to significantly adjust those standards in order to keep pretending that the CR system works. Like with new players, you should probably err on the side of too much, as they will likely be less efficient in spending it.

Quick note: Do not adjust the treasure output to take into consideration PC haggling skills. If they are negotiating lower prices, that is part of their character's abilities, and by lowering treasure output all you are doing is nullifying the player's work, and possibly their build choices. So long as they aren't getting really abusive with it, it makes you a jerk. If you don't want haggling, be upfront with the players and just have financial transactions take place off-screen. I tend to let players haggle. If well played and lucky they can get book for sales and purchase, if done poorly they get 1.35*book and sell for .65*book. If they don't want to go through the RP, they can buy off screen for 1.25*book and sell for .75*book. It worked up until the necromancer developed a flair for negotiating, and started doing all the parties purchasing (her charisma, diplomacy, bluff, and bonuses for friendly relationships with certain merchants helps). It is a little strong at the moment, but when they move along in the story and leave the city they lose out on bonuses, and will be dealing with more cut throat merchants.

Koury

2011-06-03, 03:30 PM

Just to weigh in on the rule vs guideline thing, I think those on the guideline side should run some numbers to understand where those on the rule side come from.

For example:

Assumptions
4 person party
ECL of party equals EL of each challenge
Average treasure results, as listed on pg 51 of the DMG

Results
The party faces 13.33 encouters at level 1.
Each one awards 300 GP, as per the DMG.
They earn 13.33(300) GP, or 3999.99.
Divided evenly, they each have 1000 GP at the start of level 2.

WBL at level 2 says you should have 900, the difference allowing for the use of consumable items.

So while WBL is not a rule per se, it is very accurate with regards to how much GP a given character should have when played to a given level, assuming you follow the rules in the first place.

I hope that made sense.

Jeebers

2011-07-02, 10:00 PM

First off, your DM's approximation of the cost of Raise Dead (10,720gp) is likely to be on the low side. That's assuming that the cleric casting said spell is minimum level possible to cast a 5th level spell. No, they aren't kidding when they say that Raise Dead is EXPENSIVE!

Second, I myself have played in a game where the GM made damn sure that absolutely NO money was coming into the players hands. It sucks, and I eventually just quit playing and started running a game myself. Dunno what to say to you that the others haven't already.

Third, I have a money saver or two to suggest that may help. You can buy a Travel Cloak from Magic of Faerun for 1,200 gp that REALLY saves on both money and encumbrance. Check it out. All you need is a bedroll, and maybe a Cold Weather Outfit (mundane) to protect you in arctic conditions. Maybe some soap if you want your PC to keep clean.

In order to make off with all the possible loot (remember to strip the bodies of armor etc), have the entire party chip in on a Bag of Holding. Your GM should be okay with upgrading the Bag by compensating the GM with the money difference between the Types so as to upgrade your Bag.

To save on healing costs and keep the Cleric in spells, it's a very good idea to buy a Wand of Cure Light Wounds for the Cleric/Paladin/Druid. There is a rule in Magic of Faerun that allows the players to buy a 5,000gp diamond and attach it to a cure wand that grants a +2 to the wand's caster level. It's reusable I think, and for a cure light it means 1d8+2 hp a shot (50 uses); the most efficient means of healing in the book.

Tell your GM to remember that all the gear you guys find is worth precisely 50% of the listed cost when you try to sell it. That should help. Here's how I typically encourage my players to handle the party loot:

Have somebody other than a spellcaster designated as Treasurer, most likely this will be the Rogue, as they love gear and don't spellcast. Spellcasters have enough on their hands just IDing magic items and casting, and the official Map Monkey is busy drawing.

All found gear is considered sold automatically, and worth half of the listed price. If a given PC wants to keep something, they have to cough up 50% of the listed book price, or it goes away once they have a chance to get to a store. All players PRESENT get a equal share of the kitty. One shot items like arrows, food, potions and the like are not considered part of the automatically sold items, and so they are divvied up by the characters without GM interference. Usually stuff like a Potion of Cat's Grace go to the character best able to use it like a Rogue, or a wand to a Wizard.

No player may withhold items from the group kitty in secret. Period. This prevents PvP.