D&D 5E How do you handle the "economy killing spells" in your game?

Umbran said:

"The best way to approach it is to not approach it," is kind of a discussion-ending, non-starter of a comment, though. It is kind of like walking into a discussion about making peanut-butter sandwiches, and stolidly proclaiming, "I am allergic to peanut butter!" I mean, sure. Fine. That's great. But you're kinda done once you've said that.

Click to expand...

Fine. Since I too repeated that answer, let me expand on it:

The issue that needs to be met head on is one of meta. No amount of detail tweaking is gonna cut it.

The game is meant for isolated instances of heroic prowess. Viewed in that light, the spells are fine.

If you instead consider what a real character would do, given the ability to cast a level X spell Y times a day, please don't do so for individual spells in isolation without considering the rest of what the PHB and DMG gives characters. That is an exercise in futility.

By that I don't mean to shut down discussion. I quite literally mean it is futile, as I am convinced no good solution can come out of it. Just a statement, not a proscription. Again, unless you include the wider concerns of the world economy in that discussion.

In the end, the only fix likely to keep the game at it's current level of simplicity will be to remove the offending spell (along with a select number of other game features). Everything else very quickly approaches the complexity level of reality, that is way way too complex for a game of 5E's caliber (at least IMHO).

Or, even simpler, to leave everything as is, and just not abuse them as a kind of gentleman's agreement.

I hope you see that my intent here isn't another "discussion-ending, non-starter" post, but instead to make the point that this is a problem on the meta level which can only realistically be solved on the meta level.

Best regards

Okay, I think one of the issues of this sort of discussion is that we sometimes start from the wrong direction. We look at a spell, and try to work through the ramifications and realize it should create an entirely different world. It doesn't seem like there is any good way around the obvious cause and effect, which leads some people to find the discussion useless for the actual game.

This is because we are coming at it from the wrong direction. Instead, we need to start at the end. What do we want the world to look like? Do you want magic to have a major influence on the economy? Do you want it to be something that somehow mostly affects the lives of adventurers instead? Do you have another approach? Whatever your approach is, figure it out before worrying about what the spells and items and such say they do.

Now you find ways to to explain how the world works the way it does despite the existence of those spells. It's up to you at what point you and your players consider the explanation satisfying, but there is way more possible depth here than just deciding not to think about it at all (which is fine if that's the approach your group wants to take--it's just not the only feasible approach). This is a basic design technique that works just as well here as elsewhere.

Sword of Spirit said:

This is because we are coming at it from the wrong direction. Instead, we need to start at the end. What do we want the world to look like? Do you want magic to have a major influence on the economy? Do you want it to be something that somehow mostly affects the lives of adventurers instead? Do you have another approach? Whatever your approach is, figure it out before worrying about what the spells and items and such say they do.

Now you find ways to to explain how the world works the way it does despite the existence of those spells.

Click to expand...

I'd think, if you're working back from the kind of world you want, you would be considering which spells &c to include that would support that vision, and cut those that don't fit. Otherwise you're really back to the same exercise.

S'mon said:

If I was running Mystara in 5e I'd definitely have Alphatian mage-smiths Fabricating away happily. The Alphatian economy is based off magic.

In most settings, possibly not a single Wizard knows the spell Fabricate. It's not something I've ever seen a PC Wizard research.

I definitely find that it is Cleric spells that are the issue. Most settings have Priests like the MM level 5 caster be pretty common. If they are like PCs they have access to the full Cleric spell list and can swap out every time they finish a long rest. Major temples may have *lots* of Priests and even a level 9+ high priest. This is where the GM really needs to be careful when it comes to world building, and think about how much magic he wants in his campaign world.

Click to expand...

Glantri requires its students to create magic items to sell. Most of the nation uses magical devices as appliances and other labor-saving inventions. They don't export much but if you can get there with money and aren't one of the classes or races they dissect for practice, you can score a lot of magic items.

Sword of Spirit said:

Okay, I think one of the issues of this sort of discussion is that we sometimes start from the wrong direction. We look at a spell, and try to work through the ramifications and realize it should create an entirely different world. It doesn't seem like there is any good way around the obvious cause and effect, which leads some people to find the discussion useless for the actual game.

This is because we are coming at it from the wrong direction. Instead, we need to start at the end. What do we want the world to look like?...Now you find ways to to explain how the world works the way it does despite the existence of those spells.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what this exercise is. So if we assume a normal dnd setting, assuming high level people exist (even if rare), and the standard phb spell exist....we want to have an economy that works "normally". So my original post was to get from suggestions from people on how to rationalize that. Basically....why is the economy normal? Why aren't these hyper intelligent mid level wizards not swimming in gold...etc.

Ultimately that is what I want in my setting, and I have handwaved things to get it there. But I would rather have more rationale explanations, which is what people are contributing.

Stalker0 said:

That's exactly what this exercise is. So if we assume a normal dnd setting, assuming high level people exist (even if rare), and the standard phb spell exist....we want to have an economy that works "normally". So my original post was to get from suggestions from people on how to rationalize that. Basically....why is the economy normal? Why aren't these hyper intelligent mid level wizards not swimming in gold...etc.

Ultimately that is what I want in my setting, and I have handwaved things to get it there. But I would rather have more rationale explanations, which is what people are contributing.

Click to expand...

But in my experience, most settings for fantasy worlds (movies, books, RPGs) rarely fo a good job of altering the "normal" setting to account for the "a normal aspects of the setting - on large scale. Even the existence of flying dangers or flying mounts thrown a ton of "normal" out the window - much less something as simple as even infrequent invisibility.

Now, in part, the origin of this is that these fictions thst make up the sources are often in part or in whole drawn ftom our own real world myths and legends which in fact laid a mystical fiction over existing real world structures. Our ancient Greeks did not actually build defenses against kraken and cyclops or security to guard against invisible heroes, no matter what the myths said.

S'mon said:

I suggested to James Jacobs of Paizo that this dire lack of people in the setting (Golarion) was likely due to setting cultural norms - like widespread birth control, Right to Choose, same sex or trans marriages, women in the (adventuring) work force...

...He didn't seem too impressed.

Click to expand...

Cute.

Horwath said:

Homelessness, maybe.

Poverty? No chance.

Click to expand...

Property.

Most wealth is property, not dollars.

So, poverty? 100% chance.

doctorbadwolf said:

Property.

Most wealth is property, not dollars.

So, poverty? 100% chance.

Click to expand...

This could turn into philosophical debate but,

Poverty comes from; available resources in any given area vs. number of people in that area. Attitude of governing bodies towards it's general populace and also ability of general population to use available resources.

Just if you give someone house and land and car/farming equipment does not mean it will work for them in the long run. Or that will be used to max of it's capacity.

Removing poverty starts with education and self-control, not with money being thrown your way.

Horwath said:

This could turn into philosophical debate but,

Poverty comes from; available resources in any given area vs. number of people in that area. Attitude of governing bodies towards it's general populace and also ability of general population to use available resources.

Click to expand...

In a D&D world, the bolded, above, could include: Kings, Emperors, Vassals thereof, Tyrants, humanoid chieftains, Theocracies, Magocracies, Mad Liches*, Demi-gods, Diabolic powers, and, well, Dragons if they really felt like it. I'm guessing the average attitude of governing bodies is not one disinclined to accept rampant poverty among the general populace.










* sane liches realize governance is too much trouble