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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

But do the equally small but vocal group of posters starting threads really want to fix the issue?

More so than during the edition-war, I'd think. Of course, even without a death-to-the-edition agenda driving critics & apologists, there are distinctions to be drawn.

There's fixing the issue in your own campaign (which you can generally do without even resorting to formal variants - choosing which options to make avialable, customizing challenges & rewards and making rulings in the right directions), there's fixing the issue with a self- or community-authored house rule or DMsG/EN5ider/3pp product, and/or there's fixing the problem in the system, itself.

I think it's the last, which is essentially whining about a perceived problem in the hopes a fix might some day appear in a UA or supplement, that deniers really are jumping in reflexively to oppose. Annoying as that may be, it's still 'constructive' compared to toxic discourse of the edition war.

Yet there's also a horror of errata of or additions to the official system (however optional) that's quite inexplicable (considering that you can just decline to ever use either). Just as inexplicable as the desire to criticize the system for the sake of making it look bad, rather than to find a solution. Both are unnecessary levels of negativity.

Still, both are far less prevalent, these days. Reason for optimism.

There is, to coin a phrase "a huge problem" with people making broad sweeping claims about there being general problems with 5th Edition, expressing these as universal truths everyone should recognise as valid, and then, when called on it, rapidly redefining their position as merely their personal opinion and therefore not open to criticism or contra argument.

That retreat into subjectivity has been a thing, and, again, I like to think, it's a lot less of a thing now than it was at its worst. Even so, there is still a distinction between facts and opinions about facts that often gets lost. "I hate that fighters cast spells," for instance, is both a fact (fighters, specifically EKs, do definitively cast spells in 5e) and an opinion (the speaker does not approve). Disagreeing with the opinion is different from denying the 'problem.'

I gave an example to Tony Vargus about how you could incorporate item magical powers into character's builds via some form of economy, and that comment died because this is an argument thread.

I'll see if I can find it...

This thread was never about providing a fix or house rules. From your first post it was a rant thread. You posted a complaint, said the linked blog offered fixes

Sounds like fixes were provided, even if only in the form of click bait.

 

[Jester David]

More so than during the edition-war, I'd think. Of course, even without a death-to-the-edition agenda driving critics & apologists, there are distinctions to be drawn.

There's fixing the issue in your own campaign (which you can generally do without even resorting to formal variants - choosing which options to make avialable, customizing challenges & rewards and making rulings in the right directions), there's fixing the issue with a self- or community-authored house rule or DMsG/EN5ider/3pp product, and/or there's fixing the problem in the system, itself.

I think it's the last, which is essentially whining about a perceived problem in the hopes a fix might some day appear in a UA or supplement, that deniers really are jumping in reflexively to oppose. Annoying as that may be, it's still 'constructive' compared to toxic discourse of the edition war.

Yet there's also a horror of errata of or additions to the official system (however optional) that's quite inexplicable (considering that you can just decline to ever use either). Just as inexplicable as the desire to criticize the system for the sake of making it look bad, rather than to find a solution. Both are unnecessary levels of negativity.

It's tricky.
I don't think anyone is actively opposed to the idea of a magic item economy in theory. That something could be written in an official sense. Back when we had a release schedule like 3e or 4e, it would make sense.
But we don't anymore. So that content - if done in an UA or in a book - has to come at the expense of other content, which might be much more needed.

This is a little ugly. Because it does come down to personal tastes and priorities. What is desired now vs later. What I tend to baulk at is the idea it needs to be done right now, when there's so many other aspects of the game or play styles that are completely unsupported. It seems odd to focus on something that is in the game, albeit not to the degree desired.
Tweaking rules that already exist and making a variant system seems so much more the purview of the DMs Guild or a blog.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's tricky.
I don't think anyone is actively opposed to the idea of a magic item economy in theory.

That doesn't sound tricky. If you're not opposed to it, there's no need to preach against it...

That something could be written in an official sense. Back when we had a release schedule like 3e or 4e, it would make sense.

That's a judgement for the folks doing the writing to make, I'd think. "Can we squeeze in a more detailed system?" "Is there a forthcoming supplement where it'd fit?" Doesn't seem like questions any of us are qualified to answer on their behalf. Speculation's always possible - and who could stop a fan from speculating - it's just not worth much.

So that content - if done in an UA or in a book - has to come at the expense of other content, which might be much more needed.

Nod, the thing about 'other content' is that it's easy for most any other fan to think of some other content they'd want more than whatever's under discussion ATM - but it won't be the same content. So it's a convenient way of dismissing just about anything, but ultimately amounts to pretty meaningless speculation (amounting to, whatever folks want, this probably isn't #1 - yeah, it probably isn't, and there's probably not much difference in the demand among the top 10 or 100 things fans might want, as each'd be for some fraction of the fanbase really into them).

This is a little ugly. Because it does come down to personal tastes and priorities. What is desired now vs later. What I tend to baulk at is the idea it needs to be done right now, when there's so many other aspects of the game or play styles that are completely unsupported. It seems odd to focus on something that is in the game, albeit not to the degree desired.

Nod, it is a little ugly. More of the above, dismissal by appeal to hypothetical popularity, really.

Agreeing that there's an unfilled desire out there does not have to imply that it's the top priority nor that it should be next in line (not that such agreement would hold any weight).

 

[Jester David]

That doesn't sound tricky. If you're not opposed to it, there's no need to preach against it...

And yet those are half the posts on this forum...

 

[hawkeyefan]

The thread was posed as a question, and many have proposed what they use gold for in 5E. Mostly, it boils down to story related elements unique to each campaign. In that sense, there seem to be plenty of answers to the question.

If the intention of the thread was instead to point out the lack of a magic item economy in the rules system...or the lack of a robust system for buying/selling magic items, anyway....then that's a bit of a different topic, even if it is a related one.

Early editions had the GP = XP system, later editions had magic item economy systems so that PCs could spend their earnings. This edition has neither. So, lacking either one of those systems, the only answer seems to be "whatever you want it to be for". It is absolutely up to the DM and his or her players.

 

[Uller]

Threads get hijacked. Conversations go off track. It's the nature of a public forum. If someone wants to actually _solve_ a problem on the forums the best way to approach it is to start a public thread to recruit a few (no more than 5 or 6) like minded people and then create a private thread to generate a solution that you eventually post to ENWorld or even DM Guild. Use the public threads to present ideas and progress to the community and get feedback but then ignore the arguing and naysayers.

CappnZapp has a point though about how annoying it is when you express and idea or a problem and people immediately respond defending the system as it is. This thread is a perfect example. The OP wants input on his idea for removing dark vision from most PC races and the very first reply is basically minimizing his problem.

I love 5e. It is probably my favorite RPG ruleset so far. But it doesn't mean there aren't places it can be tweaked or tweaks that can be made to support a certain play style. If you're going for grim n' gritty dungeon crawls, seriously nerfing darkvision is a place to start (or at least consider...)

 

[Jester David]

Right, so magic items, magic item shops, magic item optimisation and the like...

One of my thoughts on this was that the above content really needed to be a in a book where it fit. It didn't seem like a good idea for WotC to work on that content "just because". Not when there was so much other equally necessary content. Especially since it's the sort of content that would be time and labour intensive.
Just like how we haven't seen another round of the Battlesystem rules. Because it didn't fit Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide or Volo's Guide to Monsters. And won't likely fit the class option splat we're expecting this fall.

Now, thinking ahead to 2018 and future books, one topic of not that has not been covered much is magic items. There have been a few books on magic items over the years. The Book of Artifacts came out for 2e, there was the Magic Item Compendium for 3e, while 4e had the Adventurer's Vault and Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium. The latter really sounds like a 5e book (which makes sense give it was late in the 4e lifecycle where they were beginning the switch to a slower release schedule and books with more story).
A magic item book seems like a good idea for expansion. New magic items, new rules for crafting magic items, maybe some extended buying/selling options and sample magical markets and stores.
As a concept it's large enough to fill a book. And is the kind of self-contained rules expansion WotC is gung-ho about making.

Would that solve people's problems?

 

[travathian]

I have zero problems with posters posting actual houserule suggestions.

That is a blatant lie. You have said flat out, the only solution you want is for WotC to publish rules which solve your problem with the game.

I have large problems with posters posting posts to the effect of
- there is no problem
- running as intended
- wotc has changed direction
- you can fix it yourself you know

Fair enough, but you have no one to blame but yourself. Go look the OP. It is garbage. It doesn't frame the question. It doesn't ask for help. It is a link so some dudes blog and that's it. The title easily lends people to going a different direction. Frankly the mods should have deleted the thread to begin with and told you that simply linking to articles adds nothing to the forum.

Why? Because that does not bring me any closer to a resolution.

There is no resolution for you besides WotC publishing rules that you deem fit to solve a problem you claim exists.

Just accepting a deficiency (or worse, apologizing for WotC's inability to provide official support) gets me nowhere.

Neither does posting on this forum. Not one damn bit. If your only acceptable solution is an official construct from on high then posting here serves zero purpose. You knew that from the beginning. So I guess it did serve a purpose, to vent and troll the forum.

So the difference is: "have you tried adding X to Y, or have you tried replacing M with N" is constructive.

Except every time someone posts a house rule you hem and haw and wish it were official from WotC, or that it requires too much work, or that its not in a finished product you can just buy.

Merely repeating the truism "don't complain, WotC doesn't prevent you from fixing it" isn't. Don't just say "you can houserule". I already know this. Stop telling us things everybody already know. Say what specific houserule you suggest.

People have, and you dont want them. You had the opportunity to create a thread called:

"I need house rules for creating additional means of spending gold in 5E"

But you didn't post that. Instead you posted this garbage thread which was a thinly veiled way of simply saying "I want WotC to publish Magic Mart rules for me"

Hell, you didnt even post a thread "I want Magic Mart rules for 5E, help me create them"

This whole thread has been one big troll. And here's the best part, you cry baby from your high horse that the moderators should come in and clean up your precious thread!

Saying things like "you don't need X, you just need to play differently" or "you can always make up Y on the fly" are thoroughly unwelcome. These posts question the very premise of the thread. In my opinion, such posters should be moderated harshly, since all they do is add to the acrimonity of the forum.

What premise? You posted a blog link and your subject was literally the title of the blog post. People answered the question in the title. YOU are the one who then tried to make it all about Magic Marts. You had the opportunity to frame the thread properly and you utterly failed. You didnt even need to post the link or quote it all. You could have simply said you dislike the existing implementation of Magic Mart rules, help me create new ones. You didn't.

I sincerely hope ENWOrld will start experimenting with "plus threads" where we can finally report posts that aren't posted in the spirit of the OP.

And guess what, half or more of the posts you have made in this thread would fall into that category. Cause they all amount to: I want WotC to change the rules for me.

Gosh, just think if we had this rule now. I could report your off topic post in this thread. Careful how you wag that finger at others when you are just as guilty.

Of course, other people are free to start such threads as well. The question is: will they?

You pontificate too much and contribute so little of actual value.

As a closing remark: From my perspective, the fact we are now undeniably discussing something else than the problem of D&D supplying gold but providing only downtime options for spending it, means someone has successfully derailed the thread. I emphatically wish this was considered bad form, and something moderators would act upon if reported.

I agree. And were I a mod, I would have locked the thread from the first post and told you to stop creating garbage threads with OPs that contribute nothing in the way of creating a discussion. Your threads are just rants and you arguing with anyone who disagrees with your premise. You don't want suggestions, ideas, fixes. You just want WotC to make the game you want. Stop posting here and just mail/email/tweet WotC instead.


You want a solution to your problem you have 2 venues: Bring the issue to WotC with what you want changed; come up with the rules yourself with or without the help of the community.

Based on the whole of what the designers of 5E have posted, I doubt the former will ever happen. But more power to you to get them to change the game to fit your playstyle. This forum, though, isn't the place to get their attention.

The latter though, now that is completely feasible. The community has already created a plethora of material that could help you. A well thought out and formulated forum post could help provide the final touches.

You claim you don't have time? You recent post history would seem to contradict that.

So either keep trolling away, claiming 'woe is me, everyone is being unfair, I wish the mods would rescue me' or actually do something to solve your problem.


edit: And thank you to everyone who actually posted ideas about what to do with gold besides buying magic items. 30 years of gaming and there were still some awesome nuggets of gold to be found in this thread.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Two quasi-unrelated comments:

1) In general I find it more fun to have an expenditure in mind that you save for, so that each gold piece gets you closer to your goal, rather than just amassing gold and then checking your balance when a possible expenditure comes up.

2) I'd love to play in a game where there are some huge costs associated with succeeding at a quest/adventure, without it resulting in the possession of something (be it a magic item or a castle.) I don't have great ideas for what this would look like, but an example might be you need a ship to get someplace that evokes superstitious dread, and the only way to do that is to buy a ship and outfit it, and of course you lose the ship during the adventure. Or maybe the only pirate captain brave enough to go wants an absolutely absurd amount of gold to take you there.

Personally I don't find buying a castle, or running a cult or spy-ring, or bribing an entire government, very interesting. At least, not as an ongoing thing. I could see doing any of those things as part of one adventure, but at the end of the day...and the session...I really just want to be responsible for whatever I can carry in my saddlebags.

EDIT:

What if levels above a certain threshold (10?) cost increasing amounts of gold, to represent not just increased skill but your position within an order? Barbarians have to send riches back to their tribes, Wizards have to own libraries and labs, Warlock Patrons begin to demand a return on their investment, Bards get hit with the compounded interest on their Pell loans, etc.