|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Sept 18, 2008 6:38:58 GMT -6
According to Supplement I, paladins "will give away all treasure that they win, save that which is necessary to maintain themselves, their men, and a modest castle."
Does that mean then that paladins can only gain experience by slaying monsters? Or do paladins get XP based on the gold piece value of treasure they loot from a dungeon, even if they do not keep it for themselves or otherwise benefit from it?
|
|
tank
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 58
|
Post by tank on Sept 18, 2008 7:20:57 GMT -6
We play the second way. In my eyes, the experience from dungeon delving comes from making the big score, not necessarily keeping it. On the other hand, a lot of referees on these boards rule that experience is only gained when the loot is actually used - spent on your stronghold, given to charity, on blown on women and booze. In either case, the paladin gains the bulk of his experience from treasure, otherwise he'd be first level for a long, long time.
|
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Sept 18, 2008 7:37:55 GMT -6
According to Supplement I, paladins "will give away all treasure that they win, save that which is necessary to maintain themselves, their men, and a modest castle." Does that mean then that paladins can only gain experience by slaying monsters? Or do paladins get XP based on the gold piece value of treasure they loot from a dungeon, even if they do not keep it for themselves or otherwise benefit from it? Heh. If you wanted to really make things interesting, award experience points to the paladin only for treasure he donates to worthy causes. And enforce the "modest" in "modest castle" - otherwise, "pride goeth before a fall" (over the battlements, I would suspect). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2008 5:49:37 GMT -6
We always ruled that XP were based on the amount of treasure found, not the amount carted away. So, if you killed a dragon you got XP based on its hourde size even if you walked away and didn't take a copper.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Sept 20, 2008 8:14:51 GMT -6
We always ruled that XP were based on the amount of treasure found, not the amount carted away. So, if you killed a dragon you got XP based on its hourde size even if you walked away and didn't take a copper. I could never do that. The intention of the rules, as I read them, is to tie XP to the difficult task of hauling coins and valuables out of the dungeon. That's why you need hirelings and henchmen and mules and so forth to accompany you (or at least be readily available). It's supposed to be hard to liberate treasure from the dungeon; otherwise the XP gained from it might as well just be rolled into the XP for the monsters defeated -- which is more or less what happened over time. |
|
korgoth
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 323
|
Post by korgoth on Sept 20, 2008 10:13:47 GMT -6
According to Supplement I, paladins "will give away all treasure that they win, save that which is necessary to maintain themselves, their men, and a modest castle." Does that mean then that paladins can only gain experience by slaying monsters? Or do paladins get XP based on the gold piece value of treasure they loot from a dungeon, even if they do not keep it for themselves or otherwise benefit from it? I think they get the XP for treasure that they loot (otherwise they'll be about 5 levels behind everybody else on the Greyhawk scale), but they have to give most of it away. If they don't give it away, they'll face other problems. |
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on Oct 24, 2008 10:48:31 GMT -6
I agree that XP for treasure is divided evenly amongst the PCs no matter how it is distributed. My only exception is if that treasure is left behind. I think Philtomy said it best (on his site, I think?) when he said that XP for treasure might be considered a "story reward" in which the PCs, upon winning that big, hairy hill giant's pile of gold have indeed reached a sort of in-game benchmark.
In the case of the paladin, I would not prohibit him from taking his share of treasure; it's how they go about it afterwards that I am critical about. Say a party of 5 PCs wins a fabulous treasure of 625 gc. The paladin can take his 125, but he can't go about living the rich life in town. He might buy a new sword and give the rest away to a local temple. That being said, all paladins should aspire for plate mail. If the paladin desires to put a deposit on a suit of armor that befits his station, I would not penalize him for collecting his share of gold and directly investing it so.
So, in essence, this is one of those aspects of the game that I would handle on a case by case basis.
--JeffT
|
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Oct 24, 2008 18:51:19 GMT -6
We always ruled that XP were based on the amount of treasure found, not the amount carted away. So, if you killed a dragon you got XP based on its hourde size even if you walked away and didn't take a copper. I could never do that. The intention of the rules, as I read them, is to tie XP to the difficult task of hauling coins and valuables out of the dungeon. That's why you need hirelings and henchmen and mules and so forth to accompany you (or at least be readily available). It's supposed to be hard to liberate treasure from the dungeon; otherwise the XP gained from it might as well just be rolled into the XP for the monsters defeated -- which is more or less what happened over time. That's also one of the key reasons for the creation of the encumbrance rules, and what makes gems and jewelry so valuable: they're so much more portable than piles of coins, statues, paintings, suits of armor, etc. |
|
