D&D 5E In fifth-edition D&D, what is gold for?

[Uller]

Why, how mighty disingenuous of you to cut my quote off and not include the very next part where I say if that's his playstyle, that's perfectly fine. So no, not "badwrong fun". I said it's perfectly OK to play whatever style he wants, but if that style deviates from the assumed style the way the game is designed, then it's up to you to make those changes and not fair to criticize the game and/or the designers.

You spend better than 75% of a long post telling him everything he is doing wrong including berating him for not preparing or knowing what his PCs can do and even refer to posts on other threads to back up what you are saying and then say (paraphrasing) "but if that's your playstyle that's okay, just don't complain" and you think that makes it not calling his concerns the result of badwrongfun?

He has a valid point. The PHB and DMG definitely assume a playstyle where PCs have downtime and other reasons to spend wealth. But the APs seem to run counter to that assumption. He has said this. Folks seem to ignore it or say "well...just because you finish the AP doesn't mean your campaign is over...that's when you take your loot and continue...." Where is that assumption written because I imagine some groups want to play another AP and that means new PCs or substantially changing the next one to make it appropriate for high level PCs.

Either way, ending up with players feeling underwhelmed when they find monetary treasure seems to be reasonably common.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EN World mobile app

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Ale and w**r**

And here I was like "Four pages in and we have yet to get the traditional adventurer response?"

 

[GlassJaw]

For those that are familiar with Shadowrun, it had rules for a character's "Lifestyle". Essentially each character had to "buy" a Lifestyle at a particular rank and then pay upkeep every month. A character's Lifestyle was part story/flavor and part rules. For example, things like long-term healing were affected by a character's Lifestyle.

The Conan d20 system had something similar called "High Living", which was essentially a "tithe" that each character had to pay that represented downtime and carousing.

5E seems perfect for a system like this, which could affect things like social interactions, resting and healing, research, crafting, etc. While I'm generally not a fan of "in-game" training, it's a natural fit to incorporate them into a Lifestyle system.

The other answer is to drastically cut back on giving out coinage, say by a factor of 10 for example, or replace gold with silver. Gold be be worth something then. Take it a step further and throw in an item wear/repair system...There is a point of critical mass though because these rules can quickly add a lot of bookkeeping and slow down the game. More simulation usually equal less fun.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You spend better than 75% of a long post telling him everything he is doing wrong including berating him for not preparing or knowing what his PCs can do and even refer to posts on other threads to back up what you are saying and then say (paraphrasing) "but if that's your playstyle that's okay, just don't complain" and you think that makes it not calling his concerns the result of badwrongfun?

You quoted me and deliberately left out the second half, then accused me of doing something that is the opposite of what I actually said in the part you left off. So yeah, you're being highly disingenuous.

This thread doesn't exist in a vacuum. Me bringing up that other thread was bringing in context. Especially since it was so recent. And it wasn't berating, it was listing out facts. Facts he himself admitted to in that other thread. I said it several times in that thread, and again here: If you play the game outside of how it was designed from an expected method of play, that is perfectly fine, but it's up to you to make those changes so it works at your table. Rather than take any sort of ownership of his playstyle and how that is outside of the expectation of typical play, Captzapp creates threads to complain how the game is flawed or broken or how the designers messed up.

There is no personal accountability there. Point that out is not accusing anyone of badwrong fun.

 

[not-so-newguy]

It is disappointing that the "XP for Gold" idea wasn't listed as an option in the DMG. That being said, there's plenty of info available on the interwebs to help a DM to implement it.

 

[darkrose50]

Essentially D&D went from what many think was too much magical treasure (with rules on how to buy magical items with gold) to virtually no economic rules for magical treasure. I thought 3.0 and 3.5 D&D was a bit too much magic item heavy myself. I think this, just about, lack of economic guidance in 5e is an extreme opposite reaction. I would prefer to have a baseline gold value of an item.

Magical treasure should be a commodity in demand, else it is not treasure. People not wanting magical treasure insults the wounder of magic. People not acting like people via not trading magical treasure implies that people are somehow too dammed stupid to figure out (a) magic is valuable, (b) treasure is valuable, (c) magical treasure is valuable, and (d) people pay for valuable crap like magical glowing swords with gold.

It would take some explanation that is not compatible with the baseline setting to explain a reason as to why people do not buy, sell, or trade items that are both (a) magical, and (b) treasure.

As a simulationist the magic treasure not being in the economy (as a baseline) is paradoxical.

I do not think that the default assumption for D&D is that civilization is somehow unable to trade due to being beaten stupid into a dark-age, but the lack of economics makes me wounder why this is not the default assumption.

Not providing baseline pricing for a default setting is the opposite of what I want from a rule book as it does not save me time.

 

[Igwilly]

Honestly I have no problem with games of highly rare magic items, the kind you can’t buy. Problem is, people are constantly pushing so that my style isn’t even possible without serious house-rules and heavy math work. I have a problem against that.

 

[darkrose50]

Honestly I have no problem with games of highly rare magic items, the kind you can’t buy. Problem is, people are constantly pushing so that my style isn’t even possible without serious house-rules and heavy math work. I have a problem against that.

Cannot buy and cannot sell are two different ideas for super rare valuable items.

No one can buy the Mona Lisa.

There would be an ample supply of would be buyers for the Mona Lisa.

In such settings it should be easy to sell magic, but harder to buy magic. Perhaps magical items only come up for sale or auction every season, or year. Or perhaps such an auction is rarer still.

To say that one cannot buy or sell treasure at the baseline setting is dumb, and would require setting reasons as to why people do not want to buy or sell magical items.

 

[Igwilly]

That... tells me nothing. I think it's clear the kind of system I want.
I'm talking about the general idea that all magic items should be rare and special.

 

[darkrose50]

I was just ranting in general. I do not like rules that basically say that people can not or do not act like people. Like the assumption that people would not buy and sell magical treasure. Or the assumption that things are not what they are. Like how something that is both magical and treasure is not wanted.

This idea that magic treasure should be easy to sell still allows you to have magic being rare and special as it is harder to buy.

Magic items are worth gold, but gold is harder to turn into magic items. I would accept that baseline theory for 5e, but would want more of a ranking system for magical items.