Silver Standard, Equipment and Masterwork

[Kunimatyu]

The point about Astral Diamonds is it allows dragons to sleep on piles of gold without completely wrecking everything when the adventurers kill the dragon.

If magic items aren't for sale, the PCs will have to spend their dragon gold on castles, mansions, laboratories, etc. There's no risk of messing with game balance.

 

[Sunseeker]

No. How much things cost AFFECTS directly how much the players are making. It's called trade. So it really doesnt matter that you give your players pittance in gold coin...its the equipment they took from those 30 dead orcs at the end of the day that will rake in the PC monies.

In the editions I'm familiar with, those 30 rusty swords and those 25 smelly jock straps are going to bring in the party probably, 10g, and that's being generous.

When an item costs 4 gold, and the game says players only get 10-25% of that value when selling the item, that means they're lucky to get 1g per sword. The players are most certainly not "raking it in" when reselling weapons and armor they've taken off their foes. Which I might add, is going to be pretty beat up since they had to fight the guy and kill him before they took his stuff.

PCs don't benefit from trade that may or may not exist, and attempting to simulate local, national, or global economics in a game is IMO, more trouble than it's worth.

 

[Pheonix0114]

I was really looking forward to the silver standard as well. Not that long ago one of my players picked up a copy of a magical medieval society and informed me that level one characters pretty much had to be nobles or the children of rich merchants. This was something I had known for awhile, but was not telling my players to keep from having to make some kind of houserule cost adjustment that would inevitably be wonky. Hopefully it just didn't find its way into this early document and it is still something they are working on.

Also, I started playing with 4e and play Pathfinder now and I have to say the idea of magic items not being part of encounter design math and not being for sale really excites me. No longer will the players feel they are directly nerfing themselves if they choose to purchase a castle or a mansion instead of saving for their next hit of magic lewtz.

 

[Sadras]

In the editions I'm familiar with, those 30 rusty swords and those 25 smelly jock straps are going to bring in the party probably, 10g, and that's being generous.

30 Longswords @ market price of 15gp each is 450gp (D&DN), and we sell those to recuperate 25% of the price we end up with 112.5gp.
Nevermind their armour and shields, daggers crossbows - and thats in the lower levels.

When an item costs 4 gold, and the game says players only get 10-25% of that value when selling the item, that means they're lucky to get 1g per sword. The players are most certainly not "raking it in" when reselling weapons and armor they've taken off their foes. Which I might add, is going to be pretty beat up since they had to fight the guy and kill him before they took his stuff.

Firstly your math is way off, secondly how often do DMs keep track of all PCs equipment quality after a fight. Do you charge your PCs for maintenance and upkeep of weapons, armour, horseshoes, torn clothing and the like? Most DMs do not, therefore foes will not always have the worst possible quality weapon if we are being fair. You have to use middle ground in an example like this. For all you know the orcs we fitted with new armour and weapons by a hidden sponsor...

PCs don't benefit from trade that may or may not exist, and attempting to simulate local, national, or global economics in a game is IMO, more trouble than it's worth.

PCs benefit greatly from trade. Since you brought up 4E I can assume that magical items exist and trade for magical items exist too. I think you know where I am going with this.
And we are not simulating international trade, I was not discussing Darokin/Minrothad Guilds from Mystara, I'm discussing PCs trading items off dead foes (the Iron Price).
And one lone masterwork weapon at 300gp minimum could fetch a lot of monies for a PC - thats why a more reasonable equipment cost, with a silver standard, would go a long way in assisting in keeping PC wealth from becoming excessive quite fast.

 

[FinalSonicX]

30 Longswords @ market price of 15gp each is 450gp (D&DN), and we sell those to recuperate 25% of the price we end up with 112.5gp.
Nevermind their armour and shields, daggers crossbows - and thats in the lower levels.

While most DMs do not charge maintenance costs for arms and armor, I think many DMs have their NPCs limit the amount of trade that can be conducted with the items looted from a dungeon. I know I do not allow players to sell all the nuts and bolts they strip from a dungeon because usually it's damaged, in poor condition, or vendors simply don't want to tie up their inventory with a bunch of stuff that is barely useful.

Selling 30 swords to blacksmiths is kind of difficult in my games. First, there's the weapon's quality to consider. If it's a mundane sword and not masterwork, it MIGHT be worth purchasing, if there's no damage, no rust, and the merchant has a bit of coin to spare. Unfortunately, rust and damage are commonplace when held by creatures or organizations that don't concern themselves too much with weapon quality (probably orcs, some bandits, kobolds, goblins, etc.). Furthermore, there's the question of who used to own the sword - if these orcs have nice swords, where did they get them from? Dead soldiers or guardsmen? In my world, there are trade laws which prohibit the sales of such items on the open market - so prices are going to be considerably lower once the local government "buys back" said swords.

Merchants don't have a ton of coin laying around, so there's little reason a merchant would throw 100 gp (probably a sizeable amount for the average merchant!) at a party selling them swords of questionable quality and origin. Unless he/she's certain that the inventory will sell quickly, it represents a risk to their livelihood to have so much of their wealth tied up for any significant amount of time. Swords may not be in demand in this area at this time. Even if a merchant purchases a portion of the party's loot, they'll have to find more vendors to sell to to get rid of all their swords. So there might be only 1 blacksmith in town, or in a larger city it might take 2 weeks to find merchants willing to take the swords off their hands.

Then again, the orcs MIGHT craft their own nice swords and they're brand new from a week ago by the time the PC's kill the orcs and take their stuff. That's fine, it might be necessary for your story, and I think it's important to keep prices reasonable (I've often thought many prices from previous editions were surprisingly high. Too high for even a farmer to own a dagger it seemed) and prevent these issues from ruining campaigns. That said, a large portion of wealth distributions issues need to be handled by the DM - the game cannot anticipate how well-equipped enemies might be at lower levels. A level 1 party is just as likely to be fighting wolves as bandits.

Firstly your math is way off, secondly how often do DMs keep track of all PCs equipment quality after a fight. Do you charge your PCs for maintenance and upkeep of weapons, armour, horseshoes, torn clothing and the like? Most DMs do not, therefore foes will not always have the worst possible quality weapon if we are being fair. You have to use middle ground in an example like this. For all you know the orcs we fitted with new armour and weapons by a hidden sponsor...

Why is it "way off" to say that at 25% sell price a 4 gp longsword is worth 1 gp? Have I missed something?

 

[Savage Wombat]

I don't know what the current thinking is, but the first time I ran across the phrase "the silver standard" many, many years ago, the thinking was that prices for items and other goods stayed the same. It was treasure that needed to be moved down a notch.

Of course, plate mail didn't cost 1500 gp at that point.

 

[Greg K]

I was disappointed that the silver standard was not used

 

[Sadras]

While most DMs do not charge maintenance costs for arms and armor, I think many DMs have their NPCs limit the amount of trade that can be conducted with the items looted from a dungeon.

Sorry that doesnt hold water. In the larger cities most characters would find a willing buyer for weapons and armour and if not by reputable means then the local thieves guild or mercenaries would be quick to fill up their weapon caches for some cheap equipment.

I know I do not allow players to sell all the nuts and bolts they strip from a dungeon because usually it's damaged, in poor condition, or vendors simply don't want to tie up their inventory with a bunch of stuff that is barely useful. [QUOTES]

Please quote me where I used the term 'nuts and bolts'

Selling 30 swords to blacksmiths is kind of difficult in my games.

Fair enough. But when the monetary system is SO expensive, I would assume your local merchants would have more cash available. If your standard longsword is 15gp, the merchant is not holding 5gp as reserves.

First, there's the weapon's quality to consider. If it's a mundane sword and not masterwork, it MIGHT be worth purchasing, if there's no damage, no rust, and the merchant has a bit of coin to spare. Unfortunately, rust and damage are commonplace when held by creatures or organizations that don't concern themselves too much with weapon quality (probably orcs, some bandits, kobolds, goblins, etc.).

Unfortunately goblins, bandits and kobolds are not the only creatures who carry weapons and armour. So you could maybe exclude certain equipment from some scenarios as bad - but eventually the PCs are going to find equipment that they WILL be able to sell. You cant mass rust and damage every weapon/armour they find till 10th level.
For goodness sakes, if you want to bring that much realism into it, the PCs can always argue then why do rusted/broken/damaged weapons do exactly the same damage as the PCs, and why does the enemies' armour equal the PCs AC if the qualities of the armour is so bad. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Furthermore, there's the question of who used to own the sword - if these orcs have nice swords, where did they get them from? Dead soldiers or guardsmen? In my world, there are trade laws which prohibit the sales of such items on the open market - so prices are going to be considerably lower once the local government "buys back" said swords.

No problem there, but if your base market cost is high then all derivitives of such cost will also be high - even on soft swords. And with regards to where they got them from - well that could be part of the story.

Merchants don't have a ton of coin laying around, so there's little reason a merchant would throw 100 gp (probably a sizeable amount for the average merchant!) at a party selling them swords of questionable quality and origin. Unless he/she's certain that the inventory will sell quickly, it represents a risk to their livelihood to have so much of their wealth tied up for any significant amount of time.

Yes well if you look at the cost of items in the PHB, well then I dont think merchant only have a few coin on hand. In fact nothing stops the PC from opening up a stall and selling the goods wholesale (and he can purchase his annual stall/merchant license) he will still make a profit.

Swords may not be in demand in this area at this time. Even if a merchant purchases a portion of the party's loot, they'll have to find more vendors to sell to to get rid of all their swords. So there might be only 1 blacksmith in town, or in a larger city it might take 2 weeks to find merchants willing to take the swords off their hands.

Its called downtime. And a DM might as well deal with it early than let his DM work catch up all at once. So whether its two weeks or 6 months, the PC never forgets. The problem will still exist.

snip.....I think it's important to keep prices reasonable (I've often thought many prices from previous editions were surprisingly high. Too high for even a farmer to own a dagger it seemed) and prevent these issues from ruining campaigns.

Which is exactly the point of everyone here hoping for the Silver Standard.

That said, a large portion of wealth distributions issues need to be handled by the DM - the game cannot anticipate how well-equipped enemies might be at lower levels. A level 1 party is just as likely to be fighting wolves as bandits.

Not only, according to the Caves of Chaos. As soon as Tenser's Floating Disk becomes available, characters can go Monty Haul on goblin nests, kobold dens, bandit caves, orc caverns, old castles, battlefields...etc.

Why is it "way off" to say that at 25% sell price a 4 gp longsword is worth 1 gp? Have I missed something?

Apologies was not clear, I was referring to a longsword which costs 15gp in D&DN.

Its not that I dont agree with your insight/suggestions above which I already use to limit the acceleration of PC wealth its just that I wish the cost lists of equipment supported me in that endeavour and I think the gold standard does and has not.

 

[FinalSonicX]

Sorry that doesnt hold water. In the larger cities most characters would find a willing buyer for weapons and armour and if not by reputable means then the local thieves guild or mercenaries would be quick to fill up their weapon caches for some cheap equipment.

It all depends on settings and circumstance, as always. As a DM, you should generally always have the tools available to handle situations that arise in these circumstances - I was just suggesting a few in my post. Maybe the thieves guild doesn't bother with such small business? Maybe all that looting the players did actually leads to another adventure/hook? DMs are not helpless in this problem.

Please quote me where I used the term 'nuts and bolts'

I was not literally suggesting that the players are scrapping the dungeon to find nuts and bolts - I was comparing the concepts. Grabbing everything in the dungeon is not generally too profitable if you're delving into caves and "traditional" dungeons, so people trying to pick up every piece of equipment off of the fallen in an attempt to scrape together some extra coin seems similar in concept to me.

Fair enough. But when the monetary system is SO expensive, I would assume your local merchants would have more cash available. If your standard longsword is 15gp, the merchant is not holding 5gp as reserves.

True, overall the picture D&D paints seems somewhat incomprehensible to me. Prices are so high and wages so low the impression is given that a farmer could barely afford to save up for a dagger, yet this must mean that merchants and tradesmen make quite a bit of coin. The picture of a relatively poor merchant is a hard one to justify with prices as they are. In my games I mostly just hand-waive it and say that they have "enough" money but not enough to justifiably risk purchasing so much.

Unfortunately goblins, bandits and kobolds are not the only creatures who carry weapons and armour. So you could maybe exclude certain equipment from some scenarios as bad - but eventually the PCs are going to find equipment that they WILL be able to sell. You cant mass rust and damage every weapon/armour they find till 10th level.

At higher levels (4+), I usually stop worrying too much about how much money the part has. If they have too little I might give them some juicy money-making opportunities, otherwise I just let them spend it how they will. Not worth worrying about unless you've really been handing out a lot of treasure or unless they start buying gamebreaking stuff (which you can usually shut down pretty quickly). In any case, rust and damage aren't the only things that can make goods non-valuable, and you needn't use it every time. A few hundred extra gold won't hurt every now and then.

For goodness sakes, if you want to bring that much realism into it, the PCs can always argue then why do rusted/broken/damaged weapons do exactly the same damage as the PCs, and why does the enemies' armour equal the PCs AC if the qualities of the armour is so bad. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'd say Rust/Damage and AC can be more easily abstracted than tracking weapon/armor condition via some kind of stat which affects item efficacy. It's not really about realism, either. It's just about maintaining control of the game.

Yes well if you look at the cost of items in the PHB, well then I dont think merchant only have a few coin on hand. In fact nothing stops the PC from opening up a stall and selling the goods wholesale (and he can purchase his annual stall/merchant license) he will still make a profit.

I'd say setting up a stall is fine (and could even be the source of an adventure!) but it would take a while to sell all of the swords, unless it's a particularly large city or swords are in high demand. As for how much coin a merchant has on hand, the gmae has always been awkward on this point. As I've said, I just hand-waive it and guesstimate how much the merchant has based on their circumstances, their location, their status, and the location's gp limit (if one exists).

Its called downtime. And a DM might as well deal with it early than let his DM work catch up all at once. So whether its two weeks or 6 months, the PC never forgets. The problem will still exist.

Downtime is nice IMO, all I'm saying is that even if we were to fix prices these types of controls still exist for the DM to put in place. "I'd like to sell our 30 swords!" says the player. "Alright," I say "but it will take you a while to sell off all of them in a town like this - maybe 2 weeks. Do you want to spend that time selling your goods?". After that, the rest of the party either agrees and tells me of the stuff they're doing in the meanwhile (while I charge them for inn fees, food, etc.), or they say it's not worth it and get back to the adventure after selling the handful of swords that are in the best condition and dump the rest.

Which is exactly the point of everyone here hoping for the Silver Standard.

For the record, I'm in favor of the silver standard. I don't think the gold standard is at fault for some of the things people say it's at fault for, however.

Not only, according to the Caves of Chaos. As soon as Tenser's Floating Disk becomes available, characters can go Monty Haul on goblin nests, kobold dens, bandit caves, orc caverns, old castles, battlefields...etc.

That would be pretty close to scrapping dungeons for "nuts and bolts" and I'd usually tell the party they're probably wasting their time unless there's something interesting out there or unless they want to become scrappers or something.

Its not that I dont agree with your insight/suggestions above which I already use to limit the acceleration of PC wealth its just that I wish the cost lists of equipment supported me in that endeavour and I think the gold standard does and has not.

I agree - costs need to be controlled much more. As of now, prices as listed in most editions I play seem somewhat absurd. Whether it ends up in silver or gold it doesn't matter - it's all scale. I still think that silver is the better choice however, because it's more believable and makes gold more precious.

 

[howandwhy99]

How is this not mostly a cosmetic change? "Change all GP to SP for this campaign" What's so hard? It's not like they've hopped off the decimal system for some of these coin ratios.