D&D (2024) Gold & Other Treasure (Can we get off the treadmill?)

[Scott Christian]

Now you're veering dangerously close to telling people if they just want to purchase items for their gold, they're playing the game wrong.

All the groups that find gold to be interesting mostly or solely because it can buy them great gear doesn't need you telling them they need to "put a little effort" into it. What they need is a stable magic item economy. If you find that your time is taken up with so many other ways to spend gold, then great, you can ignore this aspect of the game.

If you include the top half of my quote, you will see it is nothing like me telling them they're playing the game wrong. In fact, I am clear that all styles of play are valid.

Also what I am clear on, is if you are going to complain about the gold economy in D&D not working, and the players don't attempt to interact with gold except to buy potions and mundane items, and the DM either overlooks or doesn't put any effort into having the economy interact with a PC's choice to interact with the economy, then they should not complain. It is an easy solution - ignore the economy because that table's style of play doesn't need or want to utilize it.

 

[tetrasodium]

.

I am not blind to the fact that ROLEPLAYING exists in all pillars of play, and a player can ROLEPLAY in any situation, including combat and exploration. I am not turning it into a binary argument. I even mentioned above, in response to Lanefan, "I couldn't put my finger on it, which is why I mentioned pillars of play."

So I will state this claim clearly: I do not believe that dungeon delvers are incapable of roleplay.

That said, if a DM cannot find any reason to institute gold from a character's actions outside of buying potions and magic items, then I am going to say that character is a static character. That is not a bad thing. Some of my favorite characters have been static. But to have an entire group of static characters is surprising. Rare even. Like having an entire player group that only want to play clerics.

If not that, then the DM should respond to the player and put a little effort into that part of play.

Treasure (magic items especially) have a much bigger impact on the game than just a gold sink. Motivation, character advancement, goals that anyone can set & convey without needing to turn the game into the story of Bob's personal quest, so on and so forth. By setting the expectation to zero 5e also ensures that all of the other roleplaying focused uses for gold can not apply towards filling magic item goals and motivations as they once were directly or indirectly used for in ways that everyone at the table could be excited about having a shared goal that didn't require a flowchart to track PC by pc.

By repeatedly ignoring how 5e choosing to design for zero magic items impacts everything else and trying to frame gold consumption and pricing as the primary and exclusive problem with such heavy gestures towards roleplay solutions for it you lay out the topic as w stormwind type disconnect that only matters if you are trying to play d&d wrongly instead of a good and correct manner.

 

[Scott Christian]

.

Treasure (magic items especially) have a much bigger impact on the game than just a gold sink. Motivation, character advancement, goals that anyone can set & convey without needing to turn the game into the story of Bob's personal quest, so on and so forth. By setting the expectation to zero 5e also ensures that all of the other roleplaying focused uses for gold can not apply towards filling magic item goals and motivations as they once were directly or indirectly used for in ways that everyone at the table could be excited about having a shared goal that didn't require a flowchart to track PC by pc.

By repeatedly ignoring how 5e choosing to design for zero magic items impacts everything else and trying to frame gold consumption and pricing as the primary and exclusive problem with such heavy gestures towards roleplay solutions for it you lay out the topic as w stormwind type disconnect that only matters if you are trying to play d&d wrongly instead of a good and correct manner.

Sorry, I am a bit confused. How is me giving a list of how gold can be used, also me telling people they are playing incorrectly? How is me explaining roleplaying can be found in all pillars of play, also me telling others they are playing wrong? How is me explaining that the amount of variables in an economy varies from table to table, so the DM will need to do some work, also me telling people they play wrong?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Even older PHB's have way more going on in the equipment list than 5e. We used to have a plethora of alchemical items, for example. Sunrods, thunderstones, smokesticks, tanglefoot bags...it really feels like 5e was built with the idea that you scrounge for a few levels to buy better armor, then you're meant to forget money is a thing!

My personal opinion is that 5E was built acknowledging that its foundation is a game almost 50 years old, and that players from any of those years already know exactly how they want their D&D game to go. So there's no point in re-writing rules for 5E that most of those older players will just ignore or get annoyed at because they won't match their expectations. They own all their old books, they remember how they enjoyed playing with those old rules... if they want rules such as that so badly they can just incorporate their old chestnuts into this new game. It's like Stealth... I think WotC knew going in with 5E14 that every single player out there was going to have a different opinion on how Stealth should work in their game... so why go out of their way to build some elaborate hiding and stealthing system in 5E when 95% of the playerbase was just going to crap on it and end up just re-doing their old preferred rules from whatever their favorite edition was and just using that anyway? Just write something basic and foundational, and let players toss them out and use something else if they want something different.

And new players? If they have no experience or knowledge of what you used to be able to do with treasure, then they won't know what they're missing. So WotC doesn't need to design a system for them either necessarily, if they think that system will just end up being more complicated or less fun than it's worth, or that those players could just go find stuff online to use if they think they need something.

It's weird how so many old players keep asking WotC to redesign old rules for 5E... even though they HAVE to know in the back of their mind that they aren't going to actually like the new result. It's no different than folks who kept asking for old campaign settings to be brought up to 5E-- they always thought "I don't want to be bothered trying to make this setting I loved brought into 5E myself, I want WotC to do the work for me!"... and then when WotC finally did all the work, they didn't like the result because it didn't match all the stuff they remembered from their previous uses. How many times does this have to happen before players actually realize that in truth WotC is doing them a favor by not producing that which they think they want? Because now they aren't going to get their hopes up for something that inevitably isn't going match their expectations.

 

[Mephista]

n/e

 

[tetrasodium]

Sorry, I am a bit confused. How is me giving a list of how gold can be used, also me telling people they are playing incorrectly? How is me explaining roleplaying can be found in all pillars of play, also me telling others they are playing wrong? How is me explaining that the amount of variables in an economy varies from table to table, so the DM will need to do some work, also me telling people they play wrong?

Are you "confused" by 5e designing so zero magic items are expected? I linked up quotes from a couple wotc folks plus xge earlier if so. Are you confused by how having the system designed with the assumption that something will never be used causes problems both with using it as well as everything that you can expect to interact with it (ie magic item buying & selling/pricing, adventure incentive, world interaction incentive, etc)?

Or do you just disagree and find that it's easier to ignore those problems by painting them as a thing only unskilled would care about if they can't find ways of spending gold through the playing

If you include the top half of my quote, you will see it is nothing like me telling them they're playing the game wrong. In fact, I am clear that all styles of play are valid.

Also what I am clear on, is if you are going to complain about the gold economy in D&D not working, and the players don't attempt to interact with gold except to buy potions and mundane items, and the DM either overlooks or doesn't put any effort into having the economy interact with a PC's choice to interact with the economy, then they should not complain. It is an easy solution - ignore the economy because that table's style of play doesn't need or want to utilize it.

Those bold bits are examples of how you have been painting the problem as one that only matters if someone is playing it wrong because they are lazy unskilled or just lacking in some way.it might not be your intent to do so, but coupled with efforts to avoid the deliberately created mechanical side of the problem it very much comes off as channeling all of the implications of stormwind fallacy

 

[Scott Christian]

Are you "confused" by 5e designing so zero magic items are expected? I linked up quotes from a couple wotc folks plus xge earlier if so. Are you confused by how having the system designed with the assumption that something will never be used causes problems both with using it as well as everything that you can expect to interact with it (ie magic item buying & selling/pricing, adventure incentive, world interaction incentive, etc)?

Or do you just disagree and find that it's easier to ignore those problems by painting them as a thing only unskilled would care about if they can't find ways of spending gold through the playing

I am not confused by WotC's statements. I think you are. I don't mean that in a negative way either. I have done the same thing before. But it seems as though you have taken their statements as, "You don't need to use magic items in the game (in context of balance)," and warped it into some canonical expectation.

One: The DMG has an entire chapter on treasure, most of which is magic items. It is approximately 100 pages of magic item descriptions, use, and application. That is approximately 1/3 of the DMG dedicated to magic items! To dedicate a third of the DMG to anything means it is important.

Two: Xanathar's has an entire section in their section Downtime Revisited dealing with the buying and selling of magic items. They also have an entire section on Awarding Magic Items. Again, odd of them to dedicate a dozen pages of a supplement when the thought is "zero magic items expected."

The truth is, they are using that in context of power and game fluidity, not expectations. How about this, show me a popular D&D campaign online or a published adventure by WotC that doesn't use magic items. The answer is - you can't. That is because they are used. This insistence you have that "zero magic items are expected" is not wholly accurate.

You can run a D&D game without magic items. No one else does.

If you decide to run a game without magic items, please come back and tell me the implications on the gold economy. I will fix them for you.

Those bold bits are examples of how you have been painting the problem as one that only matters if someone is playing it wrong because they are lazy unskilled or just lacking in some way.it might not be your intent to do so, but coupled with efforts to avoid the deliberately created mechanical side of the problem it very much comes off as channeling all of the implications of stormwind fallacy

That is not me saying they are playing wrong. It is me saying, if you sign up to be a DM, then some work is required. I am sorry if you feel otherwise, but it is the truth. It is written in the DMG. It is clear. It is in thousands of DMs posts here, on Reddit, and anywhere else people consume D&D information. It is written in every adventure path. The expectation is very clear - to DM you will have to do some work. That work requires you to read, write, and interact with your players.

If you do not believe that, then we are at an impasse.

 

[James Gasik]

I am not confused by WotC's statements. I think you are. I don't mean that in a negative way either. I have done the same thing before. But it seems as though you have taken their statements as, "You don't need to use magic items in the game (in context of balance)," and warped it into some canonical expectation.

One: The DMG has an entire chapter on treasure, most of which is magic items. It is approximately 100 pages of magic item descriptions, use, and application. That is approximately 1/3 of the DMG dedicated to magic items! To dedicate a third of the DMG to anything means it is important.

Two: Xanathar's has an entire section in their section Downtime Revisited dealing with the buying and selling of magic items. They also have an entire section on Awarding Magic Items. Again, odd of them to dedicate a dozen pages of a supplement when the thought is "zero magic items expected."

The truth is, they are using that in context of power and game fluidity, not expectations. How about this, show me a popular D&D campaign online or a published adventure by WotC that doesn't use magic items. The answer is - you can't. That is because they are used. This insistence you have that "zero magic items are expected" is not wholly accurate.

You can run a D&D game without magic items. No one else does.

If you decide to run a game without magic items, please come back and tell me the implications on the gold economy. I will fix them for you.

That is not me saying they are playing wrong. It is me saying, if you sign up to be a DM, then some work is required. I am sorry if you feel otherwise, but it is the truth. It is written in the DMG. It is clear. It is in thousands of DMs posts here, on Reddit, and anywhere else people consume D&D information. It is written in every adventure path. The expectation is very clear - to DM you will have to do some work. That work requires you to read, write, and interact with your players.

If you do not believe that, then we are at an impasse.

Xanathar's also has a section talking about how the game's balance shifts if players don't have access to magic weapons, which I always felt belied the "game works fine without magic items" talking point.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Xanathar's also has a section talking about how the game's balance shifts if players don't have access to magic weapons, which I always felt belied the "game works fine without magic items" talking point.

Depends entirely on how one defines "fine" I think.

If you don't use magic weapons, then the weapon-using PCs will have attack rolls probably 1-3 points lower and extra damage dice down like an extra 1d6 to 2d6 than they would have otherwise with magic weapons (depending on level). Does that make combat suddenly turn into impossible fights? Of course not. Will it extend battles an extra one to three rounds longer? Quite possibly. And some people will think having a fight go a bit longer and PCs needing to use more resources to win is indeed "fine"-- especially if they play at tables where the PCs go to bed at night with resources to spare. Whereas other tables might run combat on such a razor's edge of victory that any numbers change such as extra combat rounds will result in more dead PCs-- and for them, missing magic items means the game does not "work fine".

But based upon what I hear people usually saying on these boards... most of the talk seems to be that D&D combat is too easy, not that it sits on a razor's edge. Thus for the most part, any additional rounds of combat that get added because PCs have a couple less points of attack bonus and a few less extra damage dice (due to not having magic weapons) would just make combats more even, rather than falling into impossibility. Sure there will be a few for whom the game plunges into a deep hole without having magic weapons... but for almost everyone else... "the game works fine without magic weapons" is probably fairly accurate.

 

[James Gasik]

Depends entirely on how one defines "fine" I think.

If you don't use magic weapons, then the weapon-using PCs will have attack rolls probably 1-3 points lower and extra damage dice down like an extra 1d6 to 2d6 than they would have otherwise with magic weapons (depending on level). Does that make combat suddenly turn into impossible fights? Of course not. Will it extend battles an extra one to three rounds longer? Quite possibly. And some people will think having a fight go a bit longer and PCs needing to use more resources to win is indeed "fine"-- especially if they play at tables where the PCs go to bed at night with resources to spare. Whereas other tables might run combat on such a razor's edge of victory that any numbers change such as extra combat rounds will result in more dead PCs-- and for them, missing magic items means the game does not "work fine".

But based upon what I hear people usually saying on these boards... most of the talk seems to be that D&D combat is too easy, not that it sits on a razor's edge. Thus for the most part, any additional rounds of combat that get added because PCs have a couple less points of attack bonus and a few less extra damage dice (due to not having magic weapons) would just make combats more even, rather than falling into impossibility. Sure there will be a few for whom the game plunges into a deep hole without having magic weapons... but for almost everyone else... "the game works fine without magic weapons" is probably fairly accurate.

It's not about the bonus to hit, it's about how many foes have resistance to non-magical weapons. The mega-dungeon I'm playing in now (Scarlet Citadel by Kobold Press) was absolutely brutal for our weapon users because we consistently ran into enemies with this resistance. When we found our first magic weapon, we gave it to the Cleric not realizing how few magic weapons we would encounter (ironically, the next thing we found was an actual +1 warhammer). Our Dex Ranger was stuck using a pair of +0 daggers (one is +1 vs. monstrosities, and the other is +1 vs. undead). It wasn't until two sessions ago that he was able to upgrade to actual short swords (which cost us 10,000 gp to "rent" lol).