So what's gold gonna be for?

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The idea is, I think, that if gold isn't useful for increasing character abilities, but is useful for running guilds or building domains, then players who don't care about those things won't have to go fishing for loot.

Man, it sucks to be one of those guys who thought D&D was about killing things and taking its stuff. On the other hand, if you are one of the 1% of the gaming population who gets their jollies around how many units of flour per month your mill cranks out, I'm sure you're salivating for the Complete Accountant to be released.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

2) You can play any genre of fantasy you like without warping balance. Want a Conan-style game where the PCs amass huge fortunes and start the next session broke? An LotR campaign where money is simply irrelevant in th context of larger conflicts? A post-apocalyptic savage world setting in which there's basically no minted coin whatsoever and the most prized possessions are clean water and solid food? All possible and easy.

Well, any genre except the ones in which gold is worth something. Given that gold being worth something might be important to some people, and may even impact verisimilitude ("So, we killed the dragon, took its horde, and now we can't spend it on anything but ale and whores? Are you nuts?"), I think that abandoning the concept of money entirely might not be the best idea.

3) PCs can actually USE their money to drive the campaign! Wealth feats are a partial implementation of this in IH, but investment in a merchant coster, purchase of a ship, or setting up a realm or stronghold can be BIG campaign drivers. One of the PCs in my current campaign is a merchant-tinkerer of Gond (FR) who is adventuring in part to amass a fortune to return to his native island of Lantan for a life of ease, but also to fund his own workshop wherein he plans to create a variety of constructs and other techno-magical devices. Another PC (a noble of Waterdeep) might gain fortunes and glory for his family. And so on.

Well, that's great if you care about that type of stuff. But your Butt-Kicker archetype player isn't going to give a flumph's fart about building his own restaurant, or whatever.

Given that magic items are going to be "nice, not necessary", I think there's still a lot of room for spending your loot on equipment. It's just not going to have the same christmas-tree effect as it does in 3.x. When you blow your loot on a suit of magic armour, it doesn't give you +X to AC, making you difficult to hit and necessitating an attack bonus/AC arms race. Perhaps it's "spiritual armour", and you can, as a swift action, trade the AC bonus it provides for Will defense until your next turn. Or maybe it lets you dimension door once per combat. Or something other nifty effect that provides a benefit but does not make you numerically stronger compared to a character with no magic items. I envision magic items increasing your versatility, not your raw mechanical advantages.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Not at all. Tolls apply on all Lawful planes; bribes work well on all Chaotic planes. Good planes like donations; Evil planes like tribute. Everyone wants money. (For proof of this, see every planar ally spell.)

I'm looking. I see gold = mechanical advantage. A planar ally is just a very powerful, very expensive, short-term magic item. If you bind it by presenting it with a pile of gold it's functionally no different than buying a super-powered one-shot Summon Monster item.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

But yes. If you're in Hell voluntarily, and you have a goal which requires your attention, and you disregard that goal to endanger yourself and others because you don't want to pay a toll only because the toll-keeper is evil, then I'd say your action is lawful stupid. Unless you object to all tolls (and always resort to combat in place of paying), in which case your action would be chaotic stupid.

Okay, I'm a paladin in hell. First of all, I expect that everything down here is pretty much going to want to kill me anyway, so I'm prepared to fight my way through. Second, I come across a fiend sitting in a toll booth. He asks for some ching. I know that every gold piece I fork over is going to mean pain and misery for some poor innocent somewhere, because I know that capital-E Evil is the only thing that fiends do with their money. If I give him the money, I'm willingly supporting evil, and so I violate my code, lose my powers, and feel like a jackass. I can either go back to plan A, and hack my way through, or I can find some way of circumventing the toll booth so I don't have to donate to the "Widows and Orphans: we need more of them" fund.

I hardly think that not providing monetary support to beings that exist only to be evil counts as Lawful Stupid. That's "ends justify the means" morality, and it specifically violates the "will not work with evil characters" part of the paladin's code.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Actually, that's my line. I'm presenting things you can do with wealth outside of combat, and you've been replying that combat enhancement is the only useful expenditure.

That's not how I'm reading it. He's arguing that combat enhancement is one of many valid ways to be allowed to spend accumulated wealth. He's saying that the 3.x system in which you force people to spend gold on combat enhancement is no good. He's also claiming that other gold sinks, as the sole option for players, are no good.

I've seen two other proposals for "gold sinks" in this thread. First is the "ale and whores" sink. You spend money on stuff that gets you absolutely nothing. You bought a set of satin curtains for your keep. That's awesome if you're the sort of player who loves that kind of thing, but not awesome if you don't care about it. Second is the "bribes, status, and power" sink. Gold translates directly into game-world influence, which means that gold allows you to dictate things about the campaign world that normally the DM would decide. Can you get into the party? Ching. Can you get past the toll booth? Ching. Can you get the duke to lend you some soldiers? Ching.

He's arguing that if you force the system to allow only one of these sinks, without allowing for other play styles, there is something wrong with the system. He's saying that there is something wrong with 3.x for precisely this reason, and that a fix does not amount to forcing your players to spend their money on ale and whores, or bribes, or magic items.

 

[lukelightning]

If the preserve some of the elements from the Weapon of Legacy system, then you will need gold to unlock the powers of your magic items.

I just pictured a coin-operated vorpal sword. "Please insert 10gp for each additional round of head-lopping..."

 

[A'koss]

However, in those earlier editions, gold WAS useless unless it was for training/xp (personally, I alwats thought that weird since you're basically adventuring to find money to train so you can adventure once again. HUH?!?!?).

The suggestions posted all basically say "Ok, you're adventuring to be a landholder". What happens if the player isn't interested in that?

There are countless things to spend money on other than property - say you want to start your own guild, your own knighthood, spy network, build a church, help the needy in a poor city, start your own merchant company, build a war galleon of your own design... As I said in my previous post, I would encourage PCs to come with long-term goals, to create something for the campaign that would outlive the character who built it.

In 3e, you're pigeonholed into doing just *one* thing with your money. And it's not like adventurers are not finding magic items on their travels. And if there was a specific item they were looking for - that could make for a good side-trek adventure chasing down a rumor, legend or whathaveyou. Again, I think low-level items being available to purchase from powerful wizard guilds makes sense, just take the mid to high level stuff off the market due to it's extreme rarity. That frees up the gold at higher levels for other things.

 

[lukelightning]

In AD&D, a death knight had a 75% chance of having a magic sword. Like that.

Yeah, but you also played modules where a dozen orcs attacked and each had a +1 longsword.

 

[YourSwordIsMine]

I hope they institute a more realistic economy. PC wealth was partly inflated because gold=exp earned; so it was fundamentally more than it should have been. When 3.x launched and exp gained wasnt tied to the gold peice anymore but unfortunately IMO the treasure rewards didnt change either. By 10th level a party of adventurers could buy a medium to large country with their amassed wealth. I think this is what lead to the Christmas Tree effect.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I can see there are those who like the 3.x money/wealth system, and those who don't. I don't think I'm going to change anyone's mind here with my post, but I'll say my piece FWIW.

I want a system where gold can be spent on pretty much anything execpt straight-up mechanical benefits. If the system designers are assuming that a 20th level Fighter has a BAB of +25, just give him a BAB of +25. Don't give him +20 and assume he's got a +5 longsword. That vastly narrows the types of campaigns that can be played.

In a system where gold (beyond basic equipment purchases) cannot be used for in-combat advantages, you have a lot more creative space for the types of PC's you play. As a simple for instance, it would be really hard to play a Sherwood Forest campaign using 3.x. You couldn't give the Sheriff's money to the poor without gimping yourself; and spending all that money on a +3 longbow sure isn't charitable.

I hope 4e goes this route. That would mean that, out of the box, it could support:
- pre-3e Forgotten Realms
- Dark Sun
- Dragonlance
- Any campaign where someone actually wears a Hat of Disguise or a Cloak of the Bat.
- Sherwood Forest (any "Noble bandit" campaign)
- An Arthurian Quest (Paladins only, please)
- A quest to establish a new point of light (needs money for the defenses) / Birthright
- A more Conan-esque quest
- &c.

It would not support Eberron as-is. That's one of the reason I am worried it won't fully go my way, since I see that Eberron and post-3e Forgotten Realms (with its Thayvian Magic-Marts) are going to be the primarily supported settings.

In full disclosure, I am currently playing in an Iron Heroes campaign because I wanted to play in pre-3e Forgoten Realms, and D&D 3x doesn't really support that. Iron Heroes (with some house rules) does.

I also realize that if I get the 4e I want, some of you are going to be disappointed. Oh well. Can't please everyone all of the time ...