Post/Author/DateTime	Post
OneWinged4ngel 09-03-07, 03:29 PM	Out of curiosity, what different methods do people use to divide up loot in their parties? Edit: Also, before anyone says something silly like "divide it equally" as if everyone knew exactly what that meant for you, please define what the heck you mean by "divide it equally" when much of a loot pool contains items of differring and uncertain value, as opposed to plain old coins or trade goods. How do you quantify what an "equal share" is?
darkneolink 09-03-07, 03:58 PM	Well we usually split it (if we are 4) 20% each and 20% to pay for resurections, potions, wands, parchmens If there is an item and 2 wants it each one says why they should have it and the party decides, if the party can't decide we either flip a coin or reward the one who has been more useful sometimes one player who excels in the situation (battle... social...et.) recieves a little more from the 20% apart
shadzar 09-03-07, 04:05 PM	1. you keep what you kill. 2. divide it among the party to make best use of it. 3. allow the other party memebrs to carry it intil town and them pilfer it from them as you need it for your own uses. (paladins are advised to avoid this method.)
Horseshoe_Hermit 09-03-07, 09:39 PM	1. you keep what you kill. The killing blow? Or "most of the work"? 2. divide it among the party to make best use of it. You'd need a strict, no-nonsense, written agreement spelling out how to decide the "best use" of loot. 3. allow the other party memebrs to carry it intil town and them pilfer it from them as you need it for your own uses. (paladins are advised to avoid this method. I think the guy was looking for real suggestions. A few methods: Divide equally. Apparently this is the company-approved method. Who is to say who contributed more and less? And whether "contributions" are even what should be measured? In some sense, this method is good, because a traveling party has decided that they work well together - and they need each other. How frequently one of them uses his skills, or to what perceived degree of urgency he assists, is inherently unfair to different classes. Only the mage has such a wealth of noncombat tricks. The rogue may not be much of a swordhand in battle, but he saves your ass from the politicking back in the city. Heh, without him, you wouldn't even know the count was hiding something. An entirely communal pool. If the lot of you really do trust each other (really only feasible in classic, we're-never-parting-ways all-good group), the only thing you need to worry about is bearing the weight of all that gold. You know you can determine how to spend gold on all of you. Just make all of you equally apt at what you're needed for. A system of distributing wealth according to an entailment-based system. That is "If you do this this and this in an unexpected encounter, you are entitled to this. Elsewise, this loot goes to everyone else" and for planned engagements (including planned passage in known dangerous areas), the same sort of thing, except the former will probably have to be more egalitarian, whereas each instance of the latter may weigh heavily on providing more loot to the "star player" of the engagement.
Kouk 09-03-07, 09:49 PM	My groups tend to get along well with "Split the cash equally, and give the items to those who can use them best (with an eye out for giving too much to a single player)". If there is something nobody can use, or an item can be traded out for a newly found one (like you have a Ring of Protection +1, and you find a +2), the old or useless item is sold for cash and split equally unless it can go to someone else.
Divokej 09-03-07, 11:20 PM	Divide the money five ways. (20% per person and if something needs to be bought that will benifit the whole party split the cost.) I run a low magic campaign so whenever magic is in the loot everyone wants it. We deal with this by having the person willing to give up the most gold getting the item. Occasionally they do get sold though but that's only happened once (it was a magic orc double ax).
Tempest Stormwind 09-04-07, 01:04 AM	All of my groups have the unspoken assumption that we will continue on more adventures as a unit (as opposed to switching members often, or are only working together on this one job, or similar). For that assumption, it works *very* well. All loot goes into a "party pool" on the adventure. We pay for emergency expenses first -- at the moment, the worst this has had to be used for is removing negative levels (we don't have a cleric in either game and didn't have a powerful enough restoration spell handy through any other means). This party pool is also used to pay for transport costs, bribes, and similar other means of getting the party from one adventure to the next before we divvy. Sometimes, it's also used for big-ticket purchases that benefit the whole party -- a companion spirit (DMG2) is very common (and often a lifesaver!), although one of our games just purchased a mobile base (a wagon that collapses into an amulet; the inside of the wagon is a Leomund's Secure Shelter. We're working on adding Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum to it next). Such a device would *obviously* benefit the whole party, so the whole party pays for it. Occasionally, we get a piece of loot that one member of the party can *obviously* benefit from -- for instance, we stole a Crystal Mask of Mindarmor right off the face of an enemy assassin before throwing him into a magma pit, and our party warrior had a terrible Will save and an INCREDIBLE melee damage output (more than enough to kill anyone else on the team on a full attack, and he had Sudden Leap so he often gets full attacks). In such situations, they get the gear. Sometimes, this leads to unbalanced gear distributions -- usually in favor of the warriors (my wizard in one game had his blessed book, a +2 headband of Int, and a +1 cloak of charisma as *all* of his magic gear until level 10!). Don't worry, it evens out, and in the meantime your party is all the stronger for it. Now, when downtime hits (or the portable hole gets too full), we divvy. By this point, any gear we've got that people want, they're already using. (If two or more people both wanted that Belt of Strength and all gain equal overall benefit, we take turns. If it's the first time two people have dealt with each other, we draw straws.) Thus, we sell whatever's left. We then do the following. 1) People total up the overall value -- in selling price -- of the gear they got from loot since the last divvy. 2) People sell excess personal gear, adding money to the pot (effectively reducing the value of their incoming gear by that same amount). If you trade gear (i.e. you just got a better X, and someone in the party doesn't have even the basic X, but has room), you can trade it over, which adjusts your values for 1 and 2 accordingly. 3) We then add up all the "worth values" we get from steps 1 and 2 across all the party, and add in the amount we got from selling the leftover loot. This is the total amount incoming, and it's divided by the number of people partaking in this distribution to get each person's cut. 4) Finally, we subtract the previously-determined "worth values" from each person's cut. This accounts for the amount of effective money they gained from the gear. They're awarded the difference (or have to pay off debts incurred from their own personal wallets if they were too greedy on the gear or got a particularly powerful item). If they can't pay off the debt, another character 'pays' it from their share in exchange for an IOU. This results equal payouts, although it doesn't look like it until divvy time.
OneWinged4ngel 09-04-07, 01:15 AM	Well we usually split it (if we are 4) 20% each and 20% to pay for resurections, potions, wands, parchmens If there is an item and 2 wants it each one says why they should have it and the party decides, if the party can't decide we either flip a coin or reward the one who has been more useful sometimes one player who excels in the situation (battle... social...et.) recieves a little more from the 20% apart How do you decide what 20% is? I mean, there are, you know, items instead of just coins, and their values to the individuals in the party are pretty variable, ESPECIALLY if the party has access to a crafter (where, if you're splitting 20% and counting them at even half market price, people might just want to make it themselves because it's STILL a better deal) Divide equally. Apparently this is the company-approved method. Who is to say who contributed more and less? And whether "contributions" are even what should be measured? In some sense, this method is good, because a traveling party has decided that they work well together - and they need each other. How frequently one of them uses his skills, or to what perceived degree of urgency he assists, is inherently unfair to different classes. Only the mage has such a wealth of noncombat tricks. The rogue may not be much of a swordhand in battle, but he saves your ass from the politicking back in the city. Heh, without him, you wouldn't even know the count was hiding something. And how do you accomplish "divide equally"? I've heard people describe this in many different, distinct ways and act like everyone should automatically understand what they mean in their version of it (which is, often, pretty unequal. For example, taking items from the loot pool at market price has obvious failing and basically is telling people to never, ever use stuff from the loot if they want to maximize their own results, but then if it causes the party to sell it for only half or so, the party takes a net loss to usefulness. That's obviously a broken system, and nowhere near "equal," particularly if people are measuring taking something from the loot pool at market price or crafting something they specifically want at 37.5% market price from the party crafter!). It's kinda silly. ___ How does one quantify an "equal share"? If you don't answer that question, then you're basically not telling anyone your system of loot division.
Aryxbez 09-04-07, 01:48 AM	Equal share is where everyone gets the same amount of treasure as the other teammate. So if your other teamates got 200pp, so should you as well. I do it the classic way, as I don't like to make it a real issue. So the total Gold is divided evenly among party members. Gems, and Art are turned into gold and once again the gold is spread evenly. Things like Magical weapons and such, matters if anyone desires it. If so, I go by the PH? or DMG? suggestion. That if a specific known magical item someone keeps, the price of that item gets taken out of his gold. so if it was worth 5000, and he gets 6000, now only gets 1000 due to the item that person wishes to keep. Although this is a real rare case for me, as most items are merely sold so that others can buy the exact item they want. So I guess as long as everyone gets what they want by being fair at the same time it should work out. Also how do you go about dividing Treasure OneWinged4ngel ?
Eminon 09-04-07, 01:49 AM	We use a pretty simplified method, similar to what other peoople have mentioned. 1) Take all the money, divide by the number of PC's, and that's what each player gets. Then do the same with the jewels. "Art" and other objects that are only worth something when sold are held until we get to town, then they are sold and split. 2)Magic Items are given to whoever can make the best use of them. When multiple players can make use of an item (as often happens with weapons and multiple melee types, or on occasion staves and wands between multiple mage types), each compares what their best equivalent item is. ("Who wants this +3 Longsword?" "I've got a +2 Battle-Axe" "My Great Club is only a +1" "Ok, the guy with the Great Club gets it") 3)In cases where all members can use an item(rings, necklaces, etc), the items are lotteried off in some aggreed upon manor (Tim, you haven't gotten anything lately, do you want the ring, the cloak, or the boots?) 4)In cases where multiple players can use an item, but no one really needs it (ie, they all have something better), whoever's gone longest without getting an item gets it. They can sell it as they see fit, and split the money with other party members if they want, but it's not required. 5)In the (rare) case that someone gets an item that replaces another (ring, helmet, etc), the old item is then usually passed around the party in one of the aforementioned manners. Any disputes are judged by the rest of the party members. It seems to work pretty easy for us.
Dog_O_War 09-04-07, 02:53 AM	We would just bicker and fight over every magic item in the games I've played. As for coin loot and magic items that no one wanted or could readily use, one member would always nominate herself as party treasurer, and write down every little bit of loot that was found (whether you told the rest of the party you found it or not) which then was at her total disposal. Which didn't apply to me because I would use ingame fact to combat metagame knowledge (to which she would reply, "hey what do you have there?" And then assume that she automatically knew what I had). Also, we split the coins up 4 ways with the fifth way working itself to me as well ("but how" you ask, "can there be five ways in four?!" The fifth way was always the unclaimed coinage I found and told no one about). This worked out well [for me] as our DM was a total cheapskate, showing us treasure and then manufacturing instant reasons why we couldn't have it ("the gems are all actually explosives! you take damage!" - that one sucked. or "those platinum coins are actually just copper coins painted!"). This is not a good method to use, as I have stopped playing dnd with those people (we still play other games, just not dnd together). In another game system (Deadlands: the Wasted West if you're familiar) we had the looting system of everything went to me as everyone else was in dnd mode (and thus assumed so very wrongly) that they would get a fair share! It was at the point where I would loan equipment out (and no they couldn't kill me in my sleep. I kept that stuff booby-trapped with explosives and was the only one with demolitions). Also, I tended towards the high shooting types with good fightin' skill. This was a very effective deturrent from party aggression. That and everyone else had crazy powers and felt sorry for my 'normal' character. I am the only one left alive after 7 years of playing.
OneWinged4ngel 09-04-07, 04:38 AM	Things like Magical weapons and such, matters if anyone desires it. If so, I go by the PH? or DMG? suggestion. That if a specific known magical item someone keeps, the price of that item gets taken out of his gold. so if it was worth 5000, and he gets 6000, now only gets 1000 due to the item that person wishes to keep. Although this is a real rare case for me, as most items are merely sold so that others can buy the exact item they want. There's a reason that's a really, REALLY terrible and unfair way to divide loot that just frustrates the whole party. Or reasons, rather. 1) There are dozens and dozens of ways without class features to get loot cheaper from stores or other places, and you can generally pick what you want more than you can with random loot (which you, of course, cannot pick and choose from, so that makes it less valuable). Many guilds, contacts, and affiliations offer discounts, straight outta canon. And plenty of DMs add their own homebrew methods to do these things. So... basically, you're paying more than what you'd get from the market for something that's less valuable because of lack of choice. 2) Also, you're basically saying "if the person wants it, and is willing to pay half the price but not full, thus distributing half the item's price to the rest of the party, the party will instead sell it and get half the price (just like if the person took it from the pool for half price, except that since it's getting divided among all the characters, the other players are getting LESS money for the deal than if the other party member actually took the loot instead of selling it!), and none of the utility." That's just retarded. And not like a little retarded. It's just extremely retarded. It's a situation where you give up something to get nothing in return. 3) People who have actual class features related to items, ESPECIALLY a party with the artificer, will always be able to get item significantly cheaper than market price (37.5%-50% market price is pretty normal, and the XP cost doesn't actually matter *too* much). In this case, you're basically saying "What, I have to pay 10,000 for this? Why would I do that when I can get it for 3750 by making it myself instead of getting it from loot? Or better yet, pick this specific item that I want more?" And of course, if you sell it, the person actually gets enough money to craft it himself and then some, while the party as a whole suffers. It's a lose-lose situation. Individuals lose. The party loses. No one in real life would agree to it unless they were the gullible type easily swindled out of vast amounts of money by internet mailing scams from minor african countries requesting green cards for false princes. And those people are morons anyways, so we don't care about them. Or am I missing something? When we get loot we do the math and see how much the resale value of the lot is. Each character gets that amount in "credit" so to speak and then they can use their credit to buy items from the loot pot at their resale value (IE 8000 gold for a +4 stat item). Anything thats left will be sold and the proceeds divvyed according to the amount of credit the PC's haven't spent. By comparison, this looks far more reasonable because there isn't a disconnect where the item becomes more costly if you actually chose to use it (thus causing all sorts of economic stupidness). The worth to the party and individual remains constant (and, saying resale value instead of half-market is also much more prudent, because unless your DM has a totally stagnant world for some reason... the worth of items varies.) On the other hand, in this case the person who is stuck with just coin might feel a bit gypped.
Radijs 09-04-07, 04:52 AM	When we get loot we do the math and see how much the resale value of the lot is. Each character gets that amount in "credit" so to speak and then they can use their credit to buy items from the loot pot at their resale value (IE 8000 gold for a +4 stat item). Anything thats left will be sold and the proceeds divvyed according to the amount of credit the PC's haven't spent.
yellowdingo 09-04-07, 07:01 AM	"I am the leader so, Mine. I need to pay off that fine for spitting on the village elder, so also Mine. You are my loyal right hand man, so Yours. And the rest of the party barely pulled their weight holding off that charge by the twenty Orcs while we retreated with the loot, so theirs..." Frankly loot division always amounted to little more than a decision not to hand it back to the villagers, and the idea that some of the Warband were less equal than others...
Cifer 09-04-07, 09:44 AM	Your game runs like a crap-heap. Now that's funny - I could swear you don't know pretty much anything about the game except for the treasure-distribution... 2. divide it among the party to make best use of it. You'd need a strict, no-nonsense, written agreement spelling out how to decide the "best use" of loot. Do you? We've always managed to do without, though the campaign setting we're in (Midnight) has somewhat promoted this: Usually, there's just no way to sell stuff - magic items are rare enough that they're almost invaluable and can be traded only for other magic items. Now what are the chances that someone has exactly the item you want and needs one of your items? So it basically came down to "Hey, it's an X. Y, didn't your X have a lower bonus? Here, take this new X." Up to date, it seems like everyone is more or less happy with that agreement.
DrMorganes 09-04-07, 10:01 AM	Back in the day, the AD&D DMG gave the following advice on splitting treasure. I've paraphrased it; I don't have my AD&D DMG with me right now. Coin, gems, objects d'art, and durable goods should be converted to their gp value. Likewise, make note of the gp (i.e., market) value of all magic items. Sum the values of all treasure and divide equally among all party members. Magic items should be distributed first; subtract the gp value of the magic item from that character's share. If the value of the item or items equals or exceeds the value of the share, that character is considered to have received his fair portion of the treasure and receives no additional compensation. Once items have been distributed, coin is split to make up the difference between the value of the item(s) received an the value of the share. It is possible that one character will occasionally receive only items or only coin. I've used this system more or less intact for decades with no complaints. Essentially, you make sure that each PC receives an equal value of treasure. Most of the time this will be a mix of items and coin (or gems, for portability). Done properly, and with the appropriate merchants available in-game, the character who occasionally ends up with only a sack of gold as his portion of the treasure will be able to purchase whatever goods may be required to keep his relative power in line with the rest of the party. Ferinstance, A party of 4 finds a treasure cache of items and coin totaling 4,000gp in value. One receives armor worth 1000gp, another a sword worth 1000gp, the third takes potions and scrolls totaling 1000gp, and the fourth makes off with 1000gp in coins and gems. It may appear as though the last PC got the short end of the stick, but in reality he received a fair share of the treasure. In fact, one could argue that he actually received the best option. Now he can return to town and purchase exactly what he requires. Obviously, the DM should take care when planning his treasure to ensure that no one PC constantly gets nothing but coin. Everyone likes finding a shiny new something with their "name" on it.
shadzar 09-04-07, 11:34 AM	1. you keep what you kill. The killing blow? Or "most of the work"? 2. divide it among the party to make best use of it. You'd need a strict, no-nonsense, written agreement spelling out how to decide the "best use" of loot. 3. allow the other party memebrs to carry it intil town and them pilfer it from them as you need it for your own uses. (paladins are advised to avoid this method. I think the guy was looking for real suggestions. A few methods: Divide equally. Apparently this is the company-approved method. Who is to say who contributed more and less? And whether "contributions" are even what should be measured? In some sense, this method is good, because a traveling party has decided that they work well together - and they need each other. How frequently one of them uses his skills, or to what perceived degree of urgency he assists, is inherently unfair to different classes. Only the mage has such a wealth of noncombat tricks. The rogue may not be much of a swordhand in battle, but he saves your ass from the politicking back in the city. Heh, without him, you wouldn't even know the count was hiding something. An entirely communal pool. If the lot of you really do trust each other (really only feasible in classic, we're-never-parting-ways all-good group), the only thing you need to worry about is bearing the weight of all that gold. You know you can determine how to spend gold on all of you. Just make all of you equally apt at what you're needed for. A system of distributing wealth according to an entailment-based system. That is "If you do this this and this in an unexpected encounter, you are entitled to this. Elsewise, this loot goes to everyone else" and for planned engagements (including planned passage in known dangerous areas), the same sort of thing, except the former will probably have to be more egalitarian, whereas each instance of the latter may weigh heavily on providing more loot to the "star player" of the engagement. all of those are serious. i gave blanket examples. the details are to be figured out within the group and how they define the kill. taken from the movie Riddick made the killing blow and became the leader rather than the current Necromunger that forced the kill into the hands of Riddick. so it would mean the killing blow. would you consider doing a lot of work and getting no results as reason to get treasure? constantly attacking but doing no damage to an enemy is not really helping. so when someone else ocmes along and does less work and more damage then they should get nothing since they did less work. it is a simple way to divide loot "fairly". no you don't need a contract between party members to divide loot. just a bit of common sense. you have one person that can use wands most effectively. give the wand to him to use, rather than someone else to sell. the cleric can't use a sword so give it to the fighter if he needs one or the rogue if it is better than the one he has making him more closer to power to the fighter. this helps the party as a whole. since it was said to be considered odd items rather than "cash". this is the first thing that comes to mind for me. lastly a rogue would probably take something from his friends if they aren't looking. gotta keep those skills polished. maybe he can't carry as much. the pakladin bit was meant for humor because they shouldn't steal. but a rogue sure would. so is this all equal in terms of monetary value? maybe not, but do you always have time after a battle or finding odds treasures to appraise everything? i don't like when a DM says you found X worth Y gold. i suggest using the practical approach. this gives the party less worry later. given a list of items found and a list of party members it would be easier to say how to divide the loot up between them as an example and why.
darkneolink 09-04-07, 11:34 AM	How do you decide what 20% is? I mean, there are, you know, items instead of just coins, and their values to the individuals in the party are pretty variable, ESPECIALLY if the party has access to a crafter (where, if you're splitting 20% and counting them at even half market price, people might just want to make it themselves because it's STILL a better deal) we calculate the value with an apraise check if we get a sword for the fighter he gets it (no complains from the party). Because if he can kill a foe faster... well then we wouldn't need to use the cure light wounds potion (the old sword is the sold and thats the part of the loot we divide) in case of loot... well we like to have at least one member with apraise... or we just divide the coins until we can sell the other items we like to work as a group so anything that can improve a member improves the group (so be an artifact of "Deity" for the cleric, the ancient tome of magic, the shinny sword of beheading +2, or the boots of cat grace) and if the groups is best... well the members live a lot longer. We spend our part on things that we believe we might need (i.e. the rogue buys a ring of undead harming if he can't get one from other sources) or we might want (i.e. a mule) Our metod works well for us because we work like a group... a family... a bunch of people who cares for each other.
Stormbrand 09-04-07, 12:10 PM	For the current game I play in, my character is strongly party leader (due to a combination of the Leadership feat giving useful followers, a command aura, tactical knowledge, and personal knowledge of military leadership) so I have more say in what goes where. We 'fully equip' before 'splitting loot.' We also use different weapon and armour rules, and magic items tend to be more exotic. 'Fully equip' means everyone is as optimised as possible with the gear at hand. Our group is mostly men-at-arms, and the heaviest armour goes to them, making sure they are all double-armoured. Maille and lamellar and open helm is the base standard, when we find heavier armour the heaviest goes to the designated 'shock troops' who hand their previous armour to the next in line, with the 'support' or 'mobiles' being the most lightly armoured. Only shock troops are given great helms, lighter helms for everyone who often operates outside of formation. We pass equipment between us quite a bit. We simply make sure everyone is 'adaquately equipped' - a line which gradually rises - before passing out 'bonuses' or 'luxuries'. All of the armsmen have a spear and shield (we have rules for spears in shield walls), followed by the best hand weapon suitable for them (typically their weapon of choice) and a dagger or poniard. Money is split between 'operating funds' and 'rewards' - our operating fund is a party treasury which belongs to no one but we can draw upon if we need something. Rewards is the portion divided equally between the troops, with any remainders or fractions rounded down and given to the operating fund. Nonmagical jewelry all goes to operating funds, given out as medals and decorations for morale based on merit. True magic items are somewhat rare, so we only deal with them on a case by case basis, but most of that stuff is assigned to our main spellcaster who decides what to do with them. People can call dibs if they wish, although mostly do with pieces of jewelry. Obviously this is a very unusual campaign.
Cifer 09-04-07, 02:40 PM	would you consider doing a lot of work and getting no results as reason to get treasure? constantly attacking but doing no damage to an enemy is not really helping. It is when that means providing others with the possibility to make kills. Look at Tome Of Battle, especially the White Raven disicpline: About half of it's maneuvers are "Help your allies so they can kill stuff easier" - but you don't have to get that exotic. Probably the simplest concept is providing a flank for a rogue - the rogue would never have taken down that enemy if it wasn't for your help.
Tempest Stormwind 09-04-07, 03:21 PM	It is when that means providing others with the possibility to make kills. Look at Tome Of Battle, especially the White Raven disicpline: About half of it's maneuvers are "Help your allies so they can kill stuff easier" - but you don't have to get that exotic. Probably the simplest concept is providing a flank for a rogue - the rogue would never have taken down that enemy if it wasn't for your help. Of course, if the best claim to fame you have is "occupies a space and is proficient with at weapon in hand", you aren't exactly contributing much either. A first-level hireling could do that. A commoner with a knife could do that. Hell, an animal could do that. The thing is, an adventurer should be able to do it *better*. That's why White Raven works the way it does (relying on your combat prowess rather than your threatened area) -- you make an attack, and if it works the rest of the party gangs up on the target. That's why clerics (in concept: traditional, stereotype, band-aid-in-armor type clerics, rather than those drawing upon what the cleric can actually do) have party buffs and strong defenses -- so he can actually take a hit or two while making the rest of the party better. That's why bardsong doesn't require any particular action on the part of the bard to maintain -- so he can continue to fight while singing. These people *are* worth their cut of the treasure. If your job can be filled by a hireling with a flat rate of a few silver a day (or *gasp* perhaps double that for hazard pay) as opposed to a percentage of the treasure, then it's not very economical to keep you around. (This is why I take offense to people who say things like "An intelligent player can find ways of contributing with almost any character. Not a tank? Then flank." This is because you aren't contributing in a way that a fantasy adventurer hero -- in other words, a player character -- should. You're basically being an NPC hireling. And you'll get paid as if you were one.)
Aryxbez 09-04-07, 05:11 PM	Coin, gems, objects d'art, and durable goods should be converted to their gp value. Likewise, make note of the gp (i.e., market) value of all magic items. Sum the values of all treasure and divide equally among all party members. Magic items should be distributed first; subtract the gp value of the magic item from that character's share. If the value of the item or items equals or exceeds the value of the share, that character is considered to have received his fair portion of the treasure and receives no additional compensation. Once items have been distributed, coin is split to make up the difference between the value of the item(s) received an the value of the share. It is possible that one character will occasionally receive only items or only coin. I am pretty sure this is what I had meant OneWinged4ngel, which I think your whole that was retarded speech was a bit excessive. Anyway, I don't use things from eberron, as I don't use campaign settings. Although I am not saying I hate eberron. Also what is your method OneWinged4ngel. As I too wish to know. Also I find it usually unlikely that someone finds a magical item that they want, unless of course the treasure hoard was built for the characters coin for coin so to speak. Also where I have played games, coins and art aren't usually a issue as the DM handles the equal sharing of that, where then the Magical items being up to the players.
Xavorin 09-04-07, 05:20 PM	In our group, we give everyone an equal portion of any money we collect, and for items we have this policy: If you need it, you get it. If you want it, you get it if no one needs it. If multiple people need it, the one who is obviously in need of it more gets it. If multiple people want it, we roll a die. Nice and simple.
Migi 09-04-07, 05:53 PM	In my game, we handle "cash loot" and magic items separately. Cash loot becomes personal property, magic items are group property. "Cash loot" is coin, gems, non-magical stuff that we, as lowbies, pry out of the dungeon and drag back to town to sell. First thing we do once all of that is tallied up is decide if we need to buy anything (like a Wand of CLW) that's useful to the whole party. After this, we each get 25% of the remaining value in coin. Magic items that are found while adventuring always belong to the party. (This excludes personal purchases made from your share of the coin, and, if it ever comes up, it would also exclude any personalized gifts that an NPC rewards an individual with) If someone wants a +1 dagger that we find, they can use it as long as they want until they find an upgrade. It then reverts to party loot and someone else can use it until they get an upgrade. If no one wants the item, it gets sold to a merchant for 1/2 value and we split the coin as if it were cash loot. By not penalizing someone for using the magic items we find, we get the "full value" out of them. However, if an item is really not being used the owner kicks it back into party loot so they can get their share of the cash. This system works well for us partly because we're all pretty easy-going about loot and partly because there really isn't much overlap in the loot we each want. I think that you need to tailor the loot system to fit the group. One size definitely doesn't fit all here. Cheers, Migi
Krusk 09-04-07, 05:59 PM	We usually write the entire list of loot down on a piece of paper. Then we each take turns passing it around, writing our name next to something we want. EX- +1longsword +3 defending heavy shield +4 dex gloves +2 flaming greataxe 40k money But the list usually gets longer, as we get lots of little things, im just not writing more. You can write your name next to one thing, and then you pass. If multiple things have names next to them by the end, the group votes and someone gets it. The group as a whole generally does not pick an item that costs money, just to go sell it on their own. Then anything unclaimed is sold and all remaining cash is divided evenly. Works well enough for us. The person who gets to write their name first is usually the one who takes inventory, and as our group hates to do this it does not usually result in people fighting over who gets to keep track of it.
OneWinged4ngel 09-04-07, 07:40 PM	I am pretty sure this is what I had meant OneWinged4ngel, which I think your whole that was retarded speech was a bit excessive. Is it? It creates situations where no one with a mind for economics would ever want to take something from the loot pile, *EVER*, because it hurts them as individuals (they lose money and power over the deal, compared to if they actually took that market price value in cash home), but it hurts the party *and* individual to sell it if it would have been useful (but hurts the individual less than if he kept it at full market price). Lose/Lose is stupid when you just risked your life to get that loot. If you're paying market price for something anyways, you might as well go buy it at a store and get the additional benefit of choice and ALSO possibly get it at lower than market price. It's pretty much untenable from a logical standpoint, if you ask me... Then again, maybe your world has NO crafters, NO vendors (be they commissioned legendary smiths you need to complete tasks for, merchants, ancient dark powers returning magic for sacrifices, guild affiliates, or just plain old magic-marts for those of you with unimaginative DMs), and ALWAYS constant values for items regardless of ANY circumstances (i.e. no roleplaying when it comes to item acquisition EVER!), then it could work. But then your campaign is probably in trouble for other reasons. Anyway, I don't use things from eberron, as I don't use campaign settings. They have crafters in pretty much every setting... Also what is your method OneWinged4ngel. As I too wish to know. Varies by game. I rather prefer the ones that are more like Tempest Stormwind's. Of course, Tempest's method doesn't work for all types of campaigns, as he already said. And it's for the "We're only working together for this one job" assumption that I'm trying to think of a good answer for and failing :(
Aryxbez 09-04-07, 09:48 PM	well I mean the tone of your speech was border lining on insulting. As far as my world goes, there are craftsman who craft masterwork items and such. Magic is currently low at this point in time. So yes I do have magical crafters, however I don't have magic-marts either. I have done that a long time ago, however I'm sure we all did when we began DMing. As far as roleplaying goes, I'm not going to roleplay every shopping scene, as that just gets boring. I have already done steps to limit the power of cities realistically. Such as having only +2 enchantments or something due to the level of the casters as just an example. Otherwise my campaign goes by my Masterwork rules I have made, intentionally more expensive as non-magical is impractical compared to magic. In my games, the whole dividing treasure is simply a problem as I think a DM should ensure that it doesn't become a problem so the heroes can get back to roleplaying and otherwise being heroic.
Shrapnel_Blast 09-05-07, 12:33 AM	My party and I never really discussed it, but from the beginning our Rogue simply tallies everything we find and splits it four ways, and we're happy with that. This probably came about as a result of all four of us being partially power gamers to a degree; We wanted one less thing to complicate gameplay. Items that a person needs from the loot pile are subtracted (in GP worth) from the slice of the 'pot' that character receives.
OneWinged4ngel 09-05-07, 04:02 AM	((Deleted))
shadzar 09-05-07, 09:49 AM	My party and I never really discussed it, but from the beginning our Rogue simply tallies everything we find and splits it four ways, and we're happy with that. This probably came about as a result of all four of us being partially power gamers to a degree; We wanted one less thing to complicate gameplay. Items that a person needs from the loot pile are subtracted (in GP worth) from the slice of the 'pot' that character receives. now that is where i find problems in trying to divide loot. how do you know when you find it how much it is worth? do you use out of game knowledge, does the DM jsut tell you, or does someone actually appraise the things upon finding them?
Cifer 09-05-07, 11:04 AM	Of course, if the best claim to fame you have is "occupies a space and is proficient with at weapon in hand", you aren't exactly contributing much either. A first-level hireling could do that. A commoner with a knife could do that. Hell, an animal could do that. That would depend on the square in question. If it's the one between the wizard and the monster and you occupy it long enough that the wizard is capable of blasting stuff, I'd say you're somewhat more practical than a commoner. If the square is behind enemy lines and you had to tumble to it, it would have been rather difficult for the commoner.
wonlee76 09-05-07, 12:08 PM	Here's a method that I plan on using in a campaign as a DM (PCs are the crew members for a privateer so what their share of loot they get is defined by the captain... at least until they cause a mutiny and become captain. :P) They get a defined GP amount as their share (GP amount will match the wealth by level guidelines instead of me figuring out what the exact amount of treasure/loot is worth). Any magical treasure that is recovered can be purchased with their earnings for 1/2 price (since a PC's share of wealth presumably was determined under the presumption that a magical item can be sold for 1/2 its market value) if its an item that would be sold. What the PCs do with the rest of their money is up to them though in the past they have used it for item crafting and a ress fund of some sorts. This method appeals to me since if a great magical item is recovered, the PC who gets it is losing some of their wealth to compensate their newly found trinket. That way one PC doesn't get overloaded with magical goodies over another hopefully. I know its not perfect but its something that should work relatively well presuming no individual PC is greedy buying up every single magical item for 1/2 price.
Alyri 09-05-07, 01:47 PM	There's a reason that's a really, REALLY terrible and unfair way to divide loot that just frustrates the whole party. Or reasons, rather. 1) There are dozens and dozens of ways without class features to get loot cheaper from stores or other places, and you can generally pick what you want more than you can with random loot (which you, of course, cannot pick and choose from, so that makes it less valuable). Many guilds, contacts, and affiliations offer discounts, straight outta canon. And plenty of DMs add their own homebrew methods to do these things. So... basically, you're paying more than what you'd get from the market for something that's less valuable because of lack of choice. 2) Also, you're basically saying "if the person wants it, and is willing to pay half the price but not full, thus distributing half the item's price to the rest of the party, the party will instead sell it and get half the price (just like if the person took it from the pool for half price, except that since it's getting divided among all the characters, the other players are getting LESS money for the deal than if the other party member actually took the loot instead of selling it!), and none of the utility." That's just retarded. And not like a little retarded. It's just extremely retarded. It's a situation where you give up something to get nothing in return. 3) People who have actual class features related to items, ESPECIALLY a party with the artificer, will always be able to get item significantly cheaper than market price (37.5%-50% market price is pretty normal, and the XP cost doesn't actually matter *too* much). In this case, you're basically saying "What, I have to pay 10,000 for this? Why would I do that when I can get it for 3750 by making it myself instead of getting it from loot? Or better yet, pick this specific item that I want more?" And of course, if you sell it, the person actually gets enough money to craft it himself and then some, while the party as a whole suffers. It's a lose-lose situation. Individuals lose. The party loses. No one in real life would agree to it unless they were the gullible type easily swindled out of vast amounts of money by internet mailing scams from minor african countries requesting green cards for false princes. And those people are morons anyways, so we don't care about them. Or am I missing something? Yes.
Dog_O_War 09-05-07, 02:36 PM	In our group, we give everyone an equal portion of any money we collect, and for items we have this policy: If you need it, you get it. If you want it, you get it if no one needs it. If multiple people need it, the one who is obviously in need of it more gets it. If multiple people want it, we roll a die. Nice and simple. hehe I'd roll need on everything (WoW joke). A story for you readers, We once had a, "split the treasure with items going to whomever needed it most getting it." This severely cheesed me off, and I'll illustrate why. (how ever greedy this may sound though, it was not a matter of cash or lust for magic items, but the miss-matching idea of who would actually needed it more) This was back in three point oh when we just got our PHB's and had made first level characters (there was eight players and one DM). we had done some adventuring and eventually came across a magic ring (ring of protection +1). Someone suggested that it go to the player who needed it most and to them it was the wizard, who had an 11 AC. Well given our group size (which at the time I did not take into account) and past encounters (which I did take into account) I said it should go to one of the fighters, as they were being attacked more often (most every melee fighter in the group had an AC of 18, with the rogue and the monk at 16, and the ranger [me] at 17). I said it should go to either the rogue, the monk, or me, as the benefit was far greater for us because it gave us an AC closer to untouchable. At this point in time, the wizard had never been hit yet, and given her AC, if someone wanted to, they could - ring or no ring. The arguement went for about 10 minutes before it became a democratic decision (the people who voted, three of the eight, voted to give it to the wizard) and the decision was made final (I feel though that some ageism was a factor as I was the youngest and also newest member of the group). The moral of this story is that need is subjective to circumstance, and at the end of the day is not fair (the rogue, who should've got it given the amount he was attacked, was killed. And I illustrated this to the group, "with a hit exactly his AC"). The method I have wanted to use, but haven't played in a game where treasure has been normal or the group was together for more than 2 sessions is this: Divide the loot based on class, with generic loot (such as coins, gems, and art) given equally amoungst the party. This means that scrolls would go to the wizard first for learning, then to the casters (who then would agree on who gets it for using). Wands, staves, and other caster stuff would go to the default only user first (arcane spell wands to the only arcane spell caster first, then if a category had multiples, they would come to an agreement). Any extra caster loot would then have the option of going to the rogue (if there was one with a high UMD), and what he didn't want would be liquidated. Magic weapons would go to the user with the exact weapon type (with people who used the same weapon having to bargain with each other), then the more generic weapons being left to the others for the choice of using. If no one then laid claim (with attack bonus (lowest to highest) getting first choice of generic weapons (this discounts wizards and their ilk)) then they too, would be liquidated (the exception to this rule would be for special substance weapons; ie - the party has +2 weapons, and the wizard can't use the non-magical adamantine handaxe). Potions are divided on an even scale, with front-liners getting any odd numbers. This is the same for oils (unless ofcourse a potion or oil is better suited to a specific character). This is mainly for buffs, with the decision to keep ones like potions of invisibility for defensive perposes (held by no one in particular). Armour goes to the character who wants it most, restricted by useability (the rogue would not get the full-plate, just as light armour would be given priority to the rogue). Wonderous items and rings are the most difficult to divide; these items would be done on a "bid for it" bases, with cash and magic items offered divided between the other players. Some of these items have priority users, (like pearls of power and rings of wizardry) and are not subject to the bid for it clause. Redundant or overkill items for players (like the rogue getting boots of elvenkind when his move silently is already +20) are not given to that player unless no other person wants/can wear it (ie. fighter has boots of speed, but wants the boots of elvenkind as well; can't wear two pairs of boots). anything left over that is not overtly useful (cape of montebank, for example) is liquidated. At any time a player may buy the liquidated item for it's resale value. Priority items are also based off of abilities, like a short sword of subtlety and a +2 mighty cleaving short sword; the pure fighter (with cleave) has priority with the mighty cleaving short sword, just as the fighter-rogue (a higher base attack) has priority with the short sword of subtlety over the bard, or monk, but not the pure rogue. I would clean up the loot rules I have written above, but right now I am tongue-tied at my own ramblings.
CCS 09-06-07, 02:16 AM	The one group I played in (and now DM for) had a rather arcane method of splitting loot the last time. I call it arcane because it was alot more work than I viewed as neccecary.... But it worked because none of our characters were actually friends in game - we were just allies who were stuck with each other. Thus it was precieved as being fair enough. Essentially we tallied up the net worth & determined what each persons share would be if converted to GPs. Then we essentially gambled to see who got 1st dibs on any magic items or (for lack of a better term) novelty items. If they chose something, their "total" was decreased by its value. You could also add "value" to your share in this step by dipping into previously gained loot. This was done on a few occasions where the value of an item was higher than an individuals share/remaing share. This continued untill all "items" were selected. Then we'd recieve the rest of our shares in coin/gem. A new campaign (with all new characters of course) has begun though. This time the party consists of 2 siblings, a friend, and 1 stranger. I don't know what method they'll use this time out. But I also don't really need to worry about it being the DM. Whatever works for them is fine with me. --------- In the game I play in on Sunday evenings we have a much more relaxed system. The two remaining original characters (my bard & the sorcerer)are good friends. We'll fight & die for each other. So it's of no real concern to us if one ends up with more cash or a shinier item than the other. It'll balance out. The next two characters are trusted henchmen who've proven themselves time & again. And often enough that they were offered a "buy in" as equel partners in our adventuring company. Our 5th, a druid, is an ally/friend that we've picked up during our travels. In general we split the coins & gems as evenly as possible. Items we find tend to go to whomever can best use them - if they want them (we've found a few decent items that nobody wants!). When an item goes unclaimed we tend to treat it as a general party resource. We'll use it as needed. But it's pretty rare that we sell it off. We equated it to owning a ladder in real life. Yeah, sometimes you need a ladder. Just not everyday. So you buy one & keep one in the garrage..... Well, same goes for that suit of +2 leather armour we found. We've all got our own (& better) suits. But if something happens? Well, we've got a spare set of leather.... So no, we AREN'T just going to sell it. I think we caught our DM by surprise like that by not laying specific claim to a few items. Even more so when we passed up selling them. :)
nimrodii 09-06-07, 02:45 AM	The group I play with is usually happy if someone volunteers to write all the loot down, so their task is also to divvy up the gear. This method has worked if someone sees something they want they will usually call dibs when th loot is found, and our group is so small we have no overlapping roles, so dibs are usually respected, and the bookkeepers best judgment is trusted. Luckily I play with intelligent people I feel I can trust.
OneWinged4ngel 09-06-07, 05:59 AM	Yes. Wow, you dazzle us with your nonexistent insight. Care to elaborate?
Alyri 09-06-07, 01:53 PM	Wow, you dazzle us with your nonexistent insight. Care to elaborate? Sure. As your healing thread indicated, you assume people play with everything. There's a reason that's a really, REALLY terrible and unfair way to divide loot that just frustrates the whole party. Or reasons, rather. 1) There are dozens and dozens of ways without class features to get loot cheaper from stores or other places, and you can generally pick what you want more than you can with random loot (which you, of course, cannot pick and choose from, so that makes it less valuable). Many guilds, contacts, and affiliations offer discounts, straight outta canon. And plenty of DMs add their own homebrew methods to do these things. So... basically, you're paying more than what you'd get from the market for something that's less valuable because of lack of choice. If the gaming groups uses these things. Not every group plays with guilds, affiliations and whatnot. Terrain dictates, meaning if these are used the group may not be in the situation where they can be used. 2) Also, you're basically saying "if the person wants it, and is willing to pay half the price but not full, thus distributing half the item's price to the rest of the party, the party will instead sell it and get half the price (just like if the person took it from the pool for half price, except that since it's getting divided among all the characters, the other players are getting LESS money for the deal than if the other party member actually took the loot instead of selling it!), and none of the utility." That's just retarded. And not like a little retarded. It's just extremely retarded. It's a situation where you give up something to get nothing in return. Uhm, no they are not getting less money. Example: 4 players, total gold piece value is 5000(16,000gold pieces in money, art, etc. and a +2 shortsword). The rogue wants the shortsword so he gives 4000 gold to the party, which is then divided amongst the rest. The other 3 players come out with 6133.3 gold pieces and the rogue has 1000gold pieces and the short sword. 3) People who have actual class features related to items, ESPECIALLY a party with the artificer, will always be able to get item significantly cheaper than market price (37.5%-50% market price is pretty normal, and the XP cost doesn't actually matter *too* much). In this case, you're basically saying "What, I have to pay 10,000 for this? Why would I do that when I can get it for 3750 by making it myself instead of getting it from loot? Or better yet, pick this specific item that I want more?" And of course, if you sell it, the person actually gets enough money to craft it himself and then some, while the party as a whole suffers. Probably why no group in my area allows artificers, we even have 2 groups that mess around with eberron It's a lose-lose situation. Individuals lose. The party loses. No one in real life would agree to it unless they were the gullible type easily swindled out of vast amounts of money by internet mailing scams from minor african countries requesting green cards for false princes. And those people are morons anyways, so we don't care about them. my eyes glazed over after reading in real life.
Ravenscroft 09-06-07, 02:20 PM	If a party i DM has an argument over treasure , my solution is simple. A Deck of Many Things appears. (or Deck of Transformations from Eberron) Players arguing over an item have to draw cards from the deck. The player willing to draw the most cards gets the item.
OneWinged4ngel 09-06-07, 02:29 PM	Sure. As your healing thread indicated, you assume people play with everything. Actually, all points in the healing thread stand true for even core games. There is no assumption that people play with everything. Prevention has always been better than mediocre reaction. Cure Serious Wounds potions have always been a waste of money. There is no assumption that all sources will be used (although tools from other sources are mentioned) so you're just touting your ignorance here. If the gaming groups uses these things. Not every group plays with guilds, affiliations and whatnot. Sure, if you play a game where there's NO crafting, NO affiliations, guilds, contacts, allies, or anything for the party, NO shops, vendors, merchants, brokers, unholy pacts made with dark beings offering you items of power, legendary smiths in deep mountains requiring you to quest for their services, or other source of items that aren't loot, and gp prices are ALWAYS perfectly fixed at market value no matter what, then it might be okay to give out stuff from the loot pile at market price. But I assume that at least a couple of those things exist in the average D&D world, so it's usually not, so you want to use selling price. Oddly, that's what you suggest in your ARGUMENT, which is just weird... Uhm, no they are not getting less money. Example: 4 players, total gold piece value is 5000(16,000gold pieces in money, art, etc. and a +2 shortsword). The rogue wants the shortsword so he gives 4000 gold to the party, which is then divided amongst the rest. The other 3 players come out with 6133.3 gold pieces and the rogue has 1000gold pieces and the short sword. Uhhh, 4000 gold is (approximate) selling price, not market price. This doesn't disagree with anything I've said. You're not actually presenting a relevant argument. o.0 Under the system I was arguing against, the player would be paying 8310gp for the +2 short sword. Not 4000. Not sure why you're confused, but you are. I've actually said that getting the loot for selling price would be reasonable, and you're *supporting my opinion* and thinking you're arguing. That's just silly. Probably why no group in my area allows artificers, we even have 2 groups that mess around with eberron Believe it or not, non-artificers can craft too.
Alyri 09-06-07, 04:16 PM	Actually, all points in the healing thread stand true for even core games. There is no assumption that people play with everything. Prevention has always been better than mediocre reaction. Cure Serious Wounds potions have always been a waste of money. There is no assumption that all sources will be used (although tools from other sources are mentioned) so you're just touting your ignorance here. Not seeing the forest through the trees. Last I checked the healing belt, lesser vigor, etc( you know the things you listed and where they came from) were not in Core they are all splatbooks and not every group uses those books. Things like potions and cure wands are core. That is what I am talking about. Not every group uses everything that wotc has published. How about not trying to 'win the internet'. Sure, if you play a game where there's NO crafting, NO affiliations, guilds, contacts, allies, or anything for the party, NO shops, vendors, merchants, brokers, unholy pacts made with dark beings offering you items of power, legendary smiths in deep mountains requiring you to quest for their services, or other source of items that aren't loot, and gp prices are ALWAYS perfectly fixed at market value no matter what, then it might be okay to give out stuff from the loot pile at market price. But I assume that at least a couple of those things exist in the average D&D world, so it's usually not, so you want to use selling price. Oddly, that's what you suggest in your ARGUMENT, which is just weird... We played with crafting and all it caused was strife between the players so we got rid of it. Everything else you mention is roleplaying not item optimization. Not every guild, affiliation, contacts has access to ye ole +12 hackmaster special. That is completely situational based upon the game at the table and not RAW Uhhh, 4000 gold is (approximate) selling price, not market price. This doesn't disagree with anything I've said. You're not actually presenting a relevant argument. o.0 It's worth. Not it's buying price is how every group I have ever played in since the mid 80s has done gold value Under the system I was arguing against, the player would be paying 8310gp for the +2 short sword. Not 4000. Not sure why you're confused, but you are. I've actually said that getting the loot for selling price would be reasonable, and you're *supporting my opinion* and thinking you're arguing. That's just silly. PHB system does gold piece value not market price. Believe it or not, non-artificers can craft too. They sure can, if the gaming group allows it.
Mock26 09-06-07, 04:58 PM	My group simply lists all the magic items and then discusses who would like what. If more than one person wants the same item then they roll dice for it. The person who then won that item cannot contest an item that the loser of the dice roll may want (but only at that time). Any left over magic items are sold, that cash is added to the rest of the loot. The group then sells everything else, such as weapons, armor, gems, jewelry, etc. This is then added to the total amount of coins that are available. All of this is then mathematically divided equally and all items are assumed to have been sold. A person can speak up and request a particular item if they want. The value of that item is deducted from the total number of coins that a person gets. For example, if each person gets 300 gp and there is a gem with a resale value of 90 gp, someone could take 210 gp and the gem. Of course, all of this is AFTER the thief skims his 5% off of the top. As for the magic item division, my group is pretty laid back about it. If, for example, they found 3 items that only one person in the group could use they would have absolutely no problem with that person taking all three of those items. And at no point in the future would they bring this up as a reason for that person to not have a right to choose something in the future. Of course, that person who got the 3 items would speak up and let others choose first. They all believe that items that can be used are used for the greater good of the group, so they don't get jealous over magic item distribution.
Hot Rod 09-06-07, 06:07 PM	Hmm, it been a couple years since this game, but one group I was in /co-DM for used the following which (IMO) is fast and reasonable. (Exceptions that changed during play mentioned afterward.) - - - Everything is tracked by the "party treasurer". Basically just a list with the selling price beside the item. (IC Based on appraisal) (OOC Selling price, 1/2 market for simplicity sake it averages out) Items can be used from this pool during the adventure as needed by anyone. (One shot expensive items would come from the user's share if it was for themselves, or not if it was for the party benefit as a whole) At end of adventure, the total value of stuff on the list is divided by the number of players, and each can then take items out of the pool as part of their share, or just the gold value once it is sold. If two or more PCs want the same item they can bid on it (paying more of their share) to get it, unless they can come to another agreement in character. If a wanted item is too valuable for one person to take as his share, he can either pay into the pool to make up the difference, or ask the rest to allow the item to stay in the pool until he can afford the rest of it. (Was always agreed to) --------- Later on (about level 6) we decided that healing supplies would stay in the pool, and could even be added to the pool from PCs (at sale value) whether home-made, or found. This added to the person's share gp for gp, and when used was deducted from the total value before dividing the pool. At level 6 we also decided to add a 5th share which would be carried over to the next pool. (since there was 4 of us) About level 8 we decided that raise dead would be included in party costs (had been an individual's personal expense before), and allowed raise dead & ressurect scrolls to be bought for the pool. There were many deaths in this campaign, and it was the number one destroyer of wealth, often requiring the party to sell the deceased's gear to have him raised before we made it a party expense. --- Obvious drawbacks: 1. No allowance for hoarders here. Characters are assumed to be 'lawful' in regards to other party members. (I have an unreasonable bias against greedy fellow PCs, and when DMing interparty strife drives me nuts... ) Hope this helps the OP a little. HR
Arbitrary Aardvark 09-24-07, 04:35 PM	In our group, we give everyone an equal portion of any money we collect, and for items we have this policy: If you need it, you get it. If you want it, you get it if no one needs it. If multiple people need it, the one who is obviously in need of it more gets it. If multiple people want it, we roll a die. Nice and simple. Unless you are in a campaign where 90% of the magical treasure is equipment used by enemy fighter types, and the only spellcaster specific items found are occasional periapts of wisdom +2 and wands of magic missile (CL3), compared to enough +3 longswords to equipe a pair of Maraliths.
Arbitrary Aardvark 09-24-07, 04:40 PM	Back in the day, the AD&D DMG gave the following advice on splitting treasure. I've paraphrased it; I don't have my AD&D DMG with me right now. Back in the day, the AD&D DMG gave the following advice on splitting treasure. I've paraphrased it; I don't have my AD&D DMG with me right now. Quote: Coin, gems, objects d'art, and durable goods should be converted to their gp value. Likewise, make note of the gp (i.e., market) value of all magic items. Sum the values of all treasure and divide equally among all party members. Magic items should be distributed first; subtract the gp value of the magic item from that character's share. If the value of the item or items equals or exceeds the value of the share, that character is considered to have received his fair portion of the treasure and receives no additional compensation. Once items have been distributed, coin is split to make up the difference between the value of the item(s) received an the value of the share. It is possible that one character will occasionally receive only items or only coin. This worked really well back when it was quite difficult for PCs to make magic items, rare for them to be able to buy magic items, and nearly impossible for them to commission custom magic items. Nowdays, I find that even in reasonable party's that about half the magic items are things that no one wants. For example, who is going to want a +2 short spear of improved slickness (list price c. 18,000) as their share of a dragon's hoard. It's a white elephant. Sure, it's a simple weapon, but any spellcaster would much rather have the 9,000 sales price for, I dunno, making something they want, learning spells, going towards improving their item of stat boostness etc.
Arbitrary Aardvark 09-24-07, 04:42 PM	now that is where i find problems in trying to divide loot. how do you know when you find it how much it is worth? do you use out of game knowledge, does the DM jsut tell you, or does someone actually appraise the things upon finding them? Identify can tell you what a magic item is, and then a knowledge arcane check can probably tell you about how much it is worth (with the exception of some of the more esoteric wonderous items, and maybe some rods.)
ghost_image 09-24-07, 06:22 PM	Aside from the standard equal division of gold, our group goes on the principle that a party is as strong as its weakest member. If we get a ring of protection, give it to the guy who can use it with the lowest AC. Masterwork battleaxe? Give it to the one who's either in combat the most, or has the weakest weapon (depending on who can use it and who wants is). If two players want and equally deserve the same thing, they roll for it.
Cifer 09-24-07, 07:26 PM	@ghost_image Dog_O_War has a valid point: Sometimes, it may be better to bolster strengths than to limit weaknesses - If your caster has an AC of 11, he'll also be easily hit if he gets one of 12, whereas the melee guys can sometimes lessen the chance to be hit by one-third with a single point of AC (monsters that need a 19 instead of an 18). That of course also means it should be their main objective to keep the caster's arse out of the meelee.