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

[Jester David]

There was no reason if your goal was to get rich, sure.

Doesn't take much to get rich in 3e/4e. The expected wealth of a 5th level adventurer is enough to buy a small house and live off of for twenty years. Or you could buy a small inn.
All those inns owned by retired adventurers? The innkeepers only need to be 5th level. Anything after that is just being greedy.

Well, except, y'know, saving the world because that's where you keep all your stuff, I suppose.

True. But as I said, if saving the world is your motive, you don't need gold.

You could also draw a line between mundane wealth and magic resources. Instead of spending gold to enchant items, have another commodity (like the hokey 'residuum' in 4e; or 'mana' or whatever) that's fungible for making (or buying) magic items and certain other adventuring uses, but doesn't convert to gold/have consistent value in normal markets.

That is another option. But it's the same thing as making the "stronghold resources" non-gold as well. You end up tracking this second currency that isn't compatible and isn't exchangeable for gold (despite the fact people should buy and sell it) for mechanical gamist reasons (balance) rather than any in world logic.

I actually liked residuum, and keep it in my world (kinda) but it's another form of currency, like gems or trade goods. Heck, it is a trade good.

 

[DeanP]

My friend and I share the same setting, A Greyhawk campaign set in a dark age, with greater barbarism, wilderness, etc. He's running a campaign set in Rel Astra. We've four players, all from the same family, three brothers and a first cousin. We're all nobles, and we were sent away by our father to protect us when we were teens, and have now returned to aid our house. The other houses screwed us in the past with claims of infernalism and such, to avoid paying their debts, and our house is woefully short of hard currency. We absolutely need gold to fund every one of ventures and plots. Right now, as 5th level characters, we simply don't have enough to build our network, fund a larger mercenary force, bribe, influence, etc. Gold in a campaign is as important as the DM and players care to make it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The published adventures mostly do not cover all levels, so I would expect the wealth accumulated in Storm King's Thunder to be used later on in the campaign. If the group doesn't want to continue with those PCs and instead want to switch to another campaign, then I suppose their fictional wealth goes unspent. Oh well.

If the DM knows that's likely, or knows that the players have no real need of wealth to motivate them to play, then it's very easy to simply adjust the GP awarded in any adventure. Give them just enough for what they need.

 

[Flamestrike]

I decided to look at those rules.
Each type of city has a gp limit representing the most expensive item available. A small city (3rd from the top in terms of size) has a limit of 15,000. Menacing you should be able to buy a sailing ship in such a city.
The total amount of cash available is determined by halving the gp limit and multiplying it by a tenth of the population. The smallest small city has 5000 people. So the amount of cash there is (15,000)/2 x (5000)/10. Or 3,750,000 gp. Selling a 10k sailing ship for half price and you should be able to unload 750 such ships in such a town.

A party should be able to unload two or three without issue. Because the game assumes everyone will have thousands of gp in treasure and be buying magic items worth tens of thousands.

Bro, we play totally different games.

 

[Shasarak]

Usually I like to use excess money to buy Magical Items.

 

[Uller]

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.

Wait. Why can't you play a game where magic items are very rare and essentially unobtainable except through adventuring or perhaps RP? 5e is designed so that magic items are unnecessary.

 

[Igwilly]

Wait. Why can't you play a game where magic items are very rare and essentially unobtainable except through adventuring or perhaps RP? 5e is designed so that magic items are unnecessary.

I can play a game like that, but I have my preferences, and I would like to see those preferences supported by the system. Although I already gave up 5e, I spent a long time hoping it would be like that, but things didn't go that well.

 

[Flamestrike]

Has anyone else noticed that noticed that exactly the same people that have an issue withencounter balance 5E are the same ones that are experiencing this problem with gold?

Without wanting to borrow too much from GNS theory, they seem to be the same guys that put the G in the theory.

They adventure to get gold so they can buy equipment to adventure better to get more gold to buy better equipment.

My characters tend to have goals other than 'adventure better'. Money gets them closer to those goals. Purchasing land and titles, your own private army, your own Church in town were you become the high priest, Assassins at your beck and call, a network of Spies, your own wizard on permanent retainer, donations to large churches to have you resurrected or raised in an emergency.

Plus of course a life of luxury. If your character doesn't want a life of luxury, I really want to know why. I can't recall meeting too many people in the real world that don't want this. Ascetics maybe. Of course those guys would be donating the gold anyway.

In the real world, with money comes power, luxury and freedom. Why are your games so dramatically different?

From where I sit the problem is invariably a problem with your campaign. You've created a static game world where the whole point of adventuring is adventuring more. If your players can't translate those gold pieces into an additional +1 on the character sheet somewhere, to them gold is pointless. In other words, you have made gold meaningless outside of this pointless recursive cycle.

Ask your players what their characters want. Why they got into this adventuring caper in the first place. Was their village destroyed by barbarian Raiders and they're out for revenge? Are they an exiled noble seeking to reclaim lost lands stolen by an evil relative? Are they just a bunch of mercenaries who want a life of luxury? Are they devoted to spreading the cause of a particular God? Are they just trying to provide for their family?

They should be spending their money, or at least a sizeable portion of it, on that.

 

[Igwilly]

Has anyone else noticed that noticed that exactly the same people that have an issue withencounter balance 5E are the same ones that are experiencing this problem with gold?

Without wanting to borrow too much from GNS theory, they seem to be the same guys that put the G in the theory.

They adventure to get gold so they can buy equipment to adventure better to get more gold to buy better equipment.

My characters tend to have goals other than 'adventure better'. Money gets them closer to those goals. Purchasing land and titles, your own private army, your own Church in town were you become the high priest, Assassins at your beck and call, a network of Spies, your own wizard on permanent retainer, donations to large churches to have you resurrected or raised in an emergency.

Plus of course a life of luxury. If your character doesn't want a life of luxury, I really want to know why. I can't recall meeting too many people in the real world that don't want this. Ascetics maybe. Of course those guys would be donating the gold anyway.

In the real world, with money comes power, luxury and freedom. Why are your games so dramatically different?

From where I sit the problem is invariably a problem with your campaign. You've created a static game world where the whole point of adventuring is adventuring more. If your players can't translate those gold pieces into an additional +1 on the character sheet somewhere, to them gold is pointless. In other words, you have made gold meaningless outside of this pointless recursive cycle.

Ask your players what their characters want. Why they got into this adventuring caper in the first place. Was their village destroyed by barbarian Raiders and they're out for revenge? Are they an exiled noble seeking to reclaim lost lands stolen by an evil relative? Are they just a bunch of mercenaries who want a life of luxury? Are they devoted to spreading the cause of a particular God? Are they just trying to provide for their family?

They should be spending their money, or at least a sizeable portion of it, on that.

Nice alternative uses, but fails in one point: they are adventurers, and if they want to adventure more, they’ll want to improve their adventuring skills.
For example, my characters are the “save the world” kind of adventurers – even if the reasons are not totally “heroic” – and in order to better save the world, they need – or would greatly benefit from – good magical equipment.
In both our cases, making the world a better place is expensive.

Now, I think I wasn’t clear at that: It’s not that I don’t like the sort of game you’re proposing. I like it, and it should be supported by the system. However, I also like – and actually prefer – games with magic mart and such. The problem is (was, I’m not that interested in 5e now) my style isn’t supported. The guidelines (from what I remember) are too vague and just broad cost ranges are not enough.

It should be noted, however, that in nearly all my games, adventuring is a kind of profession. The exact frequency is very variable from game to game, but they usually have strong reasons to continue adventuring even when the current quest ended.

 

[MechaPilot]

Has anyone else noticed that noticed that exactly the same people that have an issue withencounter balance 5E are the same ones that are experiencing this problem with gold?

Without wanting to borrow too much from GNS theory, they seem to be the same guys that put the G in the theory.

They adventure to get gold so they can buy equipment to adventure better to get more gold to buy better equipment.

Maybe there's some overlap, but there's no direct corollary. Encounter balance is a concern of mine, in that I like to be able to fine-tune a fight so as to be of average difficulty, of easy difficulty, or of deadly difficulty so I can throw a blend of encounter types at my players. However, in the game I play in, my character is saving up for long-term goals that have nothing to do with making her a better adventurer (instead, they have to do with her ascending to actual godhood).

My characters tend to have goals other than 'adventure better'. Money gets them closer to those goals. Purchasing land and titles, your own private army, your own Church in town were you become the high priest, Assassins at your beck and call, a network of Spies, your own wizard on permanent retainer, donations to large churches to have you resurrected or raised in an emergency.

Plus of course a life of luxury. If your character doesn't want a life of luxury, I really want to know why. I can't recall meeting too many people in the real world that don't want this. Ascetics maybe. Of course those guys would be donating the gold anyway.

In the real world, with money comes power, luxury and freedom. Why are your games so dramatically different?

From where I sit the problem is invariably a problem with your campaign. You've created a static game world where the whole point of adventuring is adventuring more. If your players can't translate those gold pieces into an additional +1 on the character sheet somewhere, to them gold is pointless. In other words, you have made gold meaningless outside of this pointless recursive cycle.

Ask your players what their characters want. Why they got into this adventuring caper in the first place. Was their village destroyed by barbarian Raiders and they're out for revenge? Are they an exiled noble seeking to reclaim lost lands stolen by an evil relative? Are they just a bunch of mercenaries who want a life of luxury? Are they devoted to spreading the cause of a particular God? Are they just trying to provide for their family?

They should be spending their money, or at least a sizeable portion of it, on that.

While I agree with a lot of what you said there, I have to say that D&D is generally built around the adventuring life of the PCs, to the point where that basically is the game. There is little if any guidance or good rules for how to run a game where party members can and possibly do live largely independent lives pursuing sometimes wildly different goals.