I feel like there's a post out their about a monk that found a handy magic item that's seemingly in theme with their character, which the party wants them to give up because in meta they know it's better for the paladin.
I feel like there's a post out their about a monk that found a handy magic item that's seemingly in theme with their character, which the party wants them to give up because in meta they know it's better for the paladin.
???
Like this post?
I guess I am extremely fortunate in that, no matter what kind of players have been a part of my group, no matter how selfish they are in other ways, we have always tacitly agreed to divvy up loot in such a way that it is most beneficial to the party as a whole. It doesn’t matter who found the loot or who identifies the loot. Like it’s not even up for debate. We all do what is best for the party because what is best for the party is also what is also best for the individual members.
In this scenario, the monk can carry a little more, he jump a little higher/further and his save chance improves by 5%. Compared to how the paladin would benefit from the increased strength: hit more often and do more damage plus the improved carrying, jumping and saving that the monk would enjoy? No question. The monk gives the book to the paladin.
To all the folks talking about how the monk found the book, it belongs to him and he gets to do what he wants with it: how would you feel if the monk found an item that caused the paladin to incur -1 to attack and damage in perpetuity? Would that be cool because the monk found it and having it makes him happy meanwhile the paladin, and by extension the other party members, suffer the consequences? That’s basically what’s you’re advocating here and it seems ridiculous to me. That would never happen at my table. NEVER.
I feel like maybe it's not my character, not my table, and thus not really my business. But nevertheless, here's a counter question: what does the monk get?
Monks are often last in line for magic weapons because they don't 'need' them due to a class feature giving them magical attacks. They cannot use any armor the party finds, and yet they're also last in line for protection items because "you're a monk, you have crazy high unarmored defense and awesome saves already!" despite neither of those being true at all before late game. They get no weapons, they get no armor or protectives, they obviously get no spellcasting items. There are many a campaign that end with a party decked out in high-level magic swag, with their monk gaining...nothing. Not one single magic item the entire time, because "it's better for the party to give those items to other people, you don't need them!"
If I were a predominantly monk player I'd feel some kind of way about that. I'd be looking at the paladin in his magic platemail with his flametongue sword and his sentinel shield and his cloak of protection he got because "monks already have good saves!" despite monk saves being no better than anyone else's before FOURTEENTH LEVEL, and I'd maybe not be super concerned about the paladin's overall magic swag level compared to mine.
I feel like maybe it's not my character, not my table, and thus not really my business. But nevertheless, here's a counter question: what does the monk get?
Monks are often last in line for magic weapons because they don't 'need' them due to a class feature giving them magical attacks. They cannot use any armor the party finds, and yet they're also last in line for protection items because "you're a monk, you have crazy high unarmored defense and awesome saves already!" despite neither of those being true at all before late game. They get no weapons, they get no armor or protectives, they obviously get no spellcasting items. There are many a campaign that end with a party decked out in high-level magic swag, with their monk gaining...nothing. Not one single magic item the entire time, because "it's better for the party to give those items to other people, you don't need them!"
If I were a predominantly monk player I'd feel some kind of way about that. I'd be looking at the paladin in his magic platemail with his flametongue sword and his sentinel shield and his cloak of protection he got because "monks already have good saves!" despite monk saves being no better than anyone else's before FOURTEENTH LEVEL, and I'd maybe not be super concerned about the paladin's overall magic swag level compared to mine.
As you point out yourself, what does the monk need? Not much. Is this monk in question going to be cool with it when the sorcerer takes the wisdom book, the cleric takes the dex book and the fighter takes the bracers of defense (that don’t actually do anything for him, they just look good. Plus, the fighter found them)? I suspect not.
To reiterate, at my table, it’s not about appeasing individual party members nor is it about having equal amounts of cool things, the point of loot in my group is that it is the most beneficial it can be to the whole party. If that means decking out the paladin while no one else gets a thing, then no one else gets a thing until the paladin is decked out. That’s more or less what’s going on between the warlock and the paladin in my party right now: the paladin bristles with magic items and has magic armour, shield and a golf bag of magic weapons (prolly ten magic items in total anyway) while the warlock has a rod of the pact keeper and an elven chain shirt. So not nothing for the warlock but certainly a great disparity. The warlock, however, is ok with this because he recognizes the paladin is what stands between him and the giants’ big meaty fists of death. The better the pally can do that, the better it is for the warlock. And when the paladin finds the upgrade to the warlock’s Rod, he’s gonna give it to the warlock, not keep it because he found it, it’s his and he wants it *indignant foot stomp* I simply do not see how it could go any other way without harming our overall effort to succeed at the least or causing serious group conflict at the worst. I agree with the OP: the monk player is toxic.
I cannot imagine playing at a table where only one party member matters and only one player is ever paid/acknowledged/rewarded for their work. What an awful notion. I really hope the DM for any such theoretical games makes it plain in Session Zero that only the group's paladin will have any impact or effect on the game and everyone else is the paladin's throwaway NPC squires.
I’ve said a fair bit already so please indulge me while I add a tiny bit more: this notion that the person who found the loot is who the loot belongs to is mind-boggling to me. It’s incredibly divisive. It encourages characters to wander off in the middle of action to go pocket the loot for themselves while everyone else is distracted. It fails to recognize the very reason that party member got anywhere near that loot is because the entire group as a team defeated whatever stood between said party member and said loot. It fosters suspicion and distrust between players. It mechanically weakens the party when ideal equipment is not in the ideal hands.
I guess it’s a different mindset than some others in that I believe D&D is fundamentally a team sport. I don’t really want to play at a table where the characters are built for speed so they can get to the loot the fastest, where characters can’t be relied upon to help overcome challenges, where fights take longer and characters die more often, where characters use sleight of hand and deception to hide loot from each other. That’s not a team working together to achieve a common goal, that’s a handful of people doing sort of the same thing in convenient proximity to one another.
It's not about players being deceptive and stealing from each other, or trying to race each other to the phattest lewtz. It's about whether or not everyone at the table feels like they're actually a part of an adventuring band, instead of it being all about Big E the Golden Boy paladin who's wandering around with magic armor, a magic shield, over a dozen magic weapons, and a bunch of other junk he doesn't even use while everyone else in the party gets NOTHING. They don't get paid, they don't get acknowledged, they don't get a share of the spoils, all because The Paladin (and notice how it's always a paladin, eh?) can Make Better Use Of Those Things. I don't know why anyone would ever play anything but a paladin at those games because despite all the "team sport" comments many folks throw out there, it's clear and obvious that the DMs for those games has a Favorite Child and everybody knows who it is. Even in games where loot is randomly rolled that gets obnoxious in a hurry. I won't say that nobody wants to be The Golden Champion's bumbling, inept squire who never does anything except screw up in ways that endear and embolden the party, but I will say that the number of people who want to be the Bumbling But Endearing Sidekick is vastly outnumbered by the people who...ohh....I dunno...
It's not about players being deceptive and stealing from each other, or trying to race each other to the phattest lewtz. It's about whether or not everyone at the table feels like they're actually a part of an adventuring band, instead of it being all about Big E the Golden Boy paladin who's wandering around with magic armor, a magic shield, over a dozen magic weapons, and a bunch of other junk he doesn't even use while everyone else in the party gets NOTHING. They don't get paid, they don't get acknowledged, they don't get a share of the spoils, all because The Paladin (and notice how it's always a paladin, eh?) can Make Better Use Of Those Things. I don't know why anyone would ever play anything but a paladin at those games because despite all the "team sport" comments many folks throw out there, it's clear and obvious that the DMs for those games has a Favorite Child and everybody knows who it is. Even in games where loot is randomly rolled that gets obnoxious in a hurry. I won't say that nobody wants to be The Golden Champion's bumbling, inept squire who never does anything except screw up in ways that endear and embolden the party, but I will say that the number of people who want to be the Bumbling But Endearing Sidekick is vastly outnumbered by the people who...ohh....I dunno...
Wanna play D&D?
It’s very difficult to have a respectful and meaningful conversation with you due to your level of hyperbole. A dozen items for the “golden boy”? I specified “prolly ten”. “NOTHING” for the rest of the party? I specified the warlock has two. If arguments have merit, it is deleterious to exaggerate. It discourages constructive response since you are not arguing actual statements.
FWIW, there are no shortage of people who enjoy playing at my table and stay for years and years, decades even. Some have enjoyed it so much that their adult children are now a part of my game. I do appreciate the the insinuation to the contrary though.
Before I weigh in on this, its worth mentioning theres a lot context we are missing for this. What is the norm of the table? Do people get awarded items randomly and trade with each other if they like what someone else got? Or is loot given in a pile where the party hands it out by discussing it? Or is it just laying around and you have a chance of picking it up? These things are important. Was the item awarded to him for something he did? If so, as much as it would benefit the party, the player is under no obligation to hand it off to someone else for free, provided they earned it somehow.
I think an important part of any campaign is making sure everyone understands how loot is going to be distributed. I as a DM have worked hard to foster a culture of piling up loot until the end of a dungeon or quest, and splitting it at the end. I have also expressed that staking claim to an item simply for the purpose of immediately selling it is a nono, and items that will be immediately sold will be split amongst the whole party (with maybe a bigger cut to the player that would have gotten it, should they receive nothing otherwise).
----------------------------------
Let me try and break up this head to head with a story of my own: My character once got another one of those books, the one that increases DEX. He is a rogue, and obviously DEX is important to him. He was the only one in the party that used DEX as his primary attack stat, and obviously I wanted to keep it. Now, its important to note how he acquired it, and that was by drawing a card from a whacky deck of many things that some nosey demigod who is scrying on our party 24/7 and reading our thoughts constantly (yes, i know, but don't focus on that detail, just work with me), and every once in a while whisks us off to his demiplane/divine domain to let us chat and draw cards. This deck has provided many a boon and many a bane to our party throughout the campaign, most of which were instantaneous effects that we had no say in, but several times it gave us items. This was obviously one of the best items/effects it had ever spit out, and my character was the one to pull the card.
Being the party-focused player that I am, I did not immediately use it, and presented it to the group to get their thoughts on it. It could have been valuable to any one of us for the AC boost alone (bar the Paladin who already had +2 for their medium armor), our Barbarian especially. Ultimately, it was decided that I could decide who gets it, not only because it benefitted me the most, but because I was the one who took the risk to get it. And i did use it for myself, as was my right, but at least I ran it by the party first and had an open discussion about what to do with something that was still my personal reward.
------------------------------
All this is to say that context matters. If the Monk just found the item while the party was out adventuring, and decided to keep it for themselves instead of adding it to the pile, then i would probably talk to that player in private and say thats not a very cool thing to do, I run D&D as a team game and thats not the vibe. But if the Monk was rewarded that item for their choices, then the item is theirs, and while i as a player would disclose it to the party and gather thoughts, it is ultimately their right to keep it, party optimization be damned.
Loot and magic items are a reward, and all players should feel that sense of reward and progression for their characters. If a player has to go without sometimes, thats fine, we'll give them more favor next time. No one player or sub-group of players should be getting more items simply because it is optimal, and if there is a skew in the number of loot items that a player has, the party should be looking to reward that player in other ways; be it gold if your DM knows how to handle wealth properly (I have extensive homebrew systems to ensure that wealth can be used either for the purchase of magic items, or for other benefits like favors), or be it story benefits such as reputation and the like.
Party dynamics are a give and take, both with things like curtesy to disclose when items are found or awarded, ensuring everyone has as even a cut of the spoils as reasonably possible, AND consideration for who can use it best. Players should never not be getting rewarded for their efforts, nor should they get everything just because it works best for them. Sometimes, you need to let someone else have something so they feel involved and rewarded, especially if they have missed out and even if someone else could use it better.
-----------------------------
In response to whoever said that the Monk getting the book is like giving them an item that gives the Pally a -1 to STR stuff.... That is an extremely selfish and pessimistic way to play the game. If somebody getting something nice, even if you could use it better, can only be interpreted as something being actively taken away from you, then you are far too entitled to be playing D&D. Go play a game that teaches you team play AND fairness.
It's not about players being deceptive and stealing from each other, or trying to race each other to the phattest lewtz. It's about whether or not everyone at the table feels like they're actually a part of an adventuring band, instead of it being all about Big E the Golden Boy paladin who's wandering around with magic armor, a magic shield, over a dozen magic weapons, and a bunch of other junk he doesn't even use while everyone else in the party gets NOTHING. They don't get paid, they don't get acknowledged, they don't get a share of the spoils, all because The Paladin (and notice how it's always a paladin, eh?) can Make Better Use Of Those Things. I don't know why anyone would ever play anything but a paladin at those games because despite all the "team sport" comments many folks throw out there, it's clear and obvious that the DMs for those games has a Favorite Child and everybody knows who it is. Even in games where loot is randomly rolled that gets obnoxious in a hurry. I won't say that nobody wants to be The Golden Champion's bumbling, inept squire who never does anything except screw up in ways that endear and embolden the party, but I will say that the number of people who want to be the Bumbling But Endearing Sidekick is vastly outnumbered by the people who...ohh....I dunno...
Wanna play D&D?
It’s very difficult to have a respectful and meaningful conversation with you due to your level of hyperbole. A dozen items for the “golden boy”? I specified “prolly ten”. “NOTHING” for the rest of the party? I specified the warlock has two. If arguments have merit, it is deleterious to exaggerate. It discourages constructive response since you are not arguing actual statements.
FWIW, there are no shortage of people who enjoy playing at my table and stay for years and years, decades even. Some have enjoyed it so much that their adult children are now a part of my game. I do appreciate the the insinuation to the contrary though.
"A dozen" vs "Prolly 10" is not hyperbole. Equating 10 with 2 (and not mentioning any for anyone else), on the other hand? 20% difference vs a 400% difference. And the book would be the 11th for the Paladin, so that would bring it to a 10% difference with 'a dozen.'
You speak of your table, though. Is this your table that we are discussing? In which case, can you speak of how, exactly, the monk acquired the book?
If it is not your table, how do you know the party cleared anything at all between the monk and said book?
I did not equate 10 and 2; I acknowledged and went on to address that disparity in the remainder of the post you are referring to. Furthermore, I’m clearly not the OP. My warlock and paladin are clearly not OP’s monk and paladin. I mean, they’re not even the same classes…
As far as what I know about how the monk acquired the book and how the party feels about it, I can only go off of what OP has indicated.
All right. After a trip and a nap, lessee here. . .. ...
All right. So the primary argument I'm seeing for one of the mose egregious loot misdistributions I've ever heard of is 'the paladin is the one that fights monsters up close so the warlock doesn't have to'. Okay. So the paladin is doing what the player wanted to do when he built and played that class, presuming he did so voluntarily, and is engaging in melee combat with the enemy. For doing what he wished to do anyways, he is rewarded with magic armor, magic shield, TEN magic weapons, and whatever other magic gewgaws are 'best for the paladin'. The warlock's player is doing what he wanted to do when he built and played that class and doing Warlock Things, and for doing what he wished to do anyways, he is rewarded with...throwaway armor he only got because the paladin didn't want it, and the game's one and only single specific warlock-only item.
Nah. Raw deal. The paladin is "standing between the party and the giant's meaty fists" because he played a paladin. Nobody told him to do it, he volunteered. He's no more entitled to Golden Boy status than anybody else, and if I were sitting at that table I would be pissed all the way off that the DM continually shows constant and obvious favoritism to one player over all others. The only possible way that's even halfway not terrible is if the table uses strictly randomized loot distribution, and frankly after randomized loot yields the paladin his thirteenth or fifteenth or twentieth or thirtieth magic item while the next character down has one or two things the paladin deigned to not care enough about to allow someone else to have, I as a DM would start doing something about my randomized loot.
The monk player in the original post clearly got his book through some means other than the party finding it as dungeon loot, or the post wouldn't have pushed so hard the idea that the monk should give up "his own personal gear" to help his party's resident Golden Boy instead. And frankly, the OP has gone silent ever since I started disagreeing with his idea that the monk's player is a toxic ******* who doesn't deserve to play D&D because he'd rather not play a game where the paladin gets every last single magic item the party finds while his monk, his monk's warlock buddy, the wizard who's been saving them all with well-cast spells, and everybody else at that table gets nothing.
"Team sport" doesn't mean the party exists solely to simp for the table's current paladin, and frankly I don't like the idea that characters aren't allowed to form attachments to things. Here's an anecdote from my own early days: our party had found a small cache of magic items, including eyes of the eagle. As the party's rogue/ranger, their scout (literally, Scout subclass) and guide on the roads, my character requested the item and was awarded custody of it. Red formed an immediate attachment to that item; not only did it allow him to see better and give him powerful bonuses, but it was a stylish as heck half-mask that made him feel like the guileful storybook Hero Rogues his entire character arc was about learning how to become. Red himself was a pretty unattractive character as well, and liked that the mask hid his rather gawkish features and gave him a debonair edge. In his eyes (and in mine), he'd just found his signature item. Another player was pissed, but didn't let anyone know.
Later on, when the team found some magical light armor that I was in the best position to use, this player (running a Shadow sorcerer with a Criminal/thieves' guild background/story) exploded, saying that I was hogging/stealing all the best 'Thief' items while all he got was 'Magic Man' items. This despite him having a ring of evasion noticably more valuable than my mask as well as a wand of magic missiles, while the rest of us had pretty evenly distributed utility gear. The team happening across glamoured studded leather because the module said there was glamoured studded leather was the last straw, and this shadow sorcerer was insisting he be given A Fair Share of the 'thief'-flavored items as well as all of the 'Magic Man' items he was already getting as the party's only full arcane caster. I was caught between placating an angry ******* and keeping this item that fit so perfectly in my head, an item that spoke to the identity of my character and which the character had already admitted in universe that he was very attached to and was grateful they'd found and allowed him to take.
The DM pulled the ******* aside and gave him what for and the game didn't last too much longer beyond that point regardless, but the incident stuck in my mind. Now, according to the prevailing logic in this thread I should simply handed over the mask without complaint or even remark, because the sorcerer had a lower Perception mod and could "Benefit More" from a source of advantage to offset that. Never mind how perfect the mask was for my awkward circus boy trying to live up to the Dashing Hero Rogue stories of his childhood, or even the fact that I was our scout and road sentinel and the one most frequently making spot checks to see if we could avoid being attacked on the way. The spreadsheet that is 'This Party' insisted that the item go to the sorcerer despite the fact that the sorcerer was doing just fine in the magic swag department.
**** spreadsheets. There's more to magic loot than raw utility, or at least there should be. Sometimes an item speaks to someone's spirit, or sometimes the tale of an item speaks to a character's journey, and in those instances among many others the utility spreadsheet can go to hell. The paladin has enough god damned swag. It is someone else's turn to take something, even if The Great Golden Champion Can Use It Better.
So I thought this was a DM writing about a player who was intentionally or unintentionally griefiing the party. Instead it turns out this is a player with a grievance against another player and as malignantly as the OP has painted that player, the DM and perhaps the rest of the party doesn't seem to have as great a difficulty at accepting the "problem" player's course of action. The player may think a different custody/owner for the book is "for the best" but that belief isn't being agreed upon or is being effectively advocated at the table.
While the Manual of Gainful Exercise may benefit a STR built character mechanically, that does not make the book inherently worthless to the Monk since worth can have other values besides mechanics. Maybe it could hold great value in trade at a Candlekeep equivalent or a gymnasium where important information could be had etc. Sometimes certain items are put into a game with some DM targetting that item belongs in a certain characters hands. Sometimes it's railroady, sometimes the DM works things behind the scenes, and sometimes the DM has a puzzle to solve for the PC, but maybe another PC takes the bait and winds up with the shiny. Other times, the DM rolls off a random table and it shows up there. Would it benefit a particular party member? Sure. Does that entitle the item to that party member? Absolutely not, and I think the OP's logic in the end doesn't accept that.
As said, D&D is a social game, and asserting one's logic as the best in a situation isn't always the most persuasive. Rather than bracketing the rest of the OP's table as folks possessed with "unique social issues" (the OP raises red flags about the described conduct but there are red flags in the presentation and clarification toward the OP). it's probably best to not learn how to make friends to influence people via message board tutorial, and instead actually get to know your table through playing with them. It doesn't sound like the DM is interested in changing the game dynamic to cater to your frustration in this, or other instances. So, if you want to take some sort of leadership at the table, or experience teamwork more to your liking, you need to earn that, and that's best earned by learning from the folks themselves and creating productive dynamics, and not treating them as obstacles to surmount.
I feel like there's a post out their about a monk that found a handy magic item that's seemingly in theme with their character, which the party wants them to give up because in meta they know it's better for the paladin.
???
Like this post?
I guess I am extremely fortunate in that, no matter what kind of players have been a part of my group, no matter how selfish they are in other ways, we have always tacitly agreed to divvy up loot in such a way that it is most beneficial to the party as a whole. It doesn’t matter who found the loot or who identifies the loot. Like it’s not even up for debate. We all do what is best for the party because what is best for the party is also what is also best for the individual members.
In this scenario, the monk can carry a little more, he jump a little higher/further and his save chance improves by 5%. Compared to how the paladin would benefit from the increased strength: hit more often and do more damage plus the improved carrying, jumping and saving that the monk would enjoy? No question. The monk gives the book to the paladin.
To all the folks talking about how the monk found the book, it belongs to him and he gets to do what he wants with it: how would you feel if the monk found an item that caused the paladin to incur -1 to attack and damage in perpetuity? Would that be cool because the monk found it and having it makes him happy meanwhile the paladin, and by extension the other party members, suffer the consequences? That’s basically what’s you’re advocating here and it seems ridiculous to me. That would never happen at my table. NEVER.
Are you really complaining about hyperbole after posting this.
my onlt thought about this, in general is...yeah it can be nice to talk about who might want to share an item with the rest of the party, but also taking aside that the paladin could hit harder, or that the monk character uses dex so "shouldnt need" that strength item
what if the monk has an 8 in strength and the dm throws strength draining creatures like the phylaskia? as that monk player 1, it would make more sense to have a monk want to learn how to work out better and get bigger muscles cuz would benefit his health in the long run, and 2 as a player, i would apprecaite the higher chance of survival
as an optimizer I get why folk want it to go to a paladin, but as a player/forever dm, just because something may be better on one character, doesnt mean it doesnt benefit the other player as well, both irp and statwise, which could end up helping everyone later on
also side note : if one player has like 12 magic items and the others basically have nothing, that just kinda seems like a slap in the face to other players, unless theyve willingly given stuff up
If the paladin truly wants the book, they should offer something of equal or greater value to the monk. Party loot should be distributed amongst the party at a more-or-less equal rate, giving the lion's share to a single character because "they can use it better" is a terrible way to play. It reeks of Main Character Syndrome.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
“if I were sitting at that table I would be pissed all the way off that the DM continually shows constant and obvious favoritism to one player over all others.”
I rarely agree with Yurei but in this case I do. Leave the damn monk player alone. I very recently left a game that was great fun over something like this, though in my case I think the DM was just giving in for peace and quiet as the player just constantly wined and moaned about not being able to xyz.
So if you (OP) are the game GM and you don’t want the monk player in your game then put on your big boy pants and boot him. If on the other hand (OP), you are just a fellow player in the game then stop crying, and stop bullying the monk player. I’m starting to think you are the paladin player and sulking because you didn’t get the book. Either way it’s pathetic.
In this scenario, the monk can carry a little more, he jump a little higher/further and his save chance improves by 5%. Compared to how the paladin would benefit from the increased strength: hit more often and do more damage plus the improved carrying, jumping and saving that the monk would enjoy? No question. The monk gives the book to the paladin.To all the folks talking about how the monk found the book, it belongs to him and he gets to do what he wants with it: how would you feel if the monk found an item that caused the paladin to incur -1 to attack and damage in perpetuity? Would that be cool because the monk found it and having it makes him happy meanwhile the paladin, and by extension the other party members, suffer the consequences? That’s basically what’s you’re advocating here and it seems ridiculous to me. That would never happen at my table. NEVER.
yeah....im sorry man but your the one being ridiculous here, no one is saying that you should be giving a -1 item to the paladin just because the monk found a +2 item to his strength, one person getting a buff, does not equate to another getting a debuff. one getting a buff here, no matter who it is, benefits the party as a whole, and actually promotes a fun team game just cuz its not optimized doesnt mean its wrong, or that its hurting the entire party
In this scenario, the monk can carry a little more, he jump a little higher/further and his save chance improves by 5%. Compared to how the paladin would benefit from the increased strength: hit more often and do more damage plus the improved carrying, jumping and saving that the monk would enjoy? No question. The monk gives the book to the paladin.To all the folks talking about how the monk found the book, it belongs to him and he gets to do what he wants with it: how would you feel if the monk found an item that caused the paladin to incur -1 to attack and damage in perpetuity? Would that be cool because the monk found it and having it makes him happy meanwhile the paladin, and by extension the other party members, suffer the consequences? That’s basically what’s you’re advocating here and it seems ridiculous to me. That would never happen at my table. NEVER.
yeah....im sorry man but your the one being ridiculous here, no one is saying that you should be giving a -1 item to the paladin just because the monk found a +2 item to his strength, one person getting a buff, does not equate to another getting a debuff. one getting a buff here, no matter who it is, benefits the party as a whole, and actually promotes a fun team game just cuz its not optimized doesnt mean its wrong, or that its hurting the entire party
Agreed, I wish there would be less hyperbole, since it really makes arguments a lot weaker, but I do agree with your guys' points.
One magic item not being used to the fullest extent is not a big deal. If a player finds an item, if they want to keep it, they can keep it.
It's not fair to the player or anyone at the table to get angry just because they didn't get the magic item you want. One magic item kept by one player wont kill the group, it may be slightly annoying for other players who want to keep it for themselves, but +2 strength, even for a dex-based build, is always useful.
Plenty of groups play finders keepers in magic items, and that in itself is not a big deal. I don't see why this player is so problematic, PC's can "act solo" and it really feels like we don't have the full story here.
If I find a cloak of protection that helps me, but my friend wants it for their character instead, am I at fault for not dropping everything and giving it to them? No. You can have your magic items and other party members can have theirs, a tiny bit of the potency of the item may be lost, but ultimately, it's not a major deal that should be able to help end a 3 year campaign.
To OP: The player can do what they want with their magic items. If you want to kick them out of the group, then if you're DM, you can do that. But I honestly think it is a major overreaction to a minor situation that doesn't really matter much at all.
How loot should be distributed is a Session 0 discussion. There is no right or wrong way, it's fine whether the party shares out loot equally, in an optimised manner or uses the finders keepers rule. It just needs to be agreed in advance. Just like using homebrew rules or what kind of campaign is going to be run. There are no right or wrong answers, but you do need them agreed upon to prevent player v player conflict.
It sounds as though this didn't happen and a lot of people are proclaiming their view as the one and true way to play the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
How loot should be distributed is a Session 0 discussion. There is no right or wrong way, it's fine whether the party shares out loot equally, in an optimised manner or uses the finders keepers rule. It just needs to be agreed in advance. Just like using homebrew rules or what kind of campaign is going to be run. There are no right or wrong answers, but you do need them agreed upon to prevent player v player conflict.
It sounds as though this didn't happen and a lot of people are proclaiming their view as the one and true way to play the game.
Maybe, I dunno. Some players do play the party like a sort of charter company that would have profit sharing rules. Other lean into the possibility that you have a set of characters with differing values, and somewhere between The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and The Battle of Five Armies ... there's a lot of room for in game tension over loot that can be fun for role playing that a session 0 social contract clause abandons. Personally I think fixed rules on treasure leads to the game becoming more 'grinding' and I usually try to play treasure (aside from a few mundane magic items) as having a bit more meaning than character sheet optimization. You're right though that D&D is a bunch of different games right down to what the rewards are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I feel like there's a post out their about a monk that found a handy magic item that's seemingly in theme with their character, which the party wants them to give up because in meta they know it's better for the paladin.
???
Like this post?
I guess I am extremely fortunate in that, no matter what kind of players have been a part of my group, no matter how selfish they are in other ways, we have always tacitly agreed to divvy up loot in such a way that it is most beneficial to the party as a whole. It doesn’t matter who found the loot or who identifies the loot. Like it’s not even up for debate. We all do what is best for the party because what is best for the party is also what is also best for the individual members.
In this scenario, the monk can carry a little more, he jump a little higher/further and his save chance improves by 5%. Compared to how the paladin would benefit from the increased strength: hit more often and do more damage plus the improved carrying, jumping and saving that the monk would enjoy? No question. The monk gives the book to the paladin.
To all the folks talking about how the monk found the book, it belongs to him and he gets to do what he wants with it: how would you feel if the monk found an item that caused the paladin to incur -1 to attack and damage in perpetuity? Would that be cool because the monk found it and having it makes him happy meanwhile the paladin, and by extension the other party members, suffer the consequences? That’s basically what’s you’re advocating here and it seems ridiculous to me. That would never happen at my table. NEVER.
I feel like maybe it's not my character, not my table, and thus not really my business. But nevertheless, here's a counter question: what does the monk get?
Monks are often last in line for magic weapons because they don't 'need' them due to a class feature giving them magical attacks. They cannot use any armor the party finds, and yet they're also last in line for protection items because "you're a monk, you have crazy high unarmored defense and awesome saves already!" despite neither of those being true at all before late game. They get no weapons, they get no armor or protectives, they obviously get no spellcasting items. There are many a campaign that end with a party decked out in high-level magic swag, with their monk gaining...nothing. Not one single magic item the entire time, because "it's better for the party to give those items to other people, you don't need them!"
If I were a predominantly monk player I'd feel some kind of way about that. I'd be looking at the paladin in his magic platemail with his flametongue sword and his sentinel shield and his cloak of protection he got because "monks already have good saves!" despite monk saves being no better than anyone else's before FOURTEENTH LEVEL, and I'd maybe not be super concerned about the paladin's overall magic swag level compared to mine.
Please do not contact or message me.
As you point out yourself, what does the monk need? Not much. Is this monk in question going to be cool with it when the sorcerer takes the wisdom book, the cleric takes the dex book and the fighter takes the bracers of defense (that don’t actually do anything for him, they just look good. Plus, the fighter found them)? I suspect not.
To reiterate, at my table, it’s not about appeasing individual party members nor is it about having equal amounts of cool things, the point of loot in my group is that it is the most beneficial it can be to the whole party. If that means decking out the paladin while no one else gets a thing, then no one else gets a thing until the paladin is decked out. That’s more or less what’s going on between the warlock and the paladin in my party right now: the paladin bristles with magic items and has magic armour, shield and a golf bag of magic weapons (prolly ten magic items in total anyway) while the warlock has a rod of the pact keeper and an elven chain shirt. So not nothing for the warlock but certainly a great disparity. The warlock, however, is ok with this because he recognizes the paladin is what stands between him and the giants’ big meaty fists of death. The better the pally can do that, the better it is for the warlock. And when the paladin finds the upgrade to the warlock’s Rod, he’s gonna give it to the warlock, not keep it because he found it, it’s his and he wants it *indignant foot stomp* I simply do not see how it could go any other way without harming our overall effort to succeed at the least or causing serious group conflict at the worst. I agree with the OP: the monk player is toxic.
Man.
I cannot imagine playing at a table where only one party member matters and only one player is ever paid/acknowledged/rewarded for their work. What an awful notion. I really hope the DM for any such theoretical games makes it plain in Session Zero that only the group's paladin will have any impact or effect on the game and everyone else is the paladin's throwaway NPC squires.
Please do not contact or message me.
I’ve said a fair bit already so please indulge me while I add a tiny bit more: this notion that the person who found the loot is who the loot belongs to is mind-boggling to me. It’s incredibly divisive. It encourages characters to wander off in the middle of action to go pocket the loot for themselves while everyone else is distracted. It fails to recognize the very reason that party member got anywhere near that loot is because the entire group as a team defeated whatever stood between said party member and said loot. It fosters suspicion and distrust between players. It mechanically weakens the party when ideal equipment is not in the ideal hands.
I guess it’s a different mindset than some others in that I believe D&D is fundamentally a team sport. I don’t really want to play at a table where the characters are built for speed so they can get to the loot the fastest, where characters can’t be relied upon to help overcome challenges, where fights take longer and characters die more often, where characters use sleight of hand and deception to hide loot from each other. That’s not a team working together to achieve a common goal, that’s a handful of people doing sort of the same thing in convenient proximity to one another.
It's not about players being deceptive and stealing from each other, or trying to race each other to the phattest lewtz. It's about whether or not everyone at the table feels like they're actually a part of an adventuring band, instead of it being all about Big E the Golden Boy paladin who's wandering around with magic armor, a magic shield, over a dozen magic weapons, and a bunch of other junk he doesn't even use while everyone else in the party gets NOTHING. They don't get paid, they don't get acknowledged, they don't get a share of the spoils, all because The Paladin (and notice how it's always a paladin, eh?) can Make Better Use Of Those Things. I don't know why anyone would ever play anything but a paladin at those games because despite all the "team sport" comments many folks throw out there, it's clear and obvious that the DMs for those games has a Favorite Child and everybody knows who it is. Even in games where loot is randomly rolled that gets obnoxious in a hurry. I won't say that nobody wants to be The Golden Champion's bumbling, inept squire who never does anything except screw up in ways that endear and embolden the party, but I will say that the number of people who want to be the Bumbling But Endearing Sidekick is vastly outnumbered by the people who...ohh....I dunno...
Wanna play D&D?
Please do not contact or message me.
It’s very difficult to have a respectful and meaningful conversation with you due to your level of hyperbole. A dozen items for the “golden boy”? I specified “prolly ten”. “NOTHING” for the rest of the party? I specified the warlock has two. If arguments have merit, it is deleterious to exaggerate. It discourages constructive response since you are not arguing actual statements.
FWIW, there are no shortage of people who enjoy playing at my table and stay for years and years, decades even. Some have enjoyed it so much that their adult children are now a part of my game. I do appreciate the the insinuation to the contrary though.
Before I weigh in on this, its worth mentioning theres a lot context we are missing for this. What is the norm of the table? Do people get awarded items randomly and trade with each other if they like what someone else got? Or is loot given in a pile where the party hands it out by discussing it? Or is it just laying around and you have a chance of picking it up? These things are important. Was the item awarded to him for something he did? If so, as much as it would benefit the party, the player is under no obligation to hand it off to someone else for free, provided they earned it somehow.
I think an important part of any campaign is making sure everyone understands how loot is going to be distributed. I as a DM have worked hard to foster a culture of piling up loot until the end of a dungeon or quest, and splitting it at the end. I have also expressed that staking claim to an item simply for the purpose of immediately selling it is a nono, and items that will be immediately sold will be split amongst the whole party (with maybe a bigger cut to the player that would have gotten it, should they receive nothing otherwise).
----------------------------------
Let me try and break up this head to head with a story of my own: My character once got another one of those books, the one that increases DEX. He is a rogue, and obviously DEX is important to him. He was the only one in the party that used DEX as his primary attack stat, and obviously I wanted to keep it. Now, its important to note how he acquired it, and that was by drawing a card from a whacky deck of many things that some nosey demigod who is scrying on our party 24/7 and reading our thoughts constantly (yes, i know, but don't focus on that detail, just work with me), and every once in a while whisks us off to his demiplane/divine domain to let us chat and draw cards. This deck has provided many a boon and many a bane to our party throughout the campaign, most of which were instantaneous effects that we had no say in, but several times it gave us items. This was obviously one of the best items/effects it had ever spit out, and my character was the one to pull the card.
Being the party-focused player that I am, I did not immediately use it, and presented it to the group to get their thoughts on it. It could have been valuable to any one of us for the AC boost alone (bar the Paladin who already had +2 for their medium armor), our Barbarian especially. Ultimately, it was decided that I could decide who gets it, not only because it benefitted me the most, but because I was the one who took the risk to get it. And i did use it for myself, as was my right, but at least I ran it by the party first and had an open discussion about what to do with something that was still my personal reward.
------------------------------
All this is to say that context matters. If the Monk just found the item while the party was out adventuring, and decided to keep it for themselves instead of adding it to the pile, then i would probably talk to that player in private and say thats not a very cool thing to do, I run D&D as a team game and thats not the vibe. But if the Monk was rewarded that item for their choices, then the item is theirs, and while i as a player would disclose it to the party and gather thoughts, it is ultimately their right to keep it, party optimization be damned.
Loot and magic items are a reward, and all players should feel that sense of reward and progression for their characters. If a player has to go without sometimes, thats fine, we'll give them more favor next time. No one player or sub-group of players should be getting more items simply because it is optimal, and if there is a skew in the number of loot items that a player has, the party should be looking to reward that player in other ways; be it gold if your DM knows how to handle wealth properly (I have extensive homebrew systems to ensure that wealth can be used either for the purchase of magic items, or for other benefits like favors), or be it story benefits such as reputation and the like.
Party dynamics are a give and take, both with things like curtesy to disclose when items are found or awarded, ensuring everyone has as even a cut of the spoils as reasonably possible, AND consideration for who can use it best. Players should never not be getting rewarded for their efforts, nor should they get everything just because it works best for them. Sometimes, you need to let someone else have something so they feel involved and rewarded, especially if they have missed out and even if someone else could use it better.
-----------------------------
In response to whoever said that the Monk getting the book is like giving them an item that gives the Pally a -1 to STR stuff.... That is an extremely selfish and pessimistic way to play the game. If somebody getting something nice, even if you could use it better, can only be interpreted as something being actively taken away from you, then you are far too entitled to be playing D&D. Go play a game that teaches you team play AND fairness.
I did not equate 10 and 2; I acknowledged and went on to address that disparity in the remainder of the post you are referring to. Furthermore, I’m clearly not the OP. My warlock and paladin are clearly not OP’s monk and paladin. I mean, they’re not even the same classes…
As far as what I know about how the monk acquired the book and how the party feels about it, I can only go off of what OP has indicated.
All right. After a trip and a nap, lessee here.
.
..
...
All right. So the primary argument I'm seeing for one of the mose egregious loot misdistributions I've ever heard of is 'the paladin is the one that fights monsters up close so the warlock doesn't have to'. Okay. So the paladin is doing what the player wanted to do when he built and played that class, presuming he did so voluntarily, and is engaging in melee combat with the enemy. For doing what he wished to do anyways, he is rewarded with magic armor, magic shield, TEN magic weapons, and whatever other magic gewgaws are 'best for the paladin'. The warlock's player is doing what he wanted to do when he built and played that class and doing Warlock Things, and for doing what he wished to do anyways, he is rewarded with...throwaway armor he only got because the paladin didn't want it, and the game's one and only single specific warlock-only item.
Nah. Raw deal. The paladin is "standing between the party and the giant's meaty fists" because he played a paladin. Nobody told him to do it, he volunteered. He's no more entitled to Golden Boy status than anybody else, and if I were sitting at that table I would be pissed all the way off that the DM continually shows constant and obvious favoritism to one player over all others. The only possible way that's even halfway not terrible is if the table uses strictly randomized loot distribution, and frankly after randomized loot yields the paladin his thirteenth or fifteenth or twentieth or thirtieth magic item while the next character down has one or two things the paladin deigned to not care enough about to allow someone else to have, I as a DM would start doing something about my randomized loot.
The monk player in the original post clearly got his book through some means other than the party finding it as dungeon loot, or the post wouldn't have pushed so hard the idea that the monk should give up "his own personal gear" to help his party's resident Golden Boy instead. And frankly, the OP has gone silent ever since I started disagreeing with his idea that the monk's player is a toxic ******* who doesn't deserve to play D&D because he'd rather not play a game where the paladin gets every last single magic item the party finds while his monk, his monk's warlock buddy, the wizard who's been saving them all with well-cast spells, and everybody else at that table gets nothing.
"Team sport" doesn't mean the party exists solely to simp for the table's current paladin, and frankly I don't like the idea that characters aren't allowed to form attachments to things. Here's an anecdote from my own early days: our party had found a small cache of magic items, including eyes of the eagle. As the party's rogue/ranger, their scout (literally, Scout subclass) and guide on the roads, my character requested the item and was awarded custody of it. Red formed an immediate attachment to that item; not only did it allow him to see better and give him powerful bonuses, but it was a stylish as heck half-mask that made him feel like the guileful storybook Hero Rogues his entire character arc was about learning how to become. Red himself was a pretty unattractive character as well, and liked that the mask hid his rather gawkish features and gave him a debonair edge. In his eyes (and in mine), he'd just found his signature item. Another player was pissed, but didn't let anyone know.
Later on, when the team found some magical light armor that I was in the best position to use, this player (running a Shadow sorcerer with a Criminal/thieves' guild background/story) exploded, saying that I was hogging/stealing all the best 'Thief' items while all he got was 'Magic Man' items. This despite him having a ring of evasion noticably more valuable than my mask as well as a wand of magic missiles, while the rest of us had pretty evenly distributed utility gear. The team happening across glamoured studded leather because the module said there was glamoured studded leather was the last straw, and this shadow sorcerer was insisting he be given A Fair Share of the 'thief'-flavored items as well as all of the 'Magic Man' items he was already getting as the party's only full arcane caster. I was caught between placating an angry ******* and keeping this item that fit so perfectly in my head, an item that spoke to the identity of my character and which the character had already admitted in universe that he was very attached to and was grateful they'd found and allowed him to take.
The DM pulled the ******* aside and gave him what for and the game didn't last too much longer beyond that point regardless, but the incident stuck in my mind. Now, according to the prevailing logic in this thread I should simply handed over the mask without complaint or even remark, because the sorcerer had a lower Perception mod and could "Benefit More" from a source of advantage to offset that. Never mind how perfect the mask was for my awkward circus boy trying to live up to the Dashing Hero Rogue stories of his childhood, or even the fact that I was our scout and road sentinel and the one most frequently making spot checks to see if we could avoid being attacked on the way. The spreadsheet that is 'This Party' insisted that the item go to the sorcerer despite the fact that the sorcerer was doing just fine in the magic swag department.
**** spreadsheets. There's more to magic loot than raw utility, or at least there should be. Sometimes an item speaks to someone's spirit, or sometimes the tale of an item speaks to a character's journey, and in those instances among many others the utility spreadsheet can go to hell. The paladin has enough god damned swag. It is someone else's turn to take something, even if The Great Golden Champion Can Use It Better.
Please do not contact or message me.
So I thought this was a DM writing about a player who was intentionally or unintentionally griefiing the party. Instead it turns out this is a player with a grievance against another player and as malignantly as the OP has painted that player, the DM and perhaps the rest of the party doesn't seem to have as great a difficulty at accepting the "problem" player's course of action. The player may think a different custody/owner for the book is "for the best" but that belief isn't being agreed upon or is being effectively advocated at the table.
While the Manual of Gainful Exercise may benefit a STR built character mechanically, that does not make the book inherently worthless to the Monk since worth can have other values besides mechanics. Maybe it could hold great value in trade at a Candlekeep equivalent or a gymnasium where important information could be had etc. Sometimes certain items are put into a game with some DM targetting that item belongs in a certain characters hands. Sometimes it's railroady, sometimes the DM works things behind the scenes, and sometimes the DM has a puzzle to solve for the PC, but maybe another PC takes the bait and winds up with the shiny. Other times, the DM rolls off a random table and it shows up there. Would it benefit a particular party member? Sure. Does that entitle the item to that party member? Absolutely not, and I think the OP's logic in the end doesn't accept that.
As said, D&D is a social game, and asserting one's logic as the best in a situation isn't always the most persuasive. Rather than bracketing the rest of the OP's table as folks possessed with "unique social issues" (the OP raises red flags about the described conduct but there are red flags in the presentation and clarification toward the OP). it's probably best to not learn how to make friends to influence people via message board tutorial, and instead actually get to know your table through playing with them. It doesn't sound like the DM is interested in changing the game dynamic to cater to your frustration in this, or other instances. So, if you want to take some sort of leadership at the table, or experience teamwork more to your liking, you need to earn that, and that's best earned by learning from the folks themselves and creating productive dynamics, and not treating them as obstacles to surmount.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Are you really complaining about hyperbole after posting this.
my onlt thought about this, in general is...yeah it can be nice to talk about who might want to share an item with the rest of the party, but also taking aside that the paladin could hit harder, or that the monk character uses dex so "shouldnt need" that strength item
what if the monk has an 8 in strength and the dm throws strength draining creatures like the phylaskia? as that monk player 1, it would make more sense to have a monk want to learn how to work out better and get bigger muscles cuz would benefit his health in the long run, and 2 as a player, i would apprecaite the higher chance of survival
as an optimizer I get why folk want it to go to a paladin, but as a player/forever dm, just because something may be better on one character, doesnt mean it doesnt benefit the other player as well, both irp and statwise, which could end up helping everyone later on
also side note : if one player has like 12 magic items and the others basically have nothing, that just kinda seems like a slap in the face to other players, unless theyve willingly given stuff up
If the paladin truly wants the book, they should offer something of equal or greater value to the monk. Party loot should be distributed amongst the party at a more-or-less equal rate, giving the lion's share to a single character because "they can use it better" is a terrible way to play. It reeks of Main Character Syndrome.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
“if I were sitting at that table I would be pissed all the way off that the DM continually shows constant and obvious favoritism to one player over all others.”
I rarely agree with Yurei but in this case I do. Leave the damn monk player alone. I very recently left a game that was great fun over something like this, though in my case I think the DM was just giving in for peace and quiet as the player just constantly wined and moaned about not being able to xyz.
So if you (OP) are the game GM and you don’t want the monk player in your game then put on your big boy pants and boot him. If on the other hand (OP), you are just a fellow player in the game then stop crying, and stop bullying the monk player. I’m starting to think you are the paladin player and sulking because you didn’t get the book. Either way it’s pathetic.
yeah....im sorry man but your the one being ridiculous here, no one is saying that you should be giving a -1 item to the paladin just because the monk found a +2 item to his strength, one person getting a buff, does not equate to another getting a debuff. one getting a buff here, no matter who it is, benefits the party as a whole, and actually promotes a fun team game
just cuz its not optimized doesnt mean its wrong, or that its hurting the entire party
Agreed, I wish there would be less hyperbole, since it really makes arguments a lot weaker, but I do agree with your guys' points.
One magic item not being used to the fullest extent is not a big deal. If a player finds an item, if they want to keep it, they can keep it.
It's not fair to the player or anyone at the table to get angry just because they didn't get the magic item you want. One magic item kept by one player wont kill the group, it may be slightly annoying for other players who want to keep it for themselves, but +2 strength, even for a dex-based build, is always useful.
Plenty of groups play finders keepers in magic items, and that in itself is not a big deal. I don't see why this player is so problematic, PC's can "act solo" and it really feels like we don't have the full story here.
If I find a cloak of protection that helps me, but my friend wants it for their character instead, am I at fault for not dropping everything and giving it to them? No. You can have your magic items and other party members can have theirs, a tiny bit of the potency of the item may be lost, but ultimately, it's not a major deal that should be able to help end a 3 year campaign.
To OP: The player can do what they want with their magic items. If you want to kick them out of the group, then if you're DM, you can do that. But I honestly think it is a major overreaction to a minor situation that doesn't really matter much at all.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.How loot should be distributed is a Session 0 discussion. There is no right or wrong way, it's fine whether the party shares out loot equally, in an optimised manner or uses the finders keepers rule. It just needs to be agreed in advance. Just like using homebrew rules or what kind of campaign is going to be run. There are no right or wrong answers, but you do need them agreed upon to prevent player v player conflict.
It sounds as though this didn't happen and a lot of people are proclaiming their view as the one and true way to play the game.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Maybe, I dunno. Some players do play the party like a sort of charter company that would have profit sharing rules. Other lean into the possibility that you have a set of characters with differing values, and somewhere between The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and The Battle of Five Armies ... there's a lot of room for in game tension over loot that can be fun for role playing that a session 0 social contract clause abandons. Personally I think fixed rules on treasure leads to the game becoming more 'grinding' and I usually try to play treasure (aside from a few mundane magic items) as having a bit more meaning than character sheet optimization. You're right though that D&D is a bunch of different games right down to what the rewards are.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.