D&D 5E If you aren't buying magic items, where will you spend your gold?

[Geeknamese]

I think 4E leaned heavily in some ways in the direction of an MMO to the point that many players disliked aspects of it because of it. With no gold piece value for magic items, 5E appears to be reacting (or overreacting) to that and hearkening to the days of 2E and avoiding the fact that cost was part of 1E, 3E, and 4E. I am a bit surprised that WotC would do this considering that if a given DM doesn't want magic item costs, he can ignore them. But if a given DM prefers the cost concept that has been around for 3 editions out of 4, he has nowhere to go except to do the work himself and set up his own costs. That just seems like a bad design decision considering that many DMs might expect that to be part of D&D.

I suspect that I will be using a lot of influence from 1E and 3E costs (although even there, one has to take into account that a +5 3E ring is probably the same as a +3 5E ring, etc.), but I shouldn't have to. IMO.


I'm kind of hoping that WotC puts up an online document for specific magic item costs in the future.

I think what they are trying ton so is leave it in the DMs control on how much magic items will cost. That's why there is no mention of how much gold should be received per encounter or any mention of treasure in the monster stat blocks. There is no mention of it because it's up to the DM I believe (until the DMG comes out lol). Right now there is no expected treasure per encounter by level measurement that would even hint at how much magic items should cost to be within reach of x player by x level.

I've played many of the modules in Adventurer's League and Horde. You don't really get that much gold. I prefer it that way but I'm well aware that many people have gotten accustomed to the "expected gear by level" type of play. Right now, there's no expected gear by level and no expected gold by level so it's kinda hard to have expected costs for magic items. As soon as there is a published expected cost for a magic item, players/DMs will automatically think, hmm...I should have that item by level x, so with as many encounters per day we've been having, I should be receiving this much gold per encounter. What the hell is wrong with you cheapskate DM? We should be receiving way more gold per encounter because we need to be able to buy such and such magic item by level x.

If the DM controls the cost of magic items, he can figure out how much gold he needs to start incorporating into treasure.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm well aware that many people have gotten accustomed to the "expected gear by level" type of play. Right now, there's no expected gear by level and no expected gold by level so it's kinda hard to have expected costs for magic items. As soon as there is a published expected cost for a magic item, players/DMs will automatically think, hmm...I should have that item by level x, so with as many encounters per day we've been having, I should be receiving this much gold per encounter. What the hell is wrong with you cheapskate DM? We should be receiving way more gold per encounter because we need to be able to buy such and such magic item by level x.

For me, it has nothing to do with expected gear by level.

It has to do with an inbuilt magic item creation / marketing system.

No different than the marketing system for mundane items.

If the DM controls the cost of magic items, he can figure out how much gold he needs to start incorporating into treasure.

Except that it could force the DM to do a lot of extra work. Even in 2E, one could come up with a simple formula to convert XP to GP and have a good handle on it for many items (although some still would be way too pricey or way too cheap). But at least it was a starting point.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sorry if I sound antagonistic, but I'm trying to illustrate why this "because it is fun" approach leads to confusion.

Not necessarily. I think a lot of people easily understand that raiding dungeons is fun for a lot of players. It's not confusing at all, it's simple fact.

It's almost a non-statement. "Why do you guys wrap your PHBs in orange peels and drop them off the parking garage?" "Because it is fun!"

You can't move logically from "I do X because it is fun" to "Therefore, the game should support Y because it makes X more fun." There's an intermediate step of explaining how Y makes X more fun.

If what you really enjoy is raiding dungeons, then raid dungeons.

I kind of get the "raid dungeons" part from the name "Dungeons and Dragons". I also enjoy Dragons in the game too. A lot.

If what you really enjoy is shopping for magic items, well, that's not the same as raiding dungeons, that's a shopping mini-game. People say "If I wanted to be a noble/merchant/guildmaster/etc. I'd have stayed in town." Well I counter with, "If you want to go shopping, play a shopping mini-game."

I think that you are overemphasizing the shopping thing here. Having prices in the DMG (which has occurred for 3 editions out of 5) is a way for a player or DM to gauge relative worth of items. It does not necessarily imply the ability in a given game to shop for items.

If D&D can't be all things to all people, I think it should be a role-playing game first. I've no doubt the shopping mini-game can be tacked on later for people who want it.

Again, you use the word shopping. I use the phrase "relative worth".

 

[Ahrimon]

Thank you.

I expected much from 5E, including removing the Christmas tree syndrome.

What I didn't expect however was that 5E would
1) remove support for one of the most used styles of play
and
2) that the denial of / willingness to gloss over this would be so strong among ENWorlders

Official modules still hand out gold. But with no official way to spend it while still on that adventure track (with no overarching campaign behind it)...

...well, that surprises me.

I agree that it's a totally valid way of playing, but I don't agree that there is no support for it. We've been leaked a basic preview of costs by rarity. I think they met you half way. If a group wants a more detailed price guide, it's up to them to create it. I think WotC has struck a good balance between giving groups a basis to buy items while leaving things vague enough that other groups won't use the book as proof that they have to have X amount of gold/items at any particular level.

[MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION]
2e Had magic item prices in the DMG.

 

[KarinsDad]

[MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION]
2e Had magic item prices in the DMG.

I cannot find them. I can only find XP. Could you supply me with a page number?

In fact, on page 83, there is an entire subsection on "Buying Magical Items" where the designers totally attempt to discourage the practice of doing so.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sorry if I sound antagonistic, but I'm trying to illustrate why this "because it is fun" approach leads to confusion.

It's almost a non-statement. "Why do you guys wrap your PHBs in orange peels and drop them off the parking garage?" "Because it is fun!"

You can't move logically from "I do X because it is fun" to "Therefore, the game should support Y because it makes X more fun." There's an intermediate step of explaining how Y makes X more fun.

If what you really enjoy is raiding dungeons, then raid dungeons.

If what you really enjoy is shopping for magic items, well, that's not the same as raiding dungeons, that's a shopping mini-game. People say "If I wanted to be a noble/merchant/guildmaster/etc. I'd have stayed in town." Well I counter with, "If you want to go shopping, play a shopping mini-game."

Can D&D be all things to all people? They have to draw the line somewhere. I think domain-management rules would be sweet, but when I see modules for data-mining or project-management or animal-husbandry -- yeah I'll skip those. I'm OK with skipping the shopping mini-game too.

If D&D can't be all things to all people, I think it should be a role-playing game first. I've no doubt the shopping mini-game can be tacked on later for people who want it.

No, you keep trying to make me agree to YOUR opinions.

You might think this playing style isn't roleplaying, and that it is a tacked on shopping mini-game.

But please keep that opinion to yourself. And definitely do not try to present your personal opinion as fact.

 

[GameOgre]

After thinking about it I have decided that even though I like the changes in magic items and gold I can see the other point of view pretty clearly.

If you play D&D as a kick in the door and kill the monsters so you can steal their stuff, it would be nice to have rule options that support that play style.

A way to turn gold into exp or magic items as well as a huge list of services such as spells cast for the party ect..

Since a LOT of this is going to happen off screen during the off times (the game focus is on Dungeons to a much higher degree) these things are needed.

Now I maintain that these rules don't need to be vast, a few articles should cover most of what this type of play needs. I will even go so far as to admit that the DMG should cover this ground and if it doesn't(we don't know at this point that it doesn't despite opinions) then a opportunity was missed. However a few simple articles by wotc or house rules by a DM and we are back on easy street.

I think this style of play is a LOT more prevalent than some want to consider, even if is mostly mixed into other styles of play or only partially present.


I myself love a good ol fashioned dungeon crawl and one of my groups role plays very little, instead they focus on battles and power acquisition until I have a npc hit em where it hurts and pants them while stealing most of their loot. Once this is done suddenly they turn into role players and really get into the game. It also happens when they all play evil characters. Sometimes with that group I feel like I'm playing in one giant Hackmaster game. That isn't a bad thing just different.

 

[MasterTrancer]

Well, since it appears that the DMG already has a guide on the value of the magical items based on their rarity, I think it's feasible to refer to that.

This should be the cost to make one:

• Common item - 100 gold
• Uncommon item - 500 gold
• Rare item - 5,000 gold
• Very rare item - 50,000 gold
• Legendary item - 500,000 gold

A DM can use these values, or multiply them for a factor, fixed or variable on the DM decision.

 

[CapnZapp]

After thinking about it I have decided that even though I like the changes in magic items and gold I can see the other point of view pretty clearly.

If you play D&D as a kick in the door and kill the monsters so you can steal their stuff, it would be nice to have rule options that support that play style.

A way to turn gold into exp or magic items as well as a huge list of services such as spells cast for the party ect..

Since a LOT of this is going to happen off screen during the off times (the game focus is on Dungeons to a much higher degree) these things are needed.

Now I maintain that these rules don't need to be vast, a few articles should cover most of what this type of play needs. I will even go so far as to admit that the DMG should cover this ground and if it doesn't(we don't know at this point that it doesn't despite opinions) then a opportunity was missed. However a few simple articles by wotc or house rules by a DM and we are back on easy street.

I think this style of play is a LOT more prevalent than some want to consider, even if is mostly mixed into other styles of play or only partially present.


I myself love a good ol fashioned dungeon crawl and one of my groups role plays very little, instead they focus on battles and power acquisition until I have a npc hit em where it hurts and pants them while stealing most of their loot. Once this is done suddenly they turn into role players and really get into the game. It also happens when they all play evil characters. Sometimes with that group I feel like I'm playing in one giant Hackmaster game. That isn't a bad thing just different.

Thank you.

 

[Ahrimon]

I cannot find them. I can only find XP. Could you supply me with a page number?

In fact, on page 83, there is an entire subsection on "Buying Magical Items" where the designers totally attempt to discourage the practice of doing so.

I admit that I could be mistaken. Unfortunately I'm literally half a world away from my books right now so I can't double check. I swear that the treasure list in the DMG has values assigned next to each item. That could be the XP value though. But by my fuzzy recollection, XP and GP were interchangeable that way in 1e and 2e.