D&D 5E Is there too much gold/reward?

[CapnZapp]

That's an extremely common misconception in the 3.5 CharOp community that isn't quite true. The "Big 6" are certainly the most efficient way to spend your gold on items, but they aren't necessary. Allowing the PCs to fill up their slots with the Big 6 is actually a big contributor to allowing the PCs to punch well above their weight class in terms of CR. A Tier 3 party without Big 6 items actually will see pretty good results from the CR system, in terms of matching challenges to the level of the party.

Sure. One thing though...

I absolutely refuse to allow this discussion from equating "a functional magic item economy" with "expected gear per level".

5th Edition DOES NOT expect any magic items, period.

The only thing that changes if it offered a well-designed magic item economy is that now gold can be spent on gaining magic items.

Nobody in my group is interested in discussing downtime, or starting guilds, or building wizard towers. When one adventure is finished, it's time for the next one. To be useful, gold needs to buy stuff used on adventures. And that means gear. And good gear is magical in this game.

"Gaining magic items" doesn't change - since this something the DM otherwise would control directly through the distribution of loot.

The game does not change - it still does not expect items. Magic items are still in a supplement, not the core game.

You can still play a magic item less campaign - just don't hand out enough gold to buy the good stuff.

Or even simpler: don't buy the supplement!

 

[CapnZapp]

Agreed. Also, it's definitely worth checking out "Trailblazer", the first chapter of which did a lot of analysis of the 3e math, with some surprising conclusions.

I would be very interested in learning more.

Do you have a link to a discussion? (It's off topic to this thread)

 

[delericho]

I would be very interested in learning more.

Do you have a link to a discussion? (It's off topic to this thread)

A quick Google search doesn't turn anything up. "Trailblazer" itself is now several years old. IIRC, the most interesting thing was actually the analysis in that first chapter, rather than any further discussion of that chapter.

Sorry I can't be of more help.

 

[TwoSix]

Agreed. Also, it's definitely worth checking out "Trailblazer", the first chapter of which did a lot of analysis of the 3e math, with some surprising conclusions.

Trailblazer is exactly what made me realize it.

 

[TwoSix]

I would be very interested in learning more.

Do you have a link to a discussion? (It's off topic to this thread)

Here's the supplement. The discussion itself was way back in the rules forum circa 2009-2010.

http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/64009/Trailblazer

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I would be very interested in learning more.

Do you have a link to a discussion? (It's off topic to this thread)

Bad Axe Games has a hosted forum on this site - mind you nothing's been posted in it for a long time so you'll need to set "show threads" to "from the beginning" to get anything. As I recall there's a lot of discussion of the basics of that first chapter - the author broke down the match of 3.5 to it's components and how you could play with the base assumptions - replacing multiple attacks or eliminating the Big Six while still making the math work.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It's a simple truth that D&D is a game where combat has a deep satisifying complexity, while social and exploration is handled comparatively simply. That's where my 90% figure comes in.

That doesn't mean "if you don't do 90% combat you're doing it wrong". It just means: let's not kid ourselves - D&D is a game built for combat first and everything else a distant second.

Really? How many systems outside of D&D have you played? D&D combat was originally designed to be resolved quickly. Thats why we have all the sacred cows that make D&D what it is. AC, pools of hit points, and a simple roll to hit/miss. Over the years more and more baggage was added but the core always remained pretty much the same, because it is what gives D&D its identity. If I want tactical complexity in a combat engine I'm going with GURPS advanced combat on the hex grid.

D&D combat has simplicity and speed going for it primarily because it wasn't designed to handle much complexity. The system is very abstract and for an adventure game thats a huge plus. That doesn't stop it from being used in games that are 90% combat at all, but when the system pretty much boils down to taking turns reducing ablative hit point pools, it can less than exciting really fast.

 

[Ancalagon]

Sure, but why have all that gold if you have to drain it away to not have it be a problem.

The AL approach, where you award incredibly little gold no matter the PCs level, seems much more logical.

Of course, if you have thousands of gold pieces I far prefer if you can translate that into things adventurers need to do their job.

And in D&D I would say a good expectation of an adventurer's job is 90% slaying monsters and the rest is a combination of surviving snowstorms, falling into alien goo, wooing princesses, talking to kings, resisting demonic madness, and exposing devilish spies.

You might set the percentage at 80%, but any talk of three equal pillars is a load of horse. The game rules revolve around combat. All classes are combat capable. The subsystems to "take a dragon to zero hp" are MUCH more complex than the systems for persuading it to open (or fooling it or intimidating it into opening) its treasure coffers for you. That's fact, not opinion.

You may play the game differently. And nothing wrong with that. Doesn't change that percentage, though. The game is still built around combat, even if you don't use it that way.

Which brings me back to the obviousness of how selling the game without a robust magic item economy is a serious omission, not to mention the single biggest stumbling block to using the edition for 3e-era gaming. Without it, they really can't claim they have provided full conversion guidelines, since their current guideline effectively says "don't play the game like you used to any more. stop buying magic items for gold even if you like it and have no problems with it"

It hasn't been 90% for me, almost ever, but you are right that D&D seems to lead to a lot of combat. But I don't see how point one (lots'o fightin) proves point 2 (we need a robust magical economy). You can have a combat heavy, low magic game.

 

[nswanson27]

It hasn't been 90% for me, almost ever, but you are right that D&D seems to lead to a lot of combat. But I don't see how point one (lots'o fightin) proves point 2 (we need a robust magical economy). You can have a combat heavy, low magic game.

"Need" is maybe a strong word - obviously 5e exists as it is right now, and people play it. I think the point is that adding it in doesn't actually detract from the things that people who enjoy 5e the way it is enjoy about it, and certainly makes it a lot more fun and interesting for those who desire this to be put in place.

 

[the Jester]

I agree with the basic premise in the OP: treasure is very high if you run it by the book. Too high for my taste.

I'm currently working on a massive monster conversion document for 5e. In the middle of it, I decided I wanted to go back to something like a 1e "treasure type" system, but tailored to each monster. So I inserted a "(monster name) Treasure" bullet point for each converted creature and added a brief entry for each monster in the MM. Here are a couple of examples.

Gargoyle Treasure: A group of at least four gargoyles has a 30% chance each to have 1d6 x 100 cp and sp, a 25% chance each to have 1d4 x 10 ep, 1d8 x 100 gp, 1d20 pp and 1d4 gems, and a 10% chance each to have 1 art object and 1 random magic item. If the group numbers at least eight, they instead have a 30% chance each to have 1d8 x 500 cp and sp, a 25% chance each to have 1d10 x 25 ep, 1d12 x 500 gp, 1d6 x 10 pp and 1d8 gems, and a 10% chance each to have 1d4 art objects and 1d4 random magic items. If the group numbers at least 30, they instead have a 50% chance each to have 1d8 x 1,000 cp and sp, a 35% chance each to have 2d6 x 100 ep, 2d4 x 1,000 gp, 2d10 x 25 pp, and 1d12 gems, and a 15% chance each to have 1d6 art objects and 1d4 random magic items.

Inevitable Treasure: Unless one is assigned an item, inevitables don't keep treasure.

Kaorti Treasure: A kaorti lair has a 45% chance each of having 1d20 x 25 gp, 1d4 mundane weapons, and 1d4 mundane pieces of armor, as well as a 20% chance having 1d4 potions.

Lizardfolk Treasure: A lizardfolk typically carries 3d6 sp. The lair of a group of six to twenty lizardfolk is also 35% likely each to hold 2d6 x 100 cp, 1d8 x 100 sp and 1d10 x 25 gp. If the lair is home to 21 to 100 lizardfolk, it is instead 50% likely each to hold 2d10 x 250 cp, 1d10 x 200 sp and 2d6 x 100 gp, as well as 25% likely each to hold 1d10 x 10 ep and 1d6 gems, and 10% likely to contain 1d3 random magic items. The lair of 101 or more lizardfolk is instead 50% likely each to hold 1d6 x 1,000 cp, sp and gp, as well as 25% likely each to hold 1d20 x 100 ep and 2d6 gems, and 15% likely to contain 1d6 random magic items.

Slaad Treasure: A solitary slaad has a 20% chance each to have 1d6 x 500 cp, sp, ep and gp, 1d10 x 5 pp, 1d6 gems, 1d3 art objects and 1 random magic item. A group of two to ten slaadi has a 30% chance each to have 3d10 x 500 cp and sp, 2d6 x 500 ep and gp, 2d20 x 5 pp, 1d12 gems, 1d6 art objects and 1d4 random magic items. A group of 11 or more slaadi has a 50% chance each to have 2d6 x 2,000 cp and sp, 1d10 x 1,000 ep and gp, 3d6 x 50 pp and 2d8 gems and a 35% chance to have 2d6 art objects and 2d4 random magic items.

Yes, I give out far less treasure than the DMG suggests, and yes, I have created tables for random magic items period, not based on rarity, very much in the vein of the charts in the 1e DMG. I've not yet started using these entries; once I print out the document, I'll be ready to try them out. I've got a feeling it should work well (for my playstyle and taste).