- A PC pick order is randomly selected.
- All identified items are randomly ordered.
- Item 1 "goes through The System"
- PC with pick "A" can choose the item. If he does, he goes to the bottom of the pick list.
- If PC "A" does not pick the item, PC "B" can pick it (and go to the bottom of the list).
- Repeat until every PC except the last one on the list has had the option to pick the item, or until the item is picked. (The last PC on the list is not allowed to pick because there is no incentive for him to not pick anything.)
- If this is the very first time the System is being used, the last person on the list can pick.
- If the item goes unpicked it becomes Party property.
- PC with pick "A" can choose the item. If he does, he goes to the bottom of the pick list.
- All identified items are sent through The System as above, one at a time.
- Party Property items are either sold for cash or used to the benefit of the party (e.g. Scroll of Raise Dead could be kept for the party or sold, as needed). Decision made by vote (simple majority, 2/3 majority, unanimous), or by rotating "Magic Item czar" position.
- Currently the proposal is to keep approximately 20k gp in diamond dust in the party fund for Raise Deads and Resurrections. On top of that, some amount of cash/gem treasure and cash from magic item sales (probably ~20k or so) will stay in the party fund for party expenses (travel, information, bribes, etc.)
I have not seen this in action yet, and my concern is that the tendency will be for the PC with the A pick to take the most valuable item, regardless of whether or not he can use it most effectively (e.g. the fighter may take the +2 bow, and leave the +1 sword for the ranger).
What are your thoughts and ideas? What do you do in your group?
1. Gold and other coins are divided evenly.
2. The party gets put in order randomly and goes thru the Treasure Draft. (like any other sports draft).
3. Any undrafted item goes into a party pot (Free Agency) where it is used by whoever needs it. Most potions go here. And items that suck or anything that can be donated to some needy lower level hero. (The fighter in the group has an army etc).
4. A player can later, at any time, try to trade another player for an item that they wanted. They may also buy things from the party pot at resale value.
edit: As for bringing people back post mortem, the surviving character(s) assume the cost. The resurrected person would do the same if he/she were in their shoes. But like i said, we're epic so no1 dies that much anymore.
items to go whomever the party agrees can put it to best use.
What about that Cloak of Resistance? Does your party get along so well that there is never a dispute about the less class-specific items? And what about balance? Does the DM insure that you don't get a +1 sword, Gauntlets of Ogre Strength and Full Plate of Fire Resistance and no wands/staves/rods?
@GregT_314: We are playing 3.5
4. A player can later, at any time, try to trade another player for an item that they wanted. They may also buy things from the party pot at resale value.
Forgot to mention that we do this as well, and also allow trades in advance of picking.
What about that Cloak of Resistance? Does your party get along so well that there is never a dispute about the less class-specific items? And what about balance? Does the DM insure that you don't get a +1 sword, Gauntlets of Ogre Strength and Full Plate of Fire Resistance and no wands/staves/rods?
In our game, the DM makes sure there are some items more class specific. They usually wouldnt get touched by the other characters in the item draft. As for the cloak of resistance, if someone else wanted it as well, they can try to trade/buy it off them. But our party does get along well so there is rarely a dispute. Most of us dont even care too much about the treasure anymore and only go through the process if theres something WORTH having a dispute over since our process makes it pretty fair. If we even collect treasure, we usually just throw everything in the party pot.
Made all the more easy by having created 5 wish-list templates for my players - each one with a different assortment of item levels listed so I don't just get a list consisting of "a vorpal sword would be nice, and I liked this one epic tier set of boots."
So if one person got one item and everyone else has already gotten 2 or 3, then he is going to have the first chance to get it.
Besides going by who needs it though, you can also go by who can use it. If three our of five people are wearing a cloak, then two people with the open slot with get the first pick.
We all take turns pointing at each other saying "that would be great for you". Groups who share = win.
Pretty much.
In 3.5 we pooled everything. Items were discussed and given to the person most likely to get the greatest benefit from the item. For items that aren't obvious (Cloak of Resistance was mentioned) we would try to figure out where it would get the most use; for example, a cloak of resistance might go to the person with the lowest saves, the lowest will save, the healer, the tank, or whoever we think could get the most benefit out of it at that moment. If we later found that an item wasn't getting much use, we could always give it to someone else. Any leftover items were sold and the money added to the party fund.
For coin loot, we would keep it together until we had a chance to spend money. First we would buy any party items (click sticks, potions, scrolls, spells for the wizard's spellbook, etc). Then we would take 10% of what was left and keep it in the party fund for emergencies. Whatever was left was divided up equally amongst the party.
Sometimes this can work out with a single player getting more items than anyone else. But in my experience its pretty rare.
Anything that simply can't be used (or won't) goes into the sell pile, and then all money (coins/gems) gets divided as evenly as possible. In general the groups I've been in keep their own money but are willing to pull together to help another out to buy something.
If we later found that an item wasn't getting much use, we could always give it to someone else.
Your characters must be a very tight group of friends if they are willing to pass magic items around like that. In most of the campaigns I've been in, magic is sufficiently rare that once you get a magic item you don't tend to give it up unless you're getting one in return, and even then it's tough. Some of the characters are much more possessive than others (e.g. wizard in current campaign won't give up or use a scroll for anything, and I once played with a rogue who just wanted to collect any and all magic items because they were cool).
My current character is toward the other end of the spectrum. He is a cleric of the artificer god who made the artifacts that made the world. As such he is very in tune with magic items, and has made weapons and armor for the party. He is more willing to share the wealth, as he sees it as his duty to make and/or shepherd the (magic) items that are the tools of those who do good and manifest the will of his god.
But there are a lot of different personalities both among the PCs and among the players, so from a meta-game standpoint we need a fair and balanced way that both players and, more importantly, characters can agree on. To me, the motivations and desires of the characters is very important, so I tend to shy away from systems where the players arbitrarily pass out the items in the way that will make the party the most powerful. The characters should get a vote too.
Sounds like most groups have the "won't/can't use == sell and buy party items/divvy cash" rule, which makes sense (although I have a hard time seeing how buying a spell for the wizard counts as a party expense - I'd love to be a wizard in that group :D Do you buy swords for the fighter and arrows for the ranger as well?)
In this case I would only bring up the point that "Your group is only as strong as its weakest link".
I've been in groups where people just grabbed at whatever whether they could use it or not. Then there was some horse trading that went on between the party. Does it work? Sure. But are those the kind of comrades that you really want watching your back?
Ideally, if we've just come back from an adventure where most melee types received some kind of upgrade, then yes...we would chip in and pay for a wizard scroll.
Sounds like most groups have the "won't/can't use == sell and buy party items/divvy cash" rule, which makes sense (although I have a hard time seeing how buying a spell for the wizard counts as a party expense - I'd love to be a wizard in that group :D Do you buy swords for the fighter and arrows for the ranger as well?)
The more spells the wizard has in his/her spellbook, the more useful they are to the party. While the cost of adding spells to their book could be seen as a partial tax for the sheer diversity available to a wizard, I'd rather see the party fund spent on key spells then be without something like Teleport because Bob the Magnificent spent all his coin on a new Headband of Intellect.
As for swords/ammo, depends on the circumstances. If Fred's sword got sundered into oblivion while he was doing his job defending the party, I'd be happy to consider fixing/replacing it as a party endeavor. If he just wants to upgrade, that's out of his own pocket.
Your characters must be a very tight group of friends if they are willing to pass magic items around like that. In most of the campaigns I've been in, magic is sufficiently rare that once you get a magic item you don't tend to give it up unless you're getting one in return, and even then it's tough. Some of the characters are much more possessive than others (e.g. wizard in current campaign won't give up or use a scroll for anything, and I once played with a rogue who just wanted to collect any and all magic items because they were cool).
But there are a lot of different personalities both among the PCs and among the players, so from a meta-game standpoint we need a fair and balanced way that both players and, more importantly, characters can agree on. To me, the motivations and desires of the characters is very important, so I tend to shy away from systems where the players arbitrarily pass out the items in the way that will make the party the most powerful. The characters should get a vote too.
It's not so much that the party is full of characters who are best friends, its that the party is full of intelligent people who rely on each other to face often overwhelming danger on a regular basis. It makes sense from a survival standpoint to ensure that you and your companions are getting the most benefit from available items/money.
The way I look at it is that if you are a detriment to the group, why would/should the group keep you around. To me, someone who hordes scrolls or takes every magic item lying around isn't someone I want watching my back when it's time to head into danger because some of those items/scrolls might be better off in other hands.
Even an evil or selfish character would be able to see the inherent benefit in ensuring their party members (minions/bodyguards/sacrifices/whatever they consider them to be) are properly equipped and able to keep danger away.
Ideally, if we've just come back from an adventure where most melee types received some kind of upgrade, then yes...we would chip in and pay for a wizard scroll.
Ah yes. That would make sense. And if the adventure was an assault on a wizard's tower, and you came away with mostly wands, etc. you'd probably chip in for the melee types.
Money is divided evenly, items to go whomever the party agrees can put it to best use.
Regardless of edition, pretty much this.
Though sometimes there's cases where there's not even a discussion (for whatever reason) for some items.
Items found and not claimed by any one person get sorted into 2 groups:
Group 1: Shared party items - such as our folding boat in our 3.5 game.
Group 2: Stuff to be sold.
Regardless of edition, pretty much this.
Though sometimes there's cases where there's not even a discussion (for whatever reason) for some items.
Items found and not claimed by any one person get sorted into 2 groups:
Group 1: Shared party items - such as our folding boat in our 3.5 game.
Group 2: Stuff to be sold.
Oh yea, forgot about shared party items.
What about that Cloak of Resistance? Does your party get along so well that there is never a dispute about the less class-specific items? And what about balance? Does the DM insure that you don't get a +1 sword, Gauntlets of Ogre Strength and Full Plate of Fire Resistance and no wands/staves/rods?
Oh no. For the less specific items there's often some wrangling going on. This gets resolved in all manner of ways - trading, offering 1st picks later, buying, gambling, you name it. Hell, one of our recent parties even got into a PC fist-fight over a certain item once.
As for balance? There's no loot faire running ahead of our parties making sure that an equitable assortment of magic items appear.
No, our DMs write adventures & then stock them with items that make sense either for the story or for the NPCs/creatures who wield/own them. If we PCs can, or choose to, make use of these things? Great. If not? Oh well.... Same applies to more "random" loot.
The only time we find (or have a good chance of finding) things specificly geared to us is if we actually seek such things out.
To me, someone who hordes scrolls or takes every magic item lying around isn't someone I want watching my back when it's time to head into danger because some of those items/scrolls might be better off in other hands.
I see your point. There is a very fine line to be tread here. I've had at least one occasion where the party broke up because of distrust and competing motivations. But for me the risk is worth it. The "Super Gung Ho Team!" that is always looking out for what's best for the group can get very bland. There is a lot of tension, drama, and fun to be had when the characters don't always see eye to eye, whether it be on magic item distribution or something else.
I see your point. There is a very fine line to be tread here. I've had at least one occasion where the party broke up because of distrust and competing motivations. But for me the risk is worth it. The "Super Gung Ho Team!" that is always looking out for what's best for the group can get very bland. There is a lot of tension, drama, and fun to be had when the characters don't always see eye to eye, whether it be on magic item distribution or something else.
I don't disagree with you. Mostly I would say that you can still have drama, tension, competing goals and not be a jerk about treasure. I think it's a difference in group play style, for us, inter party conflict is separate from treasure division. For you it's another potential facet of such conflict.
Are you playing 4E? In 4E, it's as simple as "cash gets divided between X players, and magical items go to the person whose wishlist it was on".
The 4e idea of turning in a wishlist of magic items just seems so patently rediculous.
Even more rediculous is having/expecting the wishes be granted.
Everytime I read this I have visions of a PC looking through a catalog, circling things, & then writing a letter to Santa.
Or maybe sitting on a Mall Santas' lap next to the robotic reindeer.
This is a perfectly fine method when said list is turned into Grandma at Christmas time (it's how I got my Basic set back in 1980!) here in the real world.
But it sure loses something when Ragnar the barbarian asks for an axe of awesomeness....
I know, the idea here is to give the DM some sort of idea about what types of treasure/adventures the players are looking for. And this isn't a new idea.
But surely it could've been expressed in a less silly sounding way this time out.
Is there a roffle emoticon? There should be one. Anyway, pretend I used it.
Are you playing 4E? In 4E, it's as simple as "cash gets divided between X players, and magical items go to the person whose wishlist it was on".
That depends how you play the game. You could do the same thing in any edition of D&D, that's not 4E only thing.
How my group does it is coins are divided equally. Magic is consider party treasure and decisions on who gets what are made based where it best fits. Nothing is permanent though, swords get traded around often. Potions, scrolls and such are tossed about a lot too. Armor switch hand from time to time too. Nothing is considered owned by a particular character. Even stuff bought, if they can find something to buy is up for grabs with in the party. They prefer survival over hoarding toys.
What about that Cloak of Resistance? Does your party get along so well that there is never a dispute about the less class-specific items?
My groups have always done it the same way Salla mentioned. And yes, we get along so well that there's never a dispute. Generally when the first cloak of resistance is given out, players compare saves to figure out who would benefit the most. As more cloaks come out, the same occurs. When a +2 appears, the evaluation is done all over again. If somebody who has a +1 cloak gets the +2, then the +1 gets offered to somebody else within the party; if nobody needs it, it gets sold.
And what about balance? Does the DM insure that you don't get a +1 sword, Gauntlets of Ogre Strength and Full Plate of Fire Resistance and no wands/staves/rods?
For my only game at the moment, I am the DM. And yes, I ensure people get stuff they need/want. It's entirely possible that one gaming session will result in the players getting the sword, gauntlets and armor. But the next session will result in a spiffy staff and the capture of an enemy spellbook. Or a shiny new rapier and spiffy leather armor. And so on.
In games I've played (with several different groups) it works the same basic way. The DM works to make sure everybody gets weapon and armor upgrades, the wizard gets access to new spells, and so on.
It's to everybody's benefit to have characters in the best equipment possible. If my character has kick ass saves, it doesn't do the group as a whole any good for me to take the cloak of resistance +1 when somebody else in the group could better benefit from it. If I'm playing a rogue who dual-wields shortswords, it doesn't do me any good to take the full plate armor just because it's the most expensive piece of treasure we found today and I get to "pick first." That armor is better for the fighter or cleric, so it's in my interest to let them get it.
I mean, treasure isnt even that important. What it comes down to is abilities and how you use them because unlike treasure, they cant be taken away (generally). I usually tally a characters value to the party by what they can do and contribute, not what theyre holding.
And no, just because they like to hold more stuff than your character, doesnt mean they would kill you in your sleep. They probably need you just as much as you need them. Thats called teamwork. As a player, refusing to play with someone whos CHARACTER likes to have more stuff than you is worse teamwork than the character snatching that diamond. Its just a diamond. I cant think of one time where one diamond would have saved one of my parties from TPK.
What about that Cloak of Resistance? Does your party get along so well that there is never a dispute about the less class-specific items?
Yes, yes we do. We actually wind up mired in 'you take it, no you take it, no I insist you take it' situations fairly often.
Yes, yes we do. We actually wind up mired in 'you take it, no you take it, no I insist you take it' situations fairly often.
Yep, that's a bigger problem for our group as well.
Magic items go to whomever wants them. In the rare event that more than one person does, they roll for it. If nobody wants the available items, they get turned into residuum for the casters to funds the rituals, alchemy, resurrections etc. that they do.
I simply dont understand why some players dont trust other players because of the dividing of treasure. And I say players because often, the characters wouldnt even know if another character was hoarding items or something like that.
Very true. Except when Player A (Treasure Hoarder) starts wearing rings and brandishing weapons or armor that he didn't have before. Ones suspicion just might be alerted. Small items might easily be concealed, but unless you have magical means of storing other items your comrades will know soon enough.
I mean, treasure isnt even that important. What it comes down to is abilities and how you use them because unlike treasure, they cant be taken away (generally). I usually tally a characters value to the party by what they can do and contribute, not what theyre holding.
If it's not that important, then why is it the biggest motivating factor for adventurers to take up the profession?
A characters value is important. However D&D (pretty much all editions, not really sure on 4th) revolve around gear. A level 20 fighter with standard gear isn't going to get as far as a level 20 fighter with a slew of magical weapons/armor/items.
And no, just because they like to hold more stuff than your character, doesnt mean they would kill you in your sleep.
Possibly not, but greedy people are usually self serving as well. If they are willing to with hold items that could help the party. What else are they willing to do?
They probably need you just as much as you need them. Thats called teamwork.
When you are friends with someone that continually uses you to get what they want is not teamwork. A person (or character) that doesn't see the benefit of sharing, when their life could be dependent on someone else, needs a wake up call.
Now, there are definitely caveats to this (and probably too numerous to list all of them). A couple I would not have a problem with are :
1) Your character did a solo mission and found the Singing Vorpal Sword of Smiting that he can't use but another can. Is under no obligation to hand it over to the party. However, it would probably still be in his best interest.
2) Your character has a debt to pay (possibly doesn't want the party to know or possibly the party isn't allowed to know). This person would appear to just be greedy, but there are other motives about.
As a player, refusing to play with someone whos CHARACTER likes to have more stuff than you is worse teamwork than the character snatching that diamond. Its just a diamond. I cant think of one time where one diamond would have saved one of my parties from TPK.
I've never refused to play because of these kinds of situations. Those type of games usually became more of a free for all and ever man for themselves though.
Realisticly (and I use the term loosely) not everyone in a group is going to agree (in real life or even in game). I do believe it would be ideal for everyone to know where they stand if possible though.
A characters value is important. However D&D (pretty much all editions, not really sure on 4th) revolve around gear. A level 20 fighter with standard gear isn't going to get as far as a level 20 fighter with a slew of magical weapons/armor/items.
They might not get as far, but they shouldnt die either.
Possibly not, but greedy people are usually self serving as well. If they are willing to with hold items that could help the party. What else are they willing to do?
Who's to say what theyre willing to do? Is it up to you to say that they would do more than be self serving just because they have been self serving? Would you ignore all the help they bring to the party and declare that they are booted because they might do more? (And when I say "you" I mean "Should a character" or something that equates. This isnt a personal attack)
When you are friends with someone that continually uses you to get what they want is not teamwork. A person (or character) that doesn't see the benefit of sharing, when their life could be dependent on someone else, needs a wake up call.
I admit that across a certain line, being self serving can be a real problem. Sometimes there actually is a malicious intent to hinder party progress. I'm saying that most of the time, its not that big of a deal. But when its not that big of a deal, it seems like a lot of people I have seen post on the forums over time (not necessarily in this thread) tolerate absolutely NO stealing from the party at all. To the point where they mistrust ANY rogue in their party so much that they shake him down regardless of his/her intentions. That is what I'm against.
To some extent, I would say that even just giving items to the appropriate player isnt a good solution (which is my real issue. I dont know how i got sidetracked :confused
To me, its sort of like if my party found treasure, and the DM just handed us sheets with the stuff we get on it. Its not realistic that even among friends, there is absolutely NO disagreement to how a giant room full of treasure is divided. Thats why most groups ive been in we use a system to divide it.To some extent, I would say that even just giving items to the appropriate player isnt a good solution (which is my real issue. I dont know how i got sidetracked :confused
I don't know, among friends who live very hazardous lives and need to depend on one another for their very survival on a daily basis, making sure everybody has the best tools for the job seems only prudent.
It might be a group dynamic thing. Our PCs don't adventure for money (generally; every once in a while someone goes merc on us, but it's a rare thing). Our PCs adventure because they're good guys into the whole protecting those who can't protect themselves good guy thing. Money and magic items are just a happy side-effect.
They might not get as far, but they shouldnt die either.
I'd have to disagree there. And I'll apologize ahead of time if this isn't a problem in 4th edition, but at level 20 your character is likely to be fighting monsters with Damage Reduction and Resistances that only having magic items will allow you to kill it before it kills you.
Who's to say what theyre willing to do? Is it up to you to say that they would do more than be self serving just because they have been self serving?
Your right, it can be presumptious to assume a person will always act a certain way from one display of character.
Would you ignore all the help they bring to the party and declare that they are booted because they might do more?
It depends on the situation. If they intentionally withheld an item that could have ended a fight quicker and thus prevented anyone from dying, then yes. They would probably be given the boot.
I know sometimes people do things that appear to be selfish simply because they don't think they can be of any help. Example, a party with Monk, Fighter, ranger, cleric, and wizard. The monk, fighter, ranger, and cleric are engaged in battle (and have it under control). so the wizard who is low on spells anyway decides to go loot the bodies. Spot/Perception checks allows your party to notice that instead of helping you are "hoarding" loot.
(And when I say "you" I mean "Should a character" or something that equates. This isnt a personal attack)
Likewise, I try to choose my words carefully to avoid confusion. Sometimes it doesn't work. :P
To some extent, I would say that even just giving items to the appropriate player isnt a good solution (which is my real issue. I dont know how i got sidetracked :confused
No disagreement is unrealistic. Compromise is though. It's not been uncommon in games I've played in to hear something like
1 - "Hey wizard that looks like some pretty cool platemail"
2 - "Yeah, it is...you want it?"
1 - "Sure"
2 - "Ok, but i get the next magic staff we come across"
I'd have to disagree there. And I'll apologize ahead of time if this isn't a problem in 4th edition, but at level 20 your character is likely to be fighting monsters with Damage Reduction and Resistances that only having magic items will allow you to kill it before it kills you.
Touche. I guess I was just speaking from my party's perspective who is already decently equipped.
No disagreement is unrealistic. Compromise is though. It's not been uncommon in games I've played in to hear something like
1 - "Hey wizard that looks like some pretty cool platemail"
2 - "Yeah, it is...you want it?"
1 - "Sure"
2 - "Ok, but i get the next magic staff we come across"
I can see this happening, but in my experience, the way treasure is, the discussion would go like this (slightly exaggerated):
1 - "Hey good job guys we won the battle vs those orcs!"
2 - "Yea good job. What do they have on them?"
1 - "They all had either hide or leather armor, and axes or spears"
2 - "Well as you are a wizard, you could put none of that to use. Give it here. I'm a fighter."
1 - "So that means I get the next 12 magic staves right?"
2 - "Sure, whatever"
I know thats not how it would look every time, but seriously, there is always WAY more melee treasure to go around. That leaves a few classes out a lot of times. Again, thats why we use our system. Even if the fighter wanted something the rogue picked, he can always trade. As long as the distribution is relatively equal and unbiased.
I don't know, among friends who live very hazardous lives and need to depend on one another for their very survival on a daily basis, making sure everybody has the best tools for the job seems only prudent.
What happens if there were more "best tools" for the fighters job in the treasure (as it often is)? Owing "the next magic staff" isnt good compensation. They would probably get that anyway. The wizard would need something to sell to buy whatever. Thats why you cant just give someone the best tool for their job. It needs to all be divided to make sure everyone is always on the same power level.
It might be a group dynamic thing. Our PCs don't adventure for money (generally; every once in a while someone goes merc on us, but it's a rare thing). Our PCs adventure because they're good guys into the whole protecting those who can't protect themselves good guy thing. Money and magic items are just a happy side-effect.
Well yea my party is pretty high level so we all have alternate forms of income. We rarely even collect treasure. But when we do its better to use the system we use.
At any rate, low level characters dont just look at the magic items as a happy side-effect since they cant really change the world as much as an epic character who already accumulated wealth.
I can see this happening, but in my experience, the way treasure is, the discussion would go like this (slightly exaggerated):
1 - "Hey good job guys we won the battle vs those orcs!"
2 - "Yea good job. What do they have on them?"
1 - "They all had either hide or leather armor, and axes or spears"
2 - "Well as you are a wizard, you could put none of that to use. Give it here. I'm a fighter."
1 - "So that means I get the next 12 magic staves right?"
2 - "Sure, whatever"
I know thats not how it would look every time, but seriously, there is always WAY more melee treasure to go around. That leaves a few classes out a lot of times.
Is that fighter really going to use 12 suits of hide/leather and 12 axes/spears? He might keep an axe and a spear, because I've seen fighters that "collect." Otherwise, the whole lot is going to get sold once the group gets back to town, and that cash is going to get split among the entire party.
Is that fighter really going to use 12 suits of hide/leather and 12 axes/spears? He might keep an axe and a spear, because I've seen fighters that "collect." Otherwise, the whole lot is going to get sold once the group gets back to town, and that cash is going to get split among the entire party.
If he keeps one of each, and they sell the rest and split it evenly, its like hes getting rewarded twice. Once when he gets the armor and weapon, again when he gets the gold from selling the rest.
Here is a better example:
Treasure:
- +4 Great Sword
- +3 Plate Armor
- 5 +2 Long Swords
- 5 +1 Chainmail
- Diamond worth 10k
- Gold totaling 100k
If you give the fighter the sword, and give the cleric the armor, and sell the rest dividing it evenly, the fighter and cleric still end up with more treasure than the wizard or rogue. I know this isnt how it would play out every time, but it will hardly ever be a perfect situation where everyone gets an equal share.
Doing a draft or some kind of system, the rogue or wizard at least has a chance of picking one of the higher ticket items in hopes that the fighter or cleric will want to trade. Picking a higher ticket item shouldnt be looked at as selfish, but a way to insure that they get a fair share of treasure, even if it is only in GP equivalent. Now they might be at the bottom of the draft, so they might get the shaft anyways, but thats how the dice fall sometimes
One of our players brought up an interesting point with regards to trades. The fighter values the +1 sword at 2k gp, because he gets full value when he uses it. The wizard only values it at 1k gp, because that's all he can expect to sell it for. But if the wizard picks it, he could trade it to the fighter for something they both would use (e.g a ring) that is worth, say, 1500 gp. Then they both win. The fighter got 2000 "worth" of "power" in exchange for 1500, and the wizard got 1500 in exchange for 1000. The theory is that this fact (asymetrical item value) makes trading easier/more likely which helps draft/pick type systems.
Here is a better example:
Treasure:
- +4 Great Sword
- +3 Plate Armor
- 5 +2 Long Swords
- 5 +1 Chainmail
- Diamond worth 10k
- Gold totaling 100k
If you give the fighter the sword, and give the cleric the armor, and sell the rest dividing it evenly, the fighter and cleric still end up with more treasure than the wizard or rogue. I know this isnt how it would play out every time, but it will hardly ever be a perfect situation where everyone gets an equal share.
*shrug* I hear what you're saying. All I know is that in my games, with several different groups, it always works out in the end.
When I'm the DM, I work very hard to make sure everybody in my group gets stuff they want. My group currently consists of:
-- An elven archer (homebrewed class that basically mixes fighter, ranger, and some prestige classes so we could avoid the multiclassing with a new player)
-- a halfling rogue who uses a sling in combat
-- a dwarven fighter
-- An elven evoker
-- A half-orc cleric of Heironeous
They're all 6th level. In the near future, I'm probably going to include a new hammer for the dwarf, some magical arrows for the archer, and an enemy spellbook for the wizard. After that, I'll work on getting the rogue and cleric some goodies (they're less in need, since they were newer to the group rather than leveling dynamically.)
Every time I've been a player, with 4 or 5 different groups, the DM has done the same thing. He or she has always taken care to make sure that in the long run the treasure breaks even. Sure, this particular session, one person might do much better than another. But that's a short term view of things.
Doing a draft or some kind of system, the rogue or wizard at least has a chance of picking one of the higher ticket items in hopes that the fighter or cleric will want to trade. Picking a higher ticket item shouldnt be looked at as selfish, but a way to insure that they get a fair share of treasure, even if it is only in GP equivalent. Now they might be at the bottom of the draft, so they might get the shaft anyways, but thats how the dice fall sometimes
Don't get me wrong. If this works for your group and everybody has fun, then keep doing it! The only "wrong way" to play is a way that makes it un-fun for your group. It's just never been an issue in my experience.
Yeah, anecdotal evidence is fun.
I have two problems with the "give the items to those who'd use them best" type solutions. First, it smacks of meta-gaming and sucks some of the RP out of it.
I don't think so. Take my group. Certainly any special bow or arrow goes to the archer - or, at least, she gets first shot at it - since she can make the best use of it. Same for sling stuff going to the rogue, arcane scrolls going to the wizard, hammers going to the dwarf, and so on.
I've seen some wonderful roleplay take place over deciding who gets a ring of protection +2 or an amulet of natural armor +1 or any of those sorts of trinkets, too. I don't think this style hinders roleplay, nor do I think it aids roleplay.
Second, you get situations like TrashCrap's, especially when the DM skews more toward "realism" rather than "balance." (What I mean by this is a "realistic" world has treasure you'd actually expect, whereas the "balanced" world has carefully placed treasure that maintains game balance and intra-party balance.)
This is a reasonable point. And I'll elaborate. Sometimes, I intentionally go stretches without giving them things they like. I throw in shortswords and lances and chainmail and hide armor and amulet of mighty fists and so on. I do this for exactly the reason you state -- sometimes, they just don't find stuff they want. They can, of course, sell it. They can use the gold to either go buy something or to commission an item from the wizard (who has a few item creation feats).
One of our players brought up an interesting point with regards to trades. The fighter values the +1 sword at 2k gp, because he gets full value when he uses it. The wizard only values it at 1k gp, because that's all he can expect to sell it for. But if the wizard picks it, he could trade it to the fighter for something they both would use (e.g a ring) that is worth, say, 1500 gp. Then they both win. The fighter got 2000 "worth" of "power" in exchange for 1500, and the wizard got 1500 in exchange for 1000. The theory is that this fact (asymetrical item value) makes trading easier/more likely which helps draft/pick type systems.
Again, I'm not knocking that sort of system. If it works well for your group, keep using it. All I'm saying is that in every group I can recall throughout my gaming time (and I go back to the early 80's) has had no problems splitting treasure based on who needs the item.
Don't get me wrong. If this works for your group and everybody has fun, then keep doing it! The only "wrong way" to play is a way that makes it un-fun for your group. It's just never been an issue in my experience.
Agreed. A couple players in my group used to feel kind of left out if they didnt get a cool +4 item when someone else did so we adopted our little pick method to make sure everyone got about the same amount of wealth each time treasure was divided. If we had tried to do it based on need, I'm sure an argument would have erupted
The 4e idea of turning in a wishlist of magic items just seems so patently rediculous.
Even more rediculous is having/expecting the wishes be granted.
Everytime I read this I have visions of a PC looking through a catalog, circling things, & then writing a letter to Santa.
Or maybe sitting on a Mall Santas' lap next to the robotic reindeer.
This is a perfectly fine method when said list is turned into Grandma at Christmas time (it's how I got my Basic set back in 1980!) here in the real world.
But it sure loses something when Ragnar the barbarian asks for an axe of awesomeness....
I know, the idea here is to give the DM some sort of idea about what types of treasure/adventures the players are looking for. And this isn't a new idea.
But surely it could've been expressed in a less silly sounding way this time out.
I dont really see what's so silly about it. The players, out of character, give the DM a list of things that they want their characters to have at the appropriate levels. What's so silly about that? Well, this is assuming 4e I guess.
What happens if there were more "best tools" for the fighters job in the treasure (as it often is)?
Then the fighter gets them and nobody complains. If nobody else can use it, why would we feel bad about the fighter getting it?
Owing "the next magic staff" isnt good compensation. They would probably get that anyway. The wizard would need something to sell to buy whatever.
I agree, and never suggested that. You're confusing me with another poster.
Thats why you cant just give someone the best tool for their job. It needs to all be divided to make sure everyone is always on the same power level.
I disagree on two points. One, so long as you have the basic three items at level-appropriate plusses (armor, weapon/implement, neck slot), magic item powers are generally weak enough that one character having more than another doesn't generate a significant power discrepancy. Two, my group feels the team is more important than the individual, thus making sure the tools go to the person best able to make use of them to ensure the party is operating at maximum efficiency, as the party whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Teamwork is crucial.
At any rate, low level characters dont just look at the magic items as a happy side-effect since they cant really change the world as much as an epic character who already accumulated wealth.
Just because they can't perform world-shaking deeds doesn't mean low-level characters have to be greedy. Our characters can, and do, look at financial or material compensation for doing good deeds to be secondary to performing the good deeds themselves.
I dont really see what's so silly about it. The players, out of character, give the DM a list of things that they want their characters to have at the appropriate levels. What's so silly about that? Well, this is assuming 4e I guess.
Indeed. What CCS fails to understand is that it's not Regdar handing a list to anybody, it's a player handing a list to the DM.
I dont really see what's so silly about it. The players, out of character, give the DM a list of things that they want their characters to have at the appropriate levels. What's so silly about that? Well, this is assuming 4e I guess.
It's got nothing to do with 4e, even. I've been doing "wish lists" in 3.5 for years.
What happens if there were more "best tools" for the fighters job in the treasure (as it often is)? Owing "the next magic staff" isnt good compensation. They would probably get that anyway. The wizard would need something to sell to buy whatever. Thats why you cant just give someone the best tool for their job. It needs to all be divided to make sure everyone is always on the same power level.
As far as I'm concerned. With the example I gave (and I know it wasn't written out) my fighter would make sure that money was available to the wizard to buy stuff in the mean time.
Our groups, in general, have considered magic items and money to be two seperate forms of treasure. So, money is divided evenly with no regard to the magic items. Magic items are then distributed (again in general) to those that can use them. Remainder of magic items or any that were replaced gets sold, and that money the gets distributed evenly.
Now the groups I have played in don't typically have a problem with pitching in to help someone who needs to buy something if they don't have enough cash.
Everyone who can use the item (proficiencies often disqualify at least one or two players) then decide if they want it. Everyone who wants it then discusses the pros and cons in someone taking it. If its armour then its typically more useful for a melee character then a ranged character. etc.
An item no-one wants gets sold at the earliest time possible. Gold is pooled communally and everyone discusses as a group how it gets spent. Typically people who haven't got a magic item are given preference in spending the gold. Although if an argument can be made as to why someone else should have the gold spent on them (if they're the main melee character and need really good weapons AND armour and only have one).
We don't split the gold evenly between the players. I'm surprised at how many people here do. if you communally pool, then a particular player gets a needed magic item NOW. If you split, it takes 5 times as long for a player to get the needed item.
The only thing we do split are potions of healing (and other like items). And that's because it matters in combat where the potions of healing are.
All 3 games are young, but we haven't had any problem yet. In one of the games it occurred to me that I had taken almost every single magic item. So last game I offered everyone all of the magic items I had (although there was one my character really wanted for story-based reasons), and we quickly discovered only I was proficient in some of the items. And the others simply weren't wanted. So I'll be making sure that I'm the last person who gets to spend gold on items for their character. I've already had to prompt some people into spending some of our gold on themselves (because its guaranteed the item they want isn't going to be available as the item type simply didn't exist when the module was written).
I've played games with people who would snatch everything. Fortunately I don't play with those people on a regular basis.
As for balance? There's no loot faire running ahead of our parties making sure that an equitable assortment of magic items appear.
No, our DMs write adventures & then stock them with items that make sense either for the story or for the NPCs/creatures who wield/own them. If we PCs can, or choose to, make use of these things? Great. If not? Oh well.... Same applies to more "random" loot.
The only time we find (or have a good chance of finding) things specificly geared to us is if we actually seek such things out.
The 4e idea of turning in a wishlist of magic items just seems so patently rediculous.
Even more rediculous is having/expecting the wishes be granted.
In the game I'm DMing I've asked for wishlists and I use those to help determine what items can be found. For example someone said they wanted a magical longsword
Minor spoilers
in an adventure I have the players breaking into a hideout of thieves. Some of the loot the thieves had yet to sell to a fence includes the magic longsword the player asked for.
I didn't have to use a magic longsword. I could have used any random magic item, but the magic longsword is useful for the player so I may as well have it be something useful then something random that may not be useful.
I didn't have to use a magic longsword. I could have used any random magic item, but the magic longsword is useful for the player so I may as well have it be something useful then something random that may not be useful.
Now the groups I have played in don't typically have a problem with pitching in to help someone who needs to buy something if they don't have enough cash.
Concerning fairness and a bruised PC's ego that might not even be expressed, this is the best way I see the whole "best use for the party" method coming into play.
Then the fighter gets them and nobody complains. If nobody else can use it, why would we feel bad about the fighter getting it?
I posted before that its not selfish to try to pick a higher ticket item in a draft method even if you cant use it. The main reason a wizard would pick it is to hopefully trade it to the fighter and make sure he gets a fair share in the treasure (in GP equivalent). He can use the GP he gets off the trade to buy scrolls. Otherwise, he would have to buy them with his hard earned money (less treasure for him for that adventure).
I agree, and never suggested that. You're confusing me with another poster.
I'm not sure but I think the post you quoted me on was referencing another poster? I cant remember lol
Two, my group feels the team is more important than the individual, thus making sure the tools go to the person best able to make use of them to ensure the party is operating at maximum efficiency, as the party whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Teamwork is crucial.
If you do the draft and trade method, that item that would go to the fighter would STILL go to the fighter since hes the only one who could use it. Its just that someone else in the group would also have a chance to profit from the trade where otherwise all they would have after dividing the treasure is some leftovers and a sense of generosity.
Thats why I feel maximum efficiency is better achieved through the draft method.
We don't split the gold evenly between the players. I'm surprised at how many people here do. if you communally pool, then a particular player gets a needed magic item NOW. If you split, it takes 5 times as long for a player to get the needed item.
I'm not following your logic here, John. Maybe I'm just too tired to think clearly. Could you elaborate? It seems to me that in either "system" somebody getting something useful depends on what the villains have at the time they're killed.
I dont really see what's so silly about it. The players, out of character, give the DM a list of things that they want their characters to have at the appropriate levels. What's so silly about that? Well, this is assuming 4e I guess.
Maybe it's not silly but it sure is boring. There is something getting magic items and making them work. It makes the game more fun in my opinion. If you are just handed everything you want that gets boring really quick. Of course this my opinion and this is really a case of preference.
Maybe it's not silly but it sure is boring. There is something getting magic items and making them work. It makes the game more fun in my opinion. If you are just handed everything you want that gets boring really quick. Of course this my opinion and this is really a case of preference.
On the note of wishlists. It would not be my preference to use them. However I do believe the DM should have some idea of what the party uses for equipment and try to make upgrades available.
I understand some items are rare. But a person shouldn't be penalized all the time because the decided to specialize in a Full Blade.
Our current game, magic items have been scarce. Out of a party of 5 (at level 10, and 3.5 btw) there might be a single +1 (or equivalent) item between each of us. And we started at level 5. On that note, we are carrying around a bunch of "useless" magic items that we can't even sell as the community couldn't afford to give even a decent market vaule.
Maybe it's not silly but it sure is boring. There is something getting magic items and making them work. It makes the game more fun in my opinion. If you are just handed everything you want that gets boring really quick. Of course this my opinion and this is really a case of preference.
A few points.
A) Not everything on the wish list gets dolled out. One of my players asked for a set of artifacts from the Book of Exalted Deeds. He might see them if the game reaches upper levels.
B) At least for my groups, a wish list isn't meant to cover every single item you ever want. It's to cover one or two "special" items you'd like to see worked in.
C) Even without an explicit list, players still have wish lists. For example, I currently play a rogue who wields a rapier. Getting a better rapier is an implicit "wish list" item for my character, even if I never come out and say it to the DM.
I'm not following your logic here, John. Maybe I'm just too tired to think clearly. Could you elaborate? It seems to me that in either "system" somebody getting something useful depends on what the villains have at the time they're killed.
I think what he is saying is that if the treasure was 2500 gp (and no items) and you split it evenly between 5 party members, no one could go out and buy a significant magic item. However, if you pooled the money, you could at least buy the fighter a +1 sword. Otherwise the figher would have to wait for 3 more treasures before he had enough.
I'd also like to third the sentiment that Zherog and TrashCrap put forth that if a system works for you, use it. Obviously there is not one system that is objectively better than all others; a lot of it is personal/group preference. I'd also like to say how impressed I am by this thread. If this is any indication of the quality of the forum overall, I just might stick around.
Not only are the ideas well reasoned, they are put forth politely. I honestly hadn't expected such from a large "corporate" forum such as this. (Perhaps I'm prejudiced because of my experience on "corporate" crpg forums.) Thanks to everyone for your input.I think what he is saying is that if the treasure was 2500 gp (and no items) and you split it evenly between 5 party members, no one could go out and buy a significant magic item. However, if you pooled the money, you could at least buy the fighter a +1 sword. Otherwise the figher would have to wait for 3 more treasures before he had enough.
Ah, OK, that makes sense now.
Again, anecdotal evidence and all that... but my groups have always been willing to loan money to a PC who needs it. Now, whether everybody would chip in 400 gp each (in the above example) I can't say. But I've certainly had a PC give cash to another player to help finance an item, and I've seen other players do the same thing.
First a group shouldn't be fighting or competing with each other to the detriment of the group. Certainly they each have their own ambitions, however there is an expectation of cooperative play within a group.
In general it is in their best interests both personally and as a group, to have the loot go where it is best suited and split fairly. Having someone else in the group who is poorly or under equiped is not in anyone's interest. It is the same as playing with an incompetent player, it puts everyone in the group at risk. At best you have a group member who is ineffective, which is dead weight.
My group strategizes our loot, we use loot to buy party consumables and then split the remainder, magic items are discussed as for who it should go to. Items that are upgraded ussually go back into the group pot if someone else uses it. Basically we look at it as equiping a group, rather then individuals.
It's got nothing to do with 4e, even. I've been doing "wish lists" in 3.5 for years.
M'k. Wasn't sure if there was a major reason to not do it in 3.5 or something since I hadn't really read through all the magical items in that system.
Maybe it's not silly but it sure is boring. There is something getting magic items and making them work. It makes the game more fun in my opinion. If you are just handed everything you want that gets boring really quick. Of course this my opinion and this is really a case of preference.
Everything you get doesn't have to be wish listed items. With the way things are set up it's almost certain that some of the things will be magical trinkets that no one had on their list. So while you also get what you want your characters to have, the party is also given the same variety that they would get without using it.
I'm not following your logic here, John. Maybe I'm just too tired to think clearly. Could you elaborate? It seems to me that in either "system" somebody getting something useful depends on what the villains have at the time they're killed.
Let's say you need 500 gp to get a magic sword for the fighter. If you come across 500 gp of treasure and split it 5 ways, the fighter will only get 100 gp and so can't buy his magic sword. It will therefore take 5 times as long for the fighter to get his weapon.
The sooner the fighter gets a magic weapon, the quicker enemies die which is beneficial for everyone from the cleric to the wizard.
Money is divided evenly, items to go whomever the party agrees can put it to best use.
This is how our group does it. We have everyone check thier stats and see who would gainthe most benefit. If its a ring of protection +1, we see who has the lowest AC, cloak of resistance, we see who has the worst resists, and so on.
If we find that 2 people are about the same and each want the item, we roll a d20 and whoever is higher gets it. Simple as that.