
LordKailas |

I appoligze if this has been discussed before
I have recently run into a problem with my group that I would like to try and find a peaceful solution to with regard to party treasure splits.
My gm runs a sandbox style campaign where anyone can play anything and any character you make is always a playable option. In this world I have 3 independent characters that I’ve leveled from 1st level. A 5th level wizard, an 11th level fighter and a 17th level cleric. Lately, in the group I’ve been playing my fighter but I would like to go back to playing my cleric. So, we finished up our current adventure and then players swapped characters so that we would be relatively equal in level.
We had
· My 17th level cleric (who is a necromancer type, so not a healer)
· A 11th level ranger
· A 15th level fighter
· A 17th level arcane archer
· A 14th level sorcerer
Now, the player who has the ranger, loves playing their ranger and is dangerous enough to be effective with our higher levels. This same player also has a 16th level healing cleric (complete with versatile channeling). So, said cleric was brought along.
After the fight, I was splitting the treasure as I have always split treasure, by player. It should be noted that in earlier games, the sorcerer had not balked at this distribution even though they were also playing their fighter since the sorcerer was getting everything.
As a side note, in terms of experience points, experience was being split 5 ways not 6, with the amounts explicitly being given to each player by the dm and the player could decide how that exp was being split among their characters.
The cleric/ranger player balked at having to split their treasure between their two characters instead of all characters getting an equal share. The player pointed out that the characters had no relation to one another (other than being played by the same player). They admitted they didn’t like that exp was being split 5 ways instead of 6, but was willing to concede this since they see experience points as an out of game mechanic, as there Is nothing physical in game that experience points represent.
The DM treats cohorts as characters as well, rather than using the automatic progression rules. The DM also has a tendency to kill off NPCs, pets, minions, mounts and summons in his game targeting these characters first, making it impractical at best to simply have hirelings filling the gaps in the party (bloody is a must have template for any undead I bring with me)
I understand and appreciate the argument that treasure distribution is an in game activity. I also appreciate that it wouldn’t make sense in game for the cleric and ranger to get a single share and be forced to split between the two of them.
However, I know that if treasure starts being split this way, at least two of the other players in our group will also start playing 2 characters just so they can get more treasure to gear their “main” characters. In the end I would end up getting screwed in terms of treasure since I essentially already have multiple characters via my undead, and I don’t want to take a hit to my experience just so I can keep myself and my minions geared.
I would love for my minions to get equal shares of treasure, but I know that wouldn’t fly with the group and I would be hard pressed to defend such a position and honestly I'm ok having to split my treasure among my cleric and his minions.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
I would like to be able to present a solution to the group that is fair and everyone will agree to. Something I can ideally supply a strong argument for.

Jaatu Bronzescale |

Why didn't the Ranger/Cleric make this argument to give up part of his treasure share when it was the Sorcerer/Fighter who was getting the shaft on treasure?
My gut tells me the answer is 'it didn't benefit him' then.
My gaming group has been together in whole or part for 10-15 years. Through all of 3.0 through most of 3.5, we always did the shares.
For a while we did a 'party share' so we could pick up wands/potions/supplies that would be consumed by the group as needed, and just gave each PC a double share.
My current group Played Savage Tides, and we had some issues with people wanting 'their fair share' of everything, which resulted in everything being 'sold' and anyone that wanted something bought it with their share. Wasn't too bad, until we sold off the 20 fly potions two sessions before we really needed them.
For Age of Worms, I took over as the accountant, and just kept consumables as the party share, and split the rest. It seemed to work out decently, so we kept it for Rise of the Runelords. That gave us some glitches however, as we got some really expensive items early, and when a time to split came, no one could afford them. So they got sold, and we missed them later.
In Curse of the Crimson Throne, we're trying a more dynamic loot split. If you can use the item, then you do so. Don't go selling it, because it belongs to the group as a whole. If you get something better, then hand it down to someone else who can use it. If no one wants, then it gets sold and split.
TLDR version, there's no reason not to modify your loot handling, but it needs to be agreed on outside of the game too. If the ranger had mentioned his concerns when he first decided to bring the cleric along, then it could have been discussed and settled, before there was a pile of loot with items everyone wants and now might not get because their share is smaller.