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

[nswanson27]

1) You want to keep playing AL adventures.

2) AL adventures are essentially self contained one shots. There may be a connection but since you have no idea who will show up and who will play, the adventures aren't remotely like home campaign play.

3) An "economy" only makes sense to worry about at all IF you are playing in a regular campaign where events build on one another from session to session.

4) AL play is NOT a campaign per se.

5) Suppose someone shows up to play in an AL adventure. They get 500 gold as their share of the loot for that session. That player then never shows up again. Do we really care what happened to that 500 gold?

6) If you are playing AL for the adventures then just ignore most treasure and say that it gets donated or something. Without an ongoing campaign, the whole concept of an economy is meaningless.

7) So play and enjoy the adventures and don't worry about the treasure. Getting rich means nothing for a character who isn't part of an ongoing campaign.

But the characters themselves do persist, and to that end an economy would make sense for the reasons you mentioned for a campaign. My point is that a more robust, functioning economy would be more "fun". The AL modules do award GP, and that seems to suggest it should be for "something", and my point that it could be for "something more" that what it is right now. I wasn't necessarily trying to single out AL. It was just the easiest way to illustrate my point. If a non-AL campaign has the luxury of a DM who can make the amassing of wealth something more than anecdotal, great for them. But overall, this aspect of the game could be done better.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But the characters themselves do persist, and to that end an economy would make sense for the reasons you mentioned for a campaign. My point is that a more robust, functioning economy would be more "fun". The AL modules do award GP, and that seems to suggest it should be for "something", and my point that it could be for "something more" that what it is right now. I wasn't necessarily trying to single out AL. It was just the easiest way to illustrate my point. If a non-AL campaign has the luxury of a DM who can make the amassing of wealth something more than anecdotal, great for them. But overall, this aspect of the game could be done better.

How would such an economy make sense? A character floating from game to game has no ties to a particular world or setting. The abilities of all characters may be universal from game to game but any world content, including treasure, is part of a given setting. In order to have a robust functioning economy you first need to have a shared world. If you can theoretically take your AL character to any AL game and play AND you want treasure and world content to be consistent it would require the formation of an AL "world" in which the actions of all PCs impacted the lives of each other. No two groups could play the same adventure because it wouldn't make sense.

In the current setup without a shared world what "something more" could there be? Some AL groups use the PHB and some may use only the basic rules. So feats and multi-classing aren't always consistent between AL groups, how can there be an economy?

If you are talking non-AL games then there is an ongoing campaign. In such a game there are lots of options for using treasure because the characters are actually living in a world that they can influence and aren't just hopping through a series of scripted story lines. There are bribes, donations, paying for NPC spell casting & other services, buying property, possible merchant ventures to invest in that may generate a profit and/or lead to new adventures. Wealth and treasure are part of the game world so the things it get spent on should also be a part of that world.

 

[nswanson27]

How would such an economy make sense? A character floating from game to game has no ties to a particular world or setting. The abilities of all characters may be universal from game to game but any world content, including treasure, is part of a given setting. In order to have a robust functioning economy you first need to have a shared world. If you can theoretically take your AL character to any AL game and play AND you want treasure and world content to be consistent it would require the formation of an AL "world" in which the actions of all PCs impacted the lives of each other. No two groups could play the same adventure because it wouldn't make sense.

The items/weapons that a character can buy - just like how it is now, but in a more expanded, fuller sense - for starters.

In the current setup without a shared world what "something more" could there be? Some AL groups use the PHB and some may use only the basic rules. So feats and multi-classing aren't always consistent between AL groups, how can there be an economy?

The same way that there is a tiny economy for buying basic weapons, armor, healing potions, etc... This wouldn't need to depend on basic rules/PHB (fyi I've yet to see an AL table that didn't allow all available rules).

If you are talking non-AL games then there is an ongoing campaign. In such a game there are lots of options for using treasure because the characters are actually living in a world that they can influence and aren't just hopping through a series of scripted story lines. There are bribes, donations, paying for NPC spell casting & other services, buying property, possible merchant ventures to invest in that may generate a profit and/or lead to new adventures. Wealth and treasure are part of the game world so the things it get spent on should also be a part of that world.

Right, and my point is that a lot of those "things" should be better articulated in the rules themselves, in the same way that basic weapons and such are. It gives a more tangible goal for a character to shoot for with regards to their wealth.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The items/weapons that a character can buy - just like how it is now, but in a more expanded, fuller sense - for starters.

Expanded? The AL rules say that potions of healing are the only magic items for sale. Done. If it is the rules that are so important, then you have one.

Right, and my point is that a lot of those "things" should be better articulated in the rules themselves, in the same way that basic weapons and such are. It gives a more tangible goal for a character to shoot for with regards to their wealth.

These things vary so much from game world to game world that articulating them in the rules would be meaningless. For example, what good what it do to have a table in a rule book with this item:

Bribe/ typical.................... 50gp

What does that mean exactly? Setting and context are everything and these are things that vary enough from campaign to campaign to be useless to include in a rule book. In one campaign this might be an acceptable average bribe. In another campaign kingdom, ruled by tyrannical despot known for beheading anyone who is the slightest bit disloyal, no one is going to risk getting killed for 50gp. In yet another campaign the DM has decided to use the silver standard. 50gp is virtual fortune!

I am glad 5E has returned treasure to a setting specific status. The campaign world is more meaningful if treasure is only useful in connection to it.

 

[nswanson27]

Expanded? The AL rules say that potions of healing are the only magic items for sale. Done. If it is the rules that are so important, then you have one.

The whole point of this discussion is that there isn't enough things in 5e to buy with gold. Simply stating what the rules are currently is not coming up with a solution. Look at the title of this thread. This isn't supposed to be a reiteration of how things are right now, it's how things should/could be.

These things vary so much from game world to game world that articulating them in the rules would be meaningless. For example, what good what it do to have a table in a rule book with this item:

Bribe/ typical.................... 50gp

What does that mean exactly? Setting and context are everything and these are things that vary enough from campaign to campaign to be useless to include in a rule book. In one campaign this might be an acceptable average bribe. In another campaign kingdom, ruled by tyrannical despot known for beheading anyone who is the slightest bit disloyal, no one is going to risk getting killed for 50gp. In yet another campaign the DM has decided to use the silver standard. 50gp is virtual fortune!

I am glad 5E has returned treasure to a setting specific status. The campaign world is more meaningful if treasure is only useful in connection to it.

Bribes might be a bad example, and I agree that the bribe amount could vary depending on the context. Items, on the other hand, isn't so context-specific, as in fact there are set prices for some items in the rules already.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Bribes might be a bad example, and I agree that the bribe amount could vary depending on the context. Items, on the other hand, isn't so context-specific, as in fact there are set prices for some items in the rules already.

If this is a campaign and not AL then the DM can make up prices for anything else and make them available if desired. Rough guidelines for making up those prices are in the rules already. Specific pricing doesn't need to be in the rules because it isn't universal. What the various rarity levels actually mean can vary widely from campaign to campaign. In one world, elven boots might be so common as to be found at any town at the local magic Foot Locker and in another campaign so rare that perhaps only three pairs of these mystical boots were ever crafted for the first elf lords and the secret of crafting them lost to the ages.

Given that these circumstances and many in between are possible, how can we price elven boots in the rule book?

 

[nswanson27]

If this is a campaign and not AL then the DM can make up prices for anything else and make them available if desired. Rough guidelines for making up those prices are in the rules already. Specific pricing doesn't need to be in the rules because it isn't universal. What the various rarity levels actually mean can vary widely from campaign to campaign. In one world, elven boots might be so common as to be found at any town at the local magic Foot Locker and in another campaign so rare that perhaps only three pairs of these mystical boots were ever crafted for the first elf lords and the secret of crafting them lost to the ages.

Given that these circumstances and many in between are possible, how can we price elven boots in the rule book?

You could say the same thing about the common items listed already. In that case the DM would rule a price accordingly. Having a starting point to reference against isn't a bad thing.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You could say the same thing about the common items listed already. In that case the DM would rule a price accordingly. Having a starting point to reference against isn't a bad thing.

The starting point are the suggested price ranges in the DMG. Yes the basic equipment lists can be altered for a campaign as well. A rare magic game might mean that healing potions are not available for sale. The point is that in a regular campaign there can be no starting point or default for the player.

The answer will always be he same- check with your DM. Sweet sweet music to the ears.

 

[nswanson27]

The starting point are the suggested price ranges in the DMG. Yes the basic equipment lists can be altered for a campaign as well. A rare magic game might mean that healing potions are not available for sale. The point is that in a regular campaign there can be no starting point or default for the player.

The answer will always be he same- check with your DM. Sweet sweet music to the ears.

True. Not implying that it's supposed to be a fixed thing in all cases. But having things flushed out as an example often will help DM's think of things that they otherwise wouldn't have thought about otherwise.

 

[Ancalagon]

I will mention that broader "economy" discussion in gaming systems are always very challenging, in part because it's extremely hard to make a price list that is entirely consistent. Usually the lists are consistent within a sub-section. A dagger is cheaper than a sword, a hat is cheaper than a cloak. But when you start *comparing* those sections, things start falling appart. Does it make sense that a dagger is worth 200 candles? That a flask is worth 2cp but a vial 1 gp? That a crowbar is 10 day's of a poor man wages? It's when you ask those questions that things get shaky.

So you need a foundation, and I've always made my foundation "how much money does an ordinary person make?" Everything should flow from that.