Looting Policy

[Dorganath]

Just one point I'd like to make in regards to levels...

When rewards are rolled for after quests, GMs generally request that if you cannot use it (due to level/class restrictions), or already have one/several/etc, don't roll for it.  Further, they request that the items not be sold or traded by those who win them.  So even opening it up to be within 3 levels is honestly, in my opinion, too permissive. UMD aside, if you can't use it, don't roll for it.

Likewise, if looting was allowed on the quest and the loot was split by rolling afterward, the same sort of request was made, if not by the GM then by a consensus of the party.

The same sort of consideration should be applied when a party just goes out adventuring, in my opinion. (NOTE: That's not an "official" opinion, just mine.)

Maybe I'm too old-school, but honestly, I think it's a bit sad this needs to be discussed at all.  For the most part, whenever I have gone out with a group for several hours, the loot has been split according to the above.  With one group in particular, it was just assumed, and whoever had done the looting started splitting gold while we were still going through all the items that were picked up.  It was rare that there was any question about how things would proceed.

I personally do not see a problem, if there are 5 people in a party and only one of them meets the requirements (level, class and otherwise), that character should get the item if desired.  From a GM's perspective, if we see items in someone's inventory that they can't yet use, we start wondering about muling and other such issues.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

[Blackguy]

I agree wholehearted with you Dorg. While travelling with those people I trust we have always let common knowlegde rule. But I have also seen many many moronic things in my days to know why some people prefer, if not travelling with people you trust, to have these rules.

In no particuliar order:

Monks rolling on shields.

Fighters rolling on INT gear.

Elf character ( none martial feat person ) rolling on longswords.

Any class rolling on items you cant use, because your RL-whatever class friends lost his roll on a item.

Any person rolling for items that they intend to GIVE to others.

and the list goes on.

[Hellblazer]

already have one/several/etc, don't roll for it.

that's my main concern with this. Because someone is class specific he would get automatically (or roll with those of his class) for an item he already has, and gets again due to a freebee of his class, while those who spend time training Icly to use the items (Umd), would have to wait or not get it at all. This in my sense is completely throwing out the umd ic rp that the person has to train to be able to use items.

[jrizz]

Hellblazer class specific items were put in the game to help those classes in the grand balancing act. I dont want this thread to turn into a UMD or rogue class bashing so lets drop it here. If you wish to discuss this please start another thread for that.

Anyway as DMOE said it is not going to be changed we have all agreed to it.

[Dorganath]

UMD is a separate issue, and I think whether or not someone with UMD should roll for an item (regardless of whether or not they can use it) should also be a matter of RP.

Extreme example:
A party that includes a high-level rogue and a paladin comes across a Holy Avenger sword.  The paladin should get it, even if the rogue technically can use it.

Less extreme (and more realistic) example:
A party that includes a high-level rogue and a wizard (or sorcerer) comes across a suit of Greater Mage's Armor  The mage should get it, even if the rogue technically can use it. The rogue would get almost no benefit from it at all.

NOTE: The example above does not take multi-classed rogues into account. It's only to illustrate a point.

[DMOE]

that's my main concern with this. Because someone is class specific he would get automatically (or roll with those of his class) for an item he already has, and gets again due to a freebee of his class, while those who spend time training Icly to use the items (Umd), would have to wait or not get it at all. This in my sense is completely throwing out the umd ic rp that the person has to train to be able to use items.

Well yes, but we are asking people to only roll if they are going to USE IT....

Obviously this means trusting them to not already have six and use them all to avoid having to be without an effect before they can rest in the case of uses per day etc.

I would think with everything else.....If they already have one.....why would they want a second?

So other than items that give a benefit of some description X many times a day....I fail to see where the problem would be....

[Hellblazer]

There is still the concern of the RP that gets thrown out because the person is not class specific even if he can use it due to training. I'd sing up right away if that was taking into account for the first roll, if they were to use it.

[Dorganath]

Again, I point at my examples above.

UMD is fine, and yes there is RP value there, but it should, in my opinion, be balanced with asking whether or not your character should be rolling for it.  Accepting the RP of UMD also implies accepting the RP of class-specific items going to those for whom they are intended.

That's not to say a character with UMD can't roll for class-specific items.  Please re-read and understand the intent behind my examples above.

[Hellblazer]

My opinion wasn't against yours or misinterpreted yours. Just stating the point of why I would not sing up, due to the fact that those with the training to use the item and would use them, risks not being able to roll for them. Where of, if you had the class specific and the umd users, who would use the item roll at the same time, instead of privileging one group over the other that can use the same things, would be on a fair ground all around.


***edited

[Dorganath]

I don't think anyone's saying UMD characters are excluded, only that people whose class matches the class-specific requirements for items get the right of first refusal over characters with UMD.  If they don't want the item, then a character with UMD is free to roll for it. It's not really unfair, in my opinion.

[Dorganath]

By the way...I'm not trying to convince you to sign...just trying to state that UMD should not be used as an "I get to roll for everything" card, just because the character mechanically can use a given item.

[Hellblazer]

Not saying you are Dorg.

[jrizz]

You dont have to sign up. But you do have to know that runs organized by the people that do agree will be run this way. So if you attend a run set up or brought together by one of these folks you are in a way agreeing to the policy for that run. Your other choice is not to attend. It is best to ask up front to make sure you are not disappointed later.

[Masterjack]

*bump*

Some of the new people might like to see this

[Guardian 452]

This isnt..... he who dies with the most toys wins people!

UMD doesnt give the any class the right to an item over those its class was intended to go for. Like Dorg pointed out back a number of posts.

Need before Greed

Nuff said.

G-452

[Xaltotun]

Perhaps I am missing the point (and don't tell me I am please) but if you are in a team which recovers an item, then in my mind, you are entitled to a fair roll to get it. Levels/use/sell it/swap it/burn it - I don't care. You took the risk, you are entitled to a share.
 
 When I am leading a quest, I state equal shares and I mean just that. Items are presented to the group and asked who wants what. If there are several people after one item, they roll for it. Nice, simple, open and honest.
 
 Unless I am using my evil characters when I tell the others characters they will get what I give them, and if they go along with that, all the more for me....

[davidhoff]

Well, if you have a character who has been looking month's on end for a certain item (say an ioun stone) and one is looted and someone rolls for it who doesn't need it and wins and just sells it for coin...that doesn't sound fair to me.  I think if someone wants to use the item they should get preference over someone who will just liquidate it.  So far I have had no problems with party members I've been with respecting that.

[Ravemore]

If they are going to sell it for coin, gives you another chance to be the buyer, no? I agree it would be very disappointing to not win the roll though, but hey, rolling the bones is the fair way to do it, without all the who has what in their inventory, who's what level, and who's what class hubub... just my 2 cents. What amounts to a legal document regulating looting seems ludicrous to me.

[LordCove]

LC: Armour of GodLike Proportions. Its Fullplate.
+5 AC Bonus... +5 Universal Saves....
Oh yes! Im rolling for that!

Annoying player: Yeah, me too.

LC: Eh? Your a mage... you can't even wear armour!

Annoying player: So? I'll sell it to my friend for some coin

LC: What?!? Its a bloody one in a million chance of dropping, I'll likely never see it drop again! I just lost an SS... and spent 5 hours running around in the Deep for that! Im the only one in the group who CAN use it!


Just an example of the type of things that "used" to happen, hence why DMOE set up the above policy. Most of us at the time signed it, and I and others I play with still keep to it today, simply because it makes the most sense.

When your a wizard searching for those Robes of Epic Resistance that only mages can use... and the Fighter walks off with it from the loot sharing with a smirk simply because "I like having a collection of cool stuff I will never ever use" .... you begin to realise that ridiculous legal document for looting is actually a clever idea.

[Xaltotun]

You raise some nice emotive things here, LC. And let me also say that I don't go with stealing from a party unless it is done with a GM and rp'd. However...

I might actually want to rp my character like a thieving, conniving, money-grubbing b&*%#d and so (win it in a roll and) sell it to a member of the team for the highest value I can get. Or perhaps even swap it with another player for something of value to my character.

I might actually like collecting stuff.

I might also say that "Ooh, that is the item I have been looking for, for years!"

But at the end of a day, if a party has rules, then my character can abide with the rules or not, or even stay with the party or not; it's their choice. And at the end of the day, the party can decide on what horrors they visit on characters who do not abide by rules, or not.

I play for fun and the interactions of this world, which are amazing: and any "rules" about sharing treasure or not simply add to it and give my characters more material to interact with.

'Nuff said.