# Rewards



## gideonpepys (Jul 22, 2011)

My players are part of the RHC, which means they receive a large payment, plus a smaller amount of gold as treasure.

If have two issues:

1) I rather like the genius loci, but I'm not sure my players will recognise their value initially, or have saved enough cash to purchase them.  It would almost be better if they got the lower cash payment, plus the treasure parcels.

2) I'm toying with the idea of employing the inherent bonus system.  What is the simplest way to implement that within the Zeitgeist reward system?


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 22, 2011)

The party gets a second salary payment at the start of adventure 2. And the conceit is that any treasure they recover gets handed over to the RHC, so the icons are still in a vault somewhere, ready to be requisitioned.


*Inherent bonuses*
Don't they have those guidelines in the DMG2? I'm at work and can't look it up, but I would hope the inherent bonuses section tells you "reduce the amount of treasure by X."

Just calculate how much money the PCs would be spending on that gear, and subtract it from their salary.


----------



## gideonpepys (Jul 22, 2011)

That explanation of what happens to the magic items solves alot of issues.  Thanks!

The formula for working out what to pay each PC in a six person party, using the inherent bonuses system (which calls for the removal of the 1st & 4th parcel) is a little bit more complicated than my lazy brain is happy with, but I only have to perform the sum once per level, so it shouldn't be too hard.

(The most annoying part is adding up what all the parcels would have been worth in cash terms.)


----------



## Colmarr (Jul 22, 2011)

I'm planning on using inherent bonuses for Zeitgeist, so I've done calculations for levels 1-10.

Spreadsheet attached, but I calculate that each PC should earn the following amounts at each level.

Level 1: 448 
Level 2: 576
Level 3: 832
Level 4: 1216
Level 5: 1600
Level 6: 2240
Level 7: 2880
Level 8: 4160
Level 9: 6080
Level 10: 8000

Calculated as {(Value of L+2 Item) + (Value of L+3 Item) + 2*(Value of L+0 Item)} divided by 5

For parties using normal treasure distribution, I calculate the earnings per PC per level to be:

Level 1: 752 
Level 2: 1072
Level 3: 1520
Level 4: 2096
Level 5: 2800
Level 6: 3760
Level 7: 5360
Level 8: 7600
Level 9: 10480

Calculated as {(Value of L+1 Item) + (Value of L+2 Item) + (Value of L+3 Item) + (Value of L+4 Item) + 2*(Value of L+0 Item)} divided by 5.


----------



## benfromidaho (Jul 23, 2011)

I was thinking the same thing about the loci, until reading this post.  I love the idea that these items are safely stashed in the R.H.C., and can be requisitioned as permanent gear when needed.


----------



## Colmarr (Jul 23, 2011)

Gideon, my figures are for a 5 person party, and I'm not sure that you can simply adopt them for 6 PCs.

Your best bet would be to check the inherent bonuses rules to see what extra treasure gets awarded for the 6th PC and adjust the formulas in my spreadsheet accordingly.

If you're not excel savvy, I can take a look at it for you.


----------



## gideonpepys (Jul 23, 2011)

Very kind of you.  (I am not excel savvy.)

But I'm quite happy just to grant the same amount of cash to each player based on the 5-person calculations.


----------



## Colmarr (Jul 24, 2011)

gideonpepys said:


> Very kind of you. (I am not excel savvy.)




Salary per PC in a 6-person party (for an inherent bonuses campaign) is:

Level 1: 487
Level 2: 620
Level 3: 860
Level 4: 1313
Level 5: 1767
Level 6: 2433
Level 7: 3100
Level 8: 4300
Level 9: 6567
Level 10: 8833

Calculated as {2*(Value of L+2 Item) + (Value of L+3 Item) + 2*(Value of L+0 Item)} divided by 6.

Strangely, that's more per PC than in a 5-person party, because of the odd way additional party members intersect with inherent bonuses, so you may want to just go with 5-person values anyway.

For normal treasure distribution:

Level 1: 740
Level 2: 1033
Level 3: 1433
Level 4: 2047
Level 5: 2767
Level 6: 3700
Level 7: 5167
Level 8: 7167
Level 9: 10233


----------



## gideonpepys (Jul 24, 2011)

Right. I'm almost sure they wouldn't have fully tested the inherent bonus system, or investigated every iteration.

It's clear from the regular treasure parcel system that a 6-person party would receive less treasure per person on average than a 5-person party, so in this instance I think I will stick to the original numbers.

Thanks for your help with the maths, though.  That's saved me a lot of time (and I'm doubtful if my results would have been particularly accurate in any event).

Tbh, I've always found treasure distribution to the be the biggest headache in 4e.  The inherent bonus system combined with RHC salaries will put the onus squarely on my players, while at the same time ensuring that the lazy or inept ones aren't affected too adversely by falling behind the mathematical curve.

Job's a good 'un!


----------



## Colmarr (Dec 6, 2011)

*A rethink*

One of my players pointed out to me towards the end of Island at the Axis of the World that the player-wealth economy is going to get really out of whack if we're allowing players to trade in items for full value (rather than the usual 20% or 50%) via the RHC vault but are giving out normal 4e treasure values by way of stipend.

Over 1 or 2 levels the difference won't really be noticeable, but it could really add up by paragon and epic.

There is obvious sense in what he says, so I'm thinking of reducing my figures upthread by 10% across the board. It's not mathematically sound, but it is a quick way of addressing the issue. 

What does everyone think?


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 6, 2011)

The 4e character wealth system is borked anyway.

This is part of the reason we're putting in the audit in adventure 3. The RHC will say "You've got X much stuff, but should only have Y much. Hand over the rest."

I'm not sure how to do something similar in paragon and epic tier, since the scope will be very different.


----------



## Cheezmo Miner (Dec 8, 2011)

I just want to make sure I'm reading and interpreting the system correctly:

If the PCs purchase an item from the RHC, they may trade it in later for its full value.

If the PCs loot an item or find treasure, they are expected to hand it in without compensation.

Is this correct?


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 8, 2011)

If the PCs purchase requisition an item from the RHC, they may trade it in later for its full value and have the full value reimbursed to their stipend.

If the PCs loot in the course of their investigations recover an item or find treasure, they are expected to hand it in without compensation so the RHC can ensure all resources are deployed as efficiently as possible among its constables.

(However, a PC can always be a cheat and keep something he's not supposed to.)


----------



## N'raac (Dec 8, 2011)

So how does this tie in to the requirement that all PC's be loyal citizens of Risur?  From the Player's Guide, this was infallibly tested.  Would a character who immediately starts looting and cheating against RHC requirements, and presumably had this in mind from the outset, have passed those tests?  What do the RHC tests actually prove?  IOW what aspects of a PC's personality would cause them to fail the tests and be denied entry to the RHC, making the PC unsuitable for this campaign?


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 8, 2011)

Rod Blagojevich, a corrupt governor who just got sent to prison to over a decade for trying to literally sell a Senate seat, would I'm pretty sure never have been willing to sell nuclear secrets to a hostile nation, or aid an assassination plot, or try to send state troops to capture a nearby city.

And if he was aware of a legitimate threat to the country, he probably wouldn't be convinced to keep quiet just for some money. He strikes me as the kind of guy who figures, "Sure, this is breaking the law, but in the grand scheme of things one politician is as corrupt as the next, so I'm not hurting anybody."

There are all sorts of petty ways to be out for yourself, but to still have the moral rectitude not to seek to cause harm. Basically, RHC loyalty tests keep out spies and intentional traitors, and finds people who want to help the country. But you can want to help your country and still think you're not getting paid as much as you deserve for a job this dangerous. 

It doesn't stop someone with loose morality from joining, and over time people can slip down slopes until they're able to justify things they never would have considered when they were hired.


----------



## Cheezmo Miner (Dec 10, 2011)

N'raac said:


> So how does this tie in to the requirement that all PC's be loyal citizens of Risur?  From the Player's Guide, this was infallibly tested.




What RW said. 

I can only take that bit from the Player's guide so far. I may remind the player's once about their loyalty oaths and the assumption of their patriotism. _Once_. More than that and I'm trying to control their characters. I'm just not that kind of DM. If its fun for them to play crooked g-men, I'm not going to force the issue. Especially when the books are covering that very potentiality.



RangerWickett said:


> Basically, RHC  loyalty tests keep out spies and intentional traitors, and finds people  who want to help the country. But you can want to help your country and  still think you're not getting paid as much as you deserve for a job  this dangerous.




I was asked how an evil PC would be possible and referenced The Comedian from Watchmen. Undeniably Chaotic Evil, but still works as a government agent.


----------



## N'raac (Dec 11, 2011)

Cheezmo Miner said:


> I was asked how an evil PC would be possible and referenced The Comedian from Watchmen. Undeniably Chaotic Evil, but still works as a government agent.




Seems to me goals are way more important than alignment. An evil character who believes in Risur - right or wrong - could be much more effective than a good character who started into this believing Risur held to good and noble policies and has discovered otherwise.  The PG raises the possibility of conflicting loyalties, and I suspect we'll see some reasons that some characters may question or even change allegiances before the path is complete.


----------

