Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Harmor 02-20-04, 04:56 AM	What have you guys done to fairly divide loot? I know a couple of you are CPA or something...do tell.
Heron_Marked_Blade 02-20-04, 06:17 AM	We have a treasure policy that I think is pretty common among gaming groups: 1) Calculate the value of the items we acquire. This is the price we can sell an item to a merchant for. 2) If a PC wants one of the items, he purchases it at the sale value. That money gets distributed among the other members of the group. The rest of the money (from the items that are sold to merchants) gets split evenly among the group members. This way a group member doesn't have to pay the DMG price for the item, but there's no argument over "I want that," "No, you got the +X longsword last time, so it's my turn now," etc.
Will Brandiman 02-20-04, 06:22 AM	We generally have an undignified scramble for magic items that we want followed by a short fight if 2 or more characters want the same thing. In the meantime the rogue is busily pilfering all the small valuable items and the monk is complaining that there's never any magical nunchakus.
Hasses 02-20-04, 07:36 AM	My group usually broke down into bickering and fisty cuffs over treasure. And I found that one of the reasons was that people were looking at the GP of items and somehow got the feeling they were being cheated. take for instance +2 sword (8000gp)and an amulet of turning (11000gp). Fighter grabs sword. cleric grabs amulet. well that was easy. and then the Players looks up GP value. "But that item is worth more....." ...and thus the bickering starts and greed rears its ugly head. here it seems like a measly 3000gp. However if it were a +3 battle axe of wounding, or a Crystal ball. The GP is looking pretty uneven. Player looks at his +2 ring of prot, then scopes out the smiling wizard in the corner with his new shiny crystal ball....thus the bickering starts and greed rears its ugly head. Then there is that bollocks in the DMG that a X level character should have X worth of GP. So players start scoping out how much other players have in total GP value. Forgetting they live in a custom world and the DMG is but a guideline..... thus the bickering starts and greed rears its ugly head. Tempers flare if the DM gets involved too. Example...item in play Circlet of Int..... Cleric says yes. Wizard says yes. The 2 characters square off and the DM says "The wizard should get it because....." .....thus the bickering starts and greed rears its ugly head. The break point was that the party forgot that they were a party. Synergy. Party needs all of its components in order be to strong. A few players forgot that. Give the fighter in the front the big +2 weapon of shocking because with it the fighter is a more effective combatant. It's not hard concept to grasp. Bugger the GP worth. It's the fact that Your figther in front can better defend you. Like I've being saying, The real fighting always took place after the battle in the divying up treasure. It got so bad that the entire group had to sit out one evening and draw up a bunch of rules on how to divy up treasure. So far they have worked. Here are our rules we now use: There are 4 types of treasure gained from any adventure/quest/encounter. 1) Information 2) Common items (found in any general shop) 3) Money (coins/bars/gems/art) 4) Magic Items This is an idea put forward to solve a few problems with party treasure distribution. Money: All money found is to be pooled. 10% of it is to be placed into a party "Slush fund". The rest is to be equally divided up amongst the party. Party may allow party members to accept art and gems in their prospective share. Or allow for purchase of art/gems. Party slush fund: Is a pool of money usable buy the entire party. Used for buying rooms, equipment, bribes, donations, entering tournaments etc.... (I.e.) Not for personal use. This total can be divided amongst the party or divided as party sees fit. Magic items: All items placed into the pool. Items are now under party decision as to the issuing. The guidelines for item distribution: 1) Usable. Is the item usable by the party member? Divine/arcane/alignment/class/race based items. Obviously with all party members having a fighter class weapons and armour are pretty much usable by all. Which brings in rule 2. 2) Need. Does the person really need the item? 'Want' is not 'need'. It is in the party's best interest that perhaps the true fighters upgrade to +2 weapons first. No item should be forced onto a character due to class or usage. 3) A flagging process can be adopted to create a fair distribution of items. Characters should be mindful of the generosity granted by the party and allow for a fair taking of the treasure. Characters should adopt a policy of "what goes around comes around". 4) Terms of use. The party expects that person to use that item for forever and a day. A grace period of x months is allowed. During this grace period the character should declare that he/she isn't happy with said item and place it back into the item pool. 5) Sale of items. Keeping rule 4 in mind, one expects the character to use the item for a period of time before one can sell. Party members must first try sell back to the party before selling to other prospective buyers. This allows the party to recoup its magic item. Obviously there will be exceptions to the rule. 6) Trade-ins. This is a good idea to keep the magic within the group. Obviously relying on good faith and generosity. Characters with a weaker version item may wish to put the item back into the item pool to upgrade. See rule 2,3,4. 7) Selling off of 'unwanted'/'unusable'/common magic items. Assuming that the party has agreed to the sale thereof. 5-10% of the money generated from the sale is placed into the party "slush fund". The rest is pooled for an “item fund” to purchase/upgrade magic items for the party. This would also include purchasing spells for the mage to write into spell books. Monies in the “item fund” should not be placed into the Money pool unless otherwise agreed upon by the party. 8) Party items. There will be items that will be beneficial to the entire party. Party decision to elect a person to carry said item. Said item it to be stored separately, if possible, from personal items to allow for party members to have access to the item. Example. Wand of Leodmans Tiny Hut. Bag of holding. In most circumstances wands will become party items. A caring party: All characters should select an item which they see as there next 'to get' magic item. be realistic. I'm not talking about spells. I'm talking about that one big item that will help the character to help the party in its endeavours. It would then be in the party's interests to help that character get this item. The party can help out the character afford the item he/she wishes to obtain/upgrade using the 'Item Fund'. There should be no guilt in accepting money in this fashion, because technically the money belongs to the party. AS you can see ...it's a touchy, 'all that glitters is not gold' subject.
Harmor 02-20-04, 07:54 AM	I'm in a party where we have a Barbarian that really hasn't received any items since he got his +1 Frost Greatsword. So when we receive items we just give him "gp" share. He's been saving up for an Adamantine Breastplate for about a month now.
Rugraknot 02-20-04, 08:04 AM	In a group I have played in the rules have been, who ever finds or kill who its on keeps it unless they cant us it. Now with me being a Monk 3/Wizard 7 in this group a few words spelt out who to the best treause : Fire Ball. I was not the best equiped player in that party becuas did not use armor or weapons but this is what I had: +4 Bracers of Armor, Amulet of DR/5, Gloves of +2 Dex, Head Band of +3 Wis, Ring of Sustanence. This was not much compaired to what the other players has but for a person mainly doing wizardry I was in Melle combining my Totch Attack Spells with my monk Martial Arts Feats (from OA) and it was like Flying Kick the Wizard for 1d8+3x2 + 1d6 Int, Wis and Cha damage from Totch of Idiocy. I dont know about anyone elses Wizards but doing that much from an unarmed attack i am justing is pritty good.
Hot Rod 02-20-04, 08:13 AM	Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade We have a treasure policy that I think is pretty common among gaming groups: 1) Calculate the value of the items we acquire. This is the price we can sell an item to a merchant for. 2) If a PC wants one of the items, he purchases it at the sale value. That money gets distributed among the other members of the group. The rest of the money (from the items that are sold to merchants) gets split evenly among the group members. This way a group member doesn't have to pay the DMG price for the item, but there's no argument over "I want that," "No, you got the +X longsword last time, so it's my turn now," etc. This is exactly what I do with my groups, and to heck with the thief trying to grab a bigger share, he (the player) agrees or finds a new group. (It might be realistic, but its not fun.) This also makes it easiest for th DM to track wealth in the campaign. and deturmine if the party is wealthier or poorer than the standard party. (for balancing encounter difficulty)
jasper 02-20-04, 09:05 AM	In the groups I played with in no order. 1. The regular players get first choice and hand down their own magic items. Cool I have a hackmaster +12. here jasper take my +6 hackmaster. or Cool a mace of disruption my thief could really use it here jasper is mine old +2 backstabber. Jasper'but i am a first edition cleric' 2.screaming shouting fits followed occasionally by real violence. 3. Dice for it regardless who can use it. 4. Who can use it gets first chance. 5. money split equally between group at end of night. 6 like 5 but the party kitty gets a share. party kitty used as need by all the group. 7. I kill them all, strip them, put everything in the portable hole and teleport home.
KShaver 02-20-04, 09:49 AM	For cash, gems, art, and unwanted items we sell and split evenly. If someone wants some of these items they come out of their share of the split. For magic items we determine who needs the item the most or who would be the most effective with it, and that the person who gets it. It isn't he most equal way of dividing magic items, but it is very effective.
lantzer 02-20-04, 10:05 AM	Well, our group is organized as an actual Adventuring Company in the Forgotten Realms, so we have treasure division laid out in the charter of the company of the Boar's Promise. Items of interest are set aside and ID'd from the party fund. Then they are given to whomever can make the best use of them, in the partie's opinion. Sometimes a little horsetrading is accomplished. Anything left over is kept until sold, or traded for IDs. Wealth in more liquid forms (cash, gems, etc) is divided into shares. Each official party member gets one share - the party fund gets 2 shares. The party fund is a set of packs on the back of my character's pack horse. His pack horse is very well protected, as a result. ;) ------- Other games I've been in were much less formal. A PC party is about the right size for a laid-back communist system to work. I've never run into those groups that seem to have trouble with treasure division.
pres_man 02-20-04, 10:08 AM	7. I kill them all, strip them, put everything in the portable hole and teleport home. [/B] Unfortunately one of them had a bag of holding. Boom! :rofl: For my current party this is less of an issue for role playing reasons. We'll sometimes turn down powerful items because we feel that it does not go with our character. Most of the money is stored in a general fund and used as things come available. My GM is pretty tight on what is available in what towns, so a town may only have an item usable for one character. We pool together get the character the item and then get somebody else a different item in the next town. Though I realize that treasure can be a divisive thing. We had a player leave over it (not just it, but it was the last straw). Of course this player brought the problem on himself. He wanted to take turns picking items from the treasure. Then he'd pick items that other characters could use, but his could not. He'd then have the other characters buy it from him or he'd sell it. Meanwhile the other character is :uh-huh: . After this occurring several times (ok, maybe 2 or 3 times), the other player said, "I take this item before everybody notices." To which he asked, "You're not going to put it in the pool to be picked from." "No." "Oh, is that how it's going to be?" "Yes." At which point he got up and left. Had he addressed the party's needs first, and then his needs second, then the other player wouldn't have had to feel they had to snatch the item. Also the player had had a different character that was always grapping the magic items (he was a magic user at the time and wanted to study them). Needless to say nobody felt bad about losing a hypocrite. I like the idea that for a party (especially one that is together for a long time) that the items are actually the party's and not the player actually using them at the time. So if a fighter wants a spiked chain instead of his greatsword, he can't just go and sell the sword. First he has to make sure that nobody else wants it, and then if they do he gets funding from the party as a whole for the spiked chain.
The Ferryman 02-20-04, 01:15 PM	My group does much the same thing Heron stated. Everything is thrown into a pile, gold is split up evenly among all party members. Each item is appraised or identified, and can be purchased from the pile. If an item is purchased, the gold is split among the rest of the group. If two or more members wish to purchase the same item, they bid on it; highest bidder takes it. Any items left unpurchased in the pile are sold at the next city and the gold is split. Sometimes there is a "party fund" that gets an equal share, sometimes not. Seems pretty fair.
Eldren 02-21-04, 02:50 AM	The way we tend to do things is we just look at the items we have after we've amassed a decent haul (we don't stop every night and cast Analyze Dweomer; we wait til we have enough items to make casting the spell worthwhile). If there's an item that can obviously be best used by a particular member of the party (such as a Holy Avenger, and a Paladin is in the party), then the item goes to that character. Otherwise, if there are items that no one wants, we sell them, and split the cash amongst our individual PCs, and let each PC buy what they can afford and want for their character. To discourage massive purchasing of magic items rather than adventuring for them, our DM has ruled that purchasing magic items costs twice the listed value in the Dungeon Master's Guide, at least in the city we're in. Frequently, however, my 13th level aasimar Paladin, with a Charisma of 23 and maxed out ranks in Diplomacy, can frequently get the prices a bit lower. We attempt to maintain a resurrection slush fund, since we've had some PCs dying a bit more frequently than we'd like recently (two PCs primarily, but we're aware it could happen to any one of us). We try to keep enough money in this slush fund for two castings of True Resurrection, since at this point no one is very keen on losing a level from being brought back from the dead. Our DM has house-ruled True Resurrection back to 3.0 for purposes of cost, unless the spell is the only thing that can bring someone back, in which case it costs as per 3.5 rules. Beyond that slush fund, we portion out monetary treasure equally. We've also used the slush fund for other things; after a battle with a nasty spellgaunt, my Paladin's +1 cold iron Holy Evil Outsider Bane greataxe was depowered. The DM ruled that Wish could restore the power. So we used the money to have that Wish cast for my Paladin, as we concluded that her weapon being restored to power was a worthy expenditure of the party funds. In the meantime, she just had the Cleric cast Greater Magic Weapon on the masterwork cold iron axe, and he was high enough level that she got a +4 axe that lasted for 16 hours a day. The loss of the Holy trait wasn't even all that nasty, as she has the Exalted feat "Sanctify Martial Strike", which does +1d4 of damage against evil outsiders and evil undead, or just plain +1 damage against all evil creatures. It's quite nice. :angel:
The Concrete Dragon 02-21-04, 03:18 AM	Originally posted by KShaver For cash, gems, art, and unwanted items we sell and split evenly. If someone wants some of these items they come out of their share of the split. For magic items we determine who needs the item the most or who would be the most effective with it, and that the person who gets it. It isn't he most equal way of dividing magic items, but it is very effective. We typically do the exact same thing, though we sometimes skew the cash shares if one character is ending up with a really disproportionate inventory. We also offer the Diviner an extra half share of the cash in order for him to keep his spellbook up, and to make some miscellaneous scrolls and potions to free up his spell slots.
Starcrossed 02-21-04, 05:31 AM	The groups that I play in have a gold split that is equal, with an additional equal share being put in a group fund carried by our chosen "treasurer". The group fund pays ship passage and things like that so that players don't have too. We rarely have hard feelings or sharing problems. So mostly its a character gets what they need/want. Their old item it replaces goes into group fund for split. Some classes kind of are considered high ups on needing an item.(It makes me feel like my former EQ time...) But basically with say rings of protection..."tanks" get them first even though all use and need ac. Yet the melees are the ones that should be getting hit. So if say a plus 5 ring is aquired, the tank type gives up their old plus 4 to say the cleric or wizard that is still using a plus 3. If its something more than one can use or wants its discussed. I don't think people really look at item value so much as just how much of a value it is to their character. We once in awhile have hard feelings. Yet others pretty freely share their gold with those that really need to buy a certain item. Oh and with wizards and clerics, the group fund buys utility spells like cures, and buffs, teleports , etc. The wizard buys their own spells for other uses/damage/just because they want it.
Nom 02-21-04, 08:27 AM	The groups I've played with (largely the same players) tend to be very co-operative. Items are viewed as group property, and doled out to interested parties. If no-one wants the item, it becomes "disposable treasure" and is converted to coin / slush with the rest of the stuff. Coin is generally split evenly, though the party often maintains a common slush fund (to pay for lodging and "party expenses"). On occasion, someone really short-changed in item divvying will be given extra money. Money given to characters (as opposed to the slush fund) is usually considered their own perogative, though characters have been known to gift and/or loan each other funds.
Mister Mayhem 02-21-04, 08:56 AM	I always have the PCs come to whatever arrangent suits them, in character. Usually it is the standard "fair-share, buy it if you want it arrangement". evil DMs can have a great deal of fun with this - drop in an item that somebody will desperately want, but that is way too much for any one member of teh party to afford, and watch the fun But there is also scope for items that belong to the party as a whole but that happen to be carried by whomever will get the best use out of them. EG the fighter gets to use best weapon, the cleric gets to wear the best armour, and the wizard gets to weild the offensive wands because that benefits the whole party. But the items still belong to the group as a whole, and if they are eventually replaced and sold, everyone gets a share.
Perseus 02-21-04, 10:55 AM	Whoever can get the most use from it gets it. If there's a dispute, we roll for it. The loser gets dibs on the next haul.
Ertai Planeswalker 02-21-04, 11:42 AM	Basically, the one who can use an item the best gets it, and the rest is just sold. From everything that is sold, every partymember gets an equal share. It's up to the DM to make sure there's some cool stuff for every partymember every now and then. This means, that in general, spellcasters usually get more treasure than non-spellcasters, but they also use it every now and then on another partymember os it doesn't matter. A barbarian will never 'use' his +2 wounding greataxe on a partymember, so it's no biggie that he gets a little less. Whatever increases overall party strength is best. I really HATE playing with ppl who want to divide all treasure equally up to every single cp.
Thorak 02-21-04, 06:55 PM	I've had my share of run-ins with the "I found it, I keep it" thief/rogues. Had one in my last campaign. I was playing a LN monk who caught him yoinking the goods at one point, so I suggested to the group that we tie the thief up, find all the stuff he's stashed, divvy it up fairly, and make sure he gets his fair share out of it. The thief was less than pleased, but it evened out. In most cases though, we use a "Does anyone need this?" system, with a "How badly?" if there's more than one. Gold and such goes to whoever can carry that much, but it's generally considered to be party goods. This prevents the ridiculous "Well, the paladin already got the +5 full plate, so the party mage gets the greatsword +5 Holy Avenger." aspect of equal-division-to-the-GP. Alternatively, when the party searches a room, we all roll search checks. Highest check (usually the rogue) gets the first random roll. And so on down the chain. The rogue still often finds more, but he doesn't necessarily get the best stuff, and our DM throws in a LOT of random junk. My monk still has a non-magical tassled purple carpet from the last campaign. He had a portable hole too, so he kept a lot of random junk. And there's always snickers all around when the rogue gets a massive search check result, goes first, and finds a piece of broken pottery. And then, when everyone's got a bunch of stuff, we trade it around, basing it more on rough value and utility than actual GP value. Or keep the random magical stuff noone really wants, and trade it in when we get a city visit.
Dartanel 02-21-04, 08:49 PM	Let's see: The campaign I run: When the loot is gathered, the Chaotic Neutral fighter meticulously catalogues and itemizes the treasure. He then doles out the cash and says that the party would get X gp from selling the items. The other PCs can then buy the items by paying their sale value to everyone else. The massively variant D&D game I play in: The young prince takes a look at all our loot, then decides that X person should get y item. The rest of the PCs then debate with him for a couple minutes that it would actually work better in the hands of z person. Then the party's diplomat asks him nicely to give it to z person and he relents. The more traditional game I play in. The person who finds the item decides who should get it.
Felgraf2 02-21-04, 09:02 PM	This can be a problem, depending on the type of group you play with. With my main group, we generally roll for initiative to see who grabs the magical items, and then tend to swap and sort until everyone gets what they need. If an item is sold, the money is generally distributed among the party members. We've also been known to give money to each other to help them get a particular item they might need, if we don't really need the money ourselves. As a whole, we realize that the party functions best when all of the members are at their full potential. But this method tends to only work with parties that get along quite well...
Dazmiuth 02-21-04, 09:08 PM	Originally posted by Will Brandiman We generally have an undignified scramble for magic items that we want followed by a short fight if 2 or more characters want the same thing. In the meantime the rogue is busily pilfering all the small valuable items and the monk is complaining that there's never any magical nunchakus. for some reason that nunchakus comment made me spit my tea all over my screen. Thanks for the laugh.
HorrorOfYig 02-21-04, 10:03 PM	I base the treasure-splitting method I use on the alignment of my character as per the 2nd edition players handbook. It's fun. Most of my characters seem to be manipulative power-mongers, though, so that means I use whichever method that profits my character the most.
Haradim 02-21-04, 10:05 PM	Generally, all of the loot is either provided directly to a character, or just ends up getting distributed to the 'right places'. I've never really had to worry about it.
Brillock of Ithicus 02-22-04, 05:48 AM	I had a DM who decided, that he would give our good sorcerer one of those black robes of archimage, because black was a cool color, and he gave him one of those orbs that gives you several extra spell slots to prepare your spells in a day. At the time that he gave us the black robe of archimage i (a bard) asked for the robe, and put it on BAM level loss. WOOOOOHHHH (in the most keeanu reaves soudning voice i could) cool! This is mine. (it didn't do anything for me, but the DM had a tendancy to level us up 2 times a night so the loss in level was a refreashing experience.) NEEDLESS TO SAY WE KICKED THAT DM OUT OF OUR GROUP! (thats a joke) so far though treasure for our group has gone this way. My wizard character with his friendly party of a paladin and a fighter, keeps those two pumped up with magic goods, and I reap the benefits... however i personally don't like the idea of give what works to who ever. because the fighter can benefit from a circlet of intelligence or an amulet of wisdom just like a wisard could. (helps out saves in the wisdoms case. intelligence grants better search checks). So, the moment my wizard comes across that longsword + 4 its mine! meta game insert here: because i need a +4 weapon to negate my -4 for being not proficient! really though thats part of making truly unique characters... adding flare that the enemy underestimates... such as the AXE carrying Wizard level 5. (true strike :) ) or the fighter who walks around with a hump on his back due to all the wait from the books. The wizard dwarf who has ungodly ammounts of hit points... however, its usually safe to play the normal characters you know half orc barbarian, human fighter, elven wizard... that sorta thing... i guess...
Kronk LaSworda 02-23-04, 03:19 PM	Originally posted by Harmor What have you guys done to fairly divide loot? I know a couple of you are CPA or something...do tell. Two words: Party Charter. The party should sit down and decide how to "split the loot" long before any adventuring is done. Shares is the simplest method. Everyone gets a cut. If a person wants an item worth more than their share, they have to pay out of their pocket. The simpler, the better.
Capn Charlie 02-23-04, 03:30 PM	After once seeing a grand melee break out over the first magic item in a game( Ring +1) I had them meet up with a Gnome Cleric of Waukeen(Commerce, Merchants). In need of a cleric they ask if she will join up with them. So she asks to see their adventuring charter. Of course they have no idea so she then introduces them to the wonderful way of waukeen. Step One: Define the current venture, usually whatever occurs in a period between two breaks(downtime in town), or maybe a contract or dungeon expedition. Step Two: Find the numbers of all participants, and assign them shares status. in your case, 7 whole shares and 1 half share(if it is a cohort, if a full npc of character level then they are full as well depending on agreement) Step Three: adventure. Any items found can be temporarily used after being found, as long as they are permanent, or are noted if limited use. Appraise is handy here but more on that in a minute. Step four: Once the venture has ended and the adventurers pool all spoils, and rewards. All items are appraised and the total value of the spoils for the venture is obtained. All non cash items are given values of what would be obtained by their sale, not market value. Variant: If the group is amiable the hoard is all profit. All expenses (i.e. material components, equipment maitenence et al) are deducted first. Step Five: Divide the value so as to give an equal share to each player. If for example the hoard total comes out to 165, 400 gp each of the full share venturers recieve 22,151.78 gp, and the Half share venturer recieves 10,337.5 gp. Step Six: If anyone is interested in any items they can "buy" them from the pile for what would have been obtained for their sale. At the discretion of the other venturers personal coin and possibly future shares can also be bid. Step Seven: If multiple venturers want the same item they "bid" from their share until one is left, they recieve the item and what they bid is put back in the hoard and is divided amongst the rest. Spellbooks and scrolls are found able to be sold for 12,500 gp, the wizard can take those as 12,500 gp worth of his share, and if noone else wants them they are given to the wizard and he is still entitled to 9651.78 gp of treasure. Step Eight: Repeat steps 6-8 until noone else is interested in items. Step Nine: All remaining loot is sold, and the coinage is totaled and everyone recieves their total remaining treasure value in coin. Temples of Waukeen are pleased to buy all appraised(by them) items at half of appraised market value. They often have stocks of material acquired thus for perusal by players. They can buy Items at full market value. Temples of waukeen do all accounting and record holding for adventurers for free. Being the only such reputable institution for such transactions, and thus able to often easily double their money on most loot, is all the payment their church needs. Sure it is a very realmsian solution, but it works in my game.
Eldren 02-23-04, 09:09 PM	Your system, while a bit in-depth for my tastes, is pretty cool, but I don't really see the need to assign a cash value to spellbooks, unless there's more than one Wizard in the party. If there's only one (and there usually is only one), then if you find a spellbook, it makes about as much sense to give him a chance to not have it as giving a Rogue a chance to have a Holy Avenger when there's a Paladin standing right there salivating. In other words, the Wizard is the only one who can use the spellbook, so it only makes sense to give the spellbook to the Wizard. If it contains some spells that the Wizard already has, then the Wizard agrees to "sell" those spells he/she already has, and the value of those sold spells is then split up amongst the party (if you're in the Realms, there's always someone who wants to purchase spells if any town at least the size of Shadowdale).. Otherwise, pretty cool system. :)
Capn Charlie 02-24-04, 02:10 AM	Just because only one member of a party can use something is no reason for them to automatically get it. Ok, quell your knee jerk reaction to scream, and let me explain. If a hoard of treasure acumulated in, say, a dungeon crawl for instance, contains a desirable item of approximately equal value, and a bunch of coins the system of giving the appropriate item to each party member works just fine. However, if you use published adventures, roll randomly for treasure, or have multiple party members that desire the same item, problems arise. I, for one, would rather not put out a linear advancement of wealth with the exact right amount of magic and treasure so it all goes perfectly smoothly. Using my system of treasure dividing I am free to just throw out treasure and let catch as catch can. Also by allowing the pcs access to "magic shops*" I don't have to keep up with making sure they have tools appropriate for the job**. If a treasure hoard has a magic shield, holy avenger, ring of invisibility, Holy Symbol of Undead turning, and a rock, I am fairly certain that most adventurers aren't going to be happy with the paladin, rogue and cleric get cool stuff, and be content with their rock. Sure the paladin should get the shield, and sword, the rogue should get the ring, and the cleric the symbol. But what does the wizard get? Sure the paladin will be bertter able to defend him, but if the shield is sold the wizard can get a few new spells and that wand he's been eyeing. Not many characters (and even fewer players!) are happy to get nothing while the rest of the group gets nice new stuff. Often times many smaller items spread around the party is better than one big item on one party member. As for spell books, of course the wizard can scribe the scrolls out of them before they are sold, but if they want to keep them(if you use the captured spellbook rules), or think they can find a better buyer for them through a contact he has, then they have to pay. Also, all told, the rules keep players( or characters!) from getting shafted, or even feeling they were. *In my game the stereotypical magic shop with two ef every item, and an unlimited amount of gold to buy things does not really exist. Temples, wizard acadamies, and the occasional merchant might have a few items, but odds are it isn't exactly what you're looking for. And each instance can only, or will only, buy so much. A +1 keen longsword might show up, but a +2/+3 keen/ ghost touch/squirrel bane gnome hook hammer isn't going to be in stock. However you can find a wizard, or priest that might construct your item if the price is right. Potions, scrolls, and some wands are often "in stock". Having quarter million gp items in stock is just not possible, but then neither is having desirable items that everyone refuses to sell or buy. **The main old school convention is giving anti fire items before the heroes tackle a red dragon. Placing potions or scrolls of stone to flesh in medusa lairs. While some dms might enjoy having the weight of being sute the pcs have what they need to win, I do not. If my players are going into a volcano and don't have anti fire potions, it is their own damn fault for not buying them, not mine for not being sure there were some in the last pile of loot.
Starcrossed 02-24-04, 04:11 AM	I just worry about any group that needs such detailed rules to get along. I mean, the ones that need an item should get it. Other stuff should be evenly split. The players should notice when someone isn't getting as much, and go about making sure they do aquire what they need. Aren't they supposed to be in it together? I guess it just doesn't sound very friendly both in or out of character if they have problems enough with sharing that they need to make such strict rules.
Capn Charlie 02-24-04, 04:30 AM	I have a shifting group of around 8-10 players, a such I never know which 4-5 are going to show up that week. I am unable to plan adventures that ensure that the players get what they need, since one week I may be wizard heavy then the next be all fighter types and a cleric. Just so you know, the ones who could best use an item are the ones to get it most of the time. They just don't get it, and a full share of the rest of the loot. Think about it, if you risked life and limb, heck even your soul, then when it's ll over you get... a rock! I know I would not be pleased.
Starcrossed 02-24-04, 08:25 AM	I guess that depends on your characters motivation on whether or not getting nothing item/money wise is worth the life and limb that you risked. So that I suppose needs to figure in to what a person wishes. Their characters alignments I mean. With such a varied group I understand your situation better now. With my groups its always a set group week after week. Since nearly every member has also been friends, and roleplaying group members for many years, well I guess we have it much easier than some.
Obormot 02-24-04, 10:31 AM	One of the things that makes my group so fun to DM for is that they don't split loot. Yeah, you heard right - there's no invidual loot at all, per se. Whenever any treasure is found, whoever needs any particular magic gets it, and the rest, including any cash, is placed in the party's Bag of Holding. Since buying magic items is not really a viable option, the party also crafts whatever items any of the characters need - there are two spellcasters with several item crafting feats, and item creation goes on almost constantly, whenever there's a break in the action. There's never squabbling about loot; the idea is that what makes any group member stronger, makes the group stronger. But then, the game does take place in Russia...
Ipsissimus 02-24-04, 12:28 PM	Hmmm, we basically tally up all the treasure and split without any trouble. Priority items go to character tha either need or benefit from it most. Naturally if a fighter has a +2 sword and we find a +3 or greater weapon in general he gets first pick. If it were say gloves of dex +2 and the rogue and ranger both want it, we put the contested item on the bottom of the split pile. There might be something else either wants more than the other. We've never had an issue with equipment though. 99% of the time, arcane scrolls default to the arcane caster and divine scrolls to the divine caster. Sometimes a few go to character than have use magic device etc, or the scrolls just get sold and split. Not much need for a lvl 3 magic missle scroll when the mage is 12th level. It's usuall the misc magic and rings that get the most bids. We're all pretty civilized about it. If a player can justify the need greater than the other, we vote. At the end, once all the treasure is split the rest of the unclaimed items are grouped, sold, and the gold is split. We also have a group fund incase of death and such. Most times either a percentage of gold or an uneven split is allocated towards that...convienantly in Leomund's Secrect Chest. There are nights when the fighter type gets 2-3 decent items just because he needs it more or the treasure was rolled that way. It seems pointless to argue, these are your party memebers and most likely old buddies. As long as it's going to benefit the group, I don't care who it goes too. There have been times when everyone votes for me to get an item. It's funny...sniff sniff, can you feel the love? Our DM though sometimes curves the randomly rolled treasure to give some balance to the players character wealth. This keeps everyone fairly in balance with each other and close to their CR. Our mage was almost double his character wealth for sometime and seemed to no longer fear certain hazards most casters face. As a result, arcane scrolls, wands, and treasure that was common became uncommon and rare on the DM's treasure chart. We're all basically content with the amout of treasure found and divided. It's alittle more realistic when we try to buy uncommon and greater magical items in the realms. Think, would you be willing to sell this item if you had it? That's how the avaliabilty of something might be...nothing says you can't have the item made or make it yourself though.
pres_man 02-24-04, 04:49 PM	Originally posted by Ipsissimus Think, would you be willing to sell this item if you had it? That's how the avaliabilty of something might be...nothing says you can't have the item made or make it yourself though. If party members were selling items that other members could use right at that moment, then I'd be strongly tempted as a DM to make it so those sold items couldn't be bought or made for a long time. Fighter: I take the headband of intellect +2 and sell it. Wizard: :OMG! (5 sessions later) Wizard: I'd like to purchase a headband of intellect +2. Shopkeeper: Sorry don't have any maybe the local mage can make you one. Wizard: I'd like to purchase a headband of intellect +2, I was informed you might have one or could make it. Mage: Sorry, I don't have any and can't make them. Now if you had one that was +2, I could increase it to +4, but I can't make one. Wizard: :headexplo Fighter: Hey wiz, you find what you were looking for? :) Wizard: :mage: Fighter gets blasted with multiple spells.
FlyingCowKing 02-24-04, 05:04 PM	The only fair way to divide treasure for a bickering group is let the DM melt all magical and mundane treasure into a cube, cut the cube into equal sized slices, and pass them around! /nod
Krelios 02-24-04, 05:13 PM	take for instance +2 sword (8000gp)and an amulet of turning (11000gp). Fighter grabs sword. cleric grabs amulet. well that was easy. and then the Players looks up GP value. That was your first mistake. Really folks, I have been playing for almost 10 years, and I have NEVER had a problem dividing treasure. Maybe it's because I play with people that I like outside of the game (i.e. friends), but we just let whoever can use an item have it and sell the rest to keep in a party fund. If there happens to be more than one person who can use the item, then it's usually just settled by who would have more chance to use it for the benefit of the entire group, though we rarely double up on classes. I am sorry if your groups devolve into squabbling or violence whenever treasure is found, but if I were DMing (or playing) when that happened, whoever was involved would have their :censored::censored::censored::censored: :censored: on the curb and not be invited back. It's not a competition with the other players, it's a cooperative effort.
pres_man 02-24-04, 05:20 PM	It's not a competition with the other players, it's a cooperative effort. Unless your playing D&D survivor. :D
Krelios 02-24-04, 05:23 PM	Originally posted by pres_man Unless your playing D&D survivor. :D ROFLMAO. That's so accurate to some groups described on this board it's scary... "Give me that +2 sword, spell-boy, or you're off the island!"
Capn Charlie 02-24-04, 05:36 PM	Wow, I had no idea that so many people played in games where all the pcs got along perfectly with no friction. I guess players not willing to sublimate sense of personal self for self of group are rarer than I thought. If it makes any difference my players tend to have characters that are rugged individualists that band together for some greater purpose but chafe at having to suppress their own urges to go their own way. This often results in intra party squabbles over the right way to do things. Much to my amusement of course. In my game most of the roleplaying is player to player, not pc to npc. Makes things a bit easier on me, and my players love it. But then my group has almost never had a lawful character in it with alignment ranging from CG to CE with most being CN, or CG. I guess in a land of fluffy bunny rabbits and hollywood golden era happy endings this could work. My game tends to be a bit gritty, with shades of gray. Characters in my game tend to be less Avengers and more Defenders.
Krelios 02-24-04, 05:46 PM	I guess in a land of fluffy bunny rabbits and hollywood golden era happy endings this could work. My game tends to be a bit gritty, with shades of gray. Characters in my game tend to be less Avengers and more Defenders. Well I do object to your implied insults, but that's your right. I am not saying that my group always gets along and never argues, but I am saying that we are experienced enough players to trust each other and know that arguing over the gold piece value of loot is trivial and detracts from the game. I don't see how party in-fighting contributes to your "gritty" game.
pres_man 02-24-04, 06:21 PM	Wow, I had no idea that so many people played in games where all the pcs got along perfectly with no friction. I guess players not willing to sublimate sense of personal self for self of group are rarer than I thought. The games I have played in have a lot of intercharacter friction. But I have rarely played in a game with stupid players. In the wilderness, a magic sword in hand is worth more than gold in the pocket. Immediate usefulness should always take precedence over money value. If it makes any difference my players tend to have characters that are rugged individualists that band together for some greater purpose but chafe at having to suppress their own urges to go their own way. This often results in intra party squabbles over the right way to do things. Much to my amusement of course. In my game most of the roleplaying is player to player, not pc to npc. Makes things a bit easier on me, and my players love it. Sounds fun. The characters in my parties have been known to get down right violent (subdual only) with one another over differing views. But then my group has almost never had a lawful character in it with alignment ranging from CG to CE with most being CN, or CG. Oh..., well if you have good characters running around with evil ones for any extended period of time, then treasure is probably the least of your worries, or should be if everybody is playing in character. I guess in a land of fluffy bunny rabbits and hollywood golden era happy endings this could work. My game tends to be a bit gritty, with shades of gray. Characters in my game tend to be less Avengers and more Defenders. A land filled with Monty Python bunnies is a very scary place, believe me. :D I tend to play in games with most of the characters being good. Non-good characters who repeatedly don't watch out for the group good are removed. This I think is pretty realistic. Good folk are going to want everybody to do well, not just themself. What good does it do a wizard to have lots of stuff, only to have an ogre toss aside the fighters and begin wailing on him? Besides if you take something solely to sell for monetary value, then other characters might start looking at you for only your monetary value. Fighter is surrounded and quickly going down. Wizard remembers how fighter sold those bracers of armor he wanted. Wizard fireballs the mob. Fighter dies from fire damage. "Oops, did I do that? Oh well, let's take his things. I remember there is a town near here with some bracers that I want. :devil: "
Starcrossed 02-25-04, 03:59 AM	I don't understand the insult against players that actually get along. In fact, I just have a very hard time of understanding why most adventurers would band together as adventurers for any length of time if they didn't like and trust each other. I can understand the short "We have save the world" random people tossed together sort of groups. But...eventually either those people would bond together tightly , or they would split up. The fact that the people in the roleplaying group are likely friends out of character makes this even harder to understand. Why would they be wanting to roleplay characters that are greedy and selfish against people that out of character are their friends? Feelings could get hurt,and well, it just generally doesn't sound very fun. The very few times that I have been in campaigns with more neutral characters then good I just didn't have as much fun. I guess I play epic fantasy games like the Forgotten Realms to be a hero and play with heroes. Evil groups are well, just really not something that I have ever wanted to play in. As a gamemaster I get to be the evil side plenty enough. When playing spending a game session thinking of ways to backstab my "friends" just doesn't seem like a fun night. I don't have problems with people that do play this way. Its just in 20 years of gaming I have never seen or experienced groups that treated each other that way. Heck even in groups that I have or do play in with people that I don't like out of character, I roleplay friends with. Now I also will note that this is my view on DnD. DnD is an epic fantasy game. I see it as a save the world sort. I guess maybe others might see it as more of a gather loot sort. Maybe after so long of playing that just doesn't appeal to me. Now my setting that I game master IS dark, and its gritty. Thats all the more reason why the groups need to like and trust each other. Because they can't trust anyone else.I also play the White Wolf games, and some of them thats a different story. Yet, again, if someone is hated by the rest, they can just be killed off easily enough. So you have to have some kind of at least semi friendliness amoungst the groups to avoid them murdering each other.
Capn Charlie 02-25-04, 05:41 AM	Originally posted by Krelios Well I do object to your implied insults, but that's your right. I am not saying that my group always gets along and never argues, but I am saying that we are experienced enough players to trust each other and know that arguing over the gold piece value of loot is trivial and detracts from the game. I don't see how party in-fighting contributes to your "gritty" game. Such a thing is bad? The game I run for a group at the local game store is along such lines. However my players got over the whole perfect hero thing a while back. Characters that have motivations beyond doing the right thing, and being boy scouts or whatever lost it's appeal. That and the PLAYERS are generally of a chaotic nature. It is not petty for a character to expect their rightful due. And in a world where there might not be a magical item waiting for your character around the corner, then wanting a fair share of loot is realistic. My players DON'T quibble and bicker over every gold piece. They don't have to. They have a nice system that allows them to ensure that loot is divided up in a fair manner. It is hard to feel alienated and under appreciated if your well being and reward is just as high of a priority as the other party members. If all that is liberated frrom a dungeon is wizardly gear, is it a good Idea to stack all of the magical power that a party has acquired on one person? Eggs in one basket, and all. Also if there is a significant portion of magical gear on one person then that person has to carry the weight. Being in tattered rags while a nice new shield is found for the fighter, and it matches his magic armor and sword very nicely. How does it make your character feel seeing how after battles that get harder and harder on them it gets easier and easier for other characters. Soon you are just riding on their coattails, serving some uses, but not being able to do so as effectively as the others. I don't care how mature a player is, having things like this happen will grate upon them. If they die in a battle they should have survived if not for not having the equipment that a character of their level is expected to have, how will they react? Will they be thrilled that their gruesome end kept the fighter decked out in magic from getting any orc splatter on their fancy duds? Perhaps there is a misconception on how things work with my system. Nothing is liquedated until the PCs are in a place ready to settle in for some down time. They don't put useful items in the "sell" bag down in a dungeon. The haphazard system of catch as catch can rules down there. But when it's all over, the dragon is slain and they are back in their base, then they divvy up things. When it is feasible to trade a single powerful item for items of moderate power for the group it is often prudent to do so. The group also has "party" items. The first thing they did when they were able to afford it was to create a Portable Hole. It is the parties'. Just because the group is chaotic does not mean that this is some power crazed spawn straight from diablo2. The assumption that players who want to have nice things are power gamers has always angered me. Ooh, they sold that perfectly good longsword and bought a greatsword, they must be power gamers! Go back to your video games! So what if they just want to enchant the Two Handed sword that their father gave them. So what if he spent a feat or two already, that just means he is a min maxer trying to powergame. There is nothing wrong with players wanting their character to be effective. Why pointlessly gimp a character in the name of roleplaying? My players are also strong proponents of Item Creation rules. They would much rather sell an item and use the procedes to further enchant their favorite blade, than cast aside their favorite weapon. My players see the XP costs as more than adequate for having style. Just because a magic short sword is found is no reason for the rogue to toss aside his MW rapier. Being able to look nice, and not like ragtag scavengers in mismatched regalia is the greatest boon of 3e to me. Perhaps, not, but it is nice.
Hasses 02-25-04, 05:55 AM	First off our group, we are all friends. There is no 'rent a player' or Dm, Scope out the local hobby shop for groups in the area. Who we have is who we have. So there is no kicking to the curb. You know Krelios, it's only 2 out of the 5 that have this issue with treasure hand out. And the daft thing that they have this bend idea of trying to keep things fair. An admirable and noble gesture. And one can see their point of view. Things like potions and scrolls are pretty much divided evenly. gold coin is dished out easily enough. Its when those big items hit the table. Being 10th - 13th level the master work stuff is sold. and +1 stuff usually hits the to sell bag. But then you get the 'Solomans baby' of an item. Whack ...and there it is....3 Battle axe of wounding. Whack....and there it is.....Crystal Ball. If sold these items could fetch a large wad of cash and with that cash characters could purchase ogles of stuff or upgrade current items. However if the item is given to said character and a week down the line that character sells that item, the entire party losses out on potiental treasure they should have had. plus the benefit of the item that was sold. This proceeding is also compounded by the fact that all characters have a fighter class: fighter/mage , psion/fighter, fighter, cleric/paladin, cleric/fighter. Means weapons and armour are not just for the meat shields in the front. but only the mage can uses those arcane scrolls and wands. Same of the clerics. Here the fighter has the potential to lose the most. And as a consequence wishes a fair equal cut.
Starcrossed 02-25-04, 06:07 AM	Of course there is nothing wrong with the players wanting their fair share. Of course having all the items on one person is bad. I think where some of us get confusion on why those systems are needed in such detail is that in campaigns we play in everything is fair and equal. Yet no system is needed. The players just share and help each other aquire what they need to improve themselves. I don't know if my posts brought up the reference to any suggestions of powergamers. I however don't feel at all that wanting your characters to improve suggests powergaming. Nor that anything anyone said so far sounds like powergaming. Maybe I am just spoiled by groups that have played together for so many years that they work so well together. As we very rarely have anything that even resembles a loot debate. Yet there is no system, and all get what their characters both need , and want. I sort of feel some sympathy for a group that would have difficulties with something that is to me so silly to mess with debating.
Hasses 02-25-04, 07:05 AM	Starcrossed. From Levels 1-6 there wasn't a hitch. players were only to happy to get some magic items. but as levels increased so did the power of magic items. +1 swords are now back up weapons. Figthers quaff cure wound potions by the gallon. Casters have spells hidden all over their personage. However random treasure means never really getting exactly what you want. GP though can get exactly what you need. Since writing up all those rules. The party has gone back to it old style of: you need you get. The daft thing is I doubt they even rememeber what the rules are. :rolleyes:
Starcrossed 02-25-04, 07:12 AM	I guess thats a problem with totally random treasure. I kmow it is often easier for just tossed in things. But it tends to cause some chaos maybe if a DM doesn't help with the ballance at least a bit more. When I DM I give an NPC what I think they would use. Yet I still try to keep in mind things the players need/might want too. It maybe helps decrease possible fighting. More work for a DM is more happiness with the players I guess at least for me. Oh and Hasses my comments I don't always tend to quote to. So some of what I said was to others too. I wasn't against anything that you said at all. I actually admire such detail to making up rules on looting. I am just grateful that I never needed to do the same.
Elf_NFB 02-25-04, 08:00 AM	Our group uses "Treasure Credits." Whenever the party encounters a magic item during an adventure, a gentelman's agreement is made where the most needy or appropriate person "holds" the item for the remainder of the adventure. This way, the wand of cure light is not in the hands of a barbarian who cannot use it. After the adventure, the items are collectively owned by the group. The value of the items is totaled and equally divided among the party (ie 5000 credits in a 5 member party means 1000 credits to each person). Then, the following rules come into play: 1. If no party member wants an individual item, the item is sold for half its value and the gold distributed to the party equally. 2. If a party member wants an item, it goes up for auction. 3. starting price in the auction is half the value of the item. 4. Bids are made in increments of at least 10% of the previous bid (first bid of 1000, second bid AT LEAST 1100). 5. A person may bid more treasure credits than he has, BUT that person cannot bid on further items until they have paid the balance. 6. Treasure credits are non-transferable! You cannot lend them out to people. These rules work well for us. The only caveat is that if a person aquires and item by stealth and does not reveal this to the party (in game that is) they can use the item as if the had purchased it. This will last until another PC "finds out." Then the item will be considered treasure and the sneaky PC will have some explaining to do. ;)
Hasses 02-25-04, 08:02 AM	A DM trying to cater for possible player magic items. Smells like.........Favouritism. I've seen certain instances there of from our DM, with regard to items. As a player I could deal with the monthly divy treasure bash up. Gets worse if DM enters the fry. DM may as just well say, "Sorry chaps the circlet of Int is actually for the Mage." Not Kewl. But then standing on the other foot, I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. If the DM is handing out +2 Flaming Swords why shouldn't I get in line? I feel that it is far more player and character enriching to get the goodies ones self. Questing for material. Paying hard earn Gold for the magic enchantments. Helping in the items creation. Makes things a little or personal. Beats...."See this enchanted Platemail princess? Beat up some loudmouth heavy outside the brothel in Thros City last spring. Had several dents in it that I had to get out. And boy did he stink it up. Took 3 days just to air it out. ....did I mention it was enchanted?"
Harliquinn 02-25-04, 09:57 AM	Wow I must play in pretty civil games. There's rarely any loot fighting. We divide all money up evenly. When we find magic items, whoever can use it gets it. IF more than one wants it, we roll and randomly distribute it. We try to keep everyone in equivalent level of magic items, though in one game my Monk is at about half what the other party members have but he doesn't need a lot anyways. I tend to keep track of treasure and items found in all but one game so I try to keep everything fair in distribution.
Lord Arkhaven 02-25-04, 11:38 AM	I play in two games and run one. The same method of treasure division is used in every game and has proved to leave everyone satisfied. All that is required is a commitment to trust your fellow adventuring buddy. All monetary treasure gets divided equally. Any magic items found goes to the person who can use them the most. We don't keep track of their monatery value because you know what? What goes around - comes around. After a few adventures it all evens out. Keep in mind however that we are mostly Good aligned characters who adventure for a higher purpose than money or magic items. We figure that as long as we are saving the kingdom from THE EVIL then the rest takes care of itself. :)
Starcrossed 02-25-04, 08:53 PM	Originally posted by Hasses A DM trying to cater for possible player magic items. Smells like.........Favouritism. I've seen certain instances there of from our DM, with regard to items. As a player I could deal with the monthly divy treasure bash up. Gets worse if DM enters the fry. DM may as just well say, "Sorry chaps the circlet of Int is actually for the Mage." Not Kewl. I sure never said anything about favortism! I didn't say give any certain player some special item. I said that NPCs should have items that they would use, and a DM should keep in mind what the players want/need when choosing items for their NPCs. I believe in an NPC having things that they would use. Not total random treasure. Also, items can't be so freely bought in the campaign that I run. It sounds like many people do things this way as well. So giving them all items just to sell isn't helpful at all. I also did say that they DO make their own/help each other get what they need. I , as the DM , never get involved with what they do with their items. Thats their choice. As a player in other games the DMs do not get involved either. Yet with that circlet of intelligence it WOULD go to a mage. It would be a pretty selfish character to take it over someone that needed it more. Now on that flaming sword +2, if you can use it sure I wouldn't see why people would have any problem with you having it. Are you sugguesting that you would want to take it even if others needed it more? Like someone maybe that didn't have a magic sword at all? In such a case I understand your rules system all the more. As there is hardly a person that would consider that fair.
Starcrossed 02-25-04, 08:54 PM	That seems to be the general thing of it. Good characters don't seem to have the problems that other groups have. Just my observation from this thread.
Harmor 02-25-04, 09:15 PM	That seems to be the general thing of it. Good characters don't seem to have the problems that other groups have. Just my observation from this thread. Yep. We have a CE Barbarian in our party (don't ask), and he's so selfish and won't budge. He refuses to help pay for rezzes and insists that he gets his "treasure credits" in cash.
Frodo Lives 02-25-04, 11:13 PM	In my party we currently use the who can use it? method for magic items. If more than one character wants the item we just look at who has more magic. If the rogue and ranger want the bracers of Dex, but the ranger has a magic sword and a magic ring vs the rogue having only magic armor then the rogue gets it. If any one character seems to be getting far ahead in quantity or quality of magic items then the don't get anything new for a while. Replaced magic items are handed down if they are still usable and worth it. If magic is sold then it goes to group treasure and split. Unless it was bought or comissioned then it is the characters item, not the groups. Money and other liquid treasre (gems, jewelry) are divided evenly. We very rarely have problems, because we know if you get to greedy and have more GP worth of magic then the next guy you'll be out of luck when we aquire new magic that can be used by more than just your character.
edgelett 02-25-04, 11:57 PM	we use the "who will benefit most from this item?" method. I'm the only cleric (also hunter of the dead), we have a rogue/fighter/wizard and a sorcerer/druid all druid items go to her, I get any clerical scrolls, players get all healing potions (since they'll need them if I'm out of spells or dead) rogue gets martial weapons (i use a mace, god's fav weapon and have a holy bow so I don't need any martial weapons). resistance cloaks or protection rings..we work that out by "who has the lowest AC or Saving Throw?" only arguments are over non-magical treasure that's worth heaps...we either sell it & split it or if someone takes an item they get a lower cut of the cash from sale of other items.
Asmodeous 02-26-04, 12:38 AM	My current character never has a problem getting her fair share of the loot when it comes time to dividing it up. This is because they all know what might happen when it comes time for a ressurection or healing during combat. I often use arrows of cure crit during melee cause im usually fighting at range and I play a bow cleric. "whoops! sorry about that! I pulled out a real arrow instead of a cure arrow!" and ressurections? "Oh. Did you want the True ressurection spell? Im sorry about that. I thought you could only afford the raise dead spell. Never mind. You will regain your lost abilities one day." :D Seriously, Another possibility when it comes to divinding up the loot, My character has the craft magic weapons & armor feat. Often, I can take the larger, expensive items from the loot, and then compensate the other party members by upgrading and/or crafting weapons & armor for them in return.
Hasses 02-26-04, 09:41 AM	I just think tailoring items for the party is almost....almost....spoon feeding. There are common items and then there are placements. "Hey look Vic, That Yuan-ti was also swinging a Great axe. What a coincidence so are you. A +2 keen too. Wow a bit more powerful than yours. Must be your lucky day." ... .. . Bor-ing! Perhaps I prefer a random treasure haul. Makes one work harder at character enhancement. Makes for more grit in adventuring. Life is tough, you don't always get what you want. Cope, make things happen. Its why I also believe that not every item or enchantment can be bought. DM has to be careful on setting the tone for the campaign. As to the Circlet Of Int. What about the psion? Why is it as soon as an item confers a stat based bonus, priority should be given to the class that uses that bonus? The problem that I see with divvying up as to who has lowest Saves and AC borders on metagaming. I suppose it also depends on if the party is divvying treasure in or OOC. Our psion/fighter keeps getting blasted with lightning bolts. And 9 times out of 10 fails his save. (Once even died). However his saves are on a par, almost better than the rest of the party. The character just seems to attract lightning better that Thomas Edisons kite. Metagaming says maybe he needs to speak nicely to his dice, keep a stiff upper lip and soak that damage. Roleplaying says party gives him the cloak of resistance. Eventhough the fighter in the front has lower saves and probably faces more ferocious spells.
Starcrossed 02-26-04, 04:09 PM	Well first off in the campaigns I am involved in there isn't any psions, and our world setting doesn't have them. So I wouldn't even think about what a psion can use. If there is a psion and psion need intelligence then sure they could have it too. Explain to me why a fighter should have a headband of intellect over a wizard? What need would a fighter even have for this since they don't get skill points for it, and since they hardly would have any skill that they would need to use it for? I didn't say always making your NPCs have what the players need and not giving them anything else. I said make sense with what your NPCs have. Giving them random items that they the NPCs can't use is pretty foolish. A gamemaster needs to make things make sense. What I mean about things that players need is, some gamemasters don't like to go over that sugguested wealth table. So tossing in items that fit into that wealth that they should have is often a consideration. Also, its only fair if a GM varies the monsters and loot type that they would use at least some. Of course weapons and armor should be more common as more would use it. But why wouldn't you have a plus int item on a wizard npc or a +chr one on a sorceror? That extra DC is important. The NPCs would know that too. Its not spoon feeding for a gamemaster to go for realism. Its not spoon feeding for them to think about not over ballancing or over monty hauling their group with gold and items above what they should have for their levels. Its also not spoon feeding to be fair to your players as its not just your game, its theirs too. The fact that a lot of DMs believe that not every item can be bought is why things like varied loot are all the more important for fairness. If I didn't care about what they bought, then I could just do the random lazy GM table too. Then it wouldn't bug me so much when the NPCs are carrying items that they either can't, or wouldn't logically ever use. Yet since my game worlds are far more real despite being a fantasy setting, they must make sense. My NPCs are people too. I don't forsee us seeing eye to eye on this. I can't even comprehend the idea of giving some item to someone that has no need for it over it going to someone that needs it very much. That giving the fighter the intelligence item would be like giving the best sword to the wizard while the fighter still is using masterwork or worse. It just doesn't make sense to me. Now I am not speaking of the GM giving these items out to those players so don't confuse that. I mean the group/players themselves deciding it that way. I just wonder why a group would do it. What could be the motivation for that person needing it more?
Hasses 02-27-04, 03:40 AM	Ok I'll amend the statement of 'random' treasure. How about 'Varied' treasure? True there will be common items, mostly weapons and armour types. And I likewise agree any NPC that was carrying around an item that they couldn't use or don't use is ridiculous. But one can spot the 'planted' item a mile away. ... .. . Like the magical Nunchakus for the monk. heh heh The flaming +2 longsword for the Cleric who just happens to have the Domain of fire and favoured weapon longsword. Just seems a little transparent. The NPC fighter out of all weapons proficient with due to the martial weapons feat, they just happen to have a weapon just like PCs Fighter only better? Back to the Circlet: The fighter would need it for intelligence. He does have this stat. And it's probably not as high as the wizards. But he does have it. He isn't a drool monster in the front with a sword. Intelligence: Alchemy Appraise Craft Disable Device Forgery Search Spellcraft Knowledge "What could be the motivation for that person needing it more?" Roleplaying. If a fighter had a penalty in his intelligence stat would the wizard be compassionate enough to pass along an item that would have given a definate advantage had the wizard kept it?