D&D 5E New Q&A: Starting Gold, Paragon and Prestige Paths, and bounded accuracy vs. Feats

[Li Shenron]

Starting wealth basically is story driven, which works for me.

This sounds a very good thing to me too. If the game doesn't make any assumption on magical gear per level, why should it make so for mundane gear?

D&D isn't a medieval economy, though. It's a magical medieval economy, which is something completely different.

I have a hard time thinking that gold standard helps with that... D&D economy just never made any sense, and IMHO the reason is simply that it is a game of adventurers for which wealth has a completely different meaning compared to everybody else: for PCs wealth = equipment = combat power, for everybody else it's essentially the same as in the real world, except that it ceases to be so when you have to let NPC buy and sell outrageously priced magic items to the PC, thus making no sense.

I remember there were an entire 3rd-party book during 3e (but essentially edition-free) dedicated to representing a fantasy medieval economy (Magical Medieval Society?).

 

[DEFCON 1]

There are a number of reasons for this, but here's the big one IMO: We have a currency system with three tiers of coinage, but gold is the only one that ever sees use in play. It's rare to see anyone pay much attention to their supply of silver, and unheard-of to worry about copper.

This is exactly correct.

Let's just put it into a modern perspective here to help us visualize it (not that I'm advocating what I'm about to describe.)

You are ransacking a house, and you're grabbing a bunch of stuff. One of the items in the house is an upended water bubbler container FILLED with pennies. Do you pick that up and take it with you? We're talking a container that probably 20+ pounds, and were you to get it home and count it up... maybe worth like 20 bucks? Would you really waste your time, energy, and slow yourself down just to lug around this huge jug that is barely worth anything?

That's exactly what finding copper pieces in a gold-standard economy is.

The only time finding CP is worth it is when the DM just handwaves encumberance altogether and the party immediately changes the CP to its GP value and adds it to their treasure totals. But that really isn't meant to be the standard way of relating to treasure in the game, I don't think.

When you use a silver standard... copper pieces have a little bit of worth. 10 copper equal 1 silver. You'd probably grab that chest filled with copper pieces, because it would be a meaningful grab once you counted it out. Silver pieces? They're the standard. They have worth. It's what everyone wants and uses. Gold? Now, all of a sudden (as Dausuul says)... gold is special! A single gold piece is worth 10 silver! Finding a chest of even just 100 GP becomes a terrific haul! One that is actually easy to shlep around. And then the best part of all (from an in-game, holy crap! perspective)... is when you find that one lone platinum piece. That one piece that is worth 100 silver. THAT becomes HUGE.

Don't believe me? You probably have never held a $100 bill then. Because I tell you... there is something psychological about holding that hundred that just feels different than normal cash. It feels special-- like I shouldn't even be holding it because it wasn't meant for me, it was meant for the idle rich. THAT is what you get when you go to a silver standard-- you make copper, silver, gold, and platinum all feel useful and wanted again. Whereas the old way where gold is gold, ho-hum, platinum is just a 10 dollar bill, silver is just the fractions of gold, and copper is a completely useless waste of time to even bother looking at or counting.

 

[Morrus]

I have a hard time thinking that gold standard helps with that...

I would hope so. Silver, gold, plasticine, chocolate - it makes absolutely no difference. It's just a word you use in D&D to denote the base currency unit. You can call it anything you want. Adamantium. Cookies. Tin. Coal.

In fact, I find people talking about "silver standards" and the like a little OTT. It's not a standard of any kind. It's just a word; one chosen to describe the base in-game currency unit. There's no economy, or even an attempt at one.

D&D economy just never made any sense, and IMHO the reason is simply that it is a game of adventurers for which wealth has a completely different meaning compared to everybody else: for PCs wealth = equipment = combat power, for everybody else it's essentially the same as in the real world, except that it ceases to be so when you have to let NPC buy and sell outrageously priced magic items to the PC, thus making no sense.

Yep; that's why I said it wasn't a medieval economy; it's a magical medieval economy. Which, of course, doesn't and can't exist.

 

[Dausuul]

In fact, I find people talking about "silver standards" and the like a little OTT. It's not a standard of any kind. It's just a word; one chosen to describe the base in-game currency unit.

It's a convenient shorthand. "Standard" is a lot shorter than "base in-game currency unit" and it conveys the idea fairly well.

Beyond that, I disagree with your claim that it makes no difference. Imagine the reaction Wizards would get if 5E came out and everything was priced in chocolate bars. You may not care about the game-world details we connect to the abstract mechanics (in which case, why do you care whether we use gold or silver?), but lots of us do.

 

[Morrus]

It's a convenient shorthand. "Standard" is a lot shorter than "base in-game currency unit" and it conveys the idea fairly well.

Beyond that, I disagree with your claim that it makes no difference. Imagine the reaction Wizards would get if 5E came out and everything was priced in chocolate bars. You may not care about the game-world details we connect to the abstract mechanics (in which case, why do you care whether we use gold or silver?), but lots of us do.

OK, I may have misphrased myself; or you didn't see the posts I was replying to, because that's not what I meant at all. I was replying, if you scroll up, to someone who was talking about how a "silver standard" simulated a "medieval economy". I meant that it made no economical difference which metal you pick. Obviously pricing everything in rabbit poo would make an aesthetic difference. But there's no medieval economy here.

 

[Blue]

To me, this sounds like a "depth vs. breadth" decision. You can game combat depth (+1 Str), or you can gain combat breadth (something like a Cleave ability). You can gain spellcaster depth (+1 Wisdom for a Cleric), or you can gain spellcaster breadth (Necromancer feat for skeletal companion, for example).

I don't mind that kind of decision at all. Sure, the other guy does more damage, but I get toys he doesn't, and can do things he can't do. To me, this is fair. You can choose to specialize (depth), or broaden your character (breadth). Both are valid options, but it does mean that those who specialize are better in their field than those who don't; but, those who don't can do more things than those who specialize. Seems fair to me, personally. And, if they're okay with this dynamic, then they aren't "not being honest", they're just making a design decision you don't like. As always, play what you like

You show more understanding they they put forth in the article. The problem is, if they think that it doesn't make a difference, they won't account for the fact that it can make a very statistically large difference. Sweeping it under the rug isn't being honest with themselves. Understanding it so that they can make the opportunities offered by the options equally valuable to doing 60% more damage per round (by the parent example), that would be honest.

 

[Dausuul]

OK, I may have misphrased myself; or you didn't see the posts I was replying to, because that's not what I meant at all. I was replying, if you scroll up, to someone who was talking about how a "silver standard" simulated a "medieval economy". I meant that it made no economical difference which metal you pick. Obviously pricing everything in rabbit poo would make an aesthetic difference. But there's no medieval economy here.

To me, this is secondary to the issue I mentioned above, that the use of a gold standard base in-game currency unit in D&D means silver and copper are a big waste of space and nobody uses them. But I do like it when the prices in the PHB look plausible for a medieval world. Of course the introduction of magic would change things dramatically; but the nature of that change is so heavily dependent on individual DMs and game worlds that there's no predicting it.

And of course you could price things in gold anyway, but then you'd end up with a ton of stuff priced in fractional gold pieces.

 

[Obryn]

I want a D&D "economy" where a dragon can sit on top of a huge pile of gold and gems while still being reasonable in play. Piles of loot are iconic if anything is. None of this, "you can fit a dragon's horde in a backpack" nonsense.

That's really it. I don't think a silver standard helps this in any way.

-O

 

[Morrus]

I want a D&D "economy" where a dragon can sit on top of a huge pile of gold and gems while still being reasonable in play. Piles of loot are iconic if anything is. None of this, "you can fit a dragon's horde in a backpack" nonsense.

That's really it. I don't think a silver standard helps this in any way.

-O

You can use plot to get around that. Have the big hoard, but the PCs can't have it all. They can have their level appropriate share, but as it happens the hoard belongs to the various surrounding kingdoms and must be returned (spread out amongst a thousand villages, towns and cities from whence it originally came!)

Or the PC keep it all and replace the dragon as Enemy #1 of the whole continent.

 

[keterys]

In a lot of cases, even if you're losing 20% damage by forgoing stat points, the 2 feats you'd take instead might easily mean you get an extra attack once per combat. At which point, it's probably at least as valuable as the stat increases to effective damage.

Of course, if it's the right stat (*cough* Dex *cough*), it'll also give +1 init, +1 some skills, +1 AC, +1 to fairly common saves, so you're still better off with the stat bump.