A Balancing of the D&D Economy, Part 1 (Starting Wealth)

[Drakkoniss]

As suggested in the preamble to the document that shall be included below, I am attempting to use these posts/documents to address the issue of prices listed in the DMG and Player's Handbook, which are generally quite messy and not at all properly coordinated to give the impression of a stable and healthy market in which the commoners of the world could actually live.

This is only the first step in a multi-part process of overhauling the monetary system. By the end, however, everything but the distribution of wealth on adventures shall be addressed, including:

Weapon Pricing (see here: https://1drv.ms/x/s!AtE2-F-pUrJQnB532GEb2PO7fRdT )

Armor Pricing

Adventuring Gear (see here: https://1drv.ms/x/s!AtE2-F-pUrJQnCZyzVOqFZl0xuHk ; here for discussion: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?587450-A-Balancing-of-the-D-amp-D-Economy-Part-2-(Adventuring-Gear) )

Tools, Mounts, Tack, Vehicles, and Common Trade Goods

[and finally] Lifestyle Content --- Cost of living, Costs of Various Inns and Meals, Costs of Common Services, Costs of Spellcasting Services, Costs of Building Upkeep+Worker Numbers, and the Construction of Buildings and Fortifications. (Lifestyle Stuff: https://1drv.ms/w/s!AtE2-F-pUrJQnCjf0aBLwd_T-3F5 ; Upkeep and Building: https://1drv.ms/x/s!AtE2-F-pUrJQnCpN8I_mcIjiqGn9 )

...

I ask that you discuss, if you will, not only the starting wealth and background changes, but also the prices that shall be displayed concerning all the subjects mentioned above. I very much desire to ensure that pricing is indeed appropriate. While some objects (high end weapons and armor) may be more expensive than many adventurers will be able to afford initially, well, this gives them something to work toward (which is something that I, at least, find quite appropriate and appealing to game design).

Here is the link to the new starting wealth amounts I propose: https://1drv.ms/w/s!AtE2-F-pUrJQnCQmfTebIVzOLMgv .

[Unoriginal]

What's the reasoning behind he price of those weapons and how does it relate to a "stable and healthy market in which the commoners of the world could actually live"?

[greenstone]

…a stable and healthy market in which the commoners of the world could actually live.
Which then gets completely destabilised when adventurers find a dragon hoard and descend on town to spend it all.

The economy should be more like a frontier gold rush town, with rampant inflation and outright profiteering.

[Drakkoniss]

Generally speaking, the prices of the weapons are intended to be balanced off of one another (with only a few which are more technically complex or traditional to nobility having a greatly raised price, and these all tending to be in the martial weapons category, meaning that they would be purchased to supply an army or by wealthy individuals who can either afford them for themselves or for a bodyguard/group they sponsor), and to be held within a reasonable limit of the prices for adventuring gear and tools. These are in fact already ready, but were written out on physical paper, and have yet to be transferred to a digital format.

The logic should seem more straight-forward and apparent once those documents are made available.

It should also be said that the simple weapons are much cheaper specifically for the sake of making them generally more affordable to the commoner (or relatively poor prospective adventurers).

If the above reasons do not seem to properly justify the prices, perhaps I might reconsider some of the more high end costs (such as, for example, the short bow, which may admittedly be a bit too pricey).

~~~



Directed at greenstone:

While this may seem reasonable to a certain extent, I would argue two things: massive treasure hordes will be a very infrequently released phenomenon, partly because adventurers tend to sit on their wealth, and partly because it is quite reasonable to assume that there are relatively few highly powerful creatures in a given area in possession of such hordes.

Over a long period of time, I would expect the economy to stabilize, with only relatively brief periods of inflation in the wake of, say, a dragon slaying; during which time the DM may adjust the cost of items as they see fit. Additionally, if the adventurers gain a reputation for wealth and conquest, they may see local merchants attempting to fleece them with costs higher than the relatively low end values which I am suggesting for beginners and the common folk. (Clever groups might then hire individuals to purchase items for them at lower costs, should the prices be too terribly high.)

[Unoriginal]

In which ways do you think the current D&D economy fails?

[Drakkoniss]

There are many, but the main problem comes from the high (but inconsistent) pricing of items across our resources. This particularly hurts the average citizen of the realms due to the issues that come from consequences of essentially forcing a non-skilled worker into living a Squalid lifestyle if they want to actually have any sort of free money whatsoever.

In short: the result of such a system would be an underclass which has no actual capacity to endure the shocks which are likely to come in a fantasy setting for their lifestyle. This group of people (everyone who doesn't qualify for the 10 times better pay for a skilled laborer) will likely have very little in the way of physical assets due to their lack of excess money beyond their cost of living.

While I realize that the actual wages for people probably varies more than the PHB would lead you to believe, the rules as written present a grim situation for anyone who doesn't have the craziness required to go out on adventure and sell off assets from the monsters/people that they loot.

To some extent, this is just an interesting bit of fun for myself, but I think that making things have (baseline) prices commoners could actually reasonably afford (for non-luxury goods, at least) could make the game feel a bit more immersive. The way I've shaped the prices has left a bit more room for tangible progression for the players, as well: as long as loot grants aren't too crazy, one could experience a rise from essential poverty to swanky high class life in a more vivid manner than might otherwise be allowed.

Or, you know, players could save all their money for magic items and spell costs. *shrugs*

[Unoriginal]

There are many, but the main problem comes from the high (but inconsistent) pricing of items across our resources. This particularly hurts the average citizen of the realms due to the issues that come from consequences of essentially forcing a non-skilled worker into living a Squalid lifestyle if they want to actually have any sort of free money whatsoever.

In short: the result of such a system would be an underclass which has no actual capacity to endure the shocks which are likely to come in a fantasy setting for their lifestyle. This group of people (everyone who doesn't qualify for the 10 times better pay for a skilled laborer) will likely have very little in the way of physical assets due to their lack of excess money beyond their cost of living.

I don't see any problem with that situation.

Being poor and unskilled in a pseudo-medieval setting will have that situation as a consequence.



While I realize that the actual wages for people probably varies more than the PHB would lead you to believe, the rules as written present a grim situation for anyone who doesn't have the craziness required to go out on adventure and sell off assets from the monsters/people that they loot.

You forget those who ARE skilled, the craftsmen (who get 2 gp a day of free living conditions when they work), the various combatants who aren't adventurers, the merchants, and land owner.

So basically everyone is fine, except the unskilled labor which could be replaced by anyone else.

Again, pretty logical.



Or, you know, players could save all their money for magic items and spell costs. *shrugs*

Or they could use the PHB prices to live a swanky high class life.

[Bjarkmundur]

I need this thread, yesterday!

I ended up completely giving up on 5e economy.

My solution was

Draw a line between my country's currency and 1 GP
Create my own expected wealth per session and per Level for a PC
Pricing everything else by feel, since I could now think of it in terms of my own currency and knowledge of the player's economy for all levels.

Which is messy, and I can't really share my solution effectively.
I'll come back and read over your work and try to give some more valuable input.

[Unoriginal]

I ended up completely giving up on 5e economy.


Why? The 5e economy makes sense.

[JackPhoenix]

Why does a semi-random piece of wood (club) cost more than dart which is not only made of metal, but also requires skilled craftsman for proper balance? (OK, PHB is to be blamed for that, but you say you were re-balancing stuff).

Why is knife and dagger separate, and both cost more than sickle, which not only requires more metal, but also more skilled craftsman due to the curved blade? Same with scythe. And why is scythe even on weapon table?

Why do you think lasso is so easy to use it's a simple weapon

Why is flail so cheap?

And that's just quick look, not detailed analysis.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Please start by stating the problem, relevant facts bearing on the problem, then necessary assumptions before you ask for possible solutions.

I propose that D&D is not a real economy, and if you tried to play a game that way, you'd be bored and the game would break.

But say your thesis is worthy...what would the game look like once the problem is solved?

[Unoriginal]

Please start by stating the problem, relevant facts bearing on the problem, then necessary assumptions before you ask for possible solutions.

I propose that D&D is not a real economy, and if you tried to play a game that way, you'd be bored and the game would break.

But say your thesis is worthy...what would the game look like once the problem is solved?

I have to agree with that. Mostly a list of the perceived problems would help quite a lot already.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Please start by stating the problem, relevant facts bearing on the problem, then necessary assumptions before you ask for possible solutions.

I propose that D&D is not a real economy, and if you tried to play a game that way, you'd be bored and the game would break.

But say your thesis is worthy...what would the game look like once the problem is solved?

Yeah. Players are not PhD economists...and PhD economists are still wrong about the economy much of the time. And their reports take way longer than a session.

There's a reason that TTRPG economies come down to one of two methods:
* Handwaved "fixed prices" and "real currency" incomes (D&D, many others)
* Abstract "wealth attributes" where you can buy any number of things worth less than your wealth score and buying one thing equal to your wealth score decreases it and those wealth scores are bought with character creation resources and stay pretty fixed throughout the game. (V:tM, a bunch of others).

Anything in-between, anything that uses real currencies and tries to actually handle a plausible economy falls into the uncanny valley. Too complex to be useful, not complex enough to actually provide verisimilitude. And in trying, it leaves the deficiencies bare for all to see. In essence, it's do or do not, and doing is too hard.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I'm watching these. I was considering starting a game some time in the near future where I deliberately leave the players horrifically destitute, as travelers in a xenophobic land. Odd jobs won't pay beyond the means of the ones who ask, and dungeons will almost never just have a king's ransom worth of money. And the few that do will attract thieves and murderers to the party, in the forms of brutish rogues, confidence men, and even corrupt bureaucrats and nobility.

Rebalancing the item costs could really drive the pauper lifestyle home.

[Drakkoniss]

Why does a semi-random piece of wood (club) cost more than dart which is not only made of metal, but also requires skilled craftsman for proper balance? (OK, PHB is to be blamed for that, but you say you were re-balancing stuff).

Why is knife and dagger separate, and both cost more than sickle, which not only requires more metal, but also more skilled craftsman due to the curved blade? Same with scythe. And why is scythe even on weapon table?

Why do you think lasso is so easy to use it's a simple weapon

Why is flail so cheap?

And that's just quick look, not detailed analysis.
To address JackPhoenix's concerns:

Firstly: The club is 5 copper pieces, which is half the cost of a knife, 1/4 that of a dagger. While it is essentially a random stick, the cost assumes that it is in fact a manufactured weapon: a stick that's been selected for its durability and carved a little bit, if it's being sold as a weapon-- probably with some sort of protection on the handle, as well. 5 cp might be a bit much, though. I'll lower it to 3 cp given the ease of manufacture and the low benefits compared to an improvised piece of nature.

With regards to the dart: it is essentially a straight metal rod with just enough balance to be thrown accurately at 20 feet-- essentially a thicker needle. This type of weapon is intended to be quite cheap, and while it does indeed have to be balanced properly for throwing, it would seem to me that this might be a relatively easy task, comparatively. The low cost is also intended to reflect a relatively low utility compared to daggers or knives. However, I do accept your reasoning to some extent, so I think I will raise it up to 5 cp instead.

The sickle is an agricultural tool improvised to be useful as a weapon in battle. It is essentially a much more curved knife. Consequently, the same thing is true of its cousin, the scythe, which is why I included it in the document. Said document was intended originally as an expansion and overhaul of weapon design in 5e with an eye at creating an overall better assortment of available choices for the players (whereas the actual design for 5e is very limited and favors certain weapons more than others). However, that is off-topic for this thread.

As far as monetary concerns go: the dagger should definitely cost more because it is a specialized military tool rather than one intended purely for agriculture. Making a good dagger requires a great deal of skill and a longer amount of time than you'd think.

The knife is similar insofar as it is intended to model the cutting equivalent of the dagger-- which is to say to also be a combat-oriented device, though it is also labeled utility as you will see. This is with the understanding that the knife is a robust one intended for practical survival uses in addition to battle: whittling, eating, et cetera. It's been common throughout history for a single knife to be used in such a manner. Furthermore, the Player's Handbook specifically refers to the knife on many occasions; whereas the knife did not actually exist as an item, in fact. One could simply lump it in with the dagger, but since the dagger is only a piercing weapon-- and there HAVE been numerous daggers throughout history which have been very limited in cutting power --it seemed reasonable to simply type out another such item.

I do not have very good reasons behind the lasso specifically being a simple weapon, other than the fact that it seems much more reasonable to have it as such than to label it a weapon which requires military-style training to acquire a capacity to use it properly. One might make a similar argument about the Javelin being odd as a simple weapon, but I think that it's intended to model any throwing spear, and as a style of weapon which saw use well into pre-history, I would consider that a reasonable way to classify it, if so. A more valid argument might be made about the Light Crossbow really deserving to be a Martial Weapon, but I think that the balance concerns are quite obvious: you want a crossbow to be available to those without Martial prowess anyway.

Regarding the Flail: it is so cheap because it is a very simple weapon to manufacture: it is simply a lump of metal with a chain attached to it, which is in turn fastened to a stick. It's a rather short piece of chain, as well. Certainly, there are more complex designs, but I think that overall it is reasonable to have it be pretty low cost: the basic version of the weapon is essentially an adapted agricultural tool, after all. Perhaps it might deserve at best a couple more silver pieces in its cost.
...

To address Unoriginal's first reply after the one I have already answered:

This is a real problem insofar as a Squalid lifestyle as defined in the PHB suggests that "You have shelter from the elements, but you live in a desperate and often violent environment..." and that "Most people at this lifestyle level have suffered some terrible setback," which suggests that this should not be the default for a manual labor worker.

However, given the lifestyle expense per day stated for a Poor lifestyle are 2 silver pieces per day, and this lifestyle is stated to be that of people who "tend to be unskilled laborers," this would result in quite literally no capacity for any spending on anything but daily expenses; furthermore, it would mean that the workers would get no days off whatsoever.

My contention is that these factors are together enough to be very destabilizing to any society which actually conforms to them. Since most workers in at least cities will tend to be unskilled laborers, rather than trade-learning people, this would essentially mean that any urban population would essentially be starved and weak, and that they could not afford any random expenses whatsoever.

These expenses will obviously be quite common in any person's life, and will include the feeding and housing of anyone beyond one's self, the purchasing of clothing and other household goods, the paying of tithes and/or other religious expenses, the paying/relinquishing of taxes, and repair/upkeep/replacement of any tools or other items one already possesses.

[Man_Over_Game]

On the note about crossbows/bows: If you're aiming for realism, crossbows were popular for the same reason firearms are popular today: You don't need training.

Well, some mild training, true, but it's not something you need to make a career out of. Bowmen were very expensive and very rare, because you have to start teaching them when they're very young and they have to practice for YEARS before they're combat ready. Hand a peasant a crossbow, give him a day's worth of practice, and he's good enough to throw on the field. The only reason we used bows for so long was because of how fast they could shoot, but eventually, the ease of use of gunpowder was too valuable. You can look at today's society to see the difference yourself.

Practical people use firearms. Skilled ones use bows. The reason crossbows aren't that popular is because of how similar it is to using a firearm with none of the speed (that, and bow competitions have always been a big thing in Britain in order to have a constant supply of bowmen, even during peacetime).

ALL crossbows should be simple weapons. All bows should be martial weapons. That is, only if realism is important.

[Waterdeep Merch]

ALL crossbows should be simple weapons. All bows should be martial weapons. That is, only if realism is important.

I've been thinking about differentiating more between simple uses of weapons versus 'martial' uses of weapons. I already do it with the sling, but there are a few weapons that could really use it.

For crossbows, pointing and shooting it is easy enough to learn (same damage values regardless of training). But reloading it efficiently is a different story entirely; I might remove the loading property for anyone with martial training. That makes Crossbow Expert less of necessity for crossbow builds, too, another good reason to handle it this way.

For classic bows, lower the damage by a die when you don't have martial training and enhance the short distance by double when you do. Because if you don't have serious training in using a bow, you won't be able to put the right amount of draw strength into it and you're not likely to be very accurate at those further distances.

[Drakkoniss]

Responding to Man_Over_Game: I am aware of and agree with your assessment of the general historical facts on this matter. I believe the reason that Heavy crossbows are made martial are because of the complexities involved in loading time, considering these are probably the ones requiring cranequins or whathaveyou to reload; and thus, I suppose more knowledge/practice is required to do it well and swiftly. For Hand Crossbows... I don't know. Probably more difficult to aim? I don't really understand the reason why there are one-handed crossbow weapons in the first place in D&D, but i have left them as they are in terms of classification for the sake of simplicity.

...

Responding to Kurt Kurageous: "Please start by stating the problem, relevant facts bearing on the problem, then necessary assumptions before you ask for possible solutions."

I have attempted to begin doing so in my last post's second half. To go further into the intricacies of the matter, you have issues such as Common Clothes being priced at 5 silver pieces, which would be 5 days' worth of extra funds if one lived a squalid lifestyle as an unskilled laborer, assuming one had no day of rest or other expenses to take into account. An iron pot is 2 gp. A common hammer is 1 gp.

These are essentially framed as luxury goods, at those prices. In a system where a loaf of bread is 2 cp, having a hammer be worth 20 times more costly is ludicrous. Therefore, I have begun this series in an attempt to leave a luxury market in place, yet to also make a life for the common individual possible.

This will not generally effect adventuring (or gameplay) too terribly much unless the DM takes things quite seriously, I should imagine. Adventurers, at least beyond a certain level (3 or 4, probably) are mostly outside of the normal bounds of the economy, which I imagine is part of the reason why the lifestyle is so appealing to a select few. However, I think that the general feel of gameplay may improve, especially early on, assuming these changes were implemented.

...

Regarding PhoenixPhyre's commentary (especially this part: "Anything in-between, anything that uses real currencies and tries to actually handle a plausible economy falls into the uncanny valley. " ):

While I agree with you to a certain extent, I believe that one can at least shift things such that basic pricing and price of labor can make sense on the surface. Only relatively small tweaks are necessary to actually address the issues that are in the present system; albeit these tweaks have to be implemented over a relatively wide area to make all of it consistent in each part. Thus, my asking for advice.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have attempted to begin doing so in my last post's second half. To go further into the intricacies of the matter, you have issues such as Common Clothes being priced at 5 silver pieces, which would be 5 days' worth of extra funds if one lived a squalid lifestyle as an unskilled laborer, assuming one had no day of rest or other expenses to take into account. An iron pot is 2 gp. A common hammer is 1 gp.


Good solid clothes were luxury goods in a medieval setting for an unskilled laborer/subsistence farmer. Most had a single set, with one more "nice set" at most. And those were amortized over years or decades, being handed down and mended until they were more patch than original cloth. Everything was reused over and over. Iron pots and tools were expensive.

You're thinking in modern terms, where clothes are cheap and tools are pennies. That was not always so. Heck, even 100 years ago clothes were expensive and mostly home-made (trading costs in labor for coinage costs). To buy "common clothes", you're looking at having someone make them for you. No off-the-rack, no stores. An unskilled worker in 1900 was making something like $120 USD/year. A shirt cost 1-2 dollars, so 3-6 days pay. Sounds about right.

Especially since most unskilled laborers would rarely see hard coin at all. That's the biggest economic issue in D&D. Villages shouldn't have substantial coin whatsoever. They shouldn't be able to handle an adventurer trying to pay for a big-ticket item in coin--the nearest person that could take it would be days away.

Sources: Prices: https://mclib.info/reference/local-history-genealogy/historic-prices/1900-2/
Wages: https://panam1901.org/visiting/salaries.htm

[Unoriginal]

you have issues such as Common Clothes being priced at 5 silver pieces, which would be 5 days' worth of extra funds if one lived a squalid lifestyle as an unskilled laborer, assuming one had no day of rest or other expenses to take into account.


That's not an issue, though. You're talking about people who are barely above beggars in term of income and living conditions. Cloth is worth a lot in a non-industrialiszed world.



An iron pot is 2 gp. A common hammer is 1 gp.

These are essentially framed as luxury goods, at those prices.

You're assuming that the 1-silver-a-day unskilled laborer is like our modern day's middle class worker. They are not.

Yes, an iron pot is a luxury good for a peasant who could have literally anyone with a working body replace them at their job if they didn't show up.




In a system where a loaf of bread is 2 cp, having a hammer be worth 20 times more costly is ludicrous.


It is not.

Again, D&D 5e presuppose a pre-industrialisation world, where local fields generate most of the food. A hammer being worth 20 loafs of bread isn't surprising.



Therefore, I have begun this series in an attempt to leave a luxury market in place, yet to also make a life for the common individual possible..

Skilled workers are common individuals too. Artisans can easily live better because:


[w]hile crafting, you can maintain a modest lifestyle without having to pay 1 gp per day, or a comfortable lifestyle at half the normal cost (see chapter 5 for more information on lifestyle expenses).

In the same context, there is also the "Work" Downtime activity, which guarantee at least the Poor lifestyle for a week spent working.

Yes, unskilled workers have it rough. That's kinda part of the issue with being an unskilled worker in a pseudo-medieval economy.


Good solid clothes were luxury goods in a medieval setting for an unskilled laborer/subsistence farmer. Most had a single set, with one more "nice set" at most. And those were amortized over years or decades, being handed down and mended until they were more patch than original cloth. Everything was reused over and over. Iron pots and tools were expensive.

You're thinking in modern terms, where clothes are cheap and tools are pennies. That was not always so. Heck, even 100 years ago clothes were expensive and mostly home-made (trading costs in labor for coinage costs). To buy "common clothes", you're looking at having someone make them for you. No off-the-rack, no stores. An unskilled worker in 1900 was making something like $120 USD/year. A shirt cost 1-2 dollars, so 3-6 days pay. Sounds about right.

Also +1 to this.



Especially since most unskilled laborers would rarely see hard coin at all. That's the biggest economic issue in D&D. Villages shouldn't have substantial coin whatsoever. They shouldn't be able to handle an adventurer trying to pay for a big-ticket item in coin--the nearest person that could take it would be days away.

Well tbf an assumption of D&D is that there is significantly more coinage around than in real life. Still, it's true that most unskilled laborers in villages would be payed in the occasion to sleep with a roof over their head, a meal per day and the right to come back to work the next day.

[Drakkoniss]

I will most graciously accept your research and knowledge, PhoenixPhyre, and will furthermore admit my bias with regards to the price of clothing. Though I remember having knowledge of the greater difficulty and thus cost to be associated with its manufacture in the medieval period, it seems to have slipped my mind as I was constructing my pricing on that particular good. As such, I will rectify the matter.

This does, of course, leave the issue of the game insisting on no extra resources for the common individual, should they live a Poor lifestyle rather than Squalid, and there remains quite a bit in the way of questionable balancing with regard to other costs, as well.

(I shall now be temporarily indisposed in the process of transcribing my work on the lifestyle content into a digital format, so I may not reply for some time; thus, I apologize if this comes off as rude.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I will most graciously accept your research and knowledge, PhoenixPhyre, and will furthermore admit my bias with regards to the price of clothing. Though I remember having knowledge of the greater difficulty and thus cost to be associated with its manufacture in the medieval period, it seems to have slipped my mind as I was constructing my pricing on that particular good. As such, I will rectify the matter.

This does, of course, leave the issue of the game insisting on no extra resources for the common individual, should they live a Poor lifestyle rather than Squalid, and there remains quite a bit in the way of questionable balancing with regard to other costs, as well.

(I shall now be temporarily indisposed in the process of transcribing my work on the lifestyle content into a digital format, so I may not reply for some time; thus, I apologize if this comes off as rude.)

For unskilled labor, think serf, not yeoman. These are the itinerant laborers, the ones living in crude huts, and the urban beggars. That's what squalid lifestyles are. They're not even subsistence farmers--that's a poor lifestyle. Squalid is "living on the ragged edge, never sure where the next meal is coming from." Buying/finding food is the primary concern--they have no money for things like tools.

And D&D is completely unconcerned about the common folk except as they reflect on the party. D&D is about adventuring and adventurers. D&D is not a world simulator, nor does it try to be. Any "fixed-price" list will be wrong, horrifically so. Simplicity and ease of use (note that everything is 1, 2, or 5 currency units or multiples of such) is paramount, not realism.

[Unoriginal]

For unskilled labor, think serf, not yeoman. These are the itinerant laborers, the ones living in crude huts, and the urban beggars. That's what squalid lifestyles are. They're not even subsistence farmers--that's a poor lifestyle. Squalid is "living on the ragged edge, never sure where the next meal is coming from." Buying/finding food is the primary concern--they have no money for things like tools.

This.

"Skilled worker" doesn't mean "skilled in something hard/special", it means "know a trade". Someone running a farm is a skilled worker. Unskilled is the farmhand whose job could be done just as easily or near by anyone showing up and doing it.



And D&D is completely unconcerned about the common folk except as they reflect on the party. D&D is about adventuring and adventurers. D&D is not a world simulator, nor does it try to be. Any "fixed-price" list will be wrong, horrifically so.


Also this.



Simplicity and ease of use (note that everything is 1, 2, or 5 currency units or multiples of such) is paramount, not realism.

Not to mention the expectations of the heroic genre with its hyperbolic riches.

[KorvinStarmast]

The economy should be more like a frontier gold rush town, with rampant inflation and outright profiteering. Right out of the AD&D 1e DMG. :smallbiggrin:

Something to consider about gold pieces: it was used as (1) a way to keep score, and (2) as a measure of weight {Read men and magic, you'll see}, and not as some kind of economic lynchpin originally. The game does not try to model economic systems. {FFS, RL economists with a lot of computing power have trouble with modeling economic systems}.

All D&D "economy" efforts since then have tripped over this core issue. It's a unit of game currency, at best.


I'm watching these. I was considering starting a game some time in the near future where I deliberately leave the players horrifically destitute, as travelers in a xenophobic land. Odd jobs won't pay beyond the means of the ones who ask, and dungeons will almost never just have a king's ransom worth of money. And the few that do will attract thieves and murderers to the party, in the forms of brutish rogues, confidence men, and even corrupt bureaucrats and nobility.

Rebalancing the item costs could really drive the pauper lifestyle home.
I have played in two campaigns like this.
Great fun. Always have a reason to go out and adventure/treasure hunt, etc ...

[PhoenixPhyre]

One thing to note is that adventurers are already rich, even at level 1.

Consider starting equipment for an acolyte cleric. I'll even choose the non-martial/heavy option.

Scale = 50 gp
mace =5gp
light crossbow + 20 bolts = 25 gp + 1 gp
priest's pack = 2 + 0.5 gp + 0.1 gp + 0.5 gp + 5 gp (vestments = costume) + 1 gp + 0.2 gp = 9.3 gp
shield = 10 gp
holy symbol = 5 gp
prayer book = 25 gp (!))
common clothes = 0.2 gp
Starting cash = 15 gp
Total: 145.5 gp

That's 73 days of skilled labor hanging off his back there.

And a level 1 treasure horde (of which you're supposed to get more than 1/level) averages 1500 gp worth of goods and items (using DMG prices for magic items). Split among 5 people, that's 300 gp each or half a year's pay for a skilled laborer. For tier 1, you should get 7 such hoards, and that might only be a few weeks of active adventuring time (not counting downtime).

Adventurers are rich. And the prices for adventuring gear reflect that wealth. Pay what the market will bear, after all.

[Unoriginal]

One thing to note is that adventurers are already rich, even at level 1.

Indeed.

Even equipping one Guard NPC is worth:

-Chain shirt: 50gp

-Shielf: 10gp

-Spear: 1gp

Total: 61 gp, aka a month of skilled labor, aka around two months of Modest lifestyle.



Adventurers are rich. And the prices for adventuring gear reflect that wealth. Pay what the market will bear, after all.

Not to mention that even the material their equipment is made of is expensive. How many cows were slaughtered to make all the leather the average adventuring group wears?

[MaxWilson]

One thing to note is that adventurers are already rich, even at level 1.

Consider starting equipment for an acolyte cleric. I'll even choose the non-martial/heavy option.

Scale = 50 gp
mace =5gp
light crossbow + 20 bolts = 25 gp + 1 gp
priest's pack = 2 + 0.5 gp + 0.1 gp + 0.5 gp + 5 gp (vestments = costume) + 1 gp + 0.2 gp = 9.3 gp
shield = 10 gp
holy symbol = 5 gp
prayer book = 25 gp (!))
common clothes = 0.2 gp
Starting cash = 15 gp
Total: 145.5 gp

That's 73 days of skilled labor hanging off his back there.

And a level 1 treasure horde (of which you're supposed to get more than 1/level) averages 1500 gp worth of goods and items (using DMG prices for magic items). Split among 5 people, that's 300 gp each or half a year's pay for a skilled laborer. For tier 1, you should get 7 such hoards, and that might only be a few weeks of active adventuring time (not counting downtime).

Adventurers are rich. And the prices for adventuring gear reflect that wealth. Pay what the market will bear, after all.

Bear in mind that that starting equipment represents your life's savings and possibly a windfall as well--whatever windfall or inheritance propelled you into adventuring instead of being an Acolyte/Merchant/Soldier/whatever you were before (background). I'm AFB so can't supply a quote but I'm quite sure the 5E PHB calls this out specifically: starting wealth is conceptually a lot of money.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Bear in mind that that starting equipment represents your life's savings and possibly a windfall as well--whatever windfall or inheritance propelled you into adventuring instead of being an Acolyte/Merchant/Soldier/whatever you were before (background). I'm AFB so can't supply a quote but I'm quite sure the 5E PHB calls this out specifically: starting wealth is conceptually a lot of money.

It certainly does. It's in the backgrounds section--"figure out how you got your starting gear" (basically).

But it bears reiterating here, because everything in the PHB is adventurer focused. So if some prices seem high, it's because they're focused at adventurers, who are all stinking rich.

[Drakkoniss]

Well, there have certainly been many good points made here.

It should be noted that I was not in fact assuming that skilled worker meant anything beyond having at least some measure of trade skill.

Furthermore, I would add that it was not my intention to suggest that most of the prices I am coming up with are intended to be completely fixed; but rather, to suggest that they might be a more reasonable starting point from which DM's or players might range up or down from.

I would also note that I never meant to deny that starting wealth was a great deal of money; on the contrary, as I previously suggested, adventurers are somewhat beyond the economy insofar as they are witness to great windfalls of wealth and capability beyond what would otherwise be the norm.

...

Anyway: while some of the gaffes I made in the defense of my perception that the D&D economy being flawed this morning were caused by my lack of breakfast (and thus mental clarity), as stated above, the points made in this thread in defense of the economy as is do have some strength to them. I will have to give the matter serious thought and potentially reconsider some of my assumptions and methodology, if this matter is to be continued.

Regardless, I'll post the document(s) I stated I was working on in an edit of the first post on this thread, if anyone wants to look them over. I think some of the Lifestyle Content document in particular might be interesting to the people who have been looking over this thread; whereas the Buildings and Maintenance document is much less grounded, but might make for an interesting basis to spring off of if anyone has any interest in that kind of thing~

[Bjarkmundur]

Don't be discouraged!
These forums should provide you with an opinion, nothing more.
I am quite happy with my own changes to wealth and trade in 5e, but I quickly learned that somethings should be kept off-forum xD

Like I said before, I use my country's currency, converted into gp, which gives me a good idea of various wages, taxes and pricing. Its in no means accurate, but it FEELS accurate. It gives all my players a good frame of reference, and make everything feel consistent, since it's what we've grown up with.

[Drakkoniss]

Your encouragement is much appreciated, Bjarkmundur.

While it was somewhat discouraging in the moment, at the same time, my project is one open to criticism: indeed, I was asking for it from the start. So long as their words are founded in rational consideration and knowledge, rather than ignorance and overpowering bias, I welcome them.

I must be willing to question my conclusions and methods, or else whatever legitimacy I have in my efforts will wear away to nothing.

[MaxWilson]

It certainly does. It's in the backgrounds section--"figure out how you got your starting gear" (basically).

But it bears reiterating here, because everything in the PHB is adventurer focused. So if some prices seem high, it's because they're focused at adventurers, who are all stinking rich.

Isn't that what this thread is about correcting? In most cases, adventurers shouldn't be stinking rich, because usually they get stinking rich by killing monsters and taking their treasure, but it doesn't make sense (usually) for monsters to have been stinking rich in the first place. Every time I try to design an ecology & economy that results in monsters having the loot listed on the DMG treasure tables, it goes pear-shaped as soon as I start applying real thought to it. Where did that adult red dragon get 120,000 gp (or more--DMG says treasure-loving monsters may be modelled with multiple treasure table rolls)? Is it tribute he's been collecting from peasants for the past four hundred years? If so, why do the peasants keep minting currency (gold coins) instead of building actual wealth (like cows, or houses)? In four hundred years did they never catch on? Or do they have a mining industry which exists purely to pay ransom demands from dragons and other monsters?

So okay, maybe there really is a mining industry devoted purely to minting gold coins to pay off dragons with. But then why do monsters like Balors and liches also accumulate hundreds of thousands of gp? Unlike dragons, they have no pathological love of gold for the sake of gold. Why do they buy into the golden-treasure-hoard economy?

Honestly the simplest fix is to use the DMG tables purely to decide how valuable the stuff is that the monster has, but in the form of (depending on the monster) luxurious furniture, legal deeds to tracts of land, commodities like iron and wood, trade goods, magic items, or awesome stuff rolled up on Courtney Campbell's treasure tables (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2010/11/treasure-update.html). A really quick-and-dirty method would be to say that once you locate the monster's treasure hoard, you can carry away a percentage of the net worth equal 1d10% * (total carrying capacity of the PCs / 100 lb.), so 3 Str 10 PCs and a Str 20 Barbarian (total capacity 3 * 150 lb. + 600 lb. IIRC) can carry away somewhere between 10% and 100% of the net worth of whatever monster they just beat. (If 100%, then that means it was mostly light and expensive stuff like legal deeds and gemstones; if 10% then a lot of it was ornate thrones and high-quality iron, etc.) Only use this method if your players don't really care about anything except how much they can sell the stuff for during downtime.

[Lupine]

Not to mention that even the material their equipment is made of is expensive. How many cows were slaughtered to make all the leather the average adventuring group wears?

That's not really comparable. You see, leather too had different values back in pseudo medieval times. If I recall, in Europe, leather wasn't particularly used for anything BUT equipment (handles, ties, saddles, etc) there was less of it, but it also wasn't as highly valued (That said, FURS were an entirely different game. Fashion always has, and always will be a destructive and wasteful pastime that costs entirely too much)

[Drakkoniss]

To address MaxWilson: Indeed, that is part of the reason this thread was created. It should at least take some time for adventurers to get wealthy.

Certainly, they should have a surplus to begin with such that they can afford some starting gear, but this may well be a result of selling off everything they already had, and then once they have that gear, there may be a long time before they actually get a firm foothold in the world. Thus, it is indeed quite reasonable to actually try and model a system where their low-earning starting period can actually feel tough on them.

I do also very much agree with you: most monsters are not likely to have a great deal of wealth. Some, such as dragons, do indeed have reason (insofar as they are at least in part incarnations of greed) to have good sums of it. Orcs and other such tribal creatures might well have a little hoard of their own due to the fact that they might survive on a basis of raiding and pillaging human communities. However, this does not mean that most monsters will have huge piles of treasure lying around.

(I should note that with regards to liches, I actually disagree with you, though: they have good reason to want to keep money insofar as, while it might be dangerous, they can procure magical items and spell ingredients via coinage, should the setting and personality of the lich allow. It could also be useful for paying off individuals to make such journeys into settlements to acquire these, should they not want to risk going, themselves. Thus, while they may not care about the wealth, personally, it could be useful to them. This is only one example in which that might prove to be the case. They certainly wouldn't have hoards of a comparable level to dragons, however-- at least in gold. They are likely to have much more in the way of magic items and especially books and gems.)

Very interesting suggestions, by the way.

[KorvinStarmast]

To address MaxWilson: Indeed, that is part of the reason this thread was created. It should at least take some time for adventurers to get wealthy. Opinions are like navels: everyone has one.

Adventurers are risking life and limb in their 'get rich quick' scheme. Unless you play a wimpy world, and nobody ever has to fear the death of a character.

Once again, a core conceit of this game is: the adventurers are willing to risk life and limb battling nameless horrors in a get rich quick scheme. That has been with the game since day 1, heck, even before day 1 if you read some of Arneson's old notes and interviews. It is my opinion that your over obsession with economics utterly missed the point of this game... but that opinion too is like another navel. (Oops, I appear to have collected some lint in mine ...)

Do whatever works at your table. But please, do not export your opinion to mine. We won't welcome it at our table, as our game is of a different style. We don't obsess over D&D not being a reality simulator.

The game is big enough to handle multiple approaches to the Gold Piece Thing. Pick one and run with it.

[Drakkoniss]

Well, I can certainly respect that point of view, Korvin. Mind you, I believe the role of the adventurer is somewhat variable based on setting and person-- that not every one necessarily goes about the adventure for the same reason. However, you are free to think whatever you want.

As you say, that particular aspect of things certainly has been around since before any settings were fleshed out and storylines were yet to be produced for the game-- when game centered completely around the dungeon and characters were much more liable to be killed and replaced than they are now.

Thus it is certainly an acceptable paradigm to operate under.

Mind you, I was not in fact disagreeing with the wealth motive for (many) characters. I was simply suggesting that they may not be successful in their endeavor immediately after they set off, and that they might not be overly wealthy before their scheme begins.

[jjordan]

The economy can be whatever you want it to be. Doing a straight conversion from modern prices to PHB is inaccurate but very accessible to players and makes it easier for the DM to be consistent (which helps minimize the amount of disbelief the players must suspend and makes it faster for the DM to improvise). Doing a painstaking set-up based on research in some earlier period of human history (e.g. The Middle Ages) will also be inaccurate in many ways as well as being less accessible/understandable to players. I've done both. Neither was great but they were all good enough for what I needed. I've got no specific criticisms of your work. The prices of weapons are a bit off, but others have done a good job of pointing that out.

[Drakkoniss]

Your input is very much appreciated, jjordan, though I do not agree with you on one matter: The pricing of the weapons being off is something that I am aware is likely still the case, as you're saying, but I actually don't think it's been addressed enough.

Could you potentially specify a bit more what you mean by that?

[MaxWilson]

I should note that with regards to liches, I actually disagree with you, though: they have good reason to want to keep money insofar as, while it might be dangerous, they can procure magical items and spell ingredients via coinage, should the setting and personality of the lich allow. It could also be useful for paying off individuals to make such journeys into settlements to acquire these, should they not want to risk going, themselves. Thus, while they may not care about the wealth, personally, it could be useful to them. This is only one example in which that might prove to be the case. They certainly wouldn't have hoards of a comparable level to dragons, however-- at least in gold. They are likely to have much more in the way of magic items and especially books and gems.

I'm not sure you actually disagree with me at all, given that we both think they would keep more of their wealth in magic, books, gems, and (in my case) other stuff like legal deeds and ownership in corporations (if capitalism is at all a thing in that setting). Would a lich keep some valuable gems and maybe a few thousand gold in petty cash? Sure!

But would it keep roughly 320,000 gp sitting around in gold and platinum, per DMG page 139? 3/4 of a ton of valuable coins just sitting in a big pile somewhere? I can't believe that a lich would do that.

[Drakkoniss]

Not unless they had a habit of using magic to create art from their spare "material." :P

(Fabricate is a heck of a spell.)

But yes, it would seem that it was a misinterpretation on my part, regarding what you were saying. I was thinking you were characterizing liches as shunning material wealth in general. I am sure there are some who do just that, but regardless... indeed, we seem to agree in general understanding.

[Unoriginal]

So okay, maybe there really is a mining industry devoted purely to minting gold coins to pay off dragons with. But then why do monsters like Balors and liches also accumulate hundreds of thousands of gp? Unlike dragons, they have no pathological love of gold for the sake of gold. Why do they buy into the golden-treasure-hoard economy?

Balors are basically planar high nobility, and liches accumulate the treasures of those they kill.


I fully agree that the majority of their riches shouldn't be gold or even coinage, however.

[KorvinStarmast]

Mind you, I was not in fact disagreeing with the wealth motive for (many) characters. I was simply suggesting that they may not be successful in their endeavor immediately after they set off, and that they might not be overly wealthy before their scheme begins. I responded due to how your phrased that "should" bit. I suspect that we may agree on a variety of things more than we disagree. I am aware that some core assumptions have been upended in WoTC's time as the overseer of D&D ... which is a root cause of the OSR movement growing in popularity. :smallcool: (I enjoy 5e a lot since it folds in the feel of multiple editions ... not an easy goal to achieve).

The games coins to things relationship meets the "good enough" standard for game play.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The games coins to things relationship meets the "good enough" standard for game play.

And that, for me, is the key fact. Is it perfect? No. Is there even such a thing as universally perfect? No. But every change I see makes it worse for play. Adding a drop of verisimilitude at the cost of a gallon of slow play (or even a drop in my opinion) isn't worth it at all.

[MaxWilson]

Balors are basically planar high nobility, and liches accumulate the treasures of those they kill.

I fully agree that the majority of their riches shouldn't be gold or even coinage, however.

Sounds like we agree.