Why do people want even treasure splits? [Archive]

Flickerdart

2014-07-01, 02:01 AM

Magic items help, but they are not in and of themselves a sufficient balancing factor. It is a very common approach to drop some charity loot tailored for an underperforming character, but no amount of money will fix a samurai in a party of druids unless he's spending it on being a pseudo-caster himself.

Additionally, this brings sharply into focus the in-world problem of adventuring with very weak characters and very strong characters in the same party. If you are giving all of your earnings to one guy just so he can do the same job as you, maybe you should just ask him to stay home instead, for his own safety. There are only so many excuses you can make in-world before it stops making sense.

eggynack

2014-07-01, 02:15 AM

Dimers

2014-07-01, 02:22 AM

Also, it's a simpler system to design than some other "fair" methods of distribution. Also also, because the cultures you're talking to are largely capitalist rather than communist. But mostly what eggynack and Flickerdart said.

WarKitty

2014-07-01, 02:25 AM

Because you did the same job. I mean really, what you're advocating here is giving more money to the character that contributed least to the success of the mission. That seems kinda ridiculous, even if it might make some sense from a balance perspective.

Even then though...it makes a lot of sense if the party is going the mercenary for hire route. It makes less sense if, say, the wizard wants a beatstick to protect him while they save the world, and the beatstick needs a bit more armor and goodies than the wizard does to be effective, especially if they don't want to just bring in some random dude.

Not that it isn't bad game design, just wondering.

Spore

2014-07-01, 02:29 AM

Still, one of my PF groups (Evangelist Cleric, Fighter/Wizard/Arcane Archer, Bladebound Magus, Trapper Ranger and Beast Rider Cavalier) manages their loot disproportionate. Stuff we don't need gets sold and divided through 6. Even shares and group money (for potions, scrolls of healing etc.). Useable loot gets assigned to the currently underperforming guy.

- Magus gets AC boosting items
- Cavalier gets stuff for saving throws/second best AC stuff
- Cleric gets money for scrolls, metamagic rods
- Arcane Archer gets stuff for ranged combat
- Trapper gets everything helpful with scouting, charging and TWFing.

And it works greatly. We take out encounters several levels over our average CR. But honestly our tactics are quite aggressive as well.

Adverb

2014-07-01, 02:30 AM

I've seen "we split it n ways, always" work.

I've seen "if it's useful for someone they take it, otherwise we split it n ways" work.

I've seen "we have a communal pile of gold and people ask and the party mostly says yes."

I've never seen a complicated, formal system for loot-splitting work. People rules-lawyer them, and this leads to arguments and players getting grumpy at each other and it's terrible.

eggynack

2014-07-01, 02:31 AM

Even then though...it makes a lot of sense if the party is going the mercenary for hire route. It makes less sense if, say, the wizard wants a beatstick to protect him while they save the world, and the beatstick needs a bit more armor and goodies than the wizard does to be effective, especially if they don't want to just bring in some random dude.

Not that it isn't bad game design, just wondering.
It feels like, once you go down that road, you start having to ask Flickerdart's question, which is why you're taking along this crappy beatstick that eats money at all. There's a perfectly capable druid or cleric, right over there, who will do the job better, and for less. It's all just kinda awkward, because it puts the balance provider in the hands of the characters, instead of the players, in a way which makes for all kinds of inconsistencies like that. Better, I suspect, to make this sort of change with an invisible resource, like feats, stats, LA, or abilities. It raises a lot fewer questions.

Edit: Do note that your path, in these terms, would make vaguely more sense if tanking were both a completely necessary role, and one that always requires more cash. As is, it is neither of those things.

WarKitty

2014-07-01, 03:07 AM

It feels like, once you go down that road, you start having to ask Flickerdart's question, which is why you're taking along this crappy beatstick that eats money at all. There's a perfectly capable druid or cleric, right over there, who will do the job better, and for less. It's all just kinda awkward, because it puts the balance provider in the hands of the characters, instead of the players, in a way which makes for all kinds of inconsistencies like that. Better, I suspect, to make this sort of change with an invisible resource, like feats, stats, LA, or abilities. It raises a lot fewer questions.

Edit: Do note that your path, in these terms, would make vaguely more sense if tanking were both a completely necessary role, and one that always requires more cash. As is, it is neither of those things.

That was the latter part. Is your band of heroes really going to dump the friend you've been adventuring with just to go hire some random dude at the tavern, in a world where heroes over level 3 or 4 are incredibly rare and you're level 12? Especially if you yourself don't particularly need all that money?

I mean, I do think there are better solutions, I'm just curious why this one never seems to occur to people, especially since the DM may or may not be on board with complicated stuff to even things out.

eggynack

2014-07-01, 03:22 AM

Azraile

2014-07-01, 03:33 AM

It is easy, and it prevents fighting and arguing over loot.

chaos_redefined

2014-07-01, 03:38 AM

Multiple problems:

First, in the game world, bringing your best buddy along when he's not capable of keeping up results in said best buddy needing a funeral. This is bad, and is a valid reason not to bring your best buddy along.

Second, what you seem to suggest is that, if someone isn't pulling his weight, we give him money. Cool. You know what pulls even less weight than a fighter trying to pull his weight? Me, as I'm sitting in the corner waiting for you guys to give me more money. Thanks.

WarKitty

2014-07-01, 03:54 AM

You yourself always particularly need all that money. Sure, casters might not need that cash just to function, but they probably actually have more interesting ways to spend a GP than an equal level mundane guy, owing to the fact that you have more stuff to augment. As for whether you're going to dump the guy you're adventuring with, probably not, but would you start adventuring with him in the first place, knowing in advance that he's going to suck at his job and eat the party's money? Because that's necessary here. If you're splitting cash in an unequal fashion to help the party monk, then the party must know that monks suck, because otherwise they wouldn't know to split the cash like that. You need the characters to have some degree of metagame knowledge, in other words, even if that knowledge might actually be available in game, and that knowledge makes things go a bit wonky.

You've been adventuring with this fighter since level 1, when you had a spellbook and pouch and he had a sword and breastplate. It's now level 12 - if your character hasn't noticed anything he's not smart enough to be a wizard. And plenty of people notice imbalances who aren't playing super high op who don't own/use every single book, or just aren't comfortable messing with major fixed. There's also a HUGE gap between "not as good" and "useless." Your fighter friend may not be as good as the druid but he's often still nice to have along, and wouldn't it be nicer if he could fly? After all he's still saved your skin a time or two, even if he's not deciding encounters as often as you are.

ryu

2014-07-01, 04:09 AM

weckar

2014-07-01, 04:11 AM

Especially if this is a campaign that starts from lv 1, I could see this being a loyalty effect. Sure, the Wizard will outshine the martialists at lv 15 by a fair margin (a pacific ocean sized margin) but those same martialists were keeping the squishy wizard alive through his first levels.

eggynack

2014-07-01, 04:17 AM

You've been adventuring with this fighter since level 1, when you had a spellbook and pouch and he had a sword and breastplate. It's now level 12 - if your character hasn't noticed anything he's not smart enough to be a wizard. And plenty of people notice imbalances who aren't playing super high op who don't own/use every single book, or just aren't comfortable messing with major fixed. There's also a HUGE gap between "not as good" and "useless." Your fighter friend may not be as good as the druid but he's often still nice to have along, and wouldn't it be nicer if he could fly? After all he's still saved your skin a time or two, even if he's not deciding encounters as often as you are.
But fighters are pretty useless, and I know for a fact that I'm going to end up paying more for a worse product later on. Sure, if I've got some backstory in there, like he's my cousin, and he really needs a job cause no one's hiring fighters, then this might make small amounts of sense, but otherwise I just don't see it working. Either fighters are visibly worse in game, in which case I'm not pulling one on my team unless he frigging costs less than that druid sitting at the table next to him, or they're not, in which case I'm not giving him more cash. It's really as simple as that. Paying more for something of lower quality makes no sense in most contexts.

WarKitty

2014-07-01, 04:49 AM

But fighters are pretty useless, and I know for a fact that I'm going to end up paying more for a worse product later on. Sure, if I've got some backstory in there, like he's my cousin, and he really needs a job cause no one's hiring fighters, then this might make small amounts of sense, but otherwise I just don't see it working. Either fighters are visibly worse in game, in which case I'm not pulling one on my team unless he frigging costs less than that druid sitting at the table next to him, or they're not, in which case I'm not giving him more cash. It's really as simple as that. Paying more for something of lower quality makes no sense in most contexts.

Fighters aren't useless at level 1, or even level 5. So unless you're importing the metagame stuff you've been complaining about, this just doesn't work. And by level 12 or 15 you've been working with the guy and he's probably still better than most of what you can get out there. Even without extra treasure having him is generally better than not having him in a mid-op game - which is I think the sort where this stuff usually comes up. But he's better with more loot in ways that aren't as easily or obviously better for the wizard, especially if the magic-mart doesn't necessarily stock whatever goodie your heart desires to cheese it up that you know about via metagaming.

(Also, the riding dogs trick only works with a generous DM and decent handle animal skills.)

eggynack

2014-07-01, 04:55 AM

Fighters aren't useless at level 1, or even level 5. So unless you're importing the metagame stuff you've been complaining about, this just doesn't work. And by level 12 or 15 you've been working with the guy and he's probably still better than most of what you can get out there. Even without extra treasure having him is generally better than not having him in a mid-op game - which is I think the sort where this stuff usually comes up. But he's better with more loot in ways that aren't as easily or obviously better for the wizard, especially if the magic-mart doesn't necessarily stock whatever goodie your heart desires to cheese it up that you know about via metagaming.
They're not completely useless, but they're worse, and that's honestly enough. I'm not going to sacrifice my ability to contribute in order to gain access to a worse party member. Not when the world's on the line, and not when I'm just trying to make a quick buck. As for fighters being better with loot, they're really not. They can use weapons and armor better, kinda, I guess, but that's really a thing of narrow scope. Wizards can make use of most anything a fighter can, but can also use all of those caster unique items, while fighters can't. The only way they really make use of items better is because they can't do anything and items fill those gaps. I'd prefer a party member that just doesn't have silly gaps like that. It's a rule that just doesn't seem to work, because it leads to odd inconsistencies. I'd just go with the thing I recommended, honestly. Seems a lot cleaner to alter prices such that fighters will be able to do more with less, or at least more than they could before.

Frozen_Feet

2014-07-01, 05:11 AM

The root of this is actually very deep ingrained. Humans are all-or-nothing - if at all possible, we want even share in everything, and if it's not possible, we would rather everyone be completely without than someone having more. Problems crop up even when you suggest giving more to someone who is completely deserving - see how the poor often hate the rich, or how workers often envy their bosses.

Suggesting giving more to someone who is less deserving, such as a Fighter in a party of Wizards, is obviously going to have people foaming at the mouths.

John Longarrow

2014-07-01, 06:47 AM

WarKitty

Much like democracy, it isn't perfect but it is better than the other systems people have devised. If each character gets an even share (magic items treated at resale value, not purchase value) then the party often has a lot of ways to keep all characters equally capable. I can't remember the last game I enjoyed where players didn't lend each other cash or give each other goodies that helped out. As DM, I often arrange for treasures that are interesting and can lead to in game choices other than "equal split" to give more RP chances. This mostly leads to fun for all parties, though if the players are not able to deal well with it I back off.

DigoDragon

2014-07-01, 07:03 AM

Your fighter friend may not be as good as the druid but he's often still nice to have along, and wouldn't it be nicer if he could fly? After all he's still saved your skin a time or two, even if he's not deciding encounters as often as you are.

I like this, and it's fairly true from my experience. Generally speaking spellcasters do perform better than the warriors as they get higher in level, but you can't always predict what you'll encounter in a long dungeon, nor can you always rely on the dice agreeing with you. So my group splits the treasure evenly. Maybe not a perfect system, but its easy and the PCs can bargain with each-other afterwards if they want to trade around their goods.

Vhaidara

2014-07-01, 07:10 AM

My group normally runs a split, putting anything that makes it uneven into the party fund which goes towards things like extradimensional storage, the Artificer's Monocle, healing wands, or bribes. It's partially because we've never played a group that's been together longer than the campaign, and in particular it might break things a bit.

For example, at level 9, my bard is walking around with 30k in cash. I accumulated this much because I'm planning on building a stronghold (bardic college) and missed the part about Landlord existing, so in the 6 levels since we started, I've spent less than 1k. During a recent adventure (a "find the assassin" in a noble house), I was going through rooms looking for secret doors when I found a bag of 10k gold. Being CG(N) (Chaotic Good on the border of and heading towards CN), I swiped it. This out me significantly above WBL. Is there a problem? No, because it's all in liquid funds and, in any case, I'm a backline buffer bard. In fact, we've heard rumors of a cancer mage, and the party pool is nearly empty, so I'm probably going to blow some cash for a wand of Remove Disease or two.

chaos_redefined

2014-07-01, 07:51 AM

Someone else already said this... But why would I join up with a fighter under this system, even at level 1, when a druid does the fighter's job well enough (thanks to animal companion) and doesn't chew my wealth up later? And even with extra wealth, the only way a fighter is gonna get on par with said druid is if he pretends to not be a fighter.

Additionally, the world and people's lives are on the line. If Fighter McFighterson is not pulling his weight, then the correct choice, especially if he's your best friend, is to tell him to go hide somewhere safe and let the rest of us sort it out. That way, he lives. Keeping him around could cost him his life.

Necroticplague

2014-07-01, 07:57 AM

I've never really seen an even split in games I've been in. Typically, items go to whoever it would be most useful to (i.e, weapons go to the fighter, CHA items go to the ghost), consumables are communal, usually carried by whoever will have the easiest time using them (scrolls,staffs, wands are carried by casters, while potions are typically held by fighters), and whatever is left over is typically stuff nobody wants, so we sell at the first opportunity.

Psyren

2014-07-01, 08:04 AM

Every game I've been in has had communal "party loot" once rolling for individual desirables was complete. And if the warrior needed to sell some pieces nobody wanted in order to get an upgrade for his shield or whatever we've been okay with it. The only obstacle has really been time or lack of access to magic mart in some cases. (In our campaign we don't always end a session back at HQ and teleporting back there is not always an option.)

Dominuce2112

2014-07-01, 08:04 AM

Because buying and writing scrolls aint cheap

Lord_Gareth

2014-07-01, 08:17 AM

Segev

2014-07-01, 08:19 AM

Mildly tangential, but I've thought for a while one of the ways to make the "mundane" classes have a little more oomph would be to give them class features that make certain magic items just work better in their hands. Alternatively, design magic items to have better perks in the hands of certain classes, but that sacrifices a certain amount of rigor for versatility, and relies on redesigning a LOT more than the problematic classes.

There is, however, a little bit of the latter already: certain swords are just plain better when wielded by a paladin, for example.

I'll attempt to illustrate with at least a couple semi-random ideas. Maybe there's a Rogue Trick that lets them quaff potions as swift or free actions. And a Fighter class feature that lets them add their Fighter level to some quality of potions they drink (more hp healed, longer duration, or something). Or perhaps a fighter-only feat that allows him to treat a weapon as having an enhancement bonus equal to its effective enhancement bonus (i.e. a +1 flaming longsword would act as a +2 flaming longsword, while a +1 brilliant energy vorpal sword would act as a +10 brilliant energy vorpal sword) for a number of rounds per day equal to his Fighter level (split up as he chooses, activated for free at the start of his turn in any round he wants to use it). A ring of Mirror Image might let monks actually create duplicates of themselves instead of just illusory ones.

That sort of thing.

ericgrau

2014-07-01, 08:37 AM

Psyren

2014-07-01, 08:43 AM

This thing tends to sort itself out. If the fighter's share leaves him 1000 away from a key upgrade, and the 3 spellcasters have 350 each left over because they didn't need as much gear, they're likely to chip in and help the guy get that upgrade. Because presumably we're all playing with friends here. There shouldn't really be a need to mandate from on high "fighter gets more because he is more gear-dependent."

Also, even a monk with PC WBL can handle CR-appropriate challenges all the way up. He may not be as flashy about it as a T1 class, but if he is built well he can still punch a Balor into next week as surely as anything else in the MM (and especially Bestiary.)

lord_khaine

2014-07-01, 08:48 AM

Psyren

2014-07-01, 09:03 AM

^ Well said. Caramon might be the least useful member of the Companions, or Gimli might be the least powerfull in the Fellowship (next to the hobbits themselves of course) but they're still capable enough, and fun to have around besides.

Zirconia

2014-07-01, 10:41 AM

I've seen "if it's useful for someone they take it, otherwise we split it n ways" work.

I've seen this for almost all of my gaming, but I play with long time friends so we are very civil about it. If more than one person wants it/can use it, it generally goes to the underperformer, on that basis that having four pretty good characters fighting the bad guys is overall more effective than having one really good one, two pretty good, and one nearly useless one. If the fight has to split 4 ways because of multiple foes, or the one "really good PC" fails a save, etc. it is helpful if everyone can pull their weight.

Regarding "why hire a fighter instead of a druid", if "PC quality" people are fairly rare in a world, you may not have the option of getting a druid instead. If I'm running a company, I may be able to snap my fingers and get an accountant, not so easy if I want a plasma physics modeling expert to join my staff. OOC, of course, that kind of thing is a matter for discussion between and among the players and DM. In an ideal world, some combination of house rules, special DM granted items for underperformers, and gentleman's agreements keeps everyone able to contribute and having fun in the game. If I wanted to "win" the game by myself time after time with all my friends just getting to watch, I should play a MMO, not a tabletop rpg.

Doug Lampert

2014-07-01, 10:52 AM

Alright.. perhaps people are laying it just a little thickly on just how inefficient the party fighter is..?

Im certainly not one to defend the class imbalance in the system, and would be the first one to suggest dropping him off at Warblade College asap..

But all the practical game experience i have says its not him thats in the greatest danger of going down first. A solid hp pool means he is unlikely to die to aoe damage, and he isnt the one with a low fort save thats going to be targetet by everything with ½ a brain and spellcasting abilities.

And he is certainly usefull enough to have around, making the group spend much less resources on putting down minor threats, where things that might have taken several spells to finish off instead can be handled by throwing a single buff or debuff, before then letting him handle the rest.

Because the advantage of him is that he can keep going all day long, yes his HP is his resources, and they are much more likely to run out before the casters run out of spells.. but what people seems to gloss over often is how cheap it is to refresh hp, a single wand of lesser vigor is 750 gp, and its good for several hundred points worth of healing, unlike spell slots where you need to resort to some rather stinky cheesee for any noticeable gain.

Lastly as for why you might want to keep the fighter around instead of replacing him with a druid that might or might not be there, and who you cant be sure are the same alignment, have the same goals, or are within a few levels of the rest of the group.
Then i would like to present a point that has so far been overlooked, namely personality and personal chemistry. The person you are adding to your little group of vandals heroes need to be someone you can literally trust with your life, both not to stab you in the back, but also to be there to stop others from doing the same.
And human beings are not machines, if the druid turns out to smell of wet dog, and constantly prattle on about the virtues of sleeping in the mud, while the fighter knows a ton of great jokes to keep camp life bearable, then in the end it might not matter to much that one of the fights by summoning bears, while the other one just have a sharp piece of metal on a stick.

That works fine to explain an even split, now why are we supposed to be giving him a better than even split? (The subject of the thread.)

Thing is, one of my 3.x campaigns the party was accompanied by a fairly helpful, started 2 ECL lower NPC build warrior for several levels of advancement. She was equally useful to the party melee at trash duty and standing in one place and taking a mild hit (better at that actually since she didn't come up with some plan she thought was more important than doing her job) and she cost much less than a PC because she DIDN'T think she deserved an equal share of the loot and DIDN'T run off to where she was out of touch range of the cleric.

Trash duty doesn't require a particularly effective character. I had to eventually deliberately remove her since the question of "why bother with PC melee" was otherwise growing unsolvable and the player's characters certainly weren't going to kick her out. Admittedly a reliable hireling powerful enough to be useful is rare, but rare != nonexistent.

And there aren't just one or two better alternatives than a fighter with extra loot shares, there are dozens of alternatives. Does every member of every group that can do it better have halitosis?

Ingus

2014-07-01, 10:52 AM

^ Well said. Caramon ...

EXACTLY!

Raistlin is a literal genius and have untapped the power to be a god (at least, in his crappy low magic setting) and still brings Caramon around.

Moreover, later game part of the spellcasters job is doing the job themselves OR keeping the beefy guy up and ready to hit people with a stick.
As it goes, if you can chose to be Batman, always be Batman :smallbiggrin:

That said, in my party we split small things in even shares and big things in a more-useful-to-X way
And it usually works, at least for us.
In one situation we actually booned a character over others. It ended up epically good, that rogue being the last man standing after a huge fight and (hopefully) being CG, he saved all the others.
It may have been inefficient, but in my opinion this is a game by which we try to tell a story, not one by which we prove our tactical superiority.

And to prove me right, just last sunday at my table the fighter with a big stick just saved the Wizard/Incantatrix level 15.
Twice.
Second time, he saved our Ghaele, our Wiz/Abjurant Champion and my Bard+Stuff too.
Just sayin' :smallcool:

137beth

2014-07-01, 10:54 AM

That was the latter part. Is your band of heroes really going to dump the friend you've been adventuring with just to go hire some random dude at the tavern, in a world where heroes over level 3 or 4 are incredibly rare and you're level 12? Especially if you yourself don't particularly need all that money?

I mean, I do think there are better solutions, I'm just curious why this one never seems to occur to people, especially since the DM may or may not be on board with complicated stuff to even things out.

I've seen this for almost all of my gaming, but I play with long time friends so we are very civil about it. If more than one person wants it/can use it, it generally goes to the underperformer, on that basis that having four pretty good characters fighting the bad guys is overall more effective than having one really good one, two pretty good, and one nearly useless one. If the fight has to split 4 ways because of multiple foes, or the one "really good PC" fails a save, etc. it is helpful if everyone can pull their weight.

Regarding "why hire a fighter instead of a druid", if "PC quality" people are fairly rare in a world, you may not have the option of getting a druid instead. If I'm running a company, I may be able to snap my fingers and get an accountant, not so easy if I want a plasma physics modeling expert to join my staff. OOC, of course, that kind of thing is a matter for discussion between and among the players and DM. In an ideal world, some combination of house rules, special DM granted items for underperformers, and gentleman's agreements keeps everyone able to contribute and having fun in the game. If I wanted to "win" the game by myself time after time with all my friends just getting to watch, I should play a MMO, not a tabletop rpg.
A lot of it can also depend on your starting level. If you are starting at level one, it's kind of hard to say that there are no 1st level druids in the world (unless druids are banned). If you are starting at level 10, then it is more believable that the only person up for hire is a fighter. But then, you have to wonder how that fighter got to 10th level, since he obviously didn't get there by adventuring with low-level groups who could have hired another low-level druid.
In most campaign worlds, the characters are not aware of "levels". They are aware of what they are capable of, but that isn't really an indicator of level. A 15th level wizard is going to look at a 15th level fighter the same way he/she looks at a 7th level wizard: as someone who is substantially less powerful. A high level wizard is no more likely, in-universe, to adventure with a high level fighter than to adventure with a low-level character, because the wizard doesn't see "15th level" written on the fighter's character sheet. He/she just sees someone less versatile than a planar binding spell.

Barstro

2014-07-01, 11:02 AM

... but no amount of money will fix a samurai in a party of druids unless he's spending it on being a pseudo-caster himself.

It will help if the druids use the money to get items to help the samurai. Give my debuffer a ___ of +6 Stat and now the debuffs allow the fighter to hit harder and take less damage. True, it might not be as optimized as the Tier Ones doing it themselves, but I personally like drawn out fights; they show strategy and make the outcome feel like an accomplishment.

Flickerdart

2014-07-01, 11:27 AM

It will help if the druids use the money to get items to help the samurai. Give my debuffer a ___ of +6 Stat and now the debuffs allow the fighter to hit harder and take less damage. True, it might not be as optimized as the Tier Ones doing it themselves, but I personally like drawn out fights; they show strategy and make the outcome feel like an accomplishment.
That doesn't actually fix the samurai though. It lets the druids nerf the opposition to the point that the samurai can contribute. That is the opposite of fixing - it's highlighting how weak he really is.

137beth

2014-07-01, 11:58 AM

That doesn't actually fix the samurai though. It lets the druids nerf the opposition to the point that the samurai can contribute. That is the opposite of fixing - it's highlighting how weak he really is.

Wait, now we're discussing a druid in the same group as a samurai? That makes even less sense than a wizard and samurai:smallconfused:
At least with the Wizard you can go through some mental gymnastics and pretend that the wizard needed a 'tank' at low levels and now just keeps the samurai around for some reason, but the druid never needed a martial tank. At low levels, he/she has an animal companion. After that, the druid is the melee tank. Why would a druid be adventuring with a samurai at any level?

Flickerdart

2014-07-01, 12:00 PM

Wait, now we're discussing a druid in the same group as a samurai?... Why would a druid be adventuring with a samurai at any level?
It was an intentionally egregious example I made at the start of the thread to illustrate that even in 3.5, the power of wealth is not up to task of balancing everything. The following conversation about making friends with your level 1 bodyguard before happily leading him to certain demon-related doom is almost entirely unrelated to that particular example.

jjcrpntr

2014-07-01, 12:09 PM

The group I run has system that's semi even split.

Anything that isn't wanted is sold and split evenly among players that are present when said loot was gained.
If something drops that someone wants they get it, but the next item that drops that player gets last dibs on (unless he is the only one who can use it).

So far it's worked well. Everyone has a decent amount of gold. Barbarian got a homebrewed magic item early on and got nothing for awhile, then when a nice sword dropped and he wanted it the bard (person who handles loot) reminded him that he gets last dibs because he got the last good magic item. So it went to the inquisitor. Everyone seemed pretty happy with it.

Barstro

2014-07-01, 12:30 PM

That doesn't actually fix the samurai though. It lets the druids nerf the opposition to the point that the samurai can contribute. That is the opposite of fixing - it's highlighting how weak he really is.

I guess that depends on what one considers the problem to be. My preference is that everyone contribute, while you think people should be of the same... power, for lack of a better word coming to mind. You are correct that my "solution" does not solve the problem and you may be correct that it highlights how weak that person is.

Sadly, most people try to solve a problem like that by trying to make mundane stronger. While it makes sense that people feel this way (after all, who wants to give up what they already have) it will almost never work due to linear vs. exponential progression and no real way to stop it. The real solution is to break the exponential trend and knock Tier Ones down and prevent Tippy from taking hold. Another option is to make items that are only for mundanes (+30 sword or some such crap). But even then there will be people (Hi, Tippy) who find a way to get the better tiers to benefit from it anyway.

Back to your original question; "why do people want even treasure splits?" The mathematically correct way to split treasure for maximized power is to dump it all in the higher tiers and tell the mundanes to go home and cry, or make sure the party is all of a similar tier.

In the end, I think it's up to the DM to tailor the scenarios so that things are an appropriate challenge for the party. Future fights might change depending on how treasure was split earlier.

jedipotter

2014-07-01, 12:42 PM

Vizzerdrix

2014-07-01, 01:04 PM

but those same martialists were keeping the squishy wizard alive through his first levels.

Yeah that has to be some sort of fallacy. I've noticed that even at low levels it tends to be the casters keeping the meat out of trouble.

Barstro

2014-07-01, 01:25 PM

Yeah that has to be some sort of fallacy. I've noticed that even at low levels it tends to be the casters keeping the meat out of trouble.

Probably because early level parties seem to rest for the day after the casters have used their spells, even if it's only 9:30 a.m.. In the "real world" the martialists would keep going and the caster would have to follow or find a new group.

Elderand

2014-07-01, 01:32 PM

Probably because early level parties seem to rest for the day after the casters have used their spells, even if it's only 9:30 a.m.. In the "real world" the martialists would keep going and the caster would have to follow or find a new group.

Yeah....no, just no.
Any smart martial character would recognise that the caster is the big gun in the party. Only stupid one would press on when their party ability has been decreased by 90%. Except in case of time constraint.

ryu

2014-07-01, 01:35 PM

Probably because early level parties seem to rest for the day after the casters have used their spells, even if it's only 9:30 a.m.. In the "real world" the martialists would keep going and the caster would have to follow or find a new group.

The fighter's HP is a significantly faster drained resource than wizard spells. Even assuming that situation did happen the fighter would be smart to accept rest so that his allies have tools useful in preventing him from dying like a sniveling lump of meat the next time a moderately challenging encounter happens.

Kazyan

2014-07-01, 01:46 PM

Flickerdart

2014-07-01, 01:52 PM

If we're going to assume the optimization and metagame parameters are all in the wizard's favor because that is The Way Things Are Done, can we at least assume the mundane happens to be a warblade instead of a samurai? Thanks.

The Warblade doesn't need equipment in order to do interesting things, and doesn't need to be pandered to in order to contribute to the party. So he has nothing to do with this discussion at all.

Kantolin

2014-07-01, 01:57 PM

Personally, everyone wants an even split because everyone likes getting new things from a completely out of character standpoint.

Being informed 'You are getting less stuff because he chose to play [x] class' would result in a lot of people being upset at whomever played [x] class from a completely out of character standpoint. I mean... presumably everyone who is at game showed up for the purpose of having fun, right? Most people consider 'getting new stuff' fun. I'm pretty sure the DMG states as such.

Now, this /might/ help - sitting down and explaining to people, "You will get less stuff if you do X" may have an effect. But overall, it may be easier or safer to simply have a gentleman's agreement, or say, "Hey can you play a beguiler or a warmage or a bard instead?"

Trasilor

2014-07-01, 02:30 PM

HighWater

2014-07-01, 02:34 PM

Yet it seems to be an almost unwritten assumption that treasure should be split evenly through the party, despite the fact that the effect on each of them seems to be often disproportionate.

I see that nobody has countered this yet, so I'll throw down the Players Handbook and call:

This is not an unwritten assumption! It is right there on page 167 of the Players Handbook!

Splitting Treasure: Split treasure evenly among the characters
who participated. Some characters may be of higher level than
others, or some might happen to have done more on a particular
adventure than others did, but the simplest, fastest, and best policy
is to split treasure up evenly.
It then goes into detail on how to fairly divvy up looted items and how to count them against gold values etcetera. It is therefore not something everyone arrives at spontaneously, but instead something very much present in the one book everyone has read (mostly).

In my experience, weaker players that get thrown a higher percentage of the loot might get a little cranky because it confirms what they already suspect: the others are having pity on them.

In my group, we split monetary rewards evenly and hand out useful loot on a best-deployed basis without factoring in its worth. Sorcerer and Barbarian carry potions in case the Druid goes down. Mw Light Crossbow to the sorcerer in case he gets bored, everyone carries a looted Mw Morningstar incase we need bludgeoning/piercing etc.

Doc_Maynot

2014-07-01, 02:57 PM

What a party I'm in does is we each get entitled to a certain share and we have a party pool seperate.
The party leader (Which is a bard maximising inspire courage as much as the DM is allowing) gets a share and a half.
The quartermaster (Basically the one that can be bothered to do the math and sell all the stuff, Me) gets a share and a quarter
Other Party Members get a share.
Cohorts, and hirelings are entitled to a tenth of a share, if they ask.
The Party Pool gets a share and a quarter.

Any items used to benefit the the party as whole may be reimbursed if the majority of the party doesn't contend against it.
If a party member requires a certain item, they buy it from the party for sale price (after their future share has been estimated).

The party pool is used to save up and purchase key items for party members, (this has typically been the party rogue and the party psychic warrior/knight) say the reach fighter needs better armor or a better weapon, we give them the money to buy it. If we find we have enough extra money (Defined as enough for two resurrections) in the pool, and have planned to buy nothing, we invest it. Starting a business using the rules in DMG or PHB 2 (I forget which) and adding all money gained from so back into the pool.

BWR

2014-07-01, 03:04 PM

Raistlin is a literal genius and have untapped the power to be a god (at least, in his crappy low magic setting) and still brings Caramon around.

At that point Raistlin was still about 4th level - far away from UNLIMITED POWER!!!!! - and in need of a meat shield, not to mention someone to baby him when his cough got too bad. He dumped Caramon like a hot potato when he got enough power he didn't need the big lug. In the Legends trilogy it was more convenience than actual need - he was content to cast Caramon aside when he wasn't useful anymore.

eggynack

2014-07-01, 04:23 PM

If we're going to assume the optimization and metagame parameters are all in the wizard's favor because that is The Way Things Are Done, can we at least assume the mundane happens to be a warblade instead of a samurai? Thanks.
First, there aren't that many assumptions of game state that set a druid's power lower than that of a samurai. You'd pretty much have to be in a "Characters just don't use their class features" game, and I don't really care all that much about those game states. Second, why would we talk about a warblade? They wouldn't be given much of a bigger share of cash, because they don't suck. It's actually an issue with a lot of arguments in favor of this in this thread. If fighters are useless, then I'm not giving them extra money to be marginally less useless. If fighters aren't useless, then why am I handing them over my hard earned cash if they can already contribute?

WarKitty

2014-07-01, 04:36 PM

First, there aren't that many assumptions of game state that set a druid's power lower than that of a samurai. You'd pretty much have to be in a "Characters just don't use their class features" game, and I don't really care all that much about those game states. Second, why would we talk about a warblade? They wouldn't be given much of a bigger share of cash, because they don't suck. It's actually an issue with a lot of arguments in favor of this in this thread. If fighters are useless, then I'm not giving them extra money to be marginally less useless. If fighters aren't useless, then why am I handing them over my hard earned cash if they can already contribute?

Because usefulness is a sliding scale, not an on-off switch?

That's what I'm not getting. People in this thread seem to be treating things as though melee is either on an equal or near equal footing with the casters, or utterly useless to the point of being a liability. Neither of those are what I've seen happen most games. Most games I've seen, the fighter is still contributing in most fights to where it's better to have them along than not, but are still contributing less than an equal leveled caster, and would still be more useful with the extra items than the caster would.

And this whole "hard earned cash" mentality just seems to assume a very narrow, mercenary view of the adventuring party to me. If the only reason you're adventuring is gold, that works, but that's not the way many games work.

Flickerdart

2014-07-01, 04:41 PM

And this whole "hard earned cash" mentality just seems to assume a very narrow, mercenary view of the adventuring party to me. If the only reason you're adventuring is gold, that works, but that's not the way many games work.
That's already been addressed - the more you adventure with useless people, the harder you have to work to make up excuses, and the more transparent the whole thing becomes.

Psyren

2014-07-01, 04:43 PM

Honestly, if you're "useless" in 3.P, you're either playing a naked NPC class or a corpse.

Either that, or the player is so incompetent/DM is so antagonistic that nothing would have been a success anyway.

WarKitty

2014-07-01, 04:46 PM

That's already been addressed - the more you adventure with useless people, the harder you have to work to make up excuses, and the more transparent the whole thing becomes.

This argument only works if you invoke the exact same dichotomy I said in the first half wasn't true for most games that I've seen.

eggynack

2014-07-01, 04:55 PM

Because usefulness is a sliding scale, not an on-off switch?
As you move from one position to another, you just enter a situation where both arguments are somewhat valid, instead of one where neither is. If you have a moderately useless fighter, then I have to simultaneously ask why he needs my money when he's not completely useless, and ask why I have him in the party when he's moderately useless. The less one side becomes true, the more the other side becomes true.

That's what I'm not getting. People in this thread seem to be treating things as though melee is either on an equal or near equal footing with the casters, or utterly useless to the point of being a liability. Neither of those are what I've seen happen most games. Most games I've seen, the fighter is still contributing in most fights to where it's better to have them along than not, but are still contributing less than an equal leveled caster, and would still be more useful with the extra items than the caster would.
I think you're vastly overestimating the degree to which fighters do better with items. Fighters need items to be competent, but that doesn't make them better at using them.

And this whole "hard earned cash" mentality just seems to assume a very narrow, mercenary view of the adventuring party to me. If the only reason you're adventuring is gold, that works, but that's not the way many games work.
It's even more important that you don't sap away your own strength for the utility of a weak party member when the world is at stake. Honestly, I don't really understand why we're not just using the price altering method, or hell, even giving low tier characters a discount on items, and high tier characters a price bump (in some way that stops the silliness that that would cause, like a fighter just buying the rods for his wizard friend). It gets you to about the same place, except it doesn't make everything ridiculous in its wake. It's pretty much inarguable that this rule set has problems along the lines I've mentioned, after all. The only question is one of degree.

Psyren

2014-07-01, 05:07 PM

That's what I'm not getting. People in this thread seem to be treating things as though melee is either on an equal or near equal footing with the casters, or utterly useless to the point of being a liability. Neither of those are what I've seen happen most games. Most games I've seen, the fighter is still contributing in most fights to where it's better to have them along than not, but are still contributing less than an equal leveled caster, and would still be more useful with the extra items than the caster would.

You're not alone, I'm as baffled as you are. "What, you can't rewrite reality in 6 seconds like I can? You're fired, hand over your stuff so I can melt them down and buy more wands!"

eggynack

2014-07-01, 05:10 PM

You're not alone, I'm as baffled as you are. "What, you can't rewrite reality in 6 seconds like I can? You're fired, hand over your stuff so I can melt them down and buy more wands!"
That seems like a pretty good reason to fire someone, I think. There's a not implausible chance that a fighter is actually worth less than the share of the money they take, a significantly higher chance that they're worth less than an increased share of the money that they take, and a massively higher chance that they're worth less than another party member with reality altering abilities. Fighters aren't utterly worthless, but they're pretty bad. If they weren't, then this topic wouldn't exist.

Psyren

2014-07-01, 05:33 PM

That seems like a pretty good reason to fire someone, I think.

If you're approaching this from an in-universe perspective, then removing them only makes sense if there is a higher-tier class willing and able to replace them. Using the DMG population tables alone, this chance is vanishingly small, and even if you find one they could easily turn out to be a rival rather than an ally. Furthermore, in-universe, Tippy-level/do-everything spellcasters simply don't exist in most settings anyway and therefore nobody is realizing T1 potential.

If you're approaching this from a metagame perspective, then the friendship/relationship you have with the player who simply wants to be a fighter is more important than concerns of sheer efficiency or power.

So either way you approach it, there is more reason to keep them than to fire them (unless, again, you're intentionally playing in a tippy-style setting.)

Flickerdart

2014-07-01, 05:45 PM

If you're approaching this from a metagame perspective, then the friendship/relationship you have with the player who simply wants to be a fighter is more important than concerns of sheer efficiency or power.

Friends don't let friends play fighters.

eggynack

2014-07-01, 05:48 PM

If you're approaching this from an in-universe perspective, then removing them only makes sense if there is a higher-tier class willing and able to replace them. Using the DMG population tables alone, this chance is vanishingly small, and even if you find one they could easily turn out to be a rival rather than an ally. Furthermore, in-universe, Tippy-level/do-everything spellcasters simply don't exist in most settings anyway and therefore nobody is realizing T1 potential.

If you're approaching this from a metagame perspective, then the friendship/relationship you have with the player who simply wants to be a fighter is more important than concerns of sheer efficiency or power.

So either way you approach it, there is more reason to keep them than to fire them (unless, again, you're intentionally playing in a tippy-style setting.)
Really depends on the level, and once again, we run up against two issues with an inverse relationship. At low levels, the fighter is at his best, but the caster isn't that hard to find. At higher levels, an equal level caster might be trickier to find, but by this point the fighter starts verging towards actually useless, to the point that they might be worth less than the money you're giving them. Also, you can get around easier, and you have divinations of various kinds, so finding a higher level caster isn't quite as difficult as all that. As for out of game stuff, that was fine up to the point where the tier system essentially became an element of the game's mechanics.

Psyren

2014-07-01, 06:10 PM

Also, you can get around easier, and you have divinations of various kinds, so finding a higher level caster isn't quite as difficult as all that.

To quote Tippy, high-level casters get that way by being paranoid, ignoble cusses. They might even be like you, willing to fire your friends at the drop of a hat because they don't measure up to standards of utmost efficiency. Trusting someone like that to watch your back seems like a good way to end up trapped in a gem/mindraped to devotion and all your powerful magic items powering up the guy who was ruthless enough to reach even higher still.

Of course, you could go it alone. And then the wizard who is equal to you in power but also has a fighter in tow can counter all your magic while his buddy rearranges your limbs. (Your actual limbs, mind, not those of your astral duplicate.)

As for out of game stuff, that was fine up to the point where the tier system essentially became an element of the game's mechanics.

When was that precisely? Last time I checked, even a T5 class can handle CR-appropriate challenges. Hell, there's a thread floating around about optimizing commoners to T1 levels somewhere.

eggynack

2014-07-01, 06:18 PM

To quote Tippy, high-level casters get that way by being paranoid, ignoble cusses. They might even be like you, willing to fire your friends at the drop of a hat because they don't measure up to standards of utmost efficiency. Trusting someone like that to watch your back seems like a good way to end up trapped in a gem/mindraped to devotion and all your powerful magic items powering up the guy who was ruthless enough to reach even higher still.
As I've said, I'm just going to not hire the guy in the first place. They literally reduce my ability to contribute by eating into my wealth by level. It's not about trust. It's about characters necessarily having their tiers written on their forehead, and the lower tier characters having extra negative effects in addition to their usual low usefulness.

Of course, you could go it alone. And then the wizard who is equal to you in power but also has a fighter in tow can counter all your magic while his buddy rearranges your limbs. (Your actual limbs, mind, not those of your astral duplicate.)

I don't even know that you're right on that account, given that the wizard is presumably running less than half the cash that I am.

When was that precisely? Last time I checked, even a T5 class can handle CR-appropriate challenges. Hell, there's a thread floating around about optimizing commoners to T1 levels somewhere.
It happened when I started giving cash to weaker party members on the basis of their weakness. If the tier five class can handle themselves, then I don't need to give them money. As I noted above, I don't need to argue about whether imbalance exists in the game, because imbalance is a stated and obvious premise of this fix.

Psyren

2014-07-01, 06:40 PM

I don't even know that you're right on that account, given that the wizard is presumably running less than half the cash that I am.

Why would he? The Fighter can earn wealth, slay dragons etc. too. Furthermore, I assume you're going by RAW, and WBL is per PC - going it alone won't actually make you earn any more than what is on the table, not long-term anyway.

Also, unless homebrew/custom items exist in this setting, there is a functional limit to how much you can really benefit from your wealth due to things like body slots and action economy.

As I've said, I'm just going to not hire the guy in the first place. They literally reduce my ability to contribute by eating into my wealth by level. It's not about trust. It's about characters necessarily having their tiers written on their forehead, and the lower tier characters having extra negative effects in addition to their usual low usefulness.
...
It happened when I started giving cash to weaker party members on the basis of their weakness. If the tier five class can handle themselves, then I don't need to give them money. As I noted above, I don't need to argue about whether imbalance exists in the game, because imbalance is a stated and obvious premise of this fix.

The point as I understood it was that you were pooling leftover resources you wouldn't have used anyway. Say the casters each had a couple hundred gold left - not enough for yet another wand, but enough combined to put ghost touch on the fighter's armor, that sort of thing.

There's also the economy of buffs themselves. Putting Haste and GMW on the barbarian results in greater damage than many other things the caster could be doing, and can actually be faster than putting all the enemies to sleep and then trundling over to CDG each one individually with a scythe etc.

eggynack

2014-07-01, 06:54 PM

Why would he? The Fighter can earn wealth, slay dragons etc. too. Furthermore, I assume you're going by RAW, and WBL is per PC - going it alone won't actually make you earn any more than what is on the table, not long-term anyway.
Because you're presumably going on the same adventures. It doesn't really make much sense in game to consider stuff from the perspective of wealth by level, as you can't just assume that the dragons will spontaneously double themselves and increase in size when your party gets big enough.

Also, unless homebrew/custom items exist in this setting, there is a functional limit to how much you can really benefit from your wealth due to things like body slots and action economy.
Not really. Body slots are a bit of a non-issue, due to the ability to stack multiple abilities on a single item, and a pretty massive number of items never touch the action economy. The quantity of wealth is rare where I can't make use of more of it.

The point as I understood it was that you were pooling leftover resources you wouldn't have used anyway. Say the casters each had a couple hundred gold left - not enough for yet another wand, but enough combined to put ghost touch on the fighter's armor, that sort of thing.
My understanding is that the fundamental split is being altered, perhaps to something like a 60/40 or 70/30 split, obviously put in different terms in a party larger than two. If I'm just tossing out occasional gold piles that are left over, then that's probably not a big deal, but it's also unlikely to fix balance.

There's also the economy of buffs themselves. Putting Haste and GMW on the barbarian results in greater damage than many other things the caster could be doing, and can actually be faster than putting all the enemies to sleep and then trundling over to CDG each one individually with a scythe etc.

Perhaps, but the role of buff monkey isn't one I need a particularly effective party member for. At that point, I might as well just keep the split even, or even shift the split in the caster's direction, under the assumption that I'm providing a pretty large part of the barbarian's effectiveness.

Psyren

2014-07-01, 07:32 PM

My understanding is that the fundamental split is being altered, perhaps to something like a 60/40 or 70/30 split, obviously put in different terms in a party larger than two. If I'm just tossing out occasional gold piles that are left over, then that's probably not a big deal, but it's also unlikely to fix balance.

That split wasn't my understanding. If that's the case then I agree that's too extreme.

I also agree that a smaller allocation won't "fix balance" - but that was never my goal to begin with. I know fighters are inferior and that's okay. I just don't think they're so inferior that partnering with one is actually a net negative.

Because you're presumably going on the same adventures. It doesn't really make much sense in game to consider stuff from the perspective of wealth by level, as you can't just assume that the dragons will spontaneously double themselves and increase in size when your party gets big enough.

Actually, that's exactly what the CR system does - if you have more people in the party you have to up the XP budget and therefore the challenge. It might not mean doubling a dragon like an amoeba, but it would mean throwing in a few lizardfolk and their high priest/shaman worshiping him or something.

Not really. Body slots are a bit of a non-issue, due to the ability to stack multiple abilities on a single item, and a pretty massive number of items never touch the action economy.

That's so (though a pretty massive number do) - though it seems to me that in-universe, crafting that many Super-Items would make you a pretty juicy target :smalltongue: Imagine just one of your rings being worth a king's ransom after you're done piling properties onto it for instance.

Kantolin

2014-07-01, 07:35 PM

I just don't think they're so inferior that partnering with one is actually a net negative.

I think that's part of the complaint (or well, it's at least half of mine). The 'higher tier' characters will feel annoyed like they are being robbed because someone wanted to play a fighter, which isn't a feeling you want to cultivate.

Although if you go the 'here we have Excalibur!' route, you actually may be able to pull off the 'so you technically have higher WBL' angle without causing any real concerns while giving potency to someone who could use it. Just watch out for the cleric deciding that this makes it a good moment to take weapon proficiency (longsword).

eggynack

2014-07-01, 07:48 PM

Actually, that's exactly what the CR system does - if you have more people in the party you have to up the XP budget and therefore the challenge. It might not mean doubling a dragon like an amoeba, but it would mean throwing in a few lizardfolk and their high priest/shaman worshiping him or something.
Perhaps, but to some extent you can't really consider that from an in game perspective. When you're choosing whether to bring a fighter along or not, it doesn't really make much sense to say that it's a good idea because you'll make more money, simply because you have more characters with you. I think that's really the problem here, that this sort of fix connects in game and out of game elements in a weird way. Also, y'know, if encounter difficulty is also assumed to calibrate with power level, then the cited wizard v. wizard/fighter encounter seems vaguely unlikely. Either the party fighter is reducing GP, or increasing CR, and in either case he has a good chance of being of net negative impact.

That's so (though a pretty massive number do) - though it seems to me that in-universe, crafting that many Super-Items would make you a pretty juicy target :smalltongue: Imagine just one of your rings being worth a king's ransom after you're done piling properties onto it for instance.
I suppose that makes theoretical sense, but if we're still assuming that you make more money by having more party members, you would also presumably be an even better target if you had a bunch of allies with wealth on hand. There are also some more slotless ways to use items, like various rods of metamagic, bags of holding of various kinds, ioun stones, and hell, even scrolls for spells that are best used on a situational basis out of combat (if you're worried about action cost). Also, don't forget about stuff like expensive foci, filling a spellbook, or even some varieties of calling spell. I figure there must be some level of cash having at which the marginal gain from having more is greatly reduced, but that level is pretty far up there.

Elkad

2014-07-01, 07:51 PM

eggynack

2014-07-01, 07:54 PM

I bring the fighter (or any other melee type) and give him an equal share because sometimes Iron Golems happen.

When I'm standing there looking at my spell list going "nope, nope, nope, nope, oh hell no (fire damage), nope" and wishing I'd memorized Tenser's Transformation and brought a dagger, that fighter is not only mighty handy to have along, but I'm glad we gave him the +3 sword so he can actually do damage. Because otherwise I'm screwed.
Eh, not if you prepare spells right. Something like a summoning spell, orb, or black tentacles will work just fine against a golem. Notably, because druids have constant access to wild shape beat-stickery, an animal companion, and spontaneous summoning, they're still going to make for a better choice for a party than a fighter in this sort of situation. A cleric usually will too, on the basis of DMM persist based stabbery, though perhaps to a lesser extent.

ryu

2014-07-01, 07:58 PM

Flickerdart

2014-07-01, 08:13 PM

A party where "+3 sword" is the best answer to an Iron Golem needs pity loot for each character, not just the mundanes.

Karnith

2014-07-01, 08:20 PM

Or, heck, if you just need to bypass the Golem, rather than destroying it, you could cast an image-, fog-, or invisibility-based spell and sneak away, fly out of its reach, cast Grease and walk away as it slips and slides, teleport out of its line of sight, or any of a number of other things. Most of the standard Golem varieties are not particularly threatening; they are unintelligent and tend to lack options that aren't "walk up and punch something."

Psyren

2014-07-01, 08:26 PM

Perhaps, but to some extent you can't really consider that from an in game perspective. When you're choosing whether to bring a fighter along or not, it doesn't really make much sense to say that it's a good idea because you'll make more money, simply because you have more characters with you. I think that's really the problem here, that this sort of fix connects in game and out of game elements in a weird way. Also, y'know, if encounter difficulty is also assumed to calibrate with power level, then the cited wizard v. wizard/fighter encounter seems vaguely unlikely. Either the party fighter is reducing GP, or increasing CR, and in either case he has a good chance of being of net negative impact.

Of course it's unlikely - only 5% of encounters (IIRC) are meant to be overwhelming per the DMG after all.

And that's part of the problem with going it alone - you might not know which of those fights will be too much for you until it's too late, at which point you can use all the help you can get with escaping. And sure, that help coming in the form of another T1 class would be preferable, but that runs into the problems of trust at high levels covered previously.

I suppose that makes theoretical sense, but if we're still assuming that you make more money by having more party members, you would also presumably be an even better target if you had a bunch of allies with wealth on hand.

This is readily offset by the greater numbers making you a collectively riskier target and thus off-putting to would-be thieves or assailants.

There are also some more slotless ways to use items, like various rods of metamagic, bags of holding of various kinds, ioun stones, and hell, even scrolls for spells that are best used on a situational basis out of combat (if you're worried about action cost). Also, don't forget about stuff like expensive foci, filling a spellbook, or even some varieties of calling spell. I figure there must be some level of cash having at which the marginal gain from having more is greatly reduced, but that level is pretty far up there.

So long as you agree it exists, you might as well make friends now.

eggynack

2014-07-01, 08:40 PM

Of course it's unlikely - only 5% of encounters (IIRC) are meant to be overwhelming per the DMG after all.
Well, sure, but it all kinda maths out in favor of the lone wizard, as that 5% is going to be even more overwhelming when we talk about the wizard+fighter. To some extent, a core assumption here is that all parties are going to face challenges that are of equal difficulty. It's all kinda weird.

And that's part of the problem with going it alone - you might not know which of those fights will be too much for you until it's too late, at which point you can use all the help you can get with escaping. And sure, that help coming in the form of another T1 class would be preferable, but that runs into the problems of trust at high levels covered previously.

I don't really see what the trust issues are here. You're a guy heading on a quest, and you seek out a wizard ally instead of a fighter ally. Seems simple enough to me.

So long as you agree it exists, you might as well make friends now.
Perhaps, though the level at which you'd actually have such funds is also the level at which the fighter is going to be most irrelevant. We're talking about shape change levels here, or at least polymorph any object levels. Typically, the only place where this is going to actually be a relevant factor is if the game is significantly over WBL for whatever reason.

Elkad

2014-07-01, 08:47 PM

What possible thing about Tenser's Transformation isn't objectively awful? Wouldn't it be much more prudent to shoot orbs of force at the bloody thing?

Nothing. It was a terrible spell in AD&D, and it's only worse in 3x. It's the 13th level equivalent of breaking out the light crossbow. But barring orb shenanigans (the whole "instantaneous conjured magic bypasses SR" thing is rather odd, and in my experience is either house-ruled away, or those force orbs would hit his DR at least), or in a core game where he doesn't have them, a wizard is in over his head.

Black Tentacles have a sub-50% chance to slow it down for a few rounds, but they won't do any damage.

A regular summons is even worse than a fighter. Nothing on the Summon VII list is going to threaten an Iron Golem. Most of the creatures can't even hit it, get past it's DR, or both.

Yes, a CoDzilla is better than a fighter. Again, we are down to rules interpretations. Persistent Spell is in a list that says "Deities can take these feats" at the top if you are playing Core, which leaves out anyone who would be troubled by an Iron Golem. Powering Metamagic via turn attempts isn't in core at all. Druid shapeshift or Divine Power still work, but when you walk into melee range you are turning yourself into a melee class temporarily anyway. Except with less hitpoints, AC, and melee feats. And the Cleric can only do it for a few rounds.

Flickerdart

2014-07-01, 08:51 PM

Persistent Spell is in a list that says "Deities can take these feats" at the top if you are playing Core, which leaves out anyone who would be troubled by an Iron Golem
Persistent Spell is not in Core. SRD is not Core. That version is from Deities & Demigods, which is a 3.0 book updated to 3.5 by a booklet.

AnonymousPepper

2014-07-01, 08:57 PM

My adventuring groups have always functioned by taking any material loot and giving it to each person as they needed it, and selling off the rest - or feeding it to the party artificer, if available - and putting the proceeds from that as well as any liquid cash loot into the party chest. From there anyone who wants something will ask the group if it's okay to use the party gold to buy (x) item and justify it, and usually the answer is yes because nobody's going to ask for something really outlandish unless they need it.

eggynack

2014-07-01, 09:00 PM

Nothing. It was a terrible spell in AD&D, and it's only worse in 3x. It's the 13th level equivalent of breaking out the light crossbow. But barring orb shenanigans (the whole "instantaneous conjured magic bypasses SR" thing is rather odd, and in my experience is either house-ruled away, or those force orbs would hit his DR at least), or in a core game where he doesn't have them, a wizard is in over his head.

Black Tentacles have a sub-50% chance to slow it down for a few rounds, but they won't do any damage.

A regular summons is even worse than a fighter. Nothing on the Summon VII list is going to threaten an Iron Golem. Most of the creatures can't even hit it, get past it's DR, or both.
These things aren't perfect, but they have reasonable impact. Reasonable is enough, a lot of the time. A huge elemental has the stats to bypass both the AC and DR, and playing keep away from the air is much better when you don't have a fighter weighing you down, and demanding that you actually kill stuff in a timely manner.

Yes, a CoDzilla is better than a fighter. Again, we are down to rules interpretations. Persistent Spell is in a list that says "Deities can take these feats" at the top if you are playing Core, which leaves out anyone who would be troubled by an Iron Golem. Powering Metamagic via turn attempts isn't in core at all. Druid shapeshift or Divine Power still work, but when you walk into melee range you are turning yourself into a melee class temporarily anyway. Except with less hitpoints, AC, and melee feats. And the Cleric can only do it for a few rounds.
Druids don't have to enter combat to enter combat. Summoning and the animal companion work perfectly fine most of the time, and even in combat terms, a well built druid can out-combat a fighter on occasion. Run something like a thoon elder brain, and you can buff up and beat face, all in the same round, all while exceeding the fighter in AC, and possibly matching him in HP if you've built things in a certain way. Also, druids are spontaneously summoning oreads out of 5th level slots (ring of the beast), tossing out perfectly SR: no earthquakes like they're candy. As for persistent spell, general feats are general feats. I don't care much about core only, but that's also where fighters are at their weakest.

Elkad

2014-07-01, 09:04 PM

Persistent Spell is not in Core. SRD is not Core. That version is from Deities & Demigods, which is a 3.0 book updated to 3.5 by a booklet.

So even worse then.

And my original comment up there about a +3 sword was me thinking AD&D where you needed it to damage the golem at all instead of the 3.5 DR15

eggynack

2014-07-01, 09:18 PM

So even worse then.

Not really. We were necessarily outside of core just because we were using divine metamagic, and the SRD is about as close to core as you can be without being core, given its ease of accessibility.

Psyren

2014-07-01, 09:20 PM

Well, sure, but it all kinda maths out in favor of the lone wizard, as that 5% is going to be even more overwhelming when we talk about the wizard+fighter

Ah, but even more overwhelming to fight doesn't mean even more overwhelming to escape from. For example, if an overwhelming encounter starts with a foe paralyzing the wizard and dispelling his contingency, alone he is at his opponent's mercy, while if he's with the fighter the fighter can at least pick him up and run. Both situations are "overwhelming" (since the fighter is unlikely to win without your support if the encounter was above both of you to start with), but as you can see the outcome between the two situations is very different.

I don't really see what the trust issues are here. You're a guy heading on a quest, and you seek out a wizard ally instead of a fighter ally. Seems simple enough to me.

The wizard "ally," being a wizard, can use all of your gear. As you yourself noted, the wealth value at which more gear becomes redundant is likely extraordinarily high, so this guy stands to gain quite a lot of power if he can bump you off and take your stuff.

The fighter has a lot less to gain even if he were to somehow be able to overpower you, which is also less likely to be successful - two corners of the fraud triangle (motive and opportunity) are much smaller for him.

Perhaps, though the level at which you'd actually have such funds is also the level at which the fighter is going to be most irrelevant. We're talking about shape change levels here, or at least polymorph any object levels. Typically, the only place where this is going to actually be a relevant factor is if the game is significantly over WBL for whatever reason.

Once you get to those levels wealth starts to become irrelevant anyway (as does class - you can simply Team Solars and there is no more "fighter") so the entire distinction breaks down. Though again, aside from a Tippy-style setting this won't happen in-universe anyway or it already would have.

SinsI

2014-07-01, 09:31 PM

Maybe the problem is that casters don't have to pay for a lot of their arsenal, and what they do have to pay is far too cheap?
I mean, all 20th level Fighter get is his starter gear, all the rest he has to buy using the WBL.

Wizard wants a new spell on a level up? Pay the full research cost, otherwise all you get is ability to learn the spell and new spell slots - but not the actual spells to fill those slots; you can use them on metamagic'ed low level spells instead. Each spell might also require a lot of unique, expensive and very specific spell foci (quite heavy and bulky too boot), and you would have to pay for them, too.

Maybe even make it so that each new spell is a new Quest or even a whole campaign, with mundanes getting mundane version of it: wizard gets Flight, fighter gets Flying Carpet.

eggynack

2014-07-01, 09:42 PM

Ah, but even more overwhelming to fight doesn't mean even more overwhelming to escape from. For example, if an overwhelming encounter starts with a foe paralyzing the wizard and dispelling his contingency, alone he is at his opponent's mercy, while if he's with the fighter the fighter can at least pick him up and run. Both situations are "overwhelming" (since the fighter is unlikely to win without your support if the encounter was above both of you to start with), but as you can see the outcome between the two situations is very different.
I've gotta figure that there's always the second situation, where the wizard on his own would be able to make use of his escape button spells with greater ease, while doing so with a fighter in the party could lead to his death, if you can't bring both of you for whatever reason. Wizards are often pretty good at that sort of thing.

The wizard "ally," being a wizard, can use all of your gear. As you yourself noted, the wealth value at which more gear becomes redundant is likely extraordinarily high, so this guy stands to gain quite a lot of power if he can bump you off and take your stuff.
Eh, the fighter can always sell what he can't use, and as the thesis of the thread states, he needs the money more.

The fighter has a lot less to gain even if he were to somehow be able to overpower you, which is also less likely to be successful - two corners of the fraud triangle (motive and opportunity) are much smaller for him.
At some point, this starts to look a lot less like a party, and a lot more like a wizard and his flunky. In any case, there's always the reasonable possibility that the threat to the earth exceeds the value of any random item stack.

Once you get to those levels wealth starts to become irrelevant anyway (as does class - you can simply Team Solars and there is no more "fighter") so the entire distinction breaks down. Though again, aside from a Tippy-style setting this won't happen in-universe anyway or it already would have.
Then there might not actually be a point where it works out that way in a game that follows WBL. It follows logic pretty well, actually. If more money can't make you more powerful, then there's something to be said for the idea that not much else can make you significantly more powerful either. It doesn't math out perfectly, but I think the window of this being the way to go is narrow enough that it's pretty irrelevant.

Flickerdart

2014-07-01, 09:53 PM

Wizard wants a new spell on a level up? Pay the full research cost, otherwise all you get is ability to learn the spell and new spell slots - but not the actual spells to fill those slots; you can use them on metamagic'ed low level spells instead. Each spell might also require a lot of unique, expensive and very specific spell foci (quite heavy and bulky too boot), and you would have to pay for them, too.
It's been tried. What this creates is a hostile atmosphere that punishes players who weren't causing problems in the first place - the weaker optimizers who are less able to deal with the changes. People who make powerful characters are usually system-savvy enough to get around such restrictions none the worse for wear.

Maybe even make it so that each new spell is a new Quest or even a whole campaign, with mundanes getting mundane version of it: wizard gets Flight, fighter gets Flying Carpet.
This isn't a terrible idea in theory, and would work in a very slow paced game where characters gain levels infrequently. In a game that runs "on schedule" with 13.3 encounters to gain a level, you don't have much more than one or two fights to spare for level-up quests before everyone is basically just grinding instead of moving the plot forward.

Elkad

2014-07-01, 09:55 PM

These things aren't perfect, but they have reasonable impact. Reasonable is enough, a lot of the time. A huge elemental has the stats to bypass both the AC and DR, and playing keep away from the air is much better when you don't have a fighter weighing you down, and demanding that you actually kill stuff in a timely manner.

Druids don't have to enter combat to enter combat. Summoning and the animal companion work perfectly fine most of the time, and even in combat terms, a well built druid can out-combat a fighter on occasion. Run something like a thoon elder brain, and you can buff up and beat face, all in the same round, all while exceeding the fighter in AC, and possibly matching him in HP if you've built things in a certain way. Also, druids are spontaneously summoning oreads out of 5th level slots (ring of the beast), tossing out perfectly SR: no earthquakes like they're candy. As for persistent spell, general feats are general feats. I don't care much about core only, but that's also where fighters are at their weakest.

OK, I did miss elementals. Fire can't damage it (heals it at the same time), and Air has problems getting thru the DR. Leaving Earth and Water. I don't even know what an Oread is, so I can't comment on it's stats, but it isn't core. Nor is a Thoon, whatever that is. Earthquake is 8th level, a bit above my target (I was figuring L13 characters).

Yes, the companion polar bear is still better than the fighter, at least buffed.

Sure, fighters are better non-core (and you can play a warblade then anyway), but a bog-standard unoptimized beatstick fighter should be sporting about +20 to hit at L13, even if his only adamantium weapon is a masterwork longsword that fell into the bottom of his pack and was forgotten. He'll have similar hitpoints and AC compared to the golem, and will do slightly less damage per hit (his 3rd attack just misses). No power attack, no crit-fishing, no tripping, just straight slugfest. Cast Slow Poison on him at breakfast time. Rest of the party can eat popcorn, maybe cast a single Cure Critical partway through, and it's done. If you bother to buff him at all, or if he's even vaguely optimized, he won't even need the heal.

I'm not arguing to say Fighters are tier 1 (or 3), or that the wizard isn't better the vast majority of the time. But there are specific instances where they ARE better at that one thing (mashing faces), and a good DM is going to add encounters designed to make him the star at least part of the time. Monsters with immunities, anti-magic shell, time-critical missions where you can't stop and recover spells, honor duels with the king's champion, or whatever else.

And besides, the player is probably my friend. Why would I want to be a **** and leave him out of the loot share?

Curmudgeon

2014-07-01, 09:59 PM

Are you trying to maximize individual performance, or party performance? If the performance of the whole party is your priority, then you're buying into the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need)" maxim. So be consistent and follow through with that philosophy, or dissolve the party and go adventuring as individuals. If the Wizard wants to fight all the other party members for treasure that would shore up their weaknesses, have at it: start cranking out those SoD spells and see who's left standing.

Just be consistent. It's unreasonable to try to have a party that's working with conflicting player and character drives. Own up to your motivations. If you're ostensibly playing a party-focused character but insisting as a player on individual-focused rewards, you're not playing that character honestly. Give yourself a dozen lashes with a wet noodle, get over yourself, and get back in the game with a clearer focus.

SinsI

2014-07-01, 10:03 PM

This isn't a terrible idea in theory, and would work in a very slow paced game where characters gain levels infrequently. In a game that runs "on schedule" with 13.3 encounters to gain a level, you don't have much more than one or two fights to spare for level-up quests before everyone is basically just grinding instead of moving the plot forward.

Essentially, the wizard will have only the spells DM gives him as a treasure or quest reward or spend 1 week of in-game time per spell level to research each spell - and that time would be enough to advance 4-5 levels; only the metamagic feats are guaranteed.

It should play pretty similar to something like Wilder - your arsenal is limited, but you get lots of opportunities to enhance or modify the effect of each particular power.

eggynack

2014-07-01, 10:06 PM

OK, I did miss elementals. Fire can't damage it (heals it at the same time), and Air has problems getting thru the DR. Leaving Earth and Water. I don't even know what an Oread is, so I can't comment on it's stats, but it isn't core. Nor is a Thoon, whatever that is. Earthquake is 8th level, a bit above my target (I was figuring L13 characters).
I don't know why you're stuck in core here. It was never a stated premise. As for the oread, it's a creature that hangs out on the SNA VI list that inexplicably has earthquake, so we're very much on target. We also get even better elementals on the druid list, incidentally. As for the thoon elder brain, it's an aberration from the monster manual V which has 8 separate tentacle attacks, which deal 2d6 acid damage on top of the standard damage (they're all primary attacks, incidentally), 26 strength and AC without any buffs, a 20 ft. (perfect) flight speed, ten feet of reach, and fast healing 10, acid immunity, and fear immunity when you use enhance wild shape. Also, just as a little side benefit, you get to take two turns every round, one devoted to physical actions, and one devoted to mental ones. I generally prefer nilshai from unapproachable east, because you get two standard actions a round which allows for double-magic, but this is better for combat.

I'm not arguing to say Fighters are tier 1 (or 3), or that the wizard isn't better the vast majority of the time. But there are specific instances where they ARE better at that one thing (mashing faces), and a good DM is going to add encounters designed to make him the star at least part of the time. Monsters with immunities, anti-magic shell, time-critical missions where you can't stop and recover spells, honor duels with the king's champion, or whatever else.

Those instances tend to stop existing for the most part at higher levels of optimization. It's just the way of things.

And besides, the player is probably my friend. Why would I want to be a **** and leave him out of the loot share?
Who said anything about leaving someone out of a share of the loot? He can get his share, same as anyone. He just doesn't get more for being crappy.

Psyren

2014-07-01, 10:06 PM

I've gotta figure that there's always the second situation, where the wizard on his own would be able to make use of his escape button spells with greater ease, while doing so with a fighter in the party could lead to his death, if you can't bring both of you for whatever reason. Wizards are often pretty good at that sort of thing.

This seems unlikely given you've established that the fighter's welfare doesn't matter to you, to the point that you'd fire him for being less effective than you are. Going from that to worrying that you can't take him with you if there is trouble seems inconsistent. Therefore having him around can actually be even better, given that the first assault in the surprise round might affect him instead of you due to marching order if nothing else and give you time to flee.

Eh, the fighter can always sell what he can't use, and as the thesis of the thread states, he needs the money more.

So can the wizard, which means he has two pressures (being able to sell your gear, and being able to equip it) to the fighter's one. He also has a much greater chance of overcoming you since he is, again, a wizard, giving him greater opportunity. Finally, he also has a better sense of the true value of your gear - for instance, your spellbook would just be gibberish to a fighter.

At some point, this starts to look a lot less like a party, and a lot more like a wizard and his flunky. In any case, there's always the reasonable possibility that the threat to the earth exceeds the value of any random item stack.

This just gives the fighter less reason to want to attack you (as doing so may put the world in danger.) But another wizard, knowing how powerful he could become with your resources, may decide that he can be a hero on his own. He may even worry that you are having similar thoughts, and strike first!

Then there might not actually be a point where it works out that way in a game that follows WBL. It follows logic pretty well, actually. If more money can't make you more powerful, then there's something to be said for the idea that not much else can make you significantly more powerful either. It doesn't math out perfectly, but I think the window of this being the way to go is narrow enough that it's pretty irrelevant.

It sounds like we agree - so you may as well kick some spare gold over to the fighter for the metagame reason of helping your friend even if there is no compelling in-game reason to do one or the other.

WarKitty

2014-07-01, 10:11 PM

Those instances tend to stop existing for the most part at higher levels of optimization. It's just the way of things.

I did however specify that we weren't talking about super high levels of optimization, as well as that we can't assume any specific book is or is not going to be available. So "just play a warblade" might not be an option if ToB isn't available.

eggynack

2014-07-01, 10:11 PM

This seems unlikely given you've established that the fighter's welfare doesn't matter to you, to the point that you'd fire him for being less effective than you are. Going from that to worrying that you can't take him with you if there is trouble seems inconsistent. Therefore having him around can actually be even better, given that the first assault in the surprise round might affect him instead of you due to marching order if nothing else and give you time to flee.
It's really a combination of the fact that he's less effective, and the fact that I need to give him more cash. Also, gotta figure that I want him to not die if I'm handing over lots o' cash.

It sounds like we agree - so you may as well kick some spare gold over to the fighter for the metagame reason of helping your friend even if there is no compelling in-game reason to do one or the other.
Sounds about right, I think. As long as we're not just handing over a somewhat larger share of the gold to the fighter, which seems to be the stated premise, and we're instead just letting the fighter occasionally take arbitrary leftovers in a friendly way, things are probably fine. Part of the problem was that the OP's rule set makes balance issues more explicit, after all, and splitting things in an imbalance disfavoring way doesn't necessarily have to do that.

Edit:
I did however specify that we weren't talking about super high levels of optimization, as well as that we can't assume any specific book is or is not going to be available. So "just play a warblade" might not be an option if ToB isn't available.
Higher doesn't necessarily mean ultra-high. Even in a core only game, our noble druid can solve any golem shaped problem by just becoming a dire bat and being a bit above the golem. After that, if you really need the golem dead, there's ways to do that.

WarKitty

2014-07-01, 10:13 PM

It's really a combination of the fact that he's less effective, and the fact that I need to give him more cash. Also, gotta figure that I want him to not die if I'm handing over lots o' cash.

Sounds about right, I think. As long as we're not just handing over a somewhat larger share of the gold to the fighter, which seems to be the stated premise, and we're instead just letting the fighter occasionally take arbitrary leftovers in a friendly way, things are probably fine. Part of the problem was that the OP's rule set makes balance issues more explicit, after all, and splitting things in an imbalance disfavoring way doesn't necessarily have to do that.

I'm confused. I proposed a rule set?

eggynack

2014-07-01, 10:15 PM

I'm confused. I proposed a rule set?
Not a precise one, no, but it seems that an explicitly different treasure split was assumed. Otherwise, if we're just handing the fighter random scraps, this doesn't have any real impact from a balance perspective.

WarKitty

2014-07-01, 10:18 PM

Not a precise one, no, but it seems that an explicitly different treasure split was assumed. Otherwise, if we're just handing the fighter random scraps, this doesn't have any real impact from a balance perspective.

Actually I was just asking a gaming psychology question. The alternative I was considering was more why even treasure split seems to be preferred over party pool methods, where money isn't necessarily considered to belong to one member or another.

eggynack

2014-07-01, 10:24 PM

Actually I was just asking a gaming psychology question. The alternative I was considering was more why even treasure split seems to be preferred over party pool methods, where money isn't necessarily considered to belong to one member or another.
That seems to be a different issue then. I'd figure that it's mostly just a matter of preference how you split things, especially as long as you end up with roughly similar results in the end. You could always just have a player go into theoretical debt to the treasure if the treasure has its contents weighted towards one member. As is, an even split is probably the simplest method out there, ensuring that no one is given an unfair quantity of stuff.

WarKitty

2014-07-01, 10:28 PM

That seems to be a different issue then. I'd figure that it's mostly just a matter of preference how you split things, especially as long as you end up with roughly similar results in the end. You could always just have a player go into theoretical debt to the treasure if the treasure has its contents weighted towards one member. As is, an even split is probably the simplest method out there, ensuring that no one is given an unfair quantity of stuff.

Yeah, I've just noticed even in groups ostensibly using a party-based philosopy and struggling with uneven power problems, splitting the treasure evenly seems to be the default assumption. In fact I've never even seen a group discuss how to handle treasure, unless it were the case that there was a large item that they didn't want to sell and couldn't be split. It's an easy and obvious aid, even if it doesn't fix the entire problem, yet it simply never seems to be even considered by most groups.

eggynack

2014-07-01, 10:36 PM

Telok

2014-07-01, 10:57 PM

Psyren

2014-07-01, 11:02 PM

eggynack

2014-07-01, 11:08 PM

Is anyone here actually suggesting that we look at the person sitting next to us at the game, the one who brought the soda and just chipped in a $20 for the night's pizza, and say:
"That ubercharger/horizon tripper isn't tier one or two. It isn't good enough. Tear up those pages of backstory you wrote and roll a psion or druid like the rest of us."

Are we really going to play that way?

I'm not.
The problem is the point where this starts being a thing in game. Significantly uneven treasure splits tend to make bringing along low tier characters along an illogical thing from an in-game perspective. I suppose that you could always just ignore the fact the fact that your character is doing completely ridiculous and out of character stuff, but I just don't see why you'd do that when you can just use a system that doesn't lead to that at all. I've also gotta figure that you'd tell the guy that you're playing a high tier game before character creation, instead of afterwards, if that's what you're doing.

Dimers

2014-07-01, 11:08 PM

Yeah, I've just noticed even in groups ostensibly using a party-based philosopy and struggling with uneven power problems, splitting the treasure evenly seems to be the default assumption. In fact I've never even seen a group discuss how to handle treasure, unless it were the case that there was a large item that they didn't want to sell and couldn't be split. It's an easy and obvious aid, even if it doesn't fix the entire problem, yet it simply never seems to be even considered by most groups.

Again I propose that it's heavily influenced by the economic system an individual player is born into or that which they learn as they grow up. Wish I could wave a magic wand and find a scientifically rigorous study on the differences in loot distribution systems between, say, British and American players of D&D -- Britain is more socialist and players raised there should be more likely to adopt an all-for-one / one-for-all loot system. Anecdote: my personal politics and my thoughts on economics are more socialist than most people I game with, and I tend to propose and support loot systems that shore up weak members. My fellow players shake their heads in disgust/confusion at how little sense that makes to them.

Regarding your middle sentence ... I've recently run with a 3.X group that used a ridiculously complex system to distribute loot evenly on a per-run basis except when one character wanted a big-ticket item and everyone else agreed to let them have it, in which case that was their "share" for the run and the remainder was split evenly among everyone else. I'm still in a 2e group that tightly follows the even-split rule, except it's "even" only for full members of the band (not NPC hirelings), and it's even after subtracting group expenses which are highly unlikely to benefit everyone evenly. That group also makes a big deal out of getting it precisely correct, literally tracking copper-piece values and determining sale value by multiple possible factors. Holy mother of Pelor, is there a lot of loot-related discussion in those groups, and it's not by a far cry "even" distribution in either case, though "even" is the guiding principle for both groups.

I mentally wandered off while both of those groups were doing their Internal Finances thing; I'd want to say "Give her the damn sword and let's do something! It's not like she won't use it in our favor, and I'm here to play Dungeons and Dragons, not Econ and Exact Change!"

Flickerdart

2014-07-01, 11:26 PM

Essentially, the wizard will have only the spells DM gives him as a treasure or quest reward or spend 1 week of in-game time per spell level to research each spell - and that time would be enough to advance 4-5 levels; only the metamagic feats are guaranteed.

It should play pretty similar to something like Wilder - your arsenal is limited, but you get lots of opportunities to enhance or modify the effect of each particular power.
That's all kinds of gross - by taking away a wizard's spell selection, you're essentially taking away his development as a player character. Might as well just ban wizards, then.

WarKitty

2014-07-02, 12:52 AM

That's all kinds of gross - by taking away a wizard's spell selection, you're essentially taking away his development as a player character. Might as well just ban wizards, then.

It can work if the DM and player are working together to make sure the wizard has the chance for enough spells of the sort they want, without necessarily giving them everything.

chaos_redefined

2014-07-02, 01:05 AM

WarKitty

2014-07-02, 01:10 AM

If him playing an ubercharger/horizon tripper results in him taking my GP because the party decides he needs it more than I do? Then I will push for the equal split like we all deserve, or I question why we adventure with someone who is literally making the rest of us weaker.

I'd question inherently why you're playing a team game where you "deserve" a certain amount of treasure or that someone else taking treasure actually makes you weaker unless you've already decided it's your treasure. After all, it's not like your character knows what WBL he should have - would you feel cheated in the same way if you just didn't get much treasure?

RegalKain

2014-07-02, 01:18 AM

Thing is Warkitty, if the fighter really is my 'best bud', I'm gonna tell him to go home. I don't want to have to speak at his funeral. I don't want to have to put down his undead corpse, re-kill him after he gets turned into a demon, or watch some lich steal his soul and friggin' eat it. Adventuring is hideously lethal, and most of the methods of dying therein go well beyond mere death and into horrible post-mortem desecration that is difficult for modern humans to comprehend.

I wanna put my incapable best friend through that? At levels 1-6 or so he was doing okay but after those fights with the (gargoyles/harpies/shadows/wraiths/lich/erinyes/hezrou) I've been getting worried about the guy. Maybe it's time he cashed in his chips, bought a ring of arming for his armor and weapons, and went home to open an inn and marry some nice girl or guy.

Now the question, is why, you being an amazing all-powerful wizard/druid/cleric is STILL adventuring when there are HOW MANY infinite money loops in the system? You know why you have that fighter along? IT's not cause he's your buddy, or your friend, or your third cousin four times removed on your father's side who walks with a limp, it's because the other casters, are actually smart you aren't. They are off in their pocket dimensions laughing at the misery of the mortals and the mundanes, no seriously why the hell are you adventuring if it's so lethal?

That's the problem when you apply "meta-game" or "logic" to D&D and adventuring parties, short of a LG Cleric, why would the majority of casters risk their life on a day to day basis for anything short of saving the world? They wouldn't, just like you wouldn't share loot with your fighter friend. Stop applying half-logic to the game, apply full logic or don't apply any.

Flickerdart

2014-07-02, 01:43 AM

It can work if the DM and player are working together to make sure the wizard has the chance for enough spells of the sort they want, without necessarily giving them everything.
Or the DM and each player can discuss their builds like mature adults and keep out any content that they agree is inappropriate. That way, you don't have to houserule anything, and nobody has to waste gold on their only class features.

no seriously why the hell are you adventuring if it's so lethal?

Gaming money tricks doesn't earn you XP. Adventuring is the surest way to power.

eggynack

2014-07-02, 01:46 AM

I'd question inherently why you're playing a team game where you "deserve" a certain amount of treasure or that someone else taking treasure actually makes you weaker unless you've already decided it's your treasure. After all, it's not like your character knows what WBL he should have - would you feel cheated in the same way if you just didn't get much treasure?
Probably not, or perhaps less. It's less about me getting less wealth, and more about things being divided in a fair and equitable manner. I mean, it's probably not the best idea to reduce WBL by a bunch, because it reduces balance, but it's probably valid in some games. It just feels somewhat awkward to give one character a bigger cut than another. There are probably equitable divisions other than a super-direct split, because treasure is complicated, but they probably wouldn't significantly alter a fighter's lot in life.

chaos_redefined

2014-07-02, 01:56 AM

I'd question inherently why you're playing a team game where you "deserve" a certain amount of treasure or that someone else taking treasure actually makes you weaker unless you've already decided it's your treasure. After all, it's not like your character knows what WBL he should have - would you feel cheated in the same way if you just didn't get much treasure?

From an in-game viewpoint? Because, by your own admission in the assumptions of this thread, I'm doing more work. Why does the guy doing more work get paid less? In fact, if doing less work gets me paid more, I'll just sit in this corner waiting for bigger paychecks. I'm willing to give him an equal share. But I could quite easily argue that he deserves to be paid less.

Think about your typical job. If all else is equal, who gets paid more? The guy who does more hours, or the guy who does less?

From an out-of-character perspective? Because the player had a choice to roll up either a mundane (taking more money from the rest of the party) or a caster (taking less money from the rest of the party), and chose that his enjoyment playing a mundane was worth more than our enjoyment from the extra cash. Choosing your own enjoyment over everyone else's is the definition of inconsideration.

WarKitty

2014-07-02, 02:11 AM

From an in-game viewpoint? Because, by your own admission in the assumptions of this thread, I'm doing more work. Why does the guy doing more work get paid less? In fact, if doing less work gets me paid more, I'll just sit in this corner waiting for bigger paychecks.

From an out-of-character perspective? Because the player had a choice to roll up either a mundane (taking more money from the rest of the party) or a caster (taking less money from the rest of the party), and chose that his enjoyment playing a mundane was worth more than our enjoyment from the extra cash. Choosing your own enjoyment over everyone else's is the definition of inconsideration.

Again, you're importing a lot of assumptions. One that you're seeing adventuring as "work" for which you should be "paid", which is only one model of how adventuring parties work. If the goal is, say, to keep your party going and away from a villain that's pursuing them, or putting as much power as possible against a common threat, other splits may make perfect sense, especially if you don't start with the idea that you're necessarily getting "shares" of mine and yours.

Also, honestly, not everyone begins play knowing all about the tier system, and even with it there are enough players who just plain old don't want to be limited to playing a full caster. Personally I'd be baffled if another player at the table was so selfish as to be insistent on their "share" being the most important thing around - honestly treasure is purely a utilitarian thing for me in the game.

eggynack

2014-07-02, 02:17 AM

Also, honestly, not everyone begins play knowing all about the tier system, and even with it there are enough players who just plain old don't want to be limited to playing a full caster. Personally I'd be baffled if another player at the table was so selfish as to be insistent on their "share" being the most important thing around - honestly treasure is purely a utilitarian thing for me in the game.
I'm kinda confused here. What, if any, is the treasure division system that you think should be considered? It seems like your current position is just, "not this one," and that's a bit useless without anything to put in its place.

WarKitty

2014-07-02, 02:22 AM

I'm kinda confused here. What, if any, is the treasure division system that you think should be considered? It seems like your current position is just, "not this one," and that's a bit useless without anything to put in its place.

Honestly it would seem a bit more natural to me to say "we have a party pool from which we buy the things we need." I was thinking about it especially in relation to some games we played, where people started never having heard of things like the tier system, generally the DM didn't want to mess with the system, only books we actually had were in play, and it was getting a bit annoying watching the melee not be able to do much - especially in one particular game where the new players came in gearless and yet everyone still insisted on splitting treasure evenly. I'd have been perfectly happy to give up much of my druid's gold so our adventuring buddies could have done better.

Doc_Maynot

2014-07-02, 02:25 AM

I'd again like to recommend the one our group uses, it appears to be a form of middle ground here.

eggynack

2014-07-02, 02:33 AM

Honestly it would seem a bit more natural to me to say "we have a party pool from which we buy the things we need." I was thinking about it especially in relation to some games we played, where people started never having heard of things like the tier system, generally the DM didn't want to mess with the system, only books we actually had were in play, and it was getting a bit annoying watching the melee not be able to do much - especially in one particular game where the new players came in gearless and yet everyone still insisted on splitting treasure evenly. I'd have been perfectly happy to give up much of my druid's gold so our adventuring buddies could have done better.
That system seems like it would be really conflict causing. Everyone always needs stuff, and unless you're breaking WBL over your knee, there's rarely enough money for all of it. Really, on a gearless fellow, you should just have them not come in gearless. Figure out how much cash each person has, and tell them that they can have that much stuff, which they earned on past adventures. It seems more like an issue with that part of your treasure division system than with the core splitting based system.

As for your assertions about making melee guys not-useless, you may not call that the tier system, but that's what it is. If you are planning on the party pool being divided on a tier-need based system, then we obviously come back to chaos-redefined's point. You're giving melee guys more money, because they're worse, and that creates the problems he cited. The issue here, I think, is that you keep pushing this as a way to somehow make characters less useless, and at that point you really are talking about something like giving one character a greater share of wealth than someone else. And that's a plan that causes problems, for all of the reasons I've stated above.

WarKitty

2014-07-02, 02:39 AM

That system seems like it would be really conflict causing. Everyone always needs stuff, and unless you're breaking WBL over your knee, there's rarely enough money for all of it. Really, on a gearless fellow, you should just have them not come in gearless. Figure out how much cash each person has, and tell them that they can have that much stuff, which they earned on past adventures. It seems more like an issue with that part of your treasure division system than with the core splitting based system.

As for your assertions about making melee guys not-useless, you may not call that the tier system, but that's what it is. If you are planning on the party pool being divided on a tier-need based system, then we obviously come back to chaos-redefined's point. You're giving melee guys more money, because they're worse, and that creates the problems he cited. The issue here, I think, is that you keep pushing this as a way to somehow make characters less useless, and at that point you really are talking about something like giving one character a greater share of wealth than someone else. And that's a plan that causes problems, for all of the reasons I've stated above.

I'm not saying it wasn't a tier system, I'm saying we were playing games where no one hung out online and read a million threads on the tier system. It's a foresight issue - in that case I figured out how to do battlefield control with my druid and that it was really really fun while the other guy was playing I hit it with my ax barbarian, and suddenly we had a problem, our DM didn't want to mess with the system and no one wanted to reroll their characters. The setting wasn't such that we could exactly drop a party member off at the nearest tavern and pick up a new one either. What should we have done?

Edit: I've never been proposing this as a thing that you should go in planning to do. That would be stupid. What I am wondering is why most parties seem to hang on to the even distribution method as though the whole game depended on it, no matter what happens.

SiuiS

2014-07-02, 02:50 AM

You've been adventuring with this fighter since level 1, when you had a spellbook and pouch and he had a sword and breastplate. It's now level 12 - if your character hasn't noticed anything he's not smart enough to be a wizard. And plenty of people notice imbalances who aren't playing super high op who don't own/use every single book, or just aren't comfortable messing with major fixed. There's also a HUGE gap between "not as good" and "useless." Your fighter friend may not be as good as the druid but he's often still nice to have along, and wouldn't it be nicer if he could fly? After all he's still saved your skin a time or two, even if he's not deciding encounters as often as you are.

People also forget that these legacies come from different times. The wizard spent his first four levels being the loser who couldn't pull his weight and he ate up all the money, dropping it into research and smelly ungents and seemingly useless bits of knobs and bobbits to grind up and write with. It cost money to put spells into books, you see, every time, even the spells you learned from leveling. Hundreds gone hoping that maybe this sickly dweeb with seven hit points and a bathrobe might pick up something useful for down the road.

Meanwhile you're rocking around with most of the useful magic items, seeing as all weapons and armor are usable by fighters, and you're also a rock star loved by everyone because you're a Greek celebrity hero with mystical tools wrought by gods dwarves and other fell beasts to contain te potent energies dwee by mcstinkpouch is currently learning to channel into "summon meringue".

It's also business. I mean, contributions aside, this guy signed up for covering a proportion of the work. If you're going to be dumb and shoulder everyone else's burden, they still get a paycheck.

eggynack

2014-07-02, 02:50 AM

I'm not saying it wasn't a tier system, I'm saying we were playing games where no one hung out online and read a million threads on the tier system. It's a foresight issue - in that case I figured out how to do battlefield control with my druid and that it was really really fun while the other guy was playing I hit it with my ax barbarian, and suddenly we had a problem, our DM didn't want to mess with the system and no one wanted to reroll their characters. The setting wasn't such that we could exactly drop a party member off at the nearest tavern and pick up a new one either. What should we have done?
I probably would have just updated the barbarian to be less craptacular, while keeping the basics of the character similar enough that he can still have all of the same basic character traits. The simplest way would be to keep him as a barbarian, but ramp up his feat selection and ACF usage, turning him into a good old fashioned chargebarian, and likely the best damage dealer in the party, while possibly adding in some secondary ability at something like intimidation and/or tripping. Lots of ways you could go with that. The more complicated method would be to swap classes around, maybe making the guy into a warblade, maybe picking up a good PrC, or maybe turning the character into the traditional bundle of dips. It really depends on the character, I think. It's probably more complicated than just giving him some gold, but it also goes deeper into solving the base problem, because you need a whole hell of a lot of gold to graft usefulness onto a character.

WarKitty

2014-07-02, 02:55 AM

I probably would have just updated the barbarian to be less craptacular, while keeping the basics of the character similar enough that he can still have all of the same basic character traits. The simplest way would be to keep him as a barbarian, but ramp up his feat selection and ACF usage, turning him into a good old fashioned chargebarian, and likely the best damage dealer in the party, while possibly adding in some secondary ability at something like intimidation and/or tripping. Lots of ways you could go with that. The more complicated method would be to swap classes around, maybe making the guy into a warblade, maybe picking up a good PrC, or maybe turning the character into the traditional bundle of dips. It really depends on the character, I think. It's probably more complicated than just giving him some gold, but it also goes deeper into solving the base problem, because you need a whole hell of a lot of gold to graft usefulness onto a character.

We also actually bought all our books, which has some implications here as well...so no warblade and not many PrC's on the table.

Flickerdart

2014-07-02, 02:58 AM

If the goal is, say, to keep your party going and away from a villain that's pursuing them
>implying that the party somehow formed in the first place

WarKitty

2014-07-02, 03:07 AM

>implying that the party somehow formed in the first place

There's lots of methods for that. Maybe they got together because they were all witnesses to the same crime and now have to run. Maybe they were just the only ones who volunteered for the local quest. Lots of parties start out as a group of people thrown together by circumstance. Your starting pool of level 1 adventurers is likely limited to the local town in any case, so you may have just taken whoever was there.

Flickerdart

2014-07-02, 03:26 AM

There's lots of methods for that. Maybe they got together because they were all witnesses to the same crime and now have to run. Maybe they were just the only ones who volunteered for the local quest. Lots of parties start out as a group of people thrown together by circumstance. Your starting pool of level 1 adventurers is likely limited to the local town in any case, so you may have just taken whoever was there.
Sure, but once the immediate crisis is over, you have no reason not to part ways. Are the PCs doing nothing but fleeing without pause from level 1 to the teens?

eggynack

2014-07-02, 03:28 AM

We also actually bought all our books, which has some implications here as well...so no warblade and not many PrC's on the table.
You can still go some distance with easily accessible resources. Wolf totem (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#wolfTotemClassFeatures ) and whirling frenzy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#rageVariantWhirlingFrenzy ) are both in the SRD, as are a number of other feats, and a high leveled barbarian can always make use of the relatively superfluous late barbarian levels to pick up streetfighter (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a). The best way to improve such a character is dependent on a number of factors, like what the actual book access looks like, what the character is doing now, and how far you're willing to go, but there are ways out there. You could even put it together as some variety of horizon tripper (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?80415-The-Horizon-Tripper-(Core-Melee-Build)), if you're super limited. You could probably have upped this character's power level some with the resources you had access to, and without odd treasure splits, is what I'm saying, and that's probably what I would of done had I been given the rhetorical keys to that game.

Kaeso

2014-07-02, 03:31 AM

Because even treasure splits is the most intuitive. The game, at heart, was intended to have a group of people with complementary talents working together, becoming more than just the sum of their parts and overcoming a great evil (or great good, if you're into that. Or great riches, if you're just murderhobo's). Even work implies even pay, even among those like thieves and murderers (as St. Augustine pointed out, IIRC). It's what almost everyone would do if put in such a position.

Now, with tier 1 characters being far more effective than tier 5 characters, a conflict arises because the fighter is useless and the cleric can singlehandedly solve most problems (especially when investing in wands for spells like find trap and divine inspiration). This problem can be solved in two ways: either the cleric rightfully concludes that he's doing all the work so he should get the most or all of the treasure, or a "gentlemans agreement" arises in which the cleric selflessly gives up his part of the treasure to allow the fighter to become much more effective. Given the right feats, spells and scrolls (+ the magic domain), he can even offer to give up part of his treasure AND exp to personally craft awesome gear for the fighter.

It all depends on how strong the friendship between the characters is, and how much the players are willing to play nice. Of course, just playing characters of roughly the same tier means even splits become much more viable.

eggynack

2014-07-02, 03:38 AM

This problem can be solved in two ways: either the cleric rightfully concludes that he's doing all the work so he should get the most or all of the treasure, or a "gentlemans agreement" arises in which the cleric selflessly gives up his part of the treasure to allow the fighter to become much more effective.
Or you could go the third route and just keep the cash equal. Having the most powerful party member take all the cash just seems kinda mean. As for the cleric going the altruistic route, and handing over his hard earned GP, it seems better to just offer more intangible services, and toss out some buffs on occasion. Many of the better cleric buffs are personal (which is silly, and it might actually be worth changing), but there're some pretty team friendly things they can pull off. Druids have a harder time of pursuing altruism with the things they do, and wizards might actually be better than clerics at it, because I think their buffs are more often capable of being targeted elsewhere (haste and polymorph are two big ones), and because their best tactics can be pretty subtle.

WarKitty

2014-07-02, 03:48 AM

Sure, but once the immediate crisis is over, you have no reason not to part ways. Are the PCs doing nothing but fleeing without pause from level 1 to the teens?

Maybe they are. Maybe once they solve one crisis, they move on to another. Problems don't pop up right away. Maybe the first few levels you're playing a game where you don't get the rest whenever and the wizard ends up being the one using up party resources to function. Maybe you're on a long plotline that requires you, the heroes, rather than just finding some random schmuck.

Kaeso

2014-07-02, 03:53 AM

Maybe they are. Maybe once they solve one crisis, they move on to another. Problems don't pop up right away. Maybe the first few levels you're playing a game where you don't get the rest whenever and the wizard ends up being the one using up party resources to function. Maybe you're on a long plotline that requires you, the heroes, rather than just finding some random schmuck.

I agree, but I think you forgot the obvious reasoning. What if the PCs just become friends? What if they continue hanging out because they enjoy hanging out, even if it doesn't involve slaying monsters? They could just sometimes get together for a beer or to play chess or go on a hunt. That's a pretty solid reason for them to not split up.

chaos_redefined

2014-07-02, 04:15 AM

WarKitty

2014-07-02, 04:30 AM

I'm starting to get confused. The thread began by you saying that mundanes should get more wealth because they are weaker, and the wealth will help close the gap. Now, you're saying that the wizards are the ones draining the party funds. It's almost like you've done a full 180 or something.

So, to get your position in words, in a typical 4-person party, with a fighter, a rogue, a cleric, and a wizard, what do you suggest should happen with the wealth, and why?

The thread is primarily talking about mid to high levels (where casters outstrip melee) and I put in a few words about lower levels (where melee tends to dominate more due to not running out of spells) to point out that it's not so obvious casters>melee that a party wouldn't form.

In any case, I think the party treasure should be decided by who needs help right now, rather than having a set split. In many games this will mean that the lower-tier classes will end up with more treasure than their higher-tier friends.

HighWater

2014-07-02, 04:34 AM

So the Christmas tree effect got me thinking...part of the problem with 3.5 is that mundane classes rely much more heavily on having the right gear than magic classes. Yet it seems to be an almost unwritten assumption that treasure should be split evenly through the party, despite the fact that the effect on each of them seems to be often disproportionate. Why?
I think we can start answering this question:

- It is not an unwritten assumption at all, it is found in the Players Handbook that discovered loot should be split evenly. The PHB even discusses how to deal with valuable items to ensure an even split. This "unwritten assumption" is written into the very core of the game, so it's not much of a surprise that most groups consider it the default, or even the only way of doing things.

- Lots of people deem it "unfair" to split the threasure using an uneven distribution. They find it even more unfair when this system is based on the inversion of "usefulness": the less useful you are, the more you gain rubs a lot of people the wrong way. This will be justified with either ingame "realism" or blunt out of character "why did you pick such a sucky class?" complaints, but it's the perceived metagame unfairness that is the real motivator. Of course, the unfairness inherent in Tier Ability in this case is either ignored or used as an argument to get rid of the less-awesome tiers.

- The best suggestions so far for using wealth to offset inherent character inbalance, consciously or subconsciously, evade the explicit admittance that some characters need more money than others to be sufficiently powerful. The favored method seems to be not splitting the loot at all, and instead using a party fund that pays for all expenses. Weaker characters draw more money from the fund, because they need to fix more, but it is far less obvious and explicit than saying "here's more money cause you're a crappy fighter". A variation on this theme features some pay out of party wealth evenly, and some funds retained for "group expenses" that go to the weak spots in the party (and therefore often the weakest characters).

This last method and it's variation actually has some significant popularity, it's difficult to judge just how many groups play with the "split everything evenly"-system and how many have more fluid ways of resource management. Also, GitP may not be a reliable crosssection as to how "most groups" handle it.

eggynack

2014-07-02, 04:47 AM

In any case, I think the party treasure should be decided by who needs help right now, rather than having a set split. In many games this will mean that the lower-tier classes will end up with more treasure than their higher-tier friends.
So, we're basically back at square one then. In your version of treasure splitting, the weaker characters will generally get a higher percentage of the treasure. Maybe it won't be something as clear cut as a 60/40 split, but it will implicitly be something like that, and presumably won't be something as low impact as tossing a few hundred GP the fighter's way when there's extra. Thus, I can return to my original position. Paying more for lower quality work makes very little sense.

WarKitty

2014-07-02, 05:15 AM

So, we're basically back at square one then. In your version of treasure splitting, the weaker characters will generally get a higher percentage of the treasure. Maybe it won't be something as clear cut as a 60/40 split, but it will implicitly be something like that, and presumably won't be something as low impact as tossing a few hundred GP the fighter's way when there's extra. Thus, I can return to my original position. Paying more for lower quality work makes very little sense.

And I return to my original counter that this argument only makes sense under an extremely limited set of assumptions which I have repeatedly challenged in this thread.

chaos_redefined

2014-07-02, 05:19 AM

The thread is primarily talking about mid to high levels (where casters outstrip melee) and I put in a few words about lower levels (where melee tends to dominate more due to not running out of spells) to point out that it's not so obvious casters>melee that a party wouldn't form.

In any case, I think the party treasure should be decided by who needs help right now, rather than having a set split. In many games this will mean that the lower-tier classes will end up with more treasure than their higher-tier friends.

Then yeah. I stand by my previous point. When determining how much two people should get, we usually give more to the person who has done more to earn it. So, yeah. If I'm playing a wizard or psion or cleric or druid or whatever, it's reasonable to want my cut. I'm cool with compromising and letting everyone have equal part. But if the mundane dude wants notably more because he is useless without, then that's on him. (As eggynack has said a few times, no problem with tossing him small amounts of money when it's the difference between a belt of strength+4 and a belt of strength+6, but only if I wasn't looking at spending it anyway).

Furthermore, if you have the choice between playing a weaker character and a stronger one, and you choose the weaker one because it's more fun, then you are telling the rest of the party that your fun is more important than the fun they could have gotten out of the extra wealth that you are instead taking (assuming your system is in effect).

WarKitty

2014-07-02, 05:23 AM

Then yeah. I stand by my previous point. When determining how much two people should get, we usually give more to the person who has done more to earn it. So, yeah. If I'm playing a wizard or psion or cleric or druid or whatever, it's reasonable to want my cut. I'm cool with compromising and letting everyone have equal part. But if the mundane dude wants notably more because he is useless without, then that's on him. (As eggynack has said a few times, no problem with tossing him small amounts of money when it's the difference between a belt of strength+4 and a belt of strength+6, but only if I wasn't looking at spending it anyway).

Furthermore, if you have the choice between playing a weaker character and a stronger one, and you choose the weaker one because it's more fun, then you are telling the rest of the party that your fun is more important than the fun they could have gotten out of the extra wealth that you are instead taking (assuming your system is in effect).

That last line works equally well the other way - if you tell me I can't play a weaker character, you're telling me the fun you get of having a bit of extra gold is more important than my fun if I don't happen to enjoy playing a top-tier character all the time. Frankly if you just want to get treasure you should be playing a video game rather than a cooperative RPG.

eggynack

2014-07-02, 05:30 AM

And I return to my original counter that this argument only makes sense under an extremely limited set of assumptions which I have repeatedly challenged in this thread.
But, y'know, it really doesn't. As I've mentioned, the degree to which you're rewarding crappiness is inversely related to the degree to which you're giving money to folks that don't need it. Far from only making sense within a limited set of assumptions, my argument works logically within pretty much any set of assumptions that exists. Besides, even handing over a small amount of extra money to a character that's not significantly crappier than he could be is illogical from an in game perspective, because you're hiring a character that's both worse at his job, and more expensive. Really, the situations under which your system makes sense are the ones with an extremely limited set of assumptions. You pretty much absolutely need to have a prior relationship with the character, that either predates the game, or that predates your knowledge of the character's crappiness.

Edit:
That last line works equally well the other way - if you tell me I can't play a weaker character, you're telling me the fun you get of having a bit of extra gold is more important than my fun if I don't happen to enjoy playing a top-tier character all the time. Frankly if you just want to get treasure you should be playing a video game rather than a cooperative RPG.
No, it really doesn't work equally well the other way. If you really want to play a weaker character, then go right ahead, but don't expect to be compensated for your weakness from the party's wealth. You're basically asking the party to subsidize your desire to be mediocre, which is much worse than just wanting to give everyone their fair share of gold.

WarKitty

2014-07-02, 05:35 AM

But, y'know, it really doesn't. As I've mentioned, the degree to which you're rewarding crappiness is inversely related to the degree to which you're giving money to folks that don't need it. Far from only making sense within a limited set of assumptions, my argument works logically within pretty much any set of assumptions that exists. Besides, even handing over a small amount of extra money to a character that's not significantly crappier than he could be is illogical from an in game perspective, because you're hiring a character that's both worse at his job, and more expensive. Really, the situations under which your system makes sense are the ones with an extremely limited set of assumptions. You pretty much absolutely need to have a prior relationship with the character, that either predates the game, or that predates your knowledge of the character's crappiness.

I still think this only works if either the character is so bad as to be more hurt than help, or other adventurers are commonly available to join up. I find the latter one almost never to be true in D&D games. Also the whole "hiring" and "pay" mentality I think is a very narrow way of viewing adventuring - if you're out there for pay you could be doing a million other things that would probably make you more money for less risk, at least if you're tier 3 or above.

Edit:

No, it really doesn't work equally well the other way. If you really want to play a weaker character, then go right ahead, but don't expect to be compensated for your weakness from the party's wealth. You're basically asking the party to subsidize your desire to be mediocre, which is much worse than just wanting to give everyone their fair share of gold.

But it's clearly totally ok for me to suffer for your insistence on playing a top-tier character, just because I don't happen to find that fun? Again, this is a single-player video game mentality, not something at all suitable for a team game.

Phelix-Mu

2014-07-02, 05:38 AM

Congratulations on making the topic du jour, WarKitty!

My take on it is give the less effective guy more money. If I am playing high tier in a game with less powerful builds, I need a nerf to keep the challenge level up. And a pretty easy nerf to implement (if a totally inefficient one), is to hand more of the loot to the melees and mundanes. In fact, a fair bit of this goes on in games that I run, where high-level stuff that is good for melees is much more valuable than the stuff that casters tend to be interested in (and that stuff is much less common loot).

Simple fact is, as a high-tier caster, I am my own cash-point. Every day, I wake up, admire the beauty of nature, and my bank account goes from nearly empty to Bruce Wayne status (well, maybe not at low levels, but you get the idea). Reality-breaking is where my concerns are, and whereas I can start saving up chicken scratch for my off-plane contingency/pimp flat, I probably would be better served by making sure that the party is more functional rather than less in intense combat. And that probably involves helping out mundanes a bit. I don't have a problem with it.

The other side of the coin, however, is that this may affect player sensibility out-of-game. Money and risk-reward stuff is deeply ingrained in our psychology; FrozenFeet said this quite well back on page 1. Even-Steven is the default mode that most of us learn as kids, when we aren't busy metagaming our irl abilities by creating complicated share schemes, or by subsidizing the slow kid in the group. Shared risk equals shared reward.

The problem with that, though, is that Conjurer 1 and Fighter 1 already aren't sharing the risk equally, since the actual, mechanically-based risk of each dying is radically different. And only gets worse as levels progress.

tl/dr: I think this is a fine idea, and certainly one that is in the players hands to control (as opposed to needing a DM to sign on to most other fixes). On the other hand, it deals with real-life sensibilities that often translate awkwardly into the game (Like why would wizards be capitalist? Magic pretty much guts every single free market principle out there.)

WarKitty

2014-07-02, 05:47 AM

tl/dr: I think this is a fine idea, and certainly one that is in the players hands to control (as opposed to needing a DM to sign on to most other fixes). On the other hand, it deals with real-life sensibilities that often translate awkwardly into the game (Like why would wizards be capitalist? Magic pretty much guts every single free market principle out there.)

I think this is what I've been trying to say. I feel like most of the arguments for an even split hinge on a certain, somewhat modernistic, very mercenary way of doing things. I think just about every D&D group has a reason why they stick together and don't just go out hunting for more powerful companions. And I feel like even without super high optimization most mid to high level characters have lots of non-adventuring options to get lots of money all to themselves if they want it. It imposes a certain specific mentality on characters that seems to be practiced even when it doesn't fit well with either the characters or the setting.

P.S. We're only at 4 pages, that's nothing.

eggynack

2014-07-02, 05:48 AM

I still think this only works if either the character is so bad as to be more hurt than help, or other adventurers are commonly available to join up. I find the latter one almost never to be true in D&D games. Also the whole "hiring" and "pay" mentality I think is a very narrow way of viewing adventuring - if you're out there for pay you could be doing a million other things that would probably make you more money for less risk, at least if you're tier 3 or above.
It works no matter what, whether you think of it as pay or not. A wizard, with all of his wealth, has a certain level of power. By hiring on a less powerful character, he is decreasing the party's possible power relative to that of a theoretical party with a more powerful character, and then paying that character more, because he sucks. It's just somewhat silly. A fighter might actually be worse than a blank spot in the party in this circumstance, because he eats the power of other characters without contributing all that much.

But it's clearly totally ok for me to suffer for your insistence on playing a top-tier character, just because I don't happen to find that fun? Again, this is a single-player video game mentality, not something at all suitable for a team game.
You should probably just ask the other players what general tier range they want to play, and try to fit into that approximate range. As is, this only really became a problem when you took an essentially out of game issue, like balance, and made it an in game issue, like how much money to give each character. If you'd just go with my suggestion of making fighter equipment less expensive, and perhaps making caster equipment more expensive (the exact method may vary somewhat), then all of these issues would be solved trivially.

WarKitty

2014-07-02, 05:57 AM

eggynack

2014-07-02, 06:00 AM

Could people PLEASE stop picking apart the example? I have stated repeatedly that we're talking about a case where the fighter is still contributing on an even split most of the time, just not as much as the wizard. If you don't like that example, pick another set of two classes where X contributes but not as much as Y and use them instead. But I can't build an argument when people keep going after a situation that is explicitly not what I stated as though it defeats my point.
If the fighter is contributing evenly, then why does he need extra treasure? If he's not contributing evenly, then why does he deserve extra treasure? As I've stated, it's an argument that holds up at pretty much all points along the effectiveness curve.

WarKitty

2014-07-02, 06:01 AM

If the fighter is contributing evenly, then why does he need extra treasure? If he's not contributing evenly, then why does he deserve extra treasure? As I've stated, it's an argument that holds up at pretty much all points along the effectiveness curve.

I explicitly said he's not contributing evenly. And I think the whole logic of "deserve" shouldn't even come up here.

eggynack

2014-07-02, 06:04 AM

I explicitly said he's not contributing evenly. And I think the whole logic of "deserve" shouldn't even come up here.
You can think that, but I don't see why you would. I'm giving up power because I decided to carry along a party member with low power. You're basically being hit twice by the hammer of suckitude, and on a quest to save the world, that's not a hammer you want to be hit with even once.

WarKitty

2014-07-02, 06:16 AM

You can think that, but I don't see why you would. I'm giving up power because I decided to carry along a party member with low power. You're basically being hit twice by the hammer of suckitude, and on a quest to save the world, that's not a hammer you want to be hit with even once.

This is what I just don't see. Iff the power level of the other party member is high enough that having him along is better than not having him along, then it's generally better to be able to form your group so that everyone can contribute reliably and well.

There are of course also metagame reasons - messing with treasure is, as has been mentioned, a quick and dirty fix that doesn't require involving the GM or making any permanent changes. This sort of metagaming is often desirable for various reasons, and I have found not having to make the GM crunch more numbers can frequently be a desirable factor. After all plenty of us balance as GM's by dropping tailored loot to make sure the fighter gets his flying and whatnot, even if it's not the ideal way of doing things.

*Bonus points for anyone recognizing what "iff" means.

hewhosaysfish

2014-07-02, 06:28 AM

But it's clearly totally ok for me to suffer for your insistence on playing a top-tier character, just because I don't happen to find that fun? Again, this is a single-player video game mentality, not something at all suitable for a team game.

"Suffer"?
So if a party of 4 fighters find 100000gp and split if evenly four ways, getting 25000gp each is that hunky dory?
But if it's a party of 3 fighters and a wizard then receiving the same 25000gp is now "suffering" for these poor fighters. They need an extra 5000 each to compensate them for... something?

eggynack

2014-07-02, 06:30 AM

This is what I just don't see. Iff the power level of the other party member is high enough that having him along is better than not having him along, then it's generally better to be able to form your group so that everyone can contribute reliably and well.
It really depends on a lot of factors, like whether you're metagaming such that it's assumed that the party member will make their be an extra share of treasure by merit of his existence, just how much money you need before you can assume that the character is performing reliably and well, and the extent to which said money would be better spent in the hands of the fighter rather than in the hands of the wizard. Really, at some point, you might be better off just giving the fighter a tiny share of the treasure, and getting him the rest of the way with buffs. Not the best feeling plan from an out of game perspective, but maybe a better plan in game.

*Bonus points for anyone recognizing what "iff" means.
It doesn't really fit in this circumstance, as one of the logical claims implied is, "If it's generally better to be able to form your group so that everyone can contribute reliably and well, then the power level of the other party member is high enough," which doesn't quite follow, as it being better for everyone to contribute is rather universally true.

WarKitty

2014-07-02, 06:31 AM

"Suffer"?
So if a party of 4 fighters find 100000gp and split if evenly four ways, getting 25000gp each is that hunky dory?
But if it's a party of 3 fighters and a wizard then receiving the same 25000gp is now "suffering" for these poor fighters. They need an extra 5000 each to compensate them for... something?

This is about power differential, not absolutes. I'm suffering if the wizard is routinely ending encounters in ways that make me feel like a sideshow to the wizard.

eggynack

2014-07-02, 06:36 AM

This is about power differential, not absolutes. I'm suffering if the wizard is routinely ending encounters in ways that make me feel like a sideshow to the wizard.
That's really not going to stop happening because of a minor gold transfer. Tiers are as they are, after all, and it would take a change to the most fundamental aspects of the game to make that stop.

Elkad

2014-07-02, 07:07 AM

The bottom line is I never thought about it during a game. Here on an optimization board, sure. I've also never played a real game (vs one-shots) that had a magic mart or easy item creation. Or added up the value of the loot on a real character either, much less compared it with the guy sitting next to me.

Our loot distribution system in every game I've played looks something like this.

Kill dragon. Portable hole everything back to town en-masse.

Pile up all the magic stuff. Rogue empties a bunch of extra stuff out of his pack nobody knows where came from. As a matter of fact, where did that bag of holding he dumped it out of come from?
"Magic" may include things that don't quite meet the definition, depending on character level/wealth. Masterwork weapons, spellbooks, hippogriff eggs, blaster rifles, etc.

Everyone rolls a d20 (unmodified initiative die)

Schoolyard pick through the stuff a time or 3, with the expectation that you will actually use the items you choose.

If you snag the +3 Ring of Protection, it's typical to throw your old +2 one back in the pot, but you might keep it for your familiar instead. I'm not going to just give it to the Monk, but if he wants to pick my old ring instead of the new magic boots that is fine.

When it's down to stuff that nobody would want at more than the half-price sale value, it gets counted as gold. Whether you take 10,000gp or 5,000gp and 5 +1 shortswords worth the other 5k is up to you. Somebody always has a use for them. Stocking their museum or something. The wizard takes cash, because cash=more spells in his book.

It caused conflict between characters occasionally, but not often, and quickly resolved.

This run the fighter got an upgrade for his sword, bow, shield, and armor. The wizard got a lame wand with a handful of charges, a potion of gaseous form and some gold.

Next run we get some wondrous tidbits with low value. And a spellbook with a mountain of spells in it, many of which the wizard doesn't have in his book.

Svata

2014-07-02, 07:31 AM

The only argument any of my groups have had about treasure was in my first group. And it was more of a discussion. We had to determine if we split the treasure (which was the first really decent sum we had gotten, was from a YA Red dragon) after we set aside a chunk for raising the guy who died in the fight or if we just made it his share. We decided to take 4k from the full pool before dividing it up, and the final 1k from his share.

Frozen_Feet

2014-07-02, 09:01 AM

Just to chime in because it's relevant to the topic:

There's a very indie Finnish supplement to D&D and it's retroclones, called "Lohikäärmeliitto". The English version is being worked on, and is called "The Dragon Union". I'll be speaking more of it when the translation is complete.

One core aspect of the whole supplement, however, is to make metagame status into explicit in-game fact. Ergo, because the Fighter is supposed to be the ultimate badass and unquestioned leader of the party, he is the ultimate badass and unquestioned leader of the party, with special rules priviliges given to him. The main privilege is deciding the exact share of experience points and treasure given to every party member.

By contrast, the magician is by the rules enforced to assume a slightly apathetic attitude towards material wealth, because knowledge is the real power.

Barstro

2014-07-02, 09:16 AM

This is about power differential, not absolutes. I'm suffering if the wizard is routinely ending encounters in ways that make me feel like a sideshow to the wizard.

Maybe I just play differently, but I always like being the buffer/debuffer. Let the fighter take all the gold to get a +5 sword or give my caster the gold to get items/spells that allow the fighter to use his +3 as a +5. I'll keep an insurance policy spell ready in case things start to go badly, but I'll rather use that only if Meaty McSwordbash cannot do the job on his own. Either way, I personally try to make the gold go to where the party will have more fun. "Caster novas a group of 30 in one round; fight over" is not fun to me, unless there is an in-character reason for the caster to belittle the mundanes; then it's hilarious.

Dimers

2014-07-02, 09:17 AM

The Fighter is ... the ultimate badass and unquestioned leader of the party, with special rules priviliges given to him. The main privilege is deciding the exact share of experience points and treasure given to every party member. By contrast, the magician is by the rules enforced to assume a slightly apathetic attitude towards material wealth, because knowledge is the real power.

Whoah. That's a head trip. I like it. How does the variation actually enforce that attitude? Or do I need to wait for the translation to get finished?

"Finnished", ha ha. =)

Frozen_Feet

2014-07-02, 10:47 AM

In that supplement, the GM is literally the LORD. Not in the vague, rule-zeroesque "GM can do anything". It's explicitly stated on the very first page that this is how it is, and you either accept it or cry and accept it. The LORD giveth, the LORD taketh, and if the player characters do not obey the constraints set by their roles, the LORD has the right to cast them to the fires of Hell.

In a less high-flying manner, who gets to be the Fighter is selected by a vote. So complaining about the share of treasure you're given is complaining about the choices of the leader you chose. (Usually, at least.) Plus, as noted, the Fighter has the mechanical benefit of deciding how loot and experience are shared. If you don't like the Fighter, the Fighter doesn't have to like you, which means no loot and XP. The argument "Wizard above level X doesn't need Fighter for anything" becomes a bit different when the Wizard will never get to that level without a benevolent Fighter.

Slayn82

2014-07-02, 10:49 AM

Even treasure splits work well most times, and are encouraged by the Core Books. Sometimes for greater efficiency, its good to allow a party member to get some items that would otherwise be sold, in order to be overall more effective. Part of the trouble in party dinamics is that 3rd edition, in order to make things more simple, did away with a few critical design concepts that balanced the power overall, and by flatlining everything, made Casters a lot more powerfull than non Casters. For instance:

1) all the classes have the same experience table - multiclassing became easier, but more mundane classes that used to have faster leveling felt more bland - overall, not a bad change;

2) Spell Resistance role in game balance was signicantly weakened, with Caster Level affecting it's effectiveness - so, a lot of monsters designed to come at large numbers, and that would be Melee Fodder due to the improved hit points afforded by Constitution score, became irrelevant, specially with the development of the concept of Save or Die/Suchk spells in supplements that even ignored spell resistance.

3) The lack of game design Focus on the mundane characters and their actions. While Casters became able to create many magic items, or get powerfull minions with Charm Monster, Planar Ally, Animal Companion, Awaken, etc, or engage in spell research, more mundane Characters like Fighters and Rogues just eat and sleep. So, Casters easily can overpower the Wealth By Level restrictions - as XP is pretty cheap. The Followers that those classes used to have in 2nd Edition, became instead substituted by the Leadership feat, that is frankly far more effective in 3rd edition with most Casters, since they can develop buffing strategies.

So, if you are a Fighter, while the Wizard is spending a month creating a magic item, you should be able to do something to create value other than just sit on your thumbs. I often allow Fighters and other more mundane characters to spend their time training local Warriors into Fighters, or peasants into rogues, make exercises to increase their HP up to maximum allowed by hit dice to compensate bad rolls, hunt local threats to get resources, domesticate beasts, retrain their feats and skills, or spend money to get up to date in skills to get a circunstance bonus in a given skill for a period of time, establish comercial treaties, etc. Things that expand their personal power and the power of influence of the party.

Vogonjeltz

2014-07-02, 04:46 PM

I favor a fair-handed first-come first-serve treasure splitting policy. If you loot it, and can carry it, it's yours. Of course, the Wizards with low str suffer for this, but that's really their fault for not optimizing their str in character creation. Druids too. In humanoid form they're too weak to heft any loot, as Bears they don't have pockets. Lose-lose really, their own fault for not optimizing hands.

So my first move is always to begin looting the bad guys, sometimes before they even stop breathing. Remember, it's not party loot if the rest of the party didn't see it first.

evilserran

2014-07-02, 04:53 PM

And then the party stumbles into an anti magic field, after ditching their fighter at home for under performance. A week later the fighter puts up a "missing" poster for the party. ~fin

ryu

2014-07-02, 05:13 PM

And then the party stumbles into an anti magic field, after ditching their fighter at home for under performance. A week later the fighter puts up a "missing" poster for the party. ~fin

Clearly you're not familiar with how comically simple it is to render anti-magic fields useless. Also not aware of the fact they hurt fighters significantly worse than casters, but that's another issue.

Dimers

2014-07-02, 09:13 PM

In that supplement, the GM is literally the LORD. Not in the vague, rule-zeroesque "GM can do anything". It's explicitly stated on the very first page that this is how it is, and you either accept it or cry and accept it. The LORD giveth, the LORD taketh, and if the player characters do not obey the constraints set by their roles, the LORD has the right to cast them to the fires of Hell.

I meant, what's the mechanic by which the wizard is shown to be mildly apathetic toward material wealth? Is it, like, "play that way or GTFO" ... "The wizard is required to reject 20% of what is offered" ... "The wizard gets whichever the Goods Grouping the other players did not choose" ... ?

Frozen_Feet

2014-07-03, 08:13 AM

In addition to what was said before, I think there was a rule saying the magician has to spend a portion of money to build a Wizard's tower and the associated magic library, and an old D&D-esque rule for a Wizard to not be able to use most weapons and armor. I'll have to reread the supplement to check this.

Segev

2014-07-03, 12:12 PM

Most groups with whom I've gamed have done the "N+1 shares" thing, where N is the number of PCs in the party and the extra share was for a party fund. The party fund was used for such things as buying healing items (even if they were items used by the cleric, they were on behalf of the whole party) and other incidental "whole party" costs (such as money to stay at an inn or the like). Loot wagons, bags of holding, portable holes, even hireling salaries tended to come out of the party fund. (Obviously, people could buy their own personal ones, too, and did if they felt they needed more than the party wanted to pay for.)

It generally worked pretty well.

Shares were just even divisions of the gp value of items. Sometimes we'd find something that clearly benefited one particular PC so much that we just gave it to them. Some groups do that as that person's share (especially if it's technically worth more than a whole share); others took it out "off the top" before counting money for share divisions, but had the caveat that it technically belonged to the party so he couldn't sell it and pocket the coins.

Anything people took as items counted towards their share as "half market value," since if they didn't want it, they would only be able to sell it for that much. If there was a dispute over a particular item, it usually just involved discussing/arguing about it until an agreement was reached. (A more formalized system might've permitted "bidding" out of the value for their share of the treasure, until the one who agreed it was worth "more" of their share would get to keep it but wouldn't get as much. I've never seen that done in practice, though.)

As for "more valuable" items going to warrior-types to "make up" for their class weaknesses, your best bet to achieve that would be to make more "drops" be the kind of things mundanes need more than the kind of things casters need. That way, the mundanes effectively get 2x the "value" of the part of their share the item counts as, since they don't have to sell it for half price and then buy something else at full.

Threadnaught

2014-07-03, 12:16 PM

But it's clearly totally ok for me to suffer for your insistence on playing a top-tier character, just because I don't happen to find that fun? Again, this is a single-player video game mentality, not something at all suitable for a team game.

No! This is not okay. It's the Fighter who is the one with an inflated sense of entitlement, while the Tier 1s you're accusing of being out for themselves jerks, are the most capable of working as a team and most likely already doing so.

If we are to compare a party consisting of a Wizard who buffs everyone and is capable of completely negating most conflicts, a Druid who is kinda similar, a Cleric who is even more buffy and a Fighter who is barely capable of handling themselves in combat to any videogame, we must look at it differently for each character.

Wizard, obviously playing an online multiplayer game.
Druid, obviously playing an online multiplayer game.
Cleric, obviously playing an online multiplayer game.
Fighter, playing Call of Duty, single player letting the AI do everything.

Here we see a bunch of people who work together for a shared reward, against a single person who demands the reward for everyone else's work.

How is it fair for the Fighter to contribute less, to ride on the success of others and demand more than an equal share, when an even split is far more than their fair share?

137beth

2014-07-03, 01:43 PM

Probably because early level parties seem to rest for the day after the casters have used their spells, even if it's only 9:30 a.m.. In the "real world" the martialists would keep going and the caster would have to follow or find a new group.
Well, except in most games the martial characters take hits a lot and run out of hitpoints. You know, those things that don't recover automatically after every fight. Unless you have magic to recover them, of course, which martial characters don't.

Barstro

2014-07-03, 01:47 PM

Vogonjeltz

2014-07-03, 02:13 PM

Clearly you're not familiar with how comically simple it is to render anti-magic fields useless. Also not aware of the fact they hurt fighters significantly worse than casters, but that's another issue.

If and only if the target is perfectly prepared for such an undertaking. This is comically unlikely, there's only a limited number of things one can be prepared for at any given moment. Preparing for AMF means there's an opportunity cost where the same character isn't prepared for something else.

Furthermore, while a magic sword does not function magically within the area, it is still a sword (and a masterwork sword at that).

Magic effects are a nice perk for melee, but hardly a requirement. By any measure, casters are worse off than melee in an AMF.

Barstro

2014-07-03, 02:14 PM

Well, except in most games the martial characters take hits a lot and run out of hitpoints. You know, those things that don't recover automatically after every fight. Unless you have magic to recover them, of course, which martial characters don't.

I never meant to imply that a Martial could do it alone. Just that most of the early level games I played were;
Day 1;
Fight 1; Fighter hits, Fighter gets hit, Magic User casts Magic Missile, Cleric Hits, Archer Hits, Fighter Hits, Win.
Magic User is out of Spells, but the team keeps going.
A couple hours later,
Fight 2; Fighter hits, Fighter gets hit, Magic User misses with bolt, Cleric Hits, Archer Hits, Fighter Hits, Fighter gets hit, Magic User hits with a bolt for 2, Fighter Hits, Fighter gets hit, Cleric Heals, Archer Hits, Fighter hits, Win
In the afternoon.
Fight 3; Same as above, but no need to heal yet.
Rest for the night, possibly heal;
Day 2;
Same as Day 1.

After a few levels it becomes
Day 1;
Fight 1 is the same, but Magic user uses two or three spells.
Some time before noon
Fight 2 has the Magic User blowing through the rest of his spells
Now the party rests, even though the Fighter is at full strength, because the Magic User could go down with one hit if there is a long fight.

I agree with the logic of resting that early. I agree that the money is better spent on the Magic User and Cleric. But the Roleplaying side of this would have the testosterone filled Fighter, who has been the strong one of the town for at least 18 years, ready to kill something while Booksy, Priesty, and Shooty McDoglover want to stop for 18 hours because they might get hurt. And if the Fighter were at death's door, he would be arguing that he kept them all alive and deserves more of the treasure.

ryu

2014-07-03, 02:19 PM

If and only if the target is perfectly prepared for such an undertaking. This is comically unlikely, there's only a limited number of things one can be prepared for at any given moment. Preparing for AMF means there's an opportunity cost where the same character isn't prepared for something else.

Magic effects are a nice perk for melee, but hardly a requirement. By any measure, casters are worse off than melee in an AMF.

Permanencied shrink item on a fabricated lead cone is not expensive. It's also highly likely that a competent (read lived to access eighth level spells) mage is going to prepare the easy counter to the stereotypical spell everyone thinks is useful against mages. Mages have ways of countering the effect or otherwise making it irrelevant. Melee doesn't.

Also magic is a requirement for everyone at the levels antimagic fields happen. Even melee. Especially melee.

eggynack

2014-07-03, 02:21 PM

If and only if the target is perfectly prepared for such an undertaking. This is comically unlikely, there's only a limited number of things one can be prepared for at any given moment. Preparing for AMF means there's an opportunity cost where the same character isn't prepared for something.
It's not that unlikely, and the opportunity cost isn't all that high, because a good number of the spells that work in an AMF are also separately useful spells. Good examples of that include orbs and walls, though perhaps the latter more than the former on the generically useful front.

Magic effects are a nice perk for melee, but hardly a requirement. By any measure, casters are worse off than melee in an AMF.
In an AMF, assuming they don't have a way to circumvent it, perhaps. However, if our character isn't trapped inside the AMF in some fashion, and is merely facing an enemy who's surrounded by one, then the fighter is often going to have to enter the AMF to engage them in combat, which almost certainly turns off more magic items than a sword (I would hope), while the caster does not, and can hit the enemy without being right next to him.

WarKitty

2014-07-03, 03:33 PM

No! This is not okay. It's the Fighter who is the one with an inflated sense of entitlement, while the Tier 1s you're accusing of being out for themselves jerks, are the most capable of working as a team and most likely already doing so.

If we are to compare a party consisting of a Wizard who buffs everyone and is capable of completely negating most conflicts, a Druid who is kinda similar, a Cleric who is even more buffy and a Fighter who is barely capable of handling themselves in combat to any videogame, we must look at it differently for each character.

Wizard, obviously playing an online multiplayer game.
Druid, obviously playing an online multiplayer game.
Cleric, obviously playing an online multiplayer game.
Fighter, playing Call of Duty, single player letting the AI do everything.

Here we see a bunch of people who work together for a shared reward, against a single person who demands the reward for everyone else's work.

How is it fair for the Fighter to contribute less, to ride on the success of others and demand more than an equal share, when an even split is far more than their fair share?

Because this isn't an online multiplayer game. Because D&D isn't a game where you're out trying to beat the other team. Because letting everyone play a character they like and being able to even things out as best you can is far, far more important than insisting on getting your "fair share" of imaginary gold coins.

That's what I don't get. Why are a bunch of imaginary gold coins so much more important than your friend, who doesn't enjoy playing wizards, having fun?

ryu

2014-07-03, 03:54 PM

WarKitty

2014-07-03, 04:03 PM

Uh it has kinda been repeatedly proven that you can, in fact, play it online, and it's almost always multiplayer. I dun skyped it for over five months once. It is also pretty much always your team of adventurers versus some group of antagonists. I mean if we're going to quibble over definitions we should at least look at the facts.

"Online multiplayer game" has a meaning that's beyond "this involves multiple people and is played online." If we're going to quibble I'd appreciate using words for what they actually mean in context and not being pedantically literal. Unless you're going to tell me chess is an online multiplayer game because you can play it over the internet and 2 people can work together on one side.

Edit: My point is, in an online game where you're playing against another team of people who are also picking the best they can. In a D&D game you're playing with your friends and it's the DM's job to set encounters that are of the appropriate level - whatever that level actually is.

ryu

2014-07-03, 04:10 PM

"Online multiplayer game" has a meaning that's beyond "this involves multiple people and is played online." If we're going to quibble I'd appreciate using words for what they actually mean in context and not being pedantically literal. Unless you're going to tell me chess is an online multiplayer game because you can play it over the internet and 2 people can work together on one side.

Edit: My point is, in an online game where you're playing against another team of people who are also picking the best they can. In a D&D game you're playing with your friends and it's the DM's job to set encounters that are of the appropriate level - whatever that level actually is.

Have you ever played in an online chess tournament? The things are very real. Lots of people involved.

Further what you're talking about is a matter of whether or not an experience is casual. There are both casual online multiplayer games and hardcore multiplayer games. Taken to the logical extreme the latter becomes E-Sports, but they're all online multiplayer games regardless.

WarKitty

2014-07-03, 04:32 PM

Have you ever played in an online chess tournament? The things are very real. Lots of people involved.

I'm quite familiar with them, and you are still completely missing the entire point of what I said. The fact that chess can be played online does NOT make chess an online multiplayer game, unless you're twisting my words.

squiggit

2014-07-03, 04:53 PM

The fact that chess can be played online does NOT make chess an online multiplayer game, unless you're twisting my words.
If there's any twisting of words here, wouldn't be the person claiming that multiplayer, online, and game don't actually mean multiplayer, online and game?

That's what I don't get. Why are a bunch of imaginary gold coins so much more important than your friend, who doesn't enjoy playing wizards, having fun?
You realize the inverse of that question works just as easily, right? Why is playing a bad class so much more important than all your other friends, who don't like the idea of bending over backwards to try to make your character look better, having fun?

If and only if the target is perfectly prepared for such an undertaking. This is comically unlikely, there's only a limited number of things one can be prepared for at any given moment. Preparing for AMF means there's an opportunity cost where the same character isn't prepared for something else.
Comically unlikely? I don't see why. Preparing for the thing that everyone automatically thinks of using against spellcasters seems like an obvious thing to try. It's like saying it's comically unlikely for a fighter to wear armor because he might not be prepared for someone attacking him.

jaydubs

2014-07-03, 04:56 PM

Because this isn't an online multiplayer game. Because D&D isn't a game where you're out trying to beat the other team. Because letting everyone play a character they like and being able to even things out as best you can is far, far more important than insisting on getting your "fair share" of imaginary gold coins.

That's what I don't get. Why are a bunch of imaginary gold coins so much more important than your friend, who doesn't enjoy playing wizards, having fun?

You're balancing the wrong sums. It's not Player 1's fun vs Player 2's imaginary coins (let's call the players Jack and Jill). It's Jack's feeling of importance vs Jill's feeling of fairness. And both are important if everyone is going to have fun.

You might as well ask, why does Jack need to be as useful as Jill? Why can't he have fun being a sidekick or cheerleader? Why does he have to be selfish and want the spotlight, instead of just being happy for Jill? Because humans like feeling important relative to the people around them. Being the sidekick usually isn't as much fun as being one of the heroes. It's just human nature.

Similarly, fairness is important to us as human beings. We want to live in a fair world, even if the real world isn't always fair. So, we prefer our games to be fair, whenever possible. And for most players, fairness means either 1) everyone gets an equal share, or 2) everyone gets a share commensurate with their contribution. The least useful character getting the most is the opposite of that, and can spoil the fun of a game for Jill just as surely as being a sidekick would rain on Jack's parade.

WarKitty

2014-07-03, 04:56 PM

If there's any twisting of words here, wouldn't be the person claiming that multiplayer, online, and game don't actually mean multiplayer, online and game?

"Online multiplayer game" is a genre term. As such term its meaning is - like most such compound terms - distinct from the sum of its parts. The fact that it is possible to play a game online with multiple people does not change the genre of the game.

You realize the inverse of that question works just as easily, right? Why is playing a bad class so much more important than all your other friends, who don't like the idea of bending over backwards to try to make your character look better, having fun?

Not really. Playing a different class type fundamentally changes how the game is to a person. Generally the people I've found who want to play that sort of things just don't find magic classes interesting at all. Having a few more or less gold coins isn't a fundamental sort of change in your play experience.

But again, I was primarily thinking of people who are playing and find out there's an imbalance, rather than people who are aware of the tier system and have all the books deciding on a different treasure split to make up for things.

squiggit

2014-07-03, 05:04 PM

"Online multiplayer game" is a genre term. As such term its meaning is - like most such compound terms - distinct from the sum of its parts. The fact that it is possible to play a game online with multiple people does not change the genre of the game.
Online multiplayer is a mode of play, not a genre. Call of Duty doesn't change genres if you're playing it online or in a campaign.

Even being particularly nitpicky a "multiplayer online game" is described as a game which can be played via a game server over the internet with people around the world (distinct from an massively multiplayer online game by its lack of persistent world)... which something like playing dnd through roll20 still qualifies as.

Not really. Playing a different class type fundamentally changes how the game is to a person.

Of course it does, but so does having to alter your playstyle to accommodate such a player. My problem then with your argument, is that in insisting that the fighter's fun shouldn't be had at the expense of a few gold you're causing the same problem in reverse by asking the rest of the party to put their fun second to the fighter by babysitting him.

WarKitty

2014-07-03, 05:21 PM

Online multiplayer is a mode of play, not a genre. Call of Duty doesn't change genres if you're playing it online or in a campaign.

Even being particularly nitpicky a "multiplayer online game" is described as a game which can be played via a game server over the internet with people around the world (distinct from an massively multiplayer online game by its lack of persistent world)... which something like playing dnd through roll20 still qualifies as.

In any case, my point is D&D isn't the sort of game where you're competing with another team that's trying to be better than you.

Of course it does, but so does having to alter your playstyle to accommodate such a player. My problem then with your argument, is that in insisting that the fighter's fun shouldn't be had at the expense of a few gold you're causing the same problem in reverse by asking the rest of the party to put their fun second to the fighter by babysitting him.

Well, I have been saying the whole time the fighter isn't bad enough to be actually a liability.

ryu

2014-07-03, 05:47 PM

In any case, my point is D&D isn't the sort of game where you're competing with another team that's trying to be better than you.

Well, I have been saying the whole time the fighter isn't bad enough to be actually a liability.

You mean the resident murderous cult of the week isn't trying to be superior to the party attacking them? How unmotivated. That must be why they all go down without a fight. Oh wait...

WarKitty

2014-07-03, 05:54 PM

You mean the resident murderous cult of the week isn't trying to be superior to the party attacking them? How unmotivated. That must be why they all go down without a fight. Oh wait...

IC, yes they are. But IC/OOC split, which means that the DM isn't trying to make the cultists as good as they can. The cultists IC are doing the best they can, but OOC it's the DM's job to make the "best they can" be reasonable for the party. As opposed to a multiplayer game where the other party is trying to be the absolute best they can within the game rules - you can't do that in D&D because the DM can make monsters as strong or weak as they want.

My point is underpowered/overpowered means nothing in D&D, except as it relates to the party balance. It's the DM's job to make the power level of the game stay so it challenges the party well, no matter if that party is a tier 5 or tier 1 - neither party should feel "overpowered" or "underpowered."

Threadnaught

2014-07-03, 06:27 PM

Because this isn't an online multiplayer game.

Regardless of whether it's played online or not, it's a multiplayer game that involves socialisation. Like most MMOs and it can also be played online. Not required, but it's possible.

Because D&D isn't a game where you're out trying to beat the other team.

No, but you're playing as part of a team. When you are part of a team, it is as important to respect your team mates' abilities, as it is to help them out when needed.

Because letting everyone play a character they like and being able to even things out as best you can is far, far more important than insisting on getting your "fair share" of imaginary gold coins.

Is it? Then why do you insist on the Fighter getting what you consider to be their "fair share" at the expense of the other players? Oh other player chooses to play a different type of character that happens to have more potential power than Mr Fighter? Let's punish the player of the Wizard and reward the Fighter, that's sure "letting everyone play the character they like" and not just punishing everyone who didn't pick the least powerful Class available.

That's what I don't get. Why are a bunch of imaginary gold coins so much more important than your friend, who doesn't enjoy playing wizards, having fun?

Let me put it as simply as possible, I want to know the answer to a single question.

Why is one player's fun more important than everyone else's?

If you can't give me a satisfactory answer, then I hope you realize what the imaginary coins actually represent.

Snails

2014-07-03, 06:28 PM

WarKitty

2014-07-03, 06:35 PM

Is it? Then why do you insist on the Fighter getting what you consider to be their "fair share" at the expense of the other players? Oh other player chooses to play a different type of character that happens to have more potential power than Mr Fighter? Let's punish the player of the Wizard and reward the Fighter, that's sure "letting everyone play the character they like" and not just punishing everyone who didn't pick the least powerful Class available.

I honestly don't get this. Unless you're being equally punished if the game just didn't drop treasure as often, then no, it's not a punishment.

Let me put it as simply as possible, I want to know the answer to a single question.

Why is one player's fun more important than everyone else's?

If you can't give me a satisfactory answer, then I hope you realize what the imaginary coins actually represent.

It's not. It's just that imaginary coins are much, much less central to how the game works than playstyle and class is. They're a useful side deal, not the point of how your character runs. I have a hard time understanding why you're playing D&D if getting gold is a major feature of your entertainment.

Because there needs to be a consensus to have anything other than an even split, or, almost by definition, people will be unhappy. An even(ish) split is the "default".

We seem to be getting too deep "ideologizing" about something that can be handled by the DM very organically. The DM can just throw in a disproportionate amount of magical swords, shields, armor, if the Fighters need help. To the non-Fighters it is just cash, but the Fighters get good armaments on the cheap.

To a lesser degree, this is going to be true about a lot of other items, too. A spellcaster in a party with good teamwork does not particularly care about, say, Boots of Flying. There are plenty of other fun options to do with plain old cash.

See I've actually found this solution is much more likely to make people feel like things are uneven than simply not splitting the treasure evenly. It takes agency away from the players and makes them feel like the DM is playing favorites, especially if they have no say in what gets dropped and it seems to favor one player over another. Whereas if they're deciding how to handle treasure it doesn't feel unfair in the same way.

Hand_of_Vecna

2014-07-03, 07:05 PM

We seem to be getting too deep "ideologizing" about something that can be handled by the DM very organically. The DM can just throw in a disproportionate amount of magical swords, shields, armor, if the Fighters need help. To the non-Fighters it is just cash, but the Fighters get good armaments on the cheap.

So much this. Any party balancing ofn the loot end should be done by the DM behind the screen not by a having the more powerful characters sacrifice money, which equals power or by having the DM make the party's loot rules.

In my experience the "norm" is for items to go to whomever needs them and for gold to then be split up and for there to be some kind of gp compensation to those who got inferior or no items. Sometimes every last gp is tracked and sometimes this goes off feels with someone that got particularly good loot handwaving away their share of the liquid wealth from the same haul. Either way this method always gives a defacto discount on items, you're better off getting items than money.

This is where the DM can easily step in and sprinkle in perfect items for the Fighter and nearly double the effective wealth on their character sheet without giving anyone less than their fair share or making anyone make a "voluntary" sacrifice. +1 Sword and 3,500 gp show up in a hoard; Fighter gets a +1 sword everyone else gets a little over a thousand gp. Nobody feels cheated and the Fighter gets a boost.

Threadnaught

2014-07-03, 07:40 PM

I honestly don't get this. Unless you're being equally punished if the game just didn't drop treasure as often, then no, it's not a punishment.

If a DM enforces a rule that players of a more powerful Class have to subsidize a percentage of their loot toward players of a weaker Class, or just gives out higher rewards to players of weaker Classes while being stingy toward the more powerful Classes, then it becomes punishment.

It's not. It's just that imaginary coins are much, much less central to how the game works than playstyle and class is. They're a useful side deal, not the point of how your character runs. I have a hard time understanding why you're playing D&D if getting gold is a major feature of your entertainment.

Everything in the game is imaginary. The coins are a small feature of an imaginary being under the player's control, the player has the power to decide how they want to spend all their wealth.
To take away these imaginary coins is to take away a small amount of their control and they'll be wondering what else will be taken away. Perhaps the Wizard will be reduced to the power level of a Commoner without the ability to ever take Chicken Infested before they're no longer asked to keep giving up things for the player of the Fighter to feel better about their choices.

Anyway, your answer was unsatisfactory. Please try again.

We seem to be getting too deep "ideologizing" about something that can be handled by the DM very organically. The DM can just throw in a disproportionate amount of magical swords, shields, armor, if the Fighters need help. To the non-Fighters it is just cash, but the Fighters get good armaments on the cheap.

To a lesser degree, this is going to be true about a lot of other items, too. A spellcaster in a party with good teamwork does not particularly care about, say, Boots of Flying. There are plenty of other fun options to do with plain old cash.

This is a better way of handling inequalities between Classes, though steps must be taken to keep treasure varied to prevent it from being too obvious.

WarKitty

2014-07-03, 07:47 PM

If a DM enforces a rule that players of a more powerful Class have to subsidize a percentage of their loot toward players of a weaker Class, or just gives out higher rewards to players of weaker Classes while being stingy toward the more powerful Classes, then it becomes punishment.

This is not what was suggested; in fact the main benefit of uneven splits was allowing it to be player driven rather than DM enforced.

Everything in the game is imaginary. The coins are a small feature of an imaginary being under the player's control, the player has the power to decide how they want to spend all their wealth.
To take away these imaginary coins is to take away a small amount of their control and they'll be wondering what else will be taken away. Perhaps the Wizard will be reduced to the power level of a Commoner without the ability to ever take Chicken Infested before they're no longer asked to keep giving up things for the player of the Fighter to feel better about their choices.

Anyway, your answer was unsatisfactory. Please try again.

Again, no one here has suggested forcing anything on the players.

Amphetryon

2014-07-03, 07:56 PM

The uneven splits suggested are, at their core, paying the most to the people who do the least share of the work in their adventuring company. I know of no companies, in fiction or elsewhere, who embrace this as a sound practice.

Sliver

2014-07-03, 08:13 PM

While I don't agree with it, I understand the reasoning behind an uneven split.

Let's pretend that our PCs are our defenses. Wizards are your will saves. They are very important and messing it up can be the end of the party. Druids and Clerics are your fortitude saves. They are the body that beats down the foe and without them things are harder, but usually not lethal. Rogues are your reflex saves. They only matter in rare cases and even then it is safe to go without. When failing you shrug it off because you chose to buff something more useful.

Fighters are your AC. They scale poorly and need a lot of investment to stay relevant compared to the things that they are meant to go against, so you rather invest in something which is both cheaper and more reliable.

So if you really want all your defenses covered, fighters need more gold to be able to keep up.

Don't take this post too seriously.

Flickerdart

2014-07-03, 08:23 PM

Sliver

2014-07-03, 08:27 PM

That is what I was implying by cheaper and more reliable, yes. :smallcool: Miss chance is better than fighters.

137beth

2014-07-03, 09:42 PM

That is what I was implying by cheaper and more reliable, yes. :smallcool: Miss chance is better than fighters.

So wizards are both Will and Miss chance?
At least I can't think of another class which does miss chances better right out-of-the-box.
Swordsages are your extra move actions, which are good for dealing with melee and for minimizing the damage from area effects.

Sliver

2014-07-03, 10:47 PM

Miss chance being tbe cheaper and better cousin of AC would be like replacing the fighter with a class feature (animal companion), spell (dominate, summon, animate dead) or a feat (wild cohort, leadership), for example.

WarKitty

2014-07-04, 12:34 AM

Yahzi

2014-07-04, 06:51 AM

The only game I have ever played in or DMed for where there was a treasure split was an explicitly all-Evil game where we knew the end game was everybody killing everybody else.

In every other party, all loot has always gone into the party treasury to be spent however would best help the party or advance the mission.

Vogonjeltz

2014-07-04, 09:35 AM

Permanencied shrink item on a fabricated lead cone is not expensive. It's also highly likely that a competent (read lived to access eighth level spells) mage is going to prepare the easy counter to the stereotypical spell everyone thinks is useful against mages. Mages have ways of countering the effect or otherwise making it irrelevant. Melee doesn't.

Also magic is a requirement for everyone at the levels antimagic fields happen. Even melee. Especially melee.

Shrink item at CL 11 is 330gp, permanency would cost over 7,500gp and is ineligible for hiring an NPC. That's extremely expensive, and I didn't even price the cost of a 10x10 lead cone.

I don't see any other counter than invoke magic, which is 9th level, and it doesn't actually counter.

A melee could just kill the caster, something a spell-less wizard won't be doing. Remember, all the Fighters class abilities still function.

It's not that unlikely, and the opportunity cost isn't all that high, because a good number of the spells that work in an AMF are also separately useful spells. Good examples of that include orbs and walls, though perhaps the latter more than the former on the generically useful front.

In an AMF, assuming they don't have a way to circumvent it, perhaps. However, if our character isn't trapped inside the AMF in some fashion, and is merely facing an enemy who's surrounded by one, then the fighter is often going to have to enter the AMF to engage them in combat, which almost certainly turns off more magic items than a sword (I would hope), while the caster does not, and can hit the enemy without being right next to him.

I'm not so sure about that. No spells work in an antimagic field. Now, spell results, that's another thing, but the field prevents casting.

I suppose if the wizard prepared nothing but orbs he could do something if outside the AMF. He'd be pretty much dead weight if they encountered an enemy immune to the orb type, but otherwise...

Lord_Gareth

2014-07-04, 09:51 AM

I feel like people are getting sort of hung up on the specifics of the example. I just picked fighter and wizard because they're both common classes that players, especially newer ones, are likely to grab, while being ones that have a power differential without a lot of work.

Here's the thing: you picked a class which, on its own, removes resources from the party already. T5 classes kinda do that. They're sinks down which the party dumps money and actions and time just to make them keep up. T4 classes don't need to be carried this way, if built right. T3 classes just don't need to be carried. So your proposal of uneven wealth distribution really only applies to classes so weak it's almost rude to play them unless the group is so low-op that they won't notice the problem to begin with.

Killer Angel

2014-07-04, 11:16 AM

Karnith

2014-07-04, 12:41 PM

I suppose if the wizard prepared nothing but orbs he could do something if outside the AMF. He'd be pretty much dead weight if they encountered an enemy immune to the orb type, but otherwise...
Well, Orbs of Force, Searing Orbs of Fire, and Piercing Orbs of Cold aside, there are a lot of non-Orb spells that can be cast into an AMF. If you're looking for offensive(/BFC) spells, for instance, there are:
Acid Breath (SpC, p. 7)
Acid Storm (SpC, p. 7)
Arc of Lightning (SpC, p. 15)
Blast of Flame (SpC, p. 31)
Blast of Sand (Sandstorm, p. 112)
Bombardment (SpC, p. 37)
Comefall (SpC, p. 50)
Deadly Lahar (CM, p. 101)
Death By Thorns (BoVD, p. 91)
Deific Vengeance (SpC, p. 62)
Drown and Mass Drown (SpC, p. 74)
Fire and Brimstone (CM, p. 104)
Frostbite (Frostburn, p. 95)
Hail of Stone (SpC, pp. 108-109)
Ice Darts (Frostburn, pp. 98-99)
Ice Knife (Spell Compendium, p. 119)
Icelance (SpC, pp. 119)
Laogzed's Breath (Serpent Kingdoms, p. 156)
Lava Missile (Serpent Kingdoms, p. 156)
Lava Splash (Serpent Kingdoms, p. 156)
Melf's Unicorn Arrow (PHBII, pp. 119-120)
Mudslide (Stormwrack, p. 119)
Nauseating Breath (SpC, p. 146)
Obedient Avalance (SpC, pp. 148-149)
Quill Blast (SpC, p. 164)
Rushing Waters (SpC, p. 178)
Slime Hurl (CoR, p. 35)
Snow Wave (Frostburn, p. 104)
Splinterbolt (SpC, pp. 203-204)
Sudden Stalagmite (SpC, p. 213)
Swamp Lung (SpC, pp. 216-217)
Vitriolic Sphere (SpC, pp. 231-232)
Wall of Iron (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfIron.htm)
Wall of Salt (Sandstorm, p. 127)
Wall of Stone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfStone.htm)
... And possibly a few odd dual-school spells (Doom Scarabs, Firestride Exhalation, and Kelgore's Firebolt).

Plus Invoke Magic, Initiate of Mystra, and all that jazz.

ryu

2014-07-04, 01:20 PM

Shrink item at CL 11 is 330gp, permanency would cost over 7,500gp and is ineligible for hiring an NPC. That's extremely expensive, and I didn't even price the cost of a 10x10 lead cone.

I don't see any other counter than invoke magic, which is 9th level, and it doesn't actually counter.

A melee could just kill the caster, something a spell-less wizard won't be doing. Remember, all the Fighters class abilities still function.

I'm not so sure about that. No spells work in an antimagic field. Now, spell results, that's another thing, but the field prevents casting.

I suppose if the wizard prepared nothing but orbs he could do something if outside the AMF. He'd be pretty much dead weight if they encountered an enemy immune to the orb type, but otherwise...

By the time eighth level spells are a thing that's not expensive. Like. at. all. How inexpensive? By then I've usually created multiple hats of different compositions stacked atop each other. With even basic price mitigation tactics the wizard won't even notice the amount of gold spent.

WarKitty

2014-07-04, 01:53 PM

Here's the thing: you picked a class which, on its own, removes resources from the party already. T5 classes kinda do that. They're sinks down which the party dumps money and actions and time just to make them keep up. T4 classes don't need to be carried this way, if built right. T3 classes just don't need to be carried. So your proposal of uneven wealth distribution really only applies to classes so weak it's almost rude to play them unless the group is so low-op that they won't notice the problem to begin with.

Outside of fairly high optimization games, I haven't seen them do that.

Amphetryon

2014-07-04, 01:58 PM

Outside of fairly high optimization games, I haven't seen them do that.

I think we're either operating under very different experiences, or very different definitions of "fairly high optimization games," at this point. What do the Wizards do, in your experience, that makes them consume at least as many resources/level as Fighters? What do Clerics do in order to wind up needing all the same expenditure of WBL as Paladins in order to be competent at their roles?

Kazyan

2014-07-04, 01:59 PM

Outside of fairly high optimization games, I haven't seen them do that.

In the playground, no one plays games that don't use at least DMM: Persist anymore.

WarKitty

2014-07-04, 02:08 PM

I think we're either operating under very different experiences, or very different definitions of "fairly high optimization games," at this point. What do the Wizards do, in your experience, that makes them consume at least as many resources/level as Fighters? What do Clerics do in order to wind up needing all the same expenditure of WBL as Paladins in order to be competent at their roles?

They don't. There's a definite difference still - the wizard/cleric/druid is tossing around spells that lock everyone up, while the fighter is just stabbing people. It's just that the difference is usually not so great that the fighter is an active resource drain, rather than merely someone who's not as interesting or effective. Mostly you're not seeing a lot of persists/permanencies/etc., metamagic reducers, or ways to get more spells available at a time, plus DM's that tend to force the party on for longer per day.

I actually don't play below tier 3's myself, but I've had friends who just find the whole casting and having to prepare spells system boring and just want to play a fighter or barbarian. And this was all without the benefit of a tier system and online optimization guides and all that, with a bunch of people just picking what looked good out of a few books.

Flickerdart

2014-07-04, 02:16 PM

In the playground, no one plays games that don't use at least DMM: Persist anymore.
That's an interesting blanket statement. What's your sample rate for the study you conducted to substantiate this claim?

Kazyan

2014-07-04, 02:18 PM

That's an interesting blanket statement. What's your sample rate for the study you conducted to substantiate this claim?

Wait, you people still take me seriously?

lord_khaine

2014-07-04, 02:20 PM

Shrink item at CL 11 is 330gp, permanency would cost over 7,500gp and is ineligible for hiring an NPC. That's extremely expensive, and I didn't even price the cost of a 10x10 lead cone.

And its not even sure to work, honestly there are so many thinks that could happen here, from the cone landing on the ground to it breaking the wearers neck, that i think its extremely silly to considder it an automatic counter to AMF.

ryu

2014-07-04, 02:49 PM

And its not even sure to work, honestly there are so many thinks that could happen here, from the cone landing on the ground to it breaking the wearers neck, that i think its extremely silly to considder it an automatic counter to AMF.

First off you do realize the cone landing on the ground around the caster is the intended result right? No amount of landing on the ground is going to be bad because the hat never leaves the square in the process. Further there are no rules for falling objects breaking necks in D&D. The worst that would happen if the wizard crafting the hat was clumsy might be taking fall damage from the hat. That's only if he made it incorrectly though.

Phelix-Mu

2014-07-04, 06:37 PM

Let's suppose I'm playing a druid and my good friend Johnny is playing a duskblade. My good friend Jonny enjoys duskblade, but he is really sucking compared to my other friends, playing a psion and a cleric respectively. None of us are very optimized, but we are all roughly in the same level of optimization; no Rashemi-ness or Greenbound for me, and so far just straight duskblade channeling for Johnny.

Now, as has been mentioned, it is common practice for DMs of groups like this hypothetical one to toss in a few more bits and bobs of magical armament suitable for the duskblade, like mithril doohickeys and whatever weapon Johnny likes to swing around. And this is a fairly accepted practice, as long as it is done within reason and without forcing the imbalance down the players' throats.

But, why is it that having the players decide to do this same thing is so objectionable? All us casters and manifesters recognize that we want Johnny's character, who is helpful and our in-game friend, to not suck and to feel useful. Why not cut out the DM and have the characters buy or craft nice stuff for Johnny's character? A well-decked out duskblade is much more useful than one that is not (especially at lower optimization levels), and all of the casters can supplement themselves pretty well with mainly just spells (though the psion is the second-most gear dependent character due to smaller number of powers known).

Again, we aren't saying that some of the players are forcing this on the others, but that it's okay to treat wealth like any other tool used to bridge gaps in party power levels. If the common suggestion for the god wizard having the run of the table is to tone it down and use more buffs to make the other characters feel useful, why is the suggestion to use wealth in the same manner receiving totally the opposite reception in the playground?

eggynack

2014-07-04, 06:45 PM

But, why is it that having the players decide to do this same thing is so objectionable? All us casters and manifesters recognize that we want Johnny's character, who is helpful and our in-game friend, to not suck and to feel useful. Why not cut out the DM and have the characters buy or craft nice stuff for Johnny's character? A well-decked out duskblade is much more useful than one that is not (especially at lower optimization levels), and all of the casters can supplement themselves pretty well with mainly just spells (though the psion is the second-most gear dependent character due to smaller number of powers known).

The issue is that this just feels so much like charity, which is an awkward thing when you're in an adventuring party, ostensibly averting the end of the world, or even just trying to earn some treasure. Sure, maybe you actively are adventuring with someone as an act of charity, or maybe you're friends from long before you ever began adventuring, but I don't think that's necessarily how adventuring parties tend to run.

cobaltstarfire

2014-07-04, 06:54 PM

My last GM just sprinkled neat things amongst the party, sometimes they were really just little toys but even getting something like that tends to make one feel good about their imaginary possessions and being able to add to them.

Of course that was a game of rolemaster, which has a bajillion different stats and abilities and stuff to mess with. And it was a bit more down to earth of a game than most D&D games. But I think a good gm in 3.5 can set it up so that everyone gets stuff that is at the very least a neat little toy/tool, even if they have to homebrew it up.

Phelix-Mu

2014-07-04, 06:57 PM

Making sure that all x team members can survive and contribute in a team sport is not charity. Just like you don't always get a chance to pick ideal teammates in life and need to tailor strategies and tactics accordingly, you can't always ensure that the four guys/gals that end up holding the save-the-world-baton are the most well-suited to the task. And if Johnny likes to play a duskblade, then best make the most of it.

Again, I don't think this will work everywhere (or even a majority of the time), but I think we are being too hasty if we suggest that it's inherently unfair or unjust, or that the default even split is somehow innately virtuous.

Psychoalpha

2014-07-04, 07:35 PM

Threadnaught

2014-07-04, 07:54 PM

Let's suppose I'm playing a druid and my good friend Johnny is playing a duskblade. My good friend Jonny enjoys duskblade, but he is really sucking compared to my other friends, playing a psion and a cleric respectively. None of us are very optimized, but we are all roughly in the same level of optimization; no Rashemi-ness or Greenbound for me, and so far just straight duskblade channeling for Johnny.

Okay, Jaronk suggested that for the best possible game balance, players stay within 1-2 tiers of each other when selecting their Class.

Tier 1-3 is fine and a Tier 3 should be able to handle themselves quite decently when in a party of equally optimized Tier 1 and 2 characters. Besides, Duskblade should be able to handle themselves in melee just fine without too much additional support, unless you decided to boost your melee abilities, Wildshape into the biggest, meanest creature ever and go all Druidzilla, while Mr Psion goes Nova every encounter with every Power Point Recovery trick being abused between encounters and his holiness goes all Clericzilla.

If Jonny, Johnny, Jack or whatever he's called sucks compared to the rest of you, maybe you're making more use of your characters' potential than you think and should probably tone things down to a more teamwork-centric strategy in order to include your friend.

Phelix-Mu

2014-07-04, 08:28 PM

...what?

Making sure that all x team members can survive and contribute in a team sport, when they would otherwise be unable to do so in any meaningful way, and it taking the form of giving up your own wealth to provide for their needs, is the very definition of charity.

A more common definition of charity would be to give something to another with no expectation of personal gain. It would be quite weird for more success or more team cohesion to not somehow contribute to personal gain in a game where many, if not most, goals are goals that the group holds in common (and which are usually best accomplished as a team, as opposed to the druid soloing encounters).

And, as several of us have mentioned, we aren't subsidizing total dead weight. We are talking about giving a slightly bigger share to some guy or other because his character design would perform at a minorly more optimized level with better kit. A la my duskblade example. Yes, us high-tiers can start setting aside money for our off-plane contingencies or personal goals, but I think it's quite weird to suggest that spending some money on Johnny's duskblade is never a useful thing to do.

eggynack

2014-07-04, 08:34 PM

A more common definition of charity would be to give something to another with no expectation of personal gain. It would be quite weird for more success or more team cohesion to not somehow contribute to personal gain in a game where many, if not most, goals are goals that the group holds in common (and which are usually best accomplished as a team, as opposed to the druid soloing encounters).

And, as several of us have mentioned, we aren't subsidizing total dead weight. We are talking about giving a slightly bigger share to some guy or other because his character design would perform at a minorly more optimized level with better kit. A la my duskblade example. Yes, us high-tiers can start setting aside money for our off-plane contingencies or personal goals, but I think it's quite weird to suggest that spending some money on Johnny's duskblade is never a useful thing to do.
The real charity here is allowing the duskblade (or perhaps a less competent class. Duskblades are pretty neat) to join the party in the first place. Sure, if we're just tossing a slightly bigger share over so that the guy can afford some specific item that lets him be competent (say, some flight item, or something that lets him attack ethereal foes), that's fine, but if you actively enter into a partnership with the understanding that this fellow's just going to be using more gold, it just feels like you should pick another party member. I think it's a matter of degree, to some extent, and a matter of perspective, to another. What percentage of my WBL am I handing over, and what percentage am I expected to hand over?

Phelix-Mu

2014-07-04, 09:02 PM

The real charity here is allowing the duskblade (or perhaps a less competent class. Duskblades are pretty neat) to join the party in the first place. Sure, if we're just tossing a slightly bigger share over so that the guy can afford some specific item that lets him be competent (say, some flight item, or something that lets him attack ethereal foes), that's fine, but if you actively enter into a partnership with the understanding that this fellow's just going to be using more gold, it just feels like you should pick another party member. I think it's a matter of degree, to some extent, and a matter of perspective, to another. What percentage of my WBL am I handing over, and what percentage am I expected to hand over?

I think enough to solve whatever problem is perceived. I think the duskblade is never going to be up to snuff; otherwise, WBL could solve all tier inequity, which it can't. We're still talking about a ameliorating a basic problem with party balance, one that is inherent to the basic assumptions of the game (which is basically that mundanes have a place in a world where magic rules hands-down). My argument is that, sometimes, this may make the game more enjoyable for everyone (and even make strategic sense, insofar as you just can't "fire" Johnny's character for being a duskblade in a party of high-tiers; conceivably, you might talk Johnny into a more powerful choice, or talk everyone else into a nerf, but irl this won't always be practical).

But, I think that, if the duskblade is tanking for several casters (ignoring that tanking isn't a thing that has to be part of the game) and getting hit a lot, then it makes sense for everyone to chip in and make sure the duskblade has better armour/miss-chance/etc (at least until bringing the duskblade back to life is cheap and consequence-free). Certainly, as druid, it is better for me, from an optimization of tactics standpoint, to help the duskblade not die, than to make sure that I am always within a last breath's distance of the duskblade (which right there rules out a bunch of useful tactics and limits mobility, truly a strong suit of the druid).

Is this always useful? No. Will it solve all of the problems? No. Will it work at every table? No. Does that mean it can't ever help anywhere in any way whatsoever? No.

WarKitty

2014-07-04, 10:16 PM

eggynack

2014-07-04, 10:36 PM

Yeah - like I said, I'm thinking of this more often as a fix for a party that didn't work as planned than something to go in intending. It's not uncommon for people to not want to mess with the system or their builds once they've started playing. Though it might also work for people who have fewer books and still want to play different tiers, again without messing with the system.

Though I've found the same principle applies to other stuff - I've found people tend to really dislike anything that smacks of unfairness, such as different stats or different starting gold at mid to high levels.
I just feel like rebuilding is a much cleaner and more effective method, and possibly more importantly, it's less of a feel bad fix. Giving someone an extra share of WBL is a stopgap measure at best, as you presumably need to keep doing it, it often doesn't even make as much difference as a simple rearrangement of build, and giving someone cash just feels crappy. Maybe rebuilding also feels crappy for some folks, and cash grabbing feels less crappy, but to some extent, that actually does feel a bit selfish, as the rebuild presumably puts the discomfort in the hands of the person who wants to be more powerful, while the cash grab puts the discomfort in the hands of everyone else.

WarKitty

2014-07-04, 10:44 PM

I just feel like rebuilding is a much cleaner and more effective method, and possibly more importantly, it's less of a feel bad fix. Giving someone an extra share of WBL is a stopgap measure at best, as you presumably need to keep doing it, it often doesn't even make as much difference as a simple rearrangement of build, and giving someone cash just feels crappy. Maybe rebuilding also feels crappy for some folks, and cash grabbing feels less crappy, but to some extent, that actually does feel a bit selfish, as the rebuild presumably puts the discomfort in the hands of the person who wants to be more powerful, while the cash grab puts the discomfort in the hands of everyone else.

It's probably a group-by-group thing. A lot of people I know dislike rebuilding for somewhat similar reasons - if that guy can rebuild his character, why can't I? And I'm going to use it to try out this cool new incantrix build I found!

Also, I'm actually curious now if people do feel the same way about mid to high level campaigns starting out with different gold amounts. Like I think I started once by just saying melee could have a weapon with a certain number of plusses, free of charge.

Phelix-Mu

2014-07-04, 10:56 PM

Depends on how much breaking WBL by the book with spells is on the table. In higher op games, money is really a secondary concern for anyone with enough spellcasting at their disposal.

But, if that's off the table, if cosmic power has been reined in, I'd be much more comfortable as DM if the players worked it out among themselves, than by handing out custom free coolness to certain characters without them having done anything in-game for it. Once they've done something, I love handing out presents. But giving out the free as DM I try not to do too early. Tends to take the shine off later efforts at rewarding people.

eggynack

2014-07-04, 10:56 PM

It's probably a group-by-group thing. A lot of people I know dislike rebuilding for somewhat similar reasons - if that guy can rebuild his character, why can't I? And I'm going to use it to try out this cool new incantrix build I found!
Well, if they want to rebuild, they probably can do so (though likely not on a constant basis), but just as I would tend towards checking the first character sheet for power level and legality, so too would I check that of the melee guy, and so too would I check that of the wizard. Thus, if they want to pop on some levels of fatespinner, or paragnostic apostle, or another class of that power level, they can likely go right ahead, but if I wasn't letting in an incantatrix at the beginning of the campaign, then I'm not doing so now. In other words, you restrict based on power level, rather than restricting based on rebuilding itself. If the melee guy goes crazy and tries to pull a hulking hurler of some kind, then he'll probably get a talking to too.

Also, I'm actually curious now if people do feel the same way about mid to high level campaigns starting out with different gold amounts. Like I think I started once by just saying melee could have a weapon with a certain number of plusses, free of charge.
I think it would be fine, if the extra gold were somewhat invisible to the relevant character. Like, maybe melee guys just have the ability to apply special abilities of certain values to weapons, or maybe you just make weapons cheaper.

Dimers

2014-07-04, 11:07 PM

I'm actually curious now if people do feel the same way about mid to high level campaigns starting out with different gold amounts.

Myth confirmed. Couple years ago I got into a campaign that had been going for decades -- literally! More than 20 years. Started as first-edition D&D. It was kinda "3.homebrew" by the time I arrived, including with a rule that made big-ticket loot sell for better than half price. The existing characters were oozing with goodies, both consumable and not. Us new players got WBL ... for NPCs. Unsurprisingly, even though we optimized plenty, we were so poorly equipped we had to be carried by the rest of the party. It was frustrating for us.

I think the existing players were less uncomfortable with their side of the charity, incidentally. Both sides agreed that the game did not benefit from the DM limiting starting wealth, but the existing players did not complain about having to support the newbies, nor about having to justify it IC. Kinda a "roll your eyes and get on with life" attitude, choosing not to fight that battle with the DM.

EDIT: Aaaaand you meant giving starting fighters and starting wizards different amounts of loot from each other, didn't you. Dhur I em smrt. Sorry, can't address that one.

WarKitty

2014-07-04, 11:41 PM

I think it would be fine, if the extra gold were somewhat invisible to the relevant character. Like, maybe melee guys just have the ability to apply special abilities of certain values to weapons, or maybe you just make weapons cheaper.

Yeah, I almost always put a cap on the amount of starting gold that can be brought into the campaign. Everyone still has the same max for what they can own in an easily liquidateable form. So melee just plain ends up with more starting stuff. Has to be mixed with good loot drops - which work better if you just drop different loot rather than more loot for the weaker characters.

Segev

2014-07-05, 12:21 AM

Why do you give more generously of your magical item fund to the weakest of your party members? Why don't you just ditch him and bring in a more optimal character?

Because you do know and trust him. He was useful in the past, which is why you had him in the first place, but now he's falling behind. He's become a burden, or at least feels like it. He's even considering that, perhaps, the party WOULD be better off without him on its world-saving quest.

But, just from sheer mechanical truth, action deficit kills. Losing a party member is losing at least one action per round.

And from an IC perspective, the fact that you know and trust this person is more important than the hope you might find an optimized Arcane Hierophant with an almighty Companion Familiar and god-wizard spells. You don't know that person. You may not be able to trust them. They may mean well and simply not know the party's tactics. (Sure, from an OOC perspective, you could tell the player of the "load" character to switch to an optimal one and have him know the party's tactics as well as that player did when he played the "load," but IC, that's stretching it.)

A commoner you know and trust and have worked with for many levels is, if you can bring HIM up to the level of power needed to participate on par with the rest of the party, better than Elminster joining your party.

So yes, you go on the quest for the magic item, artifact, or relic that can elevate the actions he contributes each round to being useful. Yes, you give him what he needs from the party's loot to make him effective. Having your friend be useful is to your advantage, because having a trusted and well-oiled action to add to the party's total each round is always worthwhile.

Vogonjeltz

2014-07-05, 09:32 AM

Well, Orbs of Force, Searing Orbs of Fire, and Piercing Orbs of Cold aside, there are a lot of non-Orb spells that can be cast into an AMF. If you're looking for offensive(/BFC) spells, for instance, there are:
Acid Breath (SpC, p. 7)
Acid Storm (SpC, p. 7)
Arc of Lightning (SpC, p. 15)
Blast of Flame (SpC, p. 31)
Blast of Sand (Sandstorm, p. 112)
Bombardment (SpC, p. 37)
Comefall (SpC, p. 50)
Deadly Lahar (CM, p. 101)
Death By Thorns (BoVD, p. 91)
Deific Vengeance (SpC, p. 62)
Drown and Mass Drown (SpC, p. 74)
Fire and Brimstone (CM, p. 104)
Frostbite (Frostburn, p. 95)
Hail of Stone (SpC, pp. 108-109)
Ice Darts (Frostburn, pp. 98-99)
Ice Knife (Spell Compendium, p. 119)
Icelance (SpC, pp. 119)
Laogzed's Breath (Serpent Kingdoms, p. 156)
Lava Missile (Serpent Kingdoms, p. 156)
Lava Splash (Serpent Kingdoms, p. 156)
Melf's Unicorn Arrow (PHBII, pp. 119-120)
Mudslide (Stormwrack, p. 119)
Nauseating Breath (SpC, p. 146)
Obedient Avalance (SpC, pp. 148-149)
Quill Blast (SpC, p. 164)
Rushing Waters (SpC, p. 178)
Slime Hurl (CoR, p. 35)
Snow Wave (Frostburn, p. 104)
Splinterbolt (SpC, pp. 203-204)
Sudden Stalagmite (SpC, p. 213)
Swamp Lung (SpC, pp. 216-217)
Vitriolic Sphere (SpC, pp. 231-232)
Wall of Iron (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfIron.htm)
Wall of Salt (Sandstorm, p. 127)
Wall of Stone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfStone.htm)
... And possibly a few odd dual-school spells (Doom Scarabs, Firestride Exhalation, and Kelgore's Firebolt).

Plus Invoke Magic, Initiate of Mystra, and all that jazz.

Sure, from outside the AMF, just not from inside it. (Absent the very costly use of invoke magic)

By the time eighth level spells are a thing that's not expensive. Like. at. all. How inexpensive? By then I've usually created multiple hats of different compositions stacked atop each other. With even basic price mitigation tactics the wizard won't even notice the amount of gold spent.

It's about as expensive as a good staff, metamagic rod, or a couple wands, or several new spells in your spell book. Lots of options for gold than that one enchanted cone that traps you inside it (oops?).

Segev

2014-07-05, 10:04 AM

It's about as expensive as a good staff, metamagic rod, or a couple wands, or several new spells in your spell book. Lots of options for gold than that one enchanted cone that traps you inside it (oops?).

I'm not sure I follow. How does it "trap you inside it?"

Part of the point of the "tinfoil hat" is that you can do things like cast Teleport to get out of it if you have to.

Karnith

2014-07-05, 10:10 AM

Sure, from outside the AMF, just not from inside it. (Absent the very costly use of invoke magic)
AMFs are extremely tiny and centered on the caster/item-user. It's generally not hard to get out of one (or, for that matter, to avoid getting in one in the first place).

golem1972

2014-07-05, 05:21 PM

Shrink item http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shrinkItem.htm lasts one day per level. 5 days minimum for a wizard. It's cheap insurance that most wizards should have.

Does it strike any one else as odd that it's seen as bad gaming to limit a players options by saying don't play a weak character, but not by telling the players of powerful characters to limit their characters options? IE: you can play a wizard, but only if you play a cheerleader / god wizard. Or, your gish is making the melee guys feal bad, can you tone it down?

Flickerdart

2014-07-05, 05:31 PM

Does it strike any one else as odd that it's seen as bad gaming to limit a players options by saying don't play a weak character, but not by telling the players of powerful characters to limit their characters options?
I don't know who told you that, but I've never seen it to be the case. Players with ineffective characters are told off just as much as players with game-breakingly strong characters. It's just that it's really easy for a powerful character not to use his best spells than it is for a rubbish character to shape up, so they tend to self-regulate without having to consult the forums. When they do you'll often see posts like "my DM asked me not to play [powerful character X], so I'm trying to be effective with [weak class Y], help me make it work."

The other thing is that not everyone plays weak characters on purpose. Some people want to be strong and just need the help of an optimizer to get their character working like they envision it. The people that refuse that sort of help tend to be "real roleplayers" whose characters drag down the party on purpose (a problem).

In general, I've found that people capable of making powerful characters are more aware of the metagame (and thus, how to balance to the party) than people who are not.

lord_khaine

2014-07-05, 07:36 PM

First off you do realize the cone landing on the ground around the caster is the intended result right? No amount of landing on the ground is going to be bad because the hat never leaves the square in the process. Further there are no rules for falling objects breaking necks in D&D. The worst that would happen if the wizard crafting the hat was clumsy might be taking fall damage from the hat. That's only if he made it incorrectly though.

No, the worst that could happen would be that the wizard were holding his head in a slightly awkward angle, due to.. you know being in combat.. and therefore got caught under the hat, and pinned down by his lead hat with his legs outside.

ryu

2014-07-05, 08:01 PM

No, the worst that could happen would be that the wizard were holding his head in a slightly awkward angle, due to.. you know being in combat.. and therefore got caught under the hat, and pinned down by his lead hat with his legs outside.

Now see that would be a thing if head tilting were an actual rules thing. It isn't though. Just like how facing in a particular direction in combat isn't a thing. Now if we were to houserule that it were a thing? Fabricate a brace to limit movement of that area to just rotation but no tilting. Do not mess with people who have Intelligence greater than any human being who has ever actually lived and have the ability to take the laws of physics as a suggestion at best. You are wasting your time.

Flickerdart

2014-07-05, 08:43 PM

No, the worst that could happen would be that the wizard were holding his head in a slightly awkward angle, due to.. you know being in combat.. and therefore got caught under the hat, and pinned down by his lead hat with his legs outside.
Have you never seen a cone? There is no way for it, starting from the wizard's head, to pin his legs, because the legs are straight down and the more the cone expands, the further from the wizard's body it gets.

The worst thing that can happen with the cone is that the wizard's head is tilted too far, and once fully expanded, the cone falls away from the wizard rather than towards him. This is easily corrected by making the base wider and the height shorter.

Vogonjeltz

2014-07-05, 09:25 PM

I'm not sure I follow. How does it "trap you inside it?"

Part of the point of the "tinfoil hat" is that you can do things like cast Teleport to get out of it if you have to.

If it's not fully covering the character, they are still going to be affected by the antimagic field.

If the wizard had teleport, why did he let himself get caught in the AMF in the first place? Also; sunder and disintegrate (or even just an easy strength check to flip the cone over) are all things an attacker can do before their turn is over.

AMFs are extremely tiny and centered on the caster/item-user. It's generally not hard to get out of one (or, for that matter, to avoid getting in one in the first place).

10 ft radius centered on the caster. That comes out to 25x25. So leaving that on foot will provoke.

eggynack

2014-07-05, 09:33 PM

If the wizard had teleport, why did he let himself get caught in the AMF in the first place?
I don't even understand the question. The assumption is that someone threw up an AMF with you in range, and now you can't get out. Teleport doesn't work in that situation, for obvious reasons, so cone hat. If you're not inside the AMF at all, then you can just use any of your various magical techniques, for example, as you noted, teleport.

Vogonjeltz

2014-07-05, 09:38 PM

I don't even understand the question. The assumption is that someone threw up an AMF with you in range, and now you can't get out. Teleport doesn't work in that situation, for obvious reasons, so cone hat. If you're not inside the AMF at all, then you can just use any of your various magical techniques, for example, as you noted, teleport.

If they have the standard action to teleport at all, what is stopping them from walking out of the AMF to do so? This whole shrink item lead cone hat thing is just a distraction.

eggynack

2014-07-05, 09:40 PM

If they have the standard action to teleport at all, what is stopping them from walking out of the AMF to do so? This whole shrink item lead cone hat thing is just a distraction.
Probably a small room, or even AoO's, as you noted. There could even be more than one AMF guy, or something like that. Overall, it's not the most likely outcome, but a wizard survives by planning for worst case scenarios.

Vogonjeltz

2014-07-05, 09:46 PM

Probably a small room, or even AoO's, as you noted. There could even be more than one AMF guy, or something like that. Overall, it's not the most likely outcome, but a wizard survives by planning for worst case scenarios.

The problem being that the AMF guy can easily dispatch the cone before the wizards turn. So it might save him an attack....but that's all.

eggynack

2014-07-05, 09:52 PM

The problem being that the AMF guy can easily dispatch the cone before the wizards turn. So it might save him an attack....but that's all.
That would theoretically be true, but first, it might cost the enemy a turn to put the field up, as the duration isn't all day, and as it's not the kinda thing you generally want to have up all the time anyway, and second, there can always be a second cone. You can also make use of some off turn magical effects if necessary, like contingency and celerity.

ryu

2014-07-05, 10:03 PM

That would theoretically be true, but first, it might cost the enemy a turn to put the field up, as the duration isn't all day, and as it's not the kinda thing you generally want to have up all the time anyway, and second, there can always be a second cone. You can also make use of some off turn magical effects if necessary, like contingency and celerity.

And a third cone, and a fourth cone, and a fifth cone, and so on.

Vogonjeltz

2014-07-06, 01:32 PM

And a third cone, and a fourth cone, and a fifth cone, and so on.

No there couldn't. If the items are all shrink itemed they enlarge simultaneously, putting themselves into the nearest open space.

ryu

2014-07-06, 01:37 PM

No there couldn't. If the items are all shrink itemed they enlarge simultaneously, putting themselves into the nearest open space.

Nope. The hats are under each other. The lower ones wouldn't enlarge until the one above was destroyed. Line of effect ladies and gentlemen.

Harlot

2014-07-06, 02:26 PM

Haven't read all of the answers, but here's mine:
In my group we always distribute the loot evenly (the gold). If there are magic items that would benefit one particular character type perfectly (say; Ki Straps or monks belt, to make them very specific) that monk gets those items without having gold deducted or whatever, because helping the character helps the group overall.
That would also be true if it was an already strong character type, like a caster. No fuss. If two characters would benefit from that item and they can't agree on it, it's sold off, the gold split evenly between all group members. But that is rare Because:

the REAL reason we generally split stuff evenly is because some PLAYERS believe that that is the most fair way to do it.
We want the players to be happy. D&D is about having fun together, and having a loot distribution system that makes some players feel they got cheated/got less for some reason or another would spoil the fun, off OcC.