OOC Table Talk

[Zhym]

Hey, folks. Sorry I haven't been in the discussion.

It doesn't make much sense to count potions or scrolls as part of a PC's share if that PC is expected to use them on other PCs. On the other hand, potions and scrolls that benefit the possessor (e.g., invisibility, heroism, spell scrolls, etc.), should count as part of a treasure share.

So healing potions and scrolls can be handled two ways:

(1) They aren't loot but group resources usable by anyone when needed. Someone can hold them for the group but is expected to use them on others who are in need.
(2) They are loot and count against a PC's share of treasure, but then the PC is the only one who gets to use the item.

I'd say potions and scrolls of healing should fall under (1). All other magic items, including non-healing potions and scrolls, should probably be in category (2).

[Bloodaxe]

The most i would agree to , is that disposable items like a potion/scroll are counted as a fraction of a share. A potion/scroll is not the equal to a shield+1 or something like that.

[Scott308]

I definitely do not feel that getting a scroll with a healing spell and Hold Person should count against someone's share of treasure, as those will be used 100% for the benefit of the party. I'm torn on the potion of invisibility. It is a limited use item that may be used to aid the party in terms of scouting or sneak attack on an enemy, but it also gives the owner a potential "get out of jail free" card, in that if things really go south you can drink the potion and be more likely to escape.

For other consumables- potions and non-healing scrolls- I am going to vote they also should not count against the owner's share. In theory, you can justify ANY magic item as being for the good of the party, since a fighter that gets a +3 sword becomes much more likely to hit and kill an orc that no longer has the opportunity to hit and kill the unarmored, low hit point mage who is out of spells and starts whacking bad guys with his staff so he doesn't feel like a coward, hanging back and not doing anything. Nobody in their right mind (well, other than the fighter that gets a +3 sword) is going to suggest they get an even share of the other treasure on top of the magic item. If, however, the sword would lose its magic after one combat, we would look at it much differently. As such, I feel that it is too slippery a slope to start picking and choosing between which consumable items should count and which ones should not. Yes, the healing spell is going to be used to cure someone in the party, potentially the very same person who can cast Cure Light Wounds anyway. Yes, the invisibility potion could be used to escape if everyone else is dying, but it could be used to scout and gather information so we do not charge in blindly only to discover we are woefully prepared to face that particular threat. A potion of levitation could be used to access something that nobody else can reach, somehow benefiting everyone or it could be used to avoid falling to one's death. A potion of heroism, while only usable by fighters, still benefits everyone as it makes the fighter much more formidable for the duration, thereby increasing the rest of the party's chances of success. A mage scroll, while being of benefit to the mage in that I could copy it to my spell book, does give me the ability to cast another spell which could be of use to the rest of the party. Do I have a vested interest in the possibility of losing a share of treasure because we find something consumable that only my character can use? Yes, so feel free to let that color your judgement on my opinion.

TL;DR: I vote consumable magic items should not have an impact on the individual shares of treasure, that they should be bonus items, if you will.

[Bloodaxe]

TL;DR: I vote consumable magic items should not have an impact on the individual shares of treasure, that they should be bonus items, if you will.

seconded!

[Zhym]

If we don't count things like a potion of invisibility or a scroll of Hold Person as part of the value of someone's treasure share, how do we decide who gets them? Ampersand would sure like a potion of invisibility. Does he have a claim to it? If someone else gets 100 gp and a potion and Ampersand gets 100 gp and no potion, Ampersand is getting less than the other person is. Do we at least get to draw lots to see who gets the free potion?

[Bloodaxe]

Saeros found it and handed it to Lardo because it looked like he was going to scout and could make the best use of it. Backstab, scouting...etc.
I'm fine with drawing lots, but like the cleric scroll going to a cleric , it seems the potion should go to someone who can make the best use of it.
We should also kind of "take turns" with items. If you get one now, the next time someone else gets one and you dont.
If we are going to nitpick every treasure this will get tedious. Someone can also ask if a character helped defeat the monster, struck a blow, cast a spell, etc.
The nitpicking can go on and on......

[Scott308]

Eglistrum doesn't have an interest in the potion, it should go to someone who would be better able to use it. If only one person wants it or we can all agree that something should go to one character, then it becomes easy, like the scroll going to the cleric. If multiple people want it, the characters should roll dice for it, which can be done in character quite easily. Maybe this time Ampersand ends up with less than Lardo. Maybe next time we find something that Ampersand wants and he ends up with more than anyone else. The only way to make the split truly equal each and every time is to sell everything and split the money. At that point, if you want whatever the magic item was, you'd have to buy it from the store. This would be the absolute worst approach to take aside from just leaving items behind, and I'm pretty sure nobody would like to go this route.

Another option would be to split up the money, and whoever wants the magic item can bid for it, with the winning bid being split up between the rest of the party. I would prefer not to do it that way because I think it will alienate party members. It can also cause people to hoard their money on the chance they want to bid on something, instead of spending money in town on equipment, supplies, room and board...

[KingOfCowards]

Everything has value, even if only one character can use it. Henry is an honorable fellow, and yes, he will probably use the scroll to help the party. Selling the scroll for 50 gp could also help the party. If we agree to give it to Henry as a "bonus", I am fine with that. He's done a fine job and has saved Sham's neck already.

If we're dicing for the invisibility potion, it gets even trickier. Who wouldn't want to dice for a "bonus" item? Lardo could make good use of it, Ampersand could make good use of it. Sham might want to dice for it, knowing that Ampersand wants it and trade him for his magic axe (just an example).

If we don't have magic items cost anything out of a share, whoever gets them is getting the better deal, and we will probably have more "dicing" for items that don't necessarily fit that character.
I have to agree with Zhym on this one. Everything is worth something to somebody.

[Zhym]

The easiest way would be if Spartakos told us what each magic item's sale value would be. Then we could just include that as part of the total treasure share and adjust accordingly. But I realize some DM's don't want to reveal that information.

In this case, Ampersand won't make a claim to the potion because he got the nice axe on the last trip. But we should figure out a protocol for distributing magic items multiple PCs want. Dicing for them is simple and tends to even out in the long run.

[Spartakos]

The easiest way would be if Spartakos told us what each magic item's sale value would be. Then we could just include that as part of the total treasure share and adjust accordingly. But I realize some DM's don't want to reveal that information.

Yeah...it's not that I'm trying to be secretive, but most of the time, there isn't really a fixed price--or even a "going rate"--for magic items. It's all about means and circumstance. Things like healing potions there will pretty much always be someone willing to buy, but take that potion of invisibility...who is going to pay out for that? The soldiers who man this keep? Kent the smith? Oliver the pubtender? Even those wealthy enough to purchase it at a decent price likely wouldn't have a lot of use for it.
The main people who make use of magic items (other than arms, armor, healing potions and spell scrolls) are other adventurers, and they aren't common.

I could set a price, but there's no reason a price I set is more valid than one you guys set, if it doesn't represent an amount you can readily turn that magic item into...and in this economy, that's pretty much the case.

I appreciate the way you guys are talking through this. While I don't wish to decide for you, I can help solidify some of what's been tossed around:

Things seem (to me) to boil down to 2 main options:

1.) Anyone who wants an item (or heck, everyone) can just toss dice for who gets it (or who gets first pick, if multiple items are found). If you'd like to guarantee equal distribution, say that once you get one, you don't get a shot at another until everyone has one ("taking turns", as Bloodaxe said). You could also trade amongst yourselves..."I like this axe I found, but I would really like that shield we just found more, would you like to swap?" You could also do this only for limited use/one-shot items, while requiring permanent items to count as a full share.

Zhym seems to favor this option, as do Scott308 and Bloodaxe. King seems skeptical.

2.) You can "bid" for items...you split coin equally, and the item goes to whoever is willing to put the most money back in the pot for the others to share.

Scott308 suggested this, but doesn't seem to favor it himself. I think one of his downsides (people saving up for items) could be addressed by only allowing you to "bid" from the current adventure's treasure, setting the maximum at 1 full share. If more than one person is willing to put back all their money, those people dice to break the tie. Note that only the person who gets the item has to put money back; everybody else gets their full share, plus a split of the winning bid.

Note that option 2 can kinda subsume option 1, in the case of ties where multiple people want the item. This would seem to address King's objection that it would lead to people dicing for items that aren't really suited to them. If someone didn't care about an item, they wouldn't need to bid; they could just sit happy with their share of loot, and the knowledge that they'd be getting more because someone else got an item.

Do you think you guys can agree on (or vote on) option 1 or 2? Or does someone have another suggestion?

[Zhym]

You may all discuss sharing of monetary spoils, including what Lardo and Henry should get due to their magic items. The final tally (with items sold) is:
581 gp
91 ep
347 sp

Did you leave Kal's gold and brandy off the total? Or did that get dumped along the way? I get 781 gp, including the axe (but not the bounties for goblin ears and the ogre head) as the sum of all the gold in this post if Kal's gold is included. If we have the brandy, what's it worth?

As for your question: there's an economic efficiency to option 2: those who value something more would be willing to give more up to get it. That solves the problem of how to value magic items nicely. But there are also flaws in an auction-based loot-distribution strategy. For example, what if the party comes across something that is (1) insanely valuable, but (2) only usable by one member of the party? That PC could bid 1 copper and get the item essentially for free. I suppose other PCs could bid up the price with the idea of selling the Holy McGuffin, though.

I dunno. Every time I try to come up with a system of rules that fairly allocates treasure including magic items of unknown worth, the result is overly complex, flawed, or both. The only times I've really had success is by drawing up a loot allocation ad hoc and saying "what's everyone think?" Which I suppose I can do here if people want.

[Spartakos]

You may all discuss sharing of monetary spoils, including what Lardo and Henry should get due to their magic items. The final tally (with items sold) is:
581 gp
91 ep
347 sp

Did you leave Kal's gold and brandy off the total? Or did that get dumped along the way? I get 781 gp, including the axe (but not the bounties for goblin ears and the ogre head) as the sum of all the gold in this post if Kal's gold is included. If we have the brandy, what's it worth?

Sorry; Kal's gold is legit, but Kyle's gold wasn't...those 240 pieces proved to be the counterfeit gold coins. Since most felt they could be useful for bribing enemies, I didn't include them; I presume you've got them stashed somewhere. The brandy was sold, but (standard for most salvage) was only sold for half price (40 gp), which accounts for the other 40 gp difference.

So it's:
200 gp Kal was lugging plus 289 from Cormac = 489, plus 52 from the sale of the axe and 40 from the sale of the brandy gives us 581.
Adding another 55 gp from bounties brings the overall total to 636 gp (plus the silver and electrum).

As for your question: there's an economic efficiency to option 2: those who value something more would be willing to give more up to get it. That solves the problem of how to value magic items nicely. But there are also flaws in an auction-based loot-distribution strategy. For example, what if the party comes across something that is (1) insanely valuable, but (2) only usable by one member of the party? That PC could bid 1 copper and get the item essentially for free. I suppose other PCs could bid up the price with the idea of selling the Holy McGuffin, though.

I dunno. Every time I try to come up with a system of rules that fairly allocates treasure including magic items of unknown worth, the result is overly complex, flawed, or both. The only times I've really had success is by drawing up a loot allocation ad hoc and saying "what's everyone think?" Which I suppose I can do here if people want.

There's never going to be a perfect method...and I think that there will always be edge cases that call for re-assessing, or a special allocation. I'd say the important things are:
a.) get a rule of thumb so you at least have a starting point
b.) toss out an estimate and see what people think, adjusting from there.

I'm not a player here, but when you used to do that in the Westmarches, I thought it helped, so I'd say go for it.

[Bloodaxe]

Settle it by Thunderdome......two men enter....one man leaves....with the item.

I still say that the scroll shouldn't count. It only has two spells, one of which will probably heal one of us. Should we pay Henry if he uses it on us? Nonsense.

The potion maybe a partial share. Interested people can dice for it, if they win, they forfeit X amount of coins. But you give up your turn the next time. Take turns.

If this becomes such a huge debate for two minor items, Saeros might just pocket them quietly or even pretend he never found them.......

[Zhym]

If this becomes such a huge debate for two minor items, Saeros might just pocket them quietly or even pretend he never found them.......

Right, because that wouldn't cause any arguments.

Anyway, it's not the items. It's having something set up so that next time, when it's not just a potion of invisibility and a scroll with two cleric spells, we don't have to go through this with people really wanting something.

'm not a player here, but when you used to do that in the Westmarches, I thought it helped, so I'd say go for it.

Thanks. But loot distribution in Keehnelf's game was a little different. When one expedition returned, it was probably the last for that particular grouping of PCs. So leaving something as "group property" wasn't really an option because each group stopped existing when it got back to town.

But here's a shot. 636 gp, 91 ep, 347 sp is 716.2 gp value. If this were Keehnelf's game I might suggest something like this:

6 shares of 110 gp 100 gp, 12 ep, 50 sp each (111 gp value)
1 share of 36 gp, 19 ep, 47 sp (50.2 gp value) + invisibility potion
Scroll with healing and hold person spells goes to trying to recruit an NPC cleric to the group.

If no one else wants the 56.2 gp + invisibility potion share, Ampersand Mxyzptlk Kerfuffle Humperdink Wongdoodle Biddleshaft the Third will take it. If someone does want the potion, I guess it's worth at least 61 gp to someone other than Ampersand.

Fair?

[badams30]

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but in the dozen or so PbP's I've been in, we've always just divided the loot by a show of hands "I'd like the X item" and if more than one person wanted it, they worked it out or rolled for it. I've never been in a game where we deducted an item (or value of an item) from spoils. It always seemed to work out in the end. You might have received a magic sword in the last haul, and someone else got a magic axe or ring or whatever in the next haul.

The way I see it, pretty much every item is going to benefit the group in one way or another, and an item is either a group use item (such as healing scrolls or the like) or an individual use item, and in that case, if you got that particular item, you probably go to the back of the line when more loot becomes available. Seems like it all equals out in the end.

[GreyWolfVT]

Trust me if there is an item i want to keep I'll mention it the only reason I grabbed the ogre's weapon was to sell it. Anything else that was grabbed I've no interest in, if I did I'd chime in saying yeah i wanted that.

I figure it'd be the same for everyone else if you want an item found you'd speak up about it.

[KingOfCowards]

If this becomes such a huge debate for two minor items, Saeros might just pocket them quietly or even pretend he never found them.......

Right, because that wouldn't cause any arguments.

Anyway, it's not the items. It's having something set up so that next time, when it's not just a potion of invisibility and a scroll with two cleric spells, we don't have to go through this with people really wanting something.

'm not a player here, but when you used to do that in the Westmarches, I thought it helped, so I'd say go for it.

Thanks. But loot distribution in Keehnelf's game was a little different. When one expedition returned, it was probably the last for that particular grouping of PCs. So leaving something as "group property" wasn't really an option because each group stopped existing when it got back to town.

But here's a shot. 636 gp, 91 ep, 347 sp is 716.2 gp value. If this were Keehnelf's game I might suggest something like this:

6 shares of 110 gp 100 gp, 12 ep, 50 sp each (111 gp value)
1 share of 36 gp, 19 ep, 47 sp (50.2 gp value) + invisibility potion
Scroll with healing and hold person spells goes to trying to recruit an NPC cleric to the group.

If no one else wants the 56.2 gp + invisibility potion share, Ampersand Mxyzptlk Kerfuffle Humperdink Wongdoodle Biddleshaft the Third will take it. If someone does want the potion, I guess it's worth at least 61 gp to someone other than Ampersand.

Fair?

Sounds fair to me.

I am fine with however the party feels like distributing magic items, as long as it's not "I grabbed it first, so it's mine".

[Bloodaxe]

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but in the dozen or so PbP's I've been in, we've always just divided the loot by a show of hands "I'd like the X item" and if more than one person wanted it, they worked it out or rolled for it. I've never been in a game where we deducted an item (or value of an item) from spoils. It always seemed to work out in the end. You might have received a magic sword in the last haul, and someone else got a magic axe or ring or whatever in the next haul.

The way I see it, pretty much every item is going to benefit the group in one way or another, and an item is either a group use item (such as healing scrolls or the like) or an individual use item, and in that case, if you got that particular item, you probably go to the back of the line when more loot becomes available. Seems like it all equals out in the end.

BOOM!

+1

Actually +5 Holy Avenger


==================

Decide what the options are and I'll vote.

[GreyWolfVT]

I'll be honest I'm not going to fight over something if i grab something and someone else wants it it's fine by me if they have it.

[Spartakos]

Decide what the options are and I'll vote.

You already did, when you agreed with Henry. I summed up 2 options:

1.) Shares of coin are even, roll dice for who gets magic (on top of money).
Some even suggested skipping the dice, and just letting whoever wants an item or can use it best have it. I consider this essentially the same; dice are just a tie-breaker when for multiple people want/have good use for an item...call that 1a, I guess.

2.) Shares of coin are even, then "bid" for who gets an item (sacrificing money, which is divided among the others who don't get it).

Nobody suggested anything noticeably different from those.

Bloodaxe voted for 1a, as does Henry. GreyWolf's vote was vague, but I'm calling it another for 1a.
Zhym voted for 2, and then also tossed out a starting bid. King agreed with this (but also says he doesn't care, as long as it isn't "finders keepers").
Even though Eglistrum kinda raised option 2, he said he doesn't prefer it, and his stance leans more toward 1 or 1a.
Lardo's vote is for 1, at least when it comes to limited-use magic (scrolls/potions).

That seems like a clear majority for option 1 or a variant thereof (5 votes to 2). Considering King said he's fine with either, I'd like to say let's just settle it with majority rule for now, with the option to revisit later if you find a situation where somebody has a major problem with it.

So: even shares look like the rule of the day, and just decide (via consensus or random lots) who gets the potion and scroll. Since Henry's the only one who can use the scroll, everyone seemed okay with him taking it (exception is Zhym, but I'll address that below).
Do you want to dice for the potion? Or just let Lardo have it? (I haven't seen any suggestions that anyone else get it)

Scroll with healing and hold person spells goes to trying to recruit an NPC cleric to the group.

I'm going to kindly request you not do this with limited-use magic...because then I'm tasked with deciding when the NPC considers it appropriate to use the item, and I have to try to ignore a lot of DM-knowledge in making that decision. Besides, I don't consider it much of an appeal: "Hey, if you join us, we'll give you this item that we expect you to use up helping us anyway".
Assuming you can recruit an NPC cleric, I am planning to treat them as a retainer under LL rules (meaning they get a half share of treasure, and anything over that or magic items are gravy that help with loyalty).

Even shares of your coin (including the 55 gp bounties) work out like this (Zhym, you goofed in divvying up 7 shares...even though Geert's leaving, he still gets a share of this haul before he leaves).

79 gp
12 ep
45 sp