Dividing Loot, how do you do it?

[Mars Ultor]

I'm in a large group, usually eight players, and we've all got several magic items mostly +1 or +2, occasionally there's an item that's really special. For the most part we've had no issues dividing up stuff, the players are able to take their picks and people trade items later on or offer them to the party as they get better stuff. The campaign's premise is that we're on the outskirts of the empire, we're expanding into monster territory and trying to forge alliances with various tribes. There isn't a big city with magic item shops, and our ability to make or alter items ourself is very limited.

We just completed a major mini-campaign, it's gone on several months and we put together a complete list of the loot we've accumulated. There are things ranging from a +1 Ring of Protection to a helmet that adds +3 to AC and can cast Fear three times per day.

One player is insisting that since some items are obviously worth much more than others, some items count as multiple picks. I'm opposed to that idea for a variety of reasons. Firstly, there's a halfling rogue and a gnome ranger in the party and they usually get nothing; we only occasionally find treasure suitable for little people. It seems unfair to me that we could defeat a goblin king, they get a sword with special powers and have to give up multiple picks when they finally found the one item they can use.

There's also the issue of what's valuable and to whom. A magic guisarme is useful to the tripping fighter, the wand of fireballs isn't. +5 Bucklers are great for the rogue and wizard, but they're nothing special to the fighter with a +1 chain shirt. One of the items we've found is a Hat of Disguise, the halfling's player thinks it's the best item ever, no one else is remotely interested.

Finally, how do you judge the value of magic items? Simply looking up their GP cost isn't helpful, +2 full plate has zero value to the druid and she has nowhere to sell it. Which is worth more, the boots of speed that anyone can use, or the two-handed holy weapon only available to one PC? How many picks for a Ring of Darkvision versus a +1 Shocking Burst short sword versus a +3 lance?

What methods do you use to divide up loot, how do you decide how to split up magic items between the party?

[Endril]

Step 1: Add up the value of all the items, and divide it in half (or whatever it would sell for).
Step 2: Add gold, then divide by number of players. That's their fair share.
Step 2a: Sometimes, we'll take out a share or 10% to go to a "party fund" that can be used for wands of curing, scrolls of revivify, etc.
Step 3: Let players pay half for items they want to keep, that way you're not wasting money by selling something you're going to buy for full price later.

In some cases, the party will want to keep particularly useful items rather than sell them. They can play this by ear, either loaning money to the player that wants to keep it, or keeping it as a "party" item.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Step 1: Add up the value of all the items, and divide it in half (or whatever it would sell for).
Step 2: Add gold, then divide by number of players. That's their fair share.
Step 2a: Sometimes, we'll take out a share or 10% to go to a "party fund" that can be used for wands of curing, scrolls of revivify, etc.
Step 3: Let players pay half for items they want to keep, that way you're not wasting money by selling something you're going to buy for full price later.

In some cases, the party will want to keep particularly useful items rather than sell them. They can play this by ear, either loaning money to the player that wants to keep it, or keeping it as a "party" item.

Basically this. Maybe let somebody get a bit extra if they're way behind on WBL.

[jindra34]

The first step is to fair bid loop out the items, then take the marketable value for them and either divide up the coin or require players to put their own coin in to rebalance it.

[Deophaun]

That's the basic problem: everything is only worth what someone will pay for it, and everyone is going to have different values. That's why you standardize everything into gold and then let the players individually pick what they want to buy. It's the only way you ultimately have everyone with a near-equal value of stuff. There's a reason we abandoned the barter system. No matter what you do, someone's rightfully going to be unhappy.

I've had campaigns like that, where the DM just decides there's no opportunity to buy or sell anything. And then he'll wonder why we left the mountain of gold coins in the lair. Answer: because it's worthless without a place to spend it. It's worse when they're running a pre-made adventure and take zero time to tailor loot to the party.

The only thing to do is talk to your DM. Mainly because this...


There isn't a big city with magic item shops

...is an incredibly unimaginative way of envisioning converting gold into magic items. You don't go to a shop. You get lower-level adventurers to raid tombs while you're saving the world. You pay gold for rumors of lost caches. You hire a broker who knows some nobles that are hard-up for cash but have their magic family heirlooms. And while you, the player, know exactly what you want to be available, your character doesn't. Your character might not even want what you, the player, want your character to have. But you, the player, dictate what emerges in the narrative.

At no point is there a physical store with every conceivable magic item in it. At no point does something appear in the game because the character desires it. I don't blame DMs that reject those, because they're stupid tropes that make no sense. But I do blame DMs that limit buying magic items specifically because they see those as the only explanations.

[Skevvix]

My group does a "need before greed" kind of thing, if the halfling ranger is only using non-masterwork weapons and we get a clear upgrade for him, then it just goes to him without taking up his pick. Then we pile up all the stuff that isn't a "need" and we use a DKP kind of pool for picking that stuff.

[legomaster00156]

In my group, we just look at which PC's can most effectively make use of items and give them those. If there are items left over that are just generally useful to anyone, we allow people to stake claims. We never really cared much about gold piece values, so long as nobody's left too far behind.

[Mars Ultor]

Step 1: Add up the value of all the items, and divide it in half (or whatever it would sell for).
Step 2: Add gold, then divide by number of players. That's their fair share.
Step 2a: Sometimes, we'll take out a share or 10% to go to a "party fund" that can be used for wands of curing, scrolls of revivify, etc.
Step 3: Let players pay half for items they want to keep, that way you're not wasting money by selling something you're going to buy for full price later.


Let me make sure I'm understanding how this would work. There are ten players, everyone's got a thousand gold coins as their share, and then you add up the prices of the items and divide by ten (the number of PCs). The fighter wants the Mighty Cleaving longsword and so does the Paladin, do they start bidding for it starting at 4,000 GP? Assuming that's the case, now the Paladin has the sword, the fighter can now spend his share on whatever or just save it for next time?

[Mars Ultor]

You don't go to a shop. You get lower-level adventurers to raid tombs while you're saving the world. You pay gold for rumors of lost caches. You hire a broker who knows some nobles that are hard-up for cash but have their magic family heirlooms. And while you, the player, know exactly what you want to be available, your character doesn't. Your character might not even want what you, the player, want your character to have. But you, the player, dictate what emerges in the narrative.

At no point is there a physical store with every conceivable magic item in it. At no point does something appear in the game because the character desires it. I don't blame DMs that reject those, because they're stupid tropes that make no sense. But I do blame DMs that limit buying magic items specifically because they see those as the only explanations.

That's a great idea, I'm definitely going to suggest it to my DM. Thanks.

[zlefin]

I'm confused; you say you're on the outskirts of the empire; what kind of empire doesn't have some large cities in it somewhere?

[heavyfuel]

Pool everything. Ask if anyone wants anything in particular (like the Amulet of Wisdom +4 for the Cleric, or the +3 Bracers of Armor for the monk). Divide the rest in roughly equal equal parts.

Yes, this means some characters keep more wealth than others, but that's ok. It's a game among friends, not some high stakes corporate deal.

[Endril_69]

Let me make sure I'm understanding how this would work. There are ten players, everyone's got a thousand gold coins as their share, and then you add up the prices of the items and divide by ten (the number of PCs). The fighter wants the Mighty Cleaving longsword and so does the Paladin, do they start bidding for it starting at 4,000 GP? Assuming that's the case, now the Paladin has the sword, the fighter can now spend his share on whatever or just save it for next time?

I've never seen a bid war. We're all friends, and we do this just to keep our WBL even. If that were to happen in our game, everyone would get 1,416 gp. The fighter and paladin would just agree on who throws in 4,160 to keep the sword so everyone gets their share.

[Faily]

Step 1: Add up the value of all the items, and divide it in half (or whatever it would sell for).
Step 2: Add gold, then divide by number of players. That's their fair share.
Step 2a: Sometimes, we'll take out a share or 10% to go to a "party fund" that can be used for wands of curing, scrolls of revivify, etc.
Step 3: Let players pay half for items they want to keep, that way you're not wasting money by selling something you're going to buy for full price later.

In some cases, the party will want to keep particularly useful items rather than sell them. They can play this by ear, either loaning money to the player that wants to keep it, or keeping it as a "party" item.


One group does this of the ones I play with.

In the other ones, people get to pick according to Need, and the remaining loot is sold and money is equally divided (though sometimes with less if people got more than others from the pick). This one works the best in helping the martials stay on track, I've found, since they tend to be more reliant on gear than the casters, in my experience.

I think both methods work fine. Different strokes for different folks.

[Elkad]

Step 1: Add up the value of all the items, and divide it in half (or whatever it would sell for).
Step 2: Add gold, then divide by number of players. That's their fair share.
Step 2a: Sometimes, we'll take out a share or 10% to go to a "party fund" that can be used for wands of curing, scrolls of revivify, etc.
Step 3: Let players pay half for items they want to keep, that way you're not wasting money by selling something you're going to buy for full price later.

In some cases, the party will want to keep particularly useful items rather than sell them. They can play this by ear, either loaning money to the player that wants to keep it, or keeping it as a "party" item.

I've done it slightly differently.
Add up all saleable items at 50% of list, but you have to pay 75% to get them out of the pool.
Add that to the cash to determine shares.

That way if you want the Sword of Sweetness, you get it for 25% off buying it in the store. But things that you might want, but might sell in a level or two, you'll skip it and take the cash.

[flappeercraft]

What is done with the groups I have played with previously IRL is just whoever gets the most use out of it. So the wizard will not get the vorpal +1 greatsword but the cleric who can cast surge of fortune or the fighter will. If we find a headband of intellect then its just the wizard who gets it but the rogue might if the wizard already has one. If there is one item that can be used to the same potential by multiple party members then we just give it to whoever needs it the most or just divide up and next time an item can be used equally among the same it goes to the next person.

[Mars Ultor]

What is done with the groups I have played with previously IRL is just whoever gets the most use out of it. So the wizard will not get the vorpal +1 greatsword but the cleric who can cast surge of fortune or the fighter will. If we find a headband of intellect then its just the wizard who gets it but the rogue might if the wizard already has one. If there is one item that can be used to the same potential by multiple party members then we just give it to whoever needs it the most or just divide up and next time an item can be used equally among the same it goes to the next person.

That's what we had been doing and it seemed to work fine. I suspect the person suggesting the new system thought he was going to get one powerful item without competition and then we'd he'd take another item with his pick. When he found out that others were interested in both items he decided we needed to change the system. I could be wrong, perhaps he really thinks there's a such ad discrepancy between item powers and he thinks this will help, it just struck me as odd that he had this idea not when we discussing what items we had accumulated, but when he saw someone liked an item he thought no one else wanted.

[Mars Ultor]

I'm confused; you say you're on the outskirts of the empire; what kind of empire doesn't have some large cities in it somewhere?

When Caesar was governor of Gaul and fought in what's now France, Belgium, and England, there were few major cities west of the Rhine. Britain had few cities, the largest British cities today were either created or enlarged by the Romans. Paris and London were small towns when the Romans invaded and built them into cities. You had to travel back to northern Italy for large cities.

It's not there are no cities, it's that there are no cities near us, we're on the outskirts of the empire. In the early 19th century US you had the developed Eastern Seaboard, a few Midwestern cities and wilderness out until the West Coast until the California gold rush. We're moving into the equivalent of "Indian Territory," there aren't any cities.

[Fizban]

If there is any dissent in the party as to how magic items should be divided, the party is no longer choosing how to divide the loot: I will keep an iron record of exactly what everyone has, what treasure they find, and they will all have equal treasure values. Obviously they find the loot and decide who wants what, but I'm doing the math that decides how much of what*. In such a situation I would refrain from giving out any particularly large items, but if a module handed one out, then a player wishing to take it might very well have to give up cash or other items to make up the value. I don't care if this isn't "realistic" within the game world, though if someone wants it to be I could make some mechanical excuses.

*Counting some items as half value is popular, but what items and when varies, with any set rule inevitably favoring someone by letting them get items cheaper than someone else. If you're using an item, it's worth full value, even if something else is being sold. If you don't want an item any more, the rest of the party gets first dibs before it's sold and value is lost. Where exactly that cash goes doesn't really matter until the next loot divide/shopping run, when it's time to even everyone up again.

If the players all agree on splitting it in some other way, they can do so. I'll still keep track of things and point out if anyone's significantly over or under of course, but if no one has a problem then no one has a problem.

Unless you're in a game that is specifically running treasure weird, it is absolutely expected that all PCs, all players, will receive equal amounts of treasure, the same way they get equal xp. No one gets to cut into another player's rewards. As you can imagine, I won't tolerate any of that "lol I steal it when no one's looking" bs- say it again and you're kicked.


If you're in a game where there's no ability to convert treasure into desired magic items, then it's the DM's job to make the sure the items they're handing out will do the job, unless they told you the campaign was going to have nothing but random/status quo items before character creation (in which case you should be making characters accordingly ie: don't require a specific weapon). If the party is arguing over who should get what item, there's a pretty good chance those items aren't being picked in such a way as to make sure everyone is properly equipped.

Though incidentally, nothing actually does guarantee the ability to buy/sell magic items. Implied by the city rules, but nothing says the game has to include cities of any particular size. That whole WBL table people like to cite? It's under the Character Power Levels heading, as a tool for monitoring their wealth to keep them under control, not guaranteeing it. The designers were actually far more afraid of DMs giving out too many items of too much power because "cool items!", saying that "fewer" DMs give out too little. All you can officially expect by the rules is random rolls corresponding to the monster's treasure entry.

Edit: also heavily implied by the fact that a significant fraction of treasure is cash or things that convert into cash, which does not make you more powerful. So there have to be outlets for that cash to accomplish things. If the DM is giving out cash but you can't buy anything, then the DM should be handing out pure magic items and not cash.

[Crake]

I've done it slightly differently.
Add up all saleable items at 50% of list, but you have to pay 75% to get them out of the pool.
Add that to the cash to determine shares.

That way if you want the Sword of Sweetness, you get it for 25% off buying it in the store. But things that you might want, but might sell in a level or two, you'll skip it and take the cash.

There's no reason to do it this way, you're literally just encouraging people to throw away items for cash for no reason. 50% is what it's worth to everyone, by marking it up, it means they actually get LESS share, because the extra 25% they had to pay gets divvied up.

All you're doing is ensuring people wind up with cash in the pocket than something that might be useful in the interim.


Step 1: Add up the value of all the items, and divide it in half (or whatever it would sell for).
Step 2: Add gold, then divide by number of players. That's their fair share.
Step 2a: Sometimes, we'll take out a share or 10% to go to a "party fund" that can be used for wands of curing, scrolls of revivify, etc.
Step 3: Let players pay half for items they want to keep, that way you're not wasting money by selling something you're going to buy for full price later.

In some cases, the party will want to keep particularly useful items rather than sell them. They can play this by ear, either loaning money to the player that wants to keep it, or keeping it as a "party" item.

Let it be known that this is (aside from 2a) the recommended method inside the players handbook, and is by far the most fair and best way to ensure everyone has equal opportunity regarding loot, and promotes using the items you find rather than selling them for generic "best in slot" gear.

[zlefin]

When Caesar was governor of Gaul and fought in what's now France, Belgium, and England, there were few major cities west of the Rhine. Britain had few cities, the largest British cities today were either created or enlarged by the Romans. Paris and London were small towns when the Romans invaded and built them into cities. You had to travel back to northern Italy for large cities.

It's not there are no cities, it's that there are no cities near us, we're on the outskirts of the empire. In the early 19th century US you had the developed Eastern Seaboard, a few Midwestern cities and wilderness out until the West Coast until the California gold rush. We're moving into the equivalent of "Indian Territory," there aren't any cities.

well then it should be possible to trade magic items at big cities; it's just a nuisance due to distance. But in situations like that travelling merchants exist, though they may not come around often, and there'd be quite a lag between sending items off to be sold and getting any particular items you want back. Usually there'd be some sort of periodic bazaar (maybe once a year) for people to get rarer goods.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Equipment goes to whomever wants it, contested items go to the one who could use it most effectively or who needs the upgrade more. Then coinage and other monetary treasure is split into [party size+1] shares and divides among the group and Party Fund.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Step 1: Add up the value of all the items, and divide it in half (or whatever it would sell for).
Step 2: Add gold, then divide by number of players. That's their fair share.
Step 2a: Sometimes, we'll take out a share or 10% to go to a "party fund" that can be used for wands of curing, scrolls of revivify, etc.
Step 3: Let players pay half for items they want to keep, that way you're not wasting money by selling something you're going to buy for full price later.

In some cases, the party will want to keep particularly useful items rather than sell them. They can play this by ear, either loaning money to the player that wants to keep it, or keeping it as a "party" item.

Basically what I do, too.
Some items like cure wands/potions or diamonds (revive component) might automatically get set aside as party items and not even counted in the total value that I divide up.
Loaning money between characters is fine.
Sometimes if two want the same item, they basically both pay 75% for it (buying one back is 50%, buying a new one is 100%, so both paying 75% splits the difference). Or sometimes one character may give the other one his old version of the item in return for getting it.
Ex: Barbarian has Str +2 item, the Rogue has no Str +x item. There's a Str +4 item in the loot that both want. Barb says the Rogue can have his old +2 item if he lets him claim the +4 item.
I generally enforce the fair distribution of the gold piece values, and let the players work things out from there.


I've done it slightly differently.
Add up all saleable items at 50% of list, but you have to pay 75% to get them out of the pool.
Add that to the cash to determine shares.

That way if you want the Sword of Sweetness, you get it for 25% off buying it in the store. But things that you might want, but might sell in a level or two, you'll skip it and take the cash.
I don't see the point of this. If no one else wants an item, there's no issue paying what it'd sell for. If someone else does, then the two can work it out numerous ways, including paying 75% each (don't see why even then it should go in the group pot...you're yanking the item from loot and buying another at full price, total cost for 2 of them is 150% the cost for one; 75% each is the fair amount to pay in).
If one player's constantly getting stuff at half price from the loot and another never does, IMO that's the DM's problem and he should try to make sure future loot hauls have stuff the latter player will want.

Besides fairness reasons, I just don't like it... I want to encourage players to grab oddball stuff from loot if they're not sure what to spend their money on anyway. If it proves useful, great! If not, when the player needs the cash, he can sell it for what he paid and not be out any money. If he's losing 25% of its market price gambling on it being useful or not, he's going to be a lot more hesitant to claim it if he's not absolutely sure he wants it.

[Quertus]

Step 1: Add up the value of all the items, and divide it in half (or whatever it would sell for).
Step 2: Add gold, then divide by number of players. That's their fair share.
Step 2a: Sometimes, we'll take out a share or 10% to go to a "party fund" that can be used for wands of curing, scrolls of revivify, etc.
Step 3: Let players pay half for items they want to keep, that way you're not wasting money by selling something you're going to buy for full price later.

In some cases, the party will want to keep particularly useful items rather than sell them. They can play this by ear, either loaning money to the player that wants to keep it, or keeping it as a "party" item.

I'll 25th (or so) this, and also agree with the notion of "to each according to their need".

So, if we sell everything, we get X gold. There are Y characters. X/Y = how much money you get out of this venture, plain and simple.

If there is an item you want to keep, instead of selling it, you "pay" the amount it is worth (to sell), so that everyone still gets exactly X/Y out of the adventure, plain and simple.

If anyone doesn't agree, there are now Y-1 characters still living, everyone gets X/(Y-1) as their share, plain and simple. :smallamused:

If there is any debate over who should get a particular item - rare that this is - then we invoke "according to their need". Some question over whether this is IC or OOC, admittedly - is it "this is what Grognar the Barbarian needs to do his job", or "this is what Bob needs to feel that his character is useful / cool / whatever".

But, the default math is, the adventure is worth X gold, your share is X/Y, spend as you will.

The issue is when there are no items useful to character Z on the adventure - or a disproportionately small number of useful items. Darn <insert oddball classes like binder and truenamer here>.

In this case, the best option is to let the party search for rumors of items that would be useful to that character.

And then, of course, you've got idiots like Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, who wastes his money taking shares like "the vorpal swords of 25 Balors", because that just sounds cool to keep as trophies. There's really no helping such suboptimal academics, but to put treasure that is simultaneously cool and useful in the game, and hope that they take it as their share.

[Warchon]

One player at our table is a bit of the reclusive type and has taken up the mantle of inventory management--I think being able to retreat into a spreadsheet helps him tamp down the social anxiety of being in a group for hours.
He does all the loot selling and division as long as his character knows about it.
Loot discovery is also individual. If we open a big room, everybody knows about it and it goes into the Wagon as party loot. If you loot a body by yourself, it's up to you how much to divulge and how much to share.
As long as no PLAYER is selfish, it works out fine.

[Elkad]

In 1e/2e we just went with a simple pick method.

Dump all the loot in a pile. Shake down the Thief for whatever excess he hadn't declared. Count the valuable items. Divide the cash (and cash substitutes) such that there is enough for everyone to get a couple piles (with a pile being equal to a 2nd round item pick maybe), plus enough to make the last round of magic items come out even.
(so 6 players, 16 items, we might have 14 cash piles. Everyone gets 5 picks)

Lotto for pick order. Typically d8 plus your character level (since a mishmash of levels was pretty common).
Pick one item. Either a magic item, or a cash stack.
Sometimes we rerolled after every round to scramble the order.

Wheeling and dealing after the pick was common. If the wizard won the pick, he might snatch up the vorpal weapon, and then pass a note to the fighter offering to trade it for the Ring of Wizardry II and the Cone of Cold wand. Or just flat sell it to him. Or let the fighter and barbarian bid for it.

Nobody worried about WBL.

Note that stuff picked up in the dungeon was immediately distributed (if IDed) as a LOAN on a need basis. So you got to use it until we cleared the place, then it went back in the pool.


Need/greed never seems to work out, unless the DM is very careful (and players have communicated their character plans to him). Someone always seems to get left out (or feel like they did anyway).
One game I spend my first 9 fighter levels picking mostly wizard stuff (bracers of armor, spellbooks, etc), to the consternation of the other caster. Next split after L9 I announced I was going dual-class wizard, and threw my armor and shield into the loot pool.

[jdizzlean]

In my group, we just look at which PC's can most effectively make use of items and give them those. If there are items left over that are just generally useful to anyone, we allow people to stake claims. We never really cared much about gold piece values, so long as nobody's left too far behind.


Pool everything. Ask if anyone wants anything in particular (like the Amulet of Wisdom +4 for the Cleric, or the +3 Bracers of Armor for the monk). Divide the rest in roughly equal equal parts.

Yes, this means some characters keep more wealth than others, but that's ok. It's a game among friends, not some high stakes corporate deal.

we ask everyone what they want, if there are contested items, we roll a die (that's the game right?) and the highest wins. everything else that isn't claimed is sold and split evenly among the group. If someone is missing the current game, but we find something that will help them dramatically over those at the game, we save it for them.

greed is great, but unless you're a party full of rogues, grow up a little.

[Quertus]

In 1e/2e we just went with a simple pick method.

Dump all the loot in a pile. Shake down the Thief for whatever excess he hadn't declared. Count the valuable items. Divide the cash (and cash substitutes) such that there is enough for everyone to get a couple piles (with a pile being equal to a 2nd round item pick maybe), plus enough to make the last round of magic items come out even.
(so 6 players, 16 items, we might have 14 cash piles. Everyone gets 5 picks)

Lotto for pick order. Typically d8 plus your character level (since a mishmash of levels was pretty common).
Pick one item. Either a magic item, or a cash stack.
Sometimes we rerolled after every round to scramble the order.

Wheeling and dealing after the pick was common. If the wizard won the pick, he might snatch up the vorpal weapon, and then pass a note to the fighter offering to trade it for the Ring of Wizardry II and the Cone of Cold wand. Or just flat sell it to him. Or let the fighter and barbarian bid for it.

Nobody worried about WBL.

Note that stuff picked up in the dungeon was immediately distributed (if IDed) as a LOAN on a need basis. So you got to use it until we cleared the place, then it went back in the pool.


Need/greed never seems to work out, unless the DM is very careful (and players have communicated their character plans to him). Someone always seems to get left out (or feel like they did anyway).
One game I spend my first 9 fighter levels picking mostly wizard stuff (bracers of armor, spellbooks, etc), to the consternation of the other caster. Next split after L9 I announced I was going dual-class wizard, and threw my armor and shield into the loot pool.

Oh, yes, the good old days. :smallcool: This is certainly (roughly) how I did loot distribution, not so much how I do loot distribution any more. This way was much more fun. :smallbiggrin:

[Mars Ultor]

I've proposed we continue with just doling it out by agreement as we have been doing, but if he really feels we need a system, we go with big pick/little pick. We decide what the special items are and people get their picks, if there's no item for you or someone else takes it, you get a big pick next time. For little picks we just continue to take what's in the pool either by random order or by need.

If there's a special staff only the wizard can use he shouldn't be penalized from getting a pair of bracers or a +2 Ring of Protection. We've been playing in this or a related campaign for several years now and there has never been an issue, I don't know why suddenly it's something to worry about.

[Vertharrad]

I know of a way we did it in a PbP I played once that is quite fair. You gather everything up. Figure up every objects sale price. Add it together and divide by the number of shares in the whole party. If a player wants an item s/he pays for it from his/her share and/or personal coinage. Whatever is left they get as coins, and if s/he didn't have enough they get a loan from another character. worked for us. We also rolled percentile to figure who got dibs in what order.

[gooddragon1]

APL = Average Party Level
https://i.imgur.com/h6tZnbv.png
Everyone gets the rewards listed according to APL

[Mordaedil]

We had a big party bank account and we put our stuff there to devote to things later, but in the meantime we get a small amount as pocket change for buying gear and food, and magic items just goes to who has the most use for them. We have our share of custom items as well as standard items.

[Calthropstu]

One group I'm in doesn't give a rats ass about value. Our motto is: is it useful? Who is it useful for? Who should best take it?
We prioritize front line for ac items, and our back line gets misc items first. Yeah, the headband for cha will help the paladin, but the sorc gets better use. The +3 weapon would do well in the hands of anyone, but is best for the fighter.
Yeah, it results in horribly mismatched money distributions but ya know what? I don't mind.

[icefractal]

In the dungeon, give it to whoever can make good use of it. If multiple people can and want to, they roll off.

At the point when we do have the opportunity to sell or trade items, then do a division by sale price, as mentioned above. Although people can owe the rest of the party rather than selling something they don't want to.

Some stuff becomes "party items".

[Quertus]

All this talk about giving items to those who need them reminded me of a few random, semi-related stories:

So, once upon a time, I played in a game with a rotating GM. The rules were, everyone comes in at first level. I (re) joined with Armus' when the party was 7th. Every PC after Armus came in as a rescued prisoner, with no gear. Despite being your standard murderhobo packrats with more gear than they could use, the party seemed to take perverse pleasure in watching Armus attempt to outfit the new recruits, giving them his swords, daggers, bow, frying pan, and even the ropes he had been bound with when the party found him. So, full disclosure, it was a high lethality game, with probably double digit players sitting around the table.

Fast forward quite a while, and we encounter the only thing that the party didn't loot: Armus' corpse. The party was split up, and the rest of the party encountered Armus' corpse. For the only time in their adventuring career, they didn't loot something, and left it lay. Armus, tracking the party, later encountered "his own corpse", and looted it. He was carrying some good stuff!

Flash forward even further. The party is ~14th level, and we get a fresh batch of 1st level characters. Armus has much more pull in the party now. He turns to first one, then the other archmage in the party, requesting their staves (a Staff of Power, and a Staff of the Magi). Armus them hands the staves to the new recruits. One player accepts it / sees the wisdom in Armus' actions; the other, fortunately Armus knows their background, and points out how their father had much the same happen to him back when he was a 1st level wizard.

[Nifft]

Our loot distribution is pretty simple.

To each according to his need; from each according to his class features.

Roll randomly; distribute according to utility, or sense of fairness, or (if neither of those apply) by who wants it more.

Then, every so often, the DM tallies up everyone's individual wealth, and tries to throw a few specific items where they're justified -- this means when a quest reward comes from a non-random source, the reward is tailored for someone who is lagging behind in WBL (or who is least-ahead).

The WBL from rolling random loot + players decide "fairly" amongst themselves = surprisingly fair on an individual basis as sampled every two levels or so, and also surprisingly close to official WBL.