Rise of the runelords and starting wealth question

[Deca4531]

So my players just had their first Total party kill. It happened at the end of the second chapter. According to the campaign's timetable they should have been seventh level at this point but due to some people missing sessions and some players dying and losing a level some players were 5th level most were 6 and I think one was level 7. So in order to get everyone back on equal footing I told them to all make 7th level characters to reduce the possibility of them all getting murdered again. My issue is that the starting wealth for a 7th level character is 12000 gold, a total of 60000 gold combined party wealth. My issue is that if I were to add up every treasure item and bit of gold they have accumulated during the campaign I doubt it would reach the starting wealth of a single player let alone five.

I did a little reading around and a lot of other people have asked this question and In more general term we're told that adding up all of their treasure over a campaign would usually result in more than what the starting wealth is listed as so now I'm starting to question if I've been handing out loot wrong. The whole start of the campaign is mostly goblins you are listed as even having any money so only the resale value for their equipment. The second part deals with Undead which again don't have any money. And the actual valuable weapons like + 1 swords and whatnot only resale for half their total value and you don't find very many of them in the first two chapters of the game.

So I guess my question is, have I been running loot wrong this entire time and 60000 gold is a totally reasonable amount for the party to have, or is giving them this amount going to unbalance the campaign going forward?

[Llyarden]

RotRL is designed for four players, so if you have five then the 'standard' amount of treasure the AP gives out will be a little less per player than normal. Also, at least the first chapter relies heavily on the expectation that the PCs will search and loot places as they go; if they only loot bosses and don't explore fully then they'll have less wealth than normal. Briefly scanning through the first chapter turned up about 30k in net gold (after selling magic weapons/armour.) Of course, most parties probably won't find every last piece, and having to spend about 6k per death certainly wouldn't have helped your party.

To answer the question, I'd say as long as you don't allow someone to invest all 12k of their starting wealth in a single item or anything odd, they should probably have their full WBL. RotRL can be pretty brutal at times (looking at you, save-or-coup-de-grace-yourself trap!)

Also, this might just be a bit of confusion on my part, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean about people losing a level when they die?

[Kish]

Also, this might just be a bit of confusion on my part, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean about people losing a level when they die?
Yes, I was going to say. It sounds like you brought one of D&D's worse rules to Pathfinder. You don't actually lose levels in Pathfinder. Ever. If you get a permanent negative level, including by death and resurrection, it sits there until removed by powerful magic.

[GrayDeath]

In addition to what was said above: You should do your very best to avoid having different Levels in the same Group, wherever they might be coming from. Especially greater than 1 Level!

It never helps, and often harms, the Game.

[Spore]

Give them automatic bonus progression (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/unchained-rules/automatic-bonus-progression/) and half WBL this time. Do the equip thing at the table because characters who started out at Lv 1 with the adventure would not have the money to perfectly craft their gear to their characters.

Round to 12k per player and give each one one powerful (or two mediocre) magic weapons, one magic armor, and a doodad.

[Florian]

It could be that you used loot wrong.

[Efrate]

I am running rise and wbl is a bit low early but picks up later. Use landmark levelling as opposed to actual exp, its easier. And they do not lose levels. If you are concerned with wbl, just reduce it by a level or so. That way its a bit more in line with what the ap gives.

[Mnemius]

And if you plan on running the entire thing...


Those Sihedron items become "Key" at a time. Perhaps reseed them into the party somehow?


Reiterated repeatedly of how high the clock tower was. How badly in disrepair it was. Fighting the large boss on top of tower. Sorta along side, but a line of squares between boss and edge. Catfolk Rogue is "I acrobatics behind the boss so I can SNEAK ATTACK!" Boss gets hurt. Boss on it's turn gives rogue a strong push (bull rush) Beats their CMD by +10. Catfolk falls, fails the climb dc. Lands on their feet! as the d6 splat them.

[Efrate]

The lamia got lucky vs. My group a lot. Opened battle with a crit with that spear one shotting someone, both times they fought her. Bull rushes killed 2 more from falling damage. She can be nasty.

[Deca4531]

So I figured out why my group seemed so poor. It seems that when I told the group that Sandpoint only had a 1000g buying limit the player who was the loot keeper assumed I meant that the whole town had a pool of 1000g to buy things with and that was it, so the whole time he hasn't been selling any loot and waiting to get to Magnamar, and once they did he forgot to sell stuff.

And yes loosingba character means the replacement comes in a level lower. I feel death should have a penalty, otherwise players don't care if they die because they can just roll a new character and get a ton of gold in the process.

[Reversefigure4]

And yes loosing a character means the replacement comes in a level lower. I feel death should have a penalty, otherwise players don't care if they die because they can just roll a new character and get a ton of gold in the process.

At which point it becomes a fairly likely outcome that you'll start a death spiral and face the same problem again, since each replacement character is less equipped to face the adventure than the one before it. If the adventure expects your party to be level 7, and most of them are level 5, chances are that only the level 7 character will survive it, and those level 5 characters are going to come back a level lower again, which increases the chances they'll die again...

[Thedez]

A pretty popular piece of advice I tend to see and agree with is such:
Don't balance the game on the expectation that the players are going to try and break your game. Balance it on what your players need to have fun.
Then make sure they understand that if they take advantage of these features, that they're ultimately taking the fun out of it for everyone. Only start employing countermeasures if they decide to break your game *after* knowing the consequences, and further, make sure those countermeasures don't also screw the rest of the party.

[GrayDeath]

A pretty popular piece of advice I tend to see and agree with is such:
Don't balance the game on the expectation that the players are going to try and break your game. Balance it on what your players need to have fun.
Then make sure they understand that if they take advantage of these features, that they're ultimately taking the fun out of it for everyone. Only start employing countermeasures if they decide to break your game *after* knowing the consequences, and further, make sure those countermeasures don't also screw the rest of the party.


I cannot agree with this strongly enough.

It is never a good Idea for a DM to do things "because it should make my players feel bad if X happens" or "they might exploit Y if I dontchange it" or "If they know Z they will only metagame to get to the optimal solution".

Until these things actually HAPPEN and your players are unwilling or unable to change the way they do things, there is literally no reason at ALL for implementing such measures.


Now if you were playing a "O Woe is Me" White Wolf Game, or Paranoia, things will of course change drastically. But in D&D especially that very rarely helps, and in my (and many of my aquaintances) experience oftentimes destroys games.

[Spore]

And yes loosing a character means the replacement comes in a level lower. I feel death should have a penalty, otherwise players don't care if they die because they can just roll a new character and get a ton of gold in the process.

You would be surprised how quickly people get attached to even immaterial concepts like player characters. In addition to what the two posters before me said.

[Firest Kathon]

According to the campaign's timetable they should have been seventh level at this point but due to some people missing sessions and some players dying and losing a level some players were 5th level most were 6 and I think one was level 7.


In addition to what was said above: You should do your very best to avoid having different Levels in the same Group, wherever they might be coming from. Especially greater than 1 Level!

It never helps, and often harms, the Game.


Use landmark levelling as opposed to actual exp, its easier. And they do not lose levels.

This. When I run adventure paths, I do not track XP and simply level the characters when they reach the points where the adventure says they should be level X. This has, in my opinion, multiple advantages:


Reduces bookkeeping for the GM
Ensures that characters are (at least in theory) able to overcome the challenges as expected
Removes the need to have "catch-up" encounters for when they are too low of a level
Easily handles the case that they resolve encounters in a way that is not expected by the AP authors


In my experience the APs I played (RoTR, Iron Gods, Legacy of Fire) are not really that challenging for a moderately optimizing group (at least the ones I play with). Therefor when I run it I focus on the players having fun, not trying to challenge them massively with every encounter. If they breeze through - so much better, they are the heroes after all.