Entitlement and "standard equipment"

[rgard]

I would do this but, since I cringe at telling a player that a PC cannot try to do something if they wish to do so, I would also ask after the new PC is all equipped and transporting the dead former PC back to his final resting place if the paladin is stealing the magic item from the corpse. I would then deal with the consequences in-game.

I agree that the 'in game' approach is best. The healer is the only one left standing? That PC would decide what to do with the bodies and their stuff.
If the healer can find an in game/in character way of justifying keeping the gear then let him. If he can't, but does it anyway, there should be in-game consequences.

 

[Dross]

My gaming group has a general way of handling things.

Items specific to the dead PC stay with the PC. So if the healing belt was an item associated with the corpse via them buying it, received it as a gift, joined the party with it etc, it stays with the corpse.

If it was an item the corpse had because the party makes sure everyone has one, or because there was a spare stomach to tie it around, or healing/general magic items belong to the party then the newbie gets it.

We have on occasions had new PCs come in with an item the party would have provided, but that is because we generally have a "why would I not already have this" attitude.

 

[Macgyvercas]

It's to be expected that your players are greedy, unreasonable, and demanding. They want it all and they'll cry like children if they think it will work. I can't count the number of times one of my players has asked for free gold for doing basically nothing. "I rolled a 26 on my Perform (Dance) skill in the tavern, can I panhandle enough gold to upgrade my longbow to masterwork?" Not unless you already have 299 gold and 64 copper.

There are so many things wrong with that question. If a player actually asked that, I might actually use the "Rocks fall, everyone dies" bit.

And item can't be upgraded to masterwork, it has to be created that way.

Shark has the right idea of controlling magic items though. It's why I stick to the prices in the DMG for weapon enchantments.

 

[jefgorbach]

basic question: HOW does the deceased barb/wiz know his replacement??

Your houserule states ALL items are returned to the deceased's family when possible - so while a clansman/acquaintance might suggest the deceased promised them the item upon death or even borrowed the item from them and wish it returned; surely another individual (or other proof) would be required to confirm the agreement (ie: a Will). Perhaps Bluff/Diplomancy checks vs living relatives are required.

However to be fair, the DM would be advised to adjust future treasure gains until the receiver's wealth-by-level equalizes the rest of the party.

 

[Greenfield]

That's part of the crazy here.

This isn't even going to his replacement, it's going to someone else's replacement, someone who the deceased never met.

Player A's character had the item. The character died.

Player B's character was part of the group taking the body home when he died.

Player A now wants Player B's new character to get the item, prompted largely by the retirement of yet a third character, the one who could have crafted such an item for the new PC.

The dead PC was closer to Kevin Bacon than he was to the new PC, yet still the player doesn't see anything wrong with handing him items from their dead friend. After all, every PC should have such an item, shouldn't they?

 

[Herzog]

Just to get the basic facts straight:

1. You have a campaign where you might not get access to something like a Healing Belt easily.
2. You have a rule in place that all equipment a character has when he dies is returned with him to his family or burried with him.
2.a This also applies to equipment 'donated' by the rest of the group, equipment the family of the deceased has no knowledge of.
3. One of your players is 'complaining' about the execution of rule 2.

This is probably caused by the combination of rule 1. and rule 2.a

I would:
a. Enforce the rule the character's starting equipment is returned to his family.
b. Allow the group to 'retrieve' items gained during the time the character spent with the group.
c. Substract the value of any items thus given to the character from the character's starting wealth
d. Substract any monetary value above the Wealth-by-level for the GROUP from treasure gained over the next encounters until you regain the balance (assuming you were keeping track of WBL in the first place.)

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

That's part of the crazy here.

This isn't even going to his replacement, it's going to someone else's replacement, someone who the deceased never met.

Player A's character had the item. The character died.

Player B's character was part of the group taking the body home when he died.

Player A now wants Player B's new character to get the item, prompted largely by the retirement of yet a third character, the one who could have crafted such an item for the new PC.

The dead PC was closer to Kevin Bacon than he was to the new PC, yet still the player doesn't see anything wrong with handing him items from their dead friend. After all, every PC should have such an item, shouldn't they?

First; the disposition of dead PC's items and wealth should be dictated by the wishes of the dead PC in question - IF the PC takes the time and effort to make his desires known while he is still alive or it can be determined after death (speak with dead?).

Second; no matter how much you may miss not having access to the creation of a spiffy magic item because the PC who could create it has died you do NOT get to declare that samples be awarded to newly arriving PC's just because. Geez, show a LITTLE effort at roleplaying and verisimilitude will you, Mr. Player?

Third; transferred wealth factors into the future wealth to be gained by the newly constituted PC party. If the transferred wealth is high enough it is not just the DM's right but his obligation to ensure that it doesn't make the party wildly over-equipped/over-wealthy. If that means theft of cash, disenchantment or other destruction of items, whatever. It is fully justified for reasons players should clearly understand and accept and cooperate with.

Fourth; I don't see anything problematic with giving a new guy a magic item formerly possessed by an older guy - so log as wealth/equipment guidelines are still being kept to. The issue - as the OP indicates - is simply the players attitude. That is best handled by open, bi-directional communication with all the players.

Fifth; just as an aside, all other things being equal the distribution of any and all treasure obtained (even through death of comrades) should be determined by the PC's, not by DM dictates. Note, however, that a PC party that is in the habit of coldly looting the bodies of their own dead comrades needs to have its alignments watched closely.

 

[jefgorbach]

Ahh see the problem.

PlayerA thinks he's IMC where adventuring bands tend to be semi-organized cooperatives with the mutual understanding all/most treasure belongs to the GROUP to cover the equipment, food, healing, shelter, etc utilized as part of the group with unsold "obsolete" gear used to bolster survival of less experienced/equipped characters/hirelings. What few (if any) personal expenses remain can usually be covered via skills/etc used during "off hours".