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

[Satyrn]

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.

it'd be an interesting use of gold, but I wouldn't want it to be a must, because it narrows down what the flavor of a class encompasses. That is, it would clash with even slightly-outside-the-box character concepts like using barbarian for a street thug.

But giving a DM guidance on how to handle a barbarian who sends his wealth back to the tribe would be totally welcome.

 

[Satyrn]

Actually, binding it to background instead of class would work better.

 

[Jester David]

Also, here's a link to the PDF of the "sane magical item prices" that was floating around a while back:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XAiXpOfz9cMWt1RTBicmpmUDg/view

 

[CapnZapp]

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 no problems with people posting their houserules for pricing and creating magic items. They don't solve my problem, but that is another matter entirely.

Besides, I was posting that in the context of how posting constructive ideas on how to add rules support is very far from what select posters are doing, in thread after thread.

But all that is not important.

You don't get to call me a blatant lier. Or that I'm a troll. If you have issues with my posts, take it up with the mods. Don't derail the discussion - twisting it away from the matters at hand onto personal issues is exactly one of the techniques used by the wotc apologists that run rampant around here.

 

[CapnZapp]

Also, here's a link to the PDF of the "sane magical item prices" that was floating around a while back:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XAiXpOfz9cMWt1RTBicmpmUDg/view

Yep. That is about the only effort I've seen that has taken any steps towards an utility-based solution. (If there are more, feel free to add them here)

The problem with Sane Prices is partly that I haven't found where the actual discussion took place - I can't reengineer the mechanisms used. Also, that there doesn't seem to be any living breathing discussion - that doc seems to be a done deal. Of course, if it's just all ad hoc tweaks of the original rarity-based prices, then we still have a fair way to go.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The problem with Sane Prices is partly that I haven't found where the actual discussion took place - I can't reengineer the mechanisms used. Also, that there doesn't seem to be any living breathing discussion - that doc seems to be a done deal. Of course, if it's just all ad hoc tweaks of the original rarity-based prices, then we still have a fair way to go.

If WotC produced similar guidelines, there probably wouldn't be explanations or guidelines either however.

In terms of the actual numbers though, do they seem to fit with what you'd be after?

 

[Jester David]

Yep. That is about the only effort I've seen that has taken any steps towards an utility-based solution. (If there are more, feel free to add them here)

The problem with Sane Prices is partly that I haven't found where the actual discussion took place - I can't reengineer the mechanisms used. Also, that there doesn't seem to be any living breathing discussion - that doc seems to be a done deal. Of course, if it's just all ad hoc tweaks of the original rarity-based prices, then we still have a fair way to go.

Reading the document, it gives the author's name. Saidoro. And mentions the Giants in the Playground forum. 30 seconds on Google aaand:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?424243-Sane-Magic-Item-Prices

Both that and the document give the author's thoughts. Not every item is given a breakdown, but you get an idea how the prices were determined.

Personally, I find it funky and super arbitrary. It sticks pretty hard to the idea that fight is super game breaking. And some items, like the alchemy jug and decanter of endless water are priced super high because they could be used to make a profit...
But, then again, any official rules are likely to be just as arbitrary.


I did my own experiment here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hy0fwrg-v7samzZwde_eWT38BVs97fTCfH7cnj-6LOA/edit?usp=sharing

I took the base prices and adjusted them based on which magic item table they were on and its frequency on the table. I toyed with the multipliers until the most common item on the lowest table of any given rarity was about right and then just let the other items get more expensive.
But the price is based on that, and not on the items themselves or any given power level. So it's pretty random as well...

 

[hawkeyefan]

You don't get to call me a blatant lier. Or that I'm a troll.

...the wotc apologists that run rampant around here.

Not to further derail, but perhaps if you don't want to be labeled, you should stop labeling others.

Yep. That is about the only effort I've seen that has taken any steps towards an utility-based solution. (If there are more, feel free to add them here)

The problem with Sane Prices is partly that I haven't found where the actual discussion took place - I can't reengineer the mechanisms used. Also, that there doesn't seem to be any living breathing discussion - that doc seems to be a done deal. Of course, if it's just all ad hoc tweaks of the original rarity-based prices, then we still have a fair way to go.

There are credits in the document, as [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] pointed out.

But would you consider this document a good starting point? Do you really need mechanisms, or is the end result what's important? I am asking that as a legit question to understand what you would like.

 

[Darkness]

Keep it civil: Don't engage in personal attacks, name-calling, or blanket generalizations in your discussions. Say how you feel or what you think, but be careful about ascribing motives to the actions of others or telling others how they "should" think. People seeking to engage and discuss will find themselves asking questions, seeking clarifications, and describing their own opinion. People seeking to "win an argument" sometimes end up taking cheap shots, calling people names, and generally trying to indimidate others. My advice: don't try to win.

[MENTION=12105]travathian[/MENTION], insults, accusations of trolling, and other incivility aren't welcome on these boards. Please knock it off. (Also, if you're right that someone is trolling, calling them a troll just gives them the attention they want.)

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], it's true people don't get to call you names on these boards, but you don't get to call users whose posting you don't like "wotc apologists" either.
Also, this entire posting etiquette/"plus thread"/etc. discussion really should be in Meta. I don't necessarily mind thread drift, especially from the original poster, but I believe this isn't the only thread where you brought this up. Your "plus thread" thread in Meta last month seemed to go well, as far as I recall - maybe revive it if you feel so strongly about this?

Everyone else, let's do our best to keep this thread civil.

If you have any questions, PM me.

-Darkness,
EN World moderator

 

[Caliburn101]

There's a difference between a personal opinion and personal experience, which is what I was basing my personal opinion on.

Ah but our opinions are shaped by our experiences and are thus functionally joined at the hip, making a reference to one a reference to the other...