Gold or Silver Standard?

[Lackhand]

more valuable gold does create one problem: dragon hoards. In fact, that's why I think the standards are so close together. If gold is a hundred times more valuable than silver, then a dragon hoard is a hundred times more valuable. Ruh roh.

Alternatively, you end up on effecively a gold standard, as everything is measured in hundreds of silver pieces.

I don't know what to do with that, other than posit that possibly only the largest of wyrms have beds of coins they can lie down on. Of course, when they get to that size, the amount of coinage in a bedding-pile is even more staggering.

Hmm. It would mean that if the bed is made out of copper, it's a ten-thousandth (instead of just a hundredth) as valuable. Win!

 

[A'koss]

I just want to point out that this is a 3-ism. 4E doesn't seem to have assumed wealth levels. You could play a 20th level Paladin who still uses the same longsword he had at 1st level and has tithed all his money to the church; in which case every s.p. counts when he can't rely on charity to get him dinner.

From what we know about magic items (which have prices in gold for purchase & creation), we can safely assume that there will be assumed wealth guidelines still in 4e.

Further, with it being confirmed that there are still 'plussed' weapons & items in the game (a route I wish they hadn't gone...), the game must assume that you will have them and be balanced accordingly - perhaps just not to the extent characters depended on them in 3e.

And while I might like to see a silver standard it is a moot point as far as 4e is concerned, they've already went over this in a podcast and are keeping the gold standard.

 

[Klaus]

I voted silver because it feels right when you say a longsword costs "150 silver pieces". That sounds like a lot to lowly peasants, as it should.

 

[Fifth Element]

Gold is fine for adventurers, who operate on a different economic scale than the general populace. Silver would be more "realistic" for the common man. But as mentioned above, this has zero mechanical effect, so I'm fine with whatever they settle on.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

From what we know about magic items (which have prices in gold for purchase & creation), we can safely assume that there will be assumed wealth guidelines still in 4e.

Really? I can't find that info on ENworld's 4E page, where did they say that? Regarding prices for purchase and creation. I personally loathe the precise purchase prices and was hoping they might piss off.

 

[A'koss]

Really? I can't find that info on ENworld's 4E page, where did they say that? Regarding prices for purchase and creation. I personally loathe the precise purchase prices and was hoping they might piss off.

You can find the Des. & Dev. article on it here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071203

Quote: "Fourth Edition D&D improves that useful tool by explicitly linking a magic item's level to its price. For example, all 9th-level magic items now cost the same number of gp to craft or to purchase."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You can find the Des. & Dev. article on it here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071203

Quote: "Fourth Edition D&D improves that useful tool by explicitly linking a magic item's level to its price. For example, all 9th-level magic items now cost the same number of gp to craft or to purchase."

Boooooo!

Thanks for linking it though. At least it makes more sense than the 3E stuff and will presumably be less fiddly.

 

[Cadfan]

My preference is for a copper standard. I'd prefer there to be almost two types of wealth- coppers, which you use for day to day things like food, and then very valuable items with which you might barter for expensive goods like magical armor.

Want to buy dinner and a bed at an inn? Use coppers. Want to convince a learned smith to create you a magical sword? You'll pay him with an emerald you found in some crypt. And no, he won't give change.

The emeralds are useless at the inn (ok, you could use them, but you'd be overpaying by a mile), and the coppers won't help with the smith, no matter how many you bring to him.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I voted "Other."

I'd rather a barter economy.

Small, everyday transactions-- currency is fine.

When you're talking about the value of magic items, currency gets ridiculous, fast.

I mean, who minted all these coins? Is there not a finite number of coins in the world?

Especially a PoL world?

 

[Irda Ranger]

You can find the Des. & Dev. article on it here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071203

Quote: "Fourth Edition D&D improves that useful tool by explicitly linking a magic item's level to its price. For example, all 9th-level magic items now cost the same number of gp to craft or to purchase."

Besides the total nonsensicalness of that statement (it practically violates a law of physics to imagine a good that costs the same at market as to produce), I don't think that leads to assumed wealth guidelines. It's just a cost to produce. The 4E system seems to be built such that you can have as much or as little magic as you want, and as long as everyone in the party has the same amount, game on. One playtest report specifically mentioned how they got all the way to 10th level without a single item being handed out, and no one really noticed.

At the very least, I really, really hope you're wrong. The wealth & item requirements in 3E were its hands-down worst feature, and one of the main reasons I gave up on the game. This may seem like an extreme statement, but if 4E still has wealth-by-level requirements, I will consider the whole project a failure. I realize it won't be failure in everyone's eyes, but it will be in mine. I'll just have to stick to Iron Heroes and Conan until they're updated to 4E Core mechanics.