Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Shiroiken" data-source="post: 8900714" data-attributes="member: 6775477">I'm old school, but I've been part of several different styles. My preferred method is based on &quot;shares.&quot; Players draft magic items until there's none left. Players who didn't get a permanent magic item get 2 additional shares of treasure, while those who only got 1 consumable item get 1 additional share of treasure. If there's enough items to go around, the extra shares is based on the remainder. Gems, jewelry, and art objects could be chosen as part of a share (in reverse draft order).In 3E, I played in a group that was insanely strict on perfectly equal division. Since magic items had a cash value, if you wanted an item, you had to reduce your share equal to the amount. This led to some insane situations that I strenuously objected to, but was outvoted. We sold a suit of Plate Mail +1 of Acid Resistance... so that our fighter had enough money to buy a suit of Plate Mail +1. We sold off a powerful staff that could only be used by our wizard, because it was worth more than the wizard could cover (it was almost twice as valuable as the entire horde), then later suffered because we didn't have that staff. I understand the desire to be as equal as possible, but this level of selfishness was taken too far.My current group is the opposite, of sorts. We technically divide up treasure... but items are largely considered communal. I've had items taken away from my character because they were suddenly more suitable for someone else (no compensation was given in exchange). While this might make the group more powerful as a whole, I feel like my characters have no private property rights. It's irritating, but technically better than the 3E group.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Shiroiken, post: 8900714, member: 6775477"] I'm old school, but I've been part of several different styles. My preferred method is based on "shares." Players draft magic items until there's none left. Players who didn't get a permanent magic item get 2 additional shares of treasure, while those who only got 1 consumable item get 1 additional share of treasure. If there's enough items to go around, the extra shares is based on the remainder. Gems, jewelry, and art objects could be chosen as part of a share (in reverse draft order). In 3E, I played in a group that was insanely strict on perfectly equal division. Since magic items had a cash value, if you wanted an item, you had to reduce your share equal to the amount. This led to some insane situations that I strenuously objected to, but was outvoted. We sold a suit of Plate Mail +1 of Acid Resistance... so that our fighter had enough money to buy a suit of Plate Mail +1. We sold off a powerful staff that could only be used by our wizard, because it was worth more than the wizard could cover (it was almost twice as valuable as the entire horde), then later suffered because we didn't have that staff. I understand the desire to be as equal as possible, but this level of selfishness was taken too far. My current group is the opposite, of sorts. We technically divide up treasure... but items are largely considered communal. I've had items taken away from my character because they were suddenly more suitable for someone else (no compensation was given in exchange). While this might make the group more powerful as a whole, I feel like my characters have no private property rights. It's irritating, but technically better than the 3E group. [/QUOTE]

Verification