DM Gold question

[suplee215]

This is one of the hardest aspects of DMing I find as I am more into the storytelling and combat aspects of the game than building a micro economy. I have a large party of 7-8 players a session. Is it safe to take the DMG charts and just double the amount of gold as those are made for parties about half the size?

[claypigeons]

Presumably you'll be adding higher numbers and more powerful monsters to compensate for the larger party. More enemies means more treasure, so there is no need to double what they carry.

Just be mindful of the relative wealth by level of the party, and if that lags behind, toss a couple extra usable items or art objects of high value to give the party a nudge.

[Cheesegear]

I have a large party of 7-8 players a session. Is it safe to take the DMG charts and just double the amount of gold as those are made for parties about half the size?

No.
7-8 players should be having higher CR combats.
Higher CR combats should naturally reward more treasure on their own.

If you're playing a module, also no.
At point [X], the party is intended to have no more than 400gp. This limits the resources they can buy for the next section of the module.
If you double that, to 800gp, the party can buy more stuff, and the difficulty of the module is skewed.

[suplee215]

No.
7-8 players should be having higher CR combats.
Higher CR combats should naturally reward more treasure on their own.

If you're playing a module, also no.
At point [X], the party is intended to have no more than 400gp. This limits the resources they can buy for the next section of the module.
If you double that, to 800gp, the party can buy more stuff, and the difficulty of the module is skewed.

So base the gold ont he CR of the encounter and not the monsters or players. that makes sense.


Presumably you'll be adding higher numbers and more powerful monsters to compensate for the larger party. More enemies means more treasure, so there is no need to double what they carry.

Just be mindful of the relative wealth by level of the party, and if that lags behind, toss a couple extra usable items or art objects of high value to give the party a nudge.
Wait, each creature should have some gold? I haven't been doing that but I'll start that out a lot more then.

[Cheesegear]

So base the gold ont he CR of the encounter and not the monsters or players.

From the DMG.


Using the Individual Treasure Tables, pg 133
An Individual Treasure table helps you randomly determine how much treasure one creature carries on its person. If a monster has no interest in amassing treasure, you can use this table to determine the incidental treasure left behind by the monster's victims.

Emphasis mine. Each and every creature your party encounters 'should' have treasure on its person, unless you, the DM, decide that doesn't. (i.e; The monster doesn't even have pockets, where would it even keep treasure?)

As per the DMG, more players in the party, means that CRs of encounters need to be higher:
If you add CR by including more hostiles to the encounter, more hostiles equals more 'Individual Treasure', on their own merits.
If you add CR by including higher CR monsters, just, in general, higher CR monsters give more treasure, on their own merits.

You shouldn't have to arbitrarily increase gold amounts, because the gold amount increases on its own, based on the encounter or creature difficulty.

[Tanarii]

Yes you should. Provided you are using the DMG hoard guidelines. Those are based on a certain number found per Tier of play, but they don't account for variable party size. More players facing harder or more challenges to achieve the same rate of advancement through the Tiers of play should not default to receiving less rewards for that same rate of advancement.

In other words, if they take twice as long to get there and get twice as much treasure, it took the same effort and they get the same reward each. But if you reward the DMG number of hoards per tier and they take twice as long for not doubling the reward, they took the same effort and get half the reward.

[J-H]

I tend not to have every creature have gold, but I made sure to roll treasure according to the guidelines.... I just concentrate it in areas or on monsters that make sense. So the 6 regular minotaurs have no gold or treasure, but the boss minotaur had a Cape of the Mountebank and a Vicious Halberd +1.

It's a Castlevania game...they found about 3500 gold at level 5 in some caves (Xorn nest), and then nearly no money for a long time, and then they hit the treasury and had to do Backpack Accounting to figure out how much they could take. I think they're walking out with over 20,000gp each now, having ditched a bunch of their mundane gear to stuff more gems and gold in. Anyone who defeats Dracula should be walking out with enough money to found a noble house, build a wizard academy, or buy a large amount of lands somewhere.

This link has been the most helpful:
https://www.enworld.org/threads/analysis-of-typical-magic-item-distribution.395770/#post-6468347

[Cheesegear]

Those are based on a certain number found per Tier of play, but they don't account for variable party size.

Because party size is irrelevant. A monster doesn't have more treasure because six people came to kill it, instead of four.
A large party already has a significant resource advantage over a small party, and increasing the amount of treasure found, arbitrarily, only increases the resource advantage.


More players facing harder or more challenges to achieve the same rate of advancement through the Tiers of play should not default to receiving less rewards for that same rate of advancement.

An individual player, receives less. The party, receives the same.


In other words, if they take twice as long to get there and get twice as much treasure, it took the same effort and they get the same reward each.

Who cares about each? The more people in the party, the more ways loot has to be shared. That's how the world works.
If you want more loot, have less people in the party.
The idea is simply that numbers is already enough of an advantage. That's why CR goes up significantly, the more hostiles you add to a fight. The more players you have, the better they get.

Remember, a Level 1 Wizard with Burning Hands can reasonably kill 5 Kobolds in one Round. Numbers of hostiles isn't that big a deal, especially if you have 8 characters who have a reasonable class spread with overlapping roles.

If a large party wins most of the Initiative, they can steamroll through most encounters - especially against single-target boss monsters. That's partly why I hate DMing for large groups. Combat is way too easy, 'cause at a certain point, numbers aren't necessarily an advantage for some hostiles, and neither is plonking down a single 'hard' monster only to have it lose Initiative and get killed in one Round before it even gets an Action.

If you think about a party as a group, then you should not be handing out more gold.
If you think about a party as a bunch of people who hate each other, then they do need more gold otherwise they don't feel rewarded.

"I did all that, for 40gp?"
No. Your party did the job, for 300gp, as advertised. The group did it for 300gp.

[Tanarii]

You are missing the point. Since you fight twice as many monsters to advance a level, and the number of hoards is fixed per tier (number of levels), you are getting half as much reward per monster. Or rewards per quest etc, or per amount of danger.

In other words, yes actually, a monster DOES have less treasure if you come to kill it with a bigger party. If you go by the book.

[Cheesegear]

Since you fight twice as many monsters to advance a level

XP is not gold, continue.
Twice as many monsters, also has twice as much gold. So, no problem.


and the number of hoards is fixed per tier (number of levels), you are getting half as much reward per monster.

No you aren't. The number of hoards is fixed per tier because the game assumes how many magic items the party should have. Regardless of party size.

A Wizard with a Ring of Fire Resistance, a Staff of Fire, and a Ring of Evasion, has the exact same amount of magic items, as if they were spread over three characters. Nothing has changed.

What might be different, is that in a party of 8, 3 people might 'feel good' 'cause they each have a magic item. Rather that one person stacking all the magic items - which they can do, especially if they're randomly generated and not necessarily useful for every player.


Or rewards per quest etc, or per amount of danger.

I strongly contend that large(r) parties are in less danger, not more. By that logic, they should receive less treasure. So we're in agreement. :smalltongue:


In other words, yes actually, a monster DOES have less treasure if you come to kill it with a bigger party. If you go by the book.

Negative. It has the same amount of treasure, because treasure can be pooled, and nobody needs a 'share'. A Monk might say "I don't need any gold, so the hoard is meaningless to me." and thus his share is spread out again over the group. The group gets more treasure by virtue of player not taking a share. It has less treasure per character. But at no point does the game make that an issue. Nowhere does the Treasure table say 'This is for groups of 3-6 players.' It just says, "This is how many magic items the party should have at this tier."

It may have less XP to give out, because XP is forcibly divided. Treasure, isn't forcibly divided. That's why treasure is more often than not, a party resource.

The faster you can pool together for the Fighter to get Full Plate, the stronger your party will be. Increasing treasure, only means the Fighter gets Full Plate, faster. Is that your intent? :smallconfused:

[suplee215]

Thanks for the advice everyone (although I didn't mean for this to get as heated as it did).

[stoutstien]

Thanks for the advice everyone (although I didn't mean for this to get as heated as it did).

Gold/wealth per level is solely up to each DM and how they wants their individual game(s) to feel. One man's pocket change is the next man's fortune and all that.

[suplee215]

Gold/wealth per level is solely up to each DM and how they wants their individual game(s) to feel. One man's pocket change is the next man's fortune and all that.

That might be true but also doesn't help me at all when trying to figure this out and looking for guidelines.

[Cheesegear]

That might be true but also doesn't help me at all when trying to figure this out and looking for guidelines.

1. Individual Treasure goes up, as CR increases for larger parties, at the DM's discretion. This is so that the relative gold distribution is equal to the challenges the party faces.

5 Bandits, have 5 Bandits' worth of gold.
10 Bandits, have 10 Bandits' worth of gold.
Makes sense. There really shouldn't be any confusion.

2. Hoard Treasure, stays the same, as the game doesn't intend for parties to have access to too many magic items. A monster who can only be hurt by Silvered weapons is ****-easy if half he party has Silvered weapons. But half the party isn't supposed to have Silvered weapons. It's supposed to be a Challenge.
This may lead to some players getting sad, because it might take a while for each character to acquire a magic item for themselves. But that's kind of where the party might start pooling the 'extra funds' from the extra hostiles you're throwing in, to buy items for the characters who are falling behind.

That should be all the guidelines you need.

Parties get stronger the more characters there are in the party - that's why CR is designed for six characters, max. Once you have 'too many' characters in the party, combat gets real screwy if the dice go even slightly in the player's favour. The party will already be naturally strong, and you really don't need to give them an extra resource to make the game even easier.

[stoutstien]

That might be true but also doesn't help me at all when trying to figure this out and looking for guidelines.

That's my point. You looking for guidance for how much gold per person in the party at any given point but the question should be how gold/wealth do you want them to potentially have available at any point. Working backwards will give you a clearer picture.
How important are magical items? What's the rough cost of living for the party per day?
Will they find the standard gear upgrade like chainmail>splint>plate in game or will they need to be purchased?
Is gold relevant at all?

So basically, how much is gold worth for your party?

[Tanarii]

Thanks for the advice everyone (although I didn't mean for this to get as heated as it did).
Anytime there is a debate about basic math and which view of it is correct, there is the appearance of getting heated.

Cheesegear has a point worth considering.

- do you want the party to have the same amount of magic items per party? If so don't change Hoards. If using modules, remove magic items, or you'll end up with per individual.

- do you want the PCs to have the same amount of magic items per individual? If so, (roughly) double Hoards, if using those. If using modules, do nothing, it'll double itself.

[DrKerosene]

That might be true but also doesn't help me at all when trying to figure this out and looking for guidelines.

I’m pretty sure you’re seeking the information provided in this short article: https://www.enworld.org/threads/deconstructing-5e-typical-wealth-by-level.402507/

It tells you how much treasure a single PC should have at a particular level, so you can use it as a benchmark.

[Cheesegear]

Replying to Myself:


Parties get stronger the more characters there are in the party - that's why CR is designed for six characters, max. Once you have 'too many' characters in the party, combat gets real screwy if the dice go even slightly in the player's favour. The party will already be naturally strong, and you really don't need to give them an extra resource to make the game even easier.

Turns out, I am derp (and evidently have been for years), the DMG even says what to do in this situation.


Party Size, DMG pg. 83
If the party contains six or more characters, use the next lowest multiplier on the table. Use a multiplier of .5 for a single monster.

This means that a party of 6+ characters has to fight even moar!!! monsters.
Because of this, it's quite feasible from the .5 modifier, that a Tier 1 party could fight a 'Tier 2' monster, and as such, receive a Tier 2 hoard.
No. The gold really should take care of itself.

[Tanarii]

No. The gold really should take care of itself.
Hoard GP and magic items do not. Because you still get the same number of hoards per Tier, and you still need to fight twice as many enemies to get the XP to advance through levels/Tiers.

You fight moar enemies (roughly double) to arrive at the same rate of advancement, and get the same amount of treasure per party, or roughly half per individual.

So again, what matters to the OP? Same treasure per individual, or same treasure per party?

I'm pretty sure I know the average players answer to that.

[Cheesegear]

Hoard GP and magic items do not.

Irrelavent. Use the extra GP from Individual Treasure to buy magic items.


Because you still get the same number of hoards per Tier

And that's just not true.
You find a hoard whenever the DM makes sense for one to be where one is. 'Over the course of a typical campaign...' means you can play an atypical campaign, and have more - or less - hoards as you like. The game assumes an amount of hoards per tier. If you want the game easy, have more. If you want the game hard, have less. As I said, because of the .5 modifier on single monsters, it's entirely possible to run a Tier 2 monster, and get the corresponding Tier 2 hoard, which is way better than what you probably want.

8*Level 3 = 3200xp is Deadly.
With the .5 modifier, an 8-character Level 3 party should be able to handle CR9s and 10s (bounded accuracy is like that), and receive the corresponding Tier 2 hoard...At Level 3. Turns out, big parties get big rewards. The DMG has already factored this in. I didn't know that it did. But now that I do, my point still stands. More players get more treasure, by default, you shouldn't need to mess with the treasure.

I just didn't know what I know now. And now, what I know, only supports me further; Large Tier 1 parties, get Tier 2 hoards. Amazing.


and you still need to fight twice as many enemies to get the XP to advance through levels/Tiers.

So? You have twice as many players. Encounters should not be difficult.


You fight moar enemies (roughly double) to arrive at the same rate of advancement

But the enemies also die twice as fast, so there's no problem.


or roughly half per individual.

Wrong. As I said:
5 Bandits gives 5 Treasure,
10 Bandits gives 10 Treasure.

The ratio of what each individual character gets, stays the same.


I'm pretty sure I know the average players answer to that.

Tell that to every party who has ever pooled their GP to get the Fighter's Plate, ASAP.
Maybe in AL, that's true, where each player is out to get theirs - in my experience.
But most tables, and most players, are not like that - at least, not in my current experience DMing 3 different non-AL groups.

[Keravath]

The DMG provides guidelines.

However, the amount of gold and treasure the DM decides to give out depends entirely on their game.

There are games where the monsters are rich or poor. There are games where there are many magic items or few.

As a general guideline, take a look at what the players can spend their gold on and use that as a benchmark for earnings. The most expensive single item in the PHB (barring ships, castles, land or buildings) is plate armor at 1500gp. When do you want the fighter to get that +1AC ... lol ... that is about the only constraint on gold income (other than buying 100 healing potions ... assuming they have a bag of holding to put them in).

If the armor is not an issue for you, feel free to offer up more gold (unless your players are going to go out and hire mercenaries and that is something you don't want them to do). Other than that, most characters end up with a hoard of gold and nothing to spend it on except role playing items like a house/keep/land or household operating expenses. None of which are a problem and can provide some cool plot hooks.

Decide what level you want the characters to become wealthy (if any) .. and gauge the gold income appropriately.

Magic items are similar but different. 5e discourages a magic item economy so usually buying and selling isn't an option. Random treasure may result in things the party can't use ... so in the end it is again up to the DM how to determine what magical treasure is found and how to distribute it (including whether the DM chooses items the party might find useful or just uses random tables).

P.S. Be cautious of using random selection for magic items .. I've seen a DM randomly roll a Deck of Many Things, toss it into the treasure found without really understanding it until afterwards .. and then have to deal with a campaign that spontaneously implodes after the players use the deck leaving some characters overpowered and others almost (or actually) unplayable.

[Cheesegear]

that is about the only constraint on gold income (other than buying 100 healing potions ... assuming they have a bag of holding to put them in).

That's generally why I try and keep GP sane, in my games.
'Double gold equals double Healing Potions. Double Healing Potions means less work done by the party Healers and less Short Rests overall and hey...I thought this game was meant to be a Challenge.'

Also I find that parties tend to want to buy 'A Scroll or Potion for everything', again, undermining certain challenges in the game.
As I said previously, gold is a resource. Giving a party - or player - too much of it can actually be a problem.


Random treasure may result in things the party can't use ... so in the end it is again up to the DM how to determine what magical treasure is found and how to distribute it (including whether the DM chooses items the party might find useful or just uses random tables).

Again, that's how I do it.
When a hoard tells me to 'roll [x] times'. I just pick. Nothing like a random [I]Broom of Flying to completely ruin an adventure.

[suplee215]

Thanks, I more or less tend to use only the gold for hoards and put in magic items. I tend not ot use random tables in general although I think I'll use them more. Also I am running in eberron for what's that worth.

[WaroftheCrans]

And remember, don't describe a 10x10 treasure room filled with gold when you want to have a big hoard. Gold is 1200 pounds per cubic foot, and 50 gp per pound. Even one cubic foot of gold is 60,000 gold, meaning a medium sized chest can contain all the treasure that a party needs. A 10x10 room with a 10 foot ceiling, and gold 7 feet high is 42,000,000 gp, totally breaking the economy. Stick to chests and mimics.

[Segev]

And remember, don't describe a 10x10 treasure room filled with gold when you want to have a big hoard. Gold is 1200 pounds per cubic foot, and 50 gp per pound. Even one cubic foot of gold is 60,000 gold, meaning a medium sized chest can contain all the treasure that a party needs. A 10x10 room with a 10 foot ceiling, and gold 7 feet high is 42,000,000 gp, totally breaking the economy. Stick to chests and mimics.

Ah, the 10x10x10 ft. cube of a room filled 1/4 full of gold (piled up around the sides nearly to the ceiling, naturally flowing all over the floor)....where the gold is actually a quartet or more of mimics.

[Tanarii]

And remember, don't describe a 10x10 treasure room filled with gold when you want to have a big hoard. Gold is 1200 pounds per cubic foot, and 50 gp per pound. Even one cubic foot of gold is 60,000 gold, meaning a medium sized chest can contain all the treasure that a party needs. A 10x10 room with a 10 foot ceiling, and gold 7 feet high is 42,000,000 gp, totally breaking the economy. Stick to chests and mimics.
I feel like this post is just crying out for a ten page thread dedicated to debating coin alloys, weights and sizes. :smallamused:

[Segev]

I feel like this post is just crying out for a ten page thread dedicated to debating coin alloys, weights and sizes. :smallamused:

Gotcha covered, here. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?611226-WIP-Gem-Size-Based-on-coins) Okay, it's not 10 pages, but it does delve into it a bit.

[Laserlight]

You care about gold? We had one party where my character (known to be NE alignment) was the party treasurer; when he ran off, it didn't occur to anyone that the party money was gone.

We don't track expenses (we do that in real life, we don't need D&D for that). Basically, once the heavy armor guys are suited up, gold is just a plot device.

[Zhorn]

And remember, don't describe a 10x10 treasure room filled with gold when you want to have a big hoard. Gold is 1200 pounds per cubic foot, and 50 gp per pound. Even one cubic foot of gold is 60,000 gold, meaning a medium sized chest can contain all the treasure that a party needs. A 10x10 room with a 10 foot ceiling, and gold 7 feet high is 42,000,000 gp, totally breaking the economy. Stick to chests and mimics.
As a volume of solid real world gold, yeah that sound about right, but as coinage it would be a noticeable quantity less based on coin size and packing density of those coins. I think coins are suppose to have roughly a 70-75% packing density for loosely stacked for ideal aspect ratios of thickness/diameter, more commonly you should expect closer to 60%. Ideal stacking you could probably get up to 90%, but that's in perfect alignments.
You point about quantity still stands though.


Gotcha covered, here. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?611226-WIP-Gem-Size-Based-on-coins) Okay, it's not 10 pages, but it does delve into it a bit.
Cheers for the plug.
In that thread, I'm using the 3.5e Draconomicon for coin sizes for the sake of simplicity, but I do recommend it for general scaling of treasure piles as it includes some nice figures (if you're aiming for 100% real world equivalents, you'll be disappointing, but if you want a bunch of numbers to can reference back to without doing the hard math every time it makes things easier).
in it it sets:

1 coin = 1 inch diameter, 1/10th of an inch thick
50 coins = 1 pound
1 cubic foot of coins (loosely stacked) = 12,000 (240 pounds) (maths out as ~55% packing density)
1 cubic foot of coins in a pile = 3 feet wide by 1 inch high
1 cubic foot of coins in a pile = 5 feet wide by ½ inch high
plus a whole bunch of figures for how big a pile different sized dragons will want as a bed

It doesn't worry about real world metal weights, density differences between copper, silver, gold, etc. Just sets a uniform standard and moves on, which for a game is what you'll want.

[WaroftheCrans]

As a volume of solid real world gold, yeah that sound about right, but as coinage it would be a noticeable quantity less based on coin size and packing density of those coins. I think coins are suppose to have roughly a 70-75% packing density for loosely stacked for ideal aspect ratios of thickness/diameter, more commonly you should expect closer to 60%. Ideal stacking you could probably get up to 90%, but that's in perfect alignments.
You point about quantity still stands though.

In that thread, I'm using the 3.5e Draconomicon for coin sizes for the sake of simplicity, but I do recommend it for general scaling of treasure piles as it includes some nice figures (if you're aiming for 100% real world equivalents, you'll be disappointing, but if you want a bunch of numbers to can reference back to without doing the hard math every time it makes things easier).
in it it sets:

1 coin = 1 inch diameter, 1/10th of an inch thick
50 coins = 1 pound
1 cubic foot of coins (loosely stacked) = 12,000 (240 pounds) (maths out as ~55% packing density)
1 cubic foot of coins in a pile = 3 feet wide by 1 inch high
1 cubic foot of coins in a pile = 5 feet wide by ½ inch high
plus a whole bunch of figures for how big a pile different sized dragons will want as a bed

It doesn't worry about real world metal weights, density differences between copper, silver, gold, etc. Just sets a uniform standard and moves on, which for a game is what you'll want.

Hmm, this is nice. Brings the value down and makes things more realistic, while not totally messing with expected values.
Thanks!

[Segev]

I remember reading somewhere once - and no, I can't quote or find it right now - that M&Ms actually have the optimal shape, empirically determined, for maximum packing density with minimum effort at perfecting the arrangement. That is, if you take a bunch of uniform 3D objects and fill an arbitrary volume with them, letting gravity settle them without any special effort beyond, perhaps, some light agitation to break static friction, the shape of an M&M is what will get the best packing density for discrete solid objects of uniform size.

I think coins are close enough to this that they should be reasonably high on the "natural packing efficiency" scale.

My memory - which could be way off - is that roughly 70% packing efficiency is what M&Ms get when just dumped into a jar.

[Zhorn]

I found this over at dragonsfoot. It includes some fun stuff about packing densities.

https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=82627
From that other thread, info would be of more interest here based on the direction of the conversation.
All credit to Tanarii to digging up the link.