Post/Author/DateTime	Post
isaac anthony 12-21-04, 07:51 PM	so how do you distribute the "wealth" in your group. our druid is being very adamant about equal distribution, to the point of looking up the value of every item to account for everyone's "fair share". i argue that we should split the coinage, and give the items to whoever is best able to utilize them. he's neutral, and i'm chaotic good.
masterofmayhem 12-21-04, 08:02 PM	We generally tally up the price of everything, items, coins, gems, etc., and each person gets an equal chunk of that. We use the sell value of an item, though (normally half price), so if someone wants one of the items that are "in the pot," then they essentially pay half price for it, using their new funds to pay. So if someone wants that Amulet of Constitution +2, then they take the amulet and lose 2,000 gold from what gold they would have gotten. However, if there is a dispute over an item, the people that want it bid part or all of their treasure to see who gets it. I don't believe this has ever happened to us, though.
isaac anthony 12-21-04, 08:08 PM	yeah, using that system, we're in a bind. first: the druid now has a cloak of elvenkind. the problem is, he dosen't want to scout for us (we don't have a rogue). also, we've had someone holding on to a dagger +1 because it was their "share" but it could have been used better by someone else that already had what they wanted... i guess i'm just a commie-bastard. :)
masterofmayhem 12-21-04, 08:27 PM	Well, then, I guess that's their choice. I don't see the harm. If you want the dagger +1, then go buy one with your share. If the druid doesn't want to scout, that's his choice; what treasure he does or does not have won't really matter. If you need a scout, buy a cloak of elvenkind.
shallbehealed 12-22-04, 01:06 AM	yeah, using that system, we're in a bind. first: the druid now has a cloak of elvenkind. the problem is, he dosen't want to scout for us (we don't have a rogue). as in "hey you, run and set off any traps in this hallway... we'll stay here and see what happens" also, we've had someone holding on to a dagger +1 because it was their "share" but it could have been used better by someone else that already had what they wanted... kindof like that keen longsword thats never even been unsheathed. our druid is being very adamant about equal distribution I don't think that was the druid... the druid just sat and laughed at you during that conversation... I believe you should be blaming the Mulharondi.
digoraccoon 12-22-04, 08:20 AM	My players generally will try to distribute the wealth evenly, though if someone didn't get any nifty magical item or a good share of the gold, they tend to get first pic from the next horde the PCs find. It's usually fair, and even the party cleric will set a little treasure aside for players that didn't make it to the session! Now that's nice.
TelinArtho 12-22-04, 09:58 AM	As a DM I just let the players divvy it up as they see fit. We're all adults and the party includes a Paladin, a Cleric, a Ranger/Cleric and a Fighter/Sorceress (and soon a Fighter/Rogue). Ranger/Cleric and the Cleric - by GP value of equipment - have the most in the party at about 69k and 45-50k respectively; then the Fighter/Sorceress at ~30k and the Paladin comes in last with 19k or so. Its not very balanced, but it was completely up to the party's decision. The paladin is all about making sure everyone else is protected and ready - he's capable of defending himself. I'm currently working on an item to give to the party that he most likely will take because of this imbalance - but it probably will only be a temporary fix at best. /d
CruelDM 12-22-04, 10:29 AM	The best way I have come to grips with handling this issue is to tally up the total value of coins and sell value of items, divide by party members and make the split. PCs can freely use whatever items they decide upon as a group until they get to a location that they can sell them. At this point, if a PC wants an item in the treasure he must use his share to "buy" it (at its sell value), before its sold. If his share doesnt cover it he must pull from his personal treasure stash to cover the difference and throw this into the party loot pool for others to divy up, if he still cannot cover it he must sell it and take his share in gold. He can buy the item at full cost if he later has enough gold to do so. Handling the treasure in this manner ensures equal party wealth throughout the campaign. As a GM you must be careful about giving out correct loot for the PCs level, and deny access to purchasing items that would unbalance play at the current party levels. As a side benefit, if you handle the treasure in the manner described above, I have found that if you mistakenly dole out an unbalancing item, the PCs cannot afford to buy it from their share and are usually forced to sell it for gold. Its a pretty solid checks and balance system. I will mention that before implementing this system, my campaigns regularly spiraled out of balance around level 8 in most cases.
rihana 12-22-04, 11:12 AM	In my group, we evenly distribute all the gold and any gold from selling mundane items and art objects and such. Then we decide which items will be considered party items (usually poitions, wands, one shot items, and big items only usable in very select situation... like say a Well of Worlds), and these items are carried by whomever can best use them or safeguard them, to be used by whomever has the greatest need. The rest of the magic items (or mundane items of such cost that they cannot be bought by a party member) go into a pool. We keep an ordered list of party members/players, and if a player misses two sessions in a row, they drop to the bottom of the list. Using this list, the top person either chooses an item from the pool (and thus drops to the bottom of the list), or passes (keeping their place on the list). This continues until all teh items have been distributed or until everyone has passed once. Granted, it breaks the illusion of roleplaying, but our group is a large one (from 8 to 12 any given session), and we'd rather spend the time roleplaying other things than item distribution. Also, the DM can use this list to keep players balanced and place items according to who is near the top of the list. While we have had disagreements and have had to make refinements to the process, it is usually stress-free and has made item distribution much much quicker and far less of a headache.
No-man 12-23-04, 03:42 PM	This is where we've had the most fun roleplaying sometimes. The Lawfuls want to make a plan for distribution then stick to it. The Chaotics want to dice for it each time. Usually coinage is split evenly, and there's a list (lawful) the order of which is determined randomly(chaotic) [now everyone is mad] for who gets the next choice of magic. In most of our worlds you can't just buy magic, so that stops people from taking whatever's most expensive so they can buy their "pet" item.
spasheridan 12-23-04, 07:34 PM	Fair is fair. The problem with distributing items based on who can use it is that some classes (say druids maybe) have veyr few items they can use. Since they can't use the items they get nothing. Later on the fighter hawks all the extra suits of +1 chainmail and +1 longswords to buy himself a nifty + 1 shocking vicious longsword and a ring of protection + 2, while the druid is still waiting for a druid wand to be rolled on the magic items charts. The main problem with magic items at low levels though is that most hauls are small. Say a few hundred gold worth of coins and gems. Then a + 1 weapon shows up and is worth 2k. Of course someone should use it instead of it being sold, but the value distribution is lumpy. Once you've been on the bottom end of a distribution like this once or twice, where someone in the party has twice as mich value in magic items then you do on their PC, even though you've both been in the group just as long, and you start wanting a serious change in the way items are distributed. The final solution is always up to the players. Consider all the loot distribution systems and vote on them. I'm sure you can come up with some compromise somehow.
Kursk 12-23-04, 08:34 PM	so how do you distribute the "wealth" in your group. our druid is being very adamant about equal distribution, to the point of looking up the value of every item to account for everyone's "fair share". i argue that we should split the coinage, and give the items to whoever is best able to utilize them. I agree about the coin and items split. That's how we do it. Of course the DM designs the adventures so that, on a magic item basis, it stays pretty even. We try to advance and suvive as a party not just individuals...
SALDAR 12-24-04, 12:06 PM	Our group splits all monies, gems, etc. evenly among the party. Magic items are taken by the characters that want them. If two or more characters want the same item then we roll a d20, highest roll gets the item. Once an item is taken it is considered the property of that character from that point on and can be used in any manner the character wishes, even selling or trading it later to get a better or more appropriate item. Any items not wanted or usable are considered group treasure and we sell them at the first opportunity then split the money evenly among the party members. Our group has been playing together for over 15 years and this system works well for us. Counting every copper piece and making sure every member of the party gets the exact same amount, in our experience, is not the point. The monetary value of magic items, although prescribed by the rules, doesn’t matter that much to us, a magic item to us is just that, an item with magical abilities, not a bag of coins. A longsword +5 (50,315gp) is of little value to a wizard compared to a Boccob’s Blessed Book (12,500gp), although, if the wizard ended up with the longsword he could sell it to by 4 books and no one in the group would argue.
Grox 12-24-04, 01:11 PM	i argue that we should split the coinage, and give the items to whoever is best able to utilize them. IME your position is the same as the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of D&D player characters. At least 95%. A large percentage of those who don't hold it are trying to take advantage of the other players, often for good role-playing reasons. ("I'm of noble birth and the rest of you suck" or "Give me all the loot or I'll kill you".) These "good roleplaying reasons", while they can help develop certain negative aspects of the characters that hold them, also generally get the character abandoned or killed if they refuse to eventually compromise. Your friend's position is extremely unusual, not because it's grossly unfair (it's not, really). It's just more work than most players are willing to put into the division of treasure --- maybe NOT more work than an actual adventuring character would be willing to devote to securing his finances, but a significant number of players don't particularly enjoy digging through the price lists. Your friend's way becomes even more inconvenient if your DM has a high-magic world, but still puts restrictions on the ability to identify items. If he makes the Identify spell legally restricted to wizards of certain NPC merchants, nobles or mage guilds in his world; if he uses a lot of items that are heavily obfuscated; if he uses a lot of cursed items that don't appear cursed to start with; if he uses items who start out looking very common but whose magic potential increases as the bearer accomplishes goals and gains experience levels --- then your friend's system is going to be very unwieldy. I suppose that, if I were regularly risking my life as some kind of "adventurer" IRL, and my life could well depend on the quality of my equipment, equipment that is magical and therefore far less fungible than RL equipment --- I might well insist on long, complicated business meetings where each piece of loot was carefully appraised and allocated. But most PCs would rather spend that kind of time during gaming sessions engaged in combat or roleplay instead of the management of imaginary finances. Indeed, the difficulty in managing one's own RL finances is one of the RW pressures that many people engage in gaming (or other recreation) to ESCAPE from.
dedric 12-24-04, 02:21 PM	The group that I game with does things basically the way that SALDAR's does. We each roll a d20 every time there are enough magical items to divide between the group. Everyone picks in order until all the items are gone. If there is nothing left that you really want you are free to pass on the rest of the items but nobody ever does because items we do not want can be used for trading. Coins, gems, etc. are divided up evenly between the party. Sometime potions and such are kept as communal property but not always. It really just depends on what kind of mood everyone is in at the time. If two people want the same item then the highest roller is going to get the item. This happens fairly often but does not cause any major problems because everyone knows the rules going in. May not be the fairest way to do things, but at least it teaches some lessons about life, such as things are not always fair. This group has been together for about 14 years or so and this has always worked and none of the group wants to change things either. I think we get some twisted pleasure out of "stealing" an item that someone else wanted.
isaac anthony 12-24-04, 07:26 PM	Our group has been playing together for over 15 years and this system works well for us. Counting every copper piece and making sure every member of the party gets the exact same amount, in our experience, is not the point. The monetary value of magic items, although prescribed by the rules, doesn’t matter that much to us, a magic item to us is just that, an item with magical abilities, not a bag of coins. A longsword +5 (50,315gp) is of little value to a wizard compared to a Boccob’s Blessed Book (12,500gp), although, if the wizard ended up with the longsword he could sell it to by 4 books and no one in the group would argue. EXACTLY... i gave out a "cloak of charisma +2" one session, and it's INFINITELY more usefull to the bard than anyone else, thus it's value is greater to him. so far, the rest of the group has gone along with my "chaotic" alignment way of doing things, and it's worked out pretty well, EXCEPT: the stingy-@ss druid doesn't want to use his share of the treasure to help the party out. we have no rogue, and the cloak of elvenkind he has is the closest thing any of us has to being stealthy, but he doesn't want to be the scout. he wouldn't even let someone else use it temporarily to go scout for us. that lead to a "heated argument" which get's us absolutely nowhere. i think everyone should understand that they have a responsibility to the group to use their powers for everyones common good. all that being said: things worked out, because he cast a "stone shape" and the DM allowed him to go scout while in the wall (he's uber paranoid about getting "jumped" even though he keeps talking about how buff he is...)
happycows 12-24-04, 08:59 PM	Equal distribution is hard to do without metagaming. 1) you need to appraise check the item 2) bluff bluff diplomacy diplomacy 3) in the end the only one who gets their fair share is the rougue. You probably should distribute things through roleplaying. A wizard finding a wand might give it up if the rogue asks and says he'd like the magic back up. How about a rogue finding a +3 dwarvern waraxe... the dwarf fighter with weapon specialization dwarvern waraxe will be like ERRR THAT'S THE GREATEST WEAPON EVER... I COULD SURE USE THE DAMN THING TO EFFECTIVELY PULVERIZE ALL MY ENEMIES ERR I HAVE NO MONEY BUT IF YOU GIVE IT TO ME I PROMISE TO PUT ER TO GOOD USE ERR! In that case the rogue will probably just hand over the weapon... after all the dwarf is usually the tanker for the party and the rogue needs someone to flank with or someone to beat up the golem. Just do finders keepers except for gold. Split all gold evenly. Than if someone finds something someone else needs usually they'll ask for it and you'll hand it over (unless you're nuetral evil and see some selfish use for it that doesn't involve other members of the party being somewhere in that picture).
evangelion1010 12-24-04, 11:17 PM	Personally i think the DM should do his job to avoid the party having such disparity. First off, roleplaying wise, most characters in a party are looking out for themselves, unless they've been together for a while. This means that they look for treasure to be evenly divided up. To this end, the DM should not use random treasure generation as a staple, especially if the party is made up multiple spell casters and only 1 figher or something. I've seen the one fighter in the party be thousands upon thousands of GP ahead of most of the party, simply because he was the only real one who could use the items. Its not good for the party, and its generally not good for player morale, especially if the treasure tables cause one or two players to lag considerable in power just because they can only use a few select items. To remedy this problem, the DM should try to give 50-75% of the items out on purpose, and leave the rest as random. Either that or allow 15-25% higher sales price on items so the party doesn't feel so cheated when they are forced to sell the items to create party equality.
happycows 12-25-04, 12:06 AM	random generation is just more realistic. Personally I like the game to have some realism after all if enemies keep dropping wands or items for mages when most of the enemies are fighter types... it's kind of stupid. inequity is okay. Quit comparing yourselves to other members of the party. My gnome illusionist hardly got anything from treasure man I don't give a **** I don't *****. Well actually I did, but I was an illusionist and the staff I had was full of illusion spells... so I traded it in for a wand, gloves of dexterity, and something else. The rogue got quicker and emergency magic back up. We all pooled in money for the paladin to get his kick ass stuff. I don't really need anything.
isaac anthony 12-25-04, 02:05 AM	our group is pretty "diverse" in it's alignment line-up, so we really can't count on anyone doing the right thing. i'm CG, we have a LN monk (i think he play's more CN but whatever) a N druid, and we just picked up a LG paladin, so it should get even more interesting. i DM'd first so my character didn't have a strong personality, but now that i'm a PC, it's harder fiting in with other people of differing alignments. try DMing for a bunch of neutral characters sometime, it's TEH SUX!!! they have no sense of "moral responsibility" to save anyone. i had to keep giving them nudges in order to finish the "adventure" we were in, because they all had a personal agenda that they wanted to take care of. anyway, i'd like for us to get further away from the "metagaming" as well, i think if we role-played it more, it would make the game more interesting. we do a lot of the "cashing-in" out of character, and i think that makes for a less interesting game. as far as random generation vs. strategic placement. i think a combination of the two is best. some of the best games i've played had the characters adapt to what was given to them rather than just sell everything you found, and buy what you want. i don't thing the DnD setting is supposed to have any wal-mart type places you can just go to buy a shiny new "longsword +2". part of the reason i made my character more the "traditional" fighter/mage is because i realize that there are always going to be "fantasy" norms. i mean we all know that the chain is one of the best weapons in the game mechanic-wise, but it just seems munchkinish to make a fighter that starts off specializing in the chain (i can see it if you find a chain +2 somewhere). anyway, that's my rant for now...
evangelion1010 12-26-04, 08:40 PM	It really depends on alignment. N and CN characters aren't likely to go "yea, you take my share of the treasure, because it benefits the party..." The good alignments will probably tend to not care, so much as the cause they fight for is served. The lawful might think that buying the paladin tanking gear is good, because it prevents them from getting hurt so much in combat. Random items may be realistic, but i believe the selling price of 60% isn't. People who traded in magic items would easily be as rich as adventurers, with nearly 40% of any magic item's cost as pure profit, provided they prevent theft, which is partially the city's responsibility. Its also the line between making it realistic, and making the players happy. In the games i've played, those who lack magic items tend to get annoyed, especially if they aren't spellcasters - wow, i'm a full BAB class, and i only hit on a 20. Isn't my character awesome. About the only thing i'm good for is getting hit, which happens a lot, since my armor isn't that great.
masterofmayhem 12-26-04, 08:48 PM	wow, i'm a full BAB class, and i only hit on a 20. Isn't my character awesome. About the only thing i'm good for is getting hit, which happens a lot, since my armor isn't that great. Well then, if that's the case, it's the DMs job to make sure that . . . everyone only hits on a 20. Improved combat expertise on every monster helps with this. :angel::schemes:
FitzNighteyes 12-27-04, 12:14 PM	Every group I've played in and DMd uses the same loot distribution method: 1) Give known magic items to whomever needs it the most. Put in the sell pile if no one needs it or wants it. 2) Split the coinage immediately (as soon as is feasible given the carrying weight of the loot). 3) Sell everything (gems, art objects, magic items in sell pile) and split that value evenly. However, it is easy for someone to be left behind if magic item loot isn't usable, so other things that happen (based on PCs alignments): Common use items (healing potions, etc) tend to get passed from someone who has many to someone who has used theirs up; PCs chip in to purchase magic items (when purchasable) for someone who is under-equipped. I've never seen a loot distribution method in which magic items are divided up by value of the magic item used, most likely because that would require knowing the value of the item, which can fluctuate based on a lot of things. We never allow players to look up DMG prices, since they don't really apply in our campaigns for actual transaction prices, only for equipment load balancing.