PDA

View Full Version : How much Gold!!!!



Omegas
2012-03-31, 11:39 PM
The blue writing is the setting, the green is my notes.

I am a DM

Recently I had a player that just did not like the economics of D&D. I cant disagree with his point. After 10th level you could sell your magical crap and live handsomely for the rest of your life. It's not hard for a PC to amass wealth equal to or surpassing average kingdoms. So from the characters point of view what is the point of risking your life when you can afford to live elsewhere in luxury?

I have to admit after level 5, I have never bothered tracking inn fees, stabling, or food cost. Common items are a joke to higher level characters.



Solution to make the D&D Economy more practical and relateable.
The Last Sands of Left in Death's Hourglass.

Every day of your life Death turns your hour glass over so that your sand does not run out. Should your sand run out, then you die of natural causes (old age). Accidents or natural ailments increase the flow of the sand (should you fall off a cliff you could expend all of your sand). No sand is lost in a natural or accidental end as Death has time to collect your hourglass and release your soul.

When something is slain the hourglass shatters and some of the sand from the glass spill out into the plain where the creature die. Death is aware of an untimely end but he does not always know which will die, so he positions himself at the creature more likely to die. Based on the (CR) he is prepared to prevent most or all of the sand from escaping. He also will not allow sand morals to collect sand from sacrifices like using wish to summon a minor challenge creature to be destroyed. Generally he punished mortals who attempt such thing buy causing a natural death to someone they care about.

All loot drops 10% standard gold and the other 90% in "Soul Sand".
All items (including magical) drop at the normal rate.

This soul sand forms into crystals that merges with other soul gems. Its magnetic (only to Soul Sand) meaning you can wave a crystal over the ground and all of the sand will cling to it. If you fill a pouch with sand after a few hours it will all co-less into an easily breakable crystal. A gem composed of 1000 grains of sand weights 1 lbs. These gems are the primary component in the creation, repair, and cost of all magical items.

Merchants will trade up to 90% of a magical items cost in soul sand but the rest has to be paid in gold. Gold is wealth and can be traded for anything but soul sand only reduces the cost of magical items. Thus it is not as valuable as gold. Generally if you where able to find someone to buy Soul Sand they would only give you 25% to 50% of the value in gold. If you where looking to buy Sand no merchants would offer better then 90% to 100% sand for gold. If you sold a magical item no one would give you straight gold when soul sand is so much easier to find. The global standard is 10% gold 90% sand.

( DMs may allow a PC to attempt a second appraise to negotiate a better percentage. Simply do not multiply the DM roll by 10 --- which means they have a 50% chance to increase the gold percentage between 1% to 15% [max 25% gold / 75% Sand] )

As a result of this rule the players are still making a good living, adventuring, but it is not that much more then a player could have earned using a ranked profession skill. Their income does not dramatically surpass the NPC world and magical items are no longer worth a kings ransom.

My players have made 10 levels in 15 seasons, and they have a grater appreciation for gold. Game play seems to be unaffected other then players are not as inclined to burn cash.

If they face a beast or monster they normally only get sand, but I make up the difference in a future finds or encounters, and Undead normally have many soul gems just lying around or it is clinging to their bones where their heart should be. This has made allocating treasure so much easier.

The party is level 16 at this point and I was wondering if anyone had any though or more importantly I would appreciate others trying this and giving me feed back on the idea. I have make this a permanent House Rule. I am simply looking for potential issues.

Note I know some of you will say you like not having to track mundane things but in the same breath many of you will admit the value of some magical items are unrealistic. King do we end poverty in our kingdom or do you want a fancy magical hat?

.

Kane0
2012-03-31, 11:56 PM
Now that is a good idea. It allows for profit even if the foe is poor and a direct link to how powerful they are, as well as limiting the vast piles worth of cash they rack up over later levels.

How does this method fare when PCs are crafting? Do they simply use 10% the gold cost and the rest in sand?

Bookmarking thread to present to my DM :smallsmile:

bobthe6th
2012-04-01, 12:31 AM
the problem is, once players can buy magic items at the magic mart with 100x their body weight in gold(the local meat shield doing a leaf cuter ant impression to get it their) and buy magic items over 15000(the wish limit:or stuff you can't get by intimidating a noble geni(CR8)) you have economic troubles. realistically, a good king just buys 1-2 wish casting monster slaves and mana rains from the heavens. now this... now a legitimat magic currency... but at the same time, it doesn't fix the problem. a quick adventure, punching noble dingins in the face and taking their lunch(7500gp) a pop... Frank and K gave some thoughts on this in the economicon

Madara
2012-04-01, 09:06 AM
I think it sounds pretty good. I mean...from an NPC point of view, its the currency of murderers. But from OOG, it sounds fairly balanced and makes more sense.


I suggest that rather than incorporate this as a permanent house rule, say its part of the setting/world they're in.

Hazzardevil
2012-04-01, 09:42 AM
The thing is when you have a lot of gold, like Frank and K said. It becomes worthless. Most commoners can only carry about 10,000 gold coins, or 100,000 in platinum. Therefore anything past 10k gold becomes impractical to buy because of the amount of gold needed to be carted around, bartering makes this worse because then nobody can give an item an exact value due to how awkward moving gold around is.

Saidoro
2012-04-01, 09:58 AM
Here's a question: why give gold off of loot tables at all? Why not just give creatures an amount of gold appropriate to what they are and then just give the party magic items more or less independently of that? There is no reason gold needs to be linked with magic items at all.

Chronologist
2012-04-01, 06:15 PM
Funny, after reading through your idea all I could think of was Scott Pilgrim, where the bosses burst into coins after dying.

It's actually a pretty neat system, though for the sake of practicality you might want to instead make the sand more of a single large crystal. That would be easier to retrieve and less likely to cause hassles with containers. When the PCs sell the crystal for items they can always break it into smaller pieces if need be.

Deepbluediver
2012-04-01, 10:28 PM
I agree that the overall level of wealth given in the DMG seems a bit extreme at times. And I've never liked the idea of magic-mart type set ups anyway.

It's entirely speculative, but I think the thought process went something like this:
1) some classes aren't as powerful as versatile at higher levels due to differing class abilities
2) in order to help equalize this disparity, we'll make some really cool magic items
3) to keep these magic items out of the hands of lower level players, we're gonna make the cost near astronomical
4) in order to actually be able to afford these magic items, that means high CR monsters are all sitting on literally tons of gold coins; more than an entire continent of low-level humanoids would have.

More evidence for the theory that WotC never actually considered the implications of anyone playing the game past level 10.

Most of my DMs gave us a couple hundred gold from every fight to cover the incidentals (potions, repairs, etc) and then magic items showed up as appropriate, usually one big thing per person every other chapter or so. If there was something that we couldn't or didn't want to use, we had to seek out some one special to either trade it for something else or modify it.

Thomar_of_Uointer
2012-04-02, 11:46 PM
I try to give out art objects and magic item crafting materials instead of piles of cash. It just makes more sense.

You can also have most monsters not carry treasure, and then roll their treasure into the next monster appropriate for a treasure hoard.

Re'ozul
2012-04-03, 06:14 AM
I like this soulsand idea.
I'm tempted to now include something like it in my games, though I usually give little gold anyway.

I generally never give any enemy a party faces more than CR*10gp in loose change. Heck, unless the enemy is humanoid with a societal background, they tend to not have any money (exceptions are beings that think coins are pretty and stick them to their walls and such).
I tend to throw out nearly everything in items and consumables.
The few times when I actually implement a necessary monetary system, I tend to make 1gp into 1sp and 100gp into 1gp. That at least preserves gold value slightly though ultimately it doesn't change anything.

Falin
2012-04-04, 06:17 AM
To which I reply, having huge piles of cash is cool. This is one reason I like the wish economy. You can have as much gold as you want, and just sink it into ships, and skull fortresses, and buying the inn you burned down that one time you got drunk and confused the candelabra for a will o' the wisp.

The point is, having lots of gold, is fun, and being able to burn it on things that make you feel like the rich and powerful hero of the land, as opposed to a murder hobo, is even more fun. Yes, the amounts of gold don't make much sense. But the prices are also unreasonable. So, there's your inflation. I mean, a back pack costs like four ounces of gold.

Rejusu
2012-04-04, 07:38 AM
Well there's a reason it's called "wealth" by level. It doesn't necessarily mean "gold". You can get around the players have tons of gold by just giving them the equivalent in magic items. I mean this soul sand is a nice idea, but it just overcomplicates things when you could just have the party find magic items as loot instead.

Also does it matter whether the party has so much gold? Most players don't play D&D to earn a nice nest egg with which they can retire to a farm somewhere with. If they can't think of a roleplaying reason why their characters want to continue their adventures despite being filthy rich then they aren't really trying.

Falin
2012-04-04, 07:44 AM
Yeah like spreading the word of their god, or ridding the world of evil, or heck, becoming even more filthy rich. There are reasons out there, you just have to think about it a little.

Rejusu
2012-04-04, 11:09 AM
Yeah like spreading the word of their god, or ridding the world of evil, or heck, becoming even more filthy rich. There are reasons out there, you just have to think about it a little.

Or you know just saving the world so they actually have somewhere to retire to. No adventurer is just going to hang up their hat so they can spend their remaining days playing bingo at the senior adventurers guild when the world is going to end before Tuesdays Bridge night.

Omegas
2012-04-04, 05:42 PM
:smallwink: There will always be good reasons to continue adventuring and we can apply the "What if Game" to any scenario. Much like real life the characters have to have a reason for adventuring. People fight wars because they believe in a cause or to protect what they love, but most don't do it foolishly. I dont mind the occasional long term campaign strife, but without the down times that offer characters the ability to enjoy the world - it makes the campaign unbelievable. Players should be encouraged to start families or create ties that give them a reason to fight.

:smallmad: To be honest, in my opinion, the most nu-enjoyable player stereotype are those players that linger in taverns waiting for the next crisis to run through the door. They general lead to campaigns where no one actually knows what they are fighting for. I see it happen in card shops and by novice DM. I can recall approaching a (well like - aka experienced) DM and asking "So why was the Hippogriff fighting to it's death alongside those Hob-goblins?" The DM acctually said = "Because it was in the monster manual and was right next the to Hob-goblin." It's sad to say that there is a large assortment of these types of DMs and campaigns out there.

:smallconfused: Back on subject = As an average income human being - I can Join the local army or militia. Its the best I can do to help the fight when there is a need. But turn the gold piece over. If I am the economic elite. I could buy smithies, outfit troops, pay for their services and make a far greater impact towards the cause. Simply by not adventuring myself.

:smallamused: I guess, much I like my fellow player, are tired of WOW players calling themselves roll players. We need there to be a point behind the fight. There has to be a story beyond go fetch this or hay the Orcs are attacking my farm for the 5 time this weak, Geese you would have though it was save to build a farm next to an Orc cave.
"Is it a bad guy?" Let me look. Humm nope the cross hairs in the center of the screen aren't red.
What are we doing today? Well I though I would go out and slaughter a species or organization of people who think differently then us, so that an affiliation thinks I am kewl enough to sell me an over priced rare armor piece or trinket.
Etc....

:smalleek: If a game is not believable, if the NPCs aren't smart enough to live in their own time period, or if the players have to choose the less intelligent course of action to accomplish anything then it is simply less fun. I think a player that measures their success by the coin of their character's wealth rather then their deeds may in fact be the ones who aren't trying. Seriously play an elf, get 10 ranks in any profession and roll (52 weeks x 300 years) = 15600 times before your character dies, or pay for reincarnation or wish spells to make yourself young again and continually repeat the process until the end of time.

:smallcool: Unseemly wealth can make a campaign less fun. Orc raiding parties are planning an attack. Do I go out with 3 of my buddies and risk my life against a challenging encounter or do I hire 50 humans with bows to devastate them for an insignificant fraction of my wealth?

:amused: Food for thought

Falin
2012-04-04, 06:01 PM
:smallmad: To be honest, in my opinion, the most nu-enjoyable player stereotype are those players that linger in taverns waiting for the next crisis to run through the door. They general lead to campaigns where no one actually knows what they are fighting for. I see it happen in card shops and by novice DM. I can recall approaching a (well like - aka experienced) DM and asking "So why was the Hippogriff fighting to it's death alongside those Hob-goblins?" The DM acctually said = "Because it was in the monster manual and was right next the to Hob-goblin." It's sad to say that there is a large assortment of these types of DMs and campaigns out there.

Why is this bad? Complexity =/= good, and simplicity =/= bad. The best book I've ever read (the gate of ivory) was very simple and cleche, but it also happened to be perfect. Everything was there that needed to be there. It could have been more complex and deep but if it were it wouldn't have been nearly as good.

And while were' on this subject. The professional adventure archetype works very well in D&D. Some people are farmers, some people are masons, and some people are adventurers. They don't affiliate with anyone because they either do more good or make more money when they're not constricted by the constraints of a military/religious/monastic, ect organization. Yeah you're Cleric may worship Pelor, but that doesn't mean he HAS to be part of the church of Pelor (your cleric could also worship his red socks but that's another argument). Your Monk may have trained in the monastery but he certainly doesn't have to take orders from the monastery.


:smallconfused: Back on subject = As an average income human being - I can Join the local army or militia. Its the best I can do to help the fight when in need. But turn the gold piece over. If I am the economic elite. I could buy smithies, outfit troops, pay for their services and make a far greater impact towards the cause. Simply by not adventuring myself.

D&D doesn't have rules for mass combat. Sorry. And besides the legions of King Vulkan the wise could seriously be dominated by Bob the 15th level fighter. So as an "economic elite." You really can do more good adventuring yourself. You not only do you do more than all the common soldiers in the land, but you do it faster.


:smallcool: Unseemly wealth can make a campaign less fun. Orc raiding parties are planning an attack. Do I go out with 3 of my buddies and risk my life against a challenging encounter or do I hire 50 humans with bows to devastate them for an insignificant fraction of my wealth?

You go out with three of you buddies because at the levels where you even pay attention to orc raiding parties you can't afford to hire one human with a bow.

Omegas
2012-04-04, 06:23 PM
D&D doesn't have rules for mass combat. Sorry. And besides the legions of King Vulkan the wise could seriously be dominated by Bob the 15th level fighter. So as an "economic elite." You really can do more good adventuring yourself. You not only do you do more than all the common soldiers in the land, but you do it faster. If you read the DMG in detail you will understand why.

The 5% auto hit chance wins all in mass battles. Take a level 20 fighter (without a magical item that blocks arrow fire) against 100 spread out Kobolts with light crossbows. The fighter will slaughter as many as he can get too or shoot them as long as his ammo holds out but the number of auto hits he takes will wipe him out. Especially if they keep at a distance forcing him to run after them, and even more if they have the team benefit Volley.

You may be a hero but no man is an army. D&D is clear about this. Its why trying to pick a fight with the guards in a major city is a bad idea. There is no end to them. You can either get arrested or try to evade them.

True orc were a bad example for D&D but it was more of a WOW pun.

There too you can have an army in D&D. With the Leadership Feat you hire a large group of low level worriers. A mage could rip up quite a few of them and it would seriously hurt your leadership but the mage would run out of spells before a leader with a high score ran out of worriers. There too most DMs will allow you to hire mercenaries for a one time mission if the price is right. The draw back is that you get less EXP and usually no loot.

Omegas
2012-04-04, 06:46 PM
Why is this bad? Complexity =/= good, and simplicity =/= bad. I dont know what the =/= means but the point I was making is the exact opposite. Usually the more intelligent solution is the simpler choice. This alternate economy eliminates the simpler economic solution thus providing a more justifiable reason for players continue adventuring.

If you have a kings wealth do you fight a battle or get others to do it for you. The wealth dont fight for a reason. Its not that they are incapable, its that they are smart enough to find a better way. Much like a group of mages and expert types. You don't have to have a fighter type in a party to succeed at D&D. You just have to play smarter.

I played in campaigns where my character did not inflicted a single point of damage. I got the enemy to fight with my other enemies and I would have to say that was one of the most enjoyable campaigns I ever played in. I was a bard / rouge and all we did was pull pranks, deceive & sabotage the enemy, and skirt around their patrols. Its not that I am against the damage race but not every solution has to be met with an axe.

Falin
2012-04-04, 06:53 PM
No, mass combat is when two large forces fight each other. And saying no man is an army is kind of... dumb. I'm sorry even if you hit there are plenty of ways to get enough DR/resistances/immunities by level 20 for it to not even matter if you're too low level. It's expensive, but you can, and that's just in core, things get much easier if you expand out from there. So even if you don't let DR reduce damage lower than one, 100 kobolds hitting for 1 damage 5% of the time is... underwhelming even before you get into the fighter's superior range, movement speed, hit chance, potions, ect.

But spending thousands of pounds in gold and weeks training your forces to take care of a threat that you could just jump on your griffin and be done with in an afternoon is not the simpler (nor the better) option. You can play the sabotage game, but only if your goals can't be better served just stabbing people in the face, or if you're playing E6.

Omegas
2012-04-04, 07:21 PM
You can play the sabotage game, but only if your goals can't be better served just stabbing people in the face, or if you're playing E6. Typical fighter mentality.

Purely What if here (would never happen in D&D)
PHB 2 pg 161 = 100 kobolts with nothing more then a cross bow and the team advantage Missile Volley. That is 100 Kobolts with +100 to hit all doing 1D8 avg 4 x 100 = 400pt of damage a round. At best -8 for cover and targets engaged in melee. - a few more for increased range increments. DR over 8 or an item that blocked arrows would be his only saving graces but this example was based on a level playing field meaning no magical junk to help him out

Adversely raising the bar to match a level 20 fighter respective gear. Take 100 of anything CR12. Factor 100 attacks, and they win.

There is so much more to D&D then the damage race. This is why a prepared mage (over level 10) usually trumps a fighter type. The next time your in the court of the High King feel free to stab him in the face. After that pick on the gods.

If your playing in a world where your DM does not expose you to encounters that are more then a +8CR, then he is babying you. Holding your own and working as a team during a battle is vital, but if your going into every battle assuming your DM would not put something you could not handle in your path then your making a false assumption of D&D. It is every bit as important to avoid the fights you can not win and find the better alternative with it is available. At level 1 my players can run into dragons, but they are give enough time hide and find ways to out think them. In the same note they also run into Kobolts at high levels but these serve more as a distraction or a delay when they are in a hurry.

There is a big difference between choosing a intelligent yet simple solution rather then being the a typical barbarian and be simple minded.

Falin
2012-04-04, 07:38 PM
Wrong in... so many ways.

1.) In 3.5 equipment and character power are irrevocably linked you CANNOT posit an argument based on the power of a level 20 fighter without considering magical gear

2.) Crossbows have a range increment of 30 ft while a longbow has a range increment of 100 ft so not only can the fighter afford to take more of a hit to his attack bonus he can be hundreds of feet out of the kobolds' effective range forever.

3.) Koblds can't take missile volley because kobolds are level one. Since your argument rests on these being standard kobolds that feat's a no go.

4.) Even if they do manage to hit, which they usually don't, any sort of damage reduction takes that damage right down to 0 (or 1 if you really don't like your players.

5.) It's a level 20 fighter vs kobolds there is no such thing as an even playing field.

6.) Victory or defeat in a battle of 100 CR 12 monsters vs 1 fighter would depend largely on the fighter's build and what monsters.

7.) Wizards are not more powerful because D&D isn't just about the damage race. They're more powerful because they WIN the D&D damage race as well as having spells that make the fighter completely redundant.

I think that's it but if you feel I've left anything out I will gladly alleviate that problem

Zale
2012-04-04, 08:04 PM
Typical fighter mentality.

Purely What if here (would never happen in D&D)
PHB 2 pg 161 = 100 kobolts with nothing more then a cross bow and the team advantage Missile Volley. That is 100 Kobolts with +100 to hit all doing 1D8 avg 4 x 100 = 400pt of damage a round. At best -8 for cover and targets engaged in melee. DR over 8 or an item that blocked arrows would be his only saving graces but this example was based on a level playing field meaning no magical junk to help him out

Adversely raising the bar to match a level 20 fighter respective gear. Take 100 of anything CR12. Factor 100 attacks, and they win.


Incorrect.

Kobolds would each take an individual attack.

They would do from 1 to 5 damage.

A level 20 Barbarian with medium Adamantine armor would be entirely immune, as each successful attack would be reduced to 0.

If the Barbarian has a Great Axe, with 20 Str (18 base + 2 level), and then rages.. 28 Str.

He would deal 1d12+13 damage each strike. There's no way he'd miss on anything besides a natural one.

Kobolds, at best, have what? 8 Hp?

Time to roast them on a spit.

Omegas
2012-04-04, 08:05 PM
Wrong in... so many ways.
I think that's it but if you feel I've left anything out I will gladly alleviate that problem

Man you are nit picking details when I am generalizing bold point of view. I can go on by adding one kobolt hiding in the crowd with the necessary feats and add point blank on every kobolt. Even with the bulk of them being peons more then -8Crs for the character, the point is sound. An overwhelming force is an overwhelming force regardless of the nit picked details. Now with the right preparation any foe is deflatable. Take the time to assume I mean they have what it takes to accomplish my one example, and the fighter chose to go a different rough then the ideal alternative for this one scenario.

{Scrubbed}

Zale
2012-04-04, 08:19 PM
Man you are nit picking details when I am generalizing bold point of view. I can go on by adding one kobolt hiding in the crowd with the necessary feats and add point blank on every kobolt. Even with the bulk of them being peons more then -8Crs for the character, the point is sound. An overwhelming force is an overwhelming force regardless of the nit picked details. Take the time to assume I mean they have what it takes to accomplish my one example.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Well, Fighters are rather item dependent to survive.

If you decide to take that away, they become even weaker.

And they are already scrapping the bottom at times.

To focus on the purpose of your thread, This idea could work. It's interesting. Avoids Money Spiders.

Falin
2012-04-04, 08:20 PM
Man you are nit picking details and I am generalizing bold point of view. I can go on by adding one kobolt hiding in the crowd with the necessary feats and add point blank on every kobolt. Even with the bulk of them being peons the point is sound. A overwhelming force is an overwhelming force regardless of the nit picked details. Take the time to assume I mean they have what it takes to accomplish my one example.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Um, I'm going to try to decipher that... What I'm getting is that you think that because I've pointed out the flaws in your hypothetical I'm just nitpicking.

It's not nitpicking your entire argument is based around the ability of 100 creatures appropriate for 1st level characters to take care of in a straight fight could take on an epic level fighter. You cannot then also argue that they're using a ninth level ability in the cheesiest possibly way because that invalidates your original stipulation that 100 creatures that are worth 1/4 of a level one character on the battle field can take on a 20th level fighter.

But if you really want to get back on topic. If you are in deed level 20 and have more money than the kingdom. And, as we've discussed, a single one of you is more powerful than all the king's men. Why aren't you king? Obviously the kingdom would be far more secure with you at the helm.

Omegas
2012-04-04, 08:46 PM
Fine let me simplify it.

From an interview with the writers Fall 2004.

"An effective challenge ratting of an overwhelming force made up of creatures more then -8CR from the party's EL has between -50% to +40% chance of defeating the party depending on species and advancements."

So in short a little less then half of intelligent overwhelming forces, at an equal challenge ratting to the party, have the ability to defeat a party. This compared to the normal sized size encounters that are not suppose to expend what? 1/8th of the parties resources in spells, skills, and HP?

Now more then a dozen support books have been published since that interview, so the numbers have probably shifted some, but then most intelligent monster can roll with the up grades.

No man is an army, and preparation makes all this difference in victory.

Still this is off topic

Omegas
2012-04-04, 08:51 PM
But if you really want to get back on topic. If you are in deed level 20 and have more money than the kingdom. And, as we've discussed, a single one of you is more powerful than all the king's men. Why aren't you king? Obviously the kingdom would be far more secure with you at the helm.

Probably because your not look at the attack from the sides. Ten to one he is more powerful. Under your mentality he should stab you in the face and take your gold for his kingdom. Or his allies would crush you for instigating a Coupe. That is the point. Your a grater prize because you have a greater value.

The kingdom comes first. Even leveled you can not be everywhere at the same time so he would be better off killing you, labeling you as a trader, and dividing your wealth to better secure his kingdom.

But not all kings will share your mentality. Not all characters do either. Their is justifiable moral reason to aid a King but when your richer then they are wealth is not a good one.

Falin
2012-04-04, 09:01 PM
The problem with your logic being that the king probably gave you his kingdom. When the dashing prince marries the princess, he becomes king. When beowulf got back from slaying Grendal and Grendal's mother, he became king. What do mythical kings offer when they need a terrible wyrm slain and they're not up to the task? You guessed it, the kingdom.

In they sorts of myth D&D is supposed to replicate people who are hard core become king. Not because of their blood but because they're hard core. In D&D PC become rules, not because of blood, but because you can literally defeat society.

Omegas
2012-04-04, 09:26 PM
The problem with your logic being that the king probably gave you his kingdom. When the dashing prince marries the princess, he becomes king. When beowulf got back from slaying Grendal and Grendal's mother, he became king. What do mythical kings offer when they need a terrible wyrm slain and they're not up to the task? You guessed it, the kingdom.

In they sorts of myth D&D is supposed to replicate people who are hard core become king. Not because of their blood but because they're hard core. In D&D PC become rules, not because of blood, but because you can literally defeat society.

Aside for the examples that had vast other reasons for rewarding Sirehood. Lets turn to a fundamental.

Adventures = If you where a real life human in a D&D world at what point would you stop? I am not saying king is not a good bench mark but you reach high levels and all of the sudden there is little to work for. If your an extremest hoping to die as one of the gods favorite mortals then that would be a good motivator but money is usually enough for most people.

:smallsigh:Deterrence
The king needs help. => Enh, I have more money then him. If need be I can hire more men, and he would leave himself vulnerable to attack from his enemies if dedicated his force to me.

:smallfrown:Being King
Not to say crowning dose not open the potential to radically change the storyline in interesting ways but, whats your other 3 friends with equal shares of gold suppose to do? Accepted partial reign as princes and princesses? Generally when there is an argument as peasants it is resolved and player get over it to continue adventuring. If it is over the moral running of government it can hurt friendships among players and force the players to brake away from the kingdom. Essentially braking the party. Whoever is king takes too much of the spot light and it is less of an adventure then D&D should be. (especially when running the kingdom becomes a distraction for table time)

:smallsmile:The best dynamic for an adventurer is to strive for a goal. By having two currencies: this reduces the potential for their wealth reaching a point where they can liquidate their gear and achieve that goal with their wealth alone, while offering them the reward of powerful magical items that justify their level and skill.

You got to admit that if you only had 10% of your wealth and kept all of your gear that it would not effect game play that much. And; in the same breath, challenge you to seek your goals through various deeds and adventures.

If you wanted a expensive (non sand) item like a ship you would earn the right to captain a trade or military vessel for the kingdom or other affiliation. If you wanted one of your own you would take out papers of debt or amass wealth as a questing life style. Transport trade goods from place to place for profit. Or flat out steal it.

Rejusu
2012-04-05, 05:48 AM
As others have pointed out there is a level of unbelievability in having more gold then the local government. So if you have a Donald Trump God complex then perhaps World of Warcraft is the game for you. I hear it is free now. Good luck and I wish you well.

Stormwind fallacy.


:smallsmile:The best dynamic for an adventurer is to strive for a goal. By having two currencies: this reduces the potential for their wealth reaching a point where they can liquidate their gear and achieve that goal with their wealth alone, while offering them the reward of powerful magical items that justify their level and skill.

Given that your system doesn't make any provisions for preventing the sale of items how exactly does this help? Your characters gear will still have a significant monetary value should they choose to sell it. It avoids the problem of money spiders and giving the players too much in raw gold. But you've failed to solve the larger economic problem. Players can simply convert this soul sand into gold by having an item crafted and then selling the item. It also doesn't seem to prevent the PC's from just selling the sand. If 90% of an items cost has to be paid in soul sand that means that 1 unit of sand has a value of 1GP.


You got to admit that if you only had 10% of your wealth and kept all of your gear that it would not effect game play that much. And; in the same breath, challenge you to seek your goals through various deeds and adventures.

Again, it's WEALTH by level, not GOLD by level. You don't have to shower the party with coinage just so they can pick up their magic item quota down at magi-mart. You can simply give them the gear directly.


The 5% auto hit chance wins all in mass battles. Take a level 20 fighter (without a magical item that blocks arrow fire) against 100 spread out Kobolts with light crossbows. The fighter will slaughter as many as he can get too or shoot them as long as his ammo holds out but the number of auto hits he takes will wipe him out. Especially if they keep at a distance forcing him to run after them, and even more if they have the team benefit Volley.

Making conclusions based on unreasonable and highly unrealistic assumptions is not an effective method of argument. Using these kind of what-if scenarios to try and make a point is just ridiculous. There's no good reason why a 20th level fighter wouldn't have damage reduction or some other protective magic items enough to stop the attacks of some puny Kobolds.


You may be a hero but no man is an army. D&D is clear about this. Its why trying to pick a fight with the guards in a major city is a bad idea. There is no end to them. You can either get arrested or try to evade them.

Uh no it's not. It's clear about the fact that a character 20th level or above is so powerful they're on the path to godhood. At low levels sure, you're going to get your butt kicked by any sufficiently large number of enemies. But at higher levels? Depending on the level of the army they're fighting a character can easily be as or MORE powerful than an equivalent army. High level characters can defeat creatures that would crush (and in the fluff HAVE crushed) the average countries army. And you say they're not an army? Give me a break.


There too you can have an army in D&D. With the Leadership Feat you hire a large group of low level worriers. A mage could rip up quite a few of them and it would seriously hurt your leadership but the mage would run out of spells before a leader with a high score ran out of worriers. There too most DMs will allow you to hire mercenaries for a one time mission if the price is right. The draw back is that you get less EXP and usually no loot.

You'd be surprised at how many low level creatures a high level mage can wipe out with the amount of spell slots they have. Plus even if they do run out of spells? They refresh every 24 hours! Any sensible mage will just rain fire on such a weak army and then when they're spent save their last spell slot for teleporting away. They can then return tomorrow with a full tank of spells ready to finish the army off, that is of course if they didn't wipe them out the previous day. And unless the army breeds like rabbits there won't be enough people left to refresh the armies numbers within a few days. Not to mention the idea of using leadership for this is kind of ridiculous, you get a cumulative -1 for causing the death of a follower. A wizard should only have to kill 30 or 40 of them tops before the character can no longer attract followers.

Not to mention that we can take wealth out of the equation almost entirely when dealing with a wizard. A level 20 wizard is still a force to be reckoned with even if they're stark naked.


Adventures = If you where a real life human in a D&D world at what point would you stop? I am not saying king is not a good bench mark but you reach high levels and all of the sudden there is little to work for. If your an extremest hoping to die as one of the gods favorite mortals then that would be a good motivator but money is usually enough for most people.

Oh I don't know... when the world/kingdom is safe maybe? As levels get higher in D&D the adventures are supposed to get more grandoise. You go from protecting a village from bandits, to a city from orcs, to a kingdom from armies, to the world from whatever, and maybe you even go on from there to protecting the Universe. Or if you're evil I guess you stop when all the good guys trying to stop you are dead. The point is though you can't just sit back on your laurels and retire. If the PC's can then either you're not doing your job as DM properly or you're bringing the campaign to an end.

Also if I was in a D&D world I wouldn't stop adventuring until I was a god.


this reduces the potential for their wealth reaching a point where they can liquidate their gear and achieve that goal with their wealth alone, while offering them the reward of powerful magical items that justify their level and skill.

As above, as the levels get higher the goals are supposed to get harder. How will liquidating your gear help defend the kingdom from a tarrasque? Chances are you and the party are the only ones around strong enough to stop it. You can't solve every crisis by throwing gold at it. Also your argument is that you can just hire other people to do it. But guess what? Anyone else capable of handling the situation is probably just as powerful as you are, therefore just as rich, and therefore wants paying a kings ransom.

Also what do you do when the next problem comes along? If you stop adventuring and have to hire out ridiculously expensive heroes every time you're going to whittle through those riches very quickly. And frankly if you as a DM is content to let the PC's just hire NPC's to PLAY THE GAME FOR THEM then you're approaching the game with completely the wrong mindset.

You also don't get that wealth doesn't really matter to high level PC's. It doesn't matter if they have more gold than the kingdom. By that point they're so powerful they could take a kingdom by force.

Your problem is that you seem to think that money is the only possible motivation a PC could have and therefore it's a problem if they get too much of it because they'll no longer have any motivation. Which is just ridiculous. If you think there's no motivation for adventure other than money you just haven't put any thought into it. You deride World of Warcraft, but even that provides better motivation for the PC's than you seemingly do.

Dsurion
2012-04-05, 12:27 PM
OP's idea is sort of interesting, but I think would be better served by completely decoupling Wealth By Level and actual wealth. Use WBL as a point value instead of actual gold, then give out reasonable amounts of gold without worrying about it.

Omegas
2012-04-05, 06:39 PM
Stormwind fallacy.more of a Skyrim Fallacy but it can happen.
Players can simply convert this soul sand into gold by having an item crafted and then selling the item. It also doesn't seem to prevent the PC's from just selling the sand. If 90% of an items cost has to be paid in soul sand that means that 1 unit of sand has a value of 1GP.I could go into every detail but no one would read it. This is a forum. Anything longer then a few short paragraphs means that you loose a majority of the readers. Much like Falin, if you dont fill in the blanks with logical solutions your not going to see the big picture.

Obviously PC would never be able to sell magical items for straight up gold. You as the reader have to fill in that simple blank. The merchant would only give the normal 50% buy back value (include appraise if you like) split up between 0% to 10% in gold and 90% to 100% in sand.(not to exceed a total of 100%)

And your incorrect. One unit of sand would not be worth 1 gold. In a 2 currency economy gold would represent wealth and sand would represent advancement. (ideologically you could draw a simple conclusion that gold = sand but the truth would be that sand was worth less. It simple reduced the material cost of creating / repairing magical gear thus it could be traded for an equivalent of gold only for magical items.

Put it simply. I want a loaf of bread. No inn keeper would accept sand unless they have need of a magical item. If they do it would be no different then accepting a exchange rate for changing your currency from one kingdom to another at a money changer. For a loaf of bread you might expect to spend 150% to 200% the value in sand. This is because sand can only be used in making magical items (its a readily available material alternative ). Which mean get your hammer out and hope there is a shard small enough. Gold on the other hand is wealth, thus I can trade for anything at a normal value.
Again, it's WEALTH by level, not GOLD by level. You don't have to shower the party with coinage just so they can pick up their magic item quota down at magi-mart. You can simply give them the gear directly. Obviously but wether I have 10 bucks in my pocket and a BMW in my drive does not make me any less wealth then if I had the value of the BMW in my pocket and a beater in my drive. Gross wealth is still the sum of everything you have. When you reach a point where your wealth can do more then you can, then you present the question of why continue?

Stock investors don't sit on their cash, they invest. They strive to make their money do as much as possible. If the goal is to protect the people you cant be everywhere at once. If you have the money to finance defensive structures, invest in trade affiliations to turn a profit, and do it without risking your assets then there is no point in picking up an axe that cost more then a kings ransom. Money equal power and I am not talking gear.
Making conclusions based on unreasonable and highly unrealistic assumptions is not an effective method of argument. Using these kind of what-if scenarios to try and make a point is just ridiculous. Agreed but it was apparently easier to divert the conversation rather then address it. Only towards the end did he return to the topic. My point is that D&D is not an army / overwhelming numbers game because a prepared army will always win. Attrition is the foundation of war. Great wealth allow kings and the like to acquire overwhelming numbers, along with powerful allies.

A king turns to an adventure to do their bidding because the adventure is lower on the totem pole. Wealth presents the opportunity to be higher on the totem pole. Characters can earn an equivalent gross wealth to aford the land, keep, and men of a king. At that point NPC adventures should be turning to PC Kings for rewards as you tax the people for income.

You'd be surprised at how many low level creatures a high level mage can wipe out with the amount of spell slots they have. I know I enjoy playing mages and what would a king be without a ballanced force much like a party on a grander scale, but at this point your rolling off the topic. Three paragraphs you have complained about how this does not prove a point but your still going on about it.
Oh I don't know... when the world/kingdom is safe maybe? As levels get higher in D&D the adventures are supposed to get more grandoise. You go from protecting a village from bandits, to a city from orcs, to a kingdom from armies, Again with the armies. A party of 4 to take on an entire country(or universe) Hum what a challenge that would be to get intelligent players to relate. It pushes the reaches of "[U]whats the point"? and it falls back on a statement I made several posts ago. So why where you fighting a hippogriff? Because we could? It kind of makes as much sense as a hero posting about the number of white fluffy bunnies he vanquished with his own hands.

I am not trying to be sarcastic here but lets take a few steps back, and look at the grand problem with your think pyridine.

1) you have a kingdom / world / whatever in jeopardy.
2) your able to kill everything in the kingdom.
3) that which you facing will present a constant challenge with numerous encounters.
4) the people that live in this kingdom were not smart enough to find a better place to live or simply kill themselves to spare their decadence such honorably fates. (not to mention a complete void of divinatinist).

Another good aspect would be to suggest --- if the only way to amass kingly wealth and survive in such a hostile world is to also be an adventurer then why is not everyone an adventurer? Even feeble NPCs, with an average Attribute score under 13, would far exceed a commoners life style. They would simply need to be brought back to life more often, from their 3 other feeble friends.


Also if I was in a D&D world I wouldn't stop adventuring until I was a god. or die.

The point is (and I believe I am speaking for a group of players)
:smallsmile: So long as the deeds I have accomplished have provided me with an acquitted reward for the risk (relative to the rewards received by others for similar risk) then I am a happy adventure.

:smallsmile: So long as authority figures are more powerful / influential / wealthier then I am then I can respect them as a leader. Otherwise they are merely a vassal that I can choose to ignore.

:smallfurious: If the opportunity to do something smarter rather then harder presents itself and I am forced to do it the hard way, then I am a very unhappy adventurer.

If I was in the D&D world I would weigh each risk with the reward, and when I was comfortable, I would live out the rest of my days while fools sought death and pain in the foolish attempts to active godhood.

Omegas
2012-04-05, 06:45 PM
OP's idea is sort of interesting, but I think would be better served by completely decoupling Wealth By Level and actual wealth. Use WBL as a point value instead of actual gold, then give out reasonable amounts of gold without worrying about it.

That is pretty much what this is. Rather then brake the WBL down into points and track what players have, they simply have a point currency that falls in line with the normal level of loot specified in D&D.

This means all I have to do is handle the merchants. Its fairly hands off. Every 5th or so level I can check to see if they are up to par, but that is an option in the standard system.

Omegas
2012-04-05, 06:58 PM
The thing is when you have a lot of gold, like Frank and K said. It becomes worthless. Most commoners can only carry about 10,000 gold coins, or 100,000 in platinum. Therefore anything past 10k gold becomes impractical to buy because of the amount of gold needed to be carted around, bartering makes this worse because then nobody can give an item an exact value due to how awkward moving gold around is.

Aside from those characters with the ego to hoard such a massive amount of gold in a personal treasury. There is nothing saying that there are no Banks in D&D. Or for that matter a king would obviously lend his treasury volt to store such wealth. In these two cases a written voucher from the bank / kings herald could exchange the wealth on a piece of parchment. More then likely the magic-mar crafter works for the king.

The real difficulty is transporting the cash from the creatures rump pouch to the bank / treasury

Omegas
2012-04-06, 10:26 AM
There I have updated post one. Please read for clearer view of how this system works.

Zale
2012-04-06, 11:42 AM
You really shouldn't quadruple-post.

I think your idea does seem to work, but I worry about other semi-useful items with gold costs being sudden rendered extremely expensive.

A wand of Cure Serious Wounds would cost more than a +5 Weapon.

Unless they also work under these rules..

Epsilon Rose
2012-04-06, 11:49 AM
This seems like an interesting idea, but some of those percentages seem a little weird and video game-y.
For example, why can adventures only sell soul sand for 50% value and only buy it for 90%? Most of the PCs who would do the talking are going to be significantly more charismatic and better trained in whatever the relevant set of skills is than almost any merchant (and that's before taking magic items and spells into account). Also, why is it that magical items only can't be sold for strait-up gold? Soul-sand isn't that easy to find; it requires you to kill a lot of things or powerful things or lots of powerful things. There's also the fact that if someone buys a ready made item it means they don't have to wait for it to be made or find someone who can make it.
Lastly, I feel I should point out that while soul-sand is only good for (massively) discounting the cost of magic items said items are incredibly versitile and many of the low-level ones would be more useful for a commoner than an adventurer (anything to do with agriculture, the production of food and water, basic crafting, low-level healing).

Omegas
2012-04-06, 11:55 AM
A wand of Cure Serious Wounds would cost more than a +5 Weapon.

Unless they also work under these rules..
Its still a magical item so it should.

The really expensive non-magical items would be like ships or homes. Which could easily be alternative prices in place of major loot drops.

Horses, wagons would cost a little more but not so much to be unthinkable.

did you have any other items you think would be an issue?


As for the multiply posts = its within the rules if your answering individuals. Its easy to miss a response when it is tide to other responses.

Omegas
2012-04-06, 01:11 PM
This seems like an interesting idea, but some of those percentages seem a little weird and video game-y.
For example, why can adventures only sell soul sand for 50% value and only buy it for 90%? Most of the PCs who would do the talking are going to be significantly more charismatic and better trained in whatever the relevant set of skills is than almost any merchant (and that's before taking magic items and spells into account). Also, why is it that magical items only can't be sold for strait-up gold? Soul-sand isn't that easy to find; it requires you to kill a lot of things or powerful things or lots of powerful things. There's also the fact that if someone buys a ready made item it means they don't have to wait for it to be made or find someone who can make it.
Lastly, I feel I should point out that while soul-sand is only good for (massively) discounting the cost of magic items said items are incredibly versitile and many of the low-level ones would be more useful for a commoner than an adventurer (anything to do with agriculture, the production of food and water, basic crafting, low-level healing).
The exchange rate is similar to the D&D money changers from a poor country to a wealthy country. Its rare for a party to go from one land to another and few DMs require their players to find money changers. Most DMs simply accept gold as being gold and dont bother.

As adventures and traders come and go into any city, and abundance of sand would also follow. Being more plentiful then gold many merchants would have more then they need already. Magical crafters would have the most use for the stuff but from their perspective. With every sell they would have enough to make 2 of the same item as crafting cost are 1/2.

Its not so much that merchants can not buy your use less magical items for gold. Its that no one is willing to. If you had an abundance of sand you would not already be interest in more sand in exchange for something that could earn you gold. Especially seeing that sand has such a limited use.

Thomar_of_Uointer
2012-04-06, 02:06 PM
Why not drop treasures like these?

Runeforged Steel Ingot : This ingot of steel has faint blue dwarvish runes that play across its surface. Any smith can forge the steel into a masterwork +1 weapon by spending the raw materials, time, and skill check(s) needed to craft a nonmasterwork weapon. On a failed Craft check the smith can only make a nonmasterwork weapon with no bonuses, the steel is devalued by 300 gp and the smith may smelt it down to try again (but he must make up the difference in the magical weapon's market price). It can also be used to make +1 armor armor (but this is a bit of a waste since +1 armor is cheaper than a +1 weapon.)
A crafter with the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat may treat the ingot as 1,150 gp of raw materials for crafting magic weapons and armor."
2,300 gp; 2 lbs; Evocation; CL 5th

EDIT: I'd like to note that this material is ~1,000 times more valuable per pound than gold, and ~100 times more valuable per pound than platinum. That's something to think about. Mithral is a bit trickier to calculate, but I think it also costs 1,000 gp per pound. An enchanted (+1) cold iron ingot would cost 4,300 gp, or 2,150 per pound. I'm sure you could come up with concepts like tiny beads of adamantine that can be alloyed with steel to produce full-fledged adamantine items (like Roy Greenhilt's sword), and they'd cost more than just gold too.

PersonMan
2012-04-06, 02:29 PM
As for the multiply posts = its within the rules if your answering individuals. Its easy to miss a response when it is tide to other responses.


Double Posting
Posting twice in a row is generally frowned upon. If you are responding to multiple points, please use quotes and other post formatting to clarify this. Please use the Edit option to modify information in a post instead of immediately making a new one. If you do accidentally double post, you can delete the extra post under the Edit option.

Use the multiquote button (it's the "+ symbol in the lower right hand corner of posts) to reply to multiple posts.

Also, if sand is necessary to make magic items, it would be fairly sought after by the economic elites - the ones who don't kill things, but rather hire others to do so (sound familiar?). If you want the money for a house, why wouldn't you sell some soul sand to someone who wants to make magic items? It's not like you can use the sand for much of anything but making magic items, which won't be useful for most people.

If, say, a ruler wants to outfit a special forces group, they might try to discretely buy soul sand rather than wait for an excuse to kill a horde of things to do so.

Epsilon Rose
2012-04-06, 07:42 PM
The reason a less valuable curency would be less valuable in D&D is because it has a physically lower gold content (you are actually handing them less gold) this isn't a applicable to sand. A quantity of sand will always hold the same value.

Also, if merchants are so flooded with magical gewgaws that they can't possibly offer you a fair price then they can't possibly sell them at that price (after all, if they're that hyper available then there's nothing to stop the PCs from going to the same source and doing it more efficiently, or someone else selling them for less and making a larger profit by selling significantly more); unless there's a cartel that can enforce artificially high prices, which is a bad idea (unless you want to make a quest out of it) both because the PCs could, again, easily go to the same source as the merchants or simply react to a highly unethical and usually illegal (at least in the modern world) entity in the same way they react to anything else that gets in their way: "Kill it with holy/infernal/far-realms fire!".

Edit: I should probably point out that under the model your trying to propose sand wouldn't be flowing into the cities. Since the price of sand is hyper-devalued the only reason an adventure (PC or NPC) would bother to give it to a shop owner would be in exchange for a magic item, which the sand would be used to make. That means the merchant isn't going to be left with a lot of sand (assuming they have any left over) to make items to sell to people who don't have sand.

Zale
2012-04-06, 08:03 PM
The Spice Sand MUST FLOW!:smalltongue:

Thomar_of_Uointer
2012-04-06, 08:24 PM
Also, if merchants are so flooded with magical gewgaws that they can't possibly offer you a fair price then they can't possibly sell them at that price (after all, if they're that hyper available then there's nothing to stop the PCs from going to the same source and doing it more efficiently, or someone else selling them for less and making a larger profit by selling significantly more); unless there's a cartel that can enforce artificially high prices, which is a bad idea (unless you want to make a quest out of it) both because the PCs could, again, easily go to the same source as the merchants or simply react to a highly unethical and usually illegal (at least in the modern world) entity in the same way they react to anything else that gets in their way: "Kill it with holy/infernal/far-realms fire!".

Couldn't they trade the gewgas instead? A merchant could trade three minor gewgas for a moderately powerful gewgaw and profit that way.

Omegas
2012-04-09, 05:50 PM
Why not drop treasures like these?

Runeforged Steel Ingot : This ingot of steel has faint blue dwarvish runes that play across its surface.

It could be. It does not matter what the second currency is so long as it, in effect, accomplishes the end goal of everyone having more reasonable quantities of gold. Sand, Ingots, Gawgaw, or whatever.

The percentages are also conjecture. I have modeled it out and 10% gold = level 15 to 17 is the point where gold no longer matters (depending on the character skill with handling money). Generally by that point, you should have acquired enough fame / affiliations that your character should be able to provide for their mundane expenses without the use of gold anyway. Raising the percentage bar only means that they reach this point sooner.

I have another friend using a 50% / 50% method. Thus far he has indicated upon reaching level 8 most of them use the bulk of their gold to buy magical items and still have enough for mundane expenses.

That is about the extent of this concept. Once gold is no longer important then it really dose not matter unless a character is trying to establish a permanent strong hold or purchase something like a ship. Of course by that time such things can be considered alternatives to treasure.

When it come to trading sand the merchants would not have to trade minors for moderate / major soul gems. As I have it, in post one, Put several gems together and they form into a larger gem. Toss a gem into a pouch of sand it will make the gem bigger. As need these gems can be broken & reformed.

By they way - Love your sig quote, Totally agree. True roll players should fight the kill button mentality at every step.

Also, if sand is necessary to make magic items, it would be fairly sought after by the economic elites - the ones who don't kill things, but rather hire others to do so (sound familiar?). If you want the money for a house, why wouldn't you sell some soul sand to someone who wants to make magic items?

Abundance. Why is a happy meal so cheep while gas is steadily getting more expensive (note please dont turn this into a gas price debate) The reason is supply and demand. So long as the supply exceeds the demand then it is worth less. Generally merchants will have an abundance of sand or magical items. They should not be so foolish as to discount sand to a player when they can turn a better profit from dealing with a crafter. This is why I would recommend that gold never be more then 50%.

It true a king can choose to outfit his men with good gear but look at the stock market. When a big fish starts corning the market most of the smaller inverters start clinging to supply as the value will go up (either in magical crafting services or by supply). But this is pure hypothetical conjecture to justify a system like this. It's something I would tell my players, if they asked, but not something I would really tracked.

The real point is that Sand, or Gawgaw as you put it, is a way for players to amass normal magical item growth while limiting their overall gold wealth. There are thousands of ways you can spin it, that a player could relate too.

A player could amass sand if they focused on doing so but I would limit the potential profitable deals to be no better then they could do with profession checks.

Epsilon Rose
2012-04-09, 07:29 PM
Abundance. Why is a happy meal so cheep while gas is steadily getting more expensive (note please dont turn this into a gas price debate) The reason is supply and demand. So long as the supply exceeds the demand then it is worth less. Generally merchants will have an abundance of sand or magical items.

Right, but the problem is, in your analogy sand is the oil and coin is the happy meal. Sand only comes from a very limited number of reliable sources, were as gold is the currency everyone uses and thus abundant. You keep claiming that merchants would have a large supply of sand, but there's know way for them to get it. If adventures (the main source of sand) only give them sand to make their own devices then they're not going to have a lot left on hand to use for publicly available merchandise and if they aren't willing to give the adventures a good price for the sand (at least close to the return they'd make turning it into a magic item), then that's all the adventures are going to do.

Omegas
2012-04-19, 06:54 PM
Right, but the problem is, in your analogy sand is the oil and coin is the happy meal. Sand only comes from a very limited number of reliable sources, were as gold is the currency everyone uses and thus abundant. You keep claiming that merchants would have a large supply of sand, but there's know way for them to get it. If adventures (the main source of sand) only give them sand to make their own devices then they're not going to have a lot left on hand to use for publicly available merchandise and if they aren't willing to give the adventures a good price for the sand (at least close to the return they'd make turning it into a magic item), then that's all the adventures are going to do.

No more along the line of = sand is a renewable resource where Gold is an extremely coveted and rare metal. Perhaps I was not as clear about the abundance of sand. Yes it only enters the world from an untimely death but much like long lost hoards of mined gold it accumulates. Every wolf or bear that kills a challenging creature for food spills a little sand into the world.

Much like finding a mosaic with a few gold tiles or a corps some animals ravened, you will find sand in the wild. Not enough to forage for it, but more then enough to make a random encounter or find. Hunters and farmers might find the occasional soul gem. They would more then abundantly find it when they faced something that could harm or kill them. A major battle field would be littered with the stuff.

As long as their is life there will always be death. Regardless how hard you mine, only a rare few strike gold.

A starting merchant, who never adventured before, would trade a few common items for sand. Seeing as he could exchange them for a greater value of sand then gold this would line his pockets with soul gems. It would not take long until his pockets resembled the same 90% sand 10% gold ratio. To have any more then 90% sand, would mean the same as loosing profit. A merchant (non crafter) would chose wisely when to seek a crafter and convert their sand into a magical item.

Likely they would keep an even amount of magical goods and sand. It's not easy to determine demand and a very low quantity of the population can afford magical items. For example, If they had a +2 Kama and there were no monks to buy it then it would not be helping them earn a profit. Also if an adventure returned with a valuable magical item they would not want to spend pure gold on it.

Gold is more stable then sand but sand is a constantly replenishing economy. Furthermore this continual influx of wealth can easily be off set by the number of magical expendables and destroyed items.