Division of Treasure

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
> How does your group divide treasure?
>
> One reason I really like the start where all adventurers know each other is
> that it makes enlightened self interest style of division a realistic
> possibility, where one would divide treasure equally and give magic to those
> that can use it, regardless of it's value(ie Staff of Power goes to the
> wizard, without a problem). We had a recent discussion at our table about
> what would happen if we decided to not know each other. It seems like most
> people are of the opinion that this enlightened self interest style would
> continue, regardless of people not really knowing each other. I thought it
> was silly for anyone to do that(I don't care how good and benevolent you
> are, magic has intrinsic value). Thoughts?

Most groups I have played in (home games or drop-ins) have divided the
plunder in the way you mention above. Magic sword goes to fighter, wands
and rods to the mages and clerics, etc. -- all with no questions asked
or hard feelings. Any magic items that no character has an obvious use
for are then tossed into the communal pile and later sold with each
member getting an equal share. At early levels there is competition for
potions and scrolls but later on these become an "anyone want 'em?"
situation.

The current group I play with is a bit different ... more or less as
above but every item (magical or otherwise) is assigned a "selling"
price by the GM. If any character wants a found magic item they can
'buy' from the group with their share of the treasure (or otherwise
available personal funds).

FWIW.


- Sheldon

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> How does your group divide treasure?
>
> One reason I really like the start where all adventurers know each other is
> that it makes enlightened self interest style of division a realistic
> possibility, where one would divide treasure equally and give magic to those
> that can use it, regardless of it's value(ie Staff of Power goes to the
> wizard, without a problem). We had a recent discussion at our table about
> what would happen if we decided to not know each other. It seems like most
> people are of the opinion that this enlightened self interest style would
> continue, regardless of people not really knowing each other. I thought it
> was silly for anyone to do that(I don't care how good and benevolent you
> are, magic has intrinsic value). Thoughts?
>

We roll randomly, then go lowest to highest to lowest until all items
are gone. This looks like: 123.321.123.321

This way, the person who goes first, and gets the "best" pick then has
to wait the longest time to pick again. The person who rolls "worst"
must wait for his first pick, but gets two picks in a row.

It's not perfect, but it solved the bickering that was happening.

CH

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> How does your group divide treasure?

Basically, as you indicated, however, I wanted to tell a story about the one
campaign we were playing.

It was a modified 2nd edition campaign. I was playing a monk character,
with all the treasure restricitons that implies, and the other player was
playing a cleric that eschewed arcane magic for religious reasons. The GM
was playing an NPC Bard with no magic or treasure restrictions.

By the end of the campaign, I think we were like 8th level, the Bard was
having to invent new ways of carrying around the magic that neither of us
could take. I'm surprised that she didn't attract the quasar dragon all by
herself.

The GM was a little non-plussed over the whole thing.

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>> How does your group divide treasure?

Here's the way that WE do it.

Say there are 8 characters in the party, 5 of which take part in the action
i.e. killing of the monster, clearing out a cavern, etc. then the treasure
gets split 5 ways. With the character who did the most getting first dibbs.
The other 3 characters who did not participate don't get diddly. The 5 who
did participate can vote to give a part to one or all of the others.

We did not think that it was fair to have a select few do all of the nasty
stuff and then everybody split up the goodies. That way it gets more
characters involved if they know that they have to get dirty in order to
collect goodies.

Darrell

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> How does your group divide treasure?
>
> One reason I really like the start where all adventurers know each other is
> that it makes enlightened self interest style of division a realistic
> possibility, where one would divide treasure equally and give magic to those
> that can use it, regardless of it's value(ie Staff of Power goes to the
> wizard, without a problem). We had a recent discussion at our table about
> what would happen if we decided to not know each other. It seems like most
> people are of the opinion that this enlightened self interest style would
> continue, regardless of people not really knowing each other. I thought it
> was silly for anyone to do that(I don't care how good and benevolent you
> are, magic has intrinsic value). Thoughts?
>

Well that's up to the players not the DM. At the moment it's pretty
much whoever needs or wants something, and one or two people keeping
track of the rest of anything saleable.

The people holding and selling the "junk" haven't been splitting the
proceeds with the rest of the party, which I don't like, but none of
the other players either notice or care.

There also seems to be some confusion as to who has what at any given
time, so I'm thinking of trying to keep track myself, but it would be a
lot of extra work.

- Justisaur

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> How does your group divide treasure?

Monetary treasure was more or less split equally. The first magic item
split was based on who could use the item (if only useable by a mage,
then the mage got it). For magic items left and usable by multiple PCs,
it went to whoever needed it the most. After that, it would be given to
a party NPC. I remember only one magic item ever being sold, and the
other players were in shock the PC did it.

Brandon

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
>
> Well that's up to the players not the DM.

Not exactly true -- the the party's method (or lack of method) of
dividing treasure is disrupting the game, the DM needs to step in.

Brandon

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Some items are obvious who they go to -- magic rapiers go to our rogue,
my cleric gets the "cleric" items, and so forth. For items anyone can
use, we try to give it to whomever could really benefit the party the
most. If an item covers a character's weak spot, we'll it to him. For
items that anyone can use and it just doesn't matter who has it,
whoever wants it can make a claim. If he's the only one, he gets it.
If more than one, they talk it out, either convincing the other they
need it more or conceding to the other another contested item. If no
one wants it, it's sold if possible, held on to if it's something
potent worth bartering with others, or someone just holds onto it if
it's too potent to want to give away and it counts as a party item.
Often times players speak up that another character should have a
certain item and of those times occasionaly have to convince the player
to take it. Any item a character acquires through solo side quests on
downtime or other non-party associated stuff is his without malice. He
often shares with the rest of the party but is not obligated to.

Once this approach failed when the party acquired a trove with several
items anyone could use, too potent to give away, and everyone wanted
everything. Before it got too out of hand we started over and everyone
made it a point to be less selfish. We reaffirmed to ourseleves that
ultimately it does not matter who has a particular item because we're
in this together. Each character doing something really well because
of a magic item means the party is doing something really well.

As a personal being impressed, I am jealous of our rogue's generosity.
He stakes his claim but only his truly fair share even by meta-game
standards and sometimes less.

Gerald Katz

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Alien mind control rays made Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> write:
>> personally, the next time i'm a PC, i'm going to push for aleph's
>> bid by consent method.
>
> What's that (or did I miss it here)?

sorry, thought i'd pasted that.
http://groups-beta.google.com/grou [...] 4bea4b7b22

--
\^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: The cutting edge of obsolescence.
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:55:18 -0400, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

I'm not a fan of 'enlightened self interest' or 'communal ownership,
with those who can best use something getting it'. IME they can get
nasty when a character leaves the party, for whatever reason. Also,
who owns a communal items that the user has paid to have upgraded?

What we generally do is calculate the market value of the whole haul
(that means half the value of weapons, magic items, etc. - as per
D&D3.x's rule on the matter), and divide that evenly between those
involved in getting it (with half shares to cohorts, and sometimes a
share or half-share to a party pool). Magic items and other objects of
individual note ate then 'bought' out of the haul by characters using
their share, with conflicts negotiated as they occur (or, if that
breaks down, a vote with one share getting one vote, a half-share half
a vote). Characters can put extra cash they have on hand towards
buying an item if they want, but unless only one character wants an
item we don't allow credit. Any items not wanted are then sold, and
the money, gems, etc. handed out.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Sea Wasp wrote:
> > [re: dividing up magic items]
>
> Cash is divided evenly. Items go to whoever can use them
> best. Items with no likely user or with evenly likely users
> are discussed until a decision is made. We don't roll dice or
> anything, unless the decision is "we will flip a coin for it".
>
> A sensible party doesn't need special wierd methods to
> do this stuff.

<AOL>

Though sometimes my players argue about items... But only if it's
appropriate *in character* to argue about them. I've had a sorcerer
who was terrified of being damaged actually argue with the monk over
the bracers of armor, despite the rest of the party feeling the monk
would benefit more greatly from them.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ePSdnVRtwt-2ZE_fRVn-qg@comcast.com...
> How does your group divide treasure?

In groups that know each other, the "enlightened self-interest" method. In
other groups, sometimes a discussion leading to equitable distribution,
sometimes people take what they want if they are strong enough to lay claim
to it. I have seen a few fights over treasure, including several deaths.
Sometimes (in one Evil party in particular) there is an oligarchy of sorts;
the most powerful faction bullies the rest of the group and takes the best
for themselves.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
] How does your group divide treasure?

Any character present when treasure is found, the money is divided
evenly. Magic is rolled for, typically by those who need the item.
If no one wants it, the party sometimes puts it in the group game
vault. Othertimes they may give a magic item to a local NPC, maybe a
part of the local town guard or an NPC who has helped them before. I
leave that stuff up to them, giving away or selling items they don't
want.

JimP.
--
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/ June 7, 2005
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ May 14, 2005: Drive-In movie theatres
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ poetry blog March 12, 2005

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:hn19d1hjc99lb4ulo8rlft6jn9c4qcs8sd@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:22:23 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
> <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>>
>> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:ePSdnVRtwt-2ZE_fRVn-qg@comcast.com...
>> > How does your group divide treasure?
>>
>> In groups that know each other, the "enlightened self-interest" method.
>> In
>> other groups, sometimes a discussion leading to equitable distribution,
>> sometimes people take what they want if they are strong enough to lay
>> claim
>> to it. I have seen a few fights over treasure, including several deaths.
>> Sometimes (in one Evil party in particular) there is an oligarchy of
>> sorts;
>> the most powerful faction bullies the rest of the group and takes the
>> best
>> for themselves.
>
> The last time I saw in-game violence over loot it ended badly and
> destroyed the campaign.

I have seen this happen as well. Actually, in the last campaign I was in,
my character ended up (along with a few others) killing another PC for doing
something we felt would seriously endanger the group (putting on an artifact
mask that was tied to a powerful evil). He got fair warning, and tried it
anyway.

> An 'oligarchy' of the sort you describe tried
> bullying, and then backed it up when they were called on it. This
> caused considerable resenment in those bullied (mainly, but not
> entirely in-game), and plans were laid. The next time it happened the
> bullied ones let it pass, and then killed the bullies in their sleep.

Good for them. The bullies were stupid. Ours have contingency plans. For
example, my Wizard has two effects on some of the items he has enchanted for
other party members: contingent upon them trying to harm him, they set off
an Alarm-type effect (mental, of course), and they activate the cursed
portion of the item, which acts as a Robe of Powerlessness. Cheap
insurance, in my opinion. Hell, I have even given such items to the other
bullies.

> For some reason the players of the bullies felt that ganging up on
> pther players' characters, threatening and actually assulting them,
> and taking the good stuff for themselves (as well as demanding the
> other characters go first through dubious doors, and so on) was okay,
> but killing characters in their sleep was 'cowardly' and therefore
> unreasonable.

That is a silly attitude to have. The bullies got what was coming to them.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> How does your group divide treasure?
>
> One reason I really like the start where all adventurers know each other is
> that it makes enlightened self interest style of division a realistic
> possibility, where one would divide treasure equally and give magic to those
> that can use it, regardless of it's value(ie Staff of Power goes to the
> wizard, without a problem).

I guess I'm cruel in that I enjoy distrubing a group of items, each of
which could be equally well used by several members of the party, and
then seeing what results. Sadly, most players are still pretty
unselfish. Damn commies.

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

drow wrote:
> Alien mind control rays made Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> write:
> >> personally, the next time i'm a PC, i'm going to push for aleph's
> >> bid by consent method.
> >
> > What's that (or did I miss it here)?
>
> sorry, thought i'd pasted that.
> http://groups-beta.google.com/grou [...] 4bea4b7b22

Hmm, interesting and seems a bit overly complicated and time consuming.
I'd think if the party wasn't going to work with enlightened self
interest, this would be more trouble than a strait bid method.

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Peter Meilinger wrote:
> Hadsil <forumite@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >As a personal being impressed, I am jealous of our rogue's generosity.
> >He stakes his claim but only his truly fair share even by meta-game
> >standards and sometimes less.
>
> It really helps if the party thief isn't out to screw the other
> characters to his own advantage. It's an easy step from there
> to bending over backwards to be fair. It's a nice non-stereotypical
> persona. My own thief is always scrupulously fair about reporting
> treasure he picks up while working with the party. Every once in
> awhile I hold out a gem or two, but only because the mage likes
> casting a suspicious eye my way. Just doing my part for the team.
>
> Pete

Our rogue is loyal to the party, and we are to him. One time he had
held onto the party treasure while on personal business. He wanted to
do something but didn't have enough gold on hand, except for the party
treasure. He did without because he refused to take advantage of the
situation. Last adventure while our party was guarding a caravan, we
were attacked by a band of evil dwarves. In a solo fight within that
battle, the rogue defeated a dwarf and found a gem. When the fight was
over he told us about the gem. We only knew it was magical. Later a
group of dwarves approached the caravan under the flag of truce asking
for the gem back. They didn't know who had it. Our wizard feigned
ignorance and volunteered to ask around. Our War Mind and rogue lied,
denying about it as well. Playing a Lawful Good Sacred Exorcist of
Heironeous, I couldn't bring myself to lie outright, though there was
no way I was going to tell them where it is. When the wizard asked me,
I, the player, conveniently drank from a can of pepsi and paused long
enough to say "Sorry, I'm drinking".

His rogue is the only rogue I've ever fully and completely trust in and
out of character and deservedly so, in and out of character.

Gerald Katz

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 12 Jul 2005 12:30:49 -0700, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com>
dared speak in front of ME:

>Justisaur wrote:
>>
>> Well that's up to the players not the DM.
>
>Not exactly true -- if the party's method (or lack of one) is severely
>disrupting the campaign, the DM needs to step in.

Be aware that DM's who "step in" in that regard tread on thin ice, and
are at risk of being demoted or booted for being a condescending,
asinine jerk.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On 13 Jul 2005 17:37:41 -0700, "decalod85" <decalod85@comcast.net>
> carved upon a tablet of ether:
> > I prefer for magic items to be found/won/given/created.
>
> Well, don't be surprised when the modules, written to other
> assumptions, don't do what you want them to do.

I never run a module "as-is". I steal ideas, locales, npcs,
monsters, maps and other goodies from them, but I usually
weave this stuff into my own campaign.

I assume most module designers try to balance the treasure
they give out. I do the same thing, but more customized
towards the needs of my players PCs.

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:43:04 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
<capt_malachias@hotmail.com> dared speak in front of ME:

>"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:hn19d1hjc99lb4ulo8rlft6jn9c4qcs8sd@4ax.com...
<snip>
>> An 'oligarchy' of the sort you describe tried
>> bullying, and then backed it up when they were called on it. This
>> caused considerable resenment in those bullied (mainly, but not
>> entirely in-game), and plans were laid. The next time it happened the
>> bullied ones let it pass, and then killed the bullies in their sleep.
>
>Good for them. The bullies were stupid. Ours have contingency plans. For
>example, my Wizard has two effects on some of the items he has enchanted for
>other party members: contingent upon them trying to harm him, they set off
>an Alarm-type effect (mental, of course), and they activate the cursed
>portion of the item, which acts as a Robe of Powerlessness. Cheap
>insurance, in my opinion. Hell, I have even given such items to the other
>bullies.

This is why, if you plan to retaliate against the party wizard for
some percieved slight, you make sure not to bring any of his 'gifts'
with you...
--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Kaos wrote:
> On 13 Jul 2005 19:55:10 -0700, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com>
> dared speak in front of ME:
>
> >Kaos wrote:
> >> On 12 Jul 2005 12:30:49 -0700, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com>
> >> dared speak in front of ME:
> >>
> >> >Justisaur wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Well that's up to the players not the DM.
> >> >
> >> >Not exactly true -- if the party's method (or lack of one) is severely
> >> >disrupting the campaign, the DM needs to step in.
> >>
> >> Be aware that DM's who "step in" in that regard tread on thin ice, and
> >> are at risk of being demoted or booted for being a condescending,
> >> asinine jerk.
> >
> >The campaign is supposed to be fun for the DM, too. If the PCs are
> >trying to kill each other over treasure distribution and I'm not
> >allowed to intervene,
>
> Depends on how you intervene. If you do so as a concerned member of
> the group, go for it: the ice will hold.
>
> OTOH, if you step in as a God-DM...

I am from the "DM as benevolent deity" school, not the "GM is first
among equals" school. One of my "rules" in any campaign, any game
system, is that PCs shall not attack other PCs. This has been
appreciated by the players.

Brandon

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> How does your group divide treasure?
>
> One reason I really like the start where all adventurers know each other is
> that it makes enlightened self interest style of division a realistic
> possibility, where one would divide treasure equally and give magic to those
> that can use it, regardless of it's value(ie Staff of Power goes to the
> wizard, without a problem).

In our current campaign here, the setting is in the aftermath of a
magical cataclysm and there's not much of an economy around...the
party's about 13th level, and about to hit their first large, intact
city where coins have actual value. Because they're totally reliant on
each other, utility has been the overriding concern. Up to this point,
the procedure has pretty much been that the wizard identifies
everything, and then my character (the group quartermaster, more or
less) hands things out to whoever would generate the most benefit for
the group by having it. So far, no one's objected.

When we hit the big city, it'll be interesting to see how that changes.
People are presumably going to want shares of cash to spend. Up til
now, ownership hasn't been an issue, because there wasn't really anyone
to sell things to.

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 14 Jul 2005 05:28:44 -0700, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com>
dared speak in front of ME:

>Kaos wrote:
>> On 13 Jul 2005 19:55:10 -0700, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com>
>> dared speak in front of ME:
>>
>> >Kaos wrote:
>> >> On 12 Jul 2005 12:30:49 -0700, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com>
>> >> dared speak in front of ME:
>> >>
>> >> >Justisaur wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well that's up to the players not the DM.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not exactly true -- if the party's method (or lack of one) is severely
>> >> >disrupting the campaign, the DM needs to step in.
>> >>
>> >> Be aware that DM's who "step in" in that regard tread on thin ice, and
>> >> are at risk of being demoted or booted for being a condescending,
>> >> asinine jerk.
>> >
>> >The campaign is supposed to be fun for the DM, too. If the PCs are
>> >trying to kill each other over treasure distribution and I'm not
>> >allowed to intervene,
>>
>> Depends on how you intervene. If you do so as a concerned member of
>> the group, go for it: the ice will hold.
>>
>> OTOH, if you step in as a God-DM...
>
>I am from the "DM as benevolent deity" school,

Which is why you need to watch the ice.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:05:29 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
<capt_malachias@hotmail.com> dared speak in front of ME:

>"Kaos" <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in message
>news:r71cd1djjrtlr0gfnlu0u3ci8ufcrv57a4@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:43:04 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
>> <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> dared speak in front of ME:
>>
>>>"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>>news:hn19d1hjc99lb4ulo8rlft6jn9c4qcs8sd@4ax.com...
>> <snip>
>>>> An 'oligarchy' of the sort you describe tried
>>>> bullying, and then backed it up when they were called on it. This
>>>> caused considerable resenment in those bullied (mainly, but not
>>>> entirely in-game), and plans were laid. The next time it happened the
>>>> bullied ones let it pass, and then killed the bullies in their sleep.
>>>
>>>Good for them. The bullies were stupid. Ours have contingency plans.
>>>For
>>>example, my Wizard has two effects on some of the items he has enchanted
>>>for
>>>other party members: contingent upon them trying to harm him, they set off
>>>an Alarm-type effect (mental, of course), and they activate the cursed
>>>portion of the item, which acts as a Robe of Powerlessness. Cheap
>>>insurance, in my opinion. Hell, I have even given such items to the other
>>>bullies.
>>
>> This is why, if you plan to retaliate against the party wizard for
>> some percieved slight, you make sure not to bring any of his 'gifts'
>> with you...
>
>True, but, since I make most of their items (and *all* of their save
>boosting items), that will put them at a major disadvantage.

Sure. But to the same extant as a spellcaster awakened in the middle
of the night by his Alarm, after a hard day's spellcasting?

>I give them a
>25% discount on book value, and use the surplus of money for my own array.
>Of course, I could always go the route of a few Wizards in our group, and
>get a cohort that is a Devoted Defender...

Just curious, how would you handle it as a non-spellcaster?

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Kaos wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 22:38:57 GMT, Sea Wasp
> <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> dared speak in front of ME:
>
> >Kaos wrote:
> >
> >> Which is why you need to watch the ice.
> >>
> >
> > I smite the ice and walk on water. That's what being God is all ABOUT.
>
> I reject you. Have fun swimming.

You can reject us all you want. Have fun in someone else's campaign. We
know we'll be having fun without you.

Brandon