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

[BoldItalic]

Please then let me rephrase: Why didn't you mention such a prominent and elaborate part of a previous edition specifically instead of bundling it under a generic header that means everything and anything?

Because I'm talking about what gold is for in 5e, and not what gold used to be for. We can still run 5e games where personal power is measured in magic items and magic items are measured in gold if we want to, but we don't have to. It's not central to the 5e philosophy, so it's not central to my answer.

Besides; magic items is so much more than merely power. The real value in magic items is customization.

There are many ways to customise a character. Personally, I don't use the possession of signature magic items as a way of doing it, but if you find it helps in your games then I don't have a problem with that.

 

[CapnZapp]

Because I'm talking about what gold is for in 5e, and not what gold used to be for. We can still run 5e games where personal power is measured in magic items and magic items are measured in gold if we want to, but we don't have to. It's not central to the 5e philosophy, so it's not central to my answer.

Sorry but if you solve the issue by pretending it doesn't exist, there's not much left to discuss.

The issue is how D&D still hands out gold even though every reason... No sorry, I won't repeat what the blog says.

 

[BoldItalic]

Sorry but if you solve the issue by pretending it doesn't exist, there's not much left to discuss.

The issue is how D&D still hands out gold even though every reason... No sorry, I won't repeat what the blog says.

The game doesn't hand out gold, the DM does, at his discretion.

The conclusion of the blog seems to be that because 5e players no longer need large quantities of gold to buy magic items to keep their characters viable, they don't need to be given so much. This makes sense.

The game doesn't even require the players to collect gold, though most players I know will do so, just on principle. But it's unkind to be over-generous. Give a player a million gold pieces and you give him a headache: how to move ten tons of metal, where to store it, and how to guard it against being stolen. The least of his worries is what to spend it all on. More fun to place a warehouse full of 200 Folding Boats and see what the players do with them.

 

[CapnZapp]

The game doesn't hand out gold, the DM does, at his discretion.

The conclusion of the blog seems to be that because 5e players no longer need large quantities of gold to buy magic items to keep their characters viable, they don't need to be given so much. This makes sense.

The game doesn't even require the players to collect gold, though most players I know will do so, just on principle. But it's unkind to be over-generous. Give a player a million gold pieces and you give him a headache: how to move ten tons of metal, where to store it, and how to guard it against being stolen. The least of his worries is what to spend it all on. More fun to place a warehouse full of 200 Folding Boats and see what the players do with them.

What the blog does is to establish why the game started to hand out lots of gold.

Then it shows that the game still hands out lots of gold even though every reason why has disappeared.

The blog puts the spotlight on this problem: getting lots of gold.

It finishes by suggesting three ways DM's can fix this.

Finally, *I* submit the game would have been better if we didn't have this problem, that we have to fix ourselves.

If you maintain there is no problem then I would like you to engage with what the blog actually says, and to point out where you believe it is wrong.

I mean, since you're in this thread, and all.

 

[BoldItalic]

What the blog does is to establish why the game started to hand out lots of gold.

Yes, the pre-5e game. But 5e changed the rules.

Then it shows that the game still hands out lots of gold even though every reason why has disappeared.

I don't think it does. Some DMs may choose to hand out excessive amounts of gold and they may be unwise to do it. But the game itself doesn't cause that.

The blog puts the spotlight on this problem: getting lots of gold.

No, it puts the spotlight on DMs who choose to give out lots of gold.

It finishes by suggesting three ways DM's can fix this.

Now there I agree with you. I does indeed.

Finally, *I* submit the game would have been better if we didn't have this problem, that we have to fix ourselves.

I accept that you are submitting that point of view but I'm trying to persuade you to abandon it, by pointing out that it's not the design of the game that is defective.

If you maintain there is no problem then I would like you to engage with what the blog actually says, and to point out where you believe it is wrong.

I don't believe the blog is wrong. I believe that your advancing it in support of your claim that the game is broken, is wrong.

I mean, since you're in this thread, and all.

Someone has to do it

 

[Uller]

I accept that you are submitting that point of view but I'm trying to persuade you to abandon it, by pointing out that it's not the design of the game that is defective.

What's the point of persuading someone to not play the game the way they want to play it or that the way they want to play it is "defective".

Also you mentioned that it is not the game that hands out treasure but DMs. This is demonstrably not true. The APs represent what
many see as the "official" way to play the game. PCs can come away with substantial sums of loot and little or nothing to do with it that matters in the campaign outlined in the AP.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EN World mobile app

 

[BoldItalic]

What's the point of persuading someone to not play the game the way they want to play it or that the way they want to play it is "defective".

I'm not. Read the quote in context. I don't want the OP to change the way he plays the game in the slightest. His way of playing is just as valid as mine or yours. But he is saying that he cannot satisfactorily play the game his way unless it is redesigned. And it's that point of view that I'm disagreeing with. I believe he can play it his way, without redesigning it at all, and without any need on his part to justify what he does. He can just do it.

Also you mentioned that it is not the game that hands out treasure but DMs. This is demonstrably not true. The APs represent what many see as the "official" way to play the game. PCs can come away with substantial sums of loot and little or nothing to do with it that matters in the campaign outlined in the AP.

Really? DM's aren't allowed to change anything to tailor the game to their players? To suit different styles of play? Players aren't allowed to use their imaginations? How dull. You don't need permission to play the game however you like. Fun trumps rules. And that's official.

 

[Istbor]

Last time I checked, nothing was forcing me as the DM to adhere to the treasure tables. I may hand out how ever much or little as I see fit. The tables are there to provide suggestion or options to choose (or roll) from. I only use them if I have no idea what I want to place in a cache.

I want to see this proof that we as DMs MUST effectively make it rain on our players, and how it is the game or AP itself that demands this. That somehow doing what we feel is appropriate would no longer be D&D. It is the DMs call on this, as it is with everything in the world the players are in, anything in the books are just guidelines so far as I see it.

 

[Uller]

You guys aren't really listening to what I'm saying. I think you are reading to reply rather than reading to understand.

I'm not saying the game demands you hand out lots and lots of treasure. But I'm saying the game rules (described in the DMG and PHB) as implemented by the game designers (in the APs) DO hand out lots of treasure without providing satisfactory ways for players to use it. I've been at this a very very long time. Obviously I can modify whatever I want and frequently do to suit my groups needs. I know that. I acknowledge that. I DO that.

But I have found with two of my players, (one in particular) that with the game as designed and implemented by WotC (when it comes to treasure awards and what to do with them) monetary treasure becomes boring once the PCs have enough to buy whatever mundane gear they might want. As we played through the AP (PotA) I didn't notice it until we were already about 1/3rd of the way through it. Players started joking about it and expressing a bit of frustration. So I had to adjust the adventure to make sure those players were having fun. This isn't a huge deal. My group isn't sitting around in some sort of state of paralysis, unable to go on...unable to have fun...until WotC fixes it. But some of you are acting like it is not okay to point out holes or failings of the game designers or AP writers.

This is no different than the many stealth threads we've had. I have no problem with the stealth/vision rules exactly as they are written. The only thing I change in them is when a stealth check is made (I have characters make it the moment they might be seen, not when they start hiding...but that's another thread). But the fact that we keep having these long threads and heated arguments makes it clear that a non-trivial number of groups are finding the stealth rules as written unsat. It's the same thing with gold and what to do with it. We've had more than a few of these threads since 5e went official.

My solution to this was to do pretty much exactly what the blog post linked in the OP suggests...I don't like magic marts...but I do like the idea that during down time PCs can spend some time selling and buying gear, including magic items. I don't let them browse the DMG for any item they wish. I limit what they can buy to a few items that I think are useful or fun and usually include a bunch of consumables (we have no cleric so I'm particularly liberal with Potions of Healing and the like. If they have something they really really want, that might entail a bit of a quest or perhaps greater cost or sacrifice. I think all anyone is asking for is some support within the rules for this sort of thing (some pricing guidelines mainly) in addition to all the other downtime activities and uses of coin, purely as an optional rule. It is obviously not going to happen within the rules (as they are already out) but it could be addressed "officially" in a UA post or unofficially by folks within the community who are interested in that sort of thing (like the given blog post...a little more detail would have been nice, though).

Another use of gold that I have considered but haven't implemented yet is the idea of making the effectiveness of long rests contingent upon the comfort level of where the rest takes place. To get the full effect of a long rest (full hp, half HD and all spells and class features recovered) might require complete comfort and no labor at all (no cooking, guarding, a comfortable bed, etc). Anything less than that results in less recovery. Characters can spend gold outfitting and supplying their expeditions with gear, tents, bedding, beasts of burden, carts and a retinue of servants and men at arms to take care of their "camp" to help their long rests be more useful. This would give them something to spend wealth on that directly impacts the game as they play it. I haven't had time to come up with a good guide for it yet. But it might be fun at low levels for PCs to find wealth and think "Yes! We get to eat! and that means we get more hp back when we rest!" and at higher levels for them to find more gold to pay for Jeeves and Sergeant Blarney and stable hand Jimbo to handle the minutia so the adventurers can focus on recovering more HD and those high level spells....I think CappnZapp is looking for things like that. Not necessarily from WotC...at least I don't expect that at this point and I can certainly get along without it.

 

[Raunalyn]

Gold, HOOOOuuu, good God, y'all...what is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again!