Do DMs have a problem with players giving their wealth to another player?

[sorcererlover]

I read about Vow of Poverty and how a lot of DMs have a problem with players giving their wealth to the rest of their party members and demanded that their share of the loot be donated to charity.

I'm playing a sorcerer and I find very little need for wealth so I've been just giving all my money to my party members. My DM seems to be cool with it but what about other DMs?

[heavyfuel]

I've only had one player pick up Vow of Poverty during my career as DM and he tried to do that once. I gave him a warning, told him to read the feat and the part that you have to get the loot and give to charity.

Literally the very next session he tried to pull that off again. He lost his Vow immediately.


As for other cases, I wouldn't mind if 1 player was being charitable and was giving his share of the loot away to the other 3. I would mind if it was the opposite, and 1 player was taking the shares from the other 3. Though neither situation has ever happened with me.

[Crake]

I've only had one player pick up Vow of Poverty during my career as DM and he tried to do that once. I gave him a warning, told him to read the feat and the part that you have to get the loot and give to charity.

Literally the very next session he tried to pull that off again. He lost his Vow immediately.


As for other cases, I wouldn't mind if 1 player was being charitable and was giving his share of the loot away to the other 3. I would mind if it was the opposite, and 1 player was taking the shares from the other 3. Though neither situation has ever happened with me.

Yeah, the vow of poverty feat specifies that you have to give your share of the loot to charity, which is why DMs have a problem when players try to use it to circumvent taking a portion of the loot. If the party is just divvying loot up poorly and nobody has an issue with it, then that's not a problem. That said, I would ask myself whether my character would feel okay with being shortchanged literally thousands of gold pieces, enough money to buy a mansion, settle down, and live comfortably for the rest of his life, or whether that's more of an out of character decision on your part.

[lylsyly]

The only time I have had a problem was one time when the other 4 players were giving their excess to the fifth player. She was buying so much magic that it was throwing the encounters out of whack. When I bumped up the CR of encounters to compensate they wanted to know why I was being so tuff on them. A simple explanation later, they quit doing it ;P

[Aetis]

My players work under strict communism. All treasure is pooled.

Regarding VoP, I agree with the rest of the comments that the treasure should be given away to charity, not to your teammates.

[Crake]

The only time I have had a problem was one time when the other 4 players were giving their excess to the fifth player. She was buying so much magic that it was throwing the encounters out of whack. When I bumped up the CR of encounters to compensate they wanted to know why I was being so tuff on them. A simple explanation later, they quit doing it ;P

What you should have done is thrown an encounter or two at the party that forced the fifth member to be underplayed, to showcase the problem of putting all your eggs in one basket.

[zergling.exe]

As others have said, the spirit of the vow is that your character wants to donate to charity, so they want to get their fair share of the treasure to give it to charity. Your party is not a charity, and even if they are, an Exalted Good character would want to see the wealth distributed to those that need it, not used by the charity owners to further their own personal goals. If your character is not the charitable kind, the power that granted the vow most likely is and will most likely strip a non-charitable character of its blessing rather quickly.

[Godskook]

I read about Vow of Poverty and how a lot of DMs have a problem with players giving their wealth to the rest of their party members and demanded that their share of the loot be donated to charity.

I'm playing a sorcerer and I find very little need for wealth so I've been just giving all my money to my party members. My DM seems to be cool with it but what about other DMs?

This has nothing to do with the general case of wealth moving between players.

It has *EVERYTHING* to do with how Vow of Poverty is designed. VoP explicitly demands that VoP character's loot be donated to charity. That's not the DM, that's the feat. The benefits of the feat are meant to be, more or less, compensation for the spent WBL. So when the PC -breaks- the vow by giving the loot to his party instead, he's not only violating RAW and RAI, he's also benefitting his party to the tune of +33.33% WBL to each of his 3 allies.

[Psyren]

Stand against clickbait!

No, you shouldn't be allowed to sidestep your vows by handing your loot to the party.

[Fouredged Sword]

Now, I HAVE had an interesting discussion between players about what "fair portion" is.

See, I had a group that liked to tally loot by sale price, not purchase price. They collected and apraised the gear and put it in a pile. They would start with one character and each would take a piece (if contested they IC diced for pick order). After the last member took their first piece it then fell to the person who's pile had the lowest SALE price to take another. This would continue until all items the party wanted got taken. The rest was sold and gold, gems, and other loose value would be used to balance the scales in the end if left unclaimed.

Well the issue that was raised was that there was a VoP character who would choose to just walk away with gold, gems, and other goods that sell at full value. This left the rest of the party holding more items that sold for half value and thus more total wealth.

Anyway, it was questioned and decided that the system was "fair" and the VoP character did infact get his "fair share" as determined by the rules of the party.

The party also agreed to maintain a party fund to buy things like passage on ships and teleportation as a group. This was also OK'd.

[ComaVision]

I make sure the group gets enough wealth, how they distribute or spend it is up to them.

I haven't had a VoP character in any of my games but I would expect them to be very charitable.

[Feantar]

My players work under strict communism. All treasure is pooled.

Regarding VoP, I agree with the rest of the comments that the treasure should be given away to charity, not to your teammates.

Ah, but my dear exalted warrior you see, our party also represents the Self-sacrificing and Considerate Adventuring Mandate! We are a registered NPO you know; have a brochure and please, give generously.

Uneven wealth distribution in a party can help sometimes, especially when the tier difference is large. The wizard will get fewer scrolls, but the fighter will get that magic weapon sooner. So, in principle, it's fine. As is pooling gold to get something more powerful, since it follows the same reasoning as forming a party in the first place - the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

[Nifft]

I read about Vow of Poverty and how a lot of DMs have a problem with players giving their wealth to the rest of their party members and demanded that their share of the loot be donated to charity. VoP has explicit stipulations about what you get in trade for having no money, and what you are required to do with your earnings in order to keep those things.

So, just have a PC in the party named "Charity" and it all works out. In a pinch, you could use a familiar or animal companion instead. ("Hey, guys, meet my new little friend Charity Chipmunk.")


I'm playing a sorcerer and I find very little need for wealth so I've been just giving all my money to my party members. My DM seems to be cool with it but what about other DMs? I'd suggest that you look into stuff like a Runestaff, wands & scrolls for emergency / utility spells, a Ring of Wizardry, plus other generic useful stuff.

If you've seen all that stuff and you still want to give away your loot, I'd let you without any problem. It's a team game, and you're not being disruptive by giving away loot. (The converse -- stealing loot -- does tend to be disruptive, so I'd stop that form of wealth redistribution.)

[Kelb_Panthera]

I read about Vow of Poverty and how a lot of DMs have a problem with players giving their wealth to the rest of their party members and demanded that their share of the loot be donated to charity.

As others have pointed out, that's the RAW of it. Personally, I'd just reduce all future loot by 1 share if they didn't want to bother with charities. There are some traditions whereby abjuring material comforts is supposed to be spiritually uplifting so I'm not that concerned about the charity aspect. From a game design perspective, the requirement was mostly about maintaining the growth rate of the PCs wealth to keep them on WBL. As DM, I -will- keep them roughly on-target, one way or another.



I'm playing a sorcerer and I find very little need for wealth so I've been just giving all my money to my party members. My DM seems to be cool with it but what about other DMs?

As above, I'll be adjusting treasure output on my end to keep things where they ought to be. The actual division of loot is up to the players though.

[Jowgen]

Allow me to pull a "Well, actually...!" on basically this whole thread: VoP feat specifies that you can't own or use material possessions, while the general rules on Voluntary Poverty specify that you must donate "the majority" of your party treasure share to the needy.

It is perfectly legal for 49% of your loot share to go somewhere other than the needy, be it the rest of the party or to support your favourite local theatre troupe. Plus, it is quite a leap to assume that everyone in a given party will be so woke as to respect the VoP's personal choice in the first place and agree to have them let have a full share of loot if that loot isn't going to be used to benefit the whole party.

[Fouredged Sword]

Exalted good characters do not attempt to rules lawyer their vows. That is not exalted good behaviour and thus voids the vow.

[Jowgen]

Exalted good characters do not attempt to rules lawyer their vows. That is not exalted good behaviour and thus voids the vow.

An exalted good character's prime concern is the well-being of others. An exalted good character who takes a broadly worded Vow has to decide how to best follow that vow in practice.

One VoP character may believe that every copper he earns should go towards feeding the homeless, but another might think that the hospital that heals, town guard that defends, or the troupe that entertains are also, equally or more-so deserving of his financial support. I maintain, depending on the character and situation, the characters comrades who risk life and limb along side him in the name of good can also qualify as donation recipients. As long as no wealth is kept and re-directed in a manner that is genuinely selfless to where it is seen as most needed, the Vow if maintaining in both letter and spirit.

[BowStreetRunner]

This has nothing to do with the general case of wealth moving between players.

It has *EVERYTHING* to do with how Vow of Poverty is designed. VoP explicitly demands that VoP character's loot be donated to charity. That's not the DM, that's the feat. The benefits of the feat are meant to be, more or less, compensation for the spent WBL. So when the PC -breaks- the vow by giving the loot to his party instead, he's not only violating RAW and RAI, he's also benefitting his party to the tune of +33.33% WBL to each of his 3 allies.
This. It's the root of what is wrong with a VoP player donating their wealth to another party member.

The sorcerer who just doesn't want his full share and gives it to other players doesn't have the same VoP benefits to compensate, so doesn't throw the game off balance. Honestly, I see nothing wrong with a Tier 1 or 2 PC throwing more loot the way of the Tier 3 or 4 PCs in the party. It actually tends to balance the party out a bit more. Where it gets to be an issue is when the reverse takes place and the party puts all their eggs in one basket. Then it's time for the DM to throw an encounter their way that exploits the flaw in their plan.

[ericgrau]

Well there's a problem if the poor character dies and a new character joins the party. What's the new character's WBL? Coincidentally gave all his cash to his old team and left? Same as taking the loot from a dead teammate. Rezzing the same character should be encouraged somehow. Put limits on new characters or something. Realistically finding powerful allies is hard anyway. Or address the situation however, but do address it.

Overall it's not a big problem. If anything D&D equipment pricing encourages spreading wealth into as many items as possible. Pooling makes this hard to do. Though at low and mid level before all the body slots are filled and all the other types of random non-slotted useful items are taken I imagine it will be a big boost. When you're still getting your first item of each type, pooling is better than spreading because different items often synergize well together. But then you'll rapidly fill up all or most types and hit a peak before you get diminishing returns.

Assuming the players all get along and can trust each other. Would be an awfully mean time to make one PC a secret villain. Or even a mildly selfish deserter.

[RoboEmperor]

When I played with noob DMs on roll20, these people got really angry at VoP because it "increases total wealth of the party" because you get the benefit of equipment without the gold cost and your party members get your share of the gold which results in an extra character's worth of extra wealth.

And then they enforced the donating to charity thing as a balance measure, and some DMs banned VoP altogether because "it gave just too much wealth to the players".

[Rebel7284]

In case of VOP, the rules text are pretty self explanatory. You get loot and then donate it. In a general case, however, allowing players to pool their money can certainly increase the overall power of the party due to a more efficient distribution of funds. Also, some curious builds, such as using Codex Anathema for early entry, can only be done by temporarily bypassing WBL. Whether this is a bug or a feature is up to each group to decide.

[ZamielVanWeber]

As long as the players are sharing because they want to and are not accidentally crippling themselves I am a-ok (also honoring the terms of Vow of Poverty).