D&D General Treasure - how much, how often, and how does your group divide it

[Blue]

Okay, different groups handle this different ways. It's actually usually something we settle as players, not characters. In general magic items are by who can best use them/needs something, and funds are pooled to a lesser or greater extents.

As a DM, I give out around the Xanathar's suggestions by tier, perhaps a little more generous with wonderous items, and a little less generous with consumables and "plus X" weapons/armor. Most items are where they are for a reason, so often are used against the party before the group can get them. I expect players will miss items - when I say "give out", that doesn't include items that aren't given out because they are missed.

Tangentially, I use story/pacing based leveling, and follow the same idea with items - there are many routes that can lead to successfully overcoming challenges, and I'm not going to penalize a group simply because they didn't approach a challenge in a way to beat people up and take their loot. For example, you might kill a bunch of bandits and take their loot. Or capture them and get a reward. Or join them and have a share stealing from the tax collector.

I've got one unusual group that's worth discussing on how it mutates the loot expectations. One group's origin was that they all "awoke" these powerful mask relics of the Imperium. There were less than a hundred Masks in the whole Imperium, and accepted Mask Bearers were sworn in and given authority - their personalities were accepted by the Masks which protected the Imperium, causing these artifacts to awaken.

Anyway, from level 1 they could requisition and mundane equipment, and they had a personalized magic item that would grow with them. They have been the absolute least murder-hobo party (and I've played with all of the them in other campaigns). They dont' do random sidequests for loot. It's just not a big deal. Well, the elven archer ranger really wants a magical bow, but besides that, they are not loot-inspired. It's drastic.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I give out a lot of esoteric items just to see what the party does with them. Beyond that, I give out a good amount of wealth and then have magic marts so they can get what they want to make up for me foisting experimental weirdness (and bags of holding to remove any need for me to pretend to care about encumbrance) on them.

Treasure comes at milestones where it makes sense for them to find wealth, which means when they fight people instead of mounters or get a reward for something.

I tend to give a heavier than normal amounts of treasure because my players tend to pick up a lot of pets and allies to outfit and recently had started adopting towns that they then build into cutting edge cities with the latest magic amenities or airships to trick out.

Occasionally, they get so caught up in improving lives that I have to give out basic magic gear to keep them in line with adventurer loadout by level.

 

[Lanefan]

What were the main challenges with it for you? Items not having balanced values?

Greedy characters, in character, drafting for value rather than utility.

Probably not, unless they were using the item to protect themselves or hide. I kind of rule that cloaks, backpacks etc cover stuff up.

So do I, meaning those sort of things* have to save first and if they succeed anything inside is considered safe, but if they fail we move further "inward". So for example if you're wearing any sort of armour it's usually assumed in includes commensurate gauntlets, thus if your armour saves any rings on your fingers are fine but if the armour fails then the rings need to save.

* - except cloaks, usually; they're often flimsy and only mostly cover one side of you so they don't offer much protection to what's inside.

I just think it’s unpleasant losing stuff like that. Maybe if I was more generous with replacements it would be ok.

I'm pretty generous with giving stuff out and players always like finding new stuff, so while an occasional item meltdown can certainly suck it's not the end of the world...though the resulting wild magic surges if a bunch of magic items go up can present a serious hazard, or a serious benefit, or both, or neither...

 

[Lanefan]

I've seen military-style distribution of stuff, but the only time things get given away is if someone literally can't use them, like, you've just been distributed/given cloak of uberness and are wearing it, but you also have cloak of okayness, and another party has no cloak magic item at all, if you don't give him that cloak of okayness, it brings into question why you'd received the cloak of uberness - even if it's not seen as military style distribution, they're clearly perceiving part of the bargain for you receiving the item is turning in the old one for redistribution. That's what I have seen happen - if someone takes an item as an upgrade and can no longer use another item at all because it's the same slot and "always on", it's an expectation that the old item be redistributed.

The only part of that which doesn't ring true here is the word "give". Replace it with the word "sell" and you're pretty close to what happens (usually) in my games.

Why "sell"? Because if something's yours it's (almost*) certain you paid money to acquire it, either by claiming it as part of a treasury share (and thus getting its value less in coin) or by buying it externally. Therefore, if say I've got a Ring of Protection +1 that I paid 3000 for at some point in the past and I claim and win a Ring +2 in the treasury now (which will cost me 8000), it only makes sense that I'm going to a) sell the Ring +1 to try and get my 3000 back and b) offer to sell it to other party members first before putting it on the open market.

But if I'd paid for the Ring +1, won the Ring +2 and paid for that, and was then expected to give away the +1 for nothing? Not happening.

* - the exceptions being stolen and gifted/reward items, but those are rare.

 

[cbwjm]

The only part of that which doesn't ring true here is the word "give". Replace it with the word "sell" and you're pretty close to what happens (usually) in my games.

Why "sell"? Because if something's yours it's (almost*) certain you paid money to acquire it, either by claiming it as part of a treasury share (and thus getting its value less in coin) or by buying it externally. Therefore, if say I've got a Ring of Protection +1 that I paid 3000 for at some point in the past and I claim and win a Ring +2 in the treasury now (which will cost me 8000), it only makes sense that I'm going to a) sell the Ring +1 to try and get my 3000 back and b) offer to sell it to other party members first before putting it on the open market.

But if I'd paid for the Ring +1, won the Ring +2 and paid for that, and was then expected to give away the +1 for nothing? Not happening.

* - the exceptions being stolen and gifted/reward items, but those are rare.

Oh wow, I don't think I've ever run or played in a game that ran like that. Always the items get given to the ones best able to use it and any money is divided by the party, if something can't be used and is sold, then that gets divided between party members.

 

[Lanefan]

Okay, different groups handle this different ways. It's actually usually something we settle as players, not characters.

As far as possible we try to do it in character.

In general magic items are by who can best use them/needs something, and funds are pooled to a lesser or greater extents.

As a DM, I give out around the Xanathar's suggestions by tier, perhaps a little more generous with wonderous items, and a little less generous with consumables and "plus X" weapons/armor. Most items are where they are for a reason, so often are used against the party before the group can get them. I expect players will miss items - when I say "give out", that doesn't include items that aren't given out because they are missed.

Tangentially, I use story/pacing based leveling, and follow the same idea with items - there are many routes that can lead to successfully overcoming challenges, and I'm not going to penalize a group simply because they didn't approach a challenge in a way to beat people up and take their loot. For example, you might kill a bunch of bandits and take their loot. Or capture them and get a reward. Or join them and have a share stealing from the tax collector.

Would the amount "earned" be arbitrarily made about the same, though, whether they looted the bandits, got a reward for the bandits, or joined the bandits? If yes, that seems a bit artificial. (never mind the most profitable route is to defeat and loot the bandits without killing them and then turn them in for the reward as well )

I've got one unusual group that's worth discussing on how it mutates the loot expectations. One group's origin was that they all "awoke" these powerful mask relics of the Imperium. There were less than a hundred Masks in the whole Imperium, and accepted Mask Bearers were sworn in and given authority - their personalities were accepted by the Masks which protected the Imperium, causing these artifacts to awaken.

Anyway, from level 1 they could requisition and mundane equipment, and they had a personalized magic item that would grow with them. They have been the absolute least murder-hobo party (and I've played with all of the them in other campaigns). They dont' do random sidequests for loot. It's just not a big deal. Well, the elven archer ranger really wants a magical bow, but besides that, they are not loot-inspired. It's drastic.

Interesting. I'm guessing this is a short-ish campaign?

 

[Lanefan]

Oh wow, I don't think I've ever run or played in a game that ran like that. Always the items get given to the ones best able to use it and any money is divided by the party, if something can't be used and is sold, then that gets divided between party members.

We do it this way because any other way simply isn't equitable as per net value.

Example: if the treasury item I can best use is a 20K g.p. Staff of Wizardry and the item you can best use is a 10K suit of Plate Mail +1, Fire Resistance then however else you slice it I still come out 10K ahead. Highly relevant if I then turn around and sell said Staff of Wizardry or trade it for other items of equal value, which - once it's mine, after division - nothing stops me from doing.

If each character's share is 21500 then in the above example you should get 11500 in cash etc. to top up while I only get 1500; and if each character's share is onlu 17500 then unless I've got a spare 2500 somewhere I'm probably going to have to borrow from someone to make up the shortfall.

And sure you could say that maybe next treasury it'd reverse and my best-use item might be worth 10K less than yours, but long-time experience tells me that doesn't happen very often. The items most useful to some classes (usually casters) are simply costlier overall in general than the items most useful to other classes (usually warriors or thieves); and it could be argued that as casters already have enough going for them, why give them this benefit too?

 

[Li Shenron]

How much do you-as-DM tend to give, either overall or relative to guidelines? Flip side: how much do you-as-player like to get?

I don't pay much attention to the guidelines. Mostly I play conversions of older-edition adventures, and basically give out whatever treasure they indicate, and for those occasional homebrew scenes in between I roll treasure from DMG tables. As a player, whatever the DM does is ok for me.

How much of your treasure is magic items vs non-magic?

No answer makes sense for me, because the PCs ignore most of the non-magic/non-precious stuff they find in treasure. Yes, at low level they might choose to pick up some mundane weapons dropped by enemies, but soon enough they won't bother.

How do you "place" it in adventures? By this I mean is it sitting there easy to find, is it hidden, is it always guarded, is your expectation that the PCs will find all of it or miss some, etc.

In most cases it is either being actively used by enemies, or stashed hidden and protected.

How does your group divide treasure and who decides the method used? Also, how often (if ever) does your group divide treasure?

Equal parts for cash and precious items which have a clearly defined value. Magic items don't have a price tag, so besides the fact that PCs don't take what they can't use (example: if we find 10 scrolls that only the Wizard can use, the Wizard takes 10 scrolls, we don't divide 2 scrolls each to 5 PCs), if there are multiple PCs who can use a magic item, they decide how to share them in the smartest way.

Who owns the treasure before division? After division?

It's ok to think your PC own their stuff, but it doesn't really matter much unless the PC leaves the party.

How easy is it in your game for treasure and-or PC-carried possessions to be destroyed, stolen, or lost? Are your players cool with possession loss and if not, why not?

Rarely, but it does happen. Powerful magic items come with a fail-safe that, if it turns out they are breaking the game, the game will break the magic item as part of the narrative. It is also a possible bargain I can offer in exchange for PCs death or TPK, when the players wants to keep playing the same PCs.

Can magic items be bought, sold, or traded; and if not, why not?

Bought/trade yes, but absolutely no a-la-carte availability by the book. What you find for sale is usually random, unless you commission it (but that's a longer, sometimes quest-like, affair). Selling almost never happen.

 

[S'mon]

The items most useful to some classes (usually casters) are simply costlier overall in general than the items most useful to other classes (usually warriors or thieves); and it could be argued that as casters already have enough going for them, why give them this benefit too?

Party survival? Unless you have very easy item purchase, a powerful useful item in the hands of the PC best suited to it is a big positive for the whole group.

 

[akr71]

So the Bag of Holding is party-owned, then?

What about something anyone can make good use of e.g. a Ring of Invisibility or some sort of flying device - how do they decide who gets that?

And on a broader scale, how much character turnover is there? If for example everyone kinda meta-knows it's going to be the same party all the way along then party-owned items make tons of sense; but if there's more of an expectation that characters will come and go and be replaced, what then?

Yes, the bag of holding is a party item. The tricky party is nailing down who is carrying it, so they all can't say "I reach into the bag of holding and pull out x." They just obtained a second one, but from the sounds of it, they intend on using the second one for storing 'harvested materials' so they can commission their own magic items. That and a death chamber for polymorphed monsters

If there is an item that could be useful by more than one character, they talk it out and try to make a decision that is best for the party, even trading items every once in a while. It usually starts with "Who wants it?" & progresses to "What do you have currently & how many require attunement" and then "alright you take x, but can I have y?" The only time I have sensed regret was when the ranger realized that the sunblade he was ignoring could be used as a finesse weapon - once the paladin picked it up, her face lit up, she's never giving it up.

The downfall is that consumables tend to just get stuffed into the BoH, with the exception of Healing Potions. They've collected a decent number of potions and scrolls that could have been useful, if they had distributed them.

One player has left & one has joined. One player has changed characters a couple times - once because it was the merger of two groups and it was a convenient time to change, the other time was because that character wasn't working out. A charisma/social pillar based character in a dungeon crawling/combat pillar heavy campaign (I don't want my players to play a character they're not having fun with). When characters leave, they leave with their current equipped gear unless their is a discussion amongst the players and they tell me otherwise. There has only been one character death, which was weirdly just before the merger of the two groups (some of the players were in both groups).