Loot Split

[wlmartin]

Hi guys,

I am thinking about proposing the following Loot Split to my party.
It isnt that I feel that the division of loot is poor but unless it is a splittable loot drop (ie gold, gems etc) its often a case of say in the case of a magic item that the person that needs it the most claims it and the rest of the group just nods. At low levels (we are now 6th) this wasnt a concern since the amount of loot earned is minor but as we start to approach Paragon and further it is my feeling that the division of loot will become more important since we will start to need money to buy less mundane things and I wouldn't want people thinking that just because they dont claim an item that they dont benefit from its value.


My proposal was :

Loot that can be split : (Gold, Gems etc) is split as normal
Non-Magical Loot that can't be split : (Art etc) is saved until it can be cashed in and then treated as Gold
Magical Loot that can be split :
a) It isn't claimed by anyone and treated as Non-Magical Loot (either sold for 1/5th value or melted into residium for the same)
b) It is claimed by someone in the party

If it is claimed, then that party member would owe the group a division equal to the items re-sale value with their share deducted (ie a 1000gp item, split by 5 is 200gp, 4 party members means he would owe 3/4, or 150gp to the group)

This could be paid immediately or later or perhaps instead of claiming his share on future treasure.

This would mean that even if the next 3 magical items we find are suited to the Fighter and no-one has any need to claim them, the party doesn't lose out on the value of the item as if it was instead a pile of gold and it would (i think) create more value to the item if you end up sacrificing the next level of loot just to pay for it out of your share.

How does this sound?
Is this something that you would be agreeable to if proposed in your group?
Can you see any downsides to this?

 

[MortalPlague]

Is this something that you would be agreeable to if proposed in your group?
Can you see any downsides to this?

We considered doing this in our last campaign, but decided not to. Ultimately, we made judgement calls on pieces of loot. Individual characters could claim the small stuff (250 gp art objects, for instance). Magic items, we distributed to whoever needed it with little issue. If we ever felt someone was getting more than their share (for instance if someone wanted to claim 2 or 3 art objects), we'd simply deduct from their share of the coinage for that split.

The problem with doing an absolute system is simply the book-keeping. Some people don't want to track loot down to the last penny. So for those who don't care much about the particulars, they might see the system as bogging down the game.

In our last game, one of the other considerations was this; we were receiving a number of neat little trinkets and trophies that our characters might have interest in keeping. For instance, my priest claimed a painting to donate to his direct superior. In a party where every gold piece is tracked, people may be less likely to claim items purely for a roleplay standpoint.

That's not to say it's a bad system; it definitely makes things fair and even for everyone. There are a few pitfalls to be wary of, but this way of splitting loot could be a real benefit to your group.

 

[wlmartin]

We considered doing this in our last campaign, but decided not to. Ultimately, we made judgement calls on pieces of loot. Individual characters could claim the small stuff (250 gp art objects, for instance). Magic items, we distributed to whoever needed it with little issue. If we ever felt someone was getting more than their share (for instance if someone wanted to claim 2 or 3 art objects), we'd simply deduct from their share of the coinage for that split.

The problem with doing an absolute system is simply the book-keeping. Some people don't want to track loot down to the last penny. So for those who don't care much about the particulars, they might see the system as bogging down the game.

In our last game, one of the other considerations was this; we were receiving a number of neat little trinkets and trophies that our characters might have interest in keeping. For instance, my priest claimed a painting to donate to his direct superior. In a party where every gold piece is tracked, people may be less likely to claim items purely for a roleplay standpoint.

That's not to say it's a bad system; it definitely makes things fair and even for everyone. There are a few pitfalls to be wary of, but this way of splitting loot could be a real benefit to your group.

I get what you are saying, for the record keeping I wouldnt mind doing that and since my character has high diplomacy it is pretty much going to be down to him to haggle and sell a lot of the time.

I would like to think of it like if it was a real adventure. This kind of thing would need to be tracked then so why not now.

I do think that people should want to claim things less... if there is no system then anything could be beneficial, after all, who knows when that +2 history could come in useful so why not keep the Historians Amulet! Or, more likely, people will refuse to claim a certain item because they dont need it or dont want to pay for it, even at 1/5 value and will pass on it, thus increasing the loot for everyone.

I would like to think that our DM is kind enough to balance out loot for everyone but even with the designed Treasure Parcels, each level someone always loses out in the way of magic items anyway.

I think it would be sad if the Lvl 2 wizard found a Lvl 6 staff and due to this the DM decided to dole out less wizard stuff and more fighter, cleric and rogue stuff for the others and the wizard doesnt get another magic item until level 5 to compensate for this and in the meantime has been stuck with just the normal divy of loot.

I think in this system, claiming the staff puts him in the hole for a good few levels but at least once his debt is paid off, he doesnt feel as behind as he might be "waiting for his turn" so to speak in the allotment of cool loot.

 

[SensoryThought]

Um, how about role playing it?

 

[wlmartin]

Um, how about role playing it?

How do you mean?

 

[Infiniti2000]

I don't like it and here's why. You are in effect reducing the power of each PC by some percentage, so 20%. Over the long run this won't be a good thing. Now, it gets balanced out only when the items distributed to the party are balanced out. When that happens, though, you've now gone through this whole complicated process for no reason whatsoever. Actually, you've likely created a big hassle and more problems. Honestly, do you think your PCs would be so rational about percentages, resale values, etc.? How about the player (or players) in your group that simply don't give a flip about how perfectly fair everything is?

What's worse, however, is the absolutely wrong perception that if a PC doesn't get his or her fair share of items, they somehow wind up balanced. This is absolutely not true. The magical items given out as treasure are vitally important in the balance scheme. They are worth far more than the PCs can afford and if they are not useful, everyone gets screwed. Period.

I especially want to discuss this comment: "I get what you are saying, for the record keeping I wouldnt mind doing that and since my character has high diplomacy it is pretty much going to be down to him to haggle and sell a lot of the time." Just be careful that comments like this don't translate into "I deserve more because I do all the haggling." This is really a bad precedent. I know you have said this, and nothing in your posts imply that, either, but I've seen this attitude before and it leads to very ugly results. This includes the adventure-specific "I killed the dragon, so I get my pick of the loot without giving anything back."

As a counter proposal, I recommend that the DM be careful about the magical items and make sure they are useful to the party. If the items are tracked in a spreadsheet (we use Google docs and thus everyone edits it after every session, as necessary), then the DM can easily determine need for each of the players and plan accordingly. Although "wish lists" generate a lot of negative reaction that is an easier method for the DM, but they are not necessary. An even easier method for the DM is not to give out specific items, but simply say "level 14 item for wlmartin" or whatever, but that also understandably generates a lot of negative reaction.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

My group used a similar method for War of the Burning Sky (3.5) and it worked fine. In that the treasure was more about what the bad guys would have that what the players wanted (there's only so many wands of hold portal with ten changes that we could use).

In the game were I'm a player the DM just tells us to pick an item we want and never gives us coin, so there's no need for book keeping.

 

[wlmartin]

I don't like it and here's why. You are in effect reducing the power of each PC by some percentage, so 20%. Over the long run this won't be a good thing.

How am I doing this?

Now, it gets balanced out only when the items distributed to the party are balanced out. When that happens, though, you've now gone through this whole complicated process for no reason whatsoever.

Not really
Firstly this would only be true if each party member was given a magical item of the same value at the same time.

Once time is taken for the next person, and the next and the next to receive an item, over this time the person(s) who do not receive their item arent granted the option to progress further because they have limited funds with to buy new magical items or upgrade their existing ones.

Secondly since its often levels between each character getting a choice item (where there would be some filler ones but a DECENT piece of armor or a weapon is what I am talking about) the distribution would be unfair because it would be spread over numerous levels : if you look below :

Level 1 : Wizadore, the Mage gets a Magic item of level 2 (520gp) and the rest of the group get their share of various loot and treasure that is sold equivilant to that level.
Level 2 : Dalamore, the Fighter gets a Magic item of level 3 (680gp) and again the rest of the group gets various loot as normal.
Level 3 : Perseus, the Cleric gets a Magic item of level 4 (840gp) and the rest get normal loot
Level 4 : Dalat, the Rogue gets a Magic item of level 5 (1000gp) and the rest get normal loot

Since the Mage's magical choice item was worth just about half of the Rogue's, how is this fair?

Wouldn't it make more sense that he would have gotten the item but owed the group his share of the item (1/5 its value, minus his share) than for him to have been at a disadvantage for the next few levels.

Yes, typically this does balance out but what if no-one wanted to keep the item? Since it would be sold, why does someone wanting it for themselves give over the parties right to want to sell it and surely paying the party for keeping it solves that.

Actually, you've likely created a big hassle and more problems. Honestly, do you think your PCs would be so rational about percentages, resale values, etc.? How about the player (or players) in your group that simply don't give a flip about how perfectly fair everything is?

It wouldnt need to get complicated.
One person, the treasurer, when an item is found that someone wants to claim... we simply look a the item value, divide by 5 and then divide this number by the members of the group.

This is the value each party member gets when split and if the person in question wants to buy it, he simply owes the party its value - his share.

That is written down and taken into account down the line

What's worse, however, is the absolutely wrong perception that if a PC doesn't get his or her fair share of items, they somehow wind up balanced. This is absolutely not true. The magical items given out as treasure are vitally important in the balance scheme. They are worth far more than the PCs can afford and if they are not useful, everyone gets screwed. Period.

This is the idea.
If the group gets a massively unbalanced item, just because one player can really use it... why does it mean the rest of the group dont get to sell it?

To be honest, since the resale value of the item is 1/5th, any Magic Shop selling the item would charge him 5x what he has to contribute back to the group.

Also, considering that non-common items arent sold in Magic Shops, its not as if he/she could get it from a store anyways.

What if for some reason the party has 6 magic items, none of which can be used by players 1, 2 & 3 but players 4 & 5 split them up between them. Is this fair?

I especially want to discuss this comment: "I get what you are saying, for the record keeping I wouldnt mind doing that and since my character has high diplomacy it is pretty much going to be down to him to haggle and sell a lot of the time." Just be careful that comments like this don't translate into "I deserve more because I do all the haggling." This is really a bad precedent. I know you have said this, and nothing in your posts imply that, either, but I've seen this attitude before and it leads to very ugly results. This includes the adventure-specific "I killed the dragon, so I get my pick of the loot without giving anything back."

I wasnt going there and am seriously unsure how you could have thought I was... it was more, considering I will be no doubt called on to do shop runs and save the group some money (more for the pot) and am willing to take time out of my game to coordinate the ledger side of things, I am willing to do so...

As a counter proposal, I recommend that the DM be careful about the magical items and make sure they are useful to the party. If the items are tracked in a spreadsheet (we use Google docs and thus everyone edits it after every session, as necessary), then the DM can easily determine need for each of the players and plan accordingly. Although "wish lists" generate a lot of negative reaction that is an easier method for the DM, but they are not necessary. An even easier method for the DM is not to give out specific items, but simply say "level 14 item for wlmartin" or whatever, but that also understandably generates a lot of negative reaction.

Wish lists are useful but ultimately if the DM is giving out items from a shopping list on EVERY loot drop, it becomes less a game of adventure and more some kind of fight-to-earn system.

I agree a DM should customize some items to fit in with the goals of some players but these items should be rarer than other magical items you find. A +2 history amulet or a +2 to hit goblins scabard... all fun items but pretty much useless to the majority of players, should these be used by the next person in the queue for an item? or the person who hasnt had an item for awhile? or the person who has the least money in the group?

All of these ideas are good per situation I suppose but ultimately lead to an unbalanced system where large ticket items get claimed by certain players and perhaps less valuable items get claimed by others, everyone perceives there to be a fair distribution since everyone got a magical item in that adventure, forgetting that the Mage got a +3 level staff...

Whilst things seem balanced, what if 3 loot drops in a row, the fighter gets the item... plus he gets any loot they find as well, he will end up being richer than the other players and whilst they may/may not catch up later down the line, why should they?

If every item is treated as sellable that means everyone gets a fair distribution of the wealth.
If an item is deemed claimed, then all they need to do is buy it from the group.

Anything other than this, regardless of how fair a DM feels he will end up being will end up involving swings in how rich certain players are over others just because they piped up and asked for certain items

 

[Quickleaf]

Don't magic items sell for less than they're "worth" (at least as written in the books) though? At least that is RAW, maybe your DM does different. There was a theme which helped ameliorate this, but your suggestion sounds like it would be selling the party short a bit.

 

[fenriswolf456]

It really depends on the group. If the characters are mercenary enough, then this kind of system could work.

The issue I see is the case of items that would be useful to one particular character, but nothing so stellar as to tempt them to buy it because they're saving their share for some potentially bigger item down the road? Or what if the item is awesome for a particular character, but they can't afford it ... do you just all go 'oh well' and break it down?

You are also overlooking that 4E plays much more into being a party, rather than 5 individuals. Sure, the fighter may have just gotten the Zomg Armour of Amazing, and is thus 'richer' for it, but now they are much better at actually performing their role in the party, meaning more success for everyone. And the item isn't likely to be sold just for cash by the player until it gets replaced. Then you could just split the sale value of the item then and everyone not only gets their fair share, but you have all benefited from the item actually being used and making your adventures easier and more successful.

It comes down to what is fun for the group. If you are all really keen on everyone getting their exact fair share of things all the time and doing all the book-keeping, go for it (because others will have to do book-keeping too, to see what they can afford and if it's worth it). But there's something to be said for just giving out items to who can use them, making them more effective and thus increasing the fun factor. It also helps keep the immersion of the game. I'm not saying it would go like this for your group in particular, but this is sort of how I see your system:

DM: You open the locked door, and behind you see a glimmering longsword with bejewelled pommel and with a blade of ghostly fire.

Fred the Figher: I pick up the sword in awe. "Just imagine what we can do with this, my friends, why we could challenge the Dank Caves of Horribleness now!" Holds the sword up triumphantly.

Randy the Rogue: Rubbing his chin. "Hrm, I don't know, that sword's got to be worth at least 5,000 gold."

FtF: "What?"

Molly the Mage: "Yeah. Tell you what, Fred, how about you give us say ... 250 gold each, and you can have it."

FtF: "You serious?"

RtR: Nodding, "Yeah, sounds about right."

FtF: "But ... but I don't have that kind of money right now, I just picked up this chain mail because I was getting hit too much ..."

MtM: "Shame, oh well, I'm sure you can put that 200 gold you'll get when we sell the sword back in town can be put to good use sometime."

Clarence the Cleric: "Score! Now I have enough to get the next loot item."

I don't know, I guess for me it rubs me the wrong way. I don't think I've ever worried about the value of an item in this way. If someone can use it, they should. There are few magic items that wouldn't be much better used than sold.

If your party finds 6 items, but only 2 characters can use them, it sounds more like that the rest have as good or better items already, so really you're just helping out the 'poor'.

If the items keep going to one character, figure out why. Talk to the DM about the disparity and how it's hurting the fun-factor of the no-haves. While the items don't have to be specifically useful, there should be variety enough that they get spread around the party fairly evenly over time.