Sharing Treasure?

[Kesnit]

Something strange (to me) happened at my 3.5 game yesterday.

The party (4 PCs, level 7-8) were escorting a non-combatant NPC to a location so the NPC could do a job. The DM rolled up an encounter, and told us we found 13 clay pots by the side of the road. The Ranger/Druid and the Monk/Psy Warrior (my PC) went to work breaking the pots, which turned out to hold a few thousand gold, a blue sapphire, a blue sapphire on a gold chain, and a magic item. Meanwhile, the Ranger/Favored Soul and the Fighter/Bard found a spot that lit up with Detect Magic. They started digging there. When the pot-breaking and magic-digging was done, we loaded the treasure into the packs on the FS's beasts of burden.

When we got back to town, I quickly did the math to determine how much gold all the PCs got from the pots. (I divided it equally.) The Bard was trying to find out what the magic items were to determine if she should sell them or if they were useful to the party. (We ended up selling them and dividing the money, but that was after the below exchange.)

The FS player speaks up and asks "does anyone mind if I take the sapphires?" At first, I thought she was going to go through an appraise-process to determine their value, then split the money among the party. Nope, she wanted them for herself. When I realized that, I looked at her and asked "are you going to pay the rest of the party our share of their value?" She looked at me as if I was insane. Thinking I hadn't explained my thinking, I added "none of us would have them if [Ranger/Druid] and I hadn't broken all the pots." In a huff, she said "we wouldn't have them if I hadn't loaded them on my 'beasties,' either." I was stunned speechless, completely unable to come up with an answer. The Bard's player turned to the FS and said "well, he is playing Lawful Evil." The FS finally said (rather irately), "fine, if you want them, you can have them." I took the jewels to a jeweler, sold them, and split the money equally.


In every game I've played before, the party always split the value of non-magical items and magical items that were sold because no one could use them. (Magical items that were of use to someone went to that person with no cost, since it is assumed the PC will use the magic item be useful to the party.) I didn't ask the FS to pay the other PCs our share of the value of the items because I play LE; I asked because it's only fair that the party split treasure. (At the root, D&D is a game, and should be fun for all involved.) Am I weird in thinking this way?

[khachaturian]

is this your first time gaming with this player? i would be pretty concerned about this and would probably have a seriouis out of character discussion. but my overall impression from what you described is that this person probably isn't someone i would want to game with.

[Vhaidara]

Honestly, you're already nicer than all of my groups. If we find a magic item that is useful to someone, it's value is still counted towards their share of the treasure. For example, on the first adventure, the DM gave my warlock a Cloak of Immunity to Magic Immunity (he had planned a golem-heavy plotline, not realizing that it made me completely useless until level 12). That counted as my entire share of the treasure for the adventure.

i have seen a few people who want to keep gems and the like (exiled dwarven noble and a kawaii battle princess [I'm not in that one] are my main examples), but we still take it off of their treasure value.

I think the big concern is this: Was the FS objecting to the idea of not getting full treasure in exchange for keeping the gems on an IC basis or on an OoC basis? If it was IC, that is completely fine. If it was OoC, explain to them how they are reducing the value of everyone else's shaes, while vastly inflating the equivalent value of their own.

Example: you have 3000gp in gold and the gems are worth (what you get) 1000gp. If gems are sold, everyone gets 1000gp. If FS keeps gems and accepts that is their treasure, they get gems and everyone gets 1000gp (FS just gets it in gems). If FS keeps gems and gets a share, everyone gets 750gp (down by 250), and the FS effectively got 1750gp, more than two other party members combined.

Also, I don't really see how you being LE had any impact on that reaction. No one likes getting shafted on money.

[Slipperychicken]

You've got to figure out loot distribution procedures long in advance. Ideally in writing, with procedures in case one party member wants a specific item or items (and perhaps some kind of resolution system like bidding if multiple party members want the same item).

I would have said something like "Yeah, if no-one else wants them, you can have the sapphires as part of your share, but we need to get them appraised first so everyone gets equal shares". And then I would have gotten the sapphires appraised and included their value in her share of the loot.

She would only have needed to pay out if the sapphires' combined value was greater than her share.

[Ansem]

In my party we split the cash equally and distributed the rest on the usefulness basis.

We find 5k gold and a gloves of +1 dexterity, ranger gets the glove and all 5 players get 1K.
If we have something nobody intends to use, we sell it and split the profit.

Haven't had problems with it so far and we usually punish such a selfish player ingame by beating the crap out of him xD.

[Keneth]

You guys actually split your loot? And equally at that? :smallconfused:

I mean obviously that can avoid some arguments about who gets to spend how much, but a group with good dynamics shouldn't encounter such arguments in the first place.

In my groups, and I've been in a great many of them over the decades, we've always had a "pool" for the entire group, and we've bought equipment as necessary for whomever needed it most.

I don't know, maybe it's a thing with groups that get valuables amounting to or in excess of the WBL table, but when gold is scarce, a wizard going "I want my fair share", when the fighter clearly needs MORE DAKKA, is just poor form.

[manyslayer]

I'm always amazed at groups where this is an issue. We just keep a party treasury with cash and items go to who needs/can use them. If someone needs something, we buy it out of party treasury. Never have we totaled the value a certain character gets or compared values between characters.

[Ansem]

Too bad that only works if the group can deal with this, if you play with greedy bastards the system is the safest bet (even though I would vouch for a common pool as well)

[Vhaidara]

That's actually another thing. My groups all run a party pool that odd money goes into (mostly my bard's Perform profits). I tend to run pretty gear independent characters (that or the DM supplies what little i need, see my last post), so my characters are rather inclined to just toss their money into the pool.

I think it's an issue that comes up more with parties who's members don't implicitly trust each other. An all good arty that's been together for 100 levels doesn't really need individual gold and would probably trust each other enough for a party pool of all money to be effective. But an evil/neutral group (or mixed alignments) doesn't necessarily have that trust between characters.

[Chen]

We generally play with raw currency is split and magic items go to whoever can use them best. If someone pockets some gold or gems that they find alone or whatnot, that's dealt with in character should it happen.

[Dawgmoah]

Like many things; we'll vote on how we want to split treasure from the beginning. And of course everyone knows people cheat (if the ranger found the pots by himself and stuck the sapphire in his pocket, who would know in game?) And like the others, usually when someone wants an item it is appraised. If the worth of the item is more than what the player character would receive they owe the rest of the party the difference.

You need to discuss with your party how treasure is going to be split. The other player may be of the "I want it, it's mine" school.

Oh, and don't forget all of the NPCs that watch the party roll into town with their phat pockets and bling shining in the sun. Such things usually get attention. Some things may get lifted by the local roguish folks. And then there is the ultimate theif: the tax man.

Who owns the road or controls the territory the road crosses? They may want a slice of the pie. Legally (depending if they are the final law in the land) it may all be theirs. And one of those guards at the gate may have beelined to go say the party brought in some loot.

[Fooliscious]

People get this worked up over treasure? Jeez. Sounds like you are playing with people that plays for the wrong reasons. Our group gives to the one with the most obvious need, then for hilarity's sake, then for the pockets.

Flavor items(like the sapphire necklace) exist for reasons too. Maybe the character just wanted to look pretty. I remember someone played a dwarf who found an ebon/gold/obsidian whatever, and would brain random people he found annoying with it. The image of someone conking some random bar goer with a 750gp mug was just funny.

Even in the case of an evil party, you are obviously together for some sort of shared goal, and if someone can't restrain themselves from petty theft(especially when there are much easier marks about) sounds like they don't believe in the cause all that much.

[Keneth]

I think it's an issue that comes up more with parties who's members don't implicitly trust each other. An all good arty that's been together for 100 levels doesn't really need individual gold and would probably trust each other enough for a party pool of all money to be effective. But an evil/neutral group (or mixed alignments) doesn't necessarily have that trust between characters.

Parties where the members don't trust each other are exceedingly rare and generally shouldn't exist. It's not a matter of alignment, it's a question of why keep someone around if you don't trust them. Sometimes it's a matter of necessity, but otherwise the party would either get rid of any members they didn't trust, or extreme circumstances would change their outlook on each other to the point of trust. Unless they're kenders. :smallbiggrin:

[Spore]

People get this worked up over treasure? Jeez. Sounds like you are playing with people that plays for the wrong reasons. Our group gives to the one with the most obvious need, then for hilarity's sake, then for the pockets.


Entitlement is strong with this generation.

[Vhaidara]

Parties where the members don't trust each other are exceedingly rare and generally shouldn't exist. It's not a matter of alignment, it's a question of why keep someone around if you don't trust them. Sometimes it's a matter of necessity, but otherwise the party would either get rid of any members they didn't trust, or extreme circumstances would change their outlook on each other to the point of trust. Unless they're kenders. :smallbiggrin:

Honestly, for my groups, it's a matter of there being a level of trust, but not that complete of one. Like, using my bard's group for an example, my bard is a rather trusting person, so nearly all of his gold goes to the party pool. The rest of the group trusts me to do my job when it's needed (IE, make them good at their jobs), but they don't trust me with the money (because I am pretty much thought by the group to be insane, but not dangerously so. Unless you call me a halfling. Then I'll tear your throat out with a spoon)

[Slipperychicken]

People get this worked up over treasure? Jeez. Sounds like you are playing with people that plays for the wrong reasons. Our group gives to the one with the most obvious need, then for hilarity's sake, then for the pockets.


It's not about the treasure so much as fairness. After about the 3rd time your character puts his life on the line to save the Thief, just for him to shamelessly pick your guy's pockets... Yeah, that's a recipe for hurt feelings all around, especially once someone tries to retaliate against the Thief.

[lytokk]

My groups have always done the party pool system. Items are distributed by who can use them the most. As the DM, I try and make sure the itemized loot is fair. I roll for loot, but if I notice one type of item has been favored by the dice gods, I will change a cloak of charisma to gauntlets of strength or whatnot.

[Segev]

Most parties I've been in have split treasure evenly into n+1 shares, where n is the number of PCs. If there are cohorts or other individuals to consider, we usually determine ahead of time if they count as part of their "master's" share or if they get some share (equal or not) of their own.

The "+1" share is for party goods. Cure wands, stays at inns as a party, bribes, the occasional loan or simple gift to a PC for purposes of getting "just a few more gp" to buy an item that will help them help the party better... that's what it's for.

We break down items to their gold values for determining who gets what. We might well let the party fighter have the +3 sword even if we can't afford it with any one of our shares, but that's "the party's" and not his to give away. He can earn it by taking lesser shares until he's bought it off, though, if he wants (and nobody else lays dibs).

In practice, we tend to let the "+1 share" absorb such things, though, especially if the fighter hands off the +3 sword to the rogue when the fighter gets a +3 flaming spear to replace it.

[Kesnit]

I think the big concern is this: Was the FS objecting to the idea of not getting full treasure in exchange for keeping the gems on an IC basis or on an OoC basis? If it was IC, that is completely fine. If it was OoC, explain to them how they are reducing the value of everyone else's shaes, while vastly inflating the equivalent value of their own.

She was annoyed OOC. If it was IC, I wouldn't have cared and would not have posted about it here. I talked to the Bard's player later (away from the rest of the group) and she told me that the FS isn't used to players actually being up-front about treasure. The FS's player wanted the sapphires because they are blue and she likes blue.


Also, I don't really see how you being LE had any impact on that reaction. No one likes getting shafted on money.

I think it was more of a reference to "lawful" than "evil."


You've got to figure out loot distribution procedures long in advance. Ideally in writing, with procedures in case one party member wants a specific item or items (and perhaps some kind of resolution system like bidding if multiple party members want the same item).

The group has been playing for years. I just joined them, so have no idea how they normally handle treasure.


I would have said something like "Yeah, if no-one else wants them, you can have the sapphires as part of your share, but we need to get them appraised first so everyone gets equal shares". And then I would have gotten the sapphires appraised and included their value in her share of the loot.

That was sort of where I was going with my original question to her. She could keep the sapphires, but the rest of the party needed to get something in return.


In my groups, and I've been in a great many of them over the decades, we've always had a "pool" for the entire group, and we've bought equipment as necessary for whomever needed it most.

An issue I see with doing it that way is who needs an item "the most"? The Ranger/Druid needs a new bow. (He was talking about it before game.) I need a way to fly, since that is my major weakness at the moment.


I don't know, maybe it's a thing with groups that get valuables amounting to or in excess of the WBL table, but when gold is scarce, a wizard going "I want my fair share", when the fighter clearly needs MORE DAKKA, is just poor form.

Given the low optimization of the group, the caster would probably need the stuff as much as the Fighter. *chuckle*


Flavor items(like the sapphire necklace) exist for reasons too. Maybe the character just wanted to look pretty.

I had no problem with the FS taking the jewels, so long as the rest of us didn't lose out. If she was willing to pay 450 GP to each party member (which is what we got from selling and spliting), she could have them.


Entitlement is strong with this generation.

The FS's player is in her 40s.


My groups have always done the party pool system. Items are distributed by who can use them the most. As the DM, I try and make sure the itemized loot is fair. I roll for loot, but if I notice one type of item has been favored by the dice gods, I will change a cloak of charisma to gauntlets of strength or whatnot.

A Cloak of CHA or Gauntlets of STR would be nice. The DM has his own custom loot tables. If something useful drops, it's by chance. The two magic items that also came from that encounter were both sold because they were totally useless to everyone. Same with the wand that dropped in the session before. (I can't remember what the spell was.) Although I admit, I did get a nice Psionic Tattoo. (The DM picked that, though. He didn't actually roll for it.)

[ddude987]

I've never heard or thought of a party share pool. Seems like a good idea. In past games people in the party have always split loot completely equally. If something like a magic item costs more than your share, you pay in the difference. In the game my group is currently playing magic items are far and few between and it is pretty easy to determine who gets what item. As far as selling items we don't need for money, my character holds most of the items in general since as a player I'm the one who writes them down, so I generally sell them and keep all the money but I spend it on our supplies, rooms at inns, papers, taxes, and travel.

[Captnq]

Here's What I Normally Do When It Comes To Sharing Treasure (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKMNPQ35OUc).

[Keneth]

An issue I see with doing it that way is who needs an item "the most"? The Ranger/Druid needs a new bow. (He was talking about it before game.) I need a way to fly, since that is my major weakness at the moment.

It shouldn't be an issue, the degree of need is almost always apparent. In all honesty, I haven't had a single argument regarding loot or gold that I can recall using a pool system, although my early years of roleplaying are largely hazy by now.

[Story]

We always play where you just split everything equally. It just seems the most natural and fair way to do things. If someone wants to keep a magic item it comes out of their share, but we're in a Magic Mart/crafter friendly setting so pregenerated loot is almost never worth keeping anyway.

[Invader]

Usually in my game equipment is given to who needs it otherwise it's sold and put in a group pot and other cash, gems, valuables, etc are divided up evenly. An 8th lvl character nickel and dimeing his part over a 1k gp gem seems petty to me.

[Sir Chuckles]

Early on, my players were having similar problems, both in character and VERY much in person (we had a hardcore munchkin).
They asked for DM intervention, which was entirely necessary, just like how I would this situation (as it's bleeding into the Meta).

From then on, they adopted this treasure method:
Remove the magic items (Potions, scrolls, etc) and add up ALL the mundane values. Divide among party members. Treasure items such as necklaces are worth their appraised value when getting your "take".

EG: 500gp, 5 gems worth 100gp each, and a...fancy hat worth 200gp. That's 1200gp. Assuming four party members, that's 300gp each. In my group, 99% chance that the Bard really wants the hat. So instead of selling it, the Bard takes the hat and 100gp (or a gem), leaving the rest to everyone else.

Then for magic items, it's a basic need/greed system. If the Wizard keeps having archer troubles, then the Ring of Blur goes to him. In nobody needs the Ring of Blur, either they sell it and add that gold to the "take" pot, or whoever wants it most (often coming down to a rock-paper-scissors match) gets it.

There was still problems (Again, the munchkin wanted every single magic item, coming up with BS reasons as to why he, the stealth-based Ranger, needs the potion of Barkskin more than the Fighter), but rock-paper-scissors cures disagreements.

But again, as someone said before me, this looks like it calls for out-of-character group chat. Be careful, you're throwing a potential munchkin into the hotseat.

[Vertharrad]

This is how our group does it - we decide what items are going to be claimed first(usually magic items, and maybe some non-magic items), then we decide whats going to be kept and whats going to be sold, we tally up the costs and sell it splitting the proceeds into equal shares between the party and party treasury(ensuring that should we need to pay for stuff like bringing someone back or other stuff we can have a petty cash fund to get it from) any difference goes into party treasury.

As for whats taken: magic items - those that need certain items or can use them more efficiently take priority after that it's who wants it, non-magic items - usually it's who wants it and we have had almost no fights over this way of distribution. If someone takes the object before the party knows about it then we don't deal with it because we don't know as characters.

[Angelalex242]

My last group just assigned magic items based on who it was most useful for. If ever there was a debate, or it was highly useful for two people, the two people in contention added up the value of the existing magic items on their sheet. Whoever came up with the lower number got the item.

Cash treasure was always split evenly. And we had a 'party fund' that was the official 'if somebody dies or is maimed, this is what we use to raise/fix' them. Everyone wanted THAT fund filled, so it 'took' half the cash treasure until there was enough for a True Res in there. (The treasure for the true res was very sensibly done in the form of the diamond you need for that spell, so the clerics didn't have to go looking for one.)

[Devronq]

So I wouldn't suggest using the method my group uses unless your group gets along very well and doesn't have in game or out of game problems. They have played together for oh like 5-6 and they decided that all the gold valuables everything is put into a single pool and whenever someone wants to buy something the party agrees whether its a good way to spend their cash. As well if they come across an item that a player wants, magical or not unless another player wants it as well they almost always let him have it. It return though that player is unlikely to be approved to be the next to get a gear upgrade if he just took the magical item or expensive gem from the pile. I could see how this would cause huge problems in other groups but we've been fine soo far.

[AzureKnight]

As a rule of thumb in our parties, magical items are given to the player who would best beniefit from it as that would beniefit the party overall. gold and other coins are kept in a group fund so when we buy gear it comes from that party pool.

The extraction of any money is discussed by the party before being given. This way all characters are able to upgrade weapons and armor more easily. The gems are usually given to the groups spell caster as a few of their material components use them.

The loot is usually kept in a bag of holding or portable hole if available, or on a wagon when not. Also we use an Ebberon bank note system that allows us to more easily carry large amounts of currency. Though we lost a rouge for an adventure because he tried to forge bank notes without success and was jailed.

[CombatOwl]

Something strange (to me) happened at my 3.5 game yesterday.

The party (4 PCs, level 7-8) were escorting a non-combatant NPC to a location so the NPC could do a job. The DM rolled up an encounter, and told us we found 13 clay pots by the side of the road. The Ranger/Druid and the Monk/Psy Warrior (my PC) went to work breaking the pots, which turned out to hold a few thousand gold, a blue sapphire, a blue sapphire on a gold chain, and a magic item. Meanwhile, the Ranger/Favored Soul and the Fighter/Bard found a spot that lit up with Detect Magic. They started digging there. When the pot-breaking and magic-digging was done, we loaded the treasure into the packs on the FS's beasts of burden.

When we got back to town, I quickly did the math to determine how much gold all the PCs got from the pots. (I divided it equally.) The Bard was trying to find out what the magic items were to determine if she should sell them or if they were useful to the party. (We ended up selling them and dividing the money, but that was after the below exchange.)

The FS player speaks up and asks "does anyone mind if I take the sapphires?" At first, I thought she was going to go through an appraise-process to determine their value, then split the money among the party. Nope, she wanted them for herself. When I realized that, I looked at her and asked "are you going to pay the rest of the party our share of their value?" She looked at me as if I was insane. Thinking I hadn't explained my thinking, I added "none of us would have them if [Ranger/Druid] and I hadn't broken all the pots." In a huff, she said "we wouldn't have them if I hadn't loaded them on my 'beasties,' either." I was stunned speechless, completely unable to come up with an answer. The Bard's player turned to the FS and said "well, he is playing Lawful Evil." The FS finally said (rather irately), "fine, if you want them, you can have them." I took the jewels to a jeweler, sold them, and split the money equally.


In every game I've played before, the party always split the value of non-magical items and magical items that were sold because no one could use them. (Magical items that were of use to someone went to that person with no cost, since it is assumed the PC will use the magic item be useful to the party.) I didn't ask the FS to pay the other PCs our share of the value of the items because I play LE; I asked because it's only fair that the party split treasure. (At the root, D&D is a game, and should be fun for all involved.) Am I weird in thinking this way?

You all don't have your characters establish contracts specifying particular shares for particular roles? Why should some guy swinging a shiny bit of metal get the same as the person who keeps healing all these nuts? Bunch of commies...

[Spore]

You all don't have your characters establish contracts specifying particular shares for particular roles? Why should some guy swinging a shiny bit of metal get the same as the person who keeps healing all these nuts? Bunch of commies...

It's more of an outgame thing than ingame issue. Each player has contributed his or her time and each character should be able to survive the next fight.

[Incorrect]

I find that this is my preferred method:

1. All magic items from the loot are distributed to the character that needs it the most.
2. All replaced magic items are returned to the loot. Repeat step 1.
3. Any unused items are sold and the gold added to the loot.
4. The gold are split evenly between all characters.

Any surplus gold remains in the loot or, if higher level, is transferred to the First Aid Kit. 17000gp, 5 characters = 3000gp/character + 2000gp surplus.
This model is not equal for everyone at all points though, so might not be suitable for everyone. I find it simple, quick, and with varied enemies, pretty fair.

I usually insist that the group OOC agree on a loot model, just to make sure no one gets upset. If all agree on something, then that model is obviously the best model.
It can even be an ingame contract, and cover other things as well.

[Tylorious]

In my party we split the cash equally and distributed the rest on the usefulness basis.

We find 5k gold and a gloves of +1 dexterity, ranger gets the glove and all 5 players get 1K.
If we have something nobody intends to use, we sell it and split the profit.

Haven't had problems with it so far and we usually punish such a selfish player ingame by beating the crap out of him xD.

This is exactly how i see it working the best. If it were to be the way you want it, it would be useless to find treasure because you would just be paying the rest of your party to keep it. I prefer this way so much more.

[Enguebert]

In our group, we also have a pool and each character get his share

The pool has money to pay bribes, small adventure cost and buy useful items for the whole group (potions, scrolls,...)
Also, most consumable items goes to the pool

For money, gems and other non magical stuff, equal share between players (they can get the gem or the item in place of money)

For magical items, if nobody want it, it is sold and money go to the pool or is divided between players
Otherwise items are divided between players, based on "what is better" for each char and also "who has the less items"
Some items are good for every char (like ring of protection,...) so the character who has few items have priority to choose
So if during one short adventure, there are only magic weapons/armor, the fighters will take most/all items , but next adventure, the mage will have priority

[Vertharrad]

You all don't have your characters establish contracts specifying particular shares for particular roles? Why should some guy swinging a shiny bit of metal get the same as the person who keeps healing all these nuts? Bunch of commies...

So we're going to start this? Alright...
the shiny bit of metal nut figured since your getting a bigger share you get a bigger share of the combat and didn't tag the monster running past him to you, now your getting your face chewed off. He still gets his share and you have to heal yourself more. Or maybe you got poisoned or diseased by the creature. Don't start this I'm tier 1 so I get tier 1 pay, everyone contributes everyone gets a fair share...or close enough to it. This is a team game not a every entitled player for himself. That escalates quickly and that's how divine or arcane casters die in their sleep.

[LordBlades]

The way my group usually does it:

-everything (gold, goods, magic items) gets appraised (if needed), value gets totalled up and divided by the number of party members. This is everyone's share of the loot.
-if somebody wants a certain item, he can have it, and the item's value gets deduced from his share of the loot. If the item's value is bigger than his share, he gets the item but goes into debt to the party, which means he doesn't get anything (and his share on subsequent lootings gets divided between the remaining party members) until the debt has been paid off.

We've tried the much simpler 'everyone gets what they need, sell the rest, split gold equally' but we've found it doesn't work that well in long campaigns. Classes with specific gear needs will tend to have a lot less than classes that can use almost anything. For example, in a quite long campaign (from level 4 to level 13), I was playing a druid, who, due to quite specific gear needs (wilding clasps, monk's belt, wis/con boosters and little else) managed to accumulate a little less than 90k GP, whereas the cleric and psygish in the party (who would be the default holder of pretty much everything deemed useful, wands/scrolls/staves, weapons of weird materials, misc activated items) had both accumulated between 150 and 200k gp worth of stuff. It was slightly frustrating.



So we're going to start this? Alright...
the shiny bit of metal nut figured since your getting a bigger share you get a bigger share of the combat and didn't tag the monster running past him to you, now your getting your face chewed off. He still gets his share and you have to heal yourself more. Or maybe you got poisoned or diseased by the creature. Don't start this I'm tier 1 so I get tier 1 pay, everyone contributes everyone gets a fair share...or close enough to it. This is a team game not a every entitled player for himself. That escalates quickly and that's how divine or arcane casters die in their sleep.

Technically, the caster can dispense of the dude wielding the shiny metal bit at any time (or worse, charm/dominate him into working for free). The opposite is usually not true.

From an in-character point of view, probably parties that view adventuring as a business (Explore strange new places, kill strange new lifeforms and take their valuables) would pay wizards more than they pay fighters, because wizards contribute more to the success of the 'business'. And it would probably seem perfectly normal, much like nowadays it's perfectly normal for a guy in a management position in a company to make more cash than the guy loading goods in a truck.

However, D&D is a game, not a perfect social simulation, and for the good of the gaming group, it's probably better to use a fair distribution of loot.

[Segev]

If you ultimately can't come to an amicable agreement, I propose the following method for divvying up treasure. (I have not actually tried it, but it's a variant on the "have one kid cut the cake, and the other decide who gets which piece" solution.)


Have each player bid items and gp that they already have.
All treasure bid in this fashion becomes part of the pot to be divided.
The props suggested in this step are not necessary, but are useful for visualizing:
Put a slip of paper for each player in the middle of the table, and number them.
In order from highest bid to lowest, players take one slip of paper.
The player with the highest-number piece of paper divides the loot into shares however he likes.
There should be n or n+1 shares, depending on whether the party policy calls for a "party share" or not.
In order from "1" to the highest number, each player chooses the share (as divided by the last player to choose) he wants.


It's important to allow the higher-bid players the opportunity to be the one to divvy it up rather than to be the first to pick, hence the choice rather than simply ordering the bid.

If you have problems with collusion to the detriment of everyone else (e.g. the "last picker" makes one share that has all the loot and several fake shares that have something like one copper piece each, and then the "first picker" gives him half the real pile of loot), you can introduce a system whereby any two other players may forcibly trade both of their share selections for the share taken by whoever's turn to pick it is (they then divide the one share between themselves, possibly by having one divvy it up and the other pick which share he gets).

This would ensure that any two players could punish such collusion. It would then allow the person whose turn it was to pick a new share.

Since this could result in left-over shares, repeat the process in divvying up the left-over shares as if they were a new pile of loot.

[Agincourt]

The group has been playing for years. I just joined them, so have no idea how they normally handle treasure.


This is really the key problem here. If you don't know how they normally do things, you need to find out. Your expectations for treasure were reasonable, in my opinion, but as you can see from this thread, there are so many ways to divide up treasure. The group may or may not have a fair way of doing treasure, but before you try to impose your way, find out their way first. Maybe it is not so unreasonable.

Granted, the way the Favored Soul reacted suggests she may be a selfish player, but she could have also been reacting to the newbie contradicting their long-standing methods. Discuss it out of character. Be careful to avoid accusations and try to attribute it as a misunderstanding about party expectations.

[Harlot]

Just this weekend our group stumbled upon a HEAP of quite powerful magic items. We're in a massive dungeon and and not going back to civilization any time soon. Most of the items were desired and suited for at least 2-3 players of the five in the group.
This is how we solved it:

We each rolled a d20. The one with the highest roll got to pick first.
When the last player (p5) had picked his first item, the choosing order was reversed, so that the last person (p5) got to choose first.
That way, the one who got the coolest item (p1) got his second pick when the next 8 items were gone, the player who chose last (item 5) also got item 6.

The DM thought we'd discuss this for hours. It took us 5 minutes.

Normally we too go by the group pool/obvious need way of handling this.