|
3 years ago ::
Sep 11, 2010 - 9:29PM
#551
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
This may have been covered elsewhere in the thread (I didn't read all 55 pages), but has anyone tried this new treasure system? I decided to give it a whirl to compare it to what I am planning on handing out to my PCs during the next couple of levels, and I was shocked.
I wound up rolling the current and next level (5th and 6th respectively) three times each, and I think I'd have a revolt on my hands if I tried to implement the essentials treasure system. On average my mid-heroic level team would have gotten about 38% the coinage (with gems never coming up for 5th level, and not getting a single art object in some 60 treaures.) and 2.8 magic items per level (2 of these being party level +2, the others being party level +3). These are averages, in one case 5th level would have resulted in a single level 7 magic item and a grand total of 610 gp.
Admittedly my party has only 4 PCs, so the rolls had a -2 which resulted in getting boned numerous times as they missed the target by one or two a LOT. I know a lot comes down to dice, but mine are pretty good, they tend to roll toward the high side of average. I actually rolled several natural 20's, so a couple of those moderate level magic items would have been rares, but most of those good rolls wound up wasted on the coins.
As a general rule I have been underwhelmed by what I have seen of the Essentials; the RC is the only one I had any interest in. This experience has only cemented my thoughts on the line. Thinking back to my early gaming days, I remember being thrilled by getting treasure, particularly magic items. If I were a new player, this anemic treasure might not turn me off of playing, but it ceratinly wouldn't motivate me either.
D&D Next... for those who would rather play a version of D&D they dislike the least, rather than the one they like the most!
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 11, 2010 - 11:24PM
#552
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2006
|
This may have been covered elsewhere in the thread (I didn't read all 55 pages), but has anyone tried this new treasure system? I decided to give it a whirl to compare it to what I am planning on handing out to my PCs during the next couple of levels, and I was shocked.
I wound up rolling the current and next level (5th and 6th respectively) three times each, and I think I'd have a revolt on my hands if I tried to implement the essentials treasure system. On average my mid-heroic level team would have gotten about 38% the coinage (with gems never coming up for 5th level, and not getting a single art object in some 60 treaures.) and 2.8 magic items per level (2 of these being party level +2, the others being party level +3). These are averages, in one case 5th level would have resulted in a single level 7 magic item and a grand total of 610 gp.
Admittedly my party has only 4 PCs, so the rolls had a -2 which resulted in getting boned numerous times as they missed the target by one or two a LOT. I know a lot comes down to dice, but mine are pretty good, they tend to roll toward the high side of average. I actually rolled several natural 20's, so a couple of those moderate level magic items would have been rares, but most of those good rolls wound up wasted on the coins.
Yeah, did some binomial probability distributions based on the average numbers up previously, and I'm unsurprised by your findings. Most (over 93%) games will have a streak like that (or worse) at some point. Admittedly sometimes the streak will be in the parties favor, but it's really hard to tell your PCs that treasure will average out later when they're at constant risk of dying from their current lack of funds.
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2010 - 12:00AM
#553
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
To be fair, we're arguing over an item that is unlike anything we've been given so far. Nothing I've seen anywhere has given out two always usable abilities.
Really? I'm sure I've seen items with two propperites...
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2010 - 1:08AM
#554
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
*spoken in the Eric Cartman to Kyle voice*
Thanks. I needed that. I laughed so hard I cried. 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2010 - 7:52AM
#555
|
|
|
To be fair, we're arguing over an item that is unlike anything we've been given so far. Nothing I've seen anywhere has given out two always usable abilities.
Really? I'm sure I've seen items with two propperites...
like acrobat boots
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2010 - 8:45AM
#556
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2001
|
I have been very fond of parcels, but I don't think random would be bad, except for one glaring weakness in the system at the moment. There aren't enough common items to make it work in any feasible way. I have heard that the list of commons was just the first of many, which is very reassuring, but for this system to work most of the items in the system need to be common (twice as many commons as uncommons), and the rares need to be better than my current uncommon items that I have. Until this is done it is pointless to use a random roll system to determine common/uncommon/rare items.
It is also incredibly important to make sure that you are giving out the appropriate amount of treasure rolls for each lvl. From what I read a treasure roll is similar to a parcel (it might be equivalent to 2 parcels or something, not sure). So whatever the value of a treasure roll is, make sure that in a given level you make the right about of rolls. If the system works on hardness of the encounter than having encounters that are just barely considered easy/normal/hard would give you more treasure per lvl, while encounters that are on the top end of easy/normal/hard would give you less loot per lvl. So it is important to look at your encounters and make sure that they aren't slanted unfairly either way.
Basically the reason that I might enjoy the randomness is for the chance of a really cool rare or uncommon (so the rares need to be really cool). So far the rares that have been spoiled are already existing iconic and sucky, I expect that these will see a boost in power and that we will see new awesome rares, but that is a must for this random system to work. I would also like to see some uncommon items that are simply better than common options at the moment as well.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2010 - 11:18AM
#557
|
|
|
I wound up rolling the current and next level (5th and 6th respectively) three times each, and I think I'd have a revolt on my hands if I tried to implement the essentials treasure system. On average my mid-heroic level team would have gotten about 38% the coinage (with gems never coming up for 5th level, and not getting a single art object in some 60 treaures.) and 2.8 magic items per level (2 of these being party level +2, the others being party level +3). These are averages, in one case 5th level would have resulted in a single level 7 magic item and a grand total of 610 gp.
I did the math for an 8th level party and the gold came out almost identical to the parcel system (for a group of 5 PCs): 7,000 vs. 6,800.
- 50% chance for 2d6x100 gp = 3,500 gp
- 35% chance for 500 gp gem = 1,750 gp
- 5% chance for 1,000 gp gem = 500 gp
- 10% chance for 1d3 250gp art objects = 500 gp
- 5% chance for 1,500gp art object = 750 gp
- Total = 7,000 gp
However, the difference shows up for larger or smaller groups. The old system didn't add or subtract gold based on party size - while the new one does. Here's the averages for a six-person 8th level group:
- 60% chance for 2d6x100 gp = 4,200 gp
- 35% chance for 500 gp gem = 1,750 gp
- 15% chance for 1,000 gp gem = 1,500 gp
- 10% chance for 1d3 250gp art objects = 500 gp
- 15% chance for 1,500gp art object = 2,250 gp
- Total = 10,200 gp
And for a four-person party:
- 40% chance for 2d6x100 gp = 2,800 gp
- 25% chance for 500 gp gem = 1,250 gp
- 5% chance for 1,000 gp gem = 500 gp
- 0% chance for 1d3 250gp art objects = 0 gp
- 5% chance for 1,500gp art object = 750 gp
- Total = 5,300 gp
I kind of like that the gold scales with the party size - though the +2/-2 to the rolls may skew things a little too much...
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2010 - 2:18PM
#558
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2001
|
I wound up rolling the current and next level (5th and 6th respectively) three times each, and I think I'd have a revolt on my hands if I tried to implement the essentials treasure system. On average my mid-heroic level team would have gotten about 38% the coinage (with gems never coming up for 5th level, and not getting a single art object in some 60 treaures.) and 2.8 magic items per level (2 of these being party level +2, the others being party level +3). These are averages, in one case 5th level would have resulted in a single level 7 magic item and a grand total of 610 gp.
I did the math for an 8th level party and the gold came out almost identical to the parcel system (for a group of 5 PCs): 7,000 vs. 6,800.
- 50% chance for 2d6x100 gp = 3,500 gp
- 35% chance for 500 gp gem = 1,750 gp
- 5% chance for 1,000 gp gem = 500 gp
- 10% chance for 1d3 250gp art objects = 500 gp
- 5% chance for 1,500gp art object = 750 gp
- Total = 7,000 gp
However, the difference shows up for larger or smaller groups. The old system didn't add or subtract gold based on party size - while the new one does.
Here's the averages for a six-person 8th level group:
- 60% chance for 2d6x100 gp = 4,200 gp
- 35% chance for 500 gp gem = 1,750 gp
- 15% chance for 1,000 gp gem = 1,500 gp
- 10% chance for 1d3 250gp art objects = 500 gp
- 15% chance for 1,500gp art object = 2,250 gp
- Total = 10,200 gp
And for a four-person party:
- 40% chance for 2d6x100 gp = 2,800 gp
- 25% chance for 500 gp gem = 1,250 gp
- 5% chance for 1,000 gp gem = 500 gp
- 0% chance for 1d3 250gp art objects = 0 gp
- 5% chance for 1,500gp art object = 750 gp
- Total = 5,300 gp
I kind of like that the gold scales with the party size - though the +2/-2 to the rolls may skew things a little too much...
Though part of the problem from what I've seen (I don't have all the tables so I might be wrong) is that the random distribution isn't a bell curve; it's very swingy. So the chances of getting nothing for a level or getting way too much are sort of high. You can't judge randomness based just on the average result, you need to take the probability distribution into account as well.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2010 - 10:22PM
#559
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
What is and is not useful is largely in the eye of the beholder.
Useless items tend to come in two varieties:
1) an item that the party cannot use at all. I've yet to see one of these.
2) an item that no one wants to use.
For the main game I'm in, there's an item that I'm pretty sure nobody in our party can "use", as in take advantage of its magical properties that affect NPCs or monsters - but that my character, who absolutely certainly cannot "use" in that sense, wants for RP reasons.
I don't think your being fair here. (4e vs 4ee... really?!?)
When contrasting the two sets of rules, it's useful to have distinctive labels - unless you want to contend that there is actually no change at all, which would be silly.
The point I was trying to convey is that any change is better than the previous.
That isn't a point, it's a conclusion. One that a great many people disagree with.
I think the new system would be greatly improved if they'd make all Uncommon and most Rare magic items Common, make any remaining Rare items Artifacts that are totally under the DM's discretion, and institute a rule limiting characters to using one item daily power per day per tier.
In other words, reinstitute the old system.
Yes, maybe they could do better than the old system. But they didn't even do as well.
As for random sizing of treasure parcels... that's the stupidest idea they've come up with since mechanical effects for alignment. They don't even have a way to insure that the total parcels over a level or tier will come out somewhere close to right.
They never expressly say one way or the other, yes I would prefer a one line reference to the DMG for a different method, but they also don't have a line saying it replaces the DMG method. You may be infering that, and your inference may be correct, but I am not so sure about that.
The Rules Compendium is identified as the single reference for all the rules.
Not some of them.
All of them.
There is nothing included in all the rules (that is, the Rules Compendium) about the DM carefully allocating treasure parcel size across encounters in a level. The only approach supported in all the rules is dice-rolling for parcel size. There isn't even a reference to the DMG for another approach (or for any other reason).
Of course, you can houserule in anything you like from any other game system or anywhere else you may find it including making it up yourself - but it's a houserule, not RAW.
So for me WoTC...
-1 for random parcels
+1 for branching to new class mechanics
+0 for the new classes (boring won't sell me, but they don't hurt)
+1 for tierless feats
+0 for interesting expertise feats (previously -1)
I would add:
-1 for the new class mechanics unnecessarily damaging old material
-1 for the magic item scarcity system
-1 for discarding the old, working controls on the abuse of item daily powers
-1 for revising so many of the feat-tax feats but not actually managing to reduce the feat tax
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2010 - 10:34PM
#560
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
After reading this thread, I've seen so many variations and house rules for the DMG parcel system it begs the question, who even uses the DMG RAW?
The group I'm in includes, I believe, 4 DMs who collectively run or ran a total of six or seven 4E games. (No, not jointly. He runs one, and she runs two, and...)
All of them have extensive experience in 3.5E, at least two have experience in 3E, and all of them have played in or run games in other game systems.
The only one who wasn't using RAW as in DMG1 is in the process of adjusting his group's collection of magic items to what it would be if he had been using RAW; then he intends to use RAW as in DMG1.
They all agree that random parcel size is a joke.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
