D&D 5E (2014) How do you handle the "economy killing spells" in your game?
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
dave2008
Legend
Interesting thread, but it seems to me from the responses that, despite your claim, in general it wasn't worth it (if you factor in real world style economics and behavioral economics).
Thank you for sharing!
dave2008
Legend
In my games adventures in general are no more than .001% of the population. So magic users are even more rare.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
When you get to a certain level, defeating/killing a single goblin is hardly dangerous or suicidal.
It is a flaw in the system IMO that you continue to earn XP for very easy encounters, and as I understand it our DM doesn't award XP if the encounter's XP total doesn't reach at least Easy.
For example, a couple Hell Hounds (CR 3, worth 1400 XP total) would not be enough to meet the 1800 XP to warrant an Easy encounter for three 10th-level characters.
If you assume the XP system is the universal physics of the world, rather than a narrative device that applies to PC adventurers, you will end up with far bigger worldbuilding challenges than a few 4th-level spells.
Laurefindel
Legend
The "gritty realism" rest variant from the DMG goes a long way making magic having a lesser impact of on economy. Suddenly, casters are 7 times less effective, and a bit more paranoid overall.
Also, if one spellcaster is the equivalent of hundreds of craftsmen, it becomes tempting for competitors to eliminate that single caster. Any economy relying on that individual would be screwed if the realm's spellcaster disappeared. Thus you need back-up, and protection, not to mention employment for the hundreds who would have been craftsmen (or farmers).
However, now that we mention it, most D&D settings don't have half the rural population to support their cities in a medieval-level of agrarian technology, so some magic needs to be invoved.
The somewhat-lazy-yet-convenient solution to economy-breaking spells is that magic doesn't break economy. Why? For thousands of reasons that are difficult to take into consideration. It doesn't prevent the odd individual from trying, but it never works for long for all kinds of reasons. They have been trying these shenanigans for hundreds of years, but it has never worked. Or perhaps it did in a distant golden age where everything was more magical and people used to ride dragons and all, but it has to do more with mythology than history.
TL;DR:
happens. when it does, hundreds of craftsmen can deal with it better than one magic-user.
Also, if one spellcaster is the equivalent of hundreds of craftsmen, it becomes tempting for competitors to eliminate that single caster. Any economy relying on that individual would be screwed if the realm's spellcaster disappeared. Thus you need back-up, and protection, not to mention employment for the hundreds who would have been craftsmen (or farmers).
However, now that we mention it, most D&D settings don't have half the rural population to support their cities in a medieval-level of agrarian technology, so some magic needs to be invoved.
The somewhat-lazy-yet-convenient solution to economy-breaking spells is that magic doesn't break economy. Why? For thousands of reasons that are difficult to take into consideration. It doesn't prevent the odd individual from trying, but it never works for long for all kinds of reasons. They have been trying these shenanigans for hundreds of years, but it has never worked. Or perhaps it did in a distant golden age where everything was more magical and people used to ride dragons and all, but it has to do more with mythology than history.
TL;DR:
happens. when it does, hundreds of craftsmen can deal with it better than one magic-user.
Last edited:
Retail...yup, that will do it...
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Bards get this as well. So, make it the norm. But don't forget what the druids get out of this - perhaps they require no expansion of civilization into natural areas, so they can't build more farms -and now with population increasing they require the druids just to avoid starvation.
Sure, so some. Others would likely rather do it in unspoiled areas rather than crops meant to be harvested and ultimately increase civilized population and their encroachment on the natural world.
Well, after they fulfill all ten orders for plate mail from thsoe who want it and are able to afford it in the land, making a modest profit for an adventurer after purchasing materials, they then would be going onto items that have less and less value.
There's a limited market for high priced items, and a 13th level caster is a rather rarefied resource who has plenty of other money making opportunities that this is a self-correcting problem.
Now, where that gets fun is when they start to bring in money that wouldn't be in circulation. Your average craftsman wouldn't have a chance to, say, sell things to a metallic dragon or tribe of Stone Giants. But a 13th level adventurer could. Bringing into circulation gold that would otherwise no be.
the Jester
Legend
No, not at all- but he might well be the most powerful member of his class that is in the sole surviving city in my setting. In fact, there is a 20th level pc cleric who is the self-declared "High Priest of Fandelose" (the city), who is absolutely the most powerful and high level person in the city.
That's okay. That's just fine. He earned those twenty levels.
Again, that high level pc might not be the most powerful person in the world*, but might well be the most powerful individual they know of. Or in the city. Or in the area.
As opposed to following the pursuits that actually interest them, like spell research?
Most wizards probably aren't proficient in smith's tools regardless of the setting. I'll grant that there are exceptions, but it doesn't seem like a natural fit for the class except in unusual situations (e.g. dwarf smith-mages).
But there are probably better ways to make money as a wizard anyhow- if someone can afford to pay you to cast high level divinations, if someone is willing to pay you for a magical flight, if someone needs a continual flame, if....
At least in my game, spell research takes a long time and a huge investment of effort; money, less so. In fact, most of the stereotypical wizardly things take long spans and a high degree of attention. So every day that you're fabricating is actually probably slowing down the advancement of whatever wizardly goals you have.
This is literally how many adventures have started. "Wizard needs gizzard from giant lizard."
Emphasis mine.
No, you wouldn't. In fact, for a 7th level wizard to bother with such a mundane approach to making money, you would have to be willing to set aside most of your actual wizarding. Think about it- say you use fabricate to make armor. That armor doesn't just magically turn into thousands of gold pieces. You have to find a buyer. Which, you know, if you're talking plate armor and you want to make that money... you need to find a buyer with the money who doesn't already have plate armor. What are you doing, wandering the streets and carrying it around? Trying to sell it to the armorsmith who doesn't want your competition, especially since you're cheating the system? Open a store of your own? (Then who staffs it day in and day out? And as I pointed out above, what does the smith's guild say? How many fines, fees, taxes, and licenses do you have to pay? How many days do you sacrifice to all the legalistic entanglements they throw at you?)
This is not as simple as you seem to think.
King: "Come stay at my castle and I'll provide your every need!"
One month later: "Dude, you are goddamn expensive!" (Components and reagents, a new lab built to withstand explosions- that needs to be rebuilt every few months- a summoning circle, from which periodic fiends and elementals escape, etc, etc.) "Also, I thought you were working for me?" ("Well, I just need another 160 days to finish researching this new spell...") "Also, please stop doing things that kill or injure my servants, damage my fortifications, and undermine my authority. And my spymaster thinks you're mind controlling the duchess, please don't. And..."
Having a wizard in your castle is not necessarily the greatest. Especially if you can't ensure their loyalty.
*Not a planet, in my setting.
jgsugden
Legend
So your belief is that it would be impossible for our world to provide sufficient resoures that everyone could have all the basics - food, shelter, water, healthcare ... the truh is that if we had an efficient allocation of resources and smoothly functioning economies with an educated and willing workforce expectation from every person, there is no reason why - globally - we could not (within a few years) provide the basics for everyone, rising everyone above what is currently considered the US poverty line.
Regardless - my point is that in most games you do not see people with this type of power spening it in this way because they have other goals. I have a portion of my campaign world where this is not the case - all children are required to go to magical school and learn to be first level wizards, bards or clerics. They then use their abilities to help their community for 3 years before being freed to live their lives. They heal, they farm (move earth, unseen servant, etc....), they craft - they make their world a better place. It is the most advanced area of my world, but it is also the most corrupt.
Similar Threads
D&D 5E (2014)
How do you handle monster knowledges in your game?
