Destroying Unlimited Gold

[unseenmage]

Matter in the D&D-verse can be destroyed.
How does this impact the economy's of the D&D world?

Spheres of Annihilation, Rust Monsters, Plane Shift (to Limbo or the Far Realm), and Disintegrate are just a few examples of how the same things created by magic to "break" an economy could and likely would be removed from that same economy.

I'm specifically interested in how the costs to create wealth compare to the costs to destroy that same wealth. Which is cheaper and when?

Also consider the Rust Monster-ing of an enemy nation's treasury.
What lovely espionage plot hook ideas this topic gives me. :smallamused:

Edit: Which happens faster in D&D-verse? Creation or Destruction?
Or rather which has the potential to happen faster in Theoretical Optimization?

[dascarletm]

Forgive me father for I am about to sin... 3 catgirls will die by my hands today...

Sans the Spheres of Annihilation, the other methods aren't really destroying matter.

1) Rusting something just oxidizes it. It still exists, just in a different form.
2) Disintegrate is similarly just breaking down the bonds between atoms. Same mass, just a different form.
3) plane shifting something does take it out of the plane, but not out of the multiverse.

Most of these things are similarly doable irl. Rust exists (though not in the same way as in DnD), you can disintegrate things, it just requires different apparatuses than a wizard, and theoretically I can shoot stuff off into space effectively making it lost forever.

I think it would help balance out matter creation, but really that's campaign specific.

[Dawgmoah]

Depends on the size of the economy. All ships leak but the size of the leak is what matters. (Just look at the Titanic and then the changes made to try and ensure that never happened again.)

A rust monster or sphere of annhilation can be devastating to a village or small town while the king may get the information as a footnote to a summary of activity for the month.

I'm sure there are others with more experience with the 3.5 rules who are more than ready to correct me. But in my opinion you have to homebrew all of your economics if you want that. Look at the base prices in the books and that to sell things back you get half price. Great for simplicity but not so great if you are trying to simulate an economy.

[unseenmage]

2) Disintegrate is similarly just breaking down the bonds between atoms. Same mass, just a different form.


No, it changes the Mass too. Same description of the volume of dust created regardless of the size of the creature disintegrated. Got into that a bit when i asked how many disintegrated creatures it would take to equal the mass of a medium animated object in a previous thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307037)

[AuraTwilight]

Things can also be created from nothing, so it doesn't really matter.

[unseenmage]

Things can also be created from nothing, so it doesn't really matter.

I suspect it might. Especially as the creation of gp and the destruction of gp (or equivalent removal of gp from the economy) might have drastically differing rates.

The rate at which the D&D universe consumes matter and the rate at which it creates matter could be different. I'm curious how different. With an especial eye towards the elimination of created wealth.

The old adage, "It's easier to destroy than to create.", in the D&D universe might not be true.

[dascarletm]

No, it changes the Mass too. Same description of the volume of dust created regardless of the size of the creature disintegrated. Got into that a bit when i asked how many disintegrated creatures it would take to equal the mass of a medium animated object in a previous thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307037)

well, I suppose if you define "a trace of fine dust" as a defined volume of dust then sure. Sounds subjective to me, but I won't derail your thread.

As far as creating vs destroying, I would hypothesize that it is easier to create than to destroy. More spells, and lower level.

[lsfreak]

As far as creating vs destroying, I would hypothesize that it is easier to create than to destroy. More spells, and lower level.

And generally far more reason to do the former than the latter.

...though we're kind of throwing house rules into it assuming an economy even exists. Prices in D&Diverse are pretty much as immutable as physics is in ours :smallamused:

[asnys]

As far as creating vs destroying, I would hypothesize that it is easier to create than to destroy. More spells, and lower level.

Spells that actually create matter may be rarer than they appear to be. The explanation for the Conjuration (Creation) descriptor says it "manipulates matter to create an object or creature", which seems to imply it doesn't actually create matter out of nothing.

[dascarletm]

This may be true but let's look at wall of stone, it says nothing of taking stone from where the wall springs out.

There are economy rules in dnd, they are in.... (I am unsure) arms and equipment guide?

[unseenmage]

This may be true but let's look at wall of stone, it says nothing of taking stone from where the wall springs out.

There are economy rules in dnd, they are in.... (I am unsure) arms and equipment guide?

DMG, MIC for how much a player can sell/buy without breaking economy
DMG2, Power of Faerun for running businesses and guilds.

I believe the DMG and the Arms and Equipment Guide also has notes on commodities and their purchase and sale.

I know the DMG, the Arms and Equipment Guide, and the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook have rates for hirelings.

[Kane0]

Nobody has bought up the case of the level 1 warlock?

Infinite eldritch blast and baleful utterance ought to be worth something, even if you rule that the object destroyed doesn't dissappear into nothingness.

But unseenmage, aren't you worried about going insane and/or killing off catgirls with this thought process? D&D doesn't really have a great relationship with economy.

[Psyren]

No, it changes the Mass too. Same description of the volume of dust created regardless of the size of the creature disintegrated.

That doesn't prove anything; it just means that the amount of dust is fixed and the amount of everything else is variable. For instance, if you disintegrate both a 5 lb. cat and a 5000 lb elephant and get the same amount of dust from both, it simply means that the elephant was reduced to more of something that is not dust - e.g. a gas, or another state of matter that isn't visible.

[Endarire]

What about antimatter, such as via major creation? (You can use this spell/power, by RAW, to make antimatter.)

[eggynack]

That doesn't prove anything; it just means that the amount of dust is fixed and the amount of everything else is variable. For instance, if you disintegrate both a 5 lb. cat and a 5000 lb elephant and get the same amount of dust from both, it simply means that the elephant was reduced to more of something that is not dust - e.g. a gas, or another state of matter that isn't visible.
That isn't really true. Disintegrate says, "leaving behind only a trace of fine dust." That means that not-dust things, like gas for instance, wouldn't be left behind.

[skyth]

Now, we all know that the disintegrated remains of a dragon are indistinguishable from the disintegrated remains of a human ;)

[Aasimar]

I just had the notion of making a setting where the major kingdoms and empires have stopped using (or indeed accepting) gold pieces as currency because the occasional adventuring parties dumping vast amounts of money into the economy were messing things up.

[Psyren]

That isn't really true. Disintegrate says, "leaving behind only a trace of fine dust." That means that not-dust things, like gas for instance, wouldn't be left behind.

Right - gas/plasma/protomatter etc. isn't "left behind" because it disperses immediately. The dust has to be gotten rid of manually, e.g. gust of wind.

[eggynack]

Right - gas/plasma/protomatter etc. isn't "left behind" because it disperses immediately. The dust has to be gotten rid of manually, e.g. gust of wind.
I dunno if that's what left behind means. I suppose that if it can take on either meaning, then it should logically take on the meaning that doesn't screw with physics, but it's an odd thing. Anyways, I would have likely taken an alternate route on this one, which is that the word "only" might be modifying the term "a trace", rather than, "a trace of dust." That would indicate that there is only a trace of this dust, rather than a larger quantity of dust, and would not indicate the existence or lack thereof of any other materials. Both arguments seem rather semantic and arbitrary though, on both sides. Such is the nature of these things.

[unseenmage]

But unseenmage, aren't you worried about going insane and/or killing off catgirls with this thought process? D&D doesn't really have a great relationship with economy.

Not really no, there are enough cries of , "...destroy the economy...", about for this to be a serious method for rules-stickler DMs to re-balance said economy.

It's just that everyone's always so focused on how to make free money they forget that magic can get rid of it too.

[Captnq]

I just had the notion of making a setting where the major kingdoms and empires have stopped using (or indeed accepting) gold pieces as currency because the occasional adventuring parties dumping vast amounts of money into the economy were messing things up.

I should just save this and cut and paste every time it comes up.

HERE (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16302575&postcount=19) is why the D&D economy does not implode..

Here's the TL;DR:
Because GOLD ITSELF IS MAGIC and it's a magical world. The value of gold is not based on rarity, but on the actual usefulness of the material itself.

[Aasimar]

It's funny, but I'm not a fan of a world where these factors are known constants.

edit: It bugs me the same way that idea of "Master, good news, I was able to get a discount on the diamond powder, only 490 gold pieces" followed by "Idiot, now you have to go buy more" bugs me if it were actually applied outside of a joke.

[Psyren]

Bottom line is that it's a game. If you want to sit down and calculate the exact mass of 1500 gp worth of ruby dust or a 1500gp jade circlet, and then work out how supply and demand can affect the going price for said material, you are more than welcome to do so, nothing is stopping you. But the designers have much more important things to do with their time than go down that road.

[Captnq]

edit: It bugs me the same way that idea of "Master, good news, I was able to get a discount on the diamond powder, only 490 gold pieces" followed by "Idiot, now you have to go buy more" bugs me if it were actually applied outside of a joke.

Ah, but in a world where the wizards took the time to study how magic works (not unlike how we study newton's laws of motion, or calculus), what the apprentice would say is:

"Master, good news, I was able to get a discount on the diamond powder, I got 500 gold pieces of diamond powder for only 490 gold!"

See, if a "gold piece" is actually a unit of measurement, then it's like saying something weighs 10 pounds. And remember in Britain the unit of currency is the "pound". It actually was a pound of something, at one point.

In D&D, there is no artificial connection. A gp is actually worth 1 gp of magic. So measure everything else by the gp. Simple, eh?

[Captnq]

As a side note, When I added this "perspective" to my game, I adjusted the appraise skill.

Since, in effect appraise was trying to determine the gp value, or the amount of magic in an item, I allow appraise checks (at high DCs, mind you) to determine what a magic item is and what it does.

Furthermore, I have a two seperate forms of value which is:
Objects D'Art - Cosmetic Value. Stuff that people would pay money for because it is beautiful. Highly volitile market.
High Craftmanship - Masterwork items. Items that have "value" but only because they are well made. Not as stable as the magic item market, but no where as volatile as Objects D'Art.

[Psyren]

The way I look at it, Appraise is for things where the value isn't immediately apparent. Gems and Paintings can be difficult to determine the actual worth, so a roll is needed. But gold is gold is gold, and so the Appraise DC is 0, just like the Acrobatics check to stroll across a featureless room would be 0.

[unseenmage]

The way I look at it, Appraise is for things where the value isn't immediately apparent. Gems and Paintings can be difficult to determine the actual worth, so a roll is needed. But gold is gold is gold, and so the Appraise DC is 0, just like the Acrobatics check to stroll across a featureless room would be 0.
Emphasis mine.

To me this would depend on the level of simulation that particular DM/group is going for.
In one of the books, sorry but I don't remember where, might even be the DMG, there's a discussion of how different countries use different % of actual gold for their coins.
On these forums somewhere I remember reading too about moneylenders and "shaving" which makes different coins weight different amounts.
Additionally some currency is worth more for it's historic value, maybe the current king is offering a bonus for the return of coins stamped with his predecessors likeness whom he aggressively displaced and would prefer that the people not be reminded of with every transaction.

Just a thought.

[Psyren]

Indeed it would. At the very highest levels of simulation you might have to count coins in-character, or make a Spot check to see if you misjudge the true quantity of your haul or something. And as I said before, you can come up with prices for ruby dust and dragon heartstring and giant's toe and everything else.

Everyone has to draw that line somewhere in order to play this game. Using fixed prices to balance material components, to me, is a worthwhile abstraction in the game, just like hitpoints are.

[unseenmage]

Indeed it would. At the very highest levels of simulation you might have to count coins in-character, or make a Spot check to see if you misjudge the true quantity of your haul or something. And as I said before, you can come up with prices for ruby dust and dragon heartstring and giant's toe and everything else.

Everyone has to draw that line somewhere in order to play this game. Using fixed prices to balance material components, to me, is a worthwhile abstraction in the game, just like hitpoints are.

And I agree with you. Was just pointing out the alternative.
Though even with such abstraction, perhaps especially because of it, I think that the idea that 'magic can also destroy' is an important concept and DM tool in the 'infinite gp' discussions.

This threads original purpose was to discover how important, or really how plausible even, when compared to the availability of the creation side of things at various levels.

[Aasimar]

I see what you're saying.

But my personal preference is very strongly in the direction that xp and gold piece costs are abstractions that nobody could 'discover' no matter how advanced or intelligent ingame because they exist as easy aids for players and GMs, from the viewpoint of characters they are completely opaque.

The opposite works as either a joke like the oots or for maybe a very specific kind of campaign, but I just really don't want to consider it the norm.

[unseenmage]

I see what you're saying.

But my personal preference is very strongly in the direction that xp and gold piece costs are abstractions that nobody could 'discover' no matter how advanced or intelligent ingame because they exist as easy aids for players and GMs, from the viewpoint of characters they are completely opaque.

The opposite works as either a joke like the oots or for maybe a very specific kind of campaign, but I just really don't want to consider it the norm.

Just feel the need to add that I am in a game right now wherein the Xgp for materials is a non-negotiable cost. To the point that playing a crafting character nets zero reduction in value for providing a portion of their cost via class ability or skill check isn't allowable.

Not a discouragement or disparagement against that DM, they're doing a wonderful job and their game is very fun. I'm just pointing out that I have witnessed one of those different levels of suspension of disbelief in regard to this topic at work.

[Coidzor]

Just feel the need to add that I am in a game right now wherein the Xgp for materials is a non-negotiable cost. To the point that playing a crafting character nets zero reduction in value for providing a portion of their cost via class ability or skill check isn't allowable.

Not a discouragement or disparagement against that DM, they're doing a wonderful job and their game is very fun. I'm just pointing out that I have witnessed one of those different levels of suspension of disbelief in regard to this topic at work.

Certainly not flattering them though. *shrug* Raises the question of why they didn't just get rid of those abilities if they didn't want them to work. Being able to apply those abilities to no end is just... inelegant. :smalleek::smallconfused:


It's just that everyone's always so focused on how to make free money they forget that magic can get rid of it too.

Mostly because it's generally less interesting. :smalltongue: