Monetary Treasure Parcels - Gold for your thought.

[Gorrstagg]

Not sure about your findings here.

A five man party recieves (or is supposed to recieve, at least) 14000 gp worth of treasure (4200+3400+2600+1800+1000*2) or 2800 gp per character.

A six man party would/should recieve an additional level 7 item (worth 2600 gp). The loot per character goes down, but only from 2800 gp to 2767 gp.

An eight man party gets as their additional parcels 3400, 2600, and 1800 gp. Sure, that's still only 2600 gp a pop, making the group's average 2725 gp.

All numbers for level 5.

Sure, they're lagging behind, but not by that much. Besides, the designer did a pretty good job of approximating the average loot by just having item prices to play with!

To me, you'd lose more by disenchanting or selling even a single item, than you'd lose by brining in another player or three...!

I was using just the wealth from monies. As the magic items are balanced out overall.

 

[arscott]

No, they're not. For a five man party, you'll get four magic items--that's .8 items per character.

But when you have more or fewer characters in the party, you'll get different results:

2 Characters: .50 items/character
3 Characters: .67 items/character
4 Characters: .75 items/character
5 Characters: .80 items/character
6 Characters: .83 items/character
7 Characters: .86 items/character
8 Characters: .88 items/character

So a party with few members has lots of gold but fewer items, but a party with more characters has more items but less gold.

 

[Gorrstagg]

No, they're not. For a five man party, you'll get four magic items--that's .8 items per character.

But when you have more or fewer characters in the party, you'll get different results:

2 Characters: .50 items/character
3 Characters: .67 items/character
4 Characters: .75 items/character
5 Characters: .80 items/character
6 Characters: .83 items/character
7 Characters: .86 items/character
8 Characters: .88 items/character

So a party with few members has lots of gold but fewer items, but a party with more characters has more items but less gold.

Your right, the caveat that you need to take into account, which I've been quoting was, the part about over X levels (where X ='s party members) they all will have the same number of magic items. So a group of 5 will each have 4 magic items.

A group of 6 would each have 5 magic items each at 6th level. But those again would only be typically acquired as treasure.

Thus, the wealth in monetary form, is still short.

(Alright grabbing my laptop so I can begin to quote the accurate numbers I put together.)

5 Member Group
Total Wealth + Treasure (as represented by their gold piece value.)
114,052,195gp.
Individual wealth based upon that, (divided by 5 for each recieving an equal share.)
22,810,439gp.

So that forms our base line of wealth, from monies and treasures.

A 6 member group
Total Wealth + Treasure (as represented by their gold piece value.)
133,581,715 gp.
Individual wealth based upon that, (divided by 6 for each recieving an equal share.)
22,263,619.17 gp.

A 7 member group
Total Wealth + Treasure (as represented by their gold piece value.)
149,986,755 gp.
Individual wealth based upon that, (divided by 7 for each recieving an equal share.)
21,426,679.29 gp.

A 8 member group
Total Wealth + Treasure (as represented by their gold piece value.)
172,640,595 gp.
Individual wealth based upon that, (divided by 8 for each recieving an equal share.)
21,580,074.38 gp.

So that's the math being presented. (And the presented argument that it all balances out by the addition the appropriate level magic item being added to the larger group but the monies wealth not changing.)

So now the differences.

A 6 member group compared to a 5 member group on total wealth and individual wealth.

Receives 19,529,520 gp. More than a 5 member group. But, when it's all said and done and the math is finished. They find they are now over the course of their levels 1-30. They are now, short 546,819.83 gp. (Using the standard treasure table as listed, with no modification.) And that's each member.

A 7 member group compared to a 5 member group on total wealth and individual wealth.

Receives 35,934,560 gp. More than a 5 member group. But, when it's all said and done and the math is finished. They find they are now over the course of their levels 1-30. They are now, short 1,383,759.71 gp. (Using the standard treasure table as listed, with no modification.) And that's each member.

A 8 member group compared to a 5 member group on total wealth and individual wealth.

Receives 58,588,400 gp. More than a 5 member group. But, when it's all said and done and the math is finished. They find they are now over the course of their levels 1-30. They are now, short 1,230,364.63 gp. (Using the standard treasure table as listed, with no modification.) And that's each member.

So, that's the errors. So really, yes there is a problem. Over the course of 30 levels. And gets much more exaggerated in a larger group.

But my initial methodology (that I said would fix it) doesn't quite correct it either. Because if we did fix it that way then the wealth adjustments would be incorrect as well in the favor of over rewarding the larger groups.

So I'll put together a simple pdf with the correct methods. (noting the differences per level.) For example, level 1, for a 6 member group, they are actually only short 12 gold. (Not much but a few beers.) But again as they go up in levels, yeah stuff get's skewed.

And really if your playing level 1 - 30, your probably going to want all the wealth you can get, especially if your in a larger group. Over half a million in a 6 member group on to over 1.2 million in a 7 and 8 member group.

 

[CapnZapp]

Ehm... I think you're forgetting something... 1,230k gold is only 5.4%.
(of the "correct" amount; i.e. the wealth given to each member of a five-man party).

First; I bet the variance from DM to DM is way more than 5%.

Second; I also bet that lots of groups will lose lots and lots more than this amount to disenchanting/selling stuff (your example assumes all treasure is worth its cover price, a vast simplification).

Third; I also note that in my level 5 example, the deviation for an eight-man team was 75 gp out of 2800 gp. Okay, so this disrepancy doubles over time (from 2.7% to 5.4%), so what?

Fourth; about your numbers. Do they show the accumulated wealth of each character, or the market price of the stuff they currently use. I think that's two completely different numbers. And even if it's the latter (and more relevant) number, it's still only a 5% difference...

Fifth; even two million gold only means you have to make do with a level 26 item when you really "should" have gotten a level 30 item. That's a single +1 bonus and/or a single extra damage die.

No big deal, I say. Just throw the "poorest" character(s) in your 8-man party a bonus level+4 item once a tier, and congratulate yourself to having solved the entire issue.

My conclusion and advice to you:

Don't sweat it. You've just showed how well the treasure tables hold together!

 

[Gorrstagg]

Ehm... I think you're forgetting something... 1,230k gold is only 5.4%.
(of the "correct" amount; i.e. the wealth given to each member of a five-man party).

In the context of a campaign, that can be a signficant amount of wealth. That would in theory let the players make additional choices for themselves. But 5.4% of wealth over that time is useful.

First; I bet the variance from DM to DM is way more than 5%.

Sure, I believe that's possible seeing as each DM runs their game the way the wish. And a lot of DM's like to run their campaigns by the rules as it were as well. In my 26 years of gaming D&D I've met the gamut of DM's. And quite a few enjoyed running it by the book on the premise that it's balanced. (That often gets found out later that it's not, but 4E is easily the most balanced in this setting.)

Second; I also bet that lots of groups will lose lots and lots more than this amount to disenchanting/selling stuff (your example assumes all treasure is worth its cover price, a vast simplification).

Your right, many will lose lots more by disenchanting/selling. But that's their choice, and over the time if presented with the balance, then having the additional wealth may let them acquire some goods they they've been saving for. And the vast simplification well, that's obvious, from the variable factors. But that's because your looking at the variables in question not the big picture. i.e. over time, wealth is missing, per member.

Third; I also note that in my level 5 example, the deviation for an eight-man team was 75 gp out of 2800 gp. Okay, so this disrepancy doubles over time (from 2.7% to 5.4%), so what?

Well if you don't care, then why visit the thread? I've shown the discrepancy at it's most base level. And even included the wealth of the magic items in gold value. But 5.4% of the wealth gained, over time is not for larger groups. Maybe you don't have large groups, but I've run from 6-10 man groups. I've since tried to keep it down to 6 member groups, to make the game go smoother. But from the perspective of me trusting the math of this system to be balanced, I would anticipate something like this to be caught or mentioned.

Fourth; about your numbers. Do they show the accumulated wealth of each character, or the market price of the stuff they currently use. I think that's two completely different numbers. And even if it's the latter (and more relevant) number, it's still only a 5% difference...

The wealth is the grand total of all magic items converted to gold based upon group size, plus the wealth specifically in monies. So the total kit and caboodle. Maybe 5% isn't a big deal for you. But your premise for dismissing it is ... cause you don't care about it? Okay that's your choice to be honest, and I respect that right to choose. But I found an issue, and I don't like disrespecting my players, and limit their options because of an oversight. i.e. it's similar to the forked thread about screwing your players over because of them being clever, and disrespecting the fair expectation covenant between the players and the DM. If said DM is going by the rules, and the rules are flawed even from a very minor level, correcting it like such should be easy. And this way it's fair to all peoples involved.

Fifth; even two million gold only means you have to make do with a level 26 item when you really "should" have gotten a level 30 item. That's a single +1 bonus and/or a single extra damage die.

The wealth, ultimately is up to the players to spend for themselves. They are the ones adventuring. I'm just making sure they have the wealth to use that is listed in the book from a fair and decent perspective. However They see fit.

My conclusion and advice to you:

Don't sweat it. You've just showed how well the treasure tables hold together!

Thanks for your opinion on this subject. I'll consider your input and then go back to making sure the players get a fair shake. But what I'm personally glad about is that the tables DO hold together so well. With some minor adjustment, which I can now feel more comfortable spreading around more monies for the players over the particular levels, and knowing that it's a fair shake. They trust me to be fair, and impartial. I am, and in the setting I'm going by the wealth listed, but I found a problem, and I've found an easy way to fix it. Just a simple spreadsheet with the correct data, and problem solved.

 

[CapnZapp]

Cheers.

Good luck with your game, Gorrstagg!

 

[Truename]

It's a magic item economy

I think converting items->gold is going in the wrong direction. It's not gold that matters in the game; it's magic items. There's nothing else to spend the money on. And the treasure is balanced in that every level awards one item per person.

A five-person group gets five items: four items and enough gold for a fifth.
A six-person group gets six items: five items and enough gold for a sixth.
A seven-person group gets seven items: six items and enough gold for a seventh.

There's also a bit of extra "walking around money" at each level for consumables and what-not. That's what doesn't scale properly. A five-person party has enough gold to buy one level-5 item each. If I wanted to balance the treasure perfectly, I would balance that "walking around money," not the rest of it.

For example, at level 10, a level-5 item is 1,000 gold. I would scale monetary treasure by awarding one level+0 item and one level-5 item per person, like this:

3 people: 5000 + 3000
4 people: 5000 + 4000
5 people: 5000 + 5000
6 people: 5000 + 6000
7 people: 5000 + 7000

Which gives the party the ability to buy one level+0 item (for the poor schmuck who didn't get an item this level) and share gold to buy one level-5 item each.

(But personally, I expect the group will spend the "walking around money" on consumables, and I think their reduced consumable buying power is balanced by the increased firepower and synergies they get from having more people. So I use the treasure tables as written.)

 

[arscott]

Your right, the caveat that you need to take into account, which I've been quoting was, the part about over X levels (where X ='s party members) they all will have the same number of magic items. So a group of 5 will each have 4 magic items.

A group of 6 would each have 5 magic items each at 6th level. But those again would only be typically acquired as treasure.

And a group of 5 would each have 4.8 items each at 6th level, while a group of eight would have 5.25 items each at 6th level. The bigger the group, the more they've got.

your caveat is meaningless, because X isn't constant--You're describing an aspect of the system, but not one that creates an accurate representation of party wealth at any given point.

I could just as easily say that Over X levels (where X ='s party members) a large party will get just as much gold as a small party. Over the first ten levels of play, a two-person party gets 3809.5 gp per person every two levels, while a five person party gets 3809.5 gp per person every five levels.

While true, that doesn't really change the fact that at level five, your share of the gold is 1000 gp if you're in a two person party, but only 400 gp if you're in a four person party. Neither does saying that "At level X, a party of size X has X-1 items" diminish the fact that smaller parties get fewer items per person than large parties.