D&D 5E Why I think gold should have less uses in 5e, not more.

[wedgeski]

I did not say it wasn't fun. I said it killed wonder.

What's your take on the idea that "wonder" is a setting (or even playstyle) specific goal?

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

To keep the post brief, I think gold should be used as an exchange of intangible experiences in a game rather than mechanical benefits like trading it in for magic items or XP.

The reason is that when players realize they can expend gold for concrete buffs to their character, they will hoard and only spend their gold on those buffs. But if they don't have that option, and (key point) they are aware that they can expend gold on fun intangible experiences, they will expend it there, increasing immersion and engagement with the world, as well as being a more fun experience having and spending gold.

For instance, rather than spending gold on buying a magic sword, they could go on a vacation to a mystical land where they recieve incite on their own character's magical affinity. Or something to that effect.

I mean, to me, this seems like it could be the best of both worlds.

Player: I want a magical sword. Where can I buy one?

DM: you can't buy one because magic items are rare and nobody would ever sell one. BUT, there is a legend that a magical sword exists in this mystical land of Sky and Cloud. A sword that strikes so hard, it creates thunder and lightning. It will be expensive to travel there and cost much to hire a guide but once you find its resting place, perhaps you can convince its guardian to give it to you....

Now it's an adventure and players will engage in adventuring especially if the spoils are worth it.

 

[Bacon Bits]

In AD&D training costs weren't a house rule.

The 2e AD&D DMG explicitly lists Training as an optional rule in Chapter 8. B/X has no rules at all for training, let alone training costs, and BECMI's "Training" refers to it's own Weapon Mastery system. Similarly OD&D had no training costs; the only limitation that I can recall was that you had to level up between adventures.

There are training costs in the 1e AD&D DMG! However, in 1e AD&D everything was an optional rule. After all, weapon speed, weapon vs armor type, and multi-attack's effect on initiative segments weren't presented as optional rules, either, but I never saw anybody use them longer than one or two sessions. A.D.D.I.C.T. is quite deservedly a joke to most people.

My experience with 1e AD&D training was that it worked exactly like demihuman level limits. At the start of the campaign, the DM would staunchly insist the training rules would be enforced. Then, as soon as they actually came up in play, they would be relaxed. The DM would know you were several sessions from getting back to town and the PCs had nowhere near the somewhat absurd 1,500 gp per level required of each PC. They know they don't have 6,000-10,000 gp in the entire module for the 1st-level PCs to reach 2nd level alone (several of whom are multiclass and need to train twice). Then the DM knows that the module is supposed to take the PCs to 3rd or 4th level... and their napkin math says they're now somewhere around 35,000 gp short for a party of 4-5. Suddenly "training costs" end up not being very important at all, and you can just level up between sessions.

Nothing sucks the wonder out of fantasy like buying magic items.

I don't think buying magic items subverts the setting. I think it subverts the game itself, but not because of loss of wonder.

When the players or PCs want to accomplish something, the answer should essentially always be, "go on an adventure." That's the core game loop of D&D. Go on an adventure, find dungeons, kill or bypass the monsters and traps, and take the treasures you find as reward. As much as possible, the mechanics and elements of the game should funnel the players back into that core game loop. And, yes the goals of the adventure should sometimes or even often reflect the goals that the players want to achieve.

Critically, this is what the DMG should be telling new DMs.

Buying a magic item should only be possible when the alternatives to going out and finding it through adventure are worse than the adventure that is being blocked by not having the item.

 

[Reynard]

There are training costs in the 1e AD&D DMG! However, in 1e AD&D everything was an optional rule.

All rules in all editions are optional. That doesn't change the fact that training costs were baked into AD&D as a use for gold and set high in order to motivate treasure hunting.

 

[GMMichael]

I have to side with OP on this one; you shouldn't be able to buy magic items with gold.

They should be priced in platinum instead.

My PCs, should they ever find a magic item shop, are welcome to spend money on magic items. But magic items are hard to keep if you don't have a safe place to put them... like a stronghold... with followers... and some well-greased noble palms... all of which also have a cost.

 

[Stormonu]

I have to side with OP on this one; you shouldn't be able to buy magic items with gold.

They should be priced in platinum instead.

My PCs, should they ever find a magic item shop, are welcome to spend money on magic items. But magic items are hard to keep if you don't have a safe place to put them... like a stronghold... with followers... and some well-greased noble palms... all of which also have a cost.

Actually, gems are the preferred currency for buying magic items as they, in turn can be used for spell-casting or item creation.

I suppose another option is to allow PCs to directly turn gold into XP either to supplement monster/story XP or to replace it (which is more 1E-like). It will certainly make the players more mercenary in nature if you go the replace route.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Nothing sucks the wonder out of fantasy like buying magic items.

What about putting magic on a shelf and telling the players they can't touch it because then it wouldn't be special like it's their granny's ceramic unicorns?

 

[Distracted DM]

What about putting magic on a shelf and telling the players they can't touch it because then it wouldn't be special like it's their granny's ceramic unicorns?

Saying magic items can't be bought isn't the same as saying you can't have magic, or magic items.

... Unless the only way to get magic in your games is by purchasing it from a shop.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In my experience, if gold does not have a use in the game part of the game (mechanics) players very quickly stop caring about it. Which is fine if you are saving the world or reaching for other goals, but kills treasure hunting dead.

It also harms verisimilitude to my mind, because there are plenty of concrete, useful things that gold absolutely should be able to buy.

 

[Bacon Bits]

All rules in all editions are optional. That doesn't change the fact that training costs were baked into AD&D as a use for gold and set high in order to motivate treasure hunting.

That's just it, though. It doesn't really do that. I feel like you haven't actually looked at just how silly the math is. I don't think Gary did.

If you play it straight, it doesn't just make gold mandatory for progression. It makes a lot of gold mandatory for progression. It makes gold functionally replace XP for the first 6 levels of the game. It's not a siphon for gold that would otherwise be there. It's a schedule. The costs are so high that they block and dictate advancement. At low level when you're less likely to have the XP earned pro-rated, it's often higher than the XP schedule.

• A level 1 Fighter needs 1,500 gp and 2,000 XP gained to reach level 2.
• A level 2 Fighter needs 3,000 gp and 2,000 XP gained to reach level 3.
• A level 3 Fighter needs 4,500 gp and 4,000 XP gained to reach level 4.
• A level 4 Fighter needs 6,000 gp and 8,000 XP gained to reach level 5.

By 5th level, a Fighter needs to have a total of 16,000 XP. However, to reach that point, they would have had to spend 15,000 gp just in training. (For reference, that's more total wealth than 3e characters should have access to by that level.)

Except... well, now there's a big problem, because you earn XP for gold. That means they should have gotten pretty close to 15,000 XP from gold alone. If the character has a Strength score of 15 or better -- which the 1e DMG strongly suggests they always should -- they would instead have 16,500 XP from the gold alone. That's before XP from monsters or magic items or anything else, never mind any gold that the PC could actually spend on supplies and equipment. And it's worse for Clerics and Thieves because they advance more quickly but their costs are the same.

And to top it off, this is the cheapest it can be. If the DM decides you weren't playing your class or alignment well enough or if no trainer is available, you can be required to spend up to quadruple the costs.

But it gets worse because, as I mentioned, 1e AD&D is unique in this training cost requirement. It doesn't appear in other editions except as an optional rule. That means any module for 2e AD&D or Basic D&D shouldn't have this level of treasure. That means any Basic module, including the entirety of the B and X series, anything set in Mystara, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, or Planescape, nearly all of Ravenloft, and nearly all of Forgotten Realms should not have the gold required to pay for this training.

That's why I'm saying I honestly don't believe anybody used this long enough for it to happen during play. The costs for a significant portion of play are completely outside the reality of gameplay, and it lasts until the PCs are mid-level.

If this is really how you say you played, then my question is: Why do your players put up with that much level drain? Because that's the only way I can imagine this kind of game working and not being constantly capped on XP.