How do you handle WBL?

[Blu]

This is something that i was thinking due to some recent posts and basically i have two questions.
One of the problems i am meeting as a DM is the fact that WBL can change a lot depending on whether the party keeps or sells the loot they get. If they keep the item, they count the item cost fully for their WBL, whilst if they sell it, they only get half of the item value.


1) For the DM's, how do you handle this situations or balance out the value of kept items VS value of sold items?

2) For players, how do you aproach this problem? How do you balance out the fact that if someone decides to keep one item of the loot, they basically get a "bigger" share of stuff?

For the players problem i normally work things out with party's so that EVERY magical item that the group finds gets added to the group's treasury and then if someone wants to keep the item, they basically pay the other players an equivalent of their share of said item(for example, if one player wants to keep magical item A he adds the item price in the form of his own money to the group's treasury, wich later is split equally).

[flappeercraft]

I would then just make the next items be worth a bit more to balance out the WBL. That or ask the players what they want and see if I can make it fit in reasonably. Sometimes I would just look at their sheets and see what they could use that their opponents could also use.

[Uncle Pine]

1) For the DM's, how do you handle this situations or balance out the value of kept items VS value of sold items?
I hand as much loot as the wealth-by-level of the NPCs would dictate, or however much the Treasure line of a monster indicates. I don't often check the total value of the party's gear, but I did that once in the middle of the campaign and it actually almost matched their expected WBL. In the end, I believe factors like selling loot and having characters die and get replaced by new ones with their own equipment ends up balancing each other out, but if you want to be sure players have enough wealth the simplest solution is running the calcs yourself every other month (or whenever you deem appropriate).


2) For players, how do you aproach this problem? How do you balance out the fact that if someone decides to keep one item of the loot, they basically get a "bigger" share of stuff?

For the players problem i normally work things out with party's so that EVERY magical item that the group finds gets added to the group's treasury and then if someone wants to keep the item, they basically pay the other players an equivalent of their share of said item(for example, if one player wants to keep magical item A he adds the item price in the form of his own money to the group's treasury, wich later is split equally).
That's what most of my players end up doing. Other times they would just haggle about who should take each interesting piece of loot and simply divide gp between those who got less stuff. Hoggers occasionally get killed and thus order is mantained.

[LordBlade]

As DM I think I'm going to have to just tweak treasures a bit to make sure players are getting more overall.
But as for someone taking an item that's found... I don't see it as an issue. If it's something that can be used by them, then why shouldn't they have it?
If one player is falling behind, the others will generally pool some money to help them get something they need.


As a player, I honestly never even think about it. If there's something I can use, I ask if I can have it. If I'm the guy who's basically got nothing while everyone else is decked out in uber gear... meh. I try to get what I can. If someone will help me afford stuff, that's great. Otherwise I just go without gear.

As pointed out in a thread I made about this stuff, the game is balanced around players having magical gear. They are expected to have gear to make them able to face things that are otherwise impossible to beat without it (like stuff that you need magical gear to hit). Personally, I always find that to be terrible design. Adventures should be shaped around the party and their abilities, parties shouldn't be forced to set themselves up a certain way to take on adventures (unless they've got options on what to do, then it's a matter of picking the route that's best for them).
If the group isn't decked out with magical gear that lets them hit special enemies, then I don't put those enemies in there. It just makes the game very unenjoyable. Success shouldn't be based on having the best gear, but should be based on teamwork and making the most of what your characters can do. Admittedly, for more straightforward characters like fighter types, that does tend to rely a lot on gear, as they don't tend to get many options beyond hitting things. But then if we've got a group of magically inclined characters, and one or two are still just relying on basic gear, I will try to put in situations where they get the shine. Like making encounters where magic is being denied or carries penalties. Such as a warlord keep where there's anti-magic zones. Suddenly the "normal" characters are the stars who the party is turning to instead of the casters who just vaporize any enemies that show up.

[RoboEmperor]

As a player I build my character to be 100% independent of wealth. Have all the bigger share of the loot all you want I'll still be running circles around your guy.

[Nifft]

In one of my longest-running games, I just used the random tables in the DMG and the party members ended up within 10% of WBL almost every time I checked.

The times they weren't that close, I either ignored it (if they were over), or threw them some hand-picked magical gear (if they were under).

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's important to remember that WBL is a guideline and the purpose it serves; it's intended to be a guideline for measuring the power the PCs gain and are expected to gain through magical gear.

This being the case, I only count permanent and semi-permanent gear such as gauntlets of ogre strength and wands of cure light wounds. Expendables, gear collecting dust on the way to town to loot out, cash, and non-portable wealth the PCs don't have on them get ignored. (Though it's not a bad idea to keep an eye on liquid wealth since it can turn into gear pretty quick.)

To try to keep the PCs on target for WBL, I audit their gear's value at each level up. If it's within about 10% of what's expected, no action is needed. If it's off in general, I'll reduce or increase treasure over the next few encounters to bring it back in line. If one PC is out of line with the rest; I'll either place treasure tailored to that character, if he's behind, or bring in a wealth remover encounter, if he's over.

[daremetoidareyo]

I tend to give better stuff early and starve them a bit later on. Cooler stuff when you are low level increases momentum and creativity, the Magic Mart aspect of the game that opens up at high levels I try to avoid. I actually have players make gear wish lists and guarantee occasional drops from those wish lists.

[Fizban]

This is something that i was thinking due to some recent posts and basically i have two questions.
One of the problems i am meeting as a DM is the fact that WBL can change a lot depending on whether the party keeps or sells the loot they get. If they keep the item, they count the item cost fully for their WBL, whilst if they sell it, they only get half of the item value.
WBL does not change based on anything- it's a recommended number the DM is supposed to aim for. Treasure gained varies based on the treasure you're giving out, character gear varies based on the use of that treasure (including crafting). The DM is expected to try and line up the current gear with the expected WBL, however the gear was obtained, and also that the current gear is appropriate for the characters if it isn't already.


1) For the DM's, how do you handle this situations or balance out the value of kept items VS value of sold items?
I kept a meticulous inventory spreadsheet of every item gained, sold, money distributed, and what each person was carrying (including the consumables/party general fund) once. It was a lot of busywork, but it meant that I could see in "real-time" how close the party was to WBL. They went above for a little while, then when a player left and the character ditched with a bag of items it put them under for a little while, until a treasure hoard was set to bring them back up. Usually I just suggest taking an audit every so often- either every level if you want to stay close, or right before any serious treasure hoard so you can scale it appropriately.


2) For players, how do you aproach this problem? How do you balance out the fact that if someone decides to keep one item of the loot, they basically get a "bigger" share of stuff?
That assumes you're getting items that would cause that, and have a loot sharing system that would cause that. Since I know that cash/magic items/etc is a significant part of character power, any game I'm in on either side will have a mechanically gp fair final gear split, even if I have to track inventory of the other characters and point out when someone's behind and by how much. I also advocate the general fund plan where you split off a 5th share or at least some pile of money for your cure wands and stone to flesh scrolls and teleport hiring and whatnots.

Big ticket items that benefit the whole parry should have their value split across the whole party, but run into problems when the whole party doesn't agree on their usefulness. A figurine of wondrous power is still held and activated by one person, another doesn't want to pay thousands of gp to protect the campsite, etc. As a DM that would mean I'd either ask the party, or just quietly drop the item and count it as a split without telling them (unless/until someone noticed). As a player that generally means I shy away and look for the most efficient way of getting a single person version if I can't count on party unity.

[Falontani]

my question with the WBL is, what happens when you have a party member that consistently steals loot before the group can see it, such as a scout that takes a good portion from the treasure using sleight of hand when no one is looking or when others are sleeping?

That one party member will be quite ahead of the WBL curve compared to the other players

[Nifft]

my question with the WBL is, what happens when you have a party member that consistently steals loot before the group can see it, such as a scout that takes a good portion from the treasure using sleight of hand when no one is looking or when others are sleeping?

That one party member will be quite ahead of the WBL curve compared to the other players

There are two options that I can see there:

1/ It's a valid Evil in-character behavior which is appropriate because you're playing an Evil campaign and every PC needs to watch their backs, since they're all Evil and they all know it. There's no problem, because if the other PCs / players don't notice, then that's their own fault. This is how we play Paranoia, and it's good clean fun in that context.

2/ It's an anti-social behavior from an allegedly heroic PC who is counting on the out-of-character gaming group social contract to excuse the in-character breach of trust. This is an out-of-character problem, and should be solved by talking to all the players.

[Falontani]

There are two options that I can see there:

1/ It's a valid Evil in-character behavior which is appropriate because you're playing an Evil campaign and every PC needs to watch their backs, since they're all Evil and they all know it. There's no problem, because if the other PCs / players don't notice, then that's their own fault. This is how we play Paranoia, and it's good clean fun in that context.

2/ It's an anti-social behavior from an allegedly heroic PC who is counting on the out-of-character gaming group social contract to excuse the in-character breach of trust. This is an out-of-character problem, and should be solved by talking to all the players.

Chaotic Neutral rogue who always does good, but is very greedy. She has been known to occasionally give in and give NPCs a gold or two

[Fizban]

my question with the WBL is, what happens when you have a party member that consistently steals loot before the group can see it, such as a scout that takes a good portion from the treasure using sleight of hand when no one is looking or when others are sleeping?

That one party member will be quite ahead of the WBL curve compared to the other players
A player that is infringing upon the rewards of the other players will be summarily dismissed. If I joined a group where this behavior was not advertised and they persisted, I suppose I'd have to choose between leaving or char-op'ing my way into getting my fair share- leaving would be more appropriate.

[Blu]

my question with the WBL is, what happens when you have a party member that consistently steals loot before the group can see it, such as a scout that takes a good portion from the treasure using sleight of hand when no one is looking or when others are sleeping?

That one party member will be quite ahead of the WBL curve compared to the other players

Honestly, stealing from the party is only acceptable if that is the kind of campaign you guys are running, say an evil campaign, a intrigue campaign where anyone could be a spy. If you are running the heroic guys who save people, that is not appropriate behaviour. Most of the times is just abusing the social contract.

In practice, most of times the person would just go with the "That's what my character would do" excuse and didn't want to face "That's what our characters would do" repercussion. One time i even honestly just said to a player who was stealing from the party: "You know that if we caught you, your character is dead, right?"

Also might point out that besides being an abuse, it's not the smartest idea.
Each attempt at stealing from the party is just another chance of getting caught.
Robbing the guys you hang out with not only puts you life in danger as breaks any thrust other characters had in you, your character can be killed, kicked out of the party or a lot of other ways that just resolve to "make another character".

[Elkad]

As the thieving player (and I've been that player a fair amount), I'll be lavish with purchasing party supplies, Raise Dead spells, etc. I might be taking something like a double share, but I'm covering the "party fund" share out of my own pocket. So while it looks bad, if you do the math, it works out similar.

But that was learned behavior. Just like any other "fitting in with the group" adjustment you make. In my case it was a DM pulling me aside and talking to me about it.

And occasionally it still turns to PvP. Which is fine. But then I like at least the threat of PvP, and tend to play with others who do as well.

I've seen players get mad simply because a character had far more cash than others.
"Whoa, Jonny has almost 10,000gp at 6th level! And I'm broke! Unfair!" But when you look, all Jonny has is a +2 Int hat, and some cheap consumables. He's selling every scrap of treasure he gets, and picking cash over "useful" items in the loot pile, to upgrade his hat to +4, which he'll get very early (probably at 7th level).

[Blu]

Chaotic Neutral rogue who always does good, but is very greedy. She has been known to occasionally give in and give NPCs a gold or two

Another point is. Do your characters get the appropriate checks to notice the stealing and misbehaviour from said character?
Like sense motive, listen, spot, and others...
And do your characters don't even suspect that the rogue is getting money out of seemingly nowhere?

[Mendicant]

I used to carefully track gear to ensure everyone was on the WBL track, but I've steadily moved away from it for several reasons.

A: I dislike most of the "+1 to X" magic items. They don't feel particularly magical even when they're first gotten, and they're forgotten instantly after the character sheet is updated.

B: It can be useful but it can also obscure problems. Just because somebody has X gold worth of gear doesn't mean they have what they need to contribute or stay alive.

C: I dislike how WBL expectations make money a build resource. It makes sense that they'd want to spend money on items, but what if they also want to spend cash on a guildhall or making all the beggars in town slightly richer than that one shopkeeper who was rude at level 1? Either they're short of necessary gear, or I have to drop more money/items to keep them current, and I've also got to square that with the guy who just went to the magic mart and kept current.

What I've done is replaced most of the boring utilitarian items and bonuses with one-time events related to gameplay--a holy aura granted by a powerful outsider grants a character a permanent +1 deflection bonus and a +2 to Cha--or as riders to other key items--for instance, a lucky +1 dagger that provides a +1 luck bonus to saves. I track these bonuses, and ensure that they've gotten boons or items roughly on this (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/unchained-rules/automatic-bonus-progression/) schedule. If something is missing I'll toss them that amulet of natural armor or whatever.

After the "numbers go up" items are covered, it's much easier to eyeball the effect of big-ticket items like a wishlist drop, and it's easier to run inventory to check for specific capabilities like flying or appropriate DR bypass.

Buying magic gear has to be curtailed significantly using this system, but my players are on board with doing it this way so that hasn't been a problem. They end up spending more money on story stuff and have ended up broke between jobs a handful of times without any ill-effects on their ability to campaign.

[Uncle Pine]

my question with the WBL is, what happens when you have a party member that consistently steals loot before the group can see it, such as a scout that takes a good portion from the treasure using sleight of hand when no one is looking or when others are sleeping?

That one party member will be quite ahead of the WBL curve compared to the other players
The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

Hoggers occasionally get killed and thus order is mantained.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I just ignore the WBL, I adjust the enemies for the party power level.

[Eldariel]

I just ignore the WBL, I adjust the enemies for the party power level.

This is by far the most sensible approach. Party gets wealth based on their actions, but if they go above WBL you can just adjust for them being effectively a higher ECL party and if they fall under you can adjust for them being essentially under their level in power. As long as the party is approximately in similar tiers, this shouldn't cause problems. Of course, if you run a hodgepodge game with the party all over the table, the problems this might cause would be aggravated and thus you might be forced to manipulate player actions to enable them to gain extra wealth.

[Crichton]

This is by far the most sensible approach. Party gets wealth based on their actions, but if they go above WBL you can just adjust for them being effectively a higher ECL party and if they fall under you can adjust for them being essentially under their level in power. As long as the party is approximately in similar tiers, this shouldn't cause problems. Of course, if you run a hodgepodge game with the party all over the table, the problems this might cause would be aggravated and thus you might be forced to manipulate player actions to enable them to gain extra wealth.

I'm just going to second all of this. I agree wholeheartedly. A rough balance between the party members is far more important than following some chart of how rich you're allowed to be. And as you say, the challenge levels can be adjusted for. If a party wants to spend the extra effort to pursue something that's going to make them richer than the WBL table, then great! That effort should be rewarded, not discouraged.

[daremetoidareyo]

As the thieving player (and I've been that player a fair amount), I'll be lavish with purchasing party supplies, Raise Dead spells, etc. I might be taking something like a double share, but I'm covering the "party fund" share out of my own pocket. So while it looks bad, if you do the math, it works out similar.

But that was learned behavior. Just like any other "fitting in with the group" adjustment you make. In my case it was a DM pulling me aside and talking to me about it.

And occasionally it still turns to PvP. Which is fine. But then I like at least the threat of PvP, and tend to play with others who do as well.

I've seen players get mad simply because a character had far more cash than others.
"Whoa, Jonny has almost 10,000gp at 6th level! And I'm broke! Unfair!" But when you look, all Jonny has is a +2 Int hat, and some cheap consumables. He's selling every scrap of treasure he gets, and picking cash over "useful" items in the loot pile, to upgrade his hat to +4, which he'll get very early (probably at 7th level).

https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDGreentext/comments/7pf6xt/whores/?st=jeprrxev&sh=8a41ca18

This made me laugh out loud

[Kelb_Panthera]

my question with the WBL is, what happens when you have a party member that consistently steals loot before the group can see it, such as a scout that takes a good portion from the treasure using sleight of hand when no one is looking or when others are sleeping?

Unless we've agreed to a PVP campaign, I like a steel chair to the head.

But seriously, most tables (never mind characters) would find such behavior utterly unacceptable outside of a PVP one-off. You deal with OOC problems out of character; tell the player to knock it off. If he comes back with "it's what the character would do" you remind him he's in control of the character not vice-versa and tell him to pick some other action that fits the character. If he refuses to cooperate, see "steel chair."


That one party member will be quite ahead of the WBL curve compared to the other players

Like I said, treasure removal encounter. Rust monster, ethereal filcher, ordinary NPC thieves, etc. If he whines, remind him that karma is a thing and that bad behavior gets punished. Stealing from your friends is generally considered bad behavior.

[ATalsen]

1) For the DM's, how do you handle this situations or balance out the value of kept items VS value of sold items?

2) For players, how do you approach this problem? How do you balance out the fact that if someone decides to keep one item of the loot, they basically get a "bigger" share of stuff?

I ran a 3.5 Eberron Campaign and in that one I tracked each PC's wealth (and entire character sheet), part way thru the campaign each Pc had a special adventure where they acquire a 'self-leveling' special item. When someone fell behind I'd talk to them and figure out if they wanted their special item to improve and what abilities they were interested in, and equalized PC treasure that way.

This resulted in some PCs donating cash to causes, so they could lower their wealth and get more bonuses on their special item, which I though was good for the characterization and play of the game.


In my current Pathfinder game, the PCs are all members of a guild, and the guild takes all items the PCs acquire and buys them from the PCs, giving the PCs gold with which to buy the items they want. The PCs are at exactly the expected Pathfinder Wealth Per Level plus 20%, and they can expect to stay there as they level. Same as my previous campaign I track all character sheets, so I can validate this is the case.

Crafting in this campaign can be done, but at full market price so there's almost literally no difference between crafting something and buying it. This all combos to simplifying things greatly.





my question with the WBL is, what happens when you have a party member that consistently steals loot before the group can see it, such as a scout that takes a good portion from the treasure using sleight of hand when no one is looking or when others are sleeping?

This is a (fiscal) PvP action, which I make sure to clarify with all players at the start of my campaigns. Usually I take a firm stance that no PvP is allowed in any form, expressly including treasure distribution. since I'll have talked about this before game start, its not usually an issue.

[RoboEmperor]

my question with the WBL is, what happens when you have a party member that consistently steals loot before the group can see it, such as a scout that takes a good portion from the treasure using sleight of hand when no one is looking or when others are sleeping?

That one party member will be quite ahead of the WBL curve compared to the other players

I would actually kick the player from the group.

d&d is a cooperative party effort. If a guy tries to screw all the other PCs over for their own selfish benefit then i wouldn't want to play with them. Game is hard enough as it is without backstabbing or sabotage.

edit: Any kind of party conflict is unacceptable. I once played with a fighter that insulted and beat up my character. My response? Set him up so he gets killed, and my character refuses to save him when he could've. You don't need this kind of stuff in d&d, and this would be my course of action towards any thief, unless we are at high levels, at which point I would make it my mission to completely usurp the thief's role in the party and turn him into dead weight. You don't need this kind of bad blood.

I actually respect DMs who say "no evil alignment" up front in their games and perhaps also "no inter-party drama."

[Elkad]

I would actually kick the player from the group.

d&d is a cooperative party effort. If a guy tries to screw all the other PCs over for their own selfish benefit then i wouldn't want to play with them. Game is hard enough as it is without backstabbing or sabotage.

edit: Any kind of party conflict is unacceptable. I once played with a fighter that insulted and beat up my character. My response? Set him up so he gets killed, and my character refuses to save him when he could've. You don't need this kind of stuff in d&d, and this would be my course of action towards any thief, unless we are at high levels, at which point I would make it my mission to completely usurp the thief's role in the party and turn him into dead weight. You don't need this kind of bad blood.

I actually respect DMs who say "no evil alignment" up front in their games and perhaps also "no inter-party drama."


So you would kick people who do it, but did it yourself.
Whether you stab him in his sleep or just "throw the game" and let the orcs do it, it's the same thing.

Which is part of why the PvP flag is always on at my table (and yet hasn't been really taken advantage of in years). You can't police it, might as well have it in the open.
The other part is because PvP is fun and often leads to great roleplaying.

[RoboEmperor]

So you would kick people who do it, but did it yourself.
Whether you stab him in his sleep or just "throw the game" and let the orcs do it, it's the same thing.

Which is part of why the PvP flag is always on at my table (and yet hasn't been really taken advantage of in years). You can't police it, might as well have it in the open.
The other part is because PvP is fun and often leads to great roleplaying.

I did it because he did it to me first. It is juvenile, but that's what PvP does to people. It makes them all juvenile.

It doesn't lead to great roleplaying. It leads to people rolling new characters solely to kill the guy who killed them and everyone ditching the campaign in favor of killing each other. You obviously haven't played with truly terrible selfish people.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

This is by far the most sensible approach. Party gets wealth based on their actions, but if they go above WBL you can just adjust for them being effectively a higher ECL party and if they fall under you can adjust for them being essentially under their level in power. As long as the party is approximately in similar tiers, this shouldn't cause problems. Of course, if you run a hodgepodge game with the party all over the table, the problems this might cause would be aggravated and thus you might be forced to manipulate player actions to enable them to gain extra wealth.

My party are not in the same tiers(we have a teir 1, 1 and 4), I made them the same power level by giving them different templates and loot.

And I am lucky to have a group of friends that play the game without taking another player role.

[Fizban]

You can't police it, might as well have it in the open.
As before, "No PvP or you're out." Policing done.

[Zombimode]

1) For the DM's, how do you handle this situations or balance out the value of kept items VS value of sold items?

I don't. Upgrading existing items is cheaper then replacing them, so I figure it roughly balances out.


2) For players, how do you aproach this problem? How do you balance out the fact that if someone decides to keep one item of the loot, they basically get a "bigger" share of stuff?

Well, simple solution: don't calculate the loot Distribution before you sell unwanted loot.

Simple Setup: there are two characters (A and B)

When it comes to distributing loot, they have aquired 2 longswords +1 (they come at 2320 apiece) and 5000 Gold.

A wants to have one of the swords. He is now at a 2320 plus.
B does not want the second sword, so they sell it. They now have 5000 + 1160 = 6160 gp

First, B equals the difference and gets 2320 gp. There are now 3840 gp left in the pool. That mean that each character will get additional 1920 gp.


At least that is how we would do it IF would would actually care enough.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I don't. Upgrading existing items is cheaper then replacing them, so I figure it roughly balances out.



Well, simple solution: don't calculate the loot Distribution before you sell unwanted loot.

Simple Setup: there are two characters (A and B)

When it comes to distributing loot, they have aquired 2 longswords +1 (they come at 2320 apiece) and 5000 Gold.

A wants to have one of the swords. He is now at a 2320 plus.
B does not want the second sword, so they sell it. They now have 5000 + 1160 = 6160 gp

First, B equals the difference and gets 2320 gp. There are now 3840 gp left in the pool. That mean that each character will get additional 1920 gp.


At least that is how we would do it IF would would actually care enough.

We do it(one of the player made a good xl file) and it work very good.

[BWR]

For most games we only use WBL when creating a character, then throw it out the window. PCs get as much or as little wealth as the GM feels like giving them. My Mystara group basically has so much wealth it isn't an issue. I ran "Sabre River" and did not adjust BECMI wealth to 3.x, so the PCs ended up with 1.1 million gp each. I did that specifically because the players wanted to see just how much stuff they'd get if I didn't adjust.

The exception to this tendency is the one GM who tries very hard to keep us right at the listed WBL values, to the extent that should a PC die, his gear is either somehow lost (usually 'it goes to the family') or given to the new PC, who doesn't get anything else. Because effectively getting what ends up being several thousand gp every time a character dies is apparently unfair. Most of us find this annoying.

[Andreaz]

Our crunchier group sells items before distributing loot.
Our less crunchy group just gets full value for what they sell.

And on aligning wbl... Usually Loot just keeps getting more or less bountiful until we are adjusted.

[Elkad]

As before, "No PvP or you're out." Policing done.

Is deliberate failure to heal a dying comrade PvP?
How do you judge if it was actually deliberate?
How much resources do I have to expend to save the other guy?
Am I expected to fight to the death when the fight isn't winnable any more?

Situation: My caster is the last guy standing. Everyone else is incapacitated, with trolls among them. I know Fireball and Fly, and the enemy will overrun me next round. A Fireball will kill enough enemies I might manage to scrape out a win, but will definitely kill the rest of the party. A Fly will let me run away, and the party will be devoured.

I'd go for the Fireball. At least then maybe I can get some of them rezzed.

[Blu]

Situation: My caster is the last guy standing. Everyone else is incapacitated, with trolls among them. I know Fireball and Fly, and the enemy will overrun me next round. A Fireball will kill enough enemies I might manage to scrape out a win, but will definitely kill the rest of the party. A Fly will let me run away, and the party will be devoured.

I'd go for the Fireball. At least then maybe I can get some of them rezzed.

That's not exactly a pvp situation since either way party is getting killed.
I think the type of PvP people are refering too is one character attacking other for the purpose of hurting that specific character. In your example, your wizard can choose either to try to win the fight or run away. His fireball purpose is to try to kill the enemy's with a very sad collateral damage of killing party members that would die anyway.

[Fizban]

Is deliberate failure to heal a dying comrade PvP?
How do you judge if it was actually deliberate?
How much resources do I have to expend to save the other guy?
Am I expected to fight to the death when the fight isn't winnable any more?
. . . I'd go for the Fireball. At least then maybe I can get some of them rezzed.
Being deliberately obtuse-if you're trying to draw pretend lines about when you're required to heal a dying comrade then yes, you're probably in the wrong. Everyone, especially the DM, knows the context of any action or inaction at the table. Leaving someone to die without good reason is anti-group behavior in a group game: either you admit your wrong and fix it, or I declare it void anyway (and you might not be coming back). Making measured tactical decisions in the face of overwhelming failure is not anti-group behavior, and will in fact include the input from everyone at the table, even if their input is simply to remain silent. Shockingly, most people have opinions when their characters lives are on the line, and will share them with those who remain able to act.

A "situation" where you happen to cause collateral party damage in pursuit of a greater tactical goal is not PvP, unless it is. DnD is not a computer program, PvP in this context is not defined by friendly-fire, it has already been outlined as much broader by multiple posters. Like seriously, the whole point is that stealing money from the party is effectively "PvP," why would someone who understands that level of nuance have any problem evaluating straw scenarios?

[RoboEmperor]

Is deliberate failure to heal a dying comrade PvP?
How do you judge if it was actually deliberate?
How much resources do I have to expend to save the other guy?
Am I expected to fight to the death when the fight isn't winnable any more?

Situation: My caster is the last guy standing. Everyone else is incapacitated, with trolls among them. I know Fireball and Fly, and the enemy will overrun me next round. A Fireball will kill enough enemies I might manage to scrape out a win, but will definitely kill the rest of the party. A Fly will let me run away, and the party will be devoured.

I'd go for the Fireball. At least then maybe I can get some of them rezzed.

You're confusing PvP with friendly fire.


For most games we only use WBL when creating a character, then throw it out the window. PCs get as much or as little wealth as the GM feels like giving them. My Mystara group basically has so much wealth it isn't an issue. I ran "Sabre River" and did not adjust BECMI wealth to 3.x, so the PCs ended up with 1.1 million gp each. I did that specifically because the players wanted to see just how much stuff they'd get if I didn't adjust.

The exception to this tendency is the one GM who tries very hard to keep us right at the listed WBL values, to the extent that should a PC die, his gear is either somehow lost (usually 'it goes to the family') or given to the new PC, who doesn't get anything else. Because effectively getting what ends up being several thousand gp every time a character dies is apparently unfair. Most of us find this annoying.

This is d&d. You gotta metagame a bit like that.

Otherwise...
1. I roll a new character!.
2. Party murders the character.
3. Repeat 1&2.
4. Party is super mega ultra rich. GG.

It does break realism, but it's for the sake of balance. Also if you don't adhere to wealth by level except at character creation...
1. I don't have the items I want because they're not sold where I am.
2. I only have half my WBL.
3. SUICIDE!!!!!
4. Check it out, I rolled an identical character as my last one, but now I have my cherry picked magic items at my WBL.

It is one of the main reasons I don't play artificer and always play a spellcaster. Not needing wealth, at all, makes the game significantly less stressful for me, but I understand I'm a unique case in this matter and I shouldn't advise people to play like me.

If I was the DM I would let the party keep the dead guy's gear, and just not give you wealth or give you a tiny trickle of wealth until you're back on the WBL.

[Elkad]

Being deliberately obtuse-if you're trying to draw pretend lines about when you're required to heal a dying comrade then yes, you're probably in the wrong. Everyone, especially the DM, knows the context of any action or inaction at the table. Leaving someone to die without good reason is anti-group behavior in a group game: either you admit your wrong and fix it, or I declare it void anyway (and you might not be coming back).

There is a difference between winning the fight and then going through your pockets as you bleed out, and subtly influencing the fight to cause people to die. I can look at the board as well as anyone. You are in deep trouble, and I judge you have a good chance of dropping unconscious next round. I carefully reposition my character "out of charge range" from some other enemy and do something useful. Next round, you drop. Back to me. I look concerned, carefully counting squares to you, but it just works out that "Even if I Hustle and let the enemy take 2 AoOs on me, you are 10' too far for me to move to you and perform a standard action! Dude, that sucks!". It may take a few fights as the dice don't fall right or another character (or the DM) saves you, but I'll manage to let you die eventually, and appear completely innocent in the process.



Making measured tactical decisions in the face of overwhelming failure is not anti-group behavior, and will in fact include the input from everyone at the table, even if their input is simply to remain silent. Shockingly, most people have opinions when their characters lives are on the line, and will share them with those who remain able to act.

A "situation" where you happen to cause collateral party damage in pursuit of a greater tactical goal is not PvP, unless it is. DnD is not a computer program, PvP in this context is not defined by friendly-fire, it has already been outlined as much broader by multiple posters. Like seriously, the whole point is that stealing money from the party is effectively "PvP," why would someone who understands that level of nuance have any problem evaluating straw scenarios?

Hell, I just had the discussion in a roll20 game. Fairly Low-op group, I'm playing a blaster. Campaign has been going for 30+ sessions with the same players, including a complete reroll after a TPK.
A fight was going poorly. Enough that we were chatting about what characters we might want to roll after our upcoming TPK. I lined up an Energy Bolt (my best option) as well as I could, but in order to hit a reasonable amount of enemies, I also had to hit a party member. I had a couple choices which character to hit, so I picked a guy near full health, and I picked a less-optimal damage type because he had a bit of resistance to it. It didn't even cross my mind that he'd be upset about it. I'd hit group members before, they had even suggested it at times. Just not that guy.

He got very upset about it. After the fight - which we barely won - my character said "Sorry about singing you a bit there, I'll cover the heals" as a goodwill gesture.
2 fights later his sorcerer suicide-charged dragon, got 1-rounded gruesomely, and he declined to make a new character and quit the game "because he didn't like the constant PvP".

[RoboEmperor]

Hell, I just had the discussion in a roll20 game. Fairly Low-op group, I'm playing a blaster. Campaign has been going for 30+ sessions with the same players, including a complete reroll after a TPK.
A fight was going poorly. Enough that we were chatting about what characters we might want to roll after our upcoming TPK. I lined up an Energy Bolt (my best option) as well as I could, but in order to hit a reasonable amount of enemies, I also had to hit a party member. I had a couple choices which character to hit, so I picked a guy near full health, and I picked a less-optimal damage type because he had a bit of resistance to it. It didn't even cross my mind that he'd be upset about it. I'd hit group members before, they had even suggested it at times. Just not that guy.

He got very upset about it. After the fight - which we barely won - my character said "Sorry about singing you a bit there, I'll cover the heals" as a goodwill gesture.
2 fights later his sorcerer suicide-charged dragon, got 1-rounded gruesomely, and he declined to make a new character and quit the game "because he didn't like the constant PvP".

Again you're confusing (or he's confusing) PvP with friendly fire. You did nothing wrong here. Getting upset over the tiniest bit of damage is what noobs do. You'd be surprised at what noobs cry over. I had a noob who intentionally went into my Conjure Ice Beast Aura, took a **** ton of damage, and said "Watching NPCs kill stuff is not fun." I later explained to him there's literally no difference between a guy killing a monster with a sword or a summoned creature, but he said there is and his arguments baffled me.

In another situation, the party surrounded this very strong monster, so I threw a Fiery Burst in there hitting only our rogue because he was near full hp and had a high reflex save, and he was within my reach to cure him should his hp get dangerous, but he started crying over it too.

In all cases, how a person deals with friendly fire is a good way to figure out if that person is good and experienced or a complete utter total ****ing noob****.

What you're describing is not PvP, it's friendly fire. Him leaving is a good thing. Nothing good can come out of playing with such a ****** ****** for an extended period of time.

[Falontani]

Wow, it's PvP that bad in other games? At my table I told everyone at the beginning. PvP is fine only if your character would do it. If your character is LG and you just suddenly decide that the NG character must die in a fire that's not okay. But if you have long term plans and that it requires you to take down a party member, check with the dm first, but it should be okay. Play your characters as close to life as you can. (One of my players is in the military) You don't kill your military buddies unless there is a damned good reason and even then it's fairly unthinkable. Even if their life views and morals are completely unaligned with yours.

[RoboEmperor]

Wow, it's PvP that bad in other games? At my table I told everyone at the beginning. PvP is fine only if your character would do it. If your character is LG and you just suddenly decide that the NG character must die in a fire that's not okay. But if you have long term plans and that it requires you to take down a party member, check with the dm first, but it should be okay. Play your characters as close to life as you can. (One of my players is in the military) You don't kill your military buddies unless there is a damned good reason and even then it's fairly unthinkable. Even if their life views and morals are completely unaligned with yours.

It's not just PvP, it's also party drama.

I was planning on playing a malconvoker sorcerer in my earliest days, and then a Lawful Stupid cleric joins, and the DM kicks me out because I refused to change my choice in PrC.

In the rare occasion PvP might be ok in a game with the right group composition, but in most cases no, it's not. The Lawful Stupid cleric didn't have a problem with malconvoker, it's only his character that does and he apologized to me after I got kicked for creating the drama.

[TalonOfAnathrax]

I don't. The players handle loot within the party and it generally works out, and then I make things a little easier/harder as needed :D

To be fair that's mostly because of the group and not me as GM, but it's proof it can work!

[Elkad]

What you're describing is not PvP, it's friendly fire. Him leaving is a good thing. Nothing good can come out of playing with such a ****** ****** for an extended period of time.

Agreed. But obviously some people don't.

Here is another one - different players. PvP had never been mentioned in any rules discussion or any sessions. No alignment restrictions. My Wizard's sheet (that the other players can see) says LN. I'm actually LE, with full consent of the DM, in a party that independently decided to all be Good. My evilness has not yet been discovered. L7 or 8.

We are climbing down a well on a rope. 50' down a small side tunnel leads off it, with the well continuing down a distance that was at least farther than the 200' Dancing Lights could reach. Party tank (currently unarmored to boost his climb check, and with a temporary effect on him to give him a fat penalty to his already-abysmal Will saves) enters the tunnel, immediately gets blasted by enemy caster. He's taking damage and not advancing, and due to the positioning, nobody can help him.
For some reason he's not moving to engage. Matter of fact, he's yelling for us to retreat and trying to get back on the rope.

I say "you should charge him". He says "no, everyone retreat". OOC discussion goes long, DM says "decide what you are doing" eventually. He sticks to his "retreat" plan.
Character adjacent to the hole tries to Climb up, gets "no progress" - blocking the tank from getting on the rope. He's RPing it nicely "clutching the rope in terror"
Tank gets blasted again, still doesn't charge.
I'm way at the top and can't do anything useful.
My Imp familiar's turn comes up. She's flying down near the tank, so has LOS to him. She Suggests the tank attacks the enemy caster. I could have tried it on the enemy caster, but casters have nice Will saves. I reminded him of the Will Save debuff, and was planning to argue for the "reasonable suggestion" penalty, but with the debuff he needs a Nat20. He fails of course.
Not "collateral damage". I directly controlled him and sent him down an unknown hallway at a caster of unknown ability, already wounded and basically alone. Caster ran. He chased the caster around a corner and right into an ambush. He died, roleplaying to the end, even trying to bypass the ambush and get to the caster again. He also bought enough time for the rest of us to get off the rope and into the tunnel.

The subject of PvP rules had never come up. After-game it did. He called it PvP. I agreed with him, because that's exactly what it felt like when I did it. My character (and me of course) decided at that moment it was advantageous, and likely critical.
Was only briefly an issue OOC. We rezzed him. IC I had issues with the rest of the party from then on, because my Evil (in an otherwise-Good party) was showing a bit for the first time. Which just made the game more fun.

He's still a regular at my table years later. And PvP happens between my players on occasion. They hoard loot sometimes. They steal from one another rarely, but it happens. They've come to IC blows. In one instance they were fleeing for their lives - and not making it. One of them hit another with a tanglefoot bag, so he had to stay and "hold the bridge" while everyone else escaped.

I've got a good group, so it always works out fine.

[ATalsen]

Again you're confusing (or he's confusing) PvP with friendly fire. You did nothing wrong here.

In games I run, he actually would have been doing something wrong: He didn't ask the player of the PC he was targeting if it was ok.

In many cases, a player is more than willing to allow is PC to take a hit for the team to win, but there are certainly cases that's not true, and its pretty easy to simply ask first in order to avoid any bad feelings. If the player says no, then the caster needs to pick a different target or different action, etc.

[RoboEmperor]

-snip-

Yup, that was without a doubt PvP. It's no different than casting dominate person on a PC and making him kill himself.

You had a discussion and ultimately what he does with his character is his choice even if it was a terrible one, and you violated that.

If you did that to me, but it turned out to be the right choice, I would be mad but I wouldn't take vengeance on you. In anycase I would be very upset.

That is a complicated case though, you did PvP for the party not for yourself. I haven't encountered such a situation myself. I mean I did leave behind PCs to save my own ass but I didn't block the tunnel behind me to ensure my party members won't kill themselves trying to save the doomed PC I left behind.

So this scenario is a unique "constructive PvP" case, but I still wouldn't allow it because a player dying because of his own mistake causes much less grief than a player dying because of another player. But I get your point how sometimes PvP can be good.


In games I run, he actually would have been doing something wrong: He didn't ask the player of the PC he was targeting if it was ok.

In many cases, a player is more than willing to allow is PC to take a hit for the team to win, but there are certainly cases that's not true, and its pretty easy to simply ask first in order to avoid any bad feelings. If the player says no, then the caster needs to pick a different target or different action, etc.

That is true, but if that happened to me (i'm the spellcaster) I'd let his decision kill him and blame his death on him (which is true).

[Elkad]

That is a complicated case though, you did PvP for the party not for yourself. I haven't encountered such a situation myself. I mean I did leave behind PCs to save my own ass but I didn't block the tunnel behind me to ensure my party members won't kill themselves trying to save the doomed PC I left behind.

So this scenario is a unique "constructive PvP" case, but I still wouldn't allow it because a player dying because of his own mistake causes much less grief than a player dying because of another player. But I get your point how sometimes PvP can be good.


I don't really see a distinction between player characters and NPCs. If I'd cook the NPC princess to save my own hide, why wouldn't I cook the PC Barbarian? On the other hand, if I'm playing a noble sort, if either one of them got Dominated and killing them was the only way out, I'd restrain myself, even letting them kill me if there was no other option.

And that example wasn't totally motivated by "saving the party". We could have likely retreated and come up with a better plan. But I had reason to believe the enemy wizard would run, and I didn't want his spellbook to get away.
He retreated through several groups of his troops, supporting each briefly. Several encounters later he had no troops left, and he just flat fled (he was supposed to be a recurring villain). The rest of the PCs thought he got away at the time. (the players were fully aware of what transpired though - since it was played out in front of them). For the first time in that game, I unleashed the full combat power of my familiar. She hounded him mercilessly - solo - relying on flight, potions, sniping with her tiny longbow (yay outsider proficiencies), buffs I put on her each morning, bad UMD checks for wands, and fasthealing+invisibility when needed. Thanks to tail poison on arrows, he ran out of Dexterity before he ran out of hitpoints, she finished him off, returned to the group, and - while still invisible - spilled his head and all* his possessions out of his Bag of Holding for the dramatic entrance.

*Well, almost. His Ring of Protection (Imp kept for herself) and spellbook (delivered to me later) were missing.

[magicalmagicman]

I don't really see a distinction between player characters and NPCs. If I'd cook the NPC princess to save my own hide, why wouldn't I cook the PC Barbarian? On the other hand, if I'm playing a noble sort, if either one of them got Dominated and killing them was the only way out, I'd restrain myself, even letting them kill me if there was no other option.

If you hurt a NPC, no one gives a damn.
If you hurt a PC, a PC someone spent hours, maybe even weeks writing backstories for, a PC someone wants to live until the end of the campaign, a PC someone got emotionally attached to, a PC someone invested a ton of their time into, then you could really hurt someone in real life.

I get the feeling that people at your table don't really get attached to their characters and don't mind rolling new ones when they die.

But for people who get super attached to their characters, getting their characters killed for something as trivial as a spellbook would make them cry, leave the group, or try to hurt you.

[Elkad]

If you hurt a NPC, no one gives a damn.
If you hurt a PC, a PC someone spent hours, maybe even weeks writing backstories for, a PC someone wants to live until the end of the campaign, a PC someone got emotionally attached to, a PC someone invested a ton of their time into, then you could really hurt someone in real life.

I get the feeling that people at your table don't really get attached to their characters and don't mind rolling new ones when they die.

But for people who get super attached to their characters, getting their characters killed for something as trivial as a spellbook would make them cry, leave the group, or try to hurt you.

You don't think I actually explained that rationale to the group do you?

I've actually never had a player reroll after a death where rezzing them was within the party means (had the money, soul not eaten, etc). They all seem pretty attached to their characters, sometimes willingly sitting out sessions while the group scrounges for cash or travels back to a capable caster. They even occasionally pay to rez Animal Companions, despite being able to just replace it with another tiger/bear/whatever the next day. Even going as far as to roleplay out the confusion of the Tiger who got Reincarnated as a Rhino.

[RoboEmperor]

If you hurt a NPC, no one gives a damn.
If you hurt a PC, a PC someone spent hours, maybe even weeks writing backstories for, a PC someone wants to live until the end of the campaign, a PC someone got emotionally attached to, a PC someone invested a ton of their time into, then you could really hurt someone in real life.

I get the feeling that people at your table don't really get attached to their characters and don't mind rolling new ones when they die.

But for people who get super attached to their characters, getting their characters killed for something as trivial as a spellbook would make them cry, leave the group, or try to hurt you.

I totally agree.


You don't think I actually explained that rationale to the group do you?

I've actually never had a player reroll after a death where rezzing them was within the party means (had the money, soul not eaten, etc). They all seem pretty attached to their characters, sometimes willingly sitting out sessions while the group scrounges for cash or travels back to a capable caster. They even occasionally pay to rez Animal Companions, despite being able to just replace it with another tiger/bear/whatever the next day. Even going as far as to roleplay out the confusion of the Tiger who got Reincarnated as a Rhino.

Does your DM waive the level loss from resurrection? If so then it might make sense, if not then I will kill you, resurrect you, kill you, resurrect you, over and over again until you are level 1 with 1 or 2 con. I will sell all your loot to pay for the resurrections.

If you killed my character for a spellbook either
1. I will get the party to murder you and loot your dead body
2. I will get the party to kick you from the party
3. I will kill your character myself and make it so you can't be rezzed

If 1-3 don't work, then that means I've gave an ultimatum, you or me, and the party chose you instead of me, so...
4. My character leaves the party and I will create a new character that specializes in charm and dominate and permanently enslave your character. 100% of my effort will be dedicated to making your life a living hell rather than enjoying the game, and I will kill you over things even more trivial than a spellbook.
5. I will leave the group. I play d&d to have a good time and getting my character butchered by my own party member is not my definition of a good time.
6. Like 5, except before I leave, I do 3. to you and then leave.

As you can see, I do have an anger problem, I am extremely vindictive, and I can't "take a joke". It's who I am and if you do PvP on people like me then it won't be pretty. Which is why I only join games where PvP is not allowed at all, which seems to be the norm.

[Elkad]

Does your DM waive the level loss from resurrection? If so then it might make sense, if not then I will kill you, resurrect you, kill you, resurrect you, over and over again until you are level 1 with 1 or 2 con. I will sell all your loot to pay for the resurrections.

If you killed my character for a spellbook either
1. I will get the party to murder you and loot your dead body
2. I will get the party to kick you from the party
3. I will kill your character myself and make it so you can't be rezzed

If 1-3 don't work, then that means I've gave an ultimatum, you or me, and the party chose you instead of me, so...
4. My character leaves the party and I will create a new character that specializes in charm and dominate and permanently enslave your character. 100% of my effort will be dedicated to making your life a living hell rather than enjoying the game, and I will kill you over things even more trivial than a spellbook.
5. I will leave the group. I play d&d to have a good time and getting my character butchered by my own party member is not my definition of a good time.
6. Like 5, except before I leave, I do 3. to you and then leave.

As you can see, I do have an anger problem, I am extremely vindictive, and I can't "take a joke". It's who I am and if you do PvP on people like me then it won't be pretty. Which is why I only join games where PvP is not allowed at all, which seems to be the norm.

I'm the DM, for the last several years. Players lose levels on rez. In the example where I caused a player to die, I (of course) wasn't the DM. There was level loss then as well.
I've played in groups where when someone lost a bunch of levels (1e undead, etc), the group would powerlevel him back up.

I've lost characters permanently to PvP. Characters I was attached to. I didn't feel any ill will towards the player, and my reroll didn't come in with metaknowledge and a specific goal of hunting the other character down. Characters aren't people. Sure, we have an investment in it, but it's still just a game.
I've baited other characters into attacking me and killed them.
In one case (not at my regular group), a character provoked me until I killed him and disposed of the body. I've talked about it on this forum before. DM allowed it, and then retconned it later.

Joined a second edition game at a club, playing with about 8 strangers. I was playing a halfling thief (and the only halfling in the party). No magic mart, so what dropped is all the loot we got. Party is mostly good, with a few neutrals.

Looting was a free-for-all, no attempt at distribution was made by anyone, so PCs would stop after every dropped enemy, mid-fight, to grab the good stuff instead of helping their companions. I tried a couple sessions to get some sort of equitable distribution going, and then just gave up and shifted to full thief mode. I'd lift items out of enemy pockets mid-fight and such, trying to hold my own. Started lifting minor items like potions from players.

Fast-forward to 7th level. In a big battle with a horde of thugs I split from the group and headed down a hall, trying to find a second way into the room we were in. Instead of finding my way to flank the bad guys, I stumbled into the BBEG's trophy collection! About the time the fight ends, I stagger into the room dragging a cloak stacked with a bunch of magic armor and weapons. None of the magic items were really useful to me (mostly for Medium creatures), so I kept all the cash I'd hidden and handed out the gear. After the session the DM takes me aside and says "I was sure you were going to keep most of it"

Next session a pair of halfling-only weapons drops (good play reward? I'll never know.), and besides being a good upgrade for me, they are useless to everyone else. BSF (and the player with the worst free-for-all attitude) snags them and sticks them in his pack, and goes back to waving around the new two-handed sword I'd handed to him last session. After the fight I asked him for them. Nope. Offered to buy them for a fair price. Nope. Offered far more than they were worth. Still nope.

Next fight is vs the BBEG. I waited till it was almost over, moved up behind our heavily injured BSF and backstabbed him for a giant pile of non-lethal damage. Picked up my new weapons (and nothing else) off his unconscious form. We finish the fight. I make no effort to get any of the choice gear off the BBEG either. As soon as he's conscious he starts demanding I return them. Tired of his mouth, I do. Pointy end first. This time he's dead. The party looks shocked. I tell the party "I'm tired of his greed and his mouth, but I'll give him one more chance. I'll pay for the rez when we get back to town, but I'm keeping these weapons". It's a week hike back to town, and we know from earlier that the top cleric is only 11th level, so we don't have many days to spare before he's unrezzable.

BSF's player is running his mouth and trying to encourage the other players to kill me. DM tells him that since he's dead, he should go downstairs to the snack machine or something while we fast-forward through the hike, and then he'll be rezzed.
BSF just goes out in the hall and starts complaining loudly enough to hear through the door to someone else about me killing him.
DM asks "anything to do on the way to town?". I hand him a note, he looks at it and says "are you sure?". "yes" "OK".

We get to town after 5 days walk. Head to the temple to buy a rez. A player sticks his head out the door and tells BSF's player to come back in.
I say "Sorry guys, I lost the bag of holding" "What? When? How?"
"The first night, when we were camped by the river. I was down by the river on my turn on watch, set it on a log and it floated away."

Other than the note I passed, absolutely nothing had happened during the trip back, so it was obvious to the players I was lying, even if it wasn't to the PCs.
I ask the DM to reveal the note. It says "First night, on my turn on watch I sneak off, take his body out of the bag, scatter all his gear in the deep water, and dump his naked corpse in the river to float away".
BSF is just about crying, demanding we go back and find it. I remind him that even if we can find his body, by the time we make the trip he'll have been dead for nearly a month, we don't know where to get a Resurrection instead, and we probably can't afford it without selling everything we own.

The DM says "Maybe you should roll up a nicer character next time."

We end the session.

Next week I walk in. The BBEG lair is strangely redrawn on the map board. BSF player isn't in the room, but his same character sheet is sitting there. BSF and the DM walk in together, chatting it up. DM shocks the group by saying "I changed my mind. No killing other players. So you can knock him unconscious and take the swords, but the rest didn't happen. You guys are back at the BBEG lair, the fight is over, and you are all alive and fully healed"

BSF says "I'm going to beat the thief unconscious and take EVERYTHING he has, and I'll do it again for any other character he tries to bring"
DM says "well just don't kill one another".
Roll Initiative.
I win.
I run.
He chases me.
I drink a potion of invisibility and keep running.
He can't find me.
DM asks when I stop.
"I'm invisible and faster than him. Never"
Picked up my stuff and walked out.

Ran into another player a few weeks later.
DM said I fell down some stairs in a hurry, broke my neck, and the BSF found me and took all my stuff, massively increasing his power over the rest of the party. And then disabled non-lethal PvP when they attempted to beat up BSF and share the gear out equally instead. But he still allowed the free-for-all looting, and started letting the BSF stuff entire corpses and treasure chests into his (my) Bag of Holding (still the only one). So nearly all the treasure went to BSF. Party tried to rob BSF while he was sleeping. DM disallowed that too.

Game died within a couple sessions.

It was a fun game until the end. I still don't know what changed the DMs mind, because he was fair to all the players and fine with all the conflict for the first dozen sessions, and had completely flip-flopped to extreme favoritism the next, and it didn't stop after I left.


So of your 6 examples, #5 is the only one I have a problem with. I don't like losing friends, and I definitely don't want to drive someone away from their other friends at the table.

[RoboEmperor]

I'm the DM, for the last several years. Players lose levels on rez. In the example where I caused a player to die, I (of course) wasn't the DM. There was level loss then as well.
I've played in groups where when someone lost a bunch of levels (1e undead, etc), the group would powerlevel him back up.

I've lost characters permanently to PvP. Characters I was attached to. I didn't feel any ill will towards the player, and my reroll didn't come in with metaknowledge and a specific goal of hunting the other character down. Characters aren't people. Sure, we have an investment in it, but it's still just a game.
I've baited other characters into attacking me and killed them.
In one case (not at my regular group), a character provoked me until I killed him and disposed of the body. I've talked about it on this forum before. DM allowed it, and then retconned it later.



So of your 6 examples, #5 is the only one I have a problem with. I don't like losing friends, and I definitely don't want to drive someone away from their other friends at the table.

Yeah ok, fair enough. I guess this just comes down to personal taste then. If my extreme toxic salty pvp behavior doesn't bother you then pvp won't bother you.

I don't like pvp. I'm tired of PvP. It's the main reason I quit Dota 2. Toxic community (I hate to admit it but I was a toxic person), everyone at each other's throats, team members would rather spend the game blaming and flaming you for a noob mistake than try to help you or get over it, which is one of the reasons I went back to d&d after a long hiatus. No more pvp, only co-op.

So yeah, personal taste. To each his own.

[Fizban]

There is a difference between winning the fight and then going through your pockets as you bleed out, and subtly influencing the fight to cause people to die. I can look at the board as well as anyone. You are in deep trouble, and I judge you have a good chance of dropping unconscious next round. I carefully reposition my character "out of charge range" from some other enemy and do something useful. Next round, you drop. Back to me. I look concerned, carefully counting squares to you, but it just works out that "Even if I Hustle and let the enemy take 2 AoOs on me, you are 10' too far for me to move to you and perform a standard action! Dude, that sucks!". It may take a few fights as the dice don't fall right or another character (or the DM) saves you, but I'll manage to let you die eventually, and appear completely innocent in the process.
Either you're a good enough liar to convince me it was an accident, or you're not. Considering that I also can read the board, and probably warned you out loud that your fellow party member was low on hp and that the exact thing you're planning was about to happen (assuming someone else didn't catch it themselves), you're going to have a hard time pretending it was an accident. How much of a butt move I count against you depends on the rest of the context.

I lined up an Energy Bolt (my best option) as well as I could, but in order to hit a reasonable amount of enemies, I also had to hit a party member. . . . 2 fights later his sorcerer suicide-charged dragon, got 1-rounded gruesomely, and he declined to make a new character and quit the game "because he didn't like the constant PvP".
First, that's not the example you gave before, but second: none of this disagrees with me? Turns out someone in the group was more sensitive to tactical friendly-fire than they thought, then did something stupid and left. The only problem is that you haven't mentioned a proper discussion of the players feelings, decisionmaking, etc, but an online game where people can just one-button out of contact makes it easy for them to run from that discussion.

[BWR]

This is d&d. You gotta metagame a bit like that.

Otherwise...
1. I roll a new character!.
2. Party murders the character.
3. Repeat 1&2.
4. Party is super mega ultra rich. GG.

It does break realism, but it's for the sake of balance. Also if you don't adhere to wealth by level except at character creation...
1. I don't have the items I want because they're not sold where I am.
2. I only have half my WBL.
3. SUICIDE!!!!!
4. Check it out, I rolled an identical character as my last one, but now I have my cherry picked magic items at my WBL.


These are only problems if your players are extraordinarily impolite. Fortunately, my fellow players aren't ********s.
Both of these situations are extremely metagamey on the part of the players, metagamey to the detriment of the game rather than to the benefit. A GM shouldn't have to do anything to stop players from trying to ruin the game like this.

[Psyren]

"Don't play with children or jerks" solves 99% of Elkad's scenarios.
The 1% remaining would be actual accidents and treated as such.

As for the thread topic - it's perfectly okay to deviate from WBL, even for multiple sessions. Low-treasure or wealth-removal encounters are easy to devise if there's truly a problem, though speaking personally I only use the latter as a very last resort - I prefer to bring players back in line much more gradually (and as others have noted, "in line" can be 10% over, or even more if there's a crafting-focused PC in the group.)

[Blu]

As for the thread topic - it's perfectly okay to deviate from WBL, even for multiple sessions. Low-treasure or wealth-removal encounters are easy to devise if there's truly a problem, though speaking personally I only use the latter as a very last resort - I prefer to bring players back in line much more gradually (and as others have noted, "in line" can be 10% over, or even more if there's a crafting-focused PC in the group.)

I was just gonna comment about the post derailing from it's original purpose, even tough the discussion was interesting.
What concerns me the most, and i feel that was only tackled indirectly was the difference in wealth of itens depending on wether you keep or sell them. Here are three examples of this problem:

1) Let's say the 4 man party gains 4 magical itens, each with a value of 10.000 gp, and each decides to keep his item. Then, each member of the party has 10.000 wealth.

2) Now, the party decides to sell those items. Instead of 10.000 gp, each party member only gets 5.000 gp half of before wich at this point is not much of a problem buf if things stay like this can get to a problem of them having too little wealth.

3) Each member get one item, but half of them sell it and half keeps it. This seems like one of the worst case scenario since the party balance can be thrown off if this situations keeps happening. Now, one the few solutions i see would be to just hand pick items for the members that are on the lower side of wealth, but depending on the table the DM might as well to just stick a name tag on the item.

I might as well be overthinking and just let it roll out and see what happens, since some people reported to just randomly distribute stuff and it workd out.

[Psyren]

1 & 2 are easy: in both cases. check where the group is relative to WBL, and decide whether you even need to do anything. Even if they are over or under, you can leave them that way for quite a while, and simply tweak an encounter (or encounters) down the line to make up for it.

For scenario 3 it really depends on which characters kept the gear, which ones cashed out, and why. For example, if the items were magic swords, I probably wouldn't have expected the wizard and druid to keep them anyway, while the barbarian and rogue probably would. Over time I would probably lean towards evening them out, like having a future encounter drop scrolls or a stave, but in the short run I probably wouldn't see a need to do anything there either.

The overall lesson is that this kind of thing only really matters in a macro sense - adjusting for every session-by-session deviation is just going to feel swingy to the players and add undue stress for you as the GM.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I was just gonna comment about the post derailing from it's original purpose, even tough the discussion was interesting.
What concerns me the most, and i feel that was only tackled indirectly was the difference in wealth of itens depending on wether you keep or sell them. Here are three examples of this problem:

1) Let's say the 4 man party gains 4 magical itens, each with a value of 10.000 gp, and each decides to keep his item. Then, each member of the party has 10.000 wealth.

2) Now, the party decides to sell those items. Instead of 10.000 gp, each party member only gets 5.000 gp half of before wich at this point is not much of a problem buf if things stay like this can get to a problem of them having too little wealth.

3) Each member get one item, but half of them sell it and half keeps it. This seems like one of the worst case scenario since the party balance can be thrown off if this situations keeps happening. Now, one the few solutions i see would be to just hand pick items for the members that are on the lower side of wealth, but depending on the table the DM might as well to just stick a name tag on the item.

I might as well be overthinking and just let it roll out and see what happens, since some people reported to just randomly distribute stuff and it workd out.
You can always view the item as his price was his selling price.

Do it to every item so you can balance the loot arund it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

1 & 2 are easy: in both cases. check where the group is relative to WBL, and decide whether you even need to do anything. Even if they are over or under, you can leave them that way for quite a while, and simply tweak an encounter (or encounters) down the line to make up for it.

For scenario 3 it really depends on which characters kept the gear, which ones cashed out, and why. For example, if the items were magic swords, I probably wouldn't have expected the wizard and druid to keep them anyway, while the barbarian and rogue probably would. Over time I would probably lean towards evening them out, like having a future encounter drop scrolls or a stave, but in the short run I probably wouldn't see a need to do anything there either.

The overall lesson is that this kind of thing only really matters in a macro sense - adjusting for every session-by-session deviation is just going to feel swingy to the players and add undue stress for you as the GM.

Exactly this.

You're trying to keep it too tight if you're trying to track it item by item. Seriously, audit on level up is really about as often as you need to check. Pro-tip to keep your sanity; make the players note the source and page number for their stuff. It makes rules checks and WBL audits -way- easier.

[Blu]

Exactly this.

You're trying to keep it too tight if you're trying to track it item by item. Seriously, audit on level up is really about as often as you need to check. Pro-tip to keep your sanity; make the players note the source and page number for their stuff. It makes rules checks and WBL audits -way- easier.

The sheets that i'm using(it's a Roll20 game) already have a session to put price of the items and total gp value, so on that front the hard work is done for me.
For the dungeon my party is doing atm i basically eyeballed most of the treasure to a rough apropriate treasure(probably more than wbl tbh) giving what i think would be aproppriate treasure for the place(based on the dungeon old occupants and such) with a couple random treasure for some added spice.

But i think you are right and i might be just overthinking this issue.

[Fizban]

Kelb said this above:

This being the case, I only count permanent and semi-permanent gear such as gauntlets of ogre strength and wands of cure light wounds. Expendables, gear collecting dust on the way to town to loot out, cash, and non-portable wealth the PCs don't have on them get ignored. (Though it's not a bad idea to keep an eye on liquid wealth since it can turn into gear pretty quick.)
Which illustrates how WBL, in addition to not being treasure accumulated, doesn't have to be wealth either. WBL is meant to be appropriate magic items for adventuring/combat, while the sidebar shows how much each player should go through in consumables on the way.

If the PCs have an item for whatever reason that you know will never actually be useful, you can silently (or audibly) count it as nothing more than whatever gp value they'll be able to sell it for. If they'll never be able to or won't sell it for some reason, you can just ignore it. If they're saving money for a "roleplaying" expense you can strike it from the WBL pool.

[Elkad]

I had a problem with one group.

I was tracking how much treasure I dropped, but not really tracking the individuals. Like all parties, they loan money among themselves, which I didn't really pay attention to. Usually balances out. I help you get your magic axe, then you help me get my magic sword.
Then I realized the whole party just kept funneling money to the Warblade and none ever came back. 5 characters. 6 shares (one being for the party pool for Restorations, Rez, etc). He had at least 4 shares.
Tried dropping items they needed. Druid doesn't have a Wis booster, I put one on a goblin shaman. Druid says "the Warblade has a terrible Will save, he should wear it".
"All 6 of the elite guards are wearing a Vest of Resistance +1". Warblade got one, and they sold the rest. To buy him a backup magic weapon.
At one point he had an AC 30ish, plus miss chance, some DR, and lots of hitpoints. The bard hadn't even upgraded his starting leather to a chain shirt. Which means if the bard ends up in melee range vs anything that can threaten the Warblade, he just dies.

It became a balance issue. I hinted. I considered giving out unsellable boons, but didn't. Campaign got deadlier. I didn't pull punches. Other characters died and lost levels.
It felt like we were nerdy pre-teens and they were all trying to impress the one girl in the group by buying her character stuff. Except we were all married 40ish adults, and the warblade wasn't played by a girl.
Group broke up from natural causes. (Life got in the way for several players at roughly the same time).
I was curious to see how far it would go. Would I eventually end up with one Angel Summoner and 5 willing BMX Bandits?

[Psyren]

If they're saving money for a "roleplaying" expense you can strike it from the WBL pool.

^ this bears repeating; the underlying purpose of wealth by level is to regulate overall PC power, to both enforce and reinforce it. If they're spending a substantial sum on something that doesn't actually make them more powerful, like a tavern they can run during their downtime or a mansion to be their base of operations, you can feel free to just ignore that amount when evaluating their current WBL posture. They may in fact be behind the curve if too much of their wealth is tied up in a big "roleplay expense."

[Fizban]

Also, the most common "roleplay" expense seems to be wanting a house of some sort (or maybe a ship), which will either be huge, covered in magic, or both.

Just like there's a feat to mechanically account for loyal NPCs, there's a feat to mechanically account for a sick base: use Landlord from Stronghold Builder's Guide. Boom, done.