D&D 5E What's the point of gold?

[MoonSong]

I like that base D&D doesn't have the option to buy magic items. It's far easier to add magic items for sale if you prefer to take them away from a game balanced with them in mind. It's obvious they intended magic items to be a big part of the game as in past editions. It seems like this edition was built so the base didn't require feats, magic items, or many options. You can add on to it as you like. It's very easy to do so.

Ok if it is so easy, please give us a balanced price list of all items in the DMG, it should account for the utility of the items and not encourage players to buy only the most useful ones -like cloak or resistance-..

 

[delericho]

"Stories" get away with having magical item plopping up left and right while continuing the "magic is super rare" mantra, without addressing this obvious incoherency. PnPs on the other hand need to address this and can't simply gloss over it. And the usual "Leftovers from an ancient empire" explanation gets stale very fast, especially as the history of the world doesn't support it or assumes 0 innovation over centuries and when magic is encountered everywhere in the form of PCs, NPCs and monsters.

One option that springs to mind is that magic items could require one or more rare materials to craft. If, for example, a magic sword can only be made from meteorite iron, then that puts a hard cap on the number of items in existence - in order to craft a magic sword you either need a new source of the iron (of which there are few or none) or you need to melt down and reforge an existing magic weapon.

Just a suggestion - again, I'm not suggesting that's the way it must be, or should be.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Ok if it is so easy, please give us a balanced price list of all items in the DMG, it should account for the utility of the items and not encourage players to buy only the most useful ones -like cloak or resistance-..

Balanced for whom? There is no universal, one size fits all point of balance for this stuff. What would seem sensible to some groups would be way off kilter for others. Leaving decisions like these to individual groups was the best decision made for this game. If you can't be responsible for the balance and content of your own fantasy games of the imagination then perhaps sticking to board games is a better fit.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

And what exactly is the problem with a comrade in arms whose survival depends on his combat power and on that of his companions expresses concerns over him rather spending a (I assume) large part of his resources on a house which he/they might not even need, use or being even be allowed to keep?

Because the word used was "chastised," not "express concern." One is much, I guess, more negative than the other.

Though this'll sound harsh, it boils down to this: Because it's my character and not his. If he wants to dictate what my character can and cannot do, he better damn well sit back and smile when I do the same to his. My characters are more than numbers on a paper. If I can't expand my character beyond a combat role, I'm not interested in playing with that group and/or player.

 

[Remathilis]

And what exactly is the problem with a comerade in arms whos survival depends on his combat power and on that of his companions expresses concerns over him rather spending a (I assume) large part of his ressources on a house which he/they might not even need, use or being even be allowed to keep?

Because its his money.

Backstory. Group was 4th level and playing in an Urban-based adventure. They had just done a classic "Haunted House" style adventure and the PC in question (a cleric of the sun god) thought about buying the manor house to repair it and live in it. (It had been abandoned/haunted for 50 year at that point, and he got it for "back taxes" equally about 100 gp, plus nearly 2k in repairs). Once the price of the house (determined using Paizo's Ultimate Campaign guide, btw. It was valued at about 5k) was announced, another player commented "2,000 gold for a house? You should buy a +1 morningstar for that!"

He wasn't mad, just that he was making a bad decision. (Its less harsh in hindsight). The problem was the fact that something that made sense to his story (repairing and consecrating a formerly haunted house) was immediately valued against a +1 to hit and damage. Which is the problem with ANY magic item pricing. How do you price a quirky but situationally useful item (like a folding boat) against a boring but dependable number-booster item? (A ring, cloak, or magic armor)? If I'm a PC, boring reliable boosts to my stats are far more tempting than items that are cool but rarely used. It takes a special kind of player to even further willing bypass a statistical boost to gain some very minor in-campaign benefits (His house gave him voting rights in the city and somewhere to store stuff between adventures).

My group is great; by the end most of them had bought a home in/near the city, one opened a thieves guild, and another inherited his uncle's shoppe. Most waited until they had +1 gear though to do it though. But even a group as diverse as this can be lured into the trap of thinking of GP as "way to acquire higher plus" and that is the true danger of giving items a GP cost.

 

[Remathilis]

Ok if it is so easy, please give us a balanced price list of all items in the DMG, it should account for the utility of the items and not encourage players to buy only the most useful ones -like cloak or resistance-..

The only way to do this is to make all items give some form of bonus, or have none of them give a bonus. Even then, its a tall order.

 

[SkidAce]

And yet Sting and many other elven made magical items existed and they had to come from somewhere.
"Stories" get away with having magical item plopping up left and right while continuing the "magic is super rare" mantra, without addressing this obvious incoherency. PnPs on the other hand need to address this and can't simply gloss over it. And the usual "Leftovers from an ancient empire" explanation gets stale very fast, especially as the history of the world doesn't support it or assumes 0 innovation over centuries and when magic is encountered everywhere in the form of PCs, NPCs and monsters.

Thats why my campaign is set after very soon after the fall of that ancient civilization, where many secrets were lost and they haven't re-aquired them yet.

Oh they are trying...hence...Adventurers.

 

[Derren]

Backstory. Group was 4th level and playing in an Urban-based adventure. They had just done a classic "Haunted House" style adventure and the PC in question (a cleric of the sun god) thought about buying the manor house to repair it and live in it. (It had been abandoned/haunted for 50 year at that point, and he got it for "back taxes" equally about 100 gp, plus nearly 2k in repairs). Once the price of the house (determined using Paizo's Ultimate Campaign guide, btw. It was valued at about 5k) was announced, another player commented "2,000 gold for a house? You should buy a +1 morningstar for that!"

So a player expressed his surprise that someone he fights besides with and who earns his living by fighting against monsters spends a large part of his wealth not on something which ensures his success and survival but on a house he might not even need (Did the PC had a family or other dependables who would justify a house of that size?)

He wasn't mad, just that he was making a bad decision. (Its less harsh in hindsight). The problem was the fact that something that made sense to his story (repairing and consecrating a formerly haunted house) was immediately valued against a +1 to hit and damage. Which is the problem with ANY magic item pricing. How do you price a quirky but situationally useful item (like a folding boat) against a boring but dependable number-booster item? (A ring, cloak, or magic armor)? If I'm a PC, boring reliable boosts to my stats are far more tempting than items that are cool but rarely used. It takes a special kind of player to even further willing bypass a statistical boost to gain some very minor in-campaign benefits (His house gave him voting rights in the city and somewhere to store stuff between adventures).

My group is great; by the end most of them had bought a home in/near the city, one opened a thieves guild, and another inherited his uncle's shoppe. Most waited until they had +1 gear though to do it though. But even a group as diverse as this can be lured into the trap of thinking of GP as "way to acquire higher plus" and that is the true danger of giving items a GP cost.

You have to accept that unless you are playing a complete railroad game where you agreed to not kill a PC under any circumstance the PCs are in the end still mercenaries and soldiers who risk their live daily on some sort of battlefield. That ensuring their survival has a higher priority than luxury items is not a fault of the system but common sense.

 

[Remathilis]

I think the biggest problem with a "magic item economy" is that eventually, you get... Eberron.

Much like how the smallest amount of economic sense placed on D&D's treasure table ruins the economy of every medieval setting, basic concepts of innovation makes even settings with moderately replicatable magic items quickly fall away. You get everburning flame-based lighting, decanters of endless water-running water, sending-based telegraphs. Why wouldn't you? It certainly more beneficial than making folding boats and golembane scarabs.

Eventually, magic would begin to Asimov and replace technology. Which is fine if you're going from that feel (I like Eberron) but I always viewed Eberron as the end-result of 3e's economy.

 

[Derren]

I think the biggest problem with a "magic item economy" is that eventually, you get... Eberron.

Eventually, yes. That is just the logical progression. Of course you do not have to set your campaign in a world which has reached Eberron level of magic use yet.