What is the fairest way to distribute party loot?


Advice

51 to 100 of 190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Anguish wrote:
It occurs to me the solution to this thread is: Ye Olde Magic Shoppe.

That doesn't solve the sort of problems that people have.

A typical problem might be:
"OK, we've found a 400gp and a +3 cloak of resistance. Who's needs one of those?"
"I do."
"I do too."
"OK, roll off."
"Natural 20."
"Right, you get it. Then we split the gold. 100gp each."
"Cool, now I can sell my +2 cloak of resistance and buy a magic bow at the magic shop."
"But I only had a +1 cloak of resistance!"
"So?"
"That's not fair!"
"It'll balance out next time we find loot."
"Yeah, right."

We generally don't have these problems because:

1) the cloak will usually go to someone who has the worst saves and/or weakest cloak currently in the party

2) if it goes to someone who already has a better cloak than someone else in the party (in the example, the +2 cloak gets passed on to the person with the +1 cloak and the +1 cloak gets sold, proceeds divided, if nobody else claims it)

Everybody's reasonably happy. And if they're not happy with that style of treasure division, they're probably not a good fit for our group.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Anguish wrote:
It occurs to me the solution to this thread is: Ye Olde Magic Shoppe.

That doesn't solve the sort of problems that people have.

A typical problem might be:
"OK, we've found a 400gp and a +3 cloak of resistance. Who's needs one of those?"
"I do."
"I do too."
"OK, roll off."
"Natural 20."
"Right, you get it. Then we split the gold. 100gp each."
"Cool, now I can sell my +2 cloak of resistance and buy a magic bow at the magic shop."
"But I only had a +1 cloak of resistance!"
"So?"
"That's not fair!"
"It'll balance out next time we find loot."
"Yeah, right."

Or just sell it and slit the profit


The problem with heavily weighting distribution by who is numerically the most effective with things is obvious. A greedhead will build to make those numbers look the best. He will also NEVER have enough. Some of you will have never run into this situation and will say the very idea is ridiculous. Perhaps the rest of your table may have a different experience.

There is NEVER going to be a universal way this can work, because there is never even a universal idea on what is fun. You are safer if you at least try to have a somewhat equal distribution.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The fairest way to distribute wealth is to have all wealth immediately converted to liquid capital and distributed by simple division. It's not realistic, but if the party can't figure out how to play nice, you can't stop the game in its tracks to deal with this kind of petty BS. It would be better to RP everything, since that allows characters to develop. However, from the sound of it, your party isn't willing to cooperate with each other. There's more afoot here than just wealth distribution.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Feral wrote:
I've been in too many games where the party uses the 'need' model and 90% of the party's wealth ends up on the fighter.

And that's about the fairest distribution I can think of. The casters have actual class features that matter, so they don't really need gear except a component pouch/spellbook/holy symbol. The fighter does need gear, and desperately so -- he can't do his job without it, and a lot of it.

If you have a rogue, too, the best distribution is probably 45% fighter, 45% to the rogue, and 5% each for the cleric and wizard. Magic is how things gets done in this game. If you don't get it from your class, you need to get it from gear. So the gear needs to go to the people who actually need it. If you have more than half of the party are mundanes, fire some of them and hire some casters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Anguish wrote:
It occurs to me the solution to this thread is: Ye Olde Magic Shoppe.

That doesn't solve the sort of problems that people have.

A typical problem might be:
"OK, we've found a 400gp and a +3 cloak of resistance. Who's needs one of those?"
"I do."
"I do too."
"OK, roll off."
"Natural 20."
"Right, you get it. Then we split the gold. 100gp each."
"Cool, now I can sell my +2 cloak of resistance and buy a magic bow at the magic shop."
"But I only had a +1 cloak of resistance!"
"So?"
"That's not fair!"
"It'll balance out next time we find loot."
"Yeah, right."

How about: Don't be a dick?

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Feral wrote:
I've been in too many games where the party uses the 'need' model and 90% of the party's wealth ends up on the fighter.
And that's about the fairest distribution I can think of.

Agree. It may seem boring for the rest but remember that a fighter will have to put up with quite a lot of shit so that you don't have to.

Oh, and: Use the Automatic Bonus Progression rules. Seriously. The best.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your system as described in the original post works quite well. I actually spelled this system out verbatim a few years back. That makes me biased, but that also means I understand the system you are using.

Alynthar42 wrote:
Our system wasn't causing problems until we found a few potions in a bandit base we'd just trashed. Two of us wanted to count potions towards your total value, because we felt that the basis of the system was to keep track of your gold spent and your effective wealth by level. In other words, we don't have personal cash deposits because this system allows us to get more items and is less hassle, but we are trying to evenly distribute wealth anyway. One of our players objected to this, saying that once a potion is gone, it is no longer of value to him.

Generally speaking, picked loot value only goes up.

The potions picked would count against the total loot value picked by the character. That's the way the system works. It doesn't matter if you use up the item (potions, scrolls, wands, etc.) It doesn't matter if you later sell the item to get the gold. If you pick it, then it counts against the character's picked loot value.

If someone doesn't want it to count towards their picked loot value, then they must pass on it to give everyone else the chance. At the end, when the party goes to sell it, they can simply sell it to the character and split the gold as normal, or the party can decide to give it to party loot, usable be anyone if the need arises.

If two people want the potion, then it definitely must be counted as a picked loot value item.


I also want to observe that ABP solves a lot of these problems, and if they keep coming up it might be worth considering.

You can still fill loot piles with stuff people want, but at the very least ABP ensures that people will always have the appropriate mathematical bonuses to keep the expected pace so it doesn't matter if you get the +3 cloak or the +2 scimitar.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Casters do need items too. Funny, huh? See, while wizards can usually ignore weapons and armor, they still need stat boosters, ioun stones, various wondrous items etc. Clerics do the same thing only need armor too. Druids needs Wild armors etc. Not to mention wizards need spells in their spellbook, which costs.

There is much anti-caster propaganda out there. Don't listen.


Another way to implement the OP's loot distribution method.... Virtual Gold.

At the very start of a game, give every character in the party "virtual gold". The amount is arbitrary, so let's use 10,000 gold to start as an example.

When splitting items, characters pay for them with this virtual gold. If more than one person wants the item, the person with the most virtual gold remaining gets it (and then pays virtual gold for it).

If no one wants to spend virtual gold on an item, the party then decides to sell it for real gold or to treat it as party loot.

Don't ever split the virtual gold paid for items. That would be too much math. As the need arises, simply distribute more virtual gold in equal quantities to all party members.

This will simulate a bit more the opportunity cost sensation of actual spending. It does lose a bit of value for being a GM tool to track wealth-by-character that the picked loot value generates.

*********************************

For those people that really believe that fighters and rogues deserve more loot value (for whatever reasons), simply double or triple the virtual gold distributed to those particular classes.


Come on guys give the wizard some treasure. Otherwise we are going to have to break reality(again). Boris we love you but I have limited hp and the dm's book hurts

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

We did a value based distribution/accounting.

Each party member was allowed an equal share of treasure. Items in the treasure were calculated based on resale value (because the item was only worth the gold it could be sold for). From there items were either handed out to those that wanted them or sold. Party members that received an item had is resell value subtracted from their share. if more then 1 party member wanted an item they worked it out.

At different times players would receive an item that is worth more then their share, at that pint they would either pay the difference to the party or end up owing money which would be paid back once more treasure was gained. At times because of the loot gained one party member would end up owing a fair amount of money to the group but could always sell items to settle their debit.

If 2 or more party members wanted the same time and one owed money to the party the part member without the debt would receive the item.


Sissyl wrote:
Casters do need items too. Funny, huh? See, while wizards can usually ignore weapons and armor, they still need stat boosters, ioun stones, various wondrous items etc.

Need them, or just want them? Even with 0 point-buy, the wizard is SAD enough to jack Int to where he's hitting the save DCs he needs, without stat boosting items. And if he wasted enough points elsewhere so that he needs the items, he can craft them for half-price. As far as non-numerical stuff, remember he can swap out his entire spell selection the next day, to cover for anything he's missing.

Sissyl wrote:
Clerics do the same thing only need armor too. Druids needs Wild armors etc.

Except at very low levels, they don't need armor at all. They never actually need magic armor -- they can stand back and cast spells while pets and magic minions fight for them. The fighter lacks that option -- he HAS to fight for himself, because he lacks any class features allowing him to delegate that task.

Sissyl wrote:
Not to mention wizards need spells in their spellbook, which costs.

Pennies on the dollar. On top of all the free spells they already get as -- wait for it -- a class feature.

Sissyl wrote:
There is much anti-caster propaganda out there. Don't listen.

There's a lot of anti-cancer propaganda, too. We all know the truth -- one aspirin tablet totally cures it, and the rest is conspiracy theory! Don't drink the kool-aid, man!


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Ah yes. Casters are cancer. Such a lovely way to put it.

Also, Kirth, you must have a very accomodating GM. One who never puts in threats that are not easily dealt with using the caster's current spell selection. One who just lets the clerics and druids hang back and cast spells. But it is rather harsh of your GM to demand that clerics and druids focus on summoning. And as for pennies on the dollar... you know all those spells you say the casters have to switch between? Well, it adds up to four spells per spell level, a few more at lvl 1. Do check the cost for buying more, which you are definitely going to need if you intend to "switch your entire spell selection the next day".

Do yourself a favour, play a wizard or two, hmmm?


Our method seems to be 'the Irorian cleric tends to grab all the stuff and dole it out as he thinks we need it'.

Seriously, as far as items we put them on who can use them best, with general debate if more than one wants to claim it. We haven't hit a case yet where a hand-me-down would happen, but I like to think that it'd go peacefully. (Plus, for weapons we have ... a CRAFTER!)

Cash usually gets split as is ... unless there's some Restoration spells that need casting. Usually these have come straight out of the top of the cash. We'd probably do the same with Raise Dead's toll too if/when it comes up.


When actual treasure is used in my games it either goes with a most needed set-up, or everything that isn't going to the party pool (cure potions/wands, restoration or Resurrection scrolls and the like) is tallied up at sell price added to cash and gem totals and then everyone is given their effective share of the loot. If you want an item you have to cover its effective shares to everyone else either out of your share of cash, if any, or your own funds.

Dark Archive

If fighters need so much more gear than casters then maybe you shouldnt play a fighter. Meatshield isnt a role that a party member needs to cover.

A caster without stat boosting items can get only a 25 int. 20 at start and 5 from leveling up.

Party members should be given loot in accordance with how well they can use it.

You don't throw good money after bad. If someone is playing a fighter in a campaign higher than 12 then they are not a useful character to have.

Class features serve as a force multiplier for gold that you give that character. The goal for my group is to make an effective party. The goal is not to make every character equal by giving one all of the equipment. Playing a garbage character doesn't mean we give you more money. Your character might be kicked from the group if he doesnt contribute.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You asked for the fairest way to distribute loot, in an effort to make sure everyone gets an equal share?

Sell EVERYTHING you find, split the coins evenly among all members. Fair. This ensures that everyone gets the same share of gold and there can be no argument regarding one player/character getting more.

However, this may not be the best way, because now that Archer needs to buy the +2 Composite Longbow for more than what you just sold one for.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've gone through more treasure distribution schemes than I really want to think about. They varied from requiring a spreadsheet and careful accounting of every item to very ad hoc, who needs this now?

I have often gotten stuck with doing the record keeping and accounting. I don't find that fun.

The current system is people lay claim to items. If no one claims something, we sell it and distribute the loot keeping the rounded off value for party needs like wands or potions.

Some care needs to be used in this, because it can be unfair. Work together and trust that the people you are playing with will not be greedy jerks. Every once in a while, check if someone isn't getting enough loot and always watch the distribution of the big six items to make sure no one is left behind. You can use ABP as a guideline for this.


Let us see. A wizard 20 trying to cast something at a balor. First, overcome SR of 31 using 1d20+lvl, +4 with spell penetration feats. Adds up to 70% chance of success. If that succeeds, you will have to beat its saves: +29 fort, +17 ref, +25 will. Considering that your max int mod is 7 at 25, That means that your save DC with a lvl 9 spell is 10+7+9=26. The balor autosaves fort and will, and has a 60% chance to save vs reflex. With greater spell focus, the saves are auto, 50% and 90%.

Doesn't seem the wizard can actually "hit those save DCs".

Now give the wizard a +6 int item and a +5 inherent bonus. The save DC is 10+13+9+2=34. The balor saves at 80%, 20% and 60%.

This situation is not entirely realistic. Usually the PC will be lower level than the monster. Note, though: Even harshly specialized, using a lvl 9 ref save spell in the focus school, the same level wizard has only a 56% probability of getting to affect the balor with a spell and getting a failed save. Your model gets you 35%. Yeah. You would notice that.


Having played both casters and martials I aggree that martials are more equipment dependent than casters, but that doesn't mean a caster doesn't need gear at all.

First, as Sissyl mentioned, a Wizard or a Witch need more investment in learning new spells. A wide variety of spells is what makes playing a prepared spellcaster a viable choice. A wide spell selection doesn't just benefit the caster but the whole party. Protection from energy, Fickle Winds, Deathward, etc. are spells that can easily save your ass and the only way to know all the ones that you need is by buying new spells. My Witch could learn an extra spell per level as favored class bonus and still needed to buy a lot of them.

But let's forget about spells. Most spellcasters have low Fort saves. Have your Fort targeted on a surprise round and there's nothing you can do but die.

ABP can be an option, but it depends on your group preferences. I'd rather decide wether to spend, say, on a cloak of resistence or on adding new spells rather than receiving automatically the bonuses of the cloak.


The method I picked up from my group:

0: Keep a list of all loot gathered and divvie it up at an appropriate time. Such as between sessions over email.
1: Party makes a call on any "communal" items. Bags of holding, potions, interesting slotless wondrous items, etc. Those go in the party toolbox.
2: We discuss who wants/can use any given items. Nobody's allowed to take an item with the intention to turn around and resell it. If multiple people want it, we look at who's gotten more items and it goes to the one with less. Or organize a trade. Something civil.
3: Anything we don't intend to use or keep for later use gets sold off when the PCs get the opportunity.
4: The gp from selling the chaff gets divided among the PCs. Sometimes an extra share will go to the party toolbox to pay for things like NPC services.

My group doesn't generally have a problem with dickish greedy PCs because we don't make any. Even our worst kleptomaniac kept it to pick pocketing and graverobbing small stuff when he was scouting solo.


In the skull&shackles campaign I'm running, we have a cavalier (daring champion) of the cochatrice order, which means he is forced to get at least an equal share of the loot.

He ensures this by writing down every piece of loot they find with its gold value. If a PC claims anything, that value is assigned to his characters personal wealth and whenever there is new loot the one with the lowest wealth will probably get it if he needs it. They can give their stuff back in the group treasure pool to reduce their wealth by that amount. If they get a cloak of resistance +3, the +2 goes back to group treasure for example and could be claimed by someone else.

When they sell unclaimed loot the resulted gold is distributed evenly. While it would be fairer to distribute it in a way that evens out personal wealth, I think its just more fun to actually get an item every now and then.
Potions and similar consumables or items that benefit the group as a whole (bag of holding) are usually not claimed, but given out or sold as the group sees fit. Theoretically they could be claimed of course.

Personally I love his dedication, as it is easy for me to check if they are still reasonably close to the expected WBL.


Similar to what we do.
Depending on the players we have we are a bit more strict with it or a bit less.
In my recently finished RoW campaign (I was a player) we just shared everything and everybody got what was needed.
I got most of the scrolls and martials got a bit higher share of the loot because they needed it, but because everybody aggreed. Also depending on the fights some items were carried by different party members. We had a Ring of Evasion that was worn by almost all the party members!
But as in some groups we have more greedy players we don't do this often.
We don't have a lot of looting issues anyway because most of my players are civil and in the rare cases they cannot come to an aggreement I intervent as a GM to give the item to the player I think it fits the most or force them to sell (as I did when a Wizard wanted to have a magic whip just because it was fiery and didn't plan to use it. The other party members wanted to sell it, as it was very, very expensive, and the Wizard didn't want the whip to count as his share of the loot as he wasn't going to use it).


Lintecarka wrote:
In the skull&shackles campaign I'm running, we have a cavalier

Sorry for derailing, but I'm curious of this character.

I'm running a S&S campaign too so I have a few questions out of curiosity:
-What kind of mount does he have? Something aquatic themed?
-A Cavalier doesn't sound like the obvious choice for this campaign, but it's not an instant «no» either. How often is he being able to benefit from his mount?

I'd have discouraged my players to choose playing a Cavalier because I'd have feared they couldn't use their mount too often, but now I'm just curious about how well can a Cavalier do through this AP, because after GMing the first 5 books I think it can be done easier than I had thought.


no party loot each person gets their own stuff


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Not to mention wizards need spells in their spellbook, which costs.

Pennies on the dollar. On top of all the free spells they already get as -- wait for it -- a class feature.

True. Also true that fighters lack spells. - a class feature-.

An easy fix.
Stop giving away your spells for free! The fighter does not deserve them for free. Instead, the fighter has to pay for that buff or that heal with gold the same amount as a potion, or maybe a 10% discount for a good friend.

And if the fighter is being an ahole, make him pay double for that cure poison that is killing him.
In battle, stand back and if things go south, just run away. Aint your problem if the battle goes wrong. You are not really part of the group anyway, a hanger on who doesnt get paid for the crap that happens.
If its a REAL nasty battle, stand back REAL far away, like a bar or something. At least far enough that you dont need protection.


Nobody is saying that the Wizard shouldn't be casting spells on the party or that he shouldn't play as a part of the team, quite the opposite. The Wizard needs extra spells to be able to support the party the same way a martial needs a good weapon.

Nobody is saying that the party has to pay for the Wizard's spells either, just that the Wizard deserves a share of the loot as much as a martial does and gains a benefit from getting it.

A Wizard/Witch with just the basic spells gained from leveling is not going to be so effective as he will lack a variety of options. And, let's be honest, the spells that are going to be left out in that case are probably the most circumstancial ones that could benefit the party in very specific situations.


Sissyl wrote:
Not to mention wizards need spells in their spellbook, which costs.

Pennies on the dollar. On top of all the free spells they already get as -- wait for it -- a class feature.

True. Also true that fighters lack spells. - a class feature-.

An easy fix.
Stop giving away your spells for free! Its YOUR class feature, not someone elses! The fighter does not deserve them for free. Instead, the fighter has to pay for that buff or that heal with gold the same amount as a potion, or maybe a 10% discount for a good friend.

And if the fighter is being an ahole, make him pay double for that cure poison that is killing him.
In battle, stand back and if things go south, just run away. Aint your problem if the battle goes wrong. You are not really part of the group anyway, a hanger on who doesnt get paid for the crap that happens.
If its a REAL nasty battle, stand back REAL far away, like a bar or something. At least far enough that you dont NEED protection.

Anyway....
What goes wrong in the need based system is the different views on needs. Its easy to say to someone else "you dont need it" and take it for yourself, because you really really really really need it, because its so much more useful.
The need system also rewards for building bad characters. I played this cleric that was quite the historical monk-type. Not really a vow of poverty, just not that much interest in possession of property, but great NEED for learning, as a person. Also, the character was created on those lines. Melee capable, maybe, but wisdom based.

So, at level 8, I still had just the level 1 gear. I never even asked for some of that stuff, because, even if useful, my character was not really interested. Especially if it was shiny. No thanks.
But that book of permanent +2 to wisdom....
My character wanted it, needed it, coveted it. What was it? A book of lost religious teachings? Wisdom and philosophy of ages past? Guide on meditation? But for the others, it was just a +2.
And it DISAPPEARS when used. LOST forever.
And the group thinks, its better off with the half-literate druid because he had made a bad character, point wise. Because he would just love to eat it or something.

Now, notice, this player had created the character with that need in mind. A really pressing need to get those higher level spells. No +2, no spells. As a player, i agree that at that moment, the usefulness to the party is greater. Even so, making a badly designed character gets rewarded. Maybe even, greed gets rewarded, at least that what my character would think. The meek do not inherit the earth, or the loot.

Adding insult to the injury, I was told also the reverse logic "Your character is not useful enough to the party, so doesnt deserve the loot."

Anyway, my near-pacifist cleric is ready to nerd-rage at the loss of the book, and challenges the druid to a duel, a duel he is likely to lose. He is ready to risk to violate the the rules of his order to save the book. The druid already has the loot, so sees no reason to risk it.
Had the rules and the group given the permission, my cleric would have attempted to take the book by force anyway, even if it would mean losing his cleric powers in the process.
Thats another kind of need. I could say that fighters do not really NEED armor or swords, they just really find them useful. For my character, the knowledge and wisdom was a NEED.

Now, I fully understand that for the group, those spells will become very useful. But for me, personally, as a player, I do not want to roleplay and feel the resentment, anger, frustration, and ultimately, the religious doubt that follows from this, what my character sees as betrayal. And as character, I do not see how he could adventure with people who he sees as his enemies, and more than that, whos continued presence would risk him to act against his faith, and to doubt it to the point of losing it. He would, in my opinion, after seeing the book lost, ultimately risk turning to the Dark Side, so to speak, something he is unwilling to do. So the only choice, for both to the character and to me as a player, is to not play at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Another easy fix: Play as a commoner. Every single piece of magic is going to have to go to the commoner to make him able to contribute...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kileanna wrote:
I intervent as a GM to give the item to the player I think it fits the most or force them to sell (as I did when a Wizard wanted to have a magic whip just because it was fiery and didn't plan to use it. The other party members wanted to sell it, as it was very, very expensive, and the Wizard didn't want the whip to count as his share of the loot as he wasn't going to use it).

Just out of curiosity, which one did you choose?

I can see a no win situation there. For the others, its wrong to lose the money from the sale, yet for the, I assume, fire elementalist Wizard the losing of the really cool part of the character look can be a big thing. I remember this pirate captain whos GM made all ships realistic to the era, as in, having a tiller, not a wheel for the control. And whats the point of being a pirate captain if you cant be Errol Flynn and look dashing while leaning on the wheel on the aft deck? It was like, we all play as Han Solo, but you dont get Millennium Falcon, ever, you get a tugboat with guns.

My advice is, to strike a deal with the player that he can use it as a part of his characters description and when roleplaying, maybe for swinging movie style, using it like a fancy piece of rope, or for threatening, but never as a weapon, and still sell it for money. Not -realistic-, but will make everyone happy.

Just remember to make him write on his paper that it is NOT for use, and check that the note is there, in the paper. Some players end up "forgetting" this agreement, and argue about this anyway the next time. With those players, the possible damage is worse than just telling everyone in the first place "If you kids dont play nice, I will take it away from everyone."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mr. Shaman, what you mention there is something that goes beyond the looting system and that you are not fixing by just setting appropriate rules for the loot (note that I'm not suggesting any system as each group is different and the way to deal with loot should be personalized. I can only say what works in my group).

What you are saying there is about people wanting to abuse the system and about lack of trust in a group, about badly built characters,etc. That doesn't have anything to do with the loot system and should be dealt with as a different issue.


The GM does his work. He takes in account who's in the party and changes the loot accordingly giving something to everyone.
For classes with very unusual needs (like gunslingers) they can get nothing as far as specific loot goes but the the party should give them a larger share of the money so they can buy the stuff they need and can't hope to find in a dungeon (because the GM doesn't want to break suspension of disbelief).
That said, as already noted some classes have lesser requirements in terms of magic items than others. A martial is supposed to have access to a lot of very costy gear. A wizard might need some costy gear like wands of metamagic but can also work well with lesser costed items like scrolls.


Dr. Shaman wrote:
Kileanna wrote:
I intervent as a GM to give the item to the player I think it fits the most or force them to sell (as I did when a Wizard wanted to have a magic whip just because it was fiery and didn't plan to use it. The other party members wanted to sell it, as it was very, very expensive, and the Wizard didn't want the whip to count as his share of the loot as he wasn't going to use it).

Just out of curiosity, which one did you choose?

I can see a no win situation there. For the others, its wrong to lose the money from the sale, yet for the, I assume, fire elementalist Wizard the losing of the really cool part of the character look can be a big thing.

I forced him to sell.

Everybody was fine with him keeping the weapon as long as he took it as his share of the loot, but he wanted to have it for free and the other players didn't feel comfortable about it.

He didn't want to wield it, just keep it in his bag because it was a fiery weapon.

In this case I take Spock's advice and benefit the whole party above a single individual, so if he was the only one who was happy about it and wasn't willing to come to an agreement with the other party members to keep the whip, I had to act as a GM to avoid further conflict.

He wasn't happy, but everybody else was. In a no win situation I minimize losses.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Anguish wrote:
It occurs to me the solution to this thread is: Ye Olde Magic Shoppe.

That doesn't solve the sort of problems that people have.

A typical problem might be:
"OK, we've found a 400gp and a +3 cloak of resistance. Who's needs one of those?"
"I do."
"I do too."
"OK, roll off."
"Natural 20."
"Right, you get it. Then we split the gold. 100gp each."
"Cool, now I can sell my +2 cloak of resistance and buy a magic bow at the magic shop."
"But I only had a +1 cloak of resistance!"
"So?"
"That's not fair!"
"It'll balance out next time we find loot."
"Yeah, right."

I'm afraid it does. The cloak and the gold are worth a total of 4,900gp. Each PC gets 1,225gp. Nobody can buy the cloak. Yet.

If the party can agree to sit on the cloak for a while (until there's another 16kgp worth of loot to divvy up), fine. If they can't... again, fine. It gets sold off any everyone gets their FAIR share and nobody gets the better-than-their-fair-share cloak.


Anguish wrote:

I'm afraid it does. The cloak and the gold are worth a total of 4,900gp. Each PC gets 1,225gp. Nobody can buy the cloak. Yet.

If the party can agree to sit on the cloak for a while (until there's another 16kgp worth of loot to divvy up), fine. If they can't... again, fine. It gets sold off any everyone gets their FAIR share and nobody gets the better-than-their-fair-share cloak.

You can shorten the wait if players are allowed to give back items they already have. And it benefits the players who want those items.

Also, I find a treasure with 400 gp and a +3 cloak very unlikely. It seems designed to cause problems with sharing the loot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:


I'm afraid it does. The cloak and the gold are worth a total of 4,900gp. Each PC gets 1,225gp. Nobody can buy the cloak. Yet.

If the party can agree to sit on the cloak for a while (until there's another 16kgp worth of loot to divvy up), fine. If they can't... again, fine. It gets sold off any everyone gets their FAIR share and nobody gets the better-than-their-fair-share cloak.

Frankly, I find this the most ridiculous outcome of the heavy accounting method - that a very useful but too expensive item must be sold in the interest of exacting equality of wealth because there isn't enough other wealth to cover the value if one PC should take it. You end up selling it for half value only to potentially have to pay full value later on when someone chooses to upgrade to it. It's a waste.


Sissyl wrote:

... you must have a very accommodating GM. One who never puts in threats that are not easily dealt with using the caster's current spell selection.

And as for pennies on the dollar... you know all those spells you say the casters have to switch between? Well, it adds up to four spells per spell level, a few more at lvl 1. Do check the cost for buying more, which you are definitely going to need if you intend to "switch your entire spell selection the next day".

Here's the thing, unless you're playing a situational Wizard who relies on switching spells, you will never need to go outside of those 4 spells per spell level...

On the other end, *not cancer* will pretty much always need more AC/to-hit/damage to fill their role.


Sissyl wrote:
Another easy fix: Play as a commoner. Every single piece of magic is going to have to go to the commoner to make him able to contribute...

Yes, that's true. And it's also true that giving all of the loot to the fighter still won't make him the equal of a full caster. But barring massive system revision, that's just how things are. So each group needs to decide whether to (a) give mundanes extra loot as a consolation prize, (b) give them equal loot and accept that they're basically caddies at mid to upper levels, or (c) fire all the mundanes and replace them with casters (as someone advocated above).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rub-Eta wrote:
Here's the thing, unless you're playing a situational Wizard who relies on switching spells, you will never need to go outside of those 4 spells per spell level...

4 spells per level might be enough to your main strategy, but if you want to have alternatives you'll be needing more.

Also, you don't have to be playing a «situational» character to give use to situational spells. You might have a well defined strategy but have some slots left for situational spells.

As a Witch, I am probably not using Anti-Incorporeal shield so much that I want it to be one of my 4 level 4 spells, but in the right situation it will save my party's ass.

Also, I want some status removal, dispels, buffs, debuff, protection spells, etc. that I won't be using every day but that will surely benefit my party in the right situations. If you start counting the spells there is a long list.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Kirth's point wasn't that casters are not less effective without gear but rather they have options that let them get by without gear. Obviously X + Y will be greater than just X.

Like for the Balor Example with Spell perfection and being an elf the caster can auto defeat SR (+30 spell perfection another +4 and elf for a +2). But going a save or die build when you don't have stats is like trying to kill a balor without boosted strength or a magical weapon. The point is the Wizard doesn't NEED to go a save or die build. The Wizard could gate in a Solar and totally ignore the fact that his save DC's are shit.

A Martial doesn't have that sort of flexibility or rather their flexibility is almost always tied to gear, and gear is how martial generally compensates for lack of spells.

While a caster obviously would not be as good without gear they still have options and builds that let them be useful using just their class features (like buffs, summoning, mobility, zone control).

As an example In a recent game we entered a Dungeon which was a constant anti magic field, so no gear and only a few spells (wall of force and resilient sphere). We knew we were going in and the Wizard with his 2 bound angels carried the party as their high base stats AC and damage reduction and innate flight.

Us melee martial's didn't engage in fights as our AC was 20 at best without our gear and all the damage we took couldn't be healed, not to mention our to hit and damage took a large hit while our foes AC's did not.

Our Archer was useful up until she ran out of bolts due to the majority of them being in a bag of holding.

The Wizard also saved multiple party members using some well placed and timed telekinetic sphere's and walls of force to negate foes attacks entirely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kileanna wrote:


Also, I want some status removal, dispels, buffs, debuff, protection spells, etc. that I won't be using every day but that will surely benefit my party in the right situations. If you start counting the spells there is a long list.

Maybe, but the spells themselves are still fairly cheap compared to armor and, especially, weapons. A high level wizard could get 2 9th level spells from another wizard for about the cost of a +1 weapon.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Anguish wrote:


I'm afraid it does. The cloak and the gold are worth a total of 4,900gp. Each PC gets 1,225gp. Nobody can buy the cloak. Yet.

If the party can agree to sit on the cloak for a while (until there's another 16kgp worth of loot to divvy up), fine. If they can't... again, fine. It gets sold off any everyone gets their FAIR share and nobody gets the better-than-their-fair-share cloak.

Frankly, I find this the most ridiculous outcome of the heavy accounting method - that a very useful but too expensive item must be sold in the interest of exacting equality of wealth because there isn't enough other wealth to cover the value if one PC should take it. You end up selling it for half value only to potentially have to pay full value later on when someone chooses to upgrade to it. It's a waste.

Oh well. If you have a bunch of players who can't cooperate, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

The OP asked what's fair. This is.

Now, in my groups, we're civilized, so when something like this comes up, we do one of a few things... we either help each other with "loans", or an item is sequestered outside of the divvy for a session or two. But again, we don't have the problem the OP does. He's got people arguing over potions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Kileanna wrote:


Also, I want some status removal, dispels, buffs, debuff, protection spells, etc. that I won't be using every day but that will surely benefit my party in the right situations. If you start counting the spells there is a long list.
Maybe, but the spells themselves are still fairly cheap compared to armor and, especially, weapons. A high level wizard could get 2 9th level spells from another wizard for about the cost of a +1 weapon.

Never said that's not true. Actually, if I am in a game where people is not trying to abuse the system and everybody plays fair, I'm the first to let some of my share of the loot to martials when I am playing a character that doesn't depend as much of equipment. I did it with my Witch, as I said in a previous post. I only need INT, good saves, HP and a lot of spells. Everything else is welcome but not needed.

What I was disagreeing was with the statement that a prepared spellcaster only needs the spells that learns when leveling up. I completely disagree on that.

Also, even if I like to share my part of the loot I don't like being forced or forcing my players to do so, I like it to be the decision of the players themselves rather imposing it to them. So I use systems that don't penalize the wealth of some classes above others. Everybody is getting equal share, even if later they decide to give some things away to other group members.

Again, I do this because it's what works with my players. Don't take it as an universal rule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are several different definitions of "fair" and "best" and "most just" and whatever.

Depending on what you're actually asking for, you're going to get varying possible answers. I, personally, prefer looking at your question as, "What's the best method for everyone getting all the equipment they need so they have fun, are functional, and we can overcome the challenges/dangers and make it to 20th level?"

... which also generates several different answers.

Let's look at some! Here we go:

==============================
1) First: Yo, Dawg, I Heard You Like Everything

- sell everything

- use funds to get two (or more) candles of invocation
- - - optional: grab scrolls of relevant spells instead and/or in addition to

- use it to grab a make a time-variant demiplane

- go there and use that to use your other one to get items, and/or infinite wishes

- win

==============================
2) Second: Yo Dawg, I Heard You Like Wizards

- sell everything

- acquire a time-variant demiplane (see above; candles or scrolls - whatever, really)

- custom-craft stuff for folks on the cheap and swift-easy way

==============================
3) Third: Yo Dawg, I Heard You Have Ye Olde Magic Mart

- sell everything

- distribute funds evenly

- let people buy stuff

==============================
4) Fourth: Yo Dawg, I Heard You Want the Loot Itself

- have the GM craft things so that items worthy of each people are relatively even distributed in their accessibility
- - - optional: make in make sense in-character

==============================
5) Fifth: Yo Dawg, I Heard You Didn't Wanna Do It That Way

- optional: distribute by needs

- optional: distribute by monetary value v. currently owned set

- optional: distribute by lottery

- optional: don't argue about it too much; work on enjoying the game more, and just letting people who've had a stressful day/week/<other time-period> play something fun

That last one may not be optional, but, you know, it's a thing. Some people just get frustrated by one thing or another. Personally, I don't care - but if someone wants to do that math-work for me and/or the group, if they're trustworthy, I'll let them handle it, 'cause... why not, you know?

I feel that if there is a strong breakdown in appreciation of the methodology of the other person, the best way to handle that is generally going, "I'm not particularly fond of that concept, but I would rather play the game and have fun than not play the game." - if it is impossible to have fun, speak with the group at large and see how they want to handle it. Take a vote. If it's evenly split, roll a dice, ask the GM, whatever: it doesn't matter, just decide, follow that way, and relax and enjoy.

There is a lot of good, conflicting advice in this thread. The best advice is following the advice that will let you have fun and let the rest of the group have fun, at the same fun time.

Note: "fun" is ill-defined; it does not just include the, "Weeeeeeee~!" rush of giving lots of loot (though that can be a valid form of fun), but rather, refers to crafting an over-all experience where those involved are more glad at the end that they participated and are willing to do so again, rather than not participating at all.

Mostly, I wish you all good gaming.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

If I was in a game where we got a +3 cloak, and the party decided the fair thing to do it to to sell it rather than let the player with the lowest will save have it, I'd probably quit the game. I don't need that kind of stupidity in my life.

Thankfully I game with people who have better things to do than obsess over imaginary wealth.

Giving a powerful item to one character helps the party way more than selling it for half value and splitting up the meager profits.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Another thing worth noting is that WBL is just a guideline, and sometimes it's okay for the party to feel awesome and lay waste to whatever lays before them for a while.

So if you want to go over WBL on loot at level n, so that everybody can feel secure and stable in the gear they've got (within reason), go ahead and do it, just scale back loot drops for a bit so they're back around WBL by level n+2 or so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Anguish wrote:
It occurs to me the solution to this thread is: Ye Olde Magic Shoppe.

That doesn't solve the sort of problems that people have.

A typical problem might be:
"OK, we've found a 400gp and a +3 cloak of resistance. Who's needs one of those?"
"I do."
"I do too."
"OK, roll off."
"Natural 20."
"Right, you get it. Then we split the gold. 100gp each."
"Cool, now I can sell my +2 cloak of resistance and buy a magic bow at the magic shop."
"But I only had a +1 cloak of resistance!"
"So?"
"That's not fair!"
"It'll balance out next time we find loot."
"Yeah, right."

I'm afraid it does. The cloak and the gold are worth a total of 4,900gp. Each PC gets 1,225gp. Nobody can buy the cloak. Yet.

If the party can agree to sit on the cloak for a while (until there's another 16kgp worth of loot to divvy up), fine. If they can't... again, fine. It gets sold off any everyone gets their FAIR share and nobody gets the better-than-their-fair-share cloak.

So instead of saying "Hey, this item would be really useful to this guy, and by doing so, would possibly benefit the entire group by shoring up a weak point", instead the idea is "Let's sell an item that would be useful because not everyone can benefit, and thus, screw everyone over equally"?

I'm sorry, that just seems a bit ludicrous. Eventually the PCs are probably going to buy the cloaks themselves anyway. Or, if they truly want to evenly distribute wealth, the next time they receive loot, the guy who got the cloak will not request anything, leaving the loot to the other 3.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Anguish wrote:
It occurs to me the solution to this thread is: Ye Olde Magic Shoppe.

That doesn't solve the sort of problems that people have.

A typical problem might be:
"OK, we've found a 400gp and a +3 cloak of resistance. Who's needs one of those?"
"I do."
"I do too."
"OK, roll off."
"Natural 20."
"Right, you get it. Then we split the gold. 100gp each."
"Cool, now I can sell my +2 cloak of resistance and buy a magic bow at the magic shop."
"But I only had a +1 cloak of resistance!"
"So?"
"That's not fair!"
"It'll balance out next time we find loot."
"Yeah, right."

I'm afraid it does. The cloak and the gold are worth a total of 4,900gp. Each PC gets 1,225gp. Nobody can buy the cloak. Yet.

If the party can agree to sit on the cloak for a while (until there's another 16kgp worth of loot to divvy up), fine. If they can't... again, fine. It gets sold off any everyone gets their FAIR share and nobody gets the better-than-their-fair-share cloak.

or. just hear me out. the guys with to cloaks of resistances puts the spare cloak of resistance into party loot. like a good fellow party member and allow the person who needs it to trade out the weaker cloak of resistance for the better one. and when they get to town they can sell that weaker cloak for some green backs and split the difference then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's lucky that John snow wasn't part of an adventuring group, otherwise Longclaw would have been sold to a Tyrell and the proceeds split. John would then have died beyond the wall.

It is a DMs responsibility to make treasure interesting, relevant and rewarding. The best method of doing that is to put some thought into what might benefit the characters and stick that into the loot. Instead of giving people pointless items. Better to give them a gems, or an art object like a gold stature of a nude elf than a dagger +1 that no one is going to use.

51 to 100 of 190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / What is the fairest way to distribute party loot? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.