Redistribution of PC Wealth

[Talakeal]

So I was going through and auditing the character sheets of all the PCs in my game, and I realized that some characters have almost twice the money of the other characters.

Is this normal? Is this acceptable?

I more or less understand how it happened*, but it looks like the characters are pretty unbalanced right now, some of them having almost twice suggested WBL and others having barely half. The problem will only get worse over time if nothing is done.

The question is SHOULD something be done? And if so what? I can't just give certain PCs extra gold, as they determine how to split their money IC. I am not sure if they even should try and even out wealth either IC or OOC, and I don't know what I can do as a GM. If I make the suggestion that maybe they give some people more / less shares of treasure I will be seen as meddling and playing favorites I think.

Any advice?

*: Basically, some players won't use consumables, others use a lot. Some buy items, others have them crafted by other PCs, and others just keep what they find in the dungeon, which leads to a big disparity. And some of the players are just frivolous with money or buy things they don't really need and then sell them again at half cost quickly.

[Palanan]

Your last sentence is rather telling about some of your players. It sounds as if their spending habits are the real problem here, and that's not something you can easily address.

Ultimately it's their call and their characters, so I'd say let them continue until they start to recognize the issue themselves. At that point they'll hopefully reshuffle some assets, or better yet cut up their MagicMart cards. You might nudge them when they reach that point, but probably best to let them work it out on their own.

.

[albeaver89]

Don't protect your PC's from failing. Takes away fun.

[albeaver89]

That's like saying "Oh hes a [insert under powered class here] if I don't make him change his mind about it, then it wont be fun by my standards". It's their money let them do what ever they want with it. Just like in RL.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Non-consumable items that only benefit a single class (or heavily benefit that class over others so the party will be tempted to give it to the target).

Big things to watch out for:
The WBL gap is not causing players to have issues with your challenges.
Players are not hoarding wealth (and thus starving people who are otherwise being responsible).

[Knaight]

PC wealth is up to the players. I don't see an issue here.

[lsfreak]

I vaguely recall that something tucked away somewhere saying that basic consumeables are actually not calculated with WBL, but rather assumed to be extra tacked on top. I don't know where exactly I'm going with that, but it seemed relevant to bring up.

I think the big issue is not the absolute differences on X amount versus Y amount of wealth, but whether those with more wealth are noticeably outclassing those with less. If that's the case, it might become an OOC issue of players feeling useless, or players feeling like they have to spend their well-invested wealth on their less-foresighted friends, or something else along those lines. If that's not and doesn't appear to be the case, I'd say just point out to those who have used almost half their (?!) on consumables that they may want to rethink their spending habits in the future.

[Rhynn]

The only thing you should worry about, as DM, is that you give out the "correct" amount of treasure (more or less); and maybe that it gets split evenly. What the PCs do with it is their business. PCs who spend XP and gold to craft their own items are going to come out ahead in magic arsenals (and catch up in XP), and those who blow it on consumables they use lightly are going to be behind... not to mention those who do something else altogether with their treasure.

[Talakeal]

Well, I am not going to FORCE them to do anything. I was just wondering if I suggest to them that maybe they take into account current wealth before dividing up future loot*, and see if there is a way to subtly give extra loot to those who are really behind without those who are ahead demanding a share and putting them even further above WBL.

I see a lot of DM's who strictly enforce WBL as a rule rather than a guideline, and telling me that I am cheating or using a house rule for hand waving it, so I am actually trying that this game, and it is turning out to be a lot harder than it looks.

The party artificer is the one doing all of the crafting for the other PCs, and he doesn't charge them for the time or XP if they provide the mats. He also is playing a somewhat "batman" type character and crafts a lot of consumable items, and is actually one of the poorer members of the party.

There are also people who refuse to pay for healing items, instead relying on the cleric to heal them, and then letting everyone else purchase healing items when the cleric is out of spells (I don't allow characters to recover spells mid dungeon, so resource tracking is actually a thing). There have been several times when one player refused to purchase consumables, and the rest of the party essentially bought their way to the end of the dungeon rather than giving up and going back to town. It was a net loss for those players, but a massive gain for those who don't use consumables.

Mostly it isn't a consumables thing, but a selling an item for half price thing. Some characters will buy a +1 sword, then sell it for half and buy a +2 sword, then sell it for half and buy a +3 sword, then sell it for half and buy a +4 sword, then sell it for half and buy a +5 sword. Other players will simply hoard their gold, expecting the other PCs to pick up their slack, and use a non-magical sword until they save up the money to buy the +5 sword all at once. This player will also, of course, wait until the artificer has the XP and time to burn to get the sword made at half price.

*: Is this something that PCs ever do? I have never seen a party that did it before, but then again I have never noticed a huge wealth disparity before. It seems to make sense if you are trying to work as a team, but a lot of players seem to see their loot as their "score" and consider being ahead of the other PCs to be "winning".

[Rhynn]

I see a lot of DM's who strictly enforce WBL as a rule rather than a guideline, and telling me that I am cheating or using a house rule for hand waving it, so I am actually trying that this game, and it is turning out to be a lot harder than it looks.

Really, WBL is just a theoretical guideline, and what it means is that you should leave X amount of treasure for your players to find. (It's really stupid in all kinds of ways, such as the unbalancing effect that making some treasure really hard to find has: if the PCs don't find it and it was counted against WBL, they're behind; if they do and it wasn't, they're ahead.)

As usual with D&D 3.X, a lot of people take it way too far.


There are also people who refuse to pay for healing items, instead relying on the cleric to heal them, and then letting everyone else purchase healing items when the cleric is out of spells (I don't allow characters to recover spells mid dungeon, so resource tracking is actually a thing). There have been several times when one player refused to purchase consumables, and the rest of the party essentially bought their way to the end of the dungeon rather than giving up and going back to town. It was a net loss for those players, but a massive gain for those who don't use consumables.

Encourage your players to have their PCs create an in-character adventuring company charter, code, and contract, which outlines the distribution of loot, including paying running expenses (like consumables and expensive healing magic) off the top.


Mostly it isn't a consumables thing, but a selling an item for half price thing. Some characters will buy a +1 sword, then sell it for half and buy a +2 sword, then sell it for half and buy a +3 sword, then sell it for half and buy a +4 sword, then sell it for half and buy a +5 sword.

I honestly have no idea what the theoretical "correct" way to deal with resold loot is anyway. I guess you can try to keep some track of the "total GP value" of the party, and increase or decrease treasure found accordingly (although that may sort of screw them over for having made their own magic items, unless you make sure to count those as half-price).


This player will also, of course, wait until the artificer has the XP and time to burn to get the sword made at half price.

I have no idea if you've gotten new players yet or not, but, you know... your players can be huge jerks. :smallbiggrin:

[Rebel7284]

Mostly it isn't a consumables thing, but a selling an item for half price thing. Some characters will buy a +1 sword, then sell it for half and buy a +2 sword, then sell it for half and buy a +3 sword, then sell it for half and buy a +4 sword, then sell it for half and buy a +5 sword. Other players will simply hoard their gold, expecting the other PCs to pick up their slack, and use a non-magical sword until they save up the money to buy the +5 sword all at once. This player will also, of course, wait until the artificer has the XP and time to burn to get the sword made at half price.


It might be good roleplaying depending on the int and wis scores of the parties involved. =)

You may want to mention out of character that their character should be more aware of the economic repercussions.

Also, you can try to drop more items that directly benefit those who are behind in wealth.

[Cavir]

Maybe have them use the Transference (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060526a) spell to share the xp costs?

[Curmudgeon]

I suggest that you ignore this issue completely. You're supposed to be providing the game setting and making sure they play by the rules. Deciding to "adjust" things because your players aren't having the right sort of fun can only lead to grief. An Artificer with low wealth is still a Tier 1 magic user and unlikely to be at risk from voluntarily using their resources to benefit other members of the party.

Please, let your PCs handle this by themselves.

[Chronos]

Selling a +1 sword and buying a +2 sword to replace it is clearly a suboptimal move-- You can instead just pay a spellcaster to increase the bonus on the same sword. You get the same net effect, but you're not paying as much for it.

[ElenionAncalima]

I would just let it play out. If you give wealth towards the players who burned a lot of consumables, the players who were more frugal may feel ripped off. Players should face consequences for poor spending choice.

I wouldn't interfere unless your players start to complain about it...and even then I would have the players discuss the causes of the wealth disparity. Perhaps player A needs to burn less potions and player B needs the group to help pay for healing items. Whatever the issue, it is likely something that they players need to solve, not the GM.

[Talakeal]

I suggest that you ignore this issue completely. You're supposed to be providing the game setting and making sure they play by the rules. Deciding to "adjust" things because your players aren't having the right sort of fun can only lead to grief. An Artificer with low wealth is still a Tier 1 magic user and unlikely to be at risk from voluntarily using their resources to benefit other members of the party.

Please, let your PCs handle this by themselves.

I wasn't saying the artificer is underpowered or that xp is a problem. I was just pointing it out to demonstrate the he wasnt the one who was over WBL if someone made the argument that it is only natural for a crafter to be over WBL to make up for the feats or xp cost to become a crafter.

[Zirconia]

Maybe have them use the Transference (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060526a) spell to share the xp costs?

Frankly I would insist on that if I were the Artificer. And if I were the Cleric, I would ask for the party to take funds for CLW or Vigor wands off of treasure up front before splitting, I wouldn't want to have to save all my spells for the day to heal people with plenty of cash.

Something I've done frequently with fellow players is to have a "group fund" of treasure for things like consumables that benefit the party, things like the CLW wand. The group gets to decide what qualifies. That comes off the top, and helps prevent the "free rider" problem. They may not have thought of that.

I wouldn't worry nearly as much about different people having different amounts of cash, though, as people having different levels of effectiveness because of what they buy. I routinely have much less cash in games than most of my fellow PCs, because I enjoy spending time looking through books and forums for useful stuff and they don't. The last thing I want to do is die with the biggest pile of cash, when I could have lived with the right item. :) Eventually I usually start recommending items to them, though, or my power starts outstripping theirs.

I would be cautious, though, about targeting special "bonus items" for those who have less wealth, as it rewards them for not managing their resources properly. Look for power/effectiveness disparities, not wealth disparities.

[Trasilor]

I would only address it if players were complaining.

Of course, the player who hoards all of his gold, might find themselves the target of banditry. Think about it. If word got around that Character X keeps fortune of goods on their person, then would be thieves would want to relieve the goods from the person.

Yeah its risky stealing from such a powerful person, but the rewards would be huge.

I only suggest this if it logically makes sense in game (i.e. it is obvious who hoards their loot)

[Krobar]

I never tell my players how to spend their money. What they do with it is their own concern. If they need more and don't have enough for <fill in the blank> because they blew it all on women and booze, while other players greedily horded every GP they got, they can work it out among themselves.

And there are definite risks to walking around with Fort Knox in your Handy Haversack.

[Icewraith]

Your main issue is that if the Artificer solves the problem by siezing the means of production, he's either got a serious health issue or you've got a thread violation.

I mainly wanted to make the joke. But seriously, your T1 casters could stop being chumps in terms of party resource expenditure.

[Sith_Happens]

Selling a +1 sword and buying a +2 sword to replace it is clearly a suboptimal move-- You can instead just pay a spellcaster to increase the bonus on the same sword. You get the same net effect, but you're not paying as much for it.

This. I can't imagine what would lead someone to trade up their weapon instead of upgrading it, especially when there's an artificer in the party.

On the bright side, this is definitely a step up from your old group's habits.:smalltongue: