Why do people want even treasure splits?

[WarKitty]

So the Christmas tree effect got me thinking...part of the problem with 3.5 is that mundane classes rely much more heavily on having the right gear than magic classes. Yet it seems to be an almost unwritten assumption that treasure should be split evenly through the party, despite the fact that the effect on each of them seems to be often disproportionate. Why?

[Flickerdart]

Magic items help, but they are not in and of themselves a sufficient balancing factor. It is a very common approach to drop some charity loot tailored for an underperforming character, but no amount of money will fix a samurai in a party of druids unless he's spending it on being a pseudo-caster himself.

Additionally, this brings sharply into focus the in-world problem of adventuring with very weak characters and very strong characters in the same party. If you are giving all of your earnings to one guy just so he can do the same job as you, maybe you should just ask him to stay home instead, for his own safety. There are only so many excuses you can make in-world before it stops making sense.

[eggynack]

Because you did the same job. I mean really, what you're advocating here is giving more money to the character that contributed least to the success of the mission. That seems kinda ridiculous, even if it might make some sense from a balance perspective.

[Dimers]

Also, it's a simpler system to design than some other "fair" methods of distribution. Also also, because the cultures you're talking to are largely capitalist rather than communist. But mostly what eggynack and Flickerdart said.

[WarKitty]

Because you did the same job. I mean really, what you're advocating here is giving more money to the character that contributed least to the success of the mission. That seems kinda ridiculous, even if it might make some sense from a balance perspective.

Even then though...it makes a lot of sense if the party is going the mercenary for hire route. It makes less sense if, say, the wizard wants a beatstick to protect him while they save the world, and the beatstick needs a bit more armor and goodies than the wizard does to be effective, especially if they don't want to just bring in some random dude.

Not that it isn't bad game design, just wondering.

[Spore]

Still, one of my PF groups (Evangelist Cleric, Fighter/Wizard/Arcane Archer, Bladebound Magus, Trapper Ranger and Beast Rider Cavalier) manages their loot disproportionate. Stuff we don't need gets sold and divided through 6. Even shares and group money (for potions, scrolls of healing etc.). Useable loot gets assigned to the currently underperforming guy.

- Magus gets AC boosting items
- Cavalier gets stuff for saving throws/second best AC stuff
- Cleric gets money for scrolls, metamagic rods
- Arcane Archer gets stuff for ranged combat
- Trapper gets everything helpful with scouting, charging and TWFing.

And it works greatly. We take out encounters several levels over our average CR. But honestly our tactics are quite aggressive as well.

[Adverb]

I've seen "we split it n ways, always" work.

I've seen "if it's useful for someone they take it, otherwise we split it n ways" work.

I've seen "we have a communal pile of gold and people ask and the party mostly says yes."

I've never seen a complicated, formal system for loot-splitting work. People rules-lawyer them, and this leads to arguments and players getting grumpy at each other and it's terrible.

[eggynack]

Even then though...it makes a lot of sense if the party is going the mercenary for hire route. It makes less sense if, say, the wizard wants a beatstick to protect him while they save the world, and the beatstick needs a bit more armor and goodies than the wizard does to be effective, especially if they don't want to just bring in some random dude.

Not that it isn't bad game design, just wondering.

It feels like, once you go down that road, you start having to ask Flickerdart's question, which is why you're taking along this crappy beatstick that eats money at all. There's a perfectly capable druid or cleric, right over there, who will do the job better, and for less. It's all just kinda awkward, because it puts the balance provider in the hands of the characters, instead of the players, in a way which makes for all kinds of inconsistencies like that. Better, I suspect, to make this sort of change with an invisible resource, like feats, stats, LA, or abilities. It raises a lot fewer questions.

Edit: Do note that your path, in these terms, would make vaguely more sense if tanking were both a completely necessary role, and one that always requires more cash. As is, it is neither of those things.

[WarKitty]

It feels like, once you go down that road, you start having to ask Flickerdart's question, which is why you're taking along this crappy beatstick that eats money at all. There's a perfectly capable druid or cleric, right over there, who will do the job better, and for less. It's all just kinda awkward, because it puts the balance provider in the hands of the characters, instead of the players, in a way which makes for all kinds of inconsistencies like that. Better, I suspect, to make this sort of change with an invisible resource, like feats, stats, LA, or abilities. It raises a lot fewer questions.

Edit: Do note that your path, in these terms, would make vaguely more sense if tanking were both a completely necessary role, and one that always requires more cash. As is, it is neither of those things.

That was the latter part. Is your band of heroes really going to dump the friend you've been adventuring with just to go hire some random dude at the tavern, in a world where heroes over level 3 or 4 are incredibly rare and you're level 12? Especially if you yourself don't particularly need all that money?

I mean, I do think there are better solutions, I'm just curious why this one never seems to occur to people, especially since the DM may or may not be on board with complicated stuff to even things out.

[eggynack]

That was the latter part. Is your band of heroes really going to dump the friend you've been adventuring with just to go hire some random dude at the tavern, in a world where heroes over level 3 or 4 are incredibly rare and you're level 12? Especially if you yourself don't particularly need all that money?

You yourself always particularly need all that money. Sure, casters might not need that cash just to function, but they probably actually have more interesting ways to spend a GP than an equal level mundane guy, owing to the fact that you have more stuff to augment. As for whether you're going to dump the guy you're adventuring with, probably not, but would you start adventuring with him in the first place, knowing in advance that he's going to suck at his job and eat the party's money? Because that's necessary here. If you're splitting cash in an unequal fashion to help the party monk, then the party must know that monks suck, because otherwise they wouldn't know to split the cash like that. You need the characters to have some degree of metagame knowledge, in other words, even if that knowledge might actually be available in game, and that knowledge makes things go a bit wonky.

I mean, I do think there are better solutions, I'm just curious why this one never seems to occur to people, especially since the DM may or may not be on board with complicated stuff to even things out.

Lots of reasons, most of them falling under the header of this being kinda awkward. There are lots of levers you can mess with in game, and very few of them are adjusted by the characters themselves. Realistically, you might even be better off just halving the cost of magic weapons, and doubling the cost of metamagic rods, or something like that. That way, you'd put that lever back in the hands of the players/DM.

[Azraile]

It is easy, and it prevents fighting and arguing over loot.

[chaos_redefined]

Multiple problems:

First, in the game world, bringing your best buddy along when he's not capable of keeping up results in said best buddy needing a funeral. This is bad, and is a valid reason not to bring your best buddy along.

Second, what you seem to suggest is that, if someone isn't pulling his weight, we give him money. Cool. You know what pulls even less weight than a fighter trying to pull his weight? Me, as I'm sitting in the corner waiting for you guys to give me more money. Thanks.

[WarKitty]

You yourself always particularly need all that money. Sure, casters might not need that cash just to function, but they probably actually have more interesting ways to spend a GP than an equal level mundane guy, owing to the fact that you have more stuff to augment. As for whether you're going to dump the guy you're adventuring with, probably not, but would you start adventuring with him in the first place, knowing in advance that he's going to suck at his job and eat the party's money? Because that's necessary here. If you're splitting cash in an unequal fashion to help the party monk, then the party must know that monks suck, because otherwise they wouldn't know to split the cash like that. You need the characters to have some degree of metagame knowledge, in other words, even if that knowledge might actually be available in game, and that knowledge makes things go a bit wonky.

You've been adventuring with this fighter since level 1, when you had a spellbook and pouch and he had a sword and breastplate. It's now level 12 - if your character hasn't noticed anything he's not smart enough to be a wizard. And plenty of people notice imbalances who aren't playing super high op who don't own/use every single book, or just aren't comfortable messing with major fixed. There's also a HUGE gap between "not as good" and "useless." Your fighter friend may not be as good as the druid but he's often still nice to have along, and wouldn't it be nicer if he could fly? After all he's still saved your skin a time or two, even if he's not deciding encounters as often as you are.

[ryu]

You've been adventuring with this fighter since level 1, when you had a spellbook and pouch and he had a sword and breastplate. It's now level 12 - if your character hasn't noticed anything he's not smart enough to be a wizard. And plenty of people notice imbalances who aren't playing super high op who don't own/use every single book, or just aren't comfortable messing with major fixed. There's also a HUGE gap between "not as good" and "useless." Your fighter friend may not be as good as the druid but he's often still nice to have along, and wouldn't it be nicer if he could fly? After all he's still saved your skin a time or two, even if he's not deciding encounters as often as you are.

By level twelve I can use a standard share of loot rather than actual extra pay on top of that to MAKE a far superior fighter than an actual fighter twelve. At earlier levels this even more bluntly obvious when I can just buy some riding dogs.

[weckar]

Especially if this is a campaign that starts from lv 1, I could see this being a loyalty effect. Sure, the Wizard will outshine the martialists at lv 15 by a fair margin (a pacific ocean sized margin) but those same martialists were keeping the squishy wizard alive through his first levels.

[eggynack]

You've been adventuring with this fighter since level 1, when you had a spellbook and pouch and he had a sword and breastplate. It's now level 12 - if your character hasn't noticed anything he's not smart enough to be a wizard. And plenty of people notice imbalances who aren't playing super high op who don't own/use every single book, or just aren't comfortable messing with major fixed. There's also a HUGE gap between "not as good" and "useless." Your fighter friend may not be as good as the druid but he's often still nice to have along, and wouldn't it be nicer if he could fly? After all he's still saved your skin a time or two, even if he's not deciding encounters as often as you are.

But fighters are pretty useless, and I know for a fact that I'm going to end up paying more for a worse product later on. Sure, if I've got some backstory in there, like he's my cousin, and he really needs a job cause no one's hiring fighters, then this might make small amounts of sense, but otherwise I just don't see it working. Either fighters are visibly worse in game, in which case I'm not pulling one on my team unless he frigging costs less than that druid sitting at the table next to him, or they're not, in which case I'm not giving him more cash. It's really as simple as that. Paying more for something of lower quality makes no sense in most contexts.

[WarKitty]

But fighters are pretty useless, and I know for a fact that I'm going to end up paying more for a worse product later on. Sure, if I've got some backstory in there, like he's my cousin, and he really needs a job cause no one's hiring fighters, then this might make small amounts of sense, but otherwise I just don't see it working. Either fighters are visibly worse in game, in which case I'm not pulling one on my team unless he frigging costs less than that druid sitting at the table next to him, or they're not, in which case I'm not giving him more cash. It's really as simple as that. Paying more for something of lower quality makes no sense in most contexts.

Fighters aren't useless at level 1, or even level 5. So unless you're importing the metagame stuff you've been complaining about, this just doesn't work. And by level 12 or 15 you've been working with the guy and he's probably still better than most of what you can get out there. Even without extra treasure having him is generally better than not having him in a mid-op game - which is I think the sort where this stuff usually comes up. But he's better with more loot in ways that aren't as easily or obviously better for the wizard, especially if the magic-mart doesn't necessarily stock whatever goodie your heart desires to cheese it up that you know about via metagaming.

(Also, the riding dogs trick only works with a generous DM and decent handle animal skills.)

[eggynack]

Fighters aren't useless at level 1, or even level 5. So unless you're importing the metagame stuff you've been complaining about, this just doesn't work. And by level 12 or 15 you've been working with the guy and he's probably still better than most of what you can get out there. Even without extra treasure having him is generally better than not having him in a mid-op game - which is I think the sort where this stuff usually comes up. But he's better with more loot in ways that aren't as easily or obviously better for the wizard, especially if the magic-mart doesn't necessarily stock whatever goodie your heart desires to cheese it up that you know about via metagaming.

They're not completely useless, but they're worse, and that's honestly enough. I'm not going to sacrifice my ability to contribute in order to gain access to a worse party member. Not when the world's on the line, and not when I'm just trying to make a quick buck. As for fighters being better with loot, they're really not. They can use weapons and armor better, kinda, I guess, but that's really a thing of narrow scope. Wizards can make use of most anything a fighter can, but can also use all of those caster unique items, while fighters can't. The only way they really make use of items better is because they can't do anything and items fill those gaps. I'd prefer a party member that just doesn't have silly gaps like that. It's a rule that just doesn't seem to work, because it leads to odd inconsistencies. I'd just go with the thing I recommended, honestly. Seems a lot cleaner to alter prices such that fighters will be able to do more with less, or at least more than they could before.

[Frozen_Feet]

The root of this is actually very deep ingrained. Humans are all-or-nothing - if at all possible, we want even share in everything, and if it's not possible, we would rather everyone be completely without than someone having more. Problems crop up even when you suggest giving more to someone who is completely deserving - see how the poor often hate the rich, or how workers often envy their bosses.

Suggesting giving more to someone who is less deserving, such as a Fighter in a party of Wizards, is obviously going to have people foaming at the mouths.

[John Longarrow]

WarKitty

Much like democracy, it isn't perfect but it is better than the other systems people have devised. If each character gets an even share (magic items treated at resale value, not purchase value) then the party often has a lot of ways to keep all characters equally capable. I can't remember the last game I enjoyed where players didn't lend each other cash or give each other goodies that helped out. As DM, I often arrange for treasures that are interesting and can lead to in game choices other than "equal split" to give more RP chances. This mostly leads to fun for all parties, though if the players are not able to deal well with it I back off.

[DigoDragon]

Your fighter friend may not be as good as the druid but he's often still nice to have along, and wouldn't it be nicer if he could fly? After all he's still saved your skin a time or two, even if he's not deciding encounters as often as you are.

I like this, and it's fairly true from my experience. Generally speaking spellcasters do perform better than the warriors as they get higher in level, but you can't always predict what you'll encounter in a long dungeon, nor can you always rely on the dice agreeing with you. So my group splits the treasure evenly. Maybe not a perfect system, but its easy and the PCs can bargain with each-other afterwards if they want to trade around their goods.

[Vhaidara]

My group normally runs a split, putting anything that makes it uneven into the party fund which goes towards things like extradimensional storage, the Artificer's Monocle, healing wands, or bribes. It's partially because we've never played a group that's been together longer than the campaign, and in particular it might break things a bit.

For example, at level 9, my bard is walking around with 30k in cash. I accumulated this much because I'm planning on building a stronghold (bardic college) and missed the part about Landlord existing, so in the 6 levels since we started, I've spent less than 1k. During a recent adventure (a "find the assassin" in a noble house), I was going through rooms looking for secret doors when I found a bag of 10k gold. Being CG(N) (Chaotic Good on the border of and heading towards CN), I swiped it. This out me significantly above WBL. Is there a problem? No, because it's all in liquid funds and, in any case, I'm a backline buffer bard. In fact, we've heard rumors of a cancer mage, and the party pool is nearly empty, so I'm probably going to blow some cash for a wand of Remove Disease or two.

[chaos_redefined]

Someone else already said this... But why would I join up with a fighter under this system, even at level 1, when a druid does the fighter's job well enough (thanks to animal companion) and doesn't chew my wealth up later? And even with extra wealth, the only way a fighter is gonna get on par with said druid is if he pretends to not be a fighter.

Additionally, the world and people's lives are on the line. If Fighter McFighterson is not pulling his weight, then the correct choice, especially if he's your best friend, is to tell him to go hide somewhere safe and let the rest of us sort it out. That way, he lives. Keeping him around could cost him his life.

[Necroticplague]

I've never really seen an even split in games I've been in. Typically, items go to whoever it would be most useful to (i.e, weapons go to the fighter, CHA items go to the ghost), consumables are communal, usually carried by whoever will have the easiest time using them (scrolls,staffs, wands are carried by casters, while potions are typically held by fighters), and whatever is left over is typically stuff nobody wants, so we sell at the first opportunity.

[Psyren]

Every game I've been in has had communal "party loot" once rolling for individual desirables was complete. And if the warrior needed to sell some pieces nobody wanted in order to get an upgrade for his shield or whatever we've been okay with it. The only obstacle has really been time or lack of access to magic mart in some cases. (In our campaign we don't always end a session back at HQ and teleporting back there is not always an option.)

[Dominuce2112]

Because buying and writing scrolls aint cheap

[Lord_Gareth]

Thing is Warkitty, if the fighter really is my 'best bud', I'm gonna tell him to go home. I don't want to have to speak at his funeral. I don't want to have to put down his undead corpse, re-kill him after he gets turned into a demon, or watch some lich steal his soul and friggin' eat it. Adventuring is hideously lethal, and most of the methods of dying therein go well beyond mere death and into horrible post-mortem desecration that is difficult for modern humans to comprehend.

I wanna put my incapable best friend through that? At levels 1-6 or so he was doing okay but after those fights with the (gargoyles/harpies/shadows/wraiths/lich/erinyes/hezrou) I've been getting worried about the guy. Maybe it's time he cashed in his chips, bought a ring of arming for his armor and weapons, and went home to open an inn and marry some nice girl or guy.

[Segev]

Mildly tangential, but I've thought for a while one of the ways to make the "mundane" classes have a little more oomph would be to give them class features that make certain magic items just work better in their hands. Alternatively, design magic items to have better perks in the hands of certain classes, but that sacrifices a certain amount of rigor for versatility, and relies on redesigning a LOT more than the problematic classes.

There is, however, a little bit of the latter already: certain swords are just plain better when wielded by a paladin, for example.

I'll attempt to illustrate with at least a couple semi-random ideas. Maybe there's a Rogue Trick that lets them quaff potions as swift or free actions. And a Fighter class feature that lets them add their Fighter level to some quality of potions they drink (more hp healed, longer duration, or something). Or perhaps a fighter-only feat that allows him to treat a weapon as having an enhancement bonus equal to its effective enhancement bonus (i.e. a +1 flaming longsword would act as a +2 flaming longsword, while a +1 brilliant energy vorpal sword would act as a +10 brilliant energy vorpal sword) for a number of rounds per day equal to his Fighter level (split up as he chooses, activated for free at the start of his turn in any round he wants to use it). A ring of Mirror Image might let monks actually create duplicates of themselves instead of just illusory ones.

That sort of thing.

[ericgrau]

So the Christmas tree effect got me thinking...part of the problem with 3.5 is that mundane classes rely much more heavily on having the right gear than magic classes. Yet it seems to be an almost unwritten assumption that treasure should be split evenly through the party, despite the fact that the effect on each of them seems to be often disproportionate. Why?

Uneven distribution is more likely to lead to fights. Equal shares are simplest and rarely questioned by the recipients.

Ya it would make more sense to give more magic to non-casters, since they benefit more and casters can only do so much with more of the same. But then you might start setting a % for each class and deciding what that is could run into disagreement.

A simpler solution may be to give more treasure to everyone. It's partly wasted on the casters, but the mundanes will benefit a lot more. With enough treasure it's even possible for everyone to essentially be full casters on top of whatever else they can do. While the caster is a pseudo-gestalt of a caster and a caster which is nice but only goes so far compared to being one caster.

[Psyren]

This thing tends to sort itself out. If the fighter's share leaves him 1000 away from a key upgrade, and the 3 spellcasters have 350 each left over because they didn't need as much gear, they're likely to chip in and help the guy get that upgrade. Because presumably we're all playing with friends here. There shouldn't really be a need to mandate from on high "fighter gets more because he is more gear-dependent."

Also, even a monk with PC WBL can handle CR-appropriate challenges all the way up. He may not be as flashy about it as a T1 class, but if he is built well he can still punch a Balor into next week as surely as anything else in the MM (and especially Bestiary.)