# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next > DM Help Attunement Disagreements

## Cheesegear

1. Two players want to attune to the same magic item. How do you resolve this?
(At the time I resolved it using an opposed Charisma check and the Item "chose" who won...But in hindsight that punishes players for choices made at character creation)

2a. If _Remove Curse_ can break attunement to a cursed magic item, can it just break attunements to non-cursed magic items, too?

2b. If so, can it be used during combat? How?

e.g; The players see a hostile creature using a magic item, the Cleric walks up to the hostile, and says 'Nope.' and ends their attunement to their magic item, preventing its use for the rest of the scenario.
- As a Touch spell; Melee Spell Attack? On hit the target makes a Charisma saving throw?

----------


## Captain Cap

> 1. Two players want to attune to the same magic item. How do you resolve this?


To attune to a magic item, you need to spend an entire short rest (1 hour) in contact with it and focusing entirely on it. I'd rule any other character attempting to attune as a distraction that simply wouldn't make the attunement possible, and so no one gets it (you could see it as the cost of not being able to find an agreement). One of the characters may try to sneak away with the item and attune in secret, though.




> 2a. If _Remove Curse_ can break attunement to a cursed magic item, can it just break attunements to non-cursed magic items, too?


RAW it doesn't, and I'd say also RAI: from name and description it's pretty clear it should only affect curses (and tangentially cursed objects), and to answer also the following question, it isn't intended to be an "offense" spell.

----------


## Mastikator

Cursed items may not even need attunement and they always spell out how to end the curse (usually with a remove curse spell or similar). The Remove Curse spell has no effect on attunement by itself.

It's possible to make a cursed item that isn't unattuned/broken curse by the remove curse spell. Some cursed items can be removed/unattuned but it doesn't break the curse.

----------


## Unoriginal

> 1. Two players want to attune to the same magic item. How do you resolve this?


Have the people discuss until they can agree on who should have the magic item. Negotiating percentages of the involved PCs' loot shares is common.




> 2a. If _Remove Curse_ can break attunement to a cursed magic item, can it just break attunements to non-cursed magic items, too?


Nope, Remove Curse removes the curse making so the wearer/wielder can't stop the attunement, it doesn't stop the attunement by itself.

Ex: if someone wants to use the Demon Armor to give themselves more chances in the upcoming battle, casting Remove Curse on them won't make so they can't use the armor.

----------


## Wuzza

I'd accept to the table that the outcome wasn't ideal, but you would have expected them to be mature and resolve the issue between themselves. Then, if you feel it prudent, have them find the same/extremely similar item for the 2nd player.

----------


## Cheesegear

> Nope, Remove Curse removes the curse making so the wearer/wielder can't stop the attunement, it doesn't stop the attunement by itself.


Maybe I can't read...




> *Player's Handbook, Remove Curse*
> [...]
> If the object is a cursed magic item, its curse remains, but the spell breaks its owners attunement to the object so it can be removed it discarded.


Breaking the owner's attunement seems pretty clear.




> casting Remove Curse on them won't make so they can't use the armor.


No. Casting Remove Curse would break their attunement; Effectively meaning that for them, they only gain the non-magical benefits of the armour. Unless part of the Curse of the armour happens when you put it on, no attunement required.

However there's another good (?) question:

If you get _Remove Curse_'d, and you have the option of dropping or removing an item; How long do you have to do that, before the Curse reasserts itself?

----------


## Unoriginal

> Maybe I can't read...
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking the owner's attunement seems pretty clear.


You're right, I was misremembering the wording then. I apologize for this. On the other hand, it's also pretty clear that only cursed magic items are affected, and not any other kind of magic items.




> If you get _Remove Curse_'d, and you have the option of dropping or removing an item; How long do you have to do that, before the Curse reasserts itself?


Well most cursed magic items have the curse asserts itself when you do something specific, so the Remove Curse would work until you do the thing to trigger it again.

----------


## da newt

WRT remove curse as a combat tactic - I believe RAW is pretty clear it only works on cursed items, and RAI requires the attuned PC's consent, but if we look at it from a ruling standpoint (aka as DM you could implement a ruling that remove curse DOES break attunement):

Imagine how much it would suck to be a PC with an epic weapon (or MI that provided flight or whatever) but any lowly caster can just remove your primary weapon from play until you complete your next short rest.  This would become a common tactic in any world where magic items and casting were relatively common, and that would really suck for all your martials.

----------


## Chronos

I'm pretty sure that it doesn't require the consent of the cursed person, because a lot of curses operate by making the victim not want to be rid of them.

----------


## Segev

If a creature is relying on a cursed item in combat, the fact that it can be forcibly de-attuned from them by _remove curse_ seems like just another downside of it being cursed.

Nothing suggests _remove curse_ can forcibly de-attune a non-cursed item, so this doesn't seem a huge deal to me.

----------


## da newt

1. When two players in my games want the same bit of loot (item, weapon, whatever) I always suggest they resolve it by bidding auction style until one of them agrees to the other's offer.  It tends to resolve matters amicably and feels fair.  

ex) PC 1 - I'll give you 200 gp for it.  PC 2 - nope, I'll give you my +1 dagger for it.  PC 1 - nah, I'll trade you my plate armor for your chain armor and the Item.  PC - 2 I'll take your plate + 200 gp.  PC - 1 deal.  

This usually works out pretty well.

----------


## False God

There's not a whole lot the DM can do here and your solution is fine.  Ideally, they resolve it between themselves.  You can take away the item entirely, you can turn it into a cursed item to make people not want it, you can do all sorts of things but the reality is that the IRL people at the table need to work this out, so at the end of the session, or at least by the next session, there's no grudges.

Have them flip a coin, roll a die, if you tolerate PVP, let their characters literally fight it out (but I find this usually goes poorly), but really it all comes down to the players.

And yeah, I've slipped in a "similar but slightly different" magic item later to balance things out.  Though I usually avoid this in advance by saying they find "X magic items of Y value or lower" and then let them determine what the items are _after_ they divvy up the loot.

----------


## Sigreid

The party needs to learn how to divide the loot themselves.

I wouldn't let remove curse break the attunement on non-cursed items.  You're the DM though, so do what you want.  If you do let it work that way, remember that it works on items the party has attuned as well.

----------


## Segev

Yeah, as to the OP's problem, have them work it out. If you MUST suggest something, convert the total loot into a gp value, give everyone equal shares, and then have those who want items from the loot pile bid on the items how much of their share they'll give up to claim it as part of their share.

If Bob says the Sword of Arguing is worth 500 gp and Fred says it's worth 600 gp, Fred gets it, and counts it as 600 gp worth of his share of the loot. So if shares are 1000 gp each, he has 400 gp left for his claim. If this causes loot to be left over, the remainder can be split evenly, and the process repeated as necessary.

----------


## Sigreid

> Yeah, as to the OP's problem, have them work it out. If you MUST suggest something, convert the total loot into a gp value, give everyone equal shares, and then have those who want items from the loot pile bid on the items how much of their share they'll give up to claim it as part of their share.
> 
> If Bob says the Sword of Arguing is worth 500 gp and Fred says it's worth 600 gp, Fred gets it, and has 600 gp less in his loot pile other than that sword.


I really recommend that DM's stay out of loot distribution.

----------


## Segev

> I really recommend that DM's stay out of loot distribution.


Generally, I agree. However, if it's causing contention OOC, suggesting resolution methods is fine. Trying to force them is less fine.

----------


## Cheesegear

> And yeah, I've slipped in a "similar but slightly different" magic item later to balance things out.


That doesn't balance anything.
Increased magic item distribution straight up just makes the party more powerful.

Okay, we found a +1 Longsword, we should give it to the Melee DPR, 'cause if we come up against a Ghost we want the DPR to deal full damage.
I want it.
You're a Rogue.
Yes. And I'm proficient in Longswords, I want it.
But you use Longbows. When are you gonna use a Longsword?
Fair enough... DM; I want a magic Longbow, as well.
Umm...No?
But the Fighter got a Longsword, so that means I get a Longbow.
No it doesn't.
That's it! I'm gonna **** my pants if I don't get a magic Longbow.
If you're gonna **** your pants I don't want you at my table.
But I want to do full damage to Ghosts as well, because Sneak Attack does lots of damage.
What? ...If I give the Fighter a magic weapon, and I give the Rogue a magic weapon, one of two things will happen; They will be even more Ghosts that the party wont be able to deal with so it doesn't really matter if you have magic weapons or not because what you'll really need is AoEs, or, there wont be any Ghosts at all because I know you'll steamroll them so what's the point?

...Maybe I just don't understand Modern D&D. But you don't get a magic item because someone else, does.

Today is my brother's birthday; He gets a cake on his birthday...*I* get a cake on his birthday, too. Because if I don't, I'll cry. Because I'm a child.




> If you MUST suggest something, convert the total loot into a gp value, give everyone equal shares
> [...]
> If Bob says the Sword of Arguing is worth 500 gp and Fred says it's worth 600 gp, Fred gets it, and has 600 gp less in his loot pile other than that sword.


...What happens during Tier 2, where gp becomes worthless? Do players begin trading magic items for other magic items? But not all classes can use all magic items. You can't trade a _Wand of the War Mage_ you don't need anymore to a Fighter.




> I really recommend that DM's stay out of loot distribution.


As the OP, I second that recommendation to myself. That's why at the time, I made it a dice roll - so I didn't have anything to do with it. However, on some level I realised after the fact - and I said so in the OP - that I probably should've just made it a straight dice roll - no modifiers. Because if I start telling my players that any attunable-item dispute can be "won" with a Charisma check, they'll start boosting their Charisma and then disputing any and all attunable items.

----------


## Mastikator

> ...What happens during Tier 2, where gp becomes worthless? Do players begin trading magic items for other magic items? But not all classes can use all magic items. You can't trade a _Wand of the War Mage_ you don't need anymore to a Fighter.


Find a use for gold, don't let it become worthless. Let them buy flying mounts, mansions, castles, allow them to pour thousands of GP into crafting a single rare magic item.

----------


## JonBeowulf

RAW, Remove Curse does nothing to non-cursed items:



> *Remove Curse*
> At your touch, all curses affecting one creature or object end. *If the object is a cursed magic item*, its curse remains, but the spell breaks its owner's attunement to the object so it can be removed or discarded.


However, adding a "Remove Attunement" spell to your game could be fun.

----------


## Sigreid

> That doesn't balance anything.
> Increased magic item distribution straight up just makes the party more powerful.
> 
> Okay, we found a +1 Longsword, we should give it to the Melee DPR, 'cause if we come up against a Ghost we want the DPR to deal full damage.
> I want it.
> You're a Rogue.
> Yes. And I'm proficient in Longswords, I want it.
> But you use Longbows. When are you gonna use a Longsword?
> Fair enough... DM; I want a magic Longbow, as well.
> ...


I hear you, but I really think it's better to not have any part of it.  Maybe tell them if they can't figure it out they can roll dice or rock paper scissors or whatever, but the method is up to the group.

----------


## False God

> That doesn't balance anything.
> Increased magic item distribution straight up just makes the party more powerful.


I was referring to balance in the sense of "Jimmy and Timmy now both have a magic item they like, so they won't argue." not "the game is more balanced."

And giving out any magic items at all unbalances the game, because this system is extremely delicate that way.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> 1. Two players want to attune to the same magic item. How do you resolve this?


You don't. The players do.  If they can't agree and it gets contentious. Stop play and ask them to grow the heck up.  



> The party needs to learn how to divide the loot themselves.


 If they can't play well together, the item isn't the problem.  



> Today is my brother's birthday; He gets a cake on his birthday...*I* get a cake on his birthday, too. Because if I don't, I'll cry. Because I'm a child.


 Your problem isn't items, and it isn't attunement.  



> However, adding a "Remove Attunement" spell to your game could be fun.


 No, it would only enable more grief play.

----------


## Segev

> ...What happens during Tier 2, where gp becomes worthless? Do players begin trading magic items for other magic items? But not all classes can use all magic items. You can't trade a _Wand of the War Mage_ you don't need anymore to a Fighter.


By first converting all the magic items and other loot to gp value and dividing the gp value amongst the party, they can revalue the relative value of the loot, themselves. You could equally well divide it not be "actual gp value" but instead... actually, here's a probably-easier system. Do this IC if necessary, or OOC if the problem lies there:

First, instead of gp, each time the party divides loot, assign 1000 "loot shares" to each member of the party (assuming the party agrees to an "even split" of loot value).Put each item of individual value (all magic items, anything that at least one character indicates they specifically want for more than its gp value, etc.) in one "lot." Put aside all the fungible loot for now (actual gp, art items and the like that will sell for gp that nobody explicitly says they want, etc.) You can group some items together if they form an obvious "set" and all participants who express interest in the item(s) agree they don't want the set split up.Use a silent auction method to have each participant (characters or players, depending on IC or OOC) bid the maximum number of shares of loot they would say each lot/item is worth, secretly. This is how many of their own shares-of-loot-out-of-1000 that they would be willing to give up to have this item count as part of their loot. Note that not every share needs to be bid, here, because there's still fungible loot to be had, and my recommendation below will have a use for shares, too, if ties happen in the silent auction.
Silent auction method I recommend: Once the bids are revealed, the highest bidder for each item "wins" the item, but only pays as many shares+1 as the second-highest bidder.In the case of a tie, let the ones who tied do a standard auction with their remaining, unbid shares. The winner pays the full amount he bids (both in the silent auction and in the secondary auction against the other tied bidders).After all items are split up in the silent auction, all that should remain is fungible loot (and any loot nobody bid on), which will be liquidated.
Allow anybody who wants to last-minute speak up for items of loot nobody bid on to offer to "buy" it with shares, amicably agreeing if possible and holding further silent auctions if not.Divide up the final gp value of the fungible loot by the number of shares not yet "spent" in the auctions, and give everyone one share of gp for each share of loot they still have (whether from losing the auction or from not bidding them in favor of getting more fungible loot or having more to bid on ties).

Now, the big dissatisfaction/failure state of this is if there's high contention for most of the items, and there's little fungible loot to go around. This works best when there's enough loot to be of interest to the whole party, rather than trying to divvy up one big drop and a few copper pieces. So it may be best to wait until loot has massed before divvying it up. Assign items to characters for use in the dungeon, for example, without making it a permanent assignment. Maybe flip a coin every short and long rest if there's really that much contention over it. Consumables are a party resource unless there's a good reason for them not to be, and if there's contention over THOSE being used, they can be split up evenly.

You can also use the above method and allow people to, instead of getting fungible loot, retain their shares from auction to auction, so that they can force an issue on a bigger item down the line.

----------


## Sigreid

Just for reference, our group looks at who will get the most mileage out of the item.  Meaning is the party stronger if that goes to Timmy or Jessica?  It's usually pretty obvious who it should go to with that metric.

----------


## Segev

> Just for reference, our group looks at who will get the most mileage out of the item.  Meaning is the party stronger if that goes to Timmy or Jessica?  It's usually pretty obvious who it should go to with that metric.


Yeah, generally a good way to go. I tend to assume that this has broken down for some reason if there's argument. I can see it breaking down, for instance, if both Timmy and Jessica can get good use out of it, or if Jessica definitely gets better use out of it, but has gotten the last three magic items for the same reason every time Timmy was even in consideration for one, so Timmy would like to get something, please-and-thank-you. IT can also break down if both Timmy and Jessica think that they get better use out of it, and feel like they have been short-changed more than the other by the non-fungible nature of who got which items. "Jessica used the greater healing potions! Both of them! I deserve the Sword of Arguing more!" might cry out Timmy, only for Jessica to respond, "I used those potions because I was taking hits and you weren't! I need the Sword of Arguing to do my job better, while you're clearly fine!"

And that's just semi-legitimate reasons to argue, from my perspective as a third party on this hypothetical group. When you ARE Timmy or Jessica's player, and you want that Sword of Arguing, as a player, and you feel you have legitimate claim to being best able to use it for the benefit of the party, it's even harder to let go of it. 

And then, of course, there's the possibility that the players are...in need of a talking-to about their attitudes towards group cooperation.

----------


## Sigreid

> Yeah, generally a good way to go. I tend to assume that this has broken down for some reason if there's argument. I can see it breaking down, for instance, if both Timmy and Jessica can get good use out of it, or if Jessica definitely gets better use out of it, but has gotten the last three magic items for the same reason every time Timmy was even in consideration for one, so Timmy would like to get something, please-and-thank-you. IT can also break down if both Timmy and Jessica think that they get better use out of it, and feel like they have been short-changed more than the other by the non-fungible nature of who got which items. "Jessica used the greater healing potions! Both of them! I deserve the Sword of Arguing more!" might cry out Timmy, only for Jessica to respond, "I used those potions because I was taking hits and you weren't! I need the Sword of Arguing to do my job better, while you're clearly fine!"
> 
> And that's just semi-legitimate reasons to argue, from my perspective as a third party on this hypothetical group. When you ARE Timmy or Jessica's player, and you want that Sword of Arguing, as a player, and you feel you have legitimate claim to being best able to use it for the benefit of the party, it's even harder to let go of it. 
> 
> And then, of course, there's the possibility that the players are...in need of a talking-to about their attitudes towards group cooperation.


Yeah, we also have the advantage of being people in our 30s to 50s that have played together for decades and have more going on in our lives than D&D.  I think everyone starts from a position of "is this better for you?"

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

I think that if I were in a group where there was serious disagreement over who got what, to the point of needing a formalized bidding system...I'd walk away from that table. The DM needs to trust the players. The players need to trust the DM. And the players need to trust each other. All that trust is towards "X other person is trying seriously to make the game better for all of us." Doesn't mean they're successful or perfect. Just that they're trying. And fighting over loot is a symptom of lack of trust.

----------


## JonBeowulf

> No, it would only enable more grief play.


That was for the "remove attunement on an item an enemy is using" part of the discussion.  No PVP at my tables.  I don't do it.  I don't allow it.  I don't even think about it.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I think that if I were in a group where there was serious disagreement over who got what, to the point of needing a formalized bidding system...I'd walk away from that table. The DM needs to trust the players. The players need to trust the DM. And the players need to trust each other. All that trust is towards "X other person is trying seriously to make the game better for all of us." Doesn't mean they're successful or perfect. Just that they're trying. And fighting over loot is a symptom of lack of trust.


 The easiest way to choose if there are to PCs and 1 item  is to each roll a die: let RNG take care of it. 
Experience based point: we had a number of cases in the old days that got resolved that way to avoid argument.  But in most groups, the one who didn't get the item got first pick next time any dropped ... but your point in trust is a very good one.

----------


## Cheesegear

> I was referring to balance in the sense of "Jimmy and Timmy now both have a magic item they like, so they won't argue." not "the game is more balanced."


Balancing players' feelings with each other isn't something I'm particularly concerned about. Almost every player I've ever had - and still have - plays by Rule 0:
The DM can do anything they want.
No Furries
Be an adult.




> Your problem isn't items, and it isn't attunement.


It's never come up before, and I wondered what other DMs have done if such a thing has ever come up their tables.

I'm almost a little bit sad that 'If two players disagree on who should get a magic item, give them one each - problem solved.' was a real solution. It tells me that at some tables, the players really are in charge - and not in the good way.  :Small Eek: 




> By first converting all the magic items and other loot to gp value and dividing the gp value amongst the party, they can revalue the relative value of the loot, themselves...
> [A loot organisation that has *steps*]


Just...Wow. That looks awful.




> Meaning is the party stronger if that goes to Timmy or Jessica?  It's usually pretty obvious who it should go to with that metric.


You throw a Shield +1 on the ground.
The Fighter looks at it.
The Tempest Cleric looks at it.

Round 1... Fight.

The issue is, that in a very specific case, with a large enough group (5-6 players...More?), you may end up with two players who have overlapping roles, and both could claim the magic item, and the 'Who can use it better?' metric, fails. Many classes would get excited if the BBEG has a magic Rapier.




> I think that if I were in a group where there was serious disagreement over who got what, to the point of needing a formalized bidding system...I'd walk away from that table.


Partial agree.




> The easiest way to choose if there are to PCs and 1 item  is to each roll a die: let RNG take care of it.


This is my go to solution for almost anything, as it shifts "blame" away from me - the DM - if the dice roll something that the players don't like.
However, the DM refuses to make a decision that would make his players unhappy - what a coward. ...Joking not joking.

That's one of the reasons why I _prefer_ random loot tables. If the players want a specific magic item, they can buy it. But otherwise the conversation goes like this:

Hey DM, I'm a Warlock so can I have a _Wand of the War Mage_ for my Eldritch Blasts?
Sure, if I roll one.
But what if you don't roll one?
Correct.

----------


## Segev

> Just...Wow. That looks awful.


I mean, compared to the OP's problem of party infighting over it, it's not. And it does achieve the goal of ensuring that people get a fair share of items and such based on how much they value them.

But it certainly is significantly worse than an amiable discussion and letting people use items that both benefit them and that they like, with ambiguous situations being resolved with discussion and, if necessary, an amicable randomizer.

----------


## Cheesegear

> I mean, compared to the OP's problem of party infighting over it, it's not.


Compared to the OP's problem of what?




> 1. Two players want to attune to the same magic item. How do you resolve this?


...That doesn't seem like the OP was describing "Party infighting."

Since I am the OP, I can tell you about "Party infighting":

I think I should get it because I don't use my Bonus Action for anything.
Well I don't use my Bonus Action either so it would be really useful for me, too.
But it helps my character.
It helps mine, too.
...
...
So who gets it?
Uhh...DM?

----------


## Segev

> Compared to the OP's problem of what?
> 
> 
> 
> ...That doesn't seem like the OP was describing "Party infighting."
> 
> Since I am the OP, I can tell you about "Party infighting":
> 
> I think I should get it because I don't use my Bonus Action for anything.
> ...


The way you described it, it sounded like they were fighting over attuning it during the attuning process. i.e., that they weren't allowing each other to attune, especially since discussions on how to forcibly de-attune or how to determine who "won" a contested attunement were coming up.

If they're just unable to decide, a simplified version of what I suggested would work: have them bid on how much of their share of the loot it counts as. Or bid straight gp they would "pay" for it, and have that come out of the winner's loot rewards until it is "paid." These are just tools to determine who values it more, really, and to ensure that the other(s) get things THEY value more in exchange.

But no, it's not the DM's job to divide loot. I am not saying you should enforce any method at all. You can make suggestions, which is what I am offering. 

Any tool that lets them determine who really wants it more and ensure that the other can get things they value at least as much in return will suffice. *The reason I suggest methods based on this principle is that, if there's any aimiability amongst the players, this should minimize rancor.* If Bob wants it so badly he'll give up (say) 1000 gp worth of loot from his share (or flat-out pay that from his existing pocketbook) for it, while Alice would only give up/pay 700 gp, then Alice is less likely to be bitter because the remaining shares of loot are bigger, and she gets more. She wasn't willing to give up 1000 gp worth of loot for it, so she'll be happier not having to give up that much than she would be having it and giving up that much.


If they really don't care and there's no risk of bitterness, have them flip a coin each short rest that they have nothing better to do than attune an item, until they decide one of them should keep it from seeing who uses it better.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Hey DM, I'm a Warlock so can I have a _Wand of the War Mage_ for my Eldritch Blasts?
> Sure, if I roll one.
> But what if you don't roll one?
> Correct.


 *golf clap*  :Small Cool:

----------


## Psyren

Whose character sheet is it on?




> You don't. The players do.  If they can't agree and it gets contentious. Stop play and ask them to grow the heck up. 
> 
>  If they can't play well together, the item isn't the problem.  
> 
>  Your problem isn't items, and it isn't attunement.  
> 
>  No, it would only enable more grief play.


^This, +1000

The in-game solution is simple, if they both keep trying to attune to the same item it doesn't work. Nobody is attuned until one of them stops trying.

And if neither of them stop trying, it is not an in-game issue.

----------


## Cheesegear

> The way you described it, it sounded like they were fighting over attuning it during the attuning process.


I _didn't_ describe it. Here, I'll quote myself again.




> 1. Two players want to attune to the same magic item. How do you resolve this?


Two players have a disagreement. If you think that this disagreement took longer than 10 seconds to resolve, or, you think there was yelling involved...That's not the case.

That being said, I know it's 2022 and we've been trained by the internet to believe that civil discourse is dead; Disagreement means "argument" and argument means "violence". Therefore, a disagreement is yelling and flipping tables.

But, I promise most of the population still knows how to talk to people and be adults.




> that they weren't allowing each other to attune


Right. What does that look like, to you?
Because I didn't describe it _at all_. Except for when I did just recently.

I did, however, later - and not in the OP - describe a situation that would necessitate the DM adding in an extra magic item to a hoard for no reason, which describes - IMO - a toxic table, where players always get what they want or they **** their pants in protest, which is the only situation I would ever even consider that solution...And if that was my table...Yeah. This would be a different kind of thread.




> If they really don't care and there's no risk of bitterness, have them flip a coin each short rest that they have nothing better to do than attune an item


Again, ultimately rolling a dice is the solution I went with - and the best solution presented so far. Ideally I'd like a solution that _isn't_ random. But, given the only non-random solution is the one you proposed...Again; I'm not doing that.

Although I do find the running meme of the thread pretty good;
All disagreements should be resolved through the DM...Except for the loot.

----------


## Psyren

> Two players have a disagreement. If you think that this disagreement took longer than 10 seconds to resolve, or, you think there was yelling involved...That's not the case.
> 
> That being said, I know it's 2022 and we've been trained by the internet to believe that civil discourse is dead; Disagreement means "argument" and argument means "violence". Therefore, a disagreement is yelling and flipping tables.
> 
> But, I promise most of the population still knows how to talk to people and be adults.
> ...
> Because I didn't describe it _at all_. Except for when I did just recently.


It's reasonable to assume that if everything was resolved quickly and peacefully, a thread asking the community for advice wouldn't be necessary. So of course people are going to assume that it got thorny/messy unless specifically told otherwise (which you have now finally done.)




> Again, ultimately rolling a dice is the solution I went with - and the best solution presented so far. Ideally I'd like a solution that _isn't_ random. But, given the only non-random solution is the one you proposed...Again; I'm not doing that.


For it not to be random, handled between the players OOG, or DM-mandated, means that the winner is PC-determined. That implies a contest of some kind - physical or mental.

----------


## Sigreid

> You throw a Shield +1 on the ground.
> The Fighter looks at it.
> The Tempest Cleric looks at it.


One gets this one with the agreement that the other gets the next item they both would want usually. Really, it hasn't been that complicated since I was 10 or so.

----------


## theNater

> Ideally I'd like a solution that _isn't_ random.


Why is a random solution bad?  It will be easier for us to suggest good solutions if we more fully understand the criteria you're using to evaluate their quality.

----------


## Segev

> Although I do find the running meme of the thread pretty good;
> All disagreements should be resolved through the DM...Except for the loot.


Does the DM also decide which plot hook the party takes if two PCs have a momentary disagreement over it, or do they discuss it like adults and come up with a decision, themselves?

Look, I'm a little annoyed, feeling like I was asked one question and then got berated for daring to assume there was some sort of tension when you asked how to resolve a disagreement that you'd apparently had no problem resolving and which seems like a non-issue when you give a fuller description. Did you want answers to your provided question? Because "your answer sounds awful, and you're some sort of horrible internet troll for assuming my question was asked because I had an actual problem that needed solving" is not a good way to get me to want to answer your questions again.

If there was only 10 seconds of two players looking at each other and deciding they both want the item, then turning to the DM to tell them which one of them should get it, why was there a problem? What advice did you _want_? Especially since you go on to mock even the advice of: "Have them resolve it, themselves; it's their loot." 

The DM is generally not supposed to be making IC decisions for the PCs. How loot is split is an IC decision. Players can make IC decisions with OOC discussion as necessary. They can ask the DM for advice if they're not sure what to do. But for things like this, the DM should be making suggestions, not dictating the solution. And if the players are expecting the DM to tell them this stuff, that does suggest to me there's a bit of an agency problem with the group. As long as everyone's having fun, though, it's not really a problem that needs solving. It's just a little weird.

But if this is something that you feel is the DM's decision to make, and you also already have a solution, why are you asking us how to resolve it? Especially if you're going to berate us for giving "awful" solutions and for assuming there was an actual problem that was serious enough you needed something more than "just try to be fair, then."

Seriously, if there's no real upset over it, why is "random" any more of a problem than any other solution? What don't you like about "random" (since that's what you went with) that you felt the need to come here and ask for advice? What, exactly, were you looking for?

----------


## Cheesegear

> If there was only 10 seconds of two players looking at each other and deciding they both want the item, then turning to the DM to tell them which one of them should get it, why was there a problem?


Because I didn't feel as though a Charisma check was the correct choice...Surprise. It wasn't. It _should've_ been just a dice roll - no modifiers. And I still don't like that solution because it's random. Theoretically it could happen again, and if a player's dice rolls hot, that player could get multiple "contested" magic items. But, the precedent will have been set 'We'll just roll for it; We rolled for it last time.' My players _love_ when I set bad precedents.

Which is why I hated setting the precedent of it being a Charisma check, it tells my players to boost their Charisma (an already good stat for many classes) because at my table, it could potentially end up with that character getting one or two extra magic items. I set a scary precedent on that Charisma check and I had to make it clear that it was for "This time only" until I can think of or ask for a better way. That better way being 'Just remove the modifiers.'

It reminds me of _WoW_, where everything ever, is "Hunter Gear", so Hunters argue to roll on everything. They're not wrong, _per se_. But it was very annoying watching a Hunter roll on everything that wasn't Plate. Yeah, you can contest every drop - but come on?

Again. I just don't like deciding things randomly. Because it means _next time_ it gets decided randomly, too...

I can do anything, and get anything, so long as I can roll well. It's...Not a good rule to set. But, in a game about rolling dice, I shouldn't be surprised - nor upset - when the solution to a problem is, in fact, "Roll a dice."

----------


## Segev

> Because I didn't feel as though a Charisma check was the correct choice...Surprise. It wasn't. It _should've_ been just a dice roll - no modifiers. And I still don't like that solution because it's random. Theoretically it could happen again, and if a player's dice rolls hot, that player could get multiple "contested" magic items. But, the precedent will have been set 'We'll just roll for it; We rolled for it last time.' My players _love_ when I set bad precedents.
> 
> Which is why I hated setting the precedent of it being a Charisma check, it tells my players to boost their Charisma (an already good stat for many classes) because at my table, it could potentially end up with that character getting one or two extra magic items. I set a scary precedent on that Charisma check and I had to make it clear that it was for "This time only" until I can think of or ask for a better way. That better way being 'Just remove the modifiers.'
> 
> It reminds me of _WoW_, where everything ever, is "Hunter Gear", so Hunters argue to roll on everything. They're not wrong, _per se_. But it was very annoying watching a Hunter roll on everything that wasn't Plate. Yeah, you can contest every drop - but come on?
> 
> Again. I just don't like deciding things randomly. Because it means _next time_ it gets decided randomly, too...
> 
> I can do anything, and get anything, so long as I can roll well. It's...Not a good rule to set. But, in a game about rolling dice, I shouldn't be surprised - nor upset - when the solution to a problem is, in fact, "Roll a dice."


Okay, knowing what your problem is - I hope - now, my advice would be: resolve it with a coin flip the first time, then alternate who gets the item. If you must do it this way.

Frankly, I think telling the players to work it out between themselves is better; they're less likely to have the "loser" of the discussion feel bitter, if only because he agrees to it. Maybe there's some trading back and forth, or maybe they agree "I get it now; you get the next one...or this one when we get the next one if the next one is just that much better for me than for you," or somesuch. 

If, as you say, there's no rancor and you're all adults about it, they should be able to come up with a solution on their own. You can, of course, provide advice, but if you're worried about precedents and the like, you're worried about perverse incentives, so encouraging the players to handle IC decisions IC, without DM interference, and only providing suggestions for tools to use if they really want such tools, is my advice.

----------


## Psyren

> Does the DM also decide which plot hook the party takes if two PCs have a momentary disagreement over it, or do they discuss it like adults and come up with a decision, themselves?
> 
> Look, I'm a little annoyed, feeling like I was asked one question and then got berated for daring to assume there was some sort of tension when you asked how to resolve a disagreement that you'd apparently had no problem resolving and which seems like a non-issue when you give a fuller description. Did you want answers to your provided question? Because "your answer sounds awful, and you're some sort of horrible internet troll for assuming my question was asked because I had an actual problem that needed solving" is not a good way to get me to want to answer your questions again.
> 
> If there was only 10 seconds of two players looking at each other and deciding they both want the item, then turning to the DM to tell them which one of them should get it, why was there a problem? What advice did you _want_? Especially since you go on to mock even the advice of: "Have them resolve it, themselves; it's their loot." 
> 
> The DM is generally not supposed to be making IC decisions for the PCs. How loot is split is an IC decision. Players can make IC decisions with OOC discussion as necessary. They can ask the DM for advice if they're not sure what to do. But for things like this, the DM should be making suggestions, not dictating the solution. And if the players are expecting the DM to tell them this stuff, that does suggest to me there's a bit of an agency problem with the group. As long as everyone's having fun, though, it's not really a problem that needs solving. It's just a little weird.
> 
> But if this is something that you feel is the DM's decision to make, and you also already have a solution, why are you asking us how to resolve it? Especially if you're going to berate us for giving "awful" solutions and for assuming there was an actual problem that was serious enough you needed something more than "just try to be fair, then."
> ...


FWIW I'm on your team here.




> My players _love_ when I set bad precedents.


That's a cultural issue; encourage them to take each situation on its own merits, it will save you a lot of headaches in the long run. You're one guy trying to run a game for them in your spare time, not a Supreme Court. _"I ruled it this way this time because {factor unique to the circumstance/item}, that's not holy writ for how it will be ruled every time."_

----------


## Segev

> FWIW I'm on your team here.


Thanks; I admit that I'm never sure if I'm being unreasonable or not. I assume I often am; many of my edited posts that don't have an obvious afterthought added are me trying to tone back what I've said in perhaps too much pique. (I tried to do the same with the one you quoted, but I couldn't think of a good way to get across what I wanted to without expressing the pique, there. I hope I was at least reasonably civil; I know I am not always so.)




> That's a cultural issue; encourage them to take each situation on its own merits, it will save you a lot of headaches in the long run. You're one guy trying to run a game for them in your spare time, not a Supreme Court. _"I ruled it this way this time because {factor unique to the circumstance/item}, that's not holy writ for how it will be ruled every time."_


Indeed. And even when you're dealing with exactly the same situation, that quick decision you made to keep the game flowing that one time may not be the decision that is best to stick with. "Now that we're encountering this again, I see that my previous decision leads to problems, so we're revising it."

----------


## Keltest

Personally, I also agree with Segev, both in terms of how this thread was presented and the specific case of not sticking to a previous decision just because it came first. In my group, theres a general understanding that if I make a ruling and it doesnt get put in writing somewhere, I'm not obligated to stick with it no matter how I ruled before. If it wasnt important enough to make me write it down so I dont forget in the future, then its not worth fussing over like that.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> One gets this one with the agreement that the other gets the next item they both would want usually. Really, it hasn't been that complicated since I was 10 or so.


 QFT, and that got a wry grin out of me.

----------


## Demonslayer666

> I really recommend that DM's stay out of loot distribution.


Agreed, it should be roleplayed out.

However, DM's determine loot, so distribution should be at the forefront of their loot decisions.  It should be somewhat fair and able to be evenly distributed.  If not, then allow magic items to be sold and bought so it can be somewhat fair.

Actually happened in a game I was in:  only the martial characters got magic items.  We're talking 3 weapons each, magic armor, magic shield, magic bow, magic arrows - ranging in the rare-very rare...the casters got no caster specific items.

----------


## Segev

> Agreed, it should be roleplayed out.
> 
> However, DM's determine loot, so distribution should be at the forefront of their loot decisions.  It should be somewhat fair and able to be evenly distributed.  If not, then allow magic items to be sold and bought so it can be somewhat fair.
> 
> Actually happened in a game I was in:  only the martial characters got magic items.  We're talking 3 weapons each, magic armor, magic shield, magic bow, magic arrows - ranging in the rare-very rare...the casters got no caster specific items.


Disappointing, I'm sure. Did this at least close whatever martial/caster divide was present? (Was such a thing present in that game?)

Did you bring it up with the DM? I ask mainly because I'm curious what his response was, if so.

----------


## Demonslayer666

> Disappointing, I'm sure. Did this at least close whatever martial/caster divide was present? (Was such a thing present in that game?)
> 
> Did you bring it up with the DM? I ask mainly because I'm curious what his response was, if so.


I did not witness any gap, however the casters were a warlock and a healing focused cleric (no wizard/sorcerer).  The gap I saw was casters being picked on - a lot.  Spells going awry quite often and being nerfed on the fly, along with character abilities.  Yet martial characters never faltered.  I had the distinct feeling the DM didn't like casters, or perhaps it was my playstyle, or my class.

Yes, I talked with him at length over the phone and let him know I wasn't having fun playing my warlock.  After discussing my issues, he basically did not see a problem.  When I pointed out the loot disparity, he countered with "but I let you buy some magic items" - yeah, out of my equal split of gold that the martial characters also got.  I offered to make a different character, or discuss with him changing my my playstyle, but he said they were not an issue and shut down the idea of a new character.

I ended up bowing out of that game a few sessions later as things did not improve.

----------


## MrStabby

> Just for reference, our group looks at who will get the most mileage out of the item.  Meaning is the party stronger if that goes to Timmy or Jessica?  It's usually pretty obvious who it should go to with that metric.


I think this is a very risky approach.  Imagine a party with two fighters, both using similar weapons.  A +1 sword comes up.  One has a strength of 16 and the other a strength of 18 (maybe having roled better, maybe just because they lucked into their character concept being closer to optimal).  Whoever has the higher strength already would then get the sword (simply becasue they have a higher probability of hitting therefore more likely to land that +1 damage).  Who gets the most out of something often corelated with who is already doing the best stuff.  Something that gives a bonus on concentration saves? Well who has selected the better spells to concentrate on?  Something to boost AC? Well who contributes the most and therefore benefits the party most by still being alive?

Obviously, this is taking things to the extremes where two characers are very similar - but its also in the contect of disagreement on who should have something which would seem to be something that happens when two characters have very similar needs.







> I think that if I were in a group where there was serious disagreement over who got what, to the point of needing a formalized bidding system...I'd walk away from that table. The DM needs to trust the players. The players need to trust the DM. And the players need to trust each other. All that trust is towards "X other person is trying seriously to make the game better for all of us." Doesn't mean they're successful or perfect. Just that they're trying. And fighting over loot is a symptom of lack of trust.


I am not sure.  I think I wouldn't like a table that _needed_ a bidding system.  As a nod towards a system that curcumvents some of the issue (including the flip side of people not speaking up about wanting an item because it might be contentious) I can see it has merit.  If nothing else, I would feel less guilty about saying I wanted something for a character if I felt that everyone else was getting something else back.



Finally, from a rules perspective - is there anything stopping both PCs attuning (away from book at the moment)?  I.e. could they pass an item between them and as long as they are in posession of it, they can use it?

----------


## Cheesegear

> Yes, I talked with him at length over the phone and let him know I wasn't having fun playing my warlock. After discussing my issues, he basically did not see a problem.


It doesn't matter if the DM sees a problem. The _player_, does. The DM at the very least needs to be able to see where you're coming from, even if they don't agree with you (because it's their game and they'll run it how they want).




> I offered to make a different character, or discuss with him changing my my playstyle, but he said they were not an issue and shut down the idea of a new character.


WHAT!?
If a player wants to make a new character, *you let them*.

Secondly - and I've seen this happen a few times - if a character _can't_ be retired, that character will end up doing something stupid that gets themselves killed on purpose. What's the DM gonna do? *Not* kill you?
...Actually some DMs are actually afraid of killing PCs...But surely that fear would go away if the player _wants_ their character to die?

If you don't let a player change characters - by whatever mechanism suits - when they aren't having fun...




> I ended up bowing out of that game a few sessions later as things did not improve.


...Yeah, that.




> Obviously, this is taking things to the extremes where two characers are very similar


Depends how large your party is. I have one table of five, and one table of six (and another second table of six that disbanded).
Overlapping roles absolutely does happen where your party _isn't_ Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, STOP.
(Even then you can have an Evocation Wizard and a Light Cleric in the same party...)

It's not that extreme. I've just never been in the situation where two people with overlapping roles _couldn't_ work out who should get a magic item that is effective for both of them.




> I am not sure.  I think I wouldn't like a table that _needed_ a bidding system.


QFT. I see the value in it.
But, if my table _needed_ that system, I think something would have broken down at the table.




> Finally, from a rules perspective - is there anything stopping both PCs attuning (away from book at the moment)?  I.e. could they pass an item between them and as long as they are in posession of it, they can use it?


An item can only be Attuned to one creature at a time.
But Attuning is as simple as a Short Rest.

e.g;
Hard Fight. Player 1 has _The Bindle_.
Party suggests that they take a Short Rest. Player 1 hands _The Bindle_ to Player 2.
Player 2 Attunes to _The Bindle_ during the Short Rest.
Hard Fight.
Party suggests that they take a Short Rest. Player 2 hands _The Bindle_ back to Player 1.
Player 1 Attunes to _The Bindle_ again, during the Short Rest.

----------


## Unoriginal

> I think this is a very risky approach.  Imagine a party with two fighters, both using similar weapons.  A +1 sword comes up.  One has a strength of 16 and the other a strength of 18 (maybe having roled better, maybe just because they lucked into their character concept being closer to optimal).  Whoever has the higher strength already would then get the sword (simply becasue they have a higher probability of hitting therefore more likely to land that +1 damage).


That's highly debatable. Giving the sword to the character with 16 STR will improve their to-hit bonus and damage to be on par with the 18 STR character, while 16-STR-Fighter still retaining whatever else they invested in, meaning that the group as a whole will be stronger no matter who get the sword.

----------


## MrStabby

> That's highly debatable. Giving the sword to the character with 16 STR will improve their to-hit bonus and damage to be on par with the 18 STR character, while 16-STR-Fighter still retaining whatever else they invested in, meaning that the group as a whole will be stronger no matter who get the sword.


I don't think its really debatable.

Person X on a hit does D+S damage, with D being the die roll and S being the stat modifier.  A +1 weapon takes this to D+S+1. They have a to hit chance of H/20 and after a +1 weapon they get (H+1)/20 as their hit chance.


Another Character Y has their same prime stat one point higher so does D+S+1 without the additional sword and D+S+2 with the sword.  Hit Chance of (H+1)/20 without the sword and (H+2)/20 with it.

If X gets the sword then party damage from these guys is

(D+S+1)*(H+1)/20 *2

If Y gets the sword then damage is 

(D+S+2)*(H+2)/20  + (D+S)*H/20

Which is a bigger number for all (D+S)>0, H>0



Where I agree is that the group is stronger for having found the sword, whichever one takes it.

----------


## Unoriginal

> I don't think its really debatable.
> 
> Person X on a hit does D+S damage, with D being the die roll and S being the stat modifier.  A +1 weapon takes this to D+S+1. They have a to hit chance of H/20 and after a +1 weapon they get (H+1)/20 as their hit chance.
> 
> 
> Another Character Y has their same prime stat one point higher so does D+S+1 without the additional sword and D+S+2 with the sword.  Hit Chance of (H+1)/20 without the sword and (H+2)/20 with it.
> 
> If X gets the sword then party damage from these guys is
> 
> ...



You're forgetting two important factors: action economy, and how due to damage dice work one more attack landing is better than a +1 damage  boost. 

Are we in agreement  that the best case scenario for the group is "X and Y both hit", damage-wise?

Now let's imagine the group is facing an enemy Y has 50% chances to hit, and in consequence X has 45% chances. 

If Y takes the sword, their chances go up to 55%, and X's chances stay at 45%, meaning that the chances of both hitting does not improve.

If X takes the sword, both Fighters have 50% chances of hitting, which improves the chances of both X and Y hitting.

Therefore it can be argued that for the group, it is better to give the boost to the PC who has the lower to-hit mod.

----------


## Captain Cap

> You're forgetting two important factors: action economy, and how due to damage dice work one more attack landing is better than a +1 damage  boost.


His math takes care of everything, in fact he calculates the total expected damage the two fighters output together (which is the quantity that matters), not the total damage per hit.

----------


## Unoriginal

> His math takes care of everything, in fact he calculates the total expected damage the two fighters output together (which is the quantity that matters), not the total damage per hit.


I'm no math expert by any mean, but the factor that matters isn't "both fighters' output together", it's "what are the chances both hit?".

Let's say the foe has AC 15, Y has +5 to hit, X has +4.Giving the  +1 sword to X means both have 50% chances to hit.

"The two 50% chances attempts resulted in 2 successes" is more likely to happen than "the 55% chances attempt and the 45% chances attempt resulted in 2 successes".

The 55%-45% configuration makes it more likely for one attack to land, but *less* likely for both attacks to land, compared to the 50%-50% configuration.

In other words, it is debatable if the "both Y and X hit" damages is worthwhile compared to a more consistant damage output from Y's attack.

----------


## Captain Cap

> I'm no math expert by any mean, but the factor that matters isn't "both fighters' output together", it's "what are the chances both hit?".


No, it isn't. The factor that matters is how quickly you wear down the enemy, that is, the number of turns the fighters would need to take them down, and it happens that total average damage output is inversely proportional to that number.
Let's say H is the total hit points of the target, D1/2 the damage on a hit by fighter 1/2, P1/2 the chance to hit of fighter 1/2 and N the number of their attacks (let's assume it's the same for both fighters for simplicity). 
The number of rounds R necessary to reduce H to 0 is:

R = H / ((D1*P1 + D2*P2)*N)

where D1/2*P1/2 is the average damage output of fighter 1/2. The higher their sum is, the lower R is, and so the sooner the enemy falls.

----------


## Unoriginal

> No, it isn't. The factor that matters is how quickly you wear down the enemy, that is, the number of turns the fighters would need to take them down, and it happens that total average damage output is inversely proportional to that number.
> Let's say H is the total hit points of the target, D1/2 the damage on a hit by fighter 1/2, P1/2 the chance to hit of fighter 1/2 and N the number of their attacks (let's assume it's the same for both fighters for simplicity). 
> The number of rounds R necessary to reduce H to 0 is:
> 
> R = H / ((D1*P1 + D2*P2)*N)
> 
> where D1/2*P1/2 is the average damage output of fighter 1/2. The higher their sum is, the lower R is, and so the sooner the enemy falls.


Maybe I'm failing to explaining what I'm talking about. I apologize. 

Let's imagine you're playing a board game where the player with the highest number of points win, youre the last to play in the last turn, and you need 20 points or more to win.

You have the choice between two moves:

Move 1: you have 50% chances of earning 10 points, twice.

Move 2: you have 55% chances of earning 10pts, then 45% chances of earning 10pts.

Which move do you choose?

----------


## Captain Cap

Okay, so now I think I'm getting what you're meaning: you're saying, and correctly so, that there exist scenarios in which it's more advantageous to give the boost to the weakest fighter. Well, that's true, like in the example you provided. This is because attacks, hp, rounds etc. are discrete quantities, so round offs may tip the scale from one arrangement to the other.
Another edge case: you now need 11 points to win, and the moves are
 you have 50% chances of earning 10 points, twice
 you have 55% chances of earning 11 points and then 45% chances of earning 9 points
Now the second option is obviously the optimal one.

However, the point is, in general we don't know how many points remain to win, nor how many rounds the fight with last. They are unknown variables and can assume a great range of different values.
The question then becomes, in such case, what's the best arrangement? Without further information, the only meaningful way an arrangement can be better than the other is statistically. Yes, in some scenarios giving the item the weaker fighter is more advantageous, but in most scenarios, and especially with many HPs to consume, it's the other way around. And since in principle we don't know which scenarios we're gonna deal with, the wisest option is the most favourable from a statistical point of view.

I'd say there is at least an exception: if the two fighters split up, and the priority is that both of them succeed, the boost should go to the weaker one. And in a way, this is like the case you brought up: you need both of them to win, so it is better to spread the chances of winning.

----------

