Trope of the Rogue

[Scorponok]

This doesn't relate to 3rd Ed, but can be a more general D&D or even Pathfinder comment. (I would hope it goes into a 3.5 context if it can though.)

Anyways, I'm a player/DM with around 3 to 4 years of experience, and am with several groups. One group in particular, my school group, is relatively new to D&D, and the DM is as well.

One of the things I've noticed is the, how would you call it, the trope of the rogue. It seems it is a common occurrence for the rogue and whoever is playing them, to want to wander off away from the party. In some cases, it might be a reasonable reason, such as trying to sneak into a noble's house to see what he's really up to. A lot of times, usually when the party has just met each other and starting off on an adventure, the rogue will wander off into the town, looking for things to steal and/or trouble to get into. I've seen this happen with a lot of players, and the interesting thing is both veteran and new rogue players do it.

I don't mind this so much, but the last play session we had, the new DM allowed the rogue to take up nearly half the game wandering around a cave checking each hallway for monsters, etc. In another session, the newly formed party had the rogue wander off and see what houses he might loot. The DM in that situation put his foot down hard and basically railroaded the party, despite half the party characters "approving" of the rogue looking around and even cast spells to actively support him. (To be fair, he's not a guy that has a lot of time preparing adventures so we were basically using a pre made adventure book and he wanted the party to get underway with the main story.)

I'm just wondering, what do the other DMs do in regards to handling this? For myself, I've come up with a system where I will hand the player playing the rogue a sheet of paper that has several mini maps of local folks homes, and a d100 chart for what he may find in a typical house. This 'activity sheet' is basically a series of tests such as Disable Device, Open Lock, and Move Silently DC checks that they can do while I manage the other players. I haven't put this into use yet, but probably will in the next campaign I start.

In the past, what I've also done is divide a 20 minute block into however many players there are, and then give the rogue PC a certain amount of time in which to do their actions before switching back to the main group. If there are 4 players, the rogue will eventually figure out that the rest of the party is able to play 15 minutes for every 5 minutes his character plays, and soon rejoins the party.

It is pretty rough though when a new DM doesn't know how to handle this. Thank God I have a ton of games and reading materials on my phone/tablet. I've had to use it a few times for sure.

[Karl Aegis]

I normally require stolen goods be sold to a professional fence at less than a quarter of market value. The fence need not always be available and won't always buy goods. I also try to make a point that the risk:reward ratio of this kind of activity is less than going into the woods and skinning some animals.

[Ssalarn]

Looting random townsfolk should almost never be more profitable than adventuring. At low levels in "starter" towns (like Sandpoint from Rise of the Runelords), the townspeople likely don't have much of any particular value, and the town guard or sheriff could/should very well include at least 1 member who's a higher level than the party. In more populous areas, like Golarion's Absalom, the odds of the people wealthy enough for burglary to be worthwhile also being much higher level or having guards that are noticeably more powerful should be pretty high.

By the time the rogue-type is a high enough level that these aren't concerns anymore, the amount of wealth he can get should be comparatively negligible and not worth his time.

If you want to curtail the behavior, don't reward the behavior.

[Seppo87]

I normally require stolen goods be sold to a professional fence at less than a quarter of market value. The fence need not always be available and won't always buy goods. I also try to make a point that the risk:reward ratio of this kind of activity is less than going into the woods and skinning some animals.
I would argue that theft is supposed to be quicker, more profitable and more accessible than honest work, that's the whole point of the activity and the main reason it exists

[Blackhawk748]

Ya but fencing stuff is difficult.... unless you go to a completely different city. On another note, how much can a commoners stuff actually be worth? 2gp tops?

Also im pretty sure this behavior started when DnD started, as Rogue was called thief for 2? editions.

[jedipotter]

I'm just wondering, what do the other DMs do in regards to handling this?

Don't let the problem players pick a rogue character to play. It's kind of simple, they say ''I'm making a rogue character'' and the DM says ''nope''. Yea, it's harsh, but it works.

Though I just as often just kill the rogue character. As soon as they say ''I leave the group and go----'' rocks fall on their character and their character dies. And the game goes on. Though sometimes I'll drag it out a bit and let them encounter a trap, and then just have the trap kill them. Or guards.

It's rare, but sometimes I do the junk loot. Where they get for loot ''eight wooden coins(worth 1/2 cp each) and a used rag''.

On the positive side, I try to encourage the rogue player to just ''loot with the group'' .

[Curmudgeon]

Play out some extra-party thievery once, then on later occasions just roll some dice to determine the Rogue's extra income. The Rogue should be rewarded for their investment in those skills which can provide them superior gp, but it shouldn't eat up a lot of player time.

Railroading and penalizing the player for using their character's skills are both bad ideas.

[jedipotter]

Railroading and penalizing the player for using their character's skills are both bad ideas.

Well, sorry. Just as your character has a skill written on a sheet of paper in front of you, does not mean you can ruin the game for everyone. At least not in my game.

See with a DM and say five players, D&D is a group game. So first off, as DM, I don't want to run a solo game for just one player. Worse, I don't want to force four other players to just sit there and watch the DM and one player play the game. I know the other four players did not come over ''just to watch Bob play a solo game''.

And it's not ''Railroading and penalizing the player for using their character's skills'', as if the player can do nothing in the game. It's Railroading and penalizing the player for ruining the game for everyone else.

[Alent]

We have a running joke inspired by an old DM that goes something like: "you wandered away from the party, knife in the back."

Apparently the guy was an old hand 2e DM, and he solved the problem of the rogue-thieves wandering away from the party by having a guilded thief just instantly assassinate them for cutting in on the guild's action the minute the rogue (or any other character) tried to leave the party and solo for a while. (He would then stop the entire game while they rerolled 3d6 place 'em where you roll 'em, a stat of 5 or less is a death in chargen reroll again.) Even though he's long gone, some pun followed by "knife in the back" is synonymous with "Stop that" at our table.

[Telok]

I've enjoyed saying "Ok, you wander off. We'll get back to you later." and then playing the usual D&D with the usual D&D group minus the special snowflake.

If they get bored and decide to rejoin the party, no problem, I fit them back in. If they don't rejoin before the session ends then I'll try to arrange a solo session for them later. Of course this being D&D land with dopplegangers and incorporeal undead in the setting people's household defenses are the best they can make/scrounge/afford and don't pull punches. If the thief wants to break into a rich looking house then he'd better be prepared for Glyph of Warding, Magic Mouth, Phantom Trap, and possibly a skeletal guard dog with bells attached. Of course it gets worse if the house belongs to an actual spellcaster and not just someone with the money to hire one.

[Psyren]

Our rogues like to go on capers while the rest of the party is crafting magic items or training (themselves or the local militia) or performing in the local tavern and the like. In other words, when nothing much is going on anyway. I don't see a problem with that, and PF's Downtime rules (specifically, "Thieves' Guild Events") are a handy way to simulate this kind of non-adventuring activity. The additional upside is that players who have invested in thievery get to use it. (We do modify the rules slightly by introducing UA's Complex Skill Checks.)


I would argue that theft is supposed to be quicker, more profitable and more accessible than honest work, that's the whole point of the activity and the main reason it exists

It is faster than "honest work" - much faster. Have you seen the payout from Profession checks? A night of burglary or even pickpocketing is likely to beat half your roll in gold pieces per week most of the time.

But that doesn't mean it needs to be faster than adventuring.

[Scorponok]

We have a running joke inspired by an old DM that goes something like: "you wandered away from the party, knife in the back."

Apparently the guy was an old hand 2e DM, and he solved the problem of the rogue-thieves wandering away from the party by having a guilded thief just instantly assassinate them for cutting in on the guild's action the minute the rogue (or any other character) tried to leave the party and solo for a while. (He would then stop the entire game while they rerolled 3d6 place 'em where you roll 'em, a stat of 5 or less is a death in chargen reroll again.) Even though he's long gone, some pun followed by "knife in the back" is synonymous with "Stop that" at our table.

This can be called, "giving him enough trope to hang himself with." *rimshot*

Thank you folks, I'm here all week. Try the veal.

[prufock]

In the past, what I've also done is divide a 20 minute block into however many players there are, and then give the rogue PC a certain amount of time in which to do their actions before switching back to the main group. If there are 4 players, the rogue will eventually figure out that the rest of the party is able to play 15 minutes for every 5 minutes his character plays, and soon rejoins the party.
I'm not sure if you're looking for advice here, but you already know the answer. Communicate this to the DM. All players should get roughly equal play time. If they're split up, 25% each.

[Alent]

This can be called, "giving him enough trope to hang himself with." *rimshot*

Thank you folks, I'm here all week. Try the veal.

This pun is still not as bad as the time the resident idiot wandered off to look at something right before our meeting with the king and was promptly told "You can't see why kids like cinnamon toast crunch, knife in the back."

(He got better)

[Segev]

If all he wants is to spend some of his downtime engaging in the character-appropriate "random theft," let him do it in the same way that you let the fighter do some tavern-crawling or the bard pick up chicks.

That is, ask him to wait to do it when it can be done off-screen without separating him from the on-screen actions, and then let him make rolls on his skills as if they were a Profession.

Occasionally, make it useful to your ends: while he's out, give him a plot hook, but make it clear he'll need the rest of the party. (OOC, tell him to include them, if you have to. Give the players a spiel about choosing to have their character be conducive to acting as a party.) You can, incidentally, do the same for the tavern-crawling fighter, the babe-hunting bard, and even the wizard studying in the local library.

The key is to make sure he understands, OOC, that you're not telling him his character can't do these things, but that you need him to work with you on timing it so it is not disruptive to the game. And that you won't RP it out any more than you plan to RP out the cleric's visit to his temple to give sermons.

[Curmudgeon]

Well, sorry. Just as your character has a skill written on a sheet of paper in front of you, does not mean you can ruin the game for everyone. At least not in my game.

See with a DM and say five players, D&D is a group game. So first off, as DM, I don't want to run a solo game for just one player. Worse, I don't want to force four other players to just sit there and watch the DM and one player play the game. I know the other four players did not come over ''just to watch Bob play a solo game''.

And it's not ''Railroading and penalizing the player for using their character's skills'', as if the player can do nothing in the game. It's Railroading and penalizing the player for ruining the game for everyone else.
D&D is a serialized group game; everybody takes turns. Do you think that Wizards shouldn't be able to write spells in their spellbooks? It takes them a full day just to study each spell, and before that they need to procure use of a peaceful, quiet, comfortable space in which to work. So I guess that's impossible in your group, since you don't want to run a solo game for just one player. :smallmad:

[Haluesen]

I don't really get why so many people in this thread seem to be against the idea of a rogue player going off to do some random looting stuff. :smallconfused: I mean if the person tries to do it absolutely all the time then yeah, put a stop to it. But generally I think it's a bad idea to punish players for wanting to play out their character a bit more than just looting dungeons constantly.

OP, I think you got the right idea pretty much. In fact I intend to use that little activity sheet idea in my own game just in case, maybe adjust a bit for other class activities. :smallbiggrin: I usually give all the PC's a bit of downtime between quests though so letting them do stuff just like this is naturally built into my games. Rogues will go steal, wizards will go research, anyone with ties to organizations will do stuff with those groups. But a way to streamline it like that sheet would be pretty useful. The players get to have fun doing what they want, it doesn't take a lot of time from others' enjoyment since they get the same time, and it gives DM opportunities for stuff like roleplay, plot hooks, and world building. Win-win really.

I just don't understand why at least a few people here immediately would jump on a player for that and punish him or her because of that. It's not like it's guaranteed that the person will immediately go cause trouble (in an OOG sense, not IG which could be interesting). And if they do, you punish them then.

[BowStreetRunner]

If you think about it, actually wandering around in a group consisting of fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue all the time is in fact more unnatural than each character wanting to go off on their own at times. (Seriously, how many people do you know who always walk around in balanced groups of four?)

I've always just let my players do what they want, then looked for opportunities to present themselves for me to guide them back into the plot. My games are mostly sand-box style, in which I feel very little need to railroad my players or to penalize them for playing the way they want to play.

On the other hand, while their characters are free to do what they want, I do keep a tight reign on overall game-play to make sure every player gets plenty of attention. If the rogue is off scouting and it is taking a long time, I will put the rogue on hold and come back to the rest of the party for a while before going back and finishing with the rogue.

A couple of key principles that are helpful to running this style of game:


Actions have consequences. Whenever a player decides to have their character take an action that doesn't further the plot, I stop and consider what consequences I might apply to their actions that would allow them to have their fun but still make the main story more interesting. In one instance while the party was in town attempting to acquire some supplies they desperately needed, the rogue was discovered while committing a string of break-ins and the entire party was run out of town. Once their supplies dwindled low enough, I was able to present them with a small manor that they might have passed by on another occasion, but now they needed to stop to ask for help. While I had originally intended a different plot hook to get them to the manor, this worked just as well.
Every player needs a certain level of attention. While some players are comfortable taking a back seat to others, you should still make sure that each has an opportunity to be the focus. One of my favorite games that I ran involved four party members who were given different missions at one point that required the party to split up. This led to a series of four separate sessions with the other players being handed pre-made NPCs for the sessions that did not involve their character. In the end, we got to see each character shine in a custom-made mini-adventure that really helped everyone get a feel for their individual strengths, without the potential of being overshadowed by another PC.
The purpose of the game is to have fun. Don't get so caught up in the rules and the plot that you lose focus of the fact that the players and DM won't want to keep playing if they aren't having fun. I have seen games completely fall apart as many times because the DM was making one or more players miserable as because the players were making the DM or each other miserable.

[Lightlawbliss]

If you think about it, actually wandering around in a group consisting of fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue all the time is in fact more unnatural than each character wanting to go off on their own at times. (Seriously, how many people do you know who always walk around in balanced groups of four?)


The group I often play with often has times where we are together in town long enough to sell stuff and split the loot, arrange where we get together if there is a problem, when we are leaving, and then go out own merry way. We often don't even stay at the same inn (one of my roguish characters was fond of sleeping in abandoned homes and unused parts of rich people homes but that is besides the point) or see each other before it was time to leave.

We wouldn't have even been run out of town together, most of the town likely didn't even realize we knew each other.

[Psyren]

D&D is a serialized group game; everybody takes turns. Do you think that Wizards shouldn't be able to write spells in their spellbooks? It takes them a full day just to study each spell, and before that they need to procure use of a peaceful, quiet, comfortable space in which to work. So I guess that's impossible in your group, since you don't want to run a solo game for just one player. :smallmad:

While I get your point, this isn't a good analogy; scribing can easily be done off-camera and nobody has to wait. "The following day, you all meet in the town square" or similar. And even if the wizard fails it's just "oh well, I'll try again when I get some more Spellcraft."

A rogue's caper is more involved, and has all kinds of chances and consequences for failure. Did he trigger an alarm? Did he get out before the cops arrived? If not, was he recognized or even captured? Did the vault seal him in and now he missed the meeting? You can similarly gloss over events like that, and then have the party mount a rescue mission or have the rogue roll a few more times to escape on his own, but that is unlikely to be satisfying for either party to just have a "roll d20; success, you get an extra 500 gold, or fail, you get nothing."

[Flickerdart]

This is an unavoidable manifestation of 3.5's fervent role protection. It's even seeped into the lexicon - "party face" is the one guy who can talk, and everyone else lets them roll all the checks. But unlike social encounters, where the party fighter can just keep his mouth shut, stealth checks require everyone to roll, so the rogue has to choose between his stealth ranks and his party.

If you want to solve this, helping your PCs mitigate ACP and giving everyone better class skills and skill points goes a long way. Then everyone can go on cool stealth missions.

Alternatively, you could let the rogue treat Hide/MS/Open Lock/Disable Device/Search as some sort of combo Profession (Burglar) check, in the same way that Perform can be used to earn money. Perhaps the rogue rolls his best one and adds +2 for every other skill he has more than 5 ranks in. This won't make him mad bank, but there's literally zero reason for you to give the rogue free wealth on top of what everyone else gets.

[jaydubs]

I run mini solo sessions for players who want to do things away from the party. This can be a rogue burglarizing homes, but it's often just someone investigating a personal mission of some kind. I just level people at the same time, so solo experience isn't an issue. And I avoid the side missions creating wealth disparity problem, by using a concept I call "narrative wealth." Essentially, things like fenced goods, business investments, selling crafted goods on the side, etc. can only be spent on narrative things. Hiring mercenaries to protect someone, NPC rogues to investigate a personal enemy, buying a larger house, bribing NPCs, etc. are considered narrative expenditures, that this type of wealth can be spent freely on. But you can't buy magic items with it, prevent solo missions from leading to direct power disparity in terms of balancing encounters.

[Segev]

You can run a rogue's activities in the background as easily as scroll-scribing. Only if you think it would be interesting should you worry about whether he runs into consequences that he can't brush off as noodle incidents when he shows up for the next party meeting.

[prufock]

While I get your point, this isn't a good analogy; scribing can easily be done off-camera and nobody has to wait. "The following day, you all meet in the town square" or similar. And even if the wizard fails it's just "oh well, I'll try again when I get some more Spellcraft."
If you scroll up, you'll see that this is what Curmudgeon is suggesting for the rogue as well, so his point is consistent. And he's suggesting this as an alternative to "go off on your own = auto-death."


A rogue's caper is more involved, and has all kinds of chances and consequences for failure. Did he trigger an alarm? Did he get out before the cops arrived? If not, was he recognized or even captured? Did the vault seal him in and now he missed the meeting? You can similarly gloss over events like that, and then have the party mount a rescue mission or have the rogue roll a few more times to escape on his own, but that is unlikely to be satisfying for either party to just have a "roll d20; success, you get an extra 500 gold, or fail, you get nothing."
Thing is, though, crossing the street also has consequences. You could get hit by a runaway horse. You could step in a deceptively deep puddle and break your leg. Sometimes, in the interest of keeping the game moving along, it's okay to gloss over things - as you do with the wizard. Finding a quiet space with the raw materials and tools to create what he needs could also be a side quest, but instead we can just say "I buy materials and rent a room to craft my ring of awesomeness." Similarly, a rogue can make a single check (or a few, if he's attempting a more complex raid) to determine success or failure. On the outside, a 5-minute quickie of "roll search, door is trapped, roll disable, success!" with some quick descriptive text is enough time to spend on a solo mission.

[Flickerdart]

Thing is, though, crossing the street also has consequences. You could get hit by a runaway horse. You could step in a deceptively deep puddle and break your leg. Sometimes, in the interest of keeping the game moving along, it's okay to gloss over things - as you do with the wizard. Finding a quiet space with the raw materials and tools to create what he needs could also be a side quest, but instead we can just say "I buy materials and rent a room to craft my ring of awesomeness." Similarly, a rogue can make a single check (or a few, if he's attempting a more complex raid) to determine success or failure. On the outside, a 5-minute quickie of "roll search, door is trapped, roll disable, success!" with some quick descriptive text is enough time to spend on a solo mission.
There are considerably more risks involved with breaking and entering than renting a room at an inn. "Armed men break into your room while you're crafting" is out of the ordinary and a plot point, "the guards see you and shoot you" is par for the course when breaking and entering.

[Hiro Protagonest]

D&D is a serialized group game; everybody takes turns. Do you think that Wizards shouldn't be able to write spells in their spellbooks? It takes them a full day just to study each spell, and before that they need to procure use of a peaceful, quiet, comfortable space in which to work. So I guess that's impossible in your group, since you don't want to run a solo game for just one player. :smallmad:

I didn't save the link, but at some point Jedi made a post where he basically said "if a wizard wants to collect spell components I tell his player to leave because he's cutting into group time".

[Segev]

There are considerably more risks involved with breaking and entering than renting a room at an inn. "Armed men break into your room while you're crafting" is out of the ordinary and a plot point, "the guards see you and shoot you" is par for the course when breaking and entering.

Is it, though? If you're a professional, you case the joint and pick the one where being caught is least likely. And you have your escape set up so that, if things do go wrong, you can make a clean getaway.

Hence you let the rogue roll an approrpriate skill or two (maybe treat "stealth" or "disable device" as if they were a Profession roll) and give him income based on them. He's playing it relatively safe, taking no risks he isn't able to easily handle. Much like the wizard scribing the scroll.

[Flickerdart]

Is it, though? If you're a professional, you case the joint and pick the one where being caught is least likely. And you have your escape set up so that, if things do go wrong, you can make a clean getaway.
Much more complex than going to Starbuck's with your Macspellbook for a day.


Hence you let the rogue roll an approrpriate skill or two (maybe treat "stealth" or "disable device" as if they were a Profession roll) and give him income based on them. He's playing it relatively safe, taking no risks he isn't able to easily handle. Much like the wizard scribing the scroll.
You'll notice I made the same suggestion upthread.

[Psyren]

If you scroll up, you'll see that this is what Curmudgeon is suggesting for the rogue as well, so his point is consistent. And he's suggesting this as an alternative to "go off on your own = auto-death."

But that's my point - it shouldn't be like that for the rogue, because what he's doing is far more dangerous and involved. Say he rolls and fails - the player is likely to say "Oh, but I don't get captured because I can Escape Artist out of the handcuffs" or "Oh, I made a noise and alerted the dogs, but let me scale the wall in the foyer and escape through the skylight." Before long, you do end up planning out the whole thing into a solo excursion. And if it's not like that, if it's just "Okay, roll stealth. Good job, here's your money" then it becomes boring and pointless for both the rogue player and the DM.



Thing is, though, crossing the street also has consequences. You could get hit by a runaway horse. You could step in a deceptively deep puddle and break your leg.

This is a terrible analogy too. Robbing a wealthy noble's mansion or even picking pockets in a busy market are risks orders of magnitude higher than crossing the street, unless you're at such a high level that you should be raiding dragon hoards or breaking into wizard towers instead.

Glossing over a wizard isn't just easy, it makes sense to do so - there are no real consequences for his failure. With the rogue, you either handwave them to absurdity or they take up playtime.

My personal favorite solution would be the "you scope out a location for the party to hit, roll and see if you get the best point of entry or can time the party's arrival during a changing of the guard" - or, if the group contains some lawful characters who aren't down for that kind of sneakiness, have him scout out the next dungeon or urban quest area (like the creepy cultists' basement) instead, and palm some knickknacks while he's there. And that way, if he tanks his rolls and gets captured, he ends up being held hostage in the very place the party is headed next anyway, advancing the plot and leaving him out of the action only briefly.

[lycantrope]

Skulls and Shackles, a Pathfinder adventure path, divides the time on the ship based on time blocks. We've since adopted this into our games in order to fairly and efficiently (and relatively realistically) manage downtime.

Morning
Afternoon
Night

You can undertake one activity, be it solo or with any number of other players, in each block, with a penalty (I forget off the top of my head the details of the penalty) if you don't spend at least one block every 24 hours sleeping/resting/doing whatever you need to do to recover for the day.

As far as your rogue in particular, the d100 solution is clever and a much better way of managing than "manually." If you want to deter crime from becoming a twice-a-day-every-day activity, consider adding a list of consequences in case of check failure.

[Baxter Konrad]

In a Dark Heresy game I was briefly part of, we had a Scum in the party. DH characters get an income between sessions, representing what they do as a job when not adventuring. Priests get a wage from the clergy, Arbites get a wage from the local precinct, Guardsmen get a wage from the Imperial Army, etc. Scum roll 2D6 and that's how much money they earn from crime between missions.

I would handle it that way. If the Rogue's criminal activities are part of the group's adventure, it can be played out and rewarded. If it's just him wanting to wander off alone, then he gets a random, small amount of gold that is scaled with his criminal abilities... and then every legitimate player gets a fixed wage for the same time period.

Make it so there's a chance the Rogue will get a higher wage from looting than his peers do from genuine 'work', but his average income should be lower than everyone else's income. Crime doesn't pay - remind him of that.

For roleplaying crime, I would stick to some general rules. Certain things, like coins or common goods can be lifted easily, but the watch, town guards and socially-aware traders will be on the lookout for suspiciously large amounts of coin being spent, or goods being sold. Distinctive items are impossible to sell - no matter how good you are, you will NEVER those golden oil lamp statuettes you lifted. Nobody in the city will buy them. Nobody in the surrounding settlements will buy them. The only way to offload them is to find a thieves guild with connections who can smuggle them out of the country and flog them in parts unknown, and the thieves are going to take a huge cut for their trouble.

For high level Rogues, items of value become marked with arcane glyphs or similar so the party can't just lift 20,000 gold worth of stuff and teleport to another country to sell it. Nowhere on the plane, or ANY plane will buy your loot without it being 'scrubbed' by specialist thief-mages, who again will take 95% of the profit for their trouble.

The only people who make money out of thieves guilds are the guild leaders themselves, and getting that far should be an epic undertaking in its own right - practically a quest reward for a high level chaotic and/or evil party.

[Segev]

Psyren, you're needlessly complicating it. Reduce the reward to be commensurate with the actual risk, and let the player narrate what the consequences of his rolls are that generate the final result.

"I spent the whole time casing joints, but didn't find one whose security I could penetrate." "Breaking in was easy, but he had these alarm-dogs. Seriously, tiny little things with barks that could be heard across the whole mansion. I scrambled out with only their bejeweled collars."

That kind of thing.

You're right, the activity can be much more dangerous. But it needn't be. In the kind of fiction we're dealing with, if we weren't RPing it, having the rogue have a few noodle incidents based on escapades we only hear snippets of that happened off-screen between adventures would be fine.

It's fine here, too.

[Psyren]

Psyren, you're needlessly complicating it. Reduce the reward to be commensurate with the actual risk, and let the player narrate what the consequences of his rolls are that generate the final result.

"I spent the whole time casing joints, but didn't find one whose security I could penetrate." "Breaking in was easy, but he had these alarm-dogs. Seriously, tiny little things with barks that could be heard across the whole mansion. I scrambled out with only their bejeweled collars."

That kind of thing.

You're right, the activity can be much more dangerous. But it needn't be. In the kind of fiction we're dealing with, if we weren't RPing it, having the rogue have a few noodle incidents based on escapades we only hear snippets of that happened off-screen between adventures would be fine.

It's fine here, too.

I am adding texture, yes - because I want it to be a more involved than "I rolled a d20 + fluff = loot/no loot" but less involved than "I had a solo mission while the rest of the party sat back and watched." And I think that middle ground is attainable. Certainly many capers can be resolved that simply/dully, but for some I'm either going to tell the rogue "this one's too hard to solo, come back with help and get everyone else involved" or "You pull off the job and get paid, but {unexpected consequence that involves other party members, e.g. the town guard showing up with a vague description that might match your friend} happens."

[jedipotter]

D&D is a serialized group game; everybody takes turns. Do you think that Wizards shouldn't be able to write spells in their spellbooks? It takes them a full day just to study each spell, and before that they need to procure use of a peaceful, quiet, comfortable space in which to work. So I guess that's impossible in your group, since you don't want to run a solo game for just one player. :smallmad:

There is a huge difference between when Player Bob, by him self, take a couple minutes to do something, by himself, while the game is not being played and one player demanding a solo game.

How can you have a group game where people take turns? It's not exactly a group when it's five games of ''four people watch one person play the game''.

Downtime, doing things like resting or writing a spell just ''happens in a real time second or two''. Ok, Bob you write your spell it takes a day and 'pop' it's the next day.


I don't really get why so many people in this thread seem to be against the idea of a rogue player going off to do some random looting stuff. :smallconfused:

It disrupts the group game. If someone invited you over to play D&D would you A)Come over and expect to play D&D or B)Come over and expect to sit there and do nothing and not play D&D, but watch another player play D&D. I'd hope you'd pick A....


I just don't understand why at least a few people here immediately would jump on a player for that and punish him or her because of that. It's not like it's guaranteed that the person will immediately go cause trouble (in an OOG sense, not IG which could be interesting). And if they do, you punish them then.

They are going against the group. D&D is a group game. That is why there are other people there....they are players. They are not an audience.


I didn't save the link, but at some point Jedi made a post where he basically said "if a wizard wants to collect spell components I tell his player to leave because he's cutting into group time".

This is yet again, a player saying ''I want to play a solo game and force the other players to not only not play, but force them to watch me play''.


I am adding texture, yes - because I want it to be a more involved than "I rolled a d20 + fluff = loot/no loot" but less involved than "I had a solo mission while the rest of the party sat back and watched." And I think that middle ground is attainable. "

As with so many things, there simply is no middle ground.

After all to just say ''your character loots and stuff, you find 1d10 gold coins and a silver ring'' is not enough for the player. It fails to meet the three main goals of a Solo Adventure in a Group Game:

1. It must disrupt the group game
2. It must allow the solo player to have fun, specifiably at the expense of others
3. It must allow the character to get loot/experience, specifiably more then the group as a whole

[Karl Aegis]

There is a huge difference between when Player Bob, by him self, take a couple minutes to do something, by himself, while the game is not being played and one player demanding a solo game.

How can you have a group game where people take turns? It's not exactly a group when it's five games of ''four people watch one person play the game''.

Downtime, doing things like resting or writing a spell just ''happens in a real time second or two''. Ok, Bob you write your spell it takes a day and 'pop' it's the next day.



It disrupts the group game. If someone invited you over to play D&D would you A)Come over and expect to play D&D or B)Come over and expect to sit there and do nothing and not play D&D, but watch another player play D&D. I'd hope you'd pick A....



They are going against the group. D&D is a group game. That is why there are other people there....they are players. They are not an audience.



This is yet again, a player saying ''I want to play a solo game and force the other players to not only not play, but force them to watch me play''.



As with so many things, there simply is no middle ground.

After all to just say ''your character loots and stuff, you find 1d10 gold coins and a silver ring'' is not enough for the player. It fails to meet the three main goals of a Solo Adventure in a Group Game:

1. It must disrupt the group game
2. It must allow the solo player to have fun, specifiably at the expense of others
3. It must allow the character to get loot/experience, specifiably more then the group as a whole

You do realize you can delegate some NPCs to the other players so you can keep them involved, right?

[Flickerdart]

You do realize you can delegate some NPCs to the other players so you can keep them involved, right?
Ooh, I like that. Keep a pool of nameless hirelings with the party and let the PCs borrow them.

Rogue wants to do a night-time stealth mission to retrieve the artifact? Everyone grab Swordsage Guy, Beguiler Guy, and Scout Guy and wait til nightfall.

The bard wants to try negotiating with the orcs for the artifact? Send in Enchanter Guy, Telepath Guy, and Bad Cop Guy along with him instead of three smelly unwashed fighters.

[Solaris]

Ooh, I like that. Keep a pool of nameless hirelings with the party and let the PCs borrow them.

Rogue wants to do a night-time stealth mission to retrieve the artifact? Everyone grab Swordsage Guy, Beguiler Guy, and Scout Guy and wait til nightfall.

The bard wants to try negotiating with the orcs for the artifact? Send in Enchanter Guy, Telepath Guy, and Bad Cop Guy along with him instead of three smelly unwashed fighters.

I've always enjoyed having the players run an adventuring guild with a number of different characters they can choose from to take on an adventure.
This works well if you have a player who constantly wants to change up his characters.

I also like the idea of the rogue's 'activity sheet' for off-screen capers. Does anyone have a copy on digits that they can post up?

[jedipotter]

You do realize you can delegate some NPCs to the other players so you can keep them involved, right?

Yes, I call this Very Bad Idea Number One.

Zeno is all excited to play. He has spent the last week building his perfect character. Making just the right mix of feats and abilities and spells and rules to make a great character. And he has spent a lot of time on the characters backstory and personallity and everything else.

Zeno can't wait to play his character.

And then he gets to the game and is told ''Sorry, you can't play your character, Bob wants to do a solo adventure. Um, here is a gnoll bard, um, play this character for Bob's solo game''

[Scorponok]

I also like the idea of the rogue's 'activity sheet' for off-screen capers. Does anyone have a copy on digits that they can post up?

I guess I should share this to get feedback before I do too much more work.


http://i58.tinypic.com/23mwkdh.jpg
http://i61.tinypic.com/10p51sg.jpg
http://i59.tinypic.com/30jk513.jpg


Basically, this is the sheet I would hand the rogue if he wanted to rob a simple peasant house. It starts off with him having to roll an Open Lock check, with the DC being determined by a d6. It then takes you through the roll for traps, and what traps may be present. The second page are tables for what type of furniture is in the house and what could be hidden in each piece. The PC may get a certain amount of time before the owner comes back, so they may have to choose wisely where to look for valuable items. The third page is just different layouts for each type of house that may be in a town.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Of course I'm not finished it yet as there will be lists for what might be in plants, inside lanterns, and other jars and jugs.

[Flickerdart]

And then he gets to the game and is told ''Sorry, you can't play your character, Bob wants to do a solo adventure. Um, here is a gnoll bard, um, play this character for Bob's solo game''
Yes, you can do it in this hamfisted way and make it bad on purpose. People would have thought beer was a bad idea if brewers decided to poop in it before serving it, too.

[Karl Aegis]

Yes, I call this Very Bad Idea Number One.

Zeno is all excited to play. He has spent the last week building his perfect character. Making just the right mix of feats and abilities and spells and rules to make a great character. And he has spent a lot of time on the characters backstory and personallity and everything else.

Zeno can't wait to play his character.

And then he gets to the game and is told ''Sorry, you can't play your character, Bob wants to do a solo adventure. Um, here is a gnoll bard, um, play this character for Bob's solo game''

Just like you give your characters the choice of who they would associate with, you give your players the choice of who they want to be associated with. If your player doesn't want to play a gnoll bard and you refuse to give him a choice in who he can be (they probably already paid into the scene by giving the DM salted nuts), you're effectively punishing the player for trying to participate. It's better to reward them for good roleplaying (possibly by giving them salted nuts when they roleplay well, which they can give the DM for more opportunities to earn more salted nuts) than it is to punish them for showing up to your game. Remember: It's never a solo adventure if everyone is participating.

[Alent]

Ooh, I like that. Keep a pool of nameless hirelings with the party and let the PCs borrow them.

Rogue wants to do a night-time stealth mission to retrieve the artifact? Everyone grab Swordsage Guy, Beguiler Guy, and Scout Guy and wait til nightfall.

The bard wants to try negotiating with the orcs for the artifact? Send in Enchanter Guy, Telepath Guy, and Bad Cop Guy along with him instead of three smelly unwashed fighters.

I like this idea. I think I'd have the group croudsource a bunch of NPCs and have them roll to see which ones join the group, so there'd always be some "oh, this one's me!" in there.

[jedipotter]

Just like you give your characters the choice of who they would associate with, you give your players the choice of who they want to be associated with. If your player doesn't want to play a gnoll bard and you refuse to give him a choice in who he can be (they probably already paid into the scene by giving the DM salted nuts), you're effectively punishing the player for trying to participate. It's better to reward them for good roleplaying (possibly by giving them salted nuts when they roleplay well, which they can give the DM for more opportunities to earn more salted nuts) than it is to punish them for showing up to your game. Remember: It's never a solo adventure if everyone is participating.

Some times it's like I'm the only one......why

So you really think it's like the greatest thing ever for a group to show up to play D&D, as a group each with their own personally created character to be told: ''Well Bob wants to rob some houses with his character, and that is what we will do as Bob is just so cool. So we won't have our normal game, this will be Bob's Funtime Game. So none of you other players can use your characters, but if you'd like, you can use an NPC to play with Bob during his game. Awesome Fun, just for Bob!''

[Karl Aegis]

Some times it's like I'm the only one......why

So you really think it's like the greatest thing ever for a group to show up to play D&D, as a group each with their own personally created character to be told: ''Well Bob wants to rob some houses with his character, and that is what we will do as Bob is just so cool. So we won't have our normal game, this will be Bob's Funtime Game. So none of you other players can use your characters, but if you'd like, you can use an NPC to play with Bob during his game. Awesome Fun, just for Bob!''

Making suboptimal choices and taking the risk of failure is always preferable to not making choices at all.

[Alent]

Some times it's like I'm the only one......why

So you really think it's like the greatest thing ever for a group to show up to play D&D, as a group each with their own personally created character to be told: ''Well Bob wants to rob some houses with his character, and that is what we will do as Bob is just so cool. So we won't have our normal game, this will be Bob's Funtime Game. So none of you other players can use your characters, but if you'd like, you can use an NPC to play with Bob during his game. Awesome Fun, just for Bob!''

You're kind of right, and kind of wrong, and I knew this was coming. :smallsigh:

If everyone is okay with Bob robbing places, then sure why not? If you don't want to spend time but are okay with it, the tables are a nice solution.

If everyone wants a game of heroic fantasy or doesn't want to have the baggage of a thief along for the ride, then you'd remind bob we're off to save the world, forget about the house, there'll be other houses to rob after the world is saved, generations of houses, all there for Bob the magnificent's plunder. (But there'll be no houses if we're unable to save the world because Bob landed us all in jail that one time he couldn't say no to that pretty bauble he saw through the second story window.)

One of my favorite campaigns (right before the derail) was an all thief campaign. Robbing mansions can be a ton of fun in D&D, but before we did that, the DM asked us what we wanted to do and the thief campaign was what we said we wanted, we all rolled sneak attack characters and off we went. This sort of thing really is best with a gentleman's agreement as to how it'd work in advance.

[jedipotter]

You're kind of right, and kind of wrong, and I knew this was coming. :smallsigh:



But it's not the ''everyone come over and play in the Very Special Bob Only Game''. It's not where the DM tells each player ''ok, the game will be a Very Special Game, just for Bob. Leave your characters at home. You will just be running some NPC's for Bob's Game''.

I guess there would be some odd games like this -DM-''Ok, before we start the game, where all five of you players will all play together and go through an adventure......Bob has asked if he can play a Solo game with just his character. So who votes to let Bob play his solo game?'' And i guess some players would even think it's great to not play their character and instead be all happy ''yes, I get to play goblin mook number two!''

It's Bob selfishly ruining the game for everyone.....

[Flickerdart]

I also like the idea of the rogue's 'activity sheet' for off-screen capers. Does anyone have a copy on digits that they can post up?

1: This village is crippled with poverty. You try to peek through windows to spot something worth stealing, but they have wooden shutters instead of glass. Make a Sleight of Hand check; you make that many coppers busking in the village square.
2-5: Someone spotted you skulking around. Unless you succeed on a DC10 Charisma check, the attitude of the villagers degrades one step as they suspect the strangers of wrongdoing.
6-10: This is a prosperous village - but like any other small settlement, it has little use for coin, and most commerce is performed with barter or favours. You manage to catch a goat unattended; a DC10 Handle Animal check allows you to convince it to follow. The goat can be sold to any villager for 1gp, provided they can afford it and don't recognize it as someone else's property (DC10 Knowledge: Nature in this village, DC15 in an adjacent village, impossible further away).
11-20: As you jimmy open a floorboard that would be a typical hiding place for a coinpurse, you find a silver locket, worn with age. It would fetch 1d20sp if fenced at the next town, but a DC20 Open Lock check snaps it open to reveal a mysterious map. It depicts a beautiful marble archway with the image of the god Heironeous, and a path leading from there to some kind of chest.
21-30: You spend the evening casing a few houses and following the wealthier villagers to see what they do. A man breaking away from the lit town square draws your attention, and you follow him. Make Move Silently and Hide checks - if both beat DC15, you follow the man to a small stump outside of town, and see him remove a hidden root to stash something underneath. Gain treasure appropriate for a CR1 encounter (roll on the random treasure table and divide gold value by 10; average 30gp).
31-40: Your search for easy money quickly draws you to the tavern, where a strange local game is underway. From a first impression, you surmise that it involves throwing a small brick into a sort of bucket; a DC10 Intelligence check allows you to grasp the rest of the rules well enough to break even, and a DC15 Dexterity check makes you a gold piece for every point by which you beat the DC. Failure on the Intelligence check loses you GP equal to the difference between your result and the DC.
41-50: You manage to convince the locals you are a fortune teller who can read palms. A DC15 Sleight of Hand check allows you to palm 1d3 rings; for each one there is a 90% chance it is a copper ring worth 1sp, a 9% chance it is a silver ring worth 1gp, and a 1% chance it is a golden ring worth 10gp. If you beat the DC by 5 or more, the attitude of the villagers improves one step; failure causes it to become Unfriendly.
51-55: You pull a complicated grift on the villagers; with every sentence out of your mouth, your story gets more and more complex. Make a DC5 Intelligence check; if you succeed, you gain 1gp. You may elect to roll again; the DC increases by 5 each time, but the payoff doubles. If you fail, you manage to make it to your party's cabin and wake them up before an angry mob of 3d6 commoners is upon them...hopefully, your fighters went to bed in armour and your wizards have some spells left!
56-75: You catch sight of a lucrative target, and follow him home. A DC20 Open Lock check allows you to gain entry to the house and pick him clean; gain coins as though your check was a Profession check.
76-85: You try to sweet-talk your way into a local housewife's kitchen. A DC15 Diplomacy check lets you pilfer 1/10th pound of a spice or herb; (cinnamon 50%, tobacco 30%, ginger 10%, saffron 5%, cloves 5%). Consult the trade goods table for values.
86-90: With a deft cut of your dagger, you free a ox or horse from its yoke. A DC20 Ride check sees you guide the animal safely to the next village where you can sell it for its 15GP worth; failure means you return to your party covered in dust, bruises, and a little bit of manure, and take -1 on any Charisma skill or ability check for 24 hours.
91-96: Your skulking around at night attracts attention from a representative of the local militia - a farm boy with a brain as small as his muscles are bulging. A DC15 Bluff convinces him you weren't trying anything funny; otherwise you take 1d4 nonlethal damage, +1d4 for every 5ft your speed is below 30ft.
97-99: A rare find! You don't know if the stash you found belongs to a noble who's fled from retribution, or was earned in some dishonest trade. Either way, it's yours now, and you've made off with a lockbox containing 3d10gp. A DC15 Disable Device check lets you deftly disable the poison needle, otherwise you suffer the effects of small centipede poison (1d2 Dex/1d2 Dex damage, Fort DC11).
00: A thief rummaging through someone else's belongings can frequently find more than he bargained for. A DC10 Wisdom check lets you avoid 1d2 points of Wisdom drain as you snap close the eldritch manuscript just in time. A CN/CE/NE/LE (roll 1d4 to pick at random) spellcaster will pay up to 350gp for this book, if you can find one and stomach dealing with them. Every day the book is in your possession, repeat the Wisdom check or take the drain; on days you fail the check, you cannot bear to simply throw or give the book away in anticipation of the price it can fetch.



1: Every thief has a bad day; a DC20 Open Lock checks ensures you get out of the jail cell before morning comes and you're brought before the local magistrate on charges of burglary and whatever else is politically convenient. Better hope the townsfolk aren't in the middle of a witch hunt.
2-11: While elbow-deep in what looks like a hiding place, you recognize a marking by the local thieves' guild around the same time that you hear the footsteps of a group that's trying to sound like it isn't a group. You succeed in escaping with your limbs still attached, elbow and all.
12-20: It doesn't really matter how you ended up in a noble's room while he or she (DM should select whichever one is funnier at the time) wasn't wearing clothes. The important thing is that you now have a 75gp outfit you can sell, as long as you can bear to leap from the 20ft high window (with all the dangers that entails).
21-40: An evening spent introducing your dagger to the purse-strings of the locals is an evening well spent. Roll a Sleight of Hand check and gain money as though it were a Profession check.
41-50: You stumble upon an item wanted by a local thieves guild, and they have sent an emissary willing to negotiate for it. You may accept the 50gp asking price; if you choose to haggle, a DC20 Diplomacy check doubles the payment, but if you fail by 5 or more, you find the item stolen from you the next night with no compensation at all.
51-60: News travels slowly to a town like this. A DC20 Forgery check will convince the magistrate that you are an emissary from the count, and he will award you a purse of 1d4*100gp in emergency taxes to combat a local disaster. Failure has you thrown out of the fort, and lowers the authorities' attitude by one step.
61-70: In the din of the pub's chatter, something catches your ear. With a DC20 Gather Information check, you can piece together the location of a valuable item hidden in the town and guarded by secret agents of a powerful faction. You happen to know an informant who will happily pay 1d10*50gp for this information.
71-90: You break into an antique shop; only a DC20 Appraise check will let you determine what's worthwhile and what's junk. Success lets you loot 100gp of treasure, plus 10gp per point by which you exceed the DC. Failure means you earn 1d10cp and everyone in the thieves guild is laughing at you behind your back.
91-96: Stealing isn't so bad when you're stealing from thieves - at least that's what you tell yourself as you sheathe your sap and gently lower the unconscious enforcer to the floor. Tomorrow, the thieves' guild is going to be looking for whoever robbed their safehouse, but today you're booking it back to your lodgings safe and sound. A DC20 Decipher Script check lets you decode the cipher to open the vault (roll for a random gem, rerolling results 90-100); otherwise you gain an art object worth 1d10*10gp.
97-99: Few things can convince adventurers to leave their magic items unattended, but even they know better not to bring their battle gear to a formal function. A DC25 Climb check lets you scale the wall leading to their inn room, and make it back down with a magic item in hand. Roll 2d10 and gain that number's item from the Wondrous Items table.
00: Your identity may be unknown, but your skill as a thief has spread waves through the town. As you patrol the streets one night, you spot impressionable youths who have been inspired by your story to embark upon a life of crime. A DC25 Intimidate check convinces them to part with the goods they've acquired; roll twice on this table and ignore the skill requirements when determining your reward (reroll further rolls of 00).



1: A DC25 Use Magic Device check lets you delay the wizard's trap until after you've pulled your head out of the safe. What kind of a madman sets up traps in his own house? If you fail the check, you suffer the effects of a Mark of Justice, which triggers when you attempt to steal again. The choice of curse is up to the DM, who is strongly encouraged to peruse the alternate curses in the Book of Vile Darkness.
2-11: As you slip through the crowd cutting purses, you notice that a victim is already missing one. Your eyes scan the crowd and lock with an unassuming halfling, who proceeds to pocket a nearby merchant's ring without breaking eye contact. A DC30 Sleight of Hand check puts him in his place and scores you a CR2 encounter's reward (average 600gp); failure finds you 6d10gp poorer as the halfling snatches your own purse while you're fumbling with your mark.
12-25: A city of this size has many wealthy and influential people that others see only from far away or second-hand descriptions. A DC30 Disguise check allows you to assume the guise of such a person, to whom locals will happily loan a small sum of money. You gain 100*1d20gp and a sense of unease.
26-30: In the big city, there are many bigger fish. A DC30 Sense Motive check lets you con the conman and make a tidy profit (2d10*10gp). Failure sees you lose that many.
31-40: As you crack open the window of a finely decorated mansion, you notice too late that the resident of the room is awake and staring at you intently. A DC30 Perform check is sufficient to convincingly play the part of a knight from the culture's Rapunzel ersatz and leave the room with a 100*1d8gp token from your "beloved." Failure rewards you with a fall onto the hard pavement 40 feet below.
41-50: A respectful thief uses every part of the buffalo...or as it were, a trap. Roll 2d6 (max 10). You encounter a trap of that CR, chosen by the DM. Succeeding the Search and Disable Device DCs presents you with the trap, which you may redeploy later or sell for half-price. Suffer the consequences of failure as normal.
51-60: You get eaten by ferrets or something. I dunno, man. I've written up like a billion entries for this already.

[Karl Aegis]

But it's not the ''everyone come over and play in the Very Special Bob Only Game''. It's not where the DM tells each player ''ok, the game will be a Very Special Game, just for Bob. Leave your characters at home. You will just be running some NPC's for Bob's Game''.

I guess there would be some odd games like this -DM-''Ok, before we start the game, where all five of you players will all play together and go through an adventure......Bob has asked if he can play a Solo game with just his character. So who votes to let Bob play his solo game?'' And i guess some players would even think it's great to not play their character and instead be all happy ''yes, I get to play goblin mook number two!''

It's Bob selfishly ruining the game for everyone.....

In my experience having the players playing a game against each other with a fair adjudicator is more engaging for all parties than just one person just deciding "the rogue dies". Letting your other three players play the town guard who are tasked with investigating and capturing a burglar and the rogue play the burglar/thief allows your group to socialize the thief themselves while giving both sides a semblance of fairness. If your players want their character to bust through the wall into any scene like the Koolaid Man, they can. They just have to pay their way into the scene with salted nuts. The amount needed to be paid increases with how inappropriate bursting into the scene seems (your players can, of course, give each other salted nuts to distribute their supply of salted nuts between each other, based on how well they see each other roleplaying, of course).

[jedipotter]

In my experience having the players playing a game against each other with a fair adjudicator is more engaging for all parties than just one person just deciding "the rogue dies".

But your still talking about a Very Special Game.

A normal game is not one DM, one player with one PC and four other players with NPCs. That is an abnormal game. Now, sure, if all four players want to no play their characters, and let Bob's character go on a Very Special Adventure, it works out great. I guess it's possible to find a group of players that don't want to make characters and play a normal game.

Though it sure is odd when Bob's character gets all kinds of experience and loot, and no other player gets any of it, as they are not using Player Characters.

Bob will be so happy: ''Yes! I got more loot then everyone else in the group! i love it when you guys don't play your characters!''

[Karl Aegis]

But your still talking about a Very Special Game.

A normal game is not one DM, one player with one PC and four other players with NPCs. That is an abnormal game. Now, sure, if all four players want to no play their characters, and let Bob's character go on a Very Special Adventure, it works out great. I guess it's possible to find a group of players that don't want to make characters and play a normal game.

Though it sure is odd when Bob's character gets all kinds of experience and loot, and no other player gets any of it, as they are not using Player Characters.

Bob will be so happy: ''Yes! I got more loot then everyone else in the group! i love it when you guys don't play your characters!''

You have five players. Your game is already abnormal.

I think you're embellishing how much one can earn stealing staples and duct tape from basket weavers.

[Haluesen]

It disrupts the group game. If someone invited you over to play D&D would you A)Come over and expect to play D&D or B)Come over and expect to sit there and do nothing and not play D&D, but watch another player play D&D. I'd hope you'd pick A....



They are going against the group. D&D is a group game. That is why there are other people there....they are players. They are not an audience.



This is yet again, a player saying ''I want to play a solo game and force the other players to not only not play, but force them to watch me play''.

Except none of this is ever how I've made it work. Sure, if done like that it is bad. I don't want to exclude anyone in a game I'm running. But you can take a couple minutes to handle something personal to one character, and give everyone that same amount of time and attention. This isn't some wishful idea. I've experienced this, as a DM and as a player, and it does work. Everyone can spare a couple minutes for small enjoyments like that, and then return to the group action. People I have played with have enjoyed that.

Though it does help that these things are done much more often in pairs than solo. Anyway just saying, it can work.


As with so many things, there simply is no middle ground.

After all to just say ''your character loots and stuff, you find 1d10 gold coins and a silver ring'' is not enough for the player. It fails to meet the three main goals of a Solo Adventure in a Group Game:

1. It must disrupt the group game
2. It must allow the solo player to have fun, specifiably at the expense of others
3. It must allow the character to get loot/experience, specifiably more then the group as a whole

But this is entirely where I disagree. In this there can be a middle ground, where everyone can enjoy the playing and the story and have their time for their characters' specific interests to be given attention, and it can be balanced. It certainly isn't easy, and as you show not for everyone. But it isn't impossible for a group to enjoy a game this way.

I don't know why, when I can ignore other internet discussions, that it matters so much more to me here to stand my ground. I don't think I can change your mind on this. But I will stand my ground on my views, and hopefully reasonable discourse will come from doing so.

[mvpmack]

We just waive small costs for things like sleep and food, and assume that the rogue/bard/whatever are finding some "loose cash" to pay for it.

The real issue for us is that the rogue frequently goes off solo with the express intention of furthering the game. Usually this is with the knowledge of other team members. Sometimes the rogue has to deal with people who wouldn't like the cleric, or perhaps the cleric wouldn't like them. Cleric can go off and find plot hooks at the church or something, but the rogue's gotta take care of business.

[Darrin]

This is an unavoidable manifestation of 3.5's fervent role protection. It's even seeped into the lexicon - "party face" is the one guy who can talk, and everyone else lets them roll all the checks. But unlike social encounters, where the party fighter can just keep his mouth shut, stealth checks require everyone to roll, so the rogue has to choose between his stealth ranks and his party.


Other possible solutions:

Piggyback Method: Allow the rogue to make a stealth roll that applies to the entire party, but increase the DC by +2 for each party member. I like to think of it as the rogue using hand signals, pantomime, and his superior knowledge of infiltration techniques to show the party when it's safe to move up, get into cover, take advantage of distractions, etc. This allows the rogue to show off his sneak skills and the whole party gets to come along. Face/Diplomacy works the same way: when the party face nails his Diplomacy roll, the entire party benefits. Same with the rogue and stealth. Yeah, getting the entire party inside will be *harder*, but why would you have a dedicated "sneak" role in the party if the rogue is the only one that benefits?

Copycat Method: After the rogue makes his stealth roll, another PC may make a follow-up stealth roll to get the same benefit, but the DC is a flat 10. Consider adding a +2 circumstance bonus for each 5 points the rogue beats his original DC by. Essentially the rogue "leads by example", showing the others where to move, what cover to take advantage of, and so forth. This brings back the drama of each party member having to make their stealth roll, but makes the DC easier for non-rogues. It rewards rogues for spending up their stealth skills, and still benefits the rest of the party.

[Psyren]

As with so many things, there simply is no middle ground.

As with everything, this is only the case with unreasonable or intractable people, on either side of the DM screen.

[Segev]

Eh, sure there's middle ground. But the objection to which I'm responding is that it takes too much time and effort from the DM and away from the rest of the party as this evolves into a "solo adventure."

If all that's happening is the same level of narrative importance as the others' off-screen activities, treat it like off-screen activities and get back to the important stuff.

If it actually has importance, then run it. But be sure to have hooks to bring in the other players, so it's not "the rogue gets to take over the session for himself again."

If the rest of the party is into the rogue's activities, then there's no problem at all. No solution necessary, just run it.

[Telonius]

As I see it, the problem here is that the character is going off on a solo mission, in what's essentially supposed to be a group game. If the fighter wanted to take some time out to roleplay a dangerous situation - say, he moonlights as an ultimate fighting championship combatant, something like that - it would be a similar thing. The underlying issue is the spotlight-stealing, not the class; though thieves do tend to run into this thing more often than other types of character.

The unfortunate thing is that, for somebody playing a thief (not all Rogues are thieves, but enough are that it matters), that kind of action would be completely in-character. But just because something is in-character doesn't make it respectful to your fellow gamers to try to play it out. I consider it a (mostly) out-of-character problem. An in-game solution (on its own, without dealing with the OOC issue) isn't going to solve it.

My suggestion: talk with the DM and the player involved, and let them know that you're feeling that the player is eating up all of the "screen time." I would offer an in-character compromise, as well: when the Rogue wants to go off and rob the rich merchant's mansion, that sort of thing would be handled by a Craft (catburglar) check. The DC of the "item created" would be modified by how wealthy the person is.

[prufock]

There are considerably more risks involved with breaking and entering than renting a room at an inn.


But that's my point - it shouldn't be like that for the rogue, because what he's doing is far more dangerous and involved.

But so what, really? Let's take another example - training an animal. This is an involved task, takes a long time, and can have fatal consequences if you don't do it right. We can (and usually do) gloss over this with a single handle animal check and maybe a bit of roleplaying. Unless the rogue is planning to solo an entire dungeon by himself, there's no reason you can't make a couple checks and describe what happens.

My players split up all the time. When they do, I try to divvy up the time spent on each. The OP had it right in the first place.

[Psyren]

But so what, really? Let's take another example - training an animal. This is an involved task, takes a long time, and can have fatal consequences if you don't do it right. We can (and usually do) gloss over this with a single handle animal check and maybe a bit of roleplaying.

You actually have to come up with something for this scenario because no Action is given for the "rear a wild animal" usage of Handle Animal. Obviously it's going to take months if not years since you're "raising it from infancy" but no information is given on how much time on each of those days you need to spend, whether it can be done at night, can you adventure with the animal in tow while doing this etc. That's all meant to be a roleplay exercise between the player and GM. That is hardly comparable to a one-night thief caper.

[prufock]

You actually have to come up with something for this scenario because no Action is given for the "rear a wild animal" usage of Handle Animal. Obviously it's going to take months if not years since you're "raising it from infancy" but no information is given on how much time on each of those days you need to spend, whether it can be done at night, can you adventure with the animal in tow while doing this etc. That's all meant to be a roleplay exercise between the player and GM. That is hardly comparable to a one-night thief caper.
Teaching an animal tricks or training for a purpose have action times measured in weeks, spending hours per day doing so. A rogue expecting to eat up time for his solo adventure is no different than Bubs eating up time training his horse to fight and jump while carrying a rider. Either way they are expecting the DM to devote solo time to their side tasks. Breaking into a house has no more clear parameters than training an animal - the DM has to invent what happens in that time. Five minutes is plenty for either.

[Flickerdart]

Breaking into a house has no more clear parameters than training an animal - the DM has to invent what happens in that time.
Again, "your horse bucks while you train it and kicks your teeth in" is the exception to the norm. Thieves get caught all the time.

[DigoDragon]

When I ran games, I'd utilize a watch/time keeping device and give the rogue a set amount of time for his "turn" as it were. Say, 5-10 minutes. Then I break away from his little romp to give the rest of the party the same amount of time so they can do stuff. Then switch back and forth. Usually works okay if the party split up in just two groups and both sides have something they want to do.



Actions have consequences.

This is also a big thing. My old D&D group knew that I don't pull punches back if they decide to split up in an area that is known to be dangerous. When the rogue and ranger split off from the party to explore a white dragon's cave, I didn't hold back at the inevitable encounter when said dragon was awoken. If you're going to split off, coordinate with the party in case you need them to come save you. :smallamused:


In a Fallout style game I'm currently in, my doctor is not much of a combatant or wilderness survivor. He split off from the party to explore an old building, but left two notes with the party detailing where he would be. And I knew very well my character could get killed going off on his own. He's been lucky so far that the worst thing happening right now is he's fallen into a basement and is getting attacked by a single ghoul. :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

Teaching an animal tricks or training for a purpose have action times measured in weeks, spending hours per day doing so.

Both of those refer to already-domesticated animals. Not only is there zero consequence for failure by the RAW, you wouldn't expect there to be narratively either. Thus, playing out the scene adds nothing of consequence and handwaving those to a single "off-stage" roll is perfectly fine.

Rogue failures, depending on what he's attempting and when, have far greater dramatic potential. Alerting the victim, alerting authorities, physical harm to the rogue, detainment/capture, pulling off the caper but leaving a trail of evidence, even death - there is a great deal more nuance there and a single roll with a throwaway line of fluff does not adequately capture all of the potential permutations and consequences. There can even be an initial failure followed by corrective action to make the scenario a success, e.g. failing to stealth past a guard, but knocking him unconscious.

This is why I think the best ways to represent this are (a) bare-bones scenario combined with a short complex skill check, or (b) having the quick roll be the precursor, and then having the rest of the party get involved with the main event so they aren't stuck on the sidelines. And if the rogue player isn't willing to go for either of these options, he is perfectly free to describe his elaborate exploits in as much detail as he likes for no mechanical benefit, tangible reward or even pausing of the main game's action.

[prufock]

Again, "your horse bucks while you train it and kicks your teeth in" is the exception to the norm. Thieves get caught all the time.
It's not just a risk to you, it's a risk to the horse. Training sport horses or can result in injury to the horse.

I would also say a house with guards, traps, and wards is an exception to the norm. The "norm" is entirely up to the DM.


Both of those refer to already-domesticated animals. Not only is there zero consequence for failure by the RAW, you wouldn't expect there to be narratively either. Thus, playing out the scene adds nothing of consequence and handwaving those to a single "off-stage" roll is perfectly fine.
Again, so what? Player A wants 30 minutes to do a solo burglary. Player B wants 30 minutes to do solo horse training. Players C and D just want to get on with the story.

Narratively, horses are injured often in training, especially for racing, jumping, and tricks. Trainers are injured less often, but it happens.


Rogue failures, depending on what he's attempting and when, have far greater dramatic potential. Alerting the victim, alerting authorities, physical harm to the rogue, detainment/capture, pulling off the caper but leaving a trail of evidence, even death - there is a great deal more nuance there and a single roll with a throwaway line of fluff does not adequately capture all of the potential permutations and consequences. There can even be an initial failure followed by corrective action to make the scenario a success, e.g. failing to stealth past a guard, but knocking him unconscious.
Again, these are dependent on the DM, who invents the scenarios, and the player, who decides if the scene is satisfactory. There are nuances in training a horse as well.


This is why I think the best ways to represent this are (a) bare-bones scenario combined with a short complex skill check
Well, we agree on this much.

[Flickerdart]

I would also say a house with guards, traps, and wards is an exception to the norm. The "norm" is entirely up to the DM.
A house with a resident who owns a weapon or a dog is not an exception to the norm. Neither are guardsmen who patrol the streets looking for exactly this sort of thing.

[Psyren]

I would also say a house with guards, traps, and wards is an exception to the norm. The "norm" is entirely up to the DM.

Any house worth robbing would logically have those things. You're not breaking into a hovel - or rather if you are, congratulations you succeeded, enjoy your four coppers.

[prufock]

A house with a resident who owns a weapon or a dog is not an exception to the norm. Neither are guardsmen who patrol the streets looking for exactly this sort of thing.
Which is easily dealt with through a couple quick skill rolls and description. Five minutes tops.


Any house worth robbing would logically have those things. You're not breaking into a hovel - or rather if you are, congratulations you succeeded, enjoy your four coppers.
Most burglaries do not involve the crown jewels. Burglars target places with low security, easy penetration, and some minimum criteria of gain. Smart criminals avoid places with alarms, dogs, and maybe most importantly, people who are at home. They balance the risk with the reward and their own skill.

[Flickerdart]

Which is easily dealt with through a couple quick skill rolls and description. Five minutes tops.
Already more complex than a Handle Animal check or a Spellcraft check.

[Karl Aegis]

Which is easily dealt with through a couple quick skill rolls and description. Five minutes tops.


Most burglaries do not involve the crown jewels. Burglars target places with low security, easy penetration, and some minimum criteria of gain. Smart criminals avoid places with alarms, dogs, and maybe most importantly, people who are at home. They balance the risk with the reward and their own skill.

The topic was a rogue wandering off to loot random houses. There was no indication there was any sort of plan or reason for this. What you're describing is a campaign dedicated to stealing, where the party would gather information and make plans together to accomplish a goal. This is not the case.

[prufock]

Already more complex than a Handle Animal check or a Spellcraft check.
I think the point that you and Psyren are missing, from my perspective, is that this doesn't matter. The issue at hand is not "how many checks?", the issue is "player monopolizing time." You can monopolize time with a task that requires NO checks at all.


The topic was a rogue wandering off to loot random houses. There was no indication there was any sort of plan or reason for this. What you're describing is a campaign dedicated to stealing, where the party would gather information and make plans together to accomplish a goal. This is not the case.
Not sure how you're interpreting it this way. The party isn't involved at all. The rogue walks around town, looks for a place that seems an easy target, breaks in. AKA, crimes of opportunity.

[Flickerdart]

I think the point that you and Psyren are missing, from my perspective, is that this doesn't matter. The issue at hand is not "how many checks?", the issue is "player monopolizing time." You can monopolize time with a task that requires NO checks at all.
"I want to train my dog to fetch." "Roll the dice." "I got a 25." "You did it."
"I want to scribe a spell." "Roll the dice." "I got a 5." "You failed."

Where is time being monopolized?

[kalasulmar]

If your burglaries take up the same amount of time as a handle animal check, I think you might be doing one of them wrong.

[Psyren]

Most burglaries do not involve the crown jewels. Burglars target places with low security, easy penetration, and some minimum criteria of gain. Smart criminals avoid places with alarms, dogs, and maybe most importantly, people who are at home. They balance the risk with the reward and their own skill.

Even finding vulnerabilities like that in the first place is an involved process. How will you know which places have "low security, easy penetration, and some minimum criteria of gain" without many hours or days of scoping them out?


I think the point that you and Psyren are missing, from my perspective, is that this doesn't matter. The issue at hand is not "how many checks?", the issue is "player monopolizing time." You can monopolize time with a task that requires NO checks at all.

And my point is that you can mitigate that monopoly without trivializing the task to the point of absurdity. I provided two ways to do this in #62.

[Lightlawbliss]

A house with a resident who owns a weapon or a dog is not an exception to the norm. Neither are guardsmen who patrol the streets looking for exactly this sort of thing.

If you can't dodge the town guards without even trying, you aren't a very good thief.

To those worried about it interrupting gameplay, I would recommend sticky notes. I suspect the rest of the party won't know the details of the rogue's activities as they happen anyway. And while you and the rogue pass notes, the rest of the party can do whatever they would be doing anyway during that time or even something crazy like taking care of food.

[Flickerdart]

If you can't dodge the town guards without even trying, you aren't a very good thief.
And how do you determine whether or not you're a good thief? You roll yet another check. All these checks add up.

[jedipotter]

But you can take a couple minutes to handle something personal to one character, and give everyone that same amount of time and attention. This isn't some wishful idea. I've experienced this, as a DM and as a player, and it does work. Everyone can spare a couple minutes for small enjoyments like that, and then return to the group action. People I have played with have enjoyed that.

It just takes up too much time. ''A couple minutes'' like what 15 minutes? Well, four players with 15 minute solo adventures, and there goes a whole hour.

But it's worse, as unless each character does the same thing, your unbalancing the game. Zorn the thief robs a bank and gets a bunch of loot in his solo game. Monark does ritual combat with his clan...and gets no loot.



I don't know why, when I can ignore other internet discussions, that it matters so much more to me here to stand my ground. I don't think I can change your mind on this. But I will stand my ground on my views, and hopefully reasonable discourse will come from doing so.

If you leave the group for any reason, rocks fall on your character and they die really is one of my bedrock house rules.


Eh, sure there's middle ground. But the objection to which I'm responding is that it takes too much time and effort from the DM and away from the rest of the party as this evolves into a "solo adventure."


Remember one of the main reasons a player wants to go on a solo adventure is pure hate and spite: they want to laugh at the other players and say ''nan, nan, I get to play and you don't.''

After all, an easy way to tell is if the DM says: ''Hey, Bob your idea where your character Zon robs a bank is cool and sounds like fun. But lets play with everyone else now, how about you come over Sunday at 2 and I'll run the solo game for you.'' Then watch the horror fall over Bob's face as he says ''I must play now, with everyone else here! I refuse to ever come over to your house without my audience of people i want to screw over and laugh in the face in!''

[Segev]

Remember one of the main reasons a player wants to go on a solo adventure is pure hate and spite: they want to laugh at the other players and say ''nan, nan, I get to play and you don't.''I have never met anybody who has this attitude in real life.


After all, an easy way to tell is if the DM says: ''Hey, Bob your idea where your character Zon robs a bank is cool and sounds like fun. But lets play with everyone else now, how about you come over Sunday at 2 and I'll run the solo game for you.'' Then watch the horror fall over Bob's face as he says ''I must play now, with everyone else here! I refuse to ever come over to your house without my audience of people i want to screw over and laugh in the face in!''Nonsense. Most people who the DM tells this to would say, "Okay," if they have the time, and negotiate a different time if they didn't. If they genuinely didn't want to RP it (and I know a few like that), they'd ask the GM if they could just make a few rolls, or they'd drop the idea.

I literally know nobody who would say "I must do it now in front of everybody." Quite the opposite: if anybody cares about the presence or absence of other players during their solo quests, they usually do NOT want the other players around, because the others' characters "wouldn't know about it."

I think you either play with the wrong sort of people, or you expect the worst and get it from them, if that is the kind of player with whom you play, jedipotter.

[Psyren]

Remember one of the main reasons a player wants to go on a solo adventure is pure hate and spite: they want to laugh at the other players and say ''nan, nan, I get to play and you don't.''

After all, an easy way to tell is if the DM says: ''Hey, Bob your idea where your character Zon robs a bank is cool and sounds like fun. But lets play with everyone else now, how about you come over Sunday at 2 and I'll run the solo game for you.'' Then watch the horror fall over Bob's face as he says ''I must play now, with everyone else here! I refuse to ever come over to your house without my audience of people i want to screw over and laugh in the face in!''

I don't think that's it at all - and quite honestly, if a player of mine truly had that kind of attitude, they probably wouldn't be a player of mine for long.

Rather, it's a desire for the kind of agency and expression that only RPGs can provide. "My bard is a ladies' man - dungeons are all well and good, but I want to mack on some fly honeys once in awhile too!" And while it can be as simple as "Okay, you mack on fly honeys" or even "Okay, roll to mack on fly honeys - congratulations, you macked on fly honeys" - I find that to be a threadbare or anemic use of the powerful tools we've been given as DMs.

This is one area that I think digital tabletops and AI like Neverwinter Nights can do so much good. When the party is between story missions and wants to go off and do their own thing, you can have a bunch of preprogrammed ones and zeroes to occupy them while you focus on one person or concentrate on planning their next adventure. So you can throw up a few mansions, populate them with very simplistic guards, dogs and wards to stealth around, and the rogue can go do that; meanwhile, the tavern has some gambling minigames (and fly honeys) as well as a bored audience wanting entertainment, and the bard can go do that. The local chapel has a stream of wounded or sick townsfolk in need of succor and the cleric can go do that, while the mage's tower has classes where you can practice magical forms and minorly tweak a few of your spells, and the wizard/sorcerer can go off and do that.

[Flickerdart]

"My bard is a ladies' man - dungeons are all well and good, but I want to mack on some fly honeys once in awhile too!"[/I] And while it can be as simple as "Okay, you mack on fly honeys" or even "Okay, roll to mack on fly honeys - congratulations, you macked on fly honeys" - I find that to be a threadbare or anemic use of the powerful tools we've been given as DMs.
A real friend would set his party members up with some fly honeys, too. Every bard loves a good challenge, and finding a match for the Mineral Warrior Lolth-touched Half-Ogre Water Orc fighter is going to be the biggest challenge he's ever faced.

[jedipotter]

I think you either play with the wrong sort of people, or you expect the worst and get it from them, if that is the kind of player with whom you play, jedipotter.

Yes, in Real Life(tm) Bob would not say that, that was exposition to make the point.

For real it's more like:

DM: ''How about we run your solo game Sunday at 2?"
Bob: "Um...I can't''
DM "Well...ok, 3? 4?''
Bob: "Ho, no...I'm busy all day Sunday''
DM: "Well...we don't need all day, we need like an hour. You can't spare an hour on Sunday?"
Bob: ''No way!''
DM: "Ok, how about Monday?''
Bob : "No way, I'm so busy!''
DM: ''Ok, name the day and time that works best for you."
Bob: "Um, right now, during our normal group game night."
DM :"Other then during our group game''
Bob:"Nope, has to be now or never, I'm always busy''

Now, sure Bob did not say ''I have to play and force the other players to be my audience so I could laugh at them'', but that is exactly what he means. See if Bob ''really'' just wanted to play his little solo game, he could find an hour to do so. That he refuses to do so, says a lot.....

[Curmudgeon]

I don't see why this is so divisive a topic. The Wizard is always going to be on the lookout for hard-to-find scrolls, and this will take time to play out. That's to be expected, because spells are source of the Wizard's power: they need those spells to be effective. The Rogue will be on the lookout for extra income, and this will take time to play out. That's to be expected, because money is the source of the Rogue's power: they need the gear that money can buy to be effective.

If you're willing to just say the Wizard can acquire those hard-to-find scrolls with some hand-waving or dice rolling, you should do the same thing for the Rogue: they can acquire that extra money with no more risk than the Wizard who's seeking out unsavory characters with scrolls to sell.

[Psyren]

@ jedipotter: If you've dealt with a "Bob" before that's unfortunate, but anyone that narcissistic and passive-aggressive has to be an outlier in a primarily social activity.


I don't see why this is so divisive a topic. The Wizard is always going to be on the lookout for hard-to-find scrolls, and this will take time to play out. That's to be expected, because spells are source of the Wizard's power: they need those spells to be effective. The Rogue will be on the lookout for extra income, and this will take time to play out. That's to be expected, because money is the source of the Rogue's power: they need the gear that money can buy to be effective.

If you're willing to just say the Wizard can acquire those hard-to-find scrolls with some hand-waving or dice rolling, you should do the same thing for the Rogue: they can acquire that extra money with no more risk than the Wizard who's seeking out unsavory characters with scrolls to sell.

I would combine these - the hard-to-find scrolls are in the mansion that the rogue is planning to hit that night, and the wizard sends his familiar along (controlled directly by the wizard's player) along with some buffs or items to be sure the rogue grabs something he doesn't already have. Or the rogue cases the joint solo (via dice rolls) and finds a way to get the whole party in undetected so they can all be part of the raid.

Another practical approach is to do a solo mission while the other players are occupied with something else anyway, such as leveling up. A class like a wizard, druid or even a fighter would have a lot more choices to make than a rogue at that new level, so that could be an opportune time to throw together something quick like a pickpocketing spree through the market (with a nonzero chance of the guards taking notice or being called.)

[Flickerdart]

If you're willing to just say the Wizard can acquire those hard-to-find scrolls with some hand-waving or dice rolling, you should do the same thing for the Rogue: they can acquire that extra money with no more risk than the Wizard who's seeking out unsavory characters with scrolls to sell.
Scrolls are acquired by exchanging money for them. The rogue is exchanging nothing for free money. It's not the same thing. Why does the wizard have to buy scrolls from unsavory characters?

[Curmudgeon]

Scrolls are acquired by exchanging money for them. The rogue is exchanging nothing for free money. It's not the same thing. Why does the wizard have to buy scrolls from unsavory characters?
D&D has a rigid, überdeity(WotC)-imposed economy, so scrolls have fixed prices. The way normal economies work is by increasing prices for more desirable commodities. Failing that, the market creates criminal-driven scarcity. Hard-to-find scrolls are the ones with more powerful spells, so of course they're only available from unsavory characters: the ones who would prefer to kill the Wizard for their spellbook rather than sell scrolls at list price. Wizards get 2 spells per level, and acquiring everything beyond that is risky. The Wizard could work through a safe intermediary, and expect to spend 5x the scroll's price to get it with low risk. Or they could hire a company of bodyguards, pay "finder's fees", and venture off to the seller with the hope to get the scroll at a lower total expenditure, but with a greater chance of being robbed or killed.

In comparison, the Rogue stealthily siphoning some money out of the economy is nothing. Spells are the Wizard's only class feature, and free money is a Rogue class feature.

[Flickerdart]

D&D has a rigid, überdeity(WotC)-imposed economy, so scrolls have fixed prices. The way normal economies work is by increasing prices for more desirable commodities. Failing that, the market creates criminal-driven scarcity. Hard-to-find scrolls are the ones with more powerful spells, so of course they're only available from unsavory characters: the ones who would prefer to kill the Wizard for their spellbook rather than sell scrolls at list price. Wizards get 2 spells per level, and acquiring everything beyond that is risky. The Wizard could work through a safe intermediary, and expect to spend 5x the scroll's price to get it with low risk. Or they could hire a company of bodyguards, pay "finder's fees", and venture off to the seller with the hope to get the scroll at a lower total expenditure, but with a greater chance of being robbed or killed.

In comparison, the Rogue stealthily siphoning some money out of the economy is nothing. Spells are the Wizard's only class feature, and free money is a Rogue class feature.
Cool, cool. Wanna cite me the DMG page where it says all this?

[Curmudgeon]

Cool, cool. Wanna cite me the DMG page where it says all this?
Page 136:
BEHIND THE CURTAIN: HOW REAL IS YOUR FANTASY?
This section on world-building assumes that your campaign is set in a fairly realistic world. That is to say that while wizards cast spells, deities channel power to clerics, and dragons raze villages, the world is round, the laws of physics are applicable, and most people act like real people. The reason for this assumption is that unless they are told otherwise, this situation is what your players expect. Fixed prices for goods always leads to a black market economy, because most people act like real people.

[Flickerdart]

Page 136: Fixed prices for goods always leads to a black market economy, because most people act like real people.
There are about a thousand equally plausible courses of action for wizards to take to get these scrolls without making up a whole 'nother economy. Such as, oh I don't know, some kind of wizard's guild where they share their spell discoveries? Or are researchers sharing knowledge with one another not "real people" to you?

[prufock]

Even finding vulnerabilities like that in the first place is an involved process. How will you know which places have "low security, easy penetration, and some minimum criteria of gain" without many hours or days of scoping them out.
"Hey DM, any places around here that look like good targets?" "Yep." Days in game, minutes in play.


"I want to train my dog to fetch." "Roll the dice." "I got a 25." "You did it."
"I want to scribe a spell." "Roll the dice." "I got a 5." "You failed."

Where is time being monopolized?
"I want to rob old man Withers." "Roll the dice." "I got a 20." "You did it."

No time monopolized in either case.

[Flickerdart]

"I want to rob old man Withers." "Roll the dice." "I got a 20." "You did it."

No time monopolized in either case.
What skill did he roll?

[prufock]

What skill did he roll?
Profession (thief).

[Deophaun]

Profession (thief).
An optimizer would have taken Craft: Heist, then UMDed a scroll of fabricate.

[Flickerdart]

Profession (thief).
Now show me anyone in this thread who's contesting the RAW use of Profession to make money.

[goto124]

And while it can be as simple as "Okay, you mack on fly honeys" or even "Okay, roll to mack on fly honeys - congratulations, you macked on fly honeys" - I find that to be a threadbare or anemic use of the powerful tools we've been given as DMs.


If you want to go into details without making the other players bored, you'll have to do a mini-solo-game while the rest go do their own stuff. This might be workable if everyone's on board with it, and the solo time doesn't take up too much of the game time.

[Cirrylius]

While I get your point, this isn't a good analogy; scribing can easily be done off-camera and nobody has to wait. "The following day, you all meet in the town square" or similar. And even if the wizard fails it's just "oh well, I'll try again when I get some more Spellcraft."


You OBVIOUSLY have no idea how intense the events in a wizard's personal time can be-

DM: Uh-oh, random event pinged! Roll the event table!

*rolls, winces*

Oooh, papercut. Take 1d1-5 damage on your-

*rolls, winces again*

-cuticle, and roll Fort vs. STAPH INFECTION!!

[Psyren]

"Hey DM, any places around here that look like good targets?" "Yep." Days in game, minutes in play.

You can "solve" any problem by metagaming it away, sure. Why have dice at all?


If you want to go into details without making the other players bored, you'll have to do a mini-solo-game while the rest go do their own stuff. This might be workable if everyone's on board with it, and the solo time doesn't take up too much of the game time.

Or be creative and find a way to involve all the other players.

[prufock]

Now show me anyone in this thread who's contesting the RAW use of Profession to make money.
None specifically, but you seem to be arguing that the rogue can't or shouldn't be be compressed into a single check or short aside (as Curmudgeon earlier suggested), or at least that the rogue is more justified in expecting solo time to hog the game. My stance is that the rogue has no more justification than any player trying to monopolize game time, regardless of how many checks it involves, or how dangerous, or even if it's pure roleplaying.


You can "solve" any problem by metagaming it away, sure. Why have dice at all?
To determine level of success or failure, the same as you would any other check. There's no more metagaming to this than there is to any other scenario.

But really, this could apply just as well to a free form game as a mechanically complex game. It isn't about how many checks you make. It's about one player feeling entitled to dedicated solo time, monopolizing the game session. This behaviour can and should be minimized whether it's a burglar or an animal trainer.

[Psyren]

To determine level of success or failure, the same as you would any other check. There's no more metagaming to this than there is to any other scenario.

But really, this could apply just as well to a free form game as a mechanically complex game. It isn't about how many checks you make. It's about one player feeling entitled to dedicated solo time, monopolizing the game session. This behaviour can and should be minimized whether it's a burglar or an animal trainer.

To which I say again - there's middle ground between "let one PC steal the spotlight while the remaining players become his captive audience" (extreme one) and "remove all complexity and danger from what should be a complex and dangerous task" (extreme two.)

[jedipotter]

To which I say again - there's middle ground between "let one PC steal the spotlight while the remaining players become his captive audience" (extreme one) and "remove all complexity and danger from what should be a complex and dangerous task" (extreme two.)

And how again? Where is this middle ground?

Ok, with the requirement that all players must play the game, and use their primary character...explain how the DM can take more then a second to allow the selfish player of a thief type character to get something in the middle of ''more then one roll and less then ruining the game for everyone''?

[Solaris]

And how again? Where is this middle ground?

Ok, with the requirement that all players must play the game, and use their primary character...explain how the DM can take more then a second to allow the selfish player of a thief type character to get something in the middle of ''more then one roll and less then ruining the game for everyone''?

Hand him a handy-dandy worksheet like the ones from up-thread and tell him to go to town.

[Psyren]

And how again? Where is this middle ground?

I've posted several ideas for achieving it in this thread alone, none of which I expect to convince someone who only sees the game in black and white terms, so I won't waste time repeating them.

[Deophaun]

And how again? Where is this middle ground?

Ok, with the requirement that all players must play the game, and use their primary character...explain how the DM can take more then a second to allow the selfish player of a thief type character to get something in the middle of ''more then one roll and less then ruining the game for everyone''?
Delayed consequences.

The theft was successful, but...
...too public. The manor the players were already planning on breaking into is on higher alert.
...the thief saw something he shouldn't have, and he didn't get away entirely scott-clean. Now they are after him, and the party, who he might have told.
...divinations have revealed his guilt. Though, why arrest the thief, when you could blackmail his comrades into working for you?

[Flickerdart]

Delayed consequences.

The theft was successful, but...
...has trouble pawning the loot. He must find a stash or be forced to cart around silver candlesticks through every dungeon until he finds a fence.
...too cool and sexy. Adoring fans now pursue him everywhere, frustrating his efforts at being unseen.
...the economy collapsed overnight due to wall of salt shenanigans in a neighbouring kingdom, leaving the thief with worthless coins.

[jedipotter]

I've posted several ideas for achieving it in this thread alone, none of which I expect to convince someone who only sees the game in black and white terms, so I won't waste time repeating them.

So the middle ground is ''here selfish player, roll on your very own special Loot for Whiny Players table''? Oh, loom you rolled a 10. You are the best thief character ever! Your special, good at looting and gosh darn it, people like you. You found 100 gold coins and a gold frog.''

Does not sound like middle ground to me.....

[Deophaun]

...has trouble pawning the loot. He must find a stash or be forced to cart around silver candlesticks through every dungeon until he finds a fence.
...too cool and sexy. Adoring fans now pursue him everywhere, frustrating his efforts at being unseen.
...the economy collapsed overnight due to wall of salt shenanigans in a neighbouring kingdom, leaving the thief with worthless coins.
...ORCUS!

Come on, I had it set up for you. :smalltongue:

[Karl Aegis]

So the middle ground is ''here selfish player, roll on your very own special Loot for Whiny Players table''? Oh, loom you rolled a 10. You are the best thief character ever! Your special, good at looting and gosh darn it, people like you. You found 100 gold coins and a gold frog.''

Does not sound like middle ground to me.....

Whiny players get less loot seems like a good middle ground to me.

[Milo v3]

So the middle ground is ''here selfish player, roll on your very own special Loot for Whiny Players table''? Oh, loom you rolled a 10. You are the best thief character ever! Your special, good at looting and gosh darn it, people like you. You found 100 gold coins and a gold frog.''

Does not sound like middle ground to me.....

Your counter arguments would be much more effective if you didn't add in ridiculousness like the bolded.

[jedipotter]

Your counter arguments would be much more effective if you didn't add in ridiculousness like the bolded.

I think I crossed that line at Warp Speed.....years ago :)

But I just don't like the ''throw them a bone'' method.

[TheCrowing1432]

{scrubbed}

As with anything its completely circumstantial.

If this is just some side thing, roll (Profession: Thief) and roll some treasure for him, but take it off his WBL. Meaning the next dungeon the party raids, the rogue gets less due to his burglaries before.

There are also varying levels of complexity.

1. Roll Profession Burglary against a flat DC of whatever house the rogue would try to rob. Obviously peasants would be the lowest DC and Lord Castles would be higher.

2. Roll a series of Move Silently/Listen/Whatever checks, a bit more involved then just steamrolling it all into Profession Burglary and have the dm briefly describe the things that are happening.

3. make a plot hook out of it. The rogue robs a house and finds the plot macguffin inside. shenanigans ensue.



Also as always, communicate with your table. My gaming group is pretty chill, so my dm would sometimes when we go to major cities would dedicate time for us to go shop and do things. This time could be used to rob people.

And while the rogue is robbing the other guys can be doing things too.

[Coidzor]

Other possible solutions:

Piggyback Method: Allow the rogue to make a stealth roll that applies to the entire party, but increase the DC by +2 for each party member. I like to think of it as the rogue using hand signals, pantomime, and his superior knowledge of infiltration techniques to show the party when it's safe to move up, get into cover, take advantage of distractions, etc. This allows the rogue to show off his sneak skills and the whole party gets to come along. Face/Diplomacy works the same way: when the party face nails his Diplomacy roll, the entire party benefits. Same with the rogue and stealth. Yeah, getting the entire party inside will be *harder*, but why would you have a dedicated "sneak" role in the party if the rogue is the only one that benefits?

Copycat Method: After the rogue makes his stealth roll, another PC may make a follow-up stealth roll to get the same benefit, but the DC is a flat 10. Consider adding a +2 circumstance bonus for each 5 points the rogue beats his original DC by. Essentially the rogue "leads by example", showing the others where to move, what cover to take advantage of, and so forth. This brings back the drama of each party member having to make their stealth roll, but makes the DC easier for non-rogues. It rewards rogues for spending up their stealth skills, and still benefits the rest of the party.

Interesting ideas, though you'd have to end up setting DCs for stealth since normally that sort of thing is handled by opposed rolls.

[Denver]

Interesting ideas, though you'd have to end up setting DCs for stealth since normally that sort of thing is handled by opposed rolls.

Not to put words into the speaker's mouth (or hands, as the case is for written communication) - but I could imagine that the DC could still be set by an opposing Spot check, and then just further modified in the way Darrin has described.

Though, perhaps, just setting the DC by fiat and then modifying might create a "cleaner" system for the methods you've quoted. I would be interested to run some numbers and see what happens.

Germane contribution for the OP:

Being a Rogue means, often, that that player has the expectation of using his character's skills (which he has invested in and considered upon) to benefit either himself or the party, or both.

Spending an inordinate amount of time roleplaying some of these smaller ventures is an unfair use of everyone's time - and I think one of the earlier suggestions was to allow the Rogue an occasional roleplay of his quick capers, but otherwise simply take a few rolls and see the magnitude of the success or failure.

I imagine this sequence could easily be folded into the "Peasant House" you have created. (Which, by the way, is most excellent.) This could allow the Rogue's side venture to still be fleshed out and streamlined for time.

The Rogue gets to feel satisfied with his skill investment, and, provided it is within his character, I would imagine much of the wealth he gathers benefits the party in at least a tertiary manner.

[prufock]

To which I say again - there's middle ground between "let one PC steal the spotlight while the remaining players become his captive audience" (extreme one) and "remove all complexity and danger from what should be a complex and dangerous task" (extreme two.)
I agree, these are extremes. It depends on how much the rogue player is abusing this trope, really. The first time I might give him ten minutes, the second time five, the third time one, after that roll a profession check. We're not here to play Rogue: The Soloing. If he objects lay it out that this is a team game and his hogging the group's time isn't appreciated.


And how again? Where is this middle ground?

Ok, with the requirement that all players must play the game, and use their primary character...explain how the DM can take more then a second to allow the selfish player of a thief type character to get something in the middle of ''more then one roll and less then ruining the game for everyone''?
Giving him time but less of it. Giving him time but returning to the rest of the group without him for equal time. Give him time but later tell him to stop being a game hog.

[Psyren]

So the middle ground is ''here selfish player, roll on your very own special Loot for Whiny Players table''? Oh, loom you rolled a 10. You are the best thief character ever! Your special, good at looting and gosh darn it, people like you. You found 100 gold coins and a gold frog.''

Does not sound like middle ground to me.....

The idea ultimately is to make a character's choices in the game matter, because one of the core engagements of RPGs is expression. So the character who invests in being a master thief gets to bump slightly above WBL, or gets a little more control over his loot - just like the character who invests in being a master craftsman does.

So that is the goal. The only issue is how to achieve that goal without giving either of them the other players' spotlight repeatedly or for long stretches at a time, and that is what we're discussing here - but the end goal of rewarding the thief for being a thief (provided his rolls work out) is something most people have already agreed with.


Interesting ideas, though you'd have to end up setting DCs for stealth since normally that sort of thing is handled by opposed rolls.

This one's easy - circumstance bonus to the spot/perception check of the enemy to see the non-rogues in the group. Thus it's riskier for the non-rogues but a sufficiently skilled rogue can still compensate for their deficiencies, and there are still individual rolls for the PCs and the enemy for granularity. (For example, if one guard spots one member of the party, he might give chase - right past where other members of the party lie in wait still unseen and can easily knock him out, while the other guards are none the wiser.)

[goto124]

If this is just some side thing, roll (Profession: Thief) and roll some treasure for him, but take it off his WBL. Meaning the next dungeon the party raids, the rogue gets less due to his burglaries before.

It's something that's unlikely to be noticed by the player, right? I hope, at least?

[Segev]

Yes, in Real Life(tm) Bob would not say that, that was exposition to make the point.

For real it's more like:

DM: ''How about we run your solo game Sunday at 2?"
Bob: "Um...I can't''
DM "Well...ok, 3? 4?''
Bob: "Ho, no...I'm busy all day Sunday''
DM: "Well...we don't need all day, we need like an hour. You can't spare an hour on Sunday?"
Bob: ''No way!''
DM: "Ok, how about Monday?''
Bob : "No way, I'm so busy!''
DM: ''Ok, name the day and time that works best for you."
Bob: "Um, right now, during our normal group game night."
DM :"Other then during our group game''
Bob:"Nope, has to be now or never, I'm always busy''

Now, sure Bob did not say ''I have to play and force the other players to be my audience so I could laugh at them'', but that is exactly what he means. See if Bob ''really'' just wanted to play his little solo game, he could find an hour to do so. That he refuses to do so, says a lot.....Like I said, you play with the wrong people, or expect the worst and get it from them.

I have been in a position where I don't have time to mini a sub-session. I generally have been willing to handle whatever it was in the background, rather than monopolizing others' time. Everybody I've gamed with has done similarly.

(The GM of the Rifts game I'm in likes handling split parties all the time, so people's time gets monopolized all the time. That's the GM's and that group's play style, though.)


You can "solve" any problem by metagaming it away, sure. Why have dice at all?Except that's not what he suggested, any more than rolling craft, profession, or whatever the bard rolls to "mack on fly honeys" is. You're drawing an arbitrary line that this one specific activity MUST be played out, otherwise you're only "metagaming the problem away."

When in reality you're simply not focusing on those events because they're not relevant to the on-screen story.




Or be creative and find a way to involve all the other players.Nobody's saying you can't or shouldn't. All they're saying is that it's not essential that everybody be involved in the rogue's "I go off and do some burglary" expenditure of downtime, any more than it's essential that everybody be involved in the fighter's quest to go buy a new sword at market.

Can you play it out? Sure! Haggling, testing weapon qualities, finding just the right one, and running into the efreeti disguised as a common merchant is all possible and maybe even interesting. But you can also just hand him the PHB and let him look up the prices, buy his gear, and be done with it.

Either works, depending on how interesting you want it to be. Do you have a plot hook waiting there? Run it! If not, why insist it's only the rogue who isn't able to have character activities in the background? Why MUST the rogue either have no life outside of the party, or be a jerk for stealing the spotlight from them?

[Psyren]

Except that's not what he suggested, any more than rolling craft, profession, or whatever the bard rolls to "mack on fly honeys" is. You're drawing an arbitrary line that this one specific activity MUST be played out, otherwise you're only "metagaming the problem away."

When in reality you're simply not focusing on those events because they're not relevant to the on-screen story.

It's not "arbitrary." Taking someone's valuables, especially when that requires bypassing the likely defenses someone with the wealth to afford valuables in the first place would have, is a risky and complex activity. I'm of the opinion that risky and complex activities should generally be played out. To me, reducing it to one roll with no meaningful involvement is tantamount to the party saying "can we go kill a dragon?" and the DM replying "Ok, roll. You killed the dragon, here's what you get." It boils the game down to absurdity.


Why MUST the rogue either have no life outside of the party, or be a jerk for stealing the spotlight from them?

Er... In case it wasn't clear, this is exactly the binary I'm here opposing.

[Segev]

It's not "arbitrary." Taking someone's valuables, especially when that requires bypassing the likely defenses someone with the wealth to afford valuables in the first place would have, is a risky and complex activity. I'm of the opinion that risky and complex activities should generally be played out. To me, reducing it to one roll with no meaningful involvement is tantamount to the party saying "can we go kill a dragon?" and the DM replying "Ok, roll. You killed the dragon, here's what you get." It boils the game down to absurdity.That's why you don't assume the rogue is out doing something quite that momentus during downtime of this nature. It's no more momentus than the wizard scribing a scroll, the bard getting himself a date, or the cleric preaching a sermon or few.

At most, it should return a Profession roll's worth of wealth.

Beyond that, of course it's a side-quest that should either be run when the others aren't around or should involve them. Just as the wizard's quest to get into a guild probably should be run on its own or with the party rather than backgrounded; it's momentous.




Er... In case it wasn't clear, this is exactly the binary I'm here opposing.Then why are you insisting that it either has to be a full-blown session or not run at all? Or am I missing something in your arguments? You seem highly opposed to backgrounding it, and to want to involve everybody, which puts it firmly on the "run it as a party adventure" extreme.

What am I misunderstanding? I'm really not trying to paint your position incorrectly; I just am not seeing anything else. I must be missing something.

[Psyren]

At most, it should return a Profession roll's worth of wealth.

This is illogical both from a metagame perspective and in-universe. If thievery, with all its inherent dangers, paid no better than an honest wage, nobody would bother with it; and if it really is "d20+mod gold pieces per week" no player would be interested in it except in the most wealth-starved campaigns.



Then why are you insisting that it either has to be a full-blown session or not run at all?

All I said was that it should be more involved than a single roll. I'm not sure how you got "full-blown session" out of that, nor even how you define that term. From my perspective, any solo time with the rogue would be brief, not lasting longer than a few minutes, whether that time encompasses the entire caper or just the rogue's prep time before bringing in the rest of the party to help. (My suggestions were elaborated on in greater detail in #62.)

[Flickerdart]

This is illogical both from a metagame perspective and in-universe. If thievery, with all its inherent dangers, paid no better than an honest wage, nobody would bother with it; and if it really is "d20+mod gold pieces per week" no player would be interested in it except in the most wealth-starved campaigns.
Actually, this is an interesting question. When a rogue's player says "I want to go steal stuff," is he interested in the stuff or the stealing? If all he's trying to do is play the archetype of the lone wolf kleptomaniac halfling thief, then it probably doesn't matter if he's only able to loot a pittance. After all, that's what he signed up with an adventuring party for - so he could have some muscular backup when looting dragon hoards.

On the other hand, if he literally just wants more stuff, then tying it back into the party ("you find a magic ward on the door" or "you can't crack this safe, but your fighter's punched through thicker steel than that" or even "you're going to need an extra pair of hands to carry away this solid gold garden gnome") will get them involved and thus let you make the whole thing an encounter and have the reward matter.

[Segev]

There are actually two reasons to resort to thievery: greater reward for greater risk, OR similar reward for less WORK.

The thief pick-pocketing people or burglarizing a small store for a profession's worth of coins may be doing it faster and with less (apparent, to him) work than he would if he were doing an honest day's work.

[Psyren]

There are actually two reasons to resort to thievery: greater reward for greater risk, OR similar reward for less WORK.

The thief pick-pocketing people or burglarizing a small store for a profession's worth of coins may be doing it faster and with less (apparent, to him) work than he would if he were doing an honest day's work.

You're forgetting that Profession pays weekly, not daily, and there is no possible way to make (successful) thievery as low-paying as Profession unless you restrict yourself to purloining torches, string and other 'de minimis' items. Thus, comparing thievery to profession fails both of your metrics unless the thief in question is very bad at his job.


Actually, this is an interesting question. When a rogue's player says "I want to go steal stuff," is he interested in the stuff or the stealing? If all he's trying to do is play the archetype of the lone wolf kleptomaniac halfling thief, then it probably doesn't matter if he's only able to loot a pittance. After all, that's what he signed up with an adventuring party for - so he could have some muscular backup when looting dragon hoards.

On the other hand, if he literally just wants more stuff, then tying it back into the party ("you find a magic ward on the door" or "you can't crack this safe, but your fighter's punched through thicker steel than that" or even "you're going to need an extra pair of hands to carry away this solid gold garden gnome") will get them involved and thus let you make the whole thing an encounter and have the reward matter.

My presumption has always been that the rogue player wants a reward that matters, and thus I wholly support your second paragraph. But it is possible to do a solo exercise with the rogue that doesn't last more than a few minutes anyway - a complex skill check models this perfectly, with X successes before Y failures to win.

[tiercel]

I would have thought that one big limiting factor on this kind of thing would have been the trope of the thieves' guild.

There's the whole "gang/union doesn't want outsiders poaching its turf" thing, but also the minor detail that most of the potential worthwhile burglary targets are probably paying protection money to (or running) the guild.

Presumably, actually going up against a thieves' guild of any size is an entire-party sort of venture.

[Karl Aegis]

If you factor in the opportunity cost of not adventuring and getting the loot the DM planned, time spent on thievery is time spent hemorrhaging money. You aren't scouting ahead of the rest of the group and pocketing small trinkets and baubles. You aren't splitting the dragon's hoard with the rest of your team. You're stealing staples and duct tape from basket weavers. If you do get experience at all you're setting yourself up to fight higher CR monsters with relatively pitiful wealth for the level you're at.

Eventually, by doing random capers instead of being with the rest of the group, if you actually do join up with the group you'll be so far behind the rest of everyone else you won't be able to contribute (and there will be no reason anyone would want your character on their team). All in all, by going on random, unplanned for escapades you're almost guaranteed to die. Either the hazards of the job are going to kill you or the hazards of adventuring will scale faster than you can keep up.

[TheCrowing1432]

It's something that's unlikely to be noticed by the player, right? I hope, at least?

I would actually expect the DM to be forthcoming about this sort of thing.

"Look Bob, You stole like 500 gp from that one house, which puts you ahead of the other players. So Im gonna have to cut your treasure share from the ogre lair so the other players can catch up"


Or maybe the Rogue shared the wealth and all the partys WBL gets cut a little.

I mean you dont NEED to constantly dungeon raid to accumilate WBL, every activity that can earn gold should contribute to it.

[Flickerdart]

If you factor in the opportunity cost of not adventuring and getting the loot the DM planned, time spent on thievery is time spent hemorrhaging money. You aren't scouting ahead of the rest of the group and pocketing small trinkets and baubles. You aren't splitting the dragon's hoard with the rest of your team. You're stealing staples and duct tape from basket weavers. If you do get experience at all you're setting yourself up to fight higher CR monsters with relatively pitiful wealth for the level you're at.

Eventually, by doing random capers instead of being with the rest of the group, if you actually do join up with the group you'll be so far behind the rest of everyone else you won't be able to contribute (and there will be no reason anyone would want your character on their team). All in all, by going on random, unplanned for escapades you're almost guaranteed to die. Either the hazards of the job are going to kill you or the hazards of adventuring will scale faster than you can keep up.
The idea is that the rogue is doing this either during downtime or at night while everyone else is sleeping or studying or wenching (to taste).

[Psyren]

If you factor in the opportunity cost of not adventuring and getting the loot the DM planned, time spent on thievery is time spent hemorrhaging money. You aren't scouting ahead of the rest of the group and pocketing small trinkets and baubles. You aren't splitting the dragon's hoard with the rest of your team. You're stealing staples and duct tape from basket weavers. If you do get experience at all you're setting yourself up to fight higher CR monsters with relatively pitiful wealth for the level you're at.

Eventually, by doing random capers instead of being with the rest of the group, if you actually do join up with the group you'll be so far behind the rest of everyone else you won't be able to contribute (and there will be no reason anyone would want your character on their team). All in all, by going on random, unplanned for escapades you're almost guaranteed to die. Either the hazards of the job are going to kill you or the hazards of adventuring will scale faster than you can keep up.

This assumes that off-the-clock thievery is mutually exclusive with adventuring with the group, which is an odd assumption to make. Indeed, in-universe I would fully expect the thief hired by my party to be doing something to keep his skills sharp - skills we will be relying on in much more dangerous situations out in the field, just like I'd expect the fighter to be doing drills or the monk to be doing katas and meditating, not to mention whatever practice casters get up to.

[Flickerdart]

the monk to be doing katas and meditating
The monk has all the stealing-related skills too. Send him with the rogue, maybe he'll be useful for once.

Ranger, too. Aragorn may have spent his free time brooding at an inn, but it's not required.

[Psyren]

The monk has all the stealing-related skills too. Send him with the rogue, maybe he'll be useful for once.

He's also lawful :smallwink:

(Not that a monk couldn't or wouldn't do this with his off hours, but as a rogue I wouldn't be counting on it unless the caper was relevant to the group's mission as a whole.)

[Curmudgeon]

If this is just some side thing, roll (Profession: Thief) and roll some treasure for him, but take it off his WBL. Meaning the next dungeon the party raids, the rogue gets less due to his burglaries before.
So your stated goal is to micro-manage character wealth so that the player's efforts do not matter at all? I didn't realize there were DMs so actively determined to suck every last bit of fun out of the game. :smallsigh:

The monk has all the stealing-related skills too.
Uh, Search? Open Lock? Sleight of Hand? The Monk isn't any good at thievery, either.

[Flickerdart]

So your stated goal is to micro-manage character wealth so that the player's efforts do not matter at all? I didn't realize there were DMs so actively determined to suck every last bit of fun out of the game. :smallsigh:
Every contribution towards character wealth counts against WBL, including killing monsters. Does that mean that getting money is an effort that doesn't matter at all? Does that mean the game isn't fun?


Uh, Search? Open Lock? Sleight of Hand? The Monk isn't any good at thievery, either.
Don't need any of that if you're mugging dudes in an alley!

[Psyren]

Every contribution towards character wealth counts against WBL, including killing monsters. Does that mean that getting money is an effort that doesn't matter at all? Does that mean the game isn't fun?

What I think Curmudgeon means - and I agree with - is that "rewarding" a player's choices with a portion of the same loot he was going to get anyway isn't much of a reward. It would be like a player who has invested in being a crafter, having to spend gp on half the cost of an item in addition to the costs needed to craft it - it ends up being pointless because he is paying full price anyway. He might as well just have gone to the store for the item and spent his feats elsewhere.

Rather, I would allow the thieving player to slightly exceed WBL just like I would a crafting player, or use another additional reward system (like Downtime) that he similarly would not have had access to had he done nothing but adventure.

[Curmudgeon]

Every contribution towards character wealth counts against WBL, including killing monsters.
Wealth by Level is a table used for equipping characters created above 1st level, and other than that is just a guideline for setting appropriate encounters. Here's what the rules say about WbL:
The baseline campaign for the D&D game uses this “wealth by level” guideline as a basis for balance in adventures. No adventure meant for 7th-level characters, for example, will require or assume that the party possesses a magic item that costs 20,000 gp. It's not intended to be used to constrain player wealth, but rather to ensure that players have enough wealth.

[Flickerdart]

It's not intended to be used to constrain player wealth, but rather to ensure that players have enough wealth.
Yeah, and when you see that they have enough wealth, you're then able to give them less as treasure without violating the "enough" status.

[georgie_leech]

Yeah, and when you see that they have enough wealth, you're then able to give them less as treasure without violating the "enough" status.

Able to give less =/= Must give less. I would personally feel rather upset if I found out that the DM had decided I had already earned my share of WBL crafting and thus wouldn't be getting any loot.

[Flickerdart]

Able to give less =/= Must give less. I would personally feel rather upset if I found out that the DM had decided I had already earned my share of WBL crafting and thus wouldn't be getting any loot.
You already got tailor-made items out of it, much earlier than you should get them. If you feel entitled to more, that's your problem.

[Psyren]

You already got tailor-made items out of it, much earlier than you should get them. If you feel entitled to more, that's your problem.

You know who else got tailor-made items?

The rest of the party.

[TheCrowing1432]

Its starting to look like people just hate rogues.

I mean people hate setting traps that only rogues can find. And people dont like when the rogue goes off to steal stuff.

So, should rogues be cut out of the game entirely?

[Flickerdart]

You know who else got tailor-made items?

The rest of the party.
It's a team game. The rogue invested in stealth and trap skills because someone had to scout and do traps. The wizard took crafting feats because someone had to craft.

If you don't want it to be a team game, don't craft items for them.

[Psyren]

It's a team game. The rogue invested in stealth and trap skills because someone had to scout and do traps. The wizard took crafting feats because someone had to craft.

If you don't want it to be a team game, don't craft items for them.

Er, you're the one penalizing the player for making those choices that benefit the entire group. That is rather poor design.

[Flickerdart]

Er, you're the one penalizing the player for making those choices that benefit the entire group. That is rather poor design.
I'm not penalizing him for anything. The game says, "make sure your dudes have this much lucre" and I'm not giving them a single turnip under that amount.

[Solaris]

Able to give less =/= Must give less. I would personally feel rather upset if I found out that the DM had decided I had already earned my share of WBL crafting and thus wouldn't be getting any loot.

I'm not keen on reducing wealth gain because of crafting, if only because the crafting character has to expend experience points and time on making items.
Of course, that assumes the crafting character isn't breaking the game. If you're making stuff that's too powerful, expect the game to adjust accordingly.

[Denver]

Its starting to look like people just hate rogues.

I mean people hate setting traps that only rogues can find. And people dont like when the rogue goes off to steal stuff.

So, should rogues be cut out of the game entirely?

Frankly, I'm surprised that subsequent editions of the game didn't reduce the number of class options to just one. Why do you need different classes when you can just all take one class?

[Psyren]

I'm not penalizing him for anything. The game says, "make sure your dudes have this much lucre" and I'm not giving them a single turnip under that amount.

Who said anything about "under?" :smallconfused:

[Flickerdart]

Who said anything about "under?" :smallconfused:
"Penalizing" implies short-charging of some description, does it not?

[Psyren]

"Penalizing" implies short-charging of some description, does it not?

By saying "You will get the same wealth after crafting/thieving as you would have without doing those things," you are indeed short-changing them. It means their choice is irrelevant and they may as well have picked Toughness for all the good their feats did.

[Coidzor]

If you factor in the opportunity cost of not adventuring and getting the loot the DM planned, time spent on thievery is time spent hemorrhaging money. You aren't scouting ahead of the rest of the group and pocketing small trinkets and baubles.

Well, to be fair, the idea that players of Rogues are supposed to be out to screw the other players is a problematic rogue trope all of its own.


I mean people hate setting traps that only rogues can find. And people dont like when the rogue goes off to steal stuff.

Indeed, I much prefer just making finding traps being something that anyone with the appropriate training can do rather than a handful of classes in 3.5 or everyone and their mother who takes a campaign-specific trait in Pathfinder. I also don't like sitting on my thumbs while the Rogue has their own solo adventure, since that gets boring if it drags on for any real length of time.

I definitely hate knowing that the Rogue's player is thumbing their nose at me by being incredibly obvious about how they're using their scouting ahead as a way to screw the rest of our characters out of their fair share of the loot, which is just one portion of why I despise kender.


So, should rogues be cut out of the game entirely?

Maybe. At any rate, they need an actual niche for their role in game other than screwing the party and being required to deal with traps (but not really because here's all these alternatives to having a Rogue in the first place).

[Flickerdart]

By saying "You will get the same wealth after crafting/thieving as you would have without doing those things," you are indeed short-changing them. It means their choice is irrelevant and they may as well have picked Toughness for all the good their feats did.
As I already said, their feats got them more powerful tailor-made items much earlier than they would normally be entitled to them. Don't forget that if PCs normally want items the DM didn't drop for them, they have to sell that loot at half-price and then get an equal amount of loot from more adventuring and also sell that at half price. Crafters can just turn that original half-price loot into specific magic items the party wants, literally saving 50% of the adventuring they would need to do to obtain them. They can also pour way more money than usual into this, because they don't care at all about the GP limits of whatever city they happen to be in, or what the MIC has as recommended item levels.

For the rogue, saying that his thieving skills are wasted is ignoring all the uses those skills get in gameplay. Or are you saying that the only time Spot, Listen, Move Silently, Hide, Open Lock, and Disable Device get any use is when the rogue is off on his own robbing houses? Would a rogue without those skills be as useful to the party as a rogue with them? Would a wizard who can't pull any item his friends ask for out of his butt be as useful as one who can? I think not.

[Deophaun]

Would a wizard who can't pull any item his friends ask for out of his butt be as useful as one who can? I think not.
Depends on the campaign. But in regards to a standard world, where wizards are not a rare species of legend and the PCs tend to hob-nob with powerful NPCs, yes. Because it takes no more time for the wizard to craft that custom piece than it does for the NPC wizard you hired to craft it. Set this in Eberron, and now your PC really is an idiot for taking crafting feats.

[Flickerdart]

Because it takes no more time for the wizard to craft that custom piece than it does for the NPC wizard you hired to craft it. Set this in Eberron, and now your PC really is an idiot for taking crafting feats.
Yeah, if the DM provides NPCs who are willing to steal the spotlight from PCs, the spotlight gets stolen. But that's true for every option.

[Psyren]

As I already said, their feats got them more powerful tailor-made items much earlier than they would normally be entitled to them. Don't forget that if PCs normally want items the DM didn't drop for them, they have to sell that loot at half-price and then get an equal amount of loot from more adventuring and also sell that at half price. Crafters can just turn that original half-price loot into specific magic items the party wants, literally saving 50% of the adventuring they would need to do to obtain them. They can also pour way more money than usual into this, because they don't care at all about the GP limits of whatever city they happen to be in, or what the MIC has as recommended item levels.

But there's costs associated with crafting that aren't associated with finding loot too, most notably time and spells slots, and thus the crafter has less incentive to make items for everyone else with his feats as a result. So a little extra honey here goes a long way.

Ultimate Campaign openly recommends that this should be the case - that characters with a crafting focus should deviate as much as 25% above WBL guidelines, or even more if they have sunk multiple feats into performing this function for the party.



For the rogue, saying that his thieving skills are wasted is ignoring all the uses those skills get in gameplay. Or are you saying that the only time Spot, Listen, Move Silently, Hide, Open Lock, and Disable Device get any use is when the rogue is off on his own robbing houses? Would a rogue without those skills be as useful to the party as a rogue with them? Would a wizard who can't pull any item his friends ask for out of his butt be as useful as one who can? I think not.

It's true that, for the most part, these are skills the rogue would be investing in anyway. But in this case the reward is metagame - by letting the thieving character be rewarded for being a thief, you make the class more fun, and encourage a player to want to play that role in the party in the first place. This broadens the variety of challenges you can throw at the party (e.g. traps and needing to scout) as a result. I consider this sort of positive reinforcement much more desirable/engaging than "okay, we need a rogue, Bob was late so he's it." If there are benefits to thievery above and beyond what non-rogue characters get, more players will want to be rogues that might not otherwise have done so. I consider that a win.

[Flickerdart]

But there's costs associated with crafting that aren't associated with finding loot too, most notably time and spells slots, and thus the crafter has less incentive to make items for everyone else with his feats as a result. So a little extra honey here goes a long way.
Fighting monsters for treasure doesn't take time and spell slots?



Ultimate Campaign openly recommends that this should be the case - that characters with a crafting focus should deviate as much as 25% above WBL guidelines, or even more if they have sunk multiple feats into performing this function for the party.

Never heard of it.



It's true that, for the most part, these are skills the rogue would be investing in anyway. But in this case the reward is metagame - by letting the thieving character be rewarded for being a thief, you make the class more fun, and encourage a player to want to play that role in the party in the first place. This broadens the variety of challenges you can throw at the party (e.g. traps and needing to scout) as a result. I consider this sort of positive reinforcement much more desirable/engaging than "okay, we need a rogue, Bob was late so he's it." If there are benefits to thievery above and beyond what non-rogue characters get, more players will want to be rogues that might not otherwise have done so. I consider that a win.
"Bribe the PCs" is far from the "penalizing" and "short-charging" rhetoric of but a few posts ago.

[Deophaun]

Yeah, if the DM provides NPCs who are willing to steal the spotlight from PCs, the spotlight gets stolen. But that's true for every option.
If no one has taken crafting feats, there is no spotlight to steal. And if someone has taken crafting feats, the spotlight is "I spend our downtime crafting X, Y, and Z, and I'm now two thousand XP down compared to the rest of the party, and won't be getting my awesome level 5 spells for an additional two sessions."

If there's no wealth benefit for crafting, then that's a spotlight I happily leave in the middle of the street in the bad part of town, glamored to make it look like it's made of platinum and covered in emeralds in the hope than an NPC steals it.

[Flickerdart]

If no one has taken crafting feats, there is no spotlight to steal. And if someone has taken crafting feats, the spotlight is "I spend our downtime crafting X, Y, and Z, and I'm now two thousand XP down compared to the rest of the party, and won't be getting my awesome level 5 spells for an additional two sessions."

If there's no wealth benefit for crafting, then that's a spotlight I happily leave in the middle of the street in the bad part of town, glamored to make it look like it's made of platinum and covered in emeralds in the hope than an NPC steals it.
Those are your personal feelings on the subject, and entirely valid ones. If your party has to travel for weeks to scrape and bow before the nearest decent-levelled wizard in the hopes he makes them some baubles, because you decided to empower yourself and not your comrades in arms, maybe they will have different feelings.

The assumption that there are friendly NPCs of all stripes and walks of life everywhere you look has its place, but it is far from universal.

[Deophaun]

Those are your personal feelings on the subject, and entirely valid ones. If your party has to travel for weeks to scrape and bow before the nearest decent-levelled wizard in the hopes he makes them some baubles, because you decided to empower yourself and not your comrades in arms, maybe they will have different feelings.
Go back and read the part about "depends on the campaign." Please.

Yes, if Wizards in your setting are not commonly found near cities where you will be crafting (because you need access to that available wealth) and you're instead closer to the "low-magic" end of the spectrum, crafting feats are going to be important. This was not at issue.

And sorry, dear comrades, for not picking feats for your benefit. I'm sure the Spirit Lion Totem Whirling Frenzy Barbarian is really put off by that, seeing all those teamwork feats he skipped over as trash. And the DMM Persist Cleric is all ready to bust out a sermon on sharing. Right after he finishes buffing himself.

[Flickerdart]

Yes, if Wizards in your setting are not commonly found near cities where you will be crafting (because you need access to that available wealth) and you're instead closer to the "low-magic" end of the spectrum, crafting feats are going to be important. This was not at issue.
There can be tons of wizards in cities, even high level ones, but they are not obligated to make their services available to the PCs or even like them. Given the quantity of these kleptomaniac rogues, it is only too easy to imagine how even an existing relationship might be sabotaged.

[Psyren]

Fighting monsters for treasure doesn't take time and spell slots?

It does - but that activity also has the added incentives of furthering the plot, granting XP, and lest we forget, being inherently engaging (because combat, i.e. the reason most of us play.) Crafting has none of these incentives.



Never heard of it.

"Some GMs might be tempted to reduce the amount or value of the treasure you acquire to offset this and keep your overall wealth in line with the Character Wealth by Level table. Unfortunately, that has the net result of negating the main benefit of crafting magic items—in effect negating your choice of a feat. However, game balance for the default campaign experience expects you and all other PCs to be close to the listed wealth values, so the GM shouldn't just let you craft double the normal amount of gear. As a guideline, allowing a crafting PC to exceed the Character Wealth by Level guidelines by about 25% is fair, or even up to 50% if the PC has multiple crafting feats." (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCampaign/campaignSystems/magicItemCreation.html#adjusting-character-wealth-by-level)



"Bribe the PCs" is far from the "penalizing" and "short-charging" rhetoric of but a few posts ago.

"Bribe" is a loaded term; rather, the GM is encouraging a positive externality. When the government gives you a tax break on your tuition, they are rewarding you for engaging in an activity that benefits society as a whole. This is simply the micro version of that, scaled down to a player and a table.

[Deophaun]

There can be tons of wizards in cities, even high level ones, but they are not obligated to make their services available to the PCs or even like them.
A DC 30 Diplomacy check says otherwise. :smallwink:

[Flickerdart]

It does - but that activity also has the added incentives of furthering the plot, granting XP, and lest we forget, being inherently engaging (because combat, i.e. the reason most of us play.) Crafting has none of these incentives.
If crafting magic items is not sufficient incentive to take feats that let you craft magic items, I'm not entirely sure why you'd want them in the first place.



"Some GMs might be tempted to reduce the amount or value of the treasure you acquire to offset this and keep your overall wealth in line with the Character Wealth by Level table. Unfortunately, that has the net result of negating the main benefit of crafting magic items—in effect negating your choice of a feat. However, game balance for the default campaign experience expects you and all other PCs to be close to the listed wealth values, so the GM shouldn't just let you craft double the normal amount of gear. As a guideline, allowing a crafting PC to exceed the Character Wealth by Level guidelines by about 25% is fair, or even up to 50% if the PC has multiple crafting feats." (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCampaign/campaignSystems/magicItemCreation.html#adjusting-character-wealth-by-level)

Ah, Pathfinder. What a quaint edition.


"Bribe" is a loaded term; rather, the GM is encouraging a positive externality. When the government gives you a tax break on your tuition, they are rewarding you for engaging in an activity that benefits society as a whole. This is simply the micro version of that, scaled down to a player and a table.
And not providing this is "cheating" them?


A DC 30 Diplomacy check says otherwise. :smallwink:
A Diplomacy check is made after a whole minute of conversation - and a wizard need not ever appear outside of his tower or unlock its doors to the great unwashed to suffer even a round of it.

[Psyren]

If crafting magic items is not sufficient incentive to take feats that let you craft magic items, I'm not entirely sure why you'd want them in the first place.

The same reason anybody would make something themselves rather than pay someone to make it for them - to save money. It's simple logic.



Ah, Pathfinder. What a quaint edition.

Thread wasn't tagged 3.5 last I checked.

Well it was, but still, WBL is a thing in both editions.



And not providing this is "cheating" them?

Making their feats pointless is cheating them. How you avoid that is up to you; I'm only suggesting one way, or rather repeating a suggestion from folks who get paid to design these things.

[Flickerdart]

The same reason anybody would make something themselves rather than pay someone to make it for them - to save money. It's simple logic.
You will forgive me if my D&D and my Extreme Couponing are kept separate.


Making their feats pointless is cheating them. How you avoid that is up to you; I'm only suggesting one way, or rather repeating a suggestion from folks who get paid to design these things.
I can repeat all the reasons I've listed for why the feats are not pointless, if you like.

[Deophaun]

A Diplomacy check is made after a whole minute of conversation - and a wizard need not ever appear outside of his tower or unlock its doors to the great unwashed.
Animate object door. Awaken construct. DC 30 Diplomacy check, and now the door wants to help me talk to the Wizard.

But please, I highly recommend going back and reading that whole "depends on the campaign" thing again. Really.

[Flickerdart]

Animate object door. Awaken construct. DC 30 Diplomacy check, and now the door wants to help me talk to the Wizard.
Only humanoid-shaped constructs may be awakened.



But please, I highly recommend going back and reading that whole "depends on the campaign" thing again. Really.
"My feats must be equally useful in 100% of all campaigns, not even 90%" is a very interesting thing you feel owed.

[Psyren]

You will forgive me if my D&D and my Extreme Couponing are kept separate.

So if crafting isn't any cheaper in your campaign, why does anyone do it? And if nobody is doing it, where are the items even coming from? :smalltongue:


I can repeat all the reasons I've listed for why the feats are not pointless, if you like.

"Getting them earlier" - not guaranteed, because crafting takes XP and time, so the crafter must still spend even more time adventuring on top of any time he spends crafting, and so the crafter will likely end up waiting even longer than the guy who simply took combat-relevant feats and cleared the dungeon that much faster or more easily.

"Getting the specific items you want" - Most items are rather generic (e.g. belt of giant strength) and justifying their absence outside of the meanest thorp requires a parsimonious DM indeed. For items that do have limited availability, if there is no cost advantage, the time it takes to craft the item in question may as well be spent trekking to the town that has it. At least then you'll stumble across a random encounter and get XP that way too.

[Flickerdart]

So if crafting isn't any cheaper in your campaign, why does anyone do it? And if nobody is doing it, where are the items even coming from? :smalltongue:
Not any cheaper? What are you talking about? If you have the choice to either buy a magic sword for 2000gp or craft one for 1000gp, you are saving 1000gp. Unless you are within 2 days of a significant population center (especially one with the items you desire), it is also much more convenient. As the item's cost increases, so too does the distance to the nearest city large enough to stock one.

Yes, you could spent a whole bunch of Teleport spells hopping from town to town looking for those slippers of battledancing or you could just slap them together in a garage somewhere.

[Milo v3]

Not any cheaper? What are you talking about? If you have the choice to either buy a magic sword for 2000gp or craft one for 1000gp, you are saving 1000gp. Unless you are within 2 days of a significant population center (especially one with the items you desire), it is also much more convenient.

Not really saving money if the universe magically steals 1000 gp from the future, so that you never get that 1000 gp you'd be saving.

[Flickerdart]

Not really saving money if the universe magically steals 1000 gp from the future, so that you never get that 1000 gp you'd be saving.
You don't need to "get" it - you have it already. Where someone else would have to venture into the deadly catacombs of death to get that 1000gp, yours is safely in your pocket. This is the epitome of "have your cake and eat it too."

[Psyren]

Not any cheaper? What are you talking about? If you have the choice to either buy a magic sword for 2000gp or craft one for 1000gp, you are saving 1000gp. Unless you are within 2 days of a significant population center (especially one with the items you desire), it is also much more convenient. As the item's cost increases, so too does the distance to the nearest city large enough to stock one.

So you ARE allowing the crafter to exceed WBL then? Because if he spends 1000 on the sword, he has 1000 left over to put towards other items, while the guy who can't craft will only have the sword. The guy who can craft will effectively have higher WBL as a result.

[Flickerdart]

So you ARE allowing the crafter to exceed WBL then? Because if he spends 1000 on the sword, he has 1000 left over to put towards other items, while the guy who can't craft will only have the sword. The guy who can craft will effectively have higher WBL as a result.
I never said anything about preventing people from exceeding WBL. There's no magic fairy that comes and takes your excess away in the night. That's the whole point of the "you will have more powerful items, sooner" thing.

Hell, if you want to pile your entire party's wealth into one guy, he just exceeded WBL without even needing crafting feats.

[Milo v3]

I never said anything about preventing people from exceeding WBL. There's no magic fairy that comes and takes your excess away in the night. That's the whole point of the "you will have more powerful items, sooner" thing.

I am very confused now.

[Psyren]

I never said anything about preventing people from exceeding WBL. There's no magic fairy that comes and takes your excess away in the night. That's the whole point of the "you will have more powerful items, sooner" thing.

Then we agree and I misunderstood you; but I wouldn't let them double their WBL this way relative to a non-crafting character. The passage I linked provides more reasonable guidelines.

[Flickerdart]

I am very confused now.
Let's say you are a Wizard, who took some crafting feats. You dump all your wealth into crafting, and after the dust settles sport literally twice the junk of everyone else. This is fine, it's practically what the feats are for. But you are now massively over-WBL, owning items you have no business having yet. This is effectively a loan against the future - as you adventure, you'll be finding slightly less wizard junk than the odds suggest, until your wealth is where it should be for your level. Could it be around the same time you catch up to the rest of the party in levels?

Of course, you can always spend some more time and XP to craft again, but you don't get to ride the XP river to free money town forever.

[Segev]

Nonsense. The whole point is that you've traded feat choices, downtime, and XP for double-wealth. That shouldn't be taken away by punitive removal of rewards you would have otherwise gotten. Certainly not scheduled for "when you catch up to the rest of the party." That just leaves you behind by the number of feats you invested.

Besides, unless the crafter is exceptionally selfish or the party exceptionally foolish, he's probably getting others discounted items, too. A more well-equipped party supports a caster's well-being better.

[Psyren]

As always there's middle ground. Flickerdart is actually right that you'd have to moderate their future wealth so that crafting does not give them 200% gear. But it should give them something, otherwise they may as well have just waited normally and set the feats on fire. The "you get stuff earlier" argument does not fly in many campaigns because crafting takes time (and XP, in 3.5) meaning you're already trading off for that advantage on top of the tradeoff of not having your feats.

[Flickerdart]

Obviously, you don't craft while the party is adventuring. You craft during off-time, between the orc invasion and the dragon caper.

Unless of course your campaign is just an endless gauntlet of improbably placed and conveniently CR-appropriate baddies that all want to blow up PC Town.

[Psyren]

Obviously, you don't craft while the party is adventuring. You craft during off-time, between the orc invasion and the dragon caper.

Often, a single item takes days to make, and you can only work on one at a time. So even in a campaign with this kind of "construction window," such a player will be hard-pressed to supply the group and have more incentive to simply supply themselves, if they even bother with crafting at all. Add in the fact that they will be behind on XP, daily spell slots, and feats relative to had they not been crafting, and the advantages dwindle fast; adding that they don't even save any money in the long run on top of these other drawbacks is too much.

[Flickerdart]

adding that they don't even save any money in the long run on top of these other drawbacks is too much.
They do save money. As long as they keep crafting, they'll stay ahead of the game.

[Psyren]

They do save money. As long as they keep crafting, they'll stay ahead of the game.

If that is the case, then your "loan against the future" will never come due. Effectively, you are agreeing with me that crafting should keep them above WBL throughout the campaign, though you would then be advocating for the full 200% of wealth instead.

[Flickerdart]

If that is the case, then your "loan against the future" will never come due. Effectively, you are agreeing with me that crafting should keep them above WBL throughout the campaign, though you would then be advocating for the full 200% of wealth instead.
Continued crafting is like an extension to the loan, but the more they're ahead of WBL, the less they can expect to earn.

[Psyren]

If you can extend a loan indefinitely it just becomes a gift. Which is more or less what I'm advocating for (just not +100%) so I guess we can put this to bed.

[Flickerdart]

If you can extend a loan indefinitely it just becomes a gift.
A gift you pay for (with time and XP) is more like a wage. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

A gift you pay for (with time and XP) is more like a wage. :smalltongue:

Fair enough - wages/compensation for your time, XP and feats.

Which very circuitously brings us back to rogues. Obviously there is much less tradeoff here, because the rogue is not expending XP or feats (at least, none that he would not have expended to do his job in the dungeon normally.) But for the reasons I (and Curmudgeon) listed on previous pages I would want to give them something for this kind of activity. Perhaps a 5% or 10% bump above WBL to represent their thievery, and also use them as a vector for additional plothooks or the occasional monkey-wrench like purloining a cursed item.