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

[keterys]

Random other point of data - Fort Knox has a dnd equivalent of about 500 million gold pieces in it, at about 3% of all processed gold in the world. With a hypothetical Smaug lair at 2.5 million gold equivalent, that doesn't feel too out of whack.

So, let's say that haul is enough for 50 castle equivalents, then $ would be ~8. So a cow would be 4gp, chainmail 40gp, castle 50k gp. Daily wages would be 1/15th or so of a gold, rent for a year at around 16g.

Okay, now where do things actually fall apart?

 

[Warbringer]

This is exactly correct.
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.

Wait until you hold an ounce of gold the first! Your heart flutters!

 

[howandwhy99]

A long lasting and very wealthy dwarf hold should have an enormous amount of treasure within it whether it's been seized by a monstrous dragon or not.

To me, the treasure the PCs acquire should affect the economy in their world. The bigger the treasure than the larger the wave of economic shifting will occur if and when they dump the treasure in it. Why else do we have have all these rules for economics in the game? The prices and service costs, material needs and so on? The treasure the players do (or don't) acquire should matter in the game world.

If the PCs dump 2.5 million gold pieces worth of treasure wholly in the border towns of the uttermost kingdom of the empire, well then the wave of inflation, merchant trains, and anyone looking to make a buck is going to be felt to the very corners of the realm. Not only are the few hundred folks who lived in the original town now all peeing in golden pots and buying lunch from with gold bars because they are so rich, but the empress herself will find her coffers swell noticeably for the season even though there is record-breaking graft from her tax collectors.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

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. Meanwhile, gold is ho-hum. Finding some gold pieces is like finding a couple of dollar bills. It's nice, but nothing to write home about. And it gets worse when you reach higher levels and DMs start getting more generous. In 4E, the quest to find a high-end currency worth the bother drove them to jack up the price of platinum to ridiculous levels and invent "astral diamonds." (Admittedly, the 4E economic system was a mess all around.)

I'd like to see silver take the place of gold and copper take the place of silver. Then gold would become unusual and precious; a trove of gold coins, even a relatively small one, would be a find worthy of celebration. Meanwhile, silver would come into common use. Copper would be mostly the "NPC currency," the sort of thing tunic-wearing townsfolk use to carry out their daily business--a role that silver fills now--but a thrifty PC at the low levels could still find it worthwhile to keep track of.

There was some talk about a silver standard from the designers in the early days of D&DN, but they seem to have dropped that. I wonder what the chances are of having that idea revived.

Bingo!

 

[DEFCON 1]

Wait until you hold an ounce of gold the first! Your heart flutters!

I anxiously await the moment I can get my hands on an ounce of solid gold.

 

[gyor]

I doubt that the 5e economy is a priority right now, they likely won't give it serious attention until much later in the process, after classes, races, spells, and feats have mostly been finished.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I don't see a problem with PCs taking a huge Dragon's hoard with them. By the time they can kill a dragon like that, they probably have a Bag of Holding.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The problem with answer number 3 is that the fact that there is a maximum isn't the issue. The problem is that I don't want everyone to be AT the maximum. But having a +5 stat modifier is SO useful that not maxing is is a REALLY bad idea.

They've created a system of bounded accuracy: The bonus to hit you have is somewhere between +0 and +5, with magic weapons possibly adding up to +3 or so to that total. This means a 20th level character with the best magic weapon in existence likely has a +8 to hit if he only has a 10 strength.

Meanwhile, a 1st level character with a 20 Str has +6 to hit. Strength breaks the bounded accuracy system like crazy. It either has to stop giving out bonuses to hit OR give out smaller bonuses to hit(maybe +2 or +3 for a 20...and I don't think it's a coincidence that those numbers are almost precisely what 2e gave out as a bonus to hit). If they did that then I'd have a lot less problem with giving out a +1 to a stat instead of a feat. I still find it a little distasteful to have every 20th level character being as strong as Hercules, but I could get over it if it didn't come with so many bonuses to hit.

 

[Szatany]

Meanwhile, a 1st level character with a 20 Str has +6 to hit. Strength breaks the bounded accuracy system like crazy. It either has to stop giving out bonuses to hit OR give out smaller bonuses to hit.

I don't know about that. On 1 hand you have Str or Dex bonuses to hit, but on the other side you have Dex bonus to AC.

 

[Morrus]

So how many gold pieces would be a reasonable number for Smaug's hoard to contain, ignoring what that gold could potentially buy?

I mean, nothing wrong with working backwards from there