So what's gold gonna be for?

[Lonely Tylenol]

Know what that reminds me of?

King Arthur's scabbard.

Excaliber was a potent magical sword, yes. But the scabbard actually prevented Arthur from bleeding from a wound.

So you could have a magical item that auto-stabilizes you when you go past 0, and prevents you from ever being Wounded (1 point of damage per round). These two qualities are so infrequently applied, but when it happens it's real useful.

Right, exactly. Stuff that's super useful but possession of which doesn't require the DM to ramp up the monsters, requiring the other players to also get kewl stuff, requiring the DM to ramp up monsters again, etc.

 

[Terraism]

How so? You can spend it all on mega ale and mega whores, or windmills or whatever you want to in 3.5.

Well, sure, you can. But it's not a viable option in 3E - by spending your gold on anything other than magical items, you wreck the curve and, especially if everyone doesn't do the same, you can no longer contribute in the same fashion.

The point from folks saying "you can't do that in 3E" isn't that you're outright inhibited from doing so, but that if you do, you can't play in the same game as anyone else. A 10th level character with recommended items is challenged by a CR10... a 10th level character without items often can't hurt it. That is a problem, and makes that option a non-solution.

But if you can't turn gold into tangeable power (magic items, xp), you have to ask why anyone with power wants gold.

I'd point you towards reality, and the fact that a trained soldier can easily manhandle most rulers/politicians, but it's the latter who have power... and the money. Gold is power, without it being just XP or magic items.

 

[TwinBahamut]

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

Actually, this isn't as bad of an idea as you might think. Time to break out videogame examples again.

In the videogame RPG Fire Emblem 4, the weapons all essentially work like a "coin-operated corpal sword". Every weapon in the game has a set number of uses, and when that number is used up, the weapon breaks and needs to be repaired for it to be used again. Different weapons have different repair costs, with more powerful weapons being more expensive.

At the same time, most characters join your side in that game with both cheap common weapons (like Iron Swords), and incredibly powerful unique weapons (like the Baldo-bloodline Holy Sword Tyrfing). When a character is poor, they can only afford to use the cheap weapons, but when they are rich, they can destroy enemies easily with their Holy Bloodline Weapons.

I think it is an interesting system, myself, especially since it permits a character to have an incredibly unique and interesting weapon from the beginning, but still prevents that character from using it freely.

 

[A'koss]

And thats great. IF you're a type of player who enjoys empire building. I fully agree that there needs to be material that covers it. I bought Magical Mystical Society: Western Europe for that reason: to help facilitate one of my players style of play. Out of the other 3, one of them enjoys getting cool art objects and gems to show off. The other 2 are "but kickers" and routinely use gold for raw gear upgrades. All 3 styles of play are supported by 3rd edition. Take out the option to buy new gear and one play style is shafted. Arguably a play style that is more wide spread than the empire builder type of player.

If it was next to impossible to aquire magic at all, I'd agree. But as an adventurer - magical loot is out there.

How so? You can spend it all on mega ale and mega whores, or windmills or whatever you want to in 3.5.

Sure you can - but what happens when one character spends all his money on magical power while the other spends on it charity? The game's balance is built upon the fact that you spend your money on magic items. Now how do you appropriately challenge a group with a large (and increasing) disparity in personal power? At lower levels it's not so much a concern, but at higher levels it is a significant concern.

The bottom line is you can't have it both ways. Either you curb what magic you can buy on the open market, which opens up other spending options at higher levels or you accept the fact that PCs won't spend large sums of money on anything else, no matter how much they may want to.

 

[Rechan]

Right, exactly. Stuff that's super useful but possession of which doesn't require the DM to ramp up the monsters, requiring the other players to also get kewl stuff, requiring the DM to ramp up monsters again, etc.

There are artifact swords in Forgotten Realms called Moonblades. There's only like forty of them, and the only person who can use them is an elf who inherits it from a family member - so one sword per bloodline. Each wielder adds a new power to the sword. Some of those powers displayed is like never being caught off guard, summoning ghostly versions of previous wielders, etc.

This could easily be adopted so that every adventurer only gets one or two Magical Items in his career, but the item becomes multi-purpose as he levels. Not "It goes from +1 to +2 to +2 flaming) but "It gets a utility ability that makes it unique".

There are some things that just do not break the game. Like 'You can summon your sword to your hand as a standard action'. That's not even worth a +1; it's just a frill. Having a system where all characters are expected to get some mechanical and some frill benefits, and scaling those benefits throughout the levels, would avoid the "DM's gotta ramp up the monsters".

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

"Gold sinks" aren't any good, whether you have one or many. That is what I was arguing in post #160, though I didn't use the term. What would be even better than multiple gold sinks is zero gold sinks.

The whole idea behind a gold sink is to make players want to go after the loot, by giving them something to sink it into. However, if that sink involves direct, personal power, in any way (e.g. magic items, reliable highly useful allies), then it forces a style of play.

Really, I'm not satisfied with any system that creates an environment where I have to get the players to all agree on one style. In a great tabletop game, I ought to be able to equally accommodate the player that goes the "ale and whores" route, the player that builds the stronghold, the player that does bling/bribes, and even the player that wants to amass a bunch of wealth (to "keep score", to lend to his buddy player characters to do their thing). All within the same game. If the game ties money into anything that prevents this scenario, then the design is trying to hard to create a sink.

Let money lead to convenience. Let it be an aid to characters getting what they want faster and/or "easier", but not without them running some risks still. If your adventure is take the magic whatzit from the ghoul king so that you can blow the other treasure, fine. If your "adventure" is chase down the thieves guild that ran off the whatzit before a merchant can deliver it to you, fine. Just don't set it up so that you pays your money and gets your whatzit.

And for that matter, the same applies to the stronghold, the bling/bribes, etc. Every use of money should bring with it some trouble. And that leads to all kinds of interesting options where the character avoid accumulating weath precisely to avoid that kind of trouble.

Summary: No direct, personal power from weath. Allow wealth to be an aid towards indirectly accumulating some personal power, but not without risk.

 

[gizmo33]

I'd point you towards reality, and the fact that a trained soldier can easily manhandle most rulers/politicians, but it's the latter who have power... and the money. Gold is power, without it being just XP or magic items.

But gold isn't identical to power and it's that lack of identity that's the problem. Because while in the real world gold might easily purchase power, in DnD being a DM is power and the DMs rulings can nerf what gold is capable of doing. A real world politician just sends 100 soldiers after the renegade soldier and the situation is taken care of.

The 100 soldiers that are hired all enjoy ale and whores (let's say) and so the money paid to them has actual meaning. But spending gp to hear the DM describe to you an imaginary encounter with a mug of ale does not motivate players. Ale (and whores, I'd imagine) are far more fun IRL than in the game. What's fun in the game is killing monsters, and for all but the most imaginative, that's about it. I would say 99% of players don't care whether their character wears burlap or silk, whereas 99% of people in real life would care very much AFAIK.

Plus, you can't hire soldiers when your DM says "no, just you and 3 friends are going into this dungeon, the army stays home." Real life doesn't care if the challenges are balanced for you level, but a lot of DMs do.

 

[Nifft]

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.

Yes, that's how it works in 3.5e. And it's bad.

-- N

 

[Nifft]

Okay, I'm a paladin in hell.

You are the first person to bring a Paladin into this discussion. Paladins are different, and have their own set of baggage.

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.

Again, Paladins are special. We weren't talking about them.

However, honestly, you are describing Lawful Stupid to a tee. Let me show you how the Most Sinister Fiendish Thaumaturge turns your predictable behavior into an iron-clad Paladin detector: he sets up toll bridges at regular intervals within his kingdom, and binds Imps to collect the tolls.

Now you have a choice: pay a toll to a being of pure Evil, or out yourself as a Paladin whenever you cross a river.

-- N

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

There are artifact swords in Forgotten Realms called Moonblades. There's only like forty of them, and the only person who can use them is an elf who inherits it from a family member - so one sword per bloodline. Each wielder adds a new power to the sword. Some of those powers displayed is like never being caught off guard, summoning ghostly versions of previous wielders, etc.

This could easily be adopted so that every adventurer only gets one or two Magical Items in his career, but the item becomes multi-purpose as he levels. Not "It goes from +1 to +2 to +2 flaming) but "It gets a utility ability that makes it unique".

There are some things that just do not break the game. Like 'You can summon your sword to your hand as a standard action'. That's not even worth a +1; it's just a frill. Having a system where all characters are expected to get some mechanical and some frill benefits, and scaling those benefits throughout the levels, would avoid the "DM's gotta ramp up the monsters".

I agree that a certain amount of mechanical benefit is just fine, but it has to be scaled properly. A +6 wand, for example, might be the best you can get. At high levels, +6 might not be a particularly large benefit, but a desirable one. It's all a question of what you need to roll on a d20 in order to succeed.