Is it wrong to want a fair share?

[DragonLancer]

Is it wrong to expect your PC to have a fair share of the loot? If you're playing a fighter and everything you find in the treasure trove is a wand, scroll or staff, time-and-again, should you be willing to take no treasure at all, because the spellcasters in the party can better use the treasure that's showing up?

[Snip...]

Does that make sense from a character's point of view? From a player's?

I prefer that items, whether magical or mundane, go to the characters who can use them, rather than always having a fair split. Why give the +5 Full Plate to the rogue when the fighter or paladin can get better use of it? Same goes for weapons, wands, scrolls... everything.

Its better than rolling randomly and selling goods that could be used by other party members. Sure, this means that some characters may/will be behind on the items but better that they go to the characters that can sue them.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Magic items USED to be what made PCs special and above everyone else and they USED to be so important as to not be able to be bought or sold anywhere. But even THEN it didn't make any sense. I had players in 2nd edition who would continually ask me "So, if we have 8 extra +1 swords, 3 extra +2 swords and an extra +3 sword, plus extra rings of protection and various extra misc gear and we've been adventuring for a year and a half, and you are telling us that we ran into at least 4 other adventuring parties in that year, and that there are apparently quite a few more out there. *do a couple calculations* That would mean there's LOTs of magic items out there. Who has all of them? Are they gathering dust in a corner somewhere? If they are SO valuable and so RARE, why is it that every powerful person we come across has one? Why is it that there are so many scattered across dungeons everywhere?"

I eventually gave up and started inventing item prices in 2nd edition because I couldn't stand players arguing that "I should be able to find an ex-adventurer or an adventurer higher level than us that wants to get rid of his obsolete equipment." or "Well, wizards can still make magic items, right? Well, if they can, I offer him 400,000 gp...will he make me a + 1 sword now?"

The main thing you have to remember is that setting and rules work both ways. You make rules based on the setting and you make settings based on the rules. It's good to have a prestige class for the elite guard of X nation. It's also good to have magic shops that sell magic items when they make sense. In D&D, magic items are not special. They are all over the place, you can buy them, wizards create them, etc. If NPCs view magic as rare in your world, at least change the rules so that you can't create them anymore and don't give any to your players, or at least only a couple.

Also, magic items in D&D ARE meant to be modifiers to players abilities. At X level, the average character is expected to have about X AC and X pluses to hit. The numbers expect that you will have roughly a certain amount of magic included in there or it is impossible to make it to X. All enemies become harder because you can't hit them and they hit you too easily.

Either way, that's sort of off topic. Yes, treasure should be split evenly. It feels very bad to be the one who doesn't have any magic items when the rest of the party is buffed up with stuff that helps them. So much so that I've seen players stop paying attention to the game because they "can't do anything to help". A character in D&D is about 1/6 character choices, 3/6 level, and 2/6 magic items. If you have bad character choices, you can still do well in a group. Take away magic items, and you are having a bit harder time.

I've seen it where a player who made up a "role playing" character. One that refused to metagame by splitting treasure evenly, and giving up his choice of treasure because it didn't suit him, and also happened to choose mostly roleplaying feats and skills. He also multiclassed into quite a few classes for role playing reasons (his character was a little sneaky - 1 level of rogue, he was a devout worshipper of his god - 1 level of cleric, but good with a sword - 1 level of fighter, etc). This combined together meant he had about half the power of everyone else in the group. Low on magic items and no good combat feats and skills and bad character design (i.e. no high level abilities). He either nearly died every battle or stayed back and did almost nothing of any use. He wasn't very happy playing his character.

Majoru Oakheart

 

[VirgilCaine]

Yes, a wizard should be able to choose the choicest spellcasting items for himself, but if everything you find is a wizardly item, does that mean the wizard should take everything you find, and you, the fighter, should be happy to give it to him?

Does that make sense from a character's point of view? From a player's?

If everything you find is of X type, and a certain class can use X type items best, then there will (or should be) a limit to how much of that item they can use.
Also, you would need to talk to your DM about this problem.
Going through a dungeon and getting all wizard gear is one thing, but I would spread things out a bit if there were a series of such dungeons--one at level two, another at level six, another at level ten, etc.
And besides, not everything should be wands and scrolls, a wizard could easily be in love with making potions or wondrous items of a certain type or have been a blacksmith's son and thus be big on magic armor or weapons or something.

He also multiclassed into quite a few classes for role playing reasons (his character was a little sneaky - 1 level of rogue, he was a devout worshipper of his god - 1 level of cleric, but good with a sword - 1 level of fighter, etc).

Just because you like a god, doesn't mean you are a perfect fit for being a cleric, IMO. That could easily be roleplayed. Besides, who says Rogues aren't good with swords? They can sneak attack with them and they get short swords and rapiers by default...take Martial Wpn Prof, scimitar or longsword or something.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

I never really understood the concern over each character getting their "fair share" of magic items. Certainly not to the extent of getting rid of perfectly useful items in the interest of balancing things out! In fact, I find it intensely irritating to play with people who do place a priority on precisely evening out treasure distribution. As a member of a party, what's good for the party is good for me.

Now, once one character starts having more items than he can effectively use, or one character is often left without effective options in combat due to a lack of magic items, that's a problem the party should be striving to solve. But that, again, is about the self-interest of making the party an effective unit, not about making sure that individual bottom lines comes out equal.

 

[Zog]

Splitting every single pile of loot evenly is nigh impossible. What do you do if the value of gold and magic item's gp value isn't evenly divisible, sell the items for gold so you have equal shares?

Splitting loot evenly over the course of several piles (several dungeons, several adventures, etc.) on the other hand, is possible.

But an even so, in the games I've been in, there was minimal disagreement on loot distribution. There was generally a 'party fund' of cash, and items were claimed by those who could use them. In the case of items useful to several, there was a brief discussion of who could use it better, or who needed it more, and one character would give way, saying 'I get the next magic weapon' or whathaveyou. If someone wanted a major purchase, the party would talk about it, and generally agree to release the cash from the party funds. Sometimes the rest of the party would ask the person to wait, because the purchase would drain the funds, or they had been making several requests, or other people had plans for the cash, but I've always been in (or run) friendly games where everyone was fairly laid back.

When I was playing my little halfling monk, I turned down 90% of the treasure. I just didn't need and couldn't use it. But when we found a ring of deflection +1 -
"Mine"
"The wizard could use that, heck, the Paladin could use it too"
"Mine"
"Actually, it stacks with everyone's AC, so...."
"Mine. How much loot have I ever asked for? How much do I have? Mine."
"Um, right. Brother Thorn gets it."
"Thank you"

Ah, I miss playing the little guy.

 

[BlackMoria]

Splitting every single pile of loot evenly is nigh impossible. What do you do if the value of gold and magic item's gp value isn't evenly divisible, sell the items for gold so you have equal shares?

In fact, with one group that I play with, they do EXACTLY that. I don't like that because it like playing with accountants where it seemed enjoyment of the game was secondary to getting 'their just due'.

Because of this, noone had a magic item for the first few levels - they sold off everything and everyone got money. Trouble was, individually, each person didn't have enough money for a magic item, so noone had one for the first few levels.

The party got a +3 sword as treasure. Now, the sword was above the normal value to level ratio so the after the arguments, the sword was sold and the money divided evenly. Trouble was, the sword was needed (a plot device) to defeat a certain monster (the plot) with DR. And we sold it.

Now, at 4th level, certain individuals still didn't have magic items because they were saving up for a big ticket magic item. The monster in question shows up, and we get our asses handed to us. Why? Because the party sold off the sword the DM seeded into the campaign to help defeat it. Because some PCs didn't have any magic items because they wanted the bigger ticket item instead of a +1 item. Because the majority of the players didn't trust the DM to ensure everyone got their due in the long run. The result - a near TPK. The truth was - we did it to ourselves. It was a winable fight if we hadn't sold the sword and if everyone had a few minor magic items.

I was a player (and the sole survivor of the near TPK). I played a sorceror and I advocated keeping the +3 sword for one of the fighter types - even though that would give that player a consider 'equity' advantage over me. I advocated keeping magic items, even if that means a inequality of net worth to other players. Because it just makes sense.

So...as the title the thread suggests - the other party members wanted their fair share every time - and died as a result.

 

[The_Universe]

IMC, items go to the person most likely to put them to good use.

When such a decision isn't clear, the PCs usually make a deal so that if PC X gets the ring of protection this time, the next time a magical AC increasing item appears in treasure, PC Y will get it, instead.

When there are items that no one wants/can use, they are sold at the earliest safe and convenient time, with the resulting treasure shared out equally among the party members.

In-game, one player has a spreadsheet with all of the equipment/resources the group possesses, which makes equipment-based planning reasonably easier.

 

[FireLance]

I'll bet that for every PC that died because he insisted in splitting treasure up equally, there are dozens who died because they were under-equipped for their level. Now, the PCs in BlackMoria's story did both - they divided up the loot like accountants AND were under-equipped for their level to boot, even after selling off a +3 weapon worth 18,000 gp.

Let's not make the mistake of going to extremes. Blindly dividing up treasure down to the last copper piece is a mistake, but so is consistently giving one PC more or less treasure than he should have. One mistake does not excuse the other. Players should trust the DM to give them nice gizmos to play with over the course of the campaign if not immediately, and DMs should not betray that trust. If this breaks down, we're back to the accountants again.

Oh, and I'm wondering what kind of creature that is a suitable challenge for a 4th-level party needs a +3 weapon to get through its DR. In any case, I'm glad 3.5e fixed DR, but that is another hotly-debated issue.

 

[Voadam]

I'm of the split equally philosophy.

During an adventure people use what they can immediately.

After the adventure items should be split. Buy out of your own share of loot and going in debt to the group is fine.

In our group we tend to sell new stuff to fund upgrades to our existing equipment, so we keep the same armor and weapons, they just keep getting better.

If you get a better magic item, then your share of loot goes down. Easy, equitable, and the PCs who don't get the great items can buy their own with their share of loot and balance out the difference in item distribution.

 

[billd91]

The party got a +3 sword as treasure. Now, the sword was above the normal value to level ratio so the after the arguments, the sword was sold and the money divided evenly. Trouble was, the sword was needed (a plot device) to defeat a certain monster (the plot) with DR. And we sold it.

<snip>

I was a player (and the sole survivor of the near TPK). I played a sorceror and I advocated keeping the +3 sword for one of the fighter types - even though that would give that player a consider 'equity' advantage over me. I advocated keeping magic items, even if that means a inequality of net worth to other players. Because it just makes sense.

So...as the title the thread suggests - the other party members wanted their fair share every time - and died as a result.

Wow. I find it nearly inconceivable to sell of a +3 sword as a low level party of adventurers. What we'd normally do is remember who got it and then defer any significant magic treasure for that person until we felt that the +3 sword was reasonably matched by the goodies owned by other PCs. In other words, we do want people to have their approximate fair share... eventually.

I think one of the problems is that the players want instant gratification in equal measure when really they should be looking at having an equal share in the long run. I also suspect that DMs, and perhaps 3E with its emphasis on balancing treasure and monster CRs by market value of the equipment the PCs tote around, make it too easy to think of magic items as easy buy and sell commodities. Personally, in my Greyhawk game, it's not that easy to find magic to buy and it's not that easy to find buyers.