What is the fairest way to distribute party loot?


Advice

1 to 50 of 190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

How do you distribute loot? My party is currently in a fierce debate regarding how to divvy up loot. The current system is that we have a party loot pool. Any items you take are added to your character's total value- this includes consumables and disposable items. Items which are clearly of value to the entire party, such as a smokestick or wand of cure light wounds, do not count towards this value. If you use a consumable in a way which clearly benefits the entire party, that no longer counts towards your value. The player with the lowest current value gets to choose the next item that we purchase using party loot. We're having issues, and I was wondering how everybody else spreads out loot. What do you guys do?

To clarify- there are two major reasons this is an issue. One, I'm playing a crafter, and we needed a way to make sure that everybody gets a reasonable share of the gear that I can make. Two, we are in a gestalt campaign. We have three arcane casters, three martial characters, and two monks. Any item we find will probably be useful to at least two of our players, so it isn't really feasible to just distribute loot based on whoever can make the best use of it, because we may disagree on who it should go to.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

With the exception of healing/curative consumables, I'm fond of zero sum. 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.

In one CoT game I was in, at level 8, the most valuable item that wasn't on the party fighter or inquisitor was a non-masterwork composite bow on the ranger. Never again!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I will defer to a wiser source than I for this.

200 Ways to Win the Game wrote:
58. Dicing for mutually desired items leads to semi-content parties with less than optimal power. Voting to place the items leads to optimally powered, temporarily less than happy members (minus one). Pick one.

In other words, vote. And make agreements. Roleplay. Make bargains. Offer to upgrade somebody's armor in return for the Wand of Fly.

If one character starts lagging behind in effectiveness, let them have priority. Let them take first pick, make them the item they want. Not every class needs an equal amount of gear to be effective.

On another note, I really like how you made sure to list monks separate from martial characters. Gave me a chuckle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Feral wrote:

With the exception of healing/curative consumables, I'm fond of zero sum. 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.

In one CoT game I was in, at level 8, the most valuable item that wasn't on the party fighter or inquisitor was a non-masterwork composite bow on the ranger. Never again!

What exactly do you mean by "Zero Sum," if you don't mind my asking? It's obviously a game theory reference, but it could mean a handful of different things.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

We do math.

Total up the resale value of everything that's found. Double the number of PCs and add one. (For a party of four members, the result is 9. For a party of five members, the result is 11.) Divide the value of the loot by that number.

The "party" gets 1 share. Each member gets 2 shares. That just creates an extra pool of value that things beneficial to everyone can be bought out of.

Then, each member can "buy" any items from the loot pile before they're sold off. Players decide between them who gets what.

Potions and wands useful to everyone get bought out of the party share, even if they're then distributed to PCs. Things like bags of holding, same story.

Basically divide it all up and let the players come to agreement. If they can't... well... not much of a party then is it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We typically wait until we have found X items to split up before dividing loot(x = number of party members). Then everyone decides what they want. If 2+ people want the same thing we decide by who got the worst end of the stick last time. Typically creates a back and forth which, as with all compromises, leaves everyone with what they want part of the time. GP is typically split evenly though we might give a bit extra to whoever gets the cheapest item. Items with fairly insignificant gp values(typically consumables) are typically finders keepers though we do trade them among one another. If an imbalance occurs from that we try to divy them up similiar to gold with the finders getting first picks. In between X items whoever found them is free to use them how they want provided it isn't known to be consumable


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Three words.

Ro. Sham. Bo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tableflip McRagequit wrote:

Three words.

Ro. Sham. Bo.

What, as in Rock Paper Scissors?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The "fairest" way?

Sell everything and divide the result evenly among all party members.

Of course, that may not be the most efficient way. Especially if you find an item that someone was already going to purchase. In selling, you're only getting a 50% return as opposed to allowing the party member to use the found item.

The "best" way is to sit down and discuss loot distribution as adults, with items of interest discussed on a case=by-case basis.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

There are always greedy and non-greedy characters in every party, and greedy and non-greedy players in every group. While discussing loot distribution should be the best way, my experience is that it results in a non-fair distribution.

I think the fairest way is to:

1. Split coins equally among the party members.
2. Put all healing magic in the "party" pool for use on everyone as needed.
3. Total up the re-sale value of everything else and split the re-sale value evenly. Inquire whether any party member wants to buy a specific item for the re-sale value and, if so, that gets subtracted from his share. Lay-away plans can be an option.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alynthar42 wrote:
What exactly do you mean by "Zero Sum," if you don't mind my asking? It's obviously a game theory reference, but it could mean a handful of different things.

By 'zero sum', I typically use the system Pink Dragon mentioned.

Pink Dragon wrote:

I think the fairest way is to:

1. Split coins equally among the party members.
2. Put all healing magic in the "party" pool for use on everyone as needed.
3. Total up the re-sale value of everything else and split the re-sale value evenly. Inquire whether any party member wants to buy a specific item for the re-sale value and, of so, that gets subtracted from his share. Lay-away plans can be an option.

Yes, it might make sense to let the fighter nab the belt of giant strength +4, the ring of protection +2, and the amulet of natural armor +2 but doing so would deprive the entire party of treasure. Docking his share of the wealth by an amount equal to what he's taking means everyone gets at least some loot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Feral wrote:
Alynthar42 wrote:
What exactly do you mean by "Zero Sum," if you don't mind my asking? It's obviously a game theory reference, but it could mean a handful of different things.

By 'zero sum', I typically use the system Pink Dragon mentioned.

Yes, it might make sense to let the fighter nab the belt of giant strength +4, the ring of protection +2, and the amulet of natural armor +2 but doing so would deprive the entire party of treasure. Docking his share of the wealth by an amount equal to what he's taking means everyone gets at least some loot.

That's what I figured. It's what I have historically done in the past, in nearly every campaign I've played in. Apparently, it is "anal retentive."

Liberty's Edge

Well it is a little anal retentive but that doesn't mean it's wrong. =P

I wouldn't bother doing this for one-offs or shorter campaigns like the Paizo modules. I only really put in the effort for APs that are planning to go the distance or several level-spanning homebrew campaigns.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Feral wrote:

Well it is a little anal retentive but that doesn't mean it's wrong. =P

I wouldn't bother doing this for one-offs or shorter campaigns like the Paizo modules. I only really put in the effort for APs that are planning to go the distance or several level-spanning homebrew campaigns.

We hope to get to level 20 with this campaign, and it's completely homebrew (it's hard to do a module with Gestalt characters, after all).

This is what's causing arguments.

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. We explained that that was the point- if we were keeping track of individual gold, he would have to decide whether he wanted to buy a potion or save that gold for bigger items. A potion represents a cheap, immediate boost of power, while a magic item represents a powerful, long term one. In our mind, the reason this system works best is because it makes the players ask "Do I want that potion badly enough to put off my magic items a little bit longer?" If they decide that no, they don't want it that badly, then somebody else gets it or it goes into the bag of holding for emergencies.


We don't buy items, and selling is difficult, spares are usually used as bargaining tools,
gifts or bribes. So divvying up by value isn't as easy.

However we normally get a full list of everything found then anyone who has a particular preference for an item others don't Feel the love for go first. Priority then goes to the other characters and if they want the same items they dice (or Rock Paper Scissors) for first pick. If there are many items priority then goes back to the others. A strong appeal from a character would rarely be ignored, but you only get to use that line one or twice in a campaign.

Trying to calculate exact worth breaks immersion for me and makes it a little like your new boyfriend getting a calculator out to work out the restaurant bill on a date!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The *best* way is for the GM to do the work in advance to make things divisible by number of people in the party or clearly best suited to one character or another.

It might be a tad unrealistic to find four cloaks of resistance in an antagonist's closet, but it works for the best. Just make the villain in question fashion conscious and make them all different colors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

im a player in this game, and alynthar42 is very much a "rules as written" , by the books.

the player that is arguing with him isn't.

I think the twos opposing ways of playing the game have finally found a flashpoint. i'm betting if it wasn't this it would be something else


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Equity is more important than equality.

Different classes have different gear requirements at different levels.

Don't worry about fair. Instead, give found loot to the people who need it most. Shore up weaknesses first, then distribute based on effectiveness.

Anything that isn't usable by someone in the party, sell and split the take.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:


Trying to calculate exact worth breaks immersion for me and makes it a little like your new boyfriend getting a calculator out to work out the restaurant bill on a date!

I think its specifically this part that's causing the issues. alynthar is trying to add consumable cost to our value and then leave it there once the consumable is gone. personally I think that's dumb as hell but im not going to add fuel to the fire. he's trying to keep track of everyone's loot in a miniature WBL.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:

Equity is more important than equality.

Different classes have different gear requirements at different levels.

Don't worry about fair. Instead, give found loot to the people who need it most. Shore up weaknesses first, then distribute based on effectiveness.

Anything that isn't usable by someone in the party, sell and split the take.

Don't do this. Shoring up the weaknesses of party members prevents you from boosting the strengths of competent party members.

Lets say you have a vital strike fighter who is twohanding a scimitar. You have a a dervish dance bard who uses scimitar. You get a +1 scimitar.

The bard is more accurate and deals more damage with the scimitar than the fighter. So the fighter is the weakness that "should" be shored up. If you give the weapon to the fighter you boost damage by 1 per round. If you give it to the bard you boost damage by 1*number of attacks.

It helps the party more to give it to the bard. It is better to give to the party don't shore up weaknesses boost strengths.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Trial by combat.

To the death.

TO THE VICTOR BELONG THE SPOILS!

Dark Archive

I approve.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you want RAW WBL
"It is assumed that some of this treasure is consumed in the course of an adventure (such as potions and scrolls), and that some of the less useful items are sold for half value so more useful gear can be purchased." CRB pg400
My interpretation of this is that it expects everyone to use roughly the same % of your gp in consumables. Hence its not included in the existing WBL. Unless your pulling some shenanigans(IE diabolist lv6 early entry) consumables typically account for a pretty small portion of your WBL. Hence they will only cause a tiny variation between players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:

We do math.

Total up the resale value of everything that's found. Double the number of PCs and add one. (For a party of four members, the result is 9. For a party of five members, the result is 11.) Divide the value of the loot by that number.

The "party" gets 1 share. Each member gets 2 shares. That just creates an extra pool of value that things beneficial to everyone can be bought out of.

Then, each member can "buy" any items from the loot pile before they're sold off. Players decide between them who gets what.

Potions and wands useful to everyone get bought out of the party share, even if they're then distributed to PCs. Things like bags of holding, same story.

Basically divide it all up and let the players come to agreement. If they can't... well... not much of a party then is it?

This is what my gaming group does, approximately. It varies between groups, as some like the 'party' loot, and some don't add potions and scrolls to the list at all. They set up a google docs spreadsheet, which does the math for them, and totals the value of any items they claim for them. It works well for my group, because it's completely fair.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:

Equity is more important than equality.

Different classes have different gear requirements at different levels.

Don't worry about fair. Instead, give found loot to the people who need it most. Shore up weaknesses first, then distribute based on effectiveness.

Anything that isn't usable by someone in the party, sell and split the take.

I also suggest against this. As I mentioned in CoT game, if you distribute loot based on weaknesses and effectiveness all of the loot ends up in the hands of the fighter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

By not making it about accounting.

In my d20 games, coins and other immediate wealth are evenly divided, and items are distributed by party decision. I'm generous with items, so there's almost never conflict about who gets what. I don't worry about WBL as much as what's enjoyable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It depends on the group. We play and often roleplay as close allies. And I don't recall ever reading stories where the party wizard is like, here great warrior is a magical sword, would you like that to be your only share of the loot. I know there's a magical shield, but that would put you over your share, so we're going to sell it.

That doesn't mean there isn't a fairer way or a more correct way, but the most collegial is to simply talk it out; and I've found that's best for a given party.


Halek wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

Equity is more important than equality.

Different classes have different gear requirements at different levels.

Don't worry about fair. Instead, give found loot to the people who need it most. Shore up weaknesses first, then distribute based on effectiveness.

Anything that isn't usable by someone in the party, sell and split the take.

Don't do this. Shoring up the weaknesses of party members prevents you from boosting the strengths of competent party members.

Lets say you have a vital strike fighter who is twohanding a scimitar. You have a a dervish dance bard who uses scimitar. You get a +1 scimitar.

The bard is more accurate and deals more damage with the scimitar than the fighter. So the fighter is the weakness that "should" be shored up. If you give the weapon to the fighter you boost damage by 1 per round. If you give it to the bard you boost damage by 1*number of attacks.

It helps the party more to give it to the bard. It is better to give to the party don't shore up weaknesses boost strengths.

And this, right here, is why I dislike giving out loot according to who "needs" it. Two people want it, two people could use it, but only one can get it. Somebody has to get a claim, and as Feral said, it is very easy for one player to wind up dominating the loot, if you use that strategy. In a game where *every* possible role is being filled by at least two people, it gets difficult.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Feral wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

Equity is more important than equality.

Different classes have different gear requirements at different levels.

Don't worry about fair. Instead, give found loot to the people who need it most. Shore up weaknesses first, then distribute based on effectiveness.

Anything that isn't usable by someone in the party, sell and split the take.

I also suggest against this. As I mentioned in CoT game, if you distribute loot based on weaknesses and effectiveness all of the loot ends up in the hands of the fighter.

But since the fighter (or rogue or ninja or barbarian) has a greater need of equipment than the wizard (or cleric or druid) it is a fairer approach than splitting equally by cash value.

I don't advocate splitting by cash value - split by utility weighing best benefit and shoring up weaknesses on a case by case basis. Sometimes it should go to the one who can get the most out of it, sometimes to the one who needs the boost most. It's not much good boosting the most optimized PC if other ones continually lag behind, nor is it much good if the item perfect for one PC's build goes to another one simply because he is lagging a little. A little better judgment and willingness to allow another PC to shine now for consideration later is a better way to go.

As far as tracking consumables, if you significantly do that, who would ever take and use one? They end up just being hoarded as wealth, not used as they are supposed to be. Don't track them. Use them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To the OP: If your party is bickering over the distribution of potions, and other consumables they're already doomed...but I'd love to be a fly on the wall during the argument over who gets something actually worth fighting over like a +3 dagger that they can all use.

I typically use this method: cash items (coins, gems, art objects, etc.) are totaled and then split as evenly as possible amongst the group.
All items that are obviously more beneficial to a single PC (a +2 greataxe when the fighter is focused and specialized with it and no one else is, or the +1 platemail to the only PC proficient with heavy armor, etc) automatically goes to that PC unless he specifically states he doesn't want it.
All other items are cataloged and then each player rolls a d20. highest roller gets 1st pick, etc...bargaining, begging, bribing, trading and such are all allowed and encouraged.

Of course it helps that I tend to not play with douchbags, so everyone is pretty cool about being fair with the distribution.

This system isn't perfect, and it requires me as the DM to make sure that the variety of loot matches the variety of the PC's choices. For instance, if the only magic weapons they ever find are only usable by 1-2 of the PCs, then that's me being a bad DM.


Alynthar42 wrote:
Halek wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

Equity is more important than equality.

Different classes have different gear requirements at different levels.

Don't worry about fair. Instead, give found loot to the people who need it most. Shore up weaknesses first, then distribute based on effectiveness.

Anything that isn't usable by someone in the party, sell and split the take.

Don't do this. Shoring up the weaknesses of party members prevents you from boosting the strengths of competent party members.

Lets say you have a vital strike fighter who is twohanding a scimitar. You have a a dervish dance bard who uses scimitar. You get a +1 scimitar.

The bard is more accurate and deals more damage with the scimitar than the fighter. So the fighter is the weakness that "should" be shored up. If you give the weapon to the fighter you boost damage by 1 per round. If you give it to the bard you boost damage by 1*number of attacks.

It helps the party more to give it to the bard. It is better to give to the party don't shore up weaknesses boost strengths.

And this, right here, is why I dislike giving out loot according to who "needs" it. Two people want it, two people could use it, but only one can get it. Somebody has to get a claim, and as Feral said, it is very easy for one player to wind up dominating the loot, if you use that strategy. In a game where *every* possible role is being filled by at least two people, it gets difficult.

This seems more like a failure in party composition. You really shouldn't have 2 scimitar guys in the same party.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Halek wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

Equity is more important than equality.

Different classes have different gear requirements at different levels.

Don't worry about fair. Instead, give found loot to the people who need it most. Shore up weaknesses first, then distribute based on effectiveness.

Anything that isn't usable by someone in the party, sell and split the take.

Don't do this. Shoring up the weaknesses of party members prevents you from boosting the strengths of competent party members.

Lets say you have a vital strike fighter who is twohanding a scimitar. You have a a dervish dance bard who uses scimitar. You get a +1 scimitar.

The bard is more accurate and deals more damage with the scimitar than the fighter. So the fighter is the weakness that "should" be shored up. If you give the weapon to the fighter you boost damage by 1 per round. If you give it to the bard you boost damage by 1*number of attacks.

It helps the party more to give it to the bard. It is better to give to the party don't shore up weaknesses boost strengths.

A bard is not a primary damage dealer. A bard having lower damage is not a significant weakness.

Weaknesses are things like particularly low will or fort saves and melee characters without decent AC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The most fair way I can think of with regard to money is like this:

Let's say the total value of all the items is 100,000.
Let's say one item is worth 14000 if sold. Whoever takes that item gets 14000 loss than would have gotten had all the items been sold. They are basically making up for the money that would have gone into the party pool.

I've had groups that did really bother with even distribution and others who followed it closely.

Dark Archive

Melkiador wrote:
Alynthar42 wrote:
Halek wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

Equity is more important than equality.

Different classes have different gear requirements at different levels.

Don't worry about fair. Instead, give found loot to the people who need it most. Shore up weaknesses first, then distribute based on effectiveness.

Anything that isn't usable by someone in the party, sell and split the take.

Don't do this. Shoring up the weaknesses of party members prevents you from boosting the strengths of competent party members.

Lets say you have a vital strike fighter who is twohanding a scimitar. You have a a dervish dance bard who uses scimitar. You get a +1 scimitar.

The bard is more accurate and deals more damage with the scimitar than the fighter. So the fighter is the weakness that "should" be shored up. If you give the weapon to the fighter you boost damage by 1 per round. If you give it to the bard you boost damage by 1*number of attacks.

It helps the party more to give it to the bard. It is better to give to the party don't shore up weaknesses boost strengths.

And this, right here, is why I dislike giving out loot according to who "needs" it. Two people want it, two people could use it, but only one can get it. Somebody has to get a claim, and as Feral said, it is very easy for one player to wind up dominating the loot, if you use that strategy. In a game where *every* possible role is being filled by at least two people, it gets difficult.

This seems more like a failure in party composition. You really shouldn't have 2 scimitar guys in the same party.

2 scimitar guys can fulfill wildly different roles but this was an example on how giving loot to shore up weaknesses the most is bad. The bard is able to get full attacks when moving and gets more use out of the magic weapon. The figther only gets the barest benefit. But his build is lower damage so he is the weakness that needs shoring up.

2 scimitar guys is not a failure of party composition. Having 2 skill monkey characters or more than one condition removal is. Using a scimitar is not a role.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fairness isn't necessarily a good thing for the survival of the group. You might be better off giving all the good stuff to the most powerful member of the group so he become completely unstoppable and the rest of you can hide behind him.

But our goal here is fairness, not optimisation.

So here is the actual fairest method:
(1) When you find an item people can use, randomise to see who gets it out of those who want it.
(2) When you find an item nobody will use, sell it.
(3) When a party member no longer needs an old item (for example, they were given the Cloak of Resistance +3 you found and they no longer need their Cloak of Resistance +1) first check if another party member needs it. If they do, randomise to see who gets it out of those who want it. If not, sell it.
(4) All money is pooled. When visiting the shops, first buy items needed by the group - Wands of Cure Light Wounds or whatever - that you don't consider to be individual property.
(5) Then, calculate the total wealth of each party member based on value of items owned. Distribute spending money so that everyone ends up with the same wealth.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The system I use:

Each time the party finds an useful item any player is able to use it temporally, but it's not his until we make the oficial distribution of the loot.

First, I let them decide which items are they keeping that benefit the whole party. Thes items are wands of cure wounds, status removal scrolls, potions, etc. In the end I decide as a GM which items count as «benefical for the whole party». This items, even if they are carried by a single character never count as a part of the loot and can be used by a single player.

Then we sum up the selling value of everything else and divide by the number of party members. That's the budget they have to «buy» anything from the loot. If they want to take an item with a higher price than their budget, they have to add the extra value so everybody gets the same reward. If all players are OK with it, the extra price can be deducted from further loot instead of paying it in the moment.

After distribution, my players often put some of their remaining gold in common to later buy common resources.

By adding the concept of collective property I've seen that my players are a lot more inclined to invest in items thar benefit the whole party and I see it as a positive thing.


Usually the items that are being argued about are the big 6. The best way to eliminate the arguments is to use the auto bonus progression from Pathfinder Unchained. There may still be some competition for items with special abilities but everyone will have the basic items the game assumes.

If you are not using the ABP than most of the time the characters already have items of some sort. One way we have done it is if a player is claiming a item he usually puts back the item he is currently using into the pool . So if the player wants the more powerful weapon he puts his current weapon back in the pool. This allows the other players who want a similar item to at least get something. If no one wants the item that is put back it gets sold and value is split like any other.

If two characters are in competition for the item look at who will get the most benefit from it. Let’s say the item is question is a magic weapon that both the fighter and cleric want. Obviously the fighter will get a lot of use from the weapon, but consider how well he is already handling his role and what role the cleric is playing. If the cleric is staying back and relying on spells instead of wading into combat the fighter is going to get more use. On the other hand if the cleric wades into melee alongside the fighter and uses his spells mainly for healing and utility that is a completely different story. Assuming that the fighter is actually doing his job fairly competently and the cleric is not doing so well the weapon should go to the cleric. The increased chance to hit and damage will bring the cleric up more than the fighter so he actually benefits more from having the weapon. If the cleric is not getting involved in melee, than he gets almost no use from the weapon and should not get it.


you could do Need and Greed roles. you have one need role per loot. greed all you want. need rolls got an extra +50%

Of course we just kind of talk it over and if a decision can't be reached we roll off.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

It occurs to me the solution to this thread is: Ye Olde Magic Shoppe.

Again, sell the crap you don't want, buy the crap you do. Stop micromanaging and arguing and fighting over the scraps. If there's one potion of fly and 750gp worth of gems and two PCs want the potion, for the love of Abadar, just go buy a second one.

Sure, it's lightly immersion-breaking I guess, but all this angst is much worse in my opinion.


Oh and we have some items designated as group use items and designate someone to carry them so said potion of flying would fall under that.

Dark Archive

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

Usually the items that are being argued about are the big 6. The best way to eliminate the arguments is to use the auto bonus progression from Pathfinder Unchained. There may still be some competition for items with special abilities but everyone will have the basic items the game assumes.

If you are not using the ABP than most of the time the characters already have items of some sort. One way we have done it is if a player is claiming a item he usually puts back the item he is currently using into the pool . So if the player wants the more powerful weapon he puts his current weapon back in the pool. This allows the other players who want a similar item to at least get something. If no one wants the item that is put back it gets sold and value is split like any other.

If two characters are in competition for the item look at who will get the most benefit from it. Let’s say the item is question is a magic weapon that both the fighter and cleric want. Obviously the fighter will get a lot of use from the weapon, but consider how well he is already handling his role and what role the cleric is playing. If the cleric is staying back and relying on spells instead of wading into combat the fighter is going to get more use. On the other hand if the cleric wades into melee alongside the fighter and uses his spells mainly for healing and utility that is a completely different story. Assuming that the fighter is actually doing his job fairly competently and the cleric is not doing so well the weapon should go to the cleric. The increased chance to hit and damage will bring the cleric up more than the fighter so he actually benefits more from having the weapon. If the cleric is not getting involved in melee, than he gets almost no use from the weapon and should not get it.

ABP gimps several kinds of characters. You cant have halfway decent dual wielders on account of one weapon being garbage.

Also for the group it is better to give to the character that uses the weapon the most. On account of how they get more damage/casts/bonus from it. Give it to the character who gets the most use of it.

Also why is the cleric preparing and using healing spells?


Halek wrote:
You cant have halfway decent dual wielders on account of one weapon being garbage.

It's true up to level 13, but starting with level 14, split bonuses are pretty much equivalent to single-weapon bonuses in WBL.


Not all clerics are built the same some focus more on spells, other more on combat. Healing also includes remove condition. The point is there is no one right way to play any particular class. The combat focused cleric could also be memorizing long lasting buffs or other situational spells. I also never said the cleric was memorizing healing spells.

If the fighter is already hitting 90% of the time and the cleric is hitting 70% of the time giving the more powerful weapon to the cleric will have a larger impact on the combat. If the weapon gives an additional +3 to hit that puts the fighter at 95% accuracy and the cleric at 85% accuracy. The extra 10% chance to hit is wasted on the fighter, but the cleric can make better use of it. The extra damage from the fighter using the weapon is minimal compared to the extra hit from the cleric.

Having to buy two magic weapons also gimps two weapon fighting. The ABP also gives the option to split the bonus instead of taking it all on a single weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paint it pastel pink and blue...

Oh, wait, you meant fairest, not fairiest?

Dark Archive

Except when buying weapons you can drop other things and funnel it into your weapons. Cant do that with abp. Take a oradin build. There saves are already unbeatable so dumping a cloak and using the money to buy a weapon would be good. Cant do that in abp.


Most of our loot gets sold and the value divided evenly unless something would be really good for one player then we just let em keep it.


Halek wrote:
Melkiador wrote:


This seems more like a failure in party composition. You really shouldn't have 2 scimitar guys in the same party.
2 scimitar guys can fulfill wildly different roles

There are dozens of useful weapons in the game and only 3 or 4 meaningful roles, for 4-6 players. If you have 2 characters in your party who are specializing in the same weapon, then that is an issue that should at least be warned about by the DM. If you have 2 scimitar guys or 2 bow guys in the same party then that party is going to face a lot more loot drama than is expected.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

In my group we've always let the players figure it out amongst themselves. As a GM I don't get involved. I do use ABP though, which probably cuts down on any potential tension since everyone's getting their important stuff at the same time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My group has never had an issue with this, and I always find it strange that other groups do. Coins, gems, etc. and items no one wants get sold and divided into equal shares (with some amount for the party fund) - people claim the items they want and we have never had an argument about any of it. None of us care if one player has gotten "more" - the items go where it makes the most sense for the party overall.

Frankly, I would not enjoy playing in a group where everyone was obsessing over whether the fighter got more treasure than his/her character, or having to use spreadsheets and the like to make sure it was all "fair". The GM should be making sure that there is something for everyone eventually - why stress over it?


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."

1 to 50 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.