Fotget about the treasure and pricing system of 5E!

[jas61292]

Except that your argument is invalid when an adventuring NPC wizard is able to make the 9th level spell scroll just as easily as the dedicated craftsman... who is also capable of casting 9th level spells somehow.

I'm not saying it needs to be at the level of 3.x rulesets, but yes, I would expect that a game where X occurs, X is achievable by both PC and NPCs.

Who says the adventuring NPC wizard can make the scroll? That goes right back to what I said. Them simply being NPCs doesn't grant them that capability. Rather, they have that ability only if the DM deems it appropriate for them. And if your DM gives that ability to "you but an NPC," but doesn't let you have it, that's a DM problem, not a rules problem.

The point of NPCs not following PC rules is that they are not assumed to be adventurers. NPC Wizard Bob is not able to create 9th level scrolls because he is equivalent to a 17th level caster. No, NPC Wizard Bob can create 9th level scrolls because he retired from adventuring decades ago and has been honing his scroll creation ability ever since. He's just as useless as the PC when it comes to brewing complex potions or crafting magical hats, because those are not the NPCs area of expertise.

But yes, an NPC the DM creates that is a master magical craftsman will be... a master magical craftsman. And that is not a skill an adventurer can get by adventuring.

[Mikal]

Who says the adventuring NPC wizard can make the scroll? That goes right back to what I said. Them simply being NPCs doesn't grant them that capability. Rather, they have that ability only if the DM deems it appropriate for them. And if your DM gives that ability to "you but an NPC," but doesn't let you have it, that's a DM problem, not a rules problem.

If one type of caster is using rules X to make item Y, all casters of that type should use rule X to make item Y. Why should a PC get a "tax" of tens or hundreds of thousands of gold pieces to make a single 9th level spell scroll that an NPC doesn't?

The point of NPCs not following PC rules is that they are not assumed to be adventurers. NPC Wizard Bob is not able to create 9th level scrolls because he is equivalent to a 17th level caster. No, NPC Wizard Bob can create 9th level scrolls because he retired from adventuring decades ago and has been honing his scroll creation ability ever since. He's just as useless as the PC when it comes to brewing complex potions or crafting magical hats, because those are not the NPCs area of expertise.

Or, instead of creating a bunch of mental gymnastics into how that retirement somehow lets the craftsmen avoid paying tens to hundreds of thousands of gold pieces to make a single spell scroll, we have a ruleset that allows both NPCs and PCs equal footing in creation of said spell scrolls?

But yes, an NPC the DM creates that is a master magical craftsman will be... a master magical craftsman. And that is not a skill an adventurer can get by adventuring.

I'd still love to hear how being a craftsman automagically saves you several dragon horde's worth of treasure whenever you make a single spell scroll though.

[Willie the Duck]

Except that your argument is invalid when an adventuring NPC wizard is able to make the 9th level spell scroll just as easily as the dedicated craftsman... who is also capable of casting 9th level spells somehow.

Why? What about that scenario makes the argument invalid?

I'm not saying it needs to be at the level of 3.x rulesets, but yes, I would expect that a game where X occurs, X is achievable by both PC and NPCs.

Yes, that is a preference that you have. In which case a very deliberate design conceit, that was only not the case in D&D for 1-2 editions (I don't remember how it works in 4e), does not fit your preferences.

[Mikal]

Why? What about that scenario makes the argument invalid?

Because he was saying in one part that it's a difference in NPCs vs. PCs, and used an example of a dedicated craftsman... despite that an adventuring NPC by default would also be able to make the items as easily as the craftsman.

Specifically

NPCs don't follow PC rules because PC rules are for adventurers.

Yes, that is a preference that you have. In which case a very deliberate design conceit, that was only not the case in D&D for 1-2 editions (I don't remember how it works in 4e), does not fit your preferences.

Yes. My preferences and many other people's preferences as well. Else this thread, and the dozens of others on this board and hundreds (thousands?) elsewhere would not exist.

And a preference that is sorely lacking for everyone who made those threads, or other threads about custom item costs and creation rules, and so on.

[jas61292]

If one type of caster is using rules X to make item Y, all casters of that type should use rule X to make item Y. Why should a PC get a "tax" of tens or hundreds of thousands of gold pieces to make a single 9th level spell scroll that an NPC doesn't?

That is 3.x thinking that I and many others fundamentally disagree with. The rules for two different people doing the same thing do not have to be the same when there is substantial differences between who and what the characters are. The rules are not a physics engine for the world, and them not working identically for everyone is a feature, because not everyone in the world is an adventurer.

Or, instead of creating a bunch of mental gymnastics into how that retirement somehow lets the craftsmen avoid paying tens to hundreds of thousands of gold pieces to make a single spell scroll, we have a ruleset that allows both NPCs and PCs equal footing in creation of said spell scrolls?

I'd still love to hear how being a craftsman automagically saves you several dragon horde's worth of treasure whenever you make a single spell scroll though.

Or, if you must have an explanation, you assume that the level of expertise a dedicated craftsman has allows them to create things for less, and that the numbers provided in the optional crafting rules have the costs of expected errors due to lack of expertise built in.

Besides, are you tracking NPC wealth? Who cares what it costs them. It's irrelevant to gameplay.

[Mikal]

That is 3.x thinking that I and many others fundamentally disagree with. The rules for two different people doing the same thing do not have to be the same when there is substantial differences between who and what the characters are. The rules are not a physics engine for the world, and them not working identically for everyone is a feature, because not everyone in the world is an adventurer.

Great, so explain to me how Wizard A can make a 9th level scroll for say... 1,000 gp, while the PC who actually is a better wizard must spend 500,000.

Or, if you must have an explanation, you assume that the level of expertise a dedicated craftsman has allows them to create things for less, and that the numbers provided in the optional crafting rules have the costs of expected errors due to lack of expertise built in.

Great. Now instead of adventuring, my wizard PCs retire to a small laboratory to save hundreds of thousands to millions of gold pieces in expenses, and my campaign is thrown into chaos because NPCs get things PCs don't that said PCs should logically get as well. Yeah... I think it's better if both types of characters had a more even playing field, personally.

Besides, are you tracking NPC wealth? Who cares what it costs them. It's irrelevant to gameplay.

If they're making items which would cost several hundred thousand to several million gp, and are actually making said items? Yes.
Just like I don't put monsters in a specific dungeon room without a reason, I make sure any NPCs who are making items which cost X amount have the resources to do so, and have those resources change accordingly.

Allows those investigation based PCs something to chew on if they're trying to link Lord Whoever to the Death Cult when they realize that the resources he has are being lowered in an amount commensurate with what was needed to build the Altar they smashed last week before it summoned the Pit Fiends. And that's not the only way for the PCs to find this out. I run a sandbox, living world with several ways for PCs to inventively find things should they try, with interconnectivity vs. DM fiat and/or railroading.

If you're just murder-hoboing your way through life as an adventurer, granted, it's irrelevant to gameplay to keep track of NPC net worth except at the time of their death by PC hands, but as I stated, I don't just go from raid to raid with my group when I DM.

[Mister_Squinty]

Most real people wouldn't hurl themselves into the claws of a dragon, either

No argument. That's why most of my character history is concerned with why this particular idiot is running around the countryside with a sharp pointy object instead of working on a farm, in a village, etc.

Giving adventurers significant wealth is just asking the characters to question their motivations for the risk and discomfort adventuring brings.

[EvilAnagram]

Great, so explain to me how Wizard A can make a 9th level scroll for say... 1,000 gp, while the PC who actually is a better wizard must spend 500,000.

Why should there be 9th-level spell scrolls lying around? Those should require significant investment as legendary items. There's no reason to quantify the resources that an NPC would need to make it, but there should be an understanding that these should be legendary items and correspondingly rare.

[Mikal]

Why should there be 9th-level spell scrolls lying around? Those should require significant investment as legendary items. There's no reason to quantify the resources that an NPC would need to make it, but there should be an understanding that these should be legendary items and correspondingly rare.

This goes back to my original question- why would anyone bother to do this? That was the original question that got sidetracked into NPC/PC rule differences.

What is the point of them? And you can't say they don't exist RAW... because you can roll for them in random hordes, and there are rules for their cost and creation. Despite the fact writing it into a spellbook is a lot easier, faster, and cheaper method of preserving/copying it.

That's the issue here. The rules have nothing on which to logically spend money on. You can either run a business that will most often than not make you lose money, thus you should never spend money on it. The rules show that any sort of actual magic item you may ever want to commission or create more than a single time are prohibitively expensive in such a manner that no one would ever bother spending their money on them, and the lifestyles are so cheap that they will never make a dent in your actual money.

So... again. What's the point of it? It's essentially useless, unless you make house rules on what to spend it on. House rules which many DMs don't have time to create with any degree of ability beyond again, tossing crap against the wall and hoping it sticks. And it's an issue that could have been alleviated by having slightly more comprehensive rules on how to build things, take land grants and make castles, or logical creation rules for consumable objects vs. a Vorpal Sword.

5E is supposed to be a game with a lot of freedom for its players, and a lot of agency. It's hard to have agency when there are no mechanical rules to help support that. Unless again... murder-hobo. In which case 5e is perfect for that style of play as is. But some of us want a little more. And there is a lot of middle ground between 5e as it stands now and the 3.5 rulesets regarding complexity, and no reason not to go there. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it, but for those of use who do like it, it would be good to have.

[ZorroGames]

Let me save you stress. Arrange for it to be transported to my “banned as no longer being recognized as Dwarfs because of sorcerous affliation with dragons” Dankil Clan care of Flint Dankil who currently is using downtime to recover and to support the younger adventurer Dankils on mission in Chult.

There, wasn’t that easy? And for a good cause.



The Dankil Clan shall toast your name (using your gold to buy the ale) to honor your generosity.

Edit: Will that be in coinage, gemstones or jewelry form for payment?

Hey there,

we are currently at the very end of the campaign "Princes of the Apocalypse". Our characters are level 13 and we have dozens of thousands of gold, but we don't know on what to spend our money. The treasure system is broken. Prices are even more broken. Gold is worth nothing, if you can't by anything useful for that. The only way to get rid of gold is, if your DM finds a way to "burn it all for some hypocritical reason" like offering you a Castle for an insane, unplausible amount of gold. If you don't believe me, read Angry GM's article.

In our case, we decided to give gold at least a tiny bit of usage and offer only magic consumables in a very limited amount for purchase. Therefore, the first problem we had to deal with was that there is A LOT of inconsistency between prices. We started using Sane Magic Item Prices to have more realistic prices that depend on the item's power, not its rarity. Though this system is far away from being perfect, it is much more consistent than RAW. Furthermore, I created Faerûn's Vendors - A flexible vendor system for magic consumables to provide a transparent ruling system that can easily be adjusted to fit for the DM's purpose.

But that's only one side of the coin. The other problem is that players accumulate hundrets of thousands of gold. During a 20 level campaign they are supposed to earn over 3.2 million(!!) GP. You don't believe me? Have a look at this article about game math. So, if you want to make buying items not only available, but also interesting, you need to force players to make decisions on what to spend their money. This is the other side of the coin: preventing characters from swimming within an insane amount of money, that allows them to buy anything they want to - regardless of the price. If you lower their treasure, they will buy items with care. And even if they have less coins, they will be satisfied, because their so hard earned money is worth more than ever before!

The questions is, how to distribute a reasonable amount of money to players. The DMG provides dozens of treasure tables for gems, art, items, consumables and, of course, gold. But as I said, the system is broken and therefore useless. Concerning this, I want to quote a passage from the Angry GM's article, I already mentioned:



Applying rules for treasure distribution that are obviously broken is even worse than applying no rules at all. In another forum someone posted a treasure table that estimated the average amount of treasure handed to the players while applying the rules of the DMG. The table is included within this article. I already mentioned that the amount earmed by party during their 20 level career is 3.2 million GP by RAW. Within this thread we talked about adjusting this insane amount by applyng lower multiplicators between the differet tier levels. That would allow the DM to lower the outcome to an amount that better fits his idea of treasure distribution (e.g. the default multiplicator is 10. If you lower it to 5 the characters would only earn ~500.000 GP in their career).

It felt good for a moment, but after I thought about it for a while I asked myself: Why on earth should I ever fix a broken system for treasure distribution that is related to a pricing system that is also broken? The answer was: It makes no sense at all. A pricing system that sells Glue for 50.000+ GP, but a Sentinal Shield for only 100-500 GP is ridiculous. So, fixing the treasure distribution won't solve the problem, because it is related to the pricing system that is also broken.

After all that, I agree to Angry GM that the whole treasure distribution system is a lie and not worth the work. Firstly, if I need to spend so much work to adjust a system, only to match my personal idea of treasure ditribution, I can easily give away treasure by my own system. Secondly, if I already know how much I want to give away to my players, there is no reason to start calculating this amount to solely fit into a table of a broken system.

---

In conclusion: If you also have problems with treasure distribution, I suggest to do the following:

1.) Become aware of how much treasure you want to distribute for each level. This depends on what you want your players to be able to afford. You also want to ask yourself, if there are some elements to "burn money" like building Strongholds, etc. Don't panic, now that you are using your own distribution, you will always be able to adjust the wealth of your group. In my case, I allow my party to buy a very limited amount of magic consumables. I looked up Sane Magic Item Prices and found out an amount that suits my purpose.

2.) Delete all gemstones and art objects from treasure. If you and your group care as less about that as my group does, don't think about it. Just do it. Gemstones and art objects are only useful to be converted into cash (except reviving diamonds). So, I suggestion to make your DM life easier and don't care for it. Of course, if your players have fun in collecting art for their home base, you might want to go on with it - otherwise don't.

3.) Divide treasure up to several parcels and determine where you want them to be found in the advanture. Consider that you can always add potions and scrolls to your parcels as you want to. If you are running a official WotC campaign, you could also only replace the amount of gold (including gems and art objects) and leave the rest of the treasure as it is. Just do it, as you wish to.

---

Doing so is much easier than trying to hand out treasure according to the rules, only because you fear to break the game balance. There is no balance. Accept it. You will see that your DM life will become less complicated, because you can forget about those dozens tables that have made your life so hard.

Kind regards!

[jas61292]

Great, so explain to me how Wizard A can make a 9th level scroll for say... 1,000 gp, while the PC who actually is a better wizard must spend 500,000.

Because being a better wizard is irrelevant. Wizards cast spells. They do not craft items. The better craftsman is better at crafting. Not the better wizard.

Great. Now instead of adventuring, my wizard PCs retire to a small laboratory to save hundreds of thousands to millions of gold pieces in expenses, and my campaign is thrown into chaos because NPCs get things PCs don't that said PCs should logically get as well.

1. Ceasing to be a PC doesn't make you better at crafting. Maybe you could be eventually, but it is not the moniker of PC that limits your crafting skill. Rather it is the fact that your job as a PC is adventurer, not craftsman.

2. Sure, go ahead and retire. Maybe eventually the character will be better at crafting. But the character is no longer your PC. They are an NPC. Roll up a new character so we can get back to adventuring. Simply put, crafting is not designed to be something an adventurer is good at. It is a profession, and you don't get better at it by delving dungeons and killing monsters. And 5e is about adventurers.

[Mikal]

Because being a better wizard is irrelevant. Wizards cast spells. They do not craft items. The better craftsman is better at crafting. Not the better wizard.

So even if the better wizard also has the scribe/sage type of background, and has spent several tens or hundreds of thousands of GP already to have tutors teach him how to scribe and provide him a workstation as good as a scribe? All while being both smarter and more magically powerful?

What then?

1. Ceasing to be a PC doesn't make you better at crafting. Maybe you could be eventually, but it is not the moniker of PC that limits your crafting skill. Rather it is the fact that your job as a PC is adventurer, not craftsman.

Except the rules don't support that. The only divide is PC/NPC. Even if the PC should, by all rights, be as skilled if not more skilled than the craftsman (perhaps an elf who spent a century learning the art prior to becoming a wizard (perhaps as part of his apprenticeship?), and who keeps up with it during downtime), the NPC will always have the advantage because the rules say that the PC needs to spend years and hundreds of thousands of gold pieces to make that scroll while the NPC... doesn't.

And if the NPC does follow the same rules as the PC in creating those items, then why would anyone make that kind of effort for a one use item? Especially for something which can be created for the same price and effort?

Ex. Scroll of Wish vs. Ring of Three Wishes.
Both are legendary. Both require the same amount of work per RAW as legendary items.
One is usable once, and only by spellcasters who have it on their list, with a chance of failure if you're not strong enough to cast that spell normally.
One is usable three times, by anyone wearing it. I don't think you even need to attune it.

Ex. 2. Casting a 5th level spell you rarely use into a Ring of Spell Storing you created vs. creating scrolls of that spell.
Both have the same rarity.
One is usable once, and then has to be remade.
The other is infinitely reusable, as long as you "prime" it beforehand.
What's the point in making the scroll?

2. Sure, go ahead and retire. Maybe eventually the character will be better at crafting. But the character is no longer your PC. They are an NPC. Roll up a new character so we can get back to adventuring. Simply put, crafting is not designed to be something an adventurer is good at. It is a profession, and you don't get better at it by delving dungeons and killing monsters.

So in other words, instead of allowing player agency, you'd just send them off to the farm somewhere.
That is a failure in the 5e system, unless your only desire out of it is to murder-hobo and horde lots of gold with nothing to do with it besides stare at it.

[lkwpeter]

If you read this thread, please keep in mind:

My intention: My post was some kind of personal summary from another forum, where we discussed the problem of treasure distribution over several pages and there seemed to be a lot of agreement. My aim was to share this with you. I realized that doing so without the background of the previous discussion was negligent, because a lot of people don't seem to understand the problem I am talking about - either because they didn't look up the sources I linked for proving my thesis or because they didn't understand what's exactly the point.

Understanding the problem: I was quite surprised reading replies that stated that there wasn't a problem because "There is no problem of having too much money, because I like wealthy lifestyles" or "there are homebrew systems that could give money a purpose" (buying magic items is not intended by RAW). In both cases, people told me how they dealt with the problem and sold it as if there were no problem. It's like denying that there is a lack of infracstructure for blind people in urban areas with the answer that "blind people could buy themselves a guide dog". The problem is NOT not to have a guide dog. The problem is the lack of infrastructure. Unfortunately, this is something some people don't get.

My thesis was that there is a huge mismatch between the income of adventurers (3.2 million gold) and the possibilities to spend it (trivial costs, etc.). Therefore, it's unnecessary that 5E provides dozens of tables to make the DM believe, he needs to be careful giving away treasure to the adventurers, although there is nothing to spend it on. To point this out: A DM could also reward his party with 10 million gold per encounter without spending a minute on thinking about it. It would have the same effect. The party wouldn't be able to spend most of it (besides those trivial adventuring costs). Of course, a DM can always implement some mechanics for "burning money" like Strongholds, Castles, etc. But this is already intervention and misses the point. And that leads me to the supposition that the system is broken, because it shouldn't rely on such intervention.

To whom I am talking: If you interpret my posting as being unpolite or so, just keep in mind that I am not talking to you personally. I don't intend any offense. I am just blaming the rules for being inconsistent. That's it. Furthermore, English is not my mother language (as you already might have noticed reading my posts). So, this also might be a reason. I will try my best to avoid the rough edge.

[PhoenixPhyre]

lwkpeter, you're still assuming the existence of a problem. It's only a problem if you decide it's one (or if your group decides it's one). Yes, money is relatively meaningless after low levels. That's a fact, not a problem (or a virtue). It's just a thing. Personally, I find having to deal with money annoying. Same thing with logistics. They don't fit the type of game I'm interested in running

My guide-post is does the presence of a rule or mechanic for X help me (and my group) have fun?

IF AND ONLY IF the answer to this is yes do I worry about implementation details. In this case, I've played games with such mechanics and without, and find the ones that don't sweat it more fun. That is, I'm claiming that having a mechanically-effective way of spending cash is unnecessary for me. On the contrary, I have yet to see a mechanically-effective money sink be anything other that a) game-breaking due to exploits or b) an upgrade treadmill (numbers get better, but you're locked on this path--any deviation means the system falls apart). Both of those are annoying to me.

As I see it, mechanical ways to spend money break into a few categories:

a) Items/power upgrades. This leads to the upgrade treadmill or brokenness real fast, as either the system math has to account for it or is unable to cope with it.

b) Forced money sinks. In MMOs, this is repair/ammo costs. Not so fun, and quite boring as a TTRPG mechanic.

c) Strongholds/businesses/non-combat followers. These are trickier. Either they sit in the background and are for accounting purposes, or they tend to create division between the party members. After all, only one person can be the Lord of that castle. Either everybody's doing their own thing (the wizard in his tower, the fighter with his troops, the cleric in the church, etc) in which case you have N individual parties, not one coherent party (and this makes for very limited and annoying spotlight sharing) or you have one "main person" and everyone else is just following along with them in a supporting role. Having followers also tends to lead to table bloat--either they're off-camera (in which case the original problem returns) or they're taking valuable table time away from the player characters (not good).

d) Extremely reduced treasures. This is a resource sink, just in reverse. Here, you're gating combat capability (items, potions, etc) behind completing N successful adventures. This leads to the same issues as a), since it's the same idea. It's super fragile or leads to a fixed treadmill where you run and run but don't gain any relative power.

Am I missing any options? Any that don't share these problems?

[KorvinStarmast]

Agreed, and my only response is that various TSR edition games did have price lists for luxury goods, commodities, "dancing girls," and so forth, and at least 51% of the gaming audience seemed to have considered it fill material one flipped past to get to the crunch part of the game.

I don't know where you came up with that percentage, since at our tables we used most of the tables, eventually.

D&D is burdened by having multiple audiences (whom often have directly contradictory expectations)

To include a lot of video game players who don't understand recursion. (Yes, I may have started in D&D but I enjoyed me some Diablo, I did!)

I thoroughly hope that eventually there is an official 5e "Castlebuilders Guide" or somesuch.

Yeah, the 2e castle building book was pretty good. Would love to see a 5e version of that.

What's wrong with the current pricing of magic items? I enjoy seeing my players scrape together every scrap of wealth they have acquired to buy an Oathbow for the Ranger after the merchant agrees to sell it at half price for a favor. Why, my players just walked away with one rare and two uncommon magic items, plus a healing potion. It only cost them everything they had and some solid rolls, and now they feel much better going into the last leg of the campaign, where told riches await (told riches are much more reliable than untold riches).
I like how difficult it is to acquire a decent magic item. It makes them much more rewarding when the players get them.

Amen, deacon.

To answer the OP:

High level spells cost you gems. Take the gold and covert a lot of it to gems to be Used During Play when casting those spells that require gems.
Let me offer you a few examples of spells with expensive components:
Awaken: 1000GP gem
Augury: 25 GP gemsticks/tokens/etc
Contingency: 1500 GP gem/statue/ivory
Heroes Feast: 1000 GP value gem encrusted bowl
Imprisonment: 500 GP per HP of the target depiction of; the bigger the target in CR, the more expensive ....
Magic Jar: 500 GP gem
Simulacrum: 1500 GP worth of Ruby Dust
True Resurrection: 25,000 GP diamond dust
Resurrection 1000 GP Diamond
Raise Dead: 500 GP diamond
OK, I hope you get the picture.

The other thing GP is good for is paying for information.
Where can I find a magical sword? Well, after spending a bit of money on bribes and on a sage who specializes in history, we find that on an island in the eastern ocean is legend of a sword called flame tongue in the hoard of a blue dragon ... the only way to get a ship captain to get you close enough to that island for you to plunder it is to pay him 15, 000, since he's worried that this voyage could be his last should the dragon be awake ...

Here is my assessment of your actual problem.
You don't lack things to do with gold, your table collectively seems to lack imagination. (DM included)\

This Isn't A Video Game.

[Meta]

I'm pretty sure once a caster in a given game world can cast Simulacrum, said game world's magic item economy is about to be upended anyways. Putting your simulacrums to work in a magic item factory is mundane but very effective.

I would say don't focus too hard on the specific numbers, they fall apart. Our group has decided that the time it takes to create a magic item is:

PC level X 100 GP progress per day worked.

When you hit the worth of the item (as listed in the downtime UA) you finish.

[jas61292]

So in other words, instead of allowing player agency, you'd just send them off to the farm somewhere.
That is a failure in the 5e system, unless your only desire out of it is to murder-hobo and horde lots of gold with nothing to do with it besides stare at it.

Basically, your problem is that you want 5e to be something it is not. 5e is a game about adventurers going on adventures. It is not a "fantasy life simulator." Yes, the crafting rules are awkward. But that is because it is an optional addition not baked into the core game.

The default assumption is not that it takes thousands of gold and many years to make items. Rather it's that PCs cannot make magic items, period. In fact, magic items (if they even exist, being optional themselves), exist only as the DM wants them to, whether that means they were made by an ancient civilization, by gods, by powerful magical creatures, or, yes, by dedicated craftsmen.

And if the DM so chooses for them to exist and PCs to be able to make them, it is completely up to them to determine what makes any NPCs as good or better than the PCs. And simply saying that a PC who is adventuring simply cannot gain the skill to compare to such a craftsman is perfectly fine. If you want to say that you should be able to become as good if you train the same way, that is fine. But if you train that way, you are likely no longer a 5e PC, because 5e PCs are adventurers.

[mephnick]

Basically, your problem is that you want 5e to be something it is not.

Probably 90% of the problems people have with D&D is trying to force a game style that is better served by other systems. There is a reason a monumental variety of very specific systems exist: to achieve specific design goals that other systems do not meet. Do your research and play a game that isn't designed around wilderness and dungeon adventures. It's not a hard concept.

People who want to raid dark forests and volcanos while killing monsters during a resource grinding adventuring day, here's D&D.

[Mikal]

Probably 90% of the problems people have with D&D is trying to force a game style that is better served by other systems. There is a reason a monumental variety of very specific systems exist: to achieve specific design goals that other systems do not meet. Do your research and play a game that isn't designed around wilderness and dungeon adventures. It's not a hard concept.

People who want to raid dark forests and volcanos while killing monsters during a resource grinding adventuring day, here's D&D.

It's strange though- people are fine with it when it comes to stuff like "I don't use swords but want to look like I'm using one, can I refluff a hand-axe?" and "I want to have a monk use longswords, but I don't want to be a Kensei, can I refluff a shortsword as a longsword?" but not when it comes to people wanting to have something more than "Go here. Kill this. Take that. Wash, rinse, repeat."

[Knaight]

This thread shows how we ended up with Pathfinder and how a large portion of the player base demands more and more details and complexity.

Games much lighter than D&D 5e (which is not a rules light game by any stretch of the imagination) have managed to avoid these problems just fine. Using the 5e economic system involves spending a lot of time doing accounting to figure out the exact details of your pile of money; most of this money is then basically decorative excess because there's so much of it that everything needed can be easily covered while living lavishly with only a fraction, and using it involved finding money sinks.

Meanwhile in REIGN you spend no time doing accounting and can find real uses for that giant pile of money that aren't just equipment upgrades. It's hardly the only example.

But no, instead every criticism of 5e must be met with the specter of Pathfinder, or with the deflection that other editions have the same problem, or with attacking the fault finders with being inferior role players. That WotC might have erred in the design is just impossible.

[EvilAnagram]

I think a lot of the confusion I'm seeing comes from people assuming that magic item creation is about profit. At least in 5e, most magic items are not made with the intent to sell them. No one makes a rare, very rare, or legendary items in order to sell them, or else they would not be rare. The reason they are so costly to make is that they are made for use, not for purchasing or selling.

"Well, what about scrolls and potions," I hear the clamoring hordes shout. Not everything someone makes finds use when they intend it. Perhaps a wizard made a 7th-level spell scroll for a companion, but that companion died violently before he had the chance to use it. Perhaps that wizard made it as a paranoia-fueled back-up plan, but he died peacefully of an aneurysm in his tower with all its defenses still active. Maybe an alchemist put everything into making a potion, only for it to be stolen by brigands. Over the years, it has exchanged hands as a curiosity, but it has never found use. After all, who would be daft enough to drink the value of the shire?

Magic itemp should be ancillary to the economy?

I'm pretty sure once a caster in a given game world can cast Simulacrum, said game world's magic item economy is about to be upended anyways. Putting your simulacrums to work in a magic item factory is mundane but very effective.

I would say don't focus too hard on the specific numbers, they fall apart. Our group has decided that the time it takes to create a magic item is:

PC level X 100 GP progress per day worked.

When you hit the worth of the item (as listed in the downtime UA) you finish.

A simulacrum is incredibly expensive all by itself, and it does not reduce the cost of creating magic items at all. Time, certainly, but not cost.

[Waazraath]

Hey there,

we are currently at the very end of the campaign "Princes of the Apocalypse". Our characters are level 13 and we have dozens of thousands of gold, but we don't know on what to spend our money. The treasure system is broken. Prices are even more broken. Gold is worth nothing, if you can't by anything useful for that. The only way to get rid of gold is, if your DM finds a way to "burn it all for some hypocritical reason" like offering you a Castle for an insane, unplausible amount of gold. If you don't believe me, read Angry GM's article.

In our case, we decided to give gold at least a tiny bit of usage and offer only magic consumables in a very limited amount for purchase. Therefore, the first problem we had to deal with was that there is A LOT of inconsistency between prices. We started using Sane Magic Item Prices to have more realistic prices that depend on the item's power, not its rarity. Though this system is far away from being perfect, it is much more consistent than RAW. Furthermore, I created Faerûn's Vendors - A flexible vendor system for magic consumables to provide a transparent ruling system that can easily be adjusted to fit for the DM's purpose.

But that's only one side of the coin. The other problem is that players accumulate hundrets of thousands of gold. During a 20 level campaign they are supposed to earn over 3.2 million(!!) GP. You don't believe me? Have a look at this article about game math. So, if you want to make buying items not only available, but also interesting, you need to force players to make decisions on what to spend their money. This is the other side of the coin: preventing characters from swimming within an insane amount of money, that allows them to buy anything they want to - regardless of the price. If you lower their treasure, they will buy items with care. And even if they have less coins, they will be satisfied, because their so hard earned money is worth more than ever before!

The questions is, how to distribute a reasonable amount of money to players. The DMG provides dozens of treasure tables for gems, art, items, consumables and, of course, gold. But as I said, the system is broken and therefore useless. Concerning this, I want to quote a passage from the Angry GM's article, I already mentioned:



Applying rules for treasure distribution that are obviously broken is even worse than applying no rules at all. In another forum someone posted a treasure table that estimated the average amount of treasure handed to the players while applying the rules of the DMG. The table is included within this article. I already mentioned that the amount earmed by party during their 20 level career is 3.2 million GP by RAW. Within this thread we talked about adjusting this insane amount by applyng lower multiplicators between the differet tier levels. That would allow the DM to lower the outcome to an amount that better fits his idea of treasure distribution (e.g. the default multiplicator is 10. If you lower it to 5 the characters would only earn ~500.000 GP in their career).

It felt good for a moment, but after I thought about it for a while I asked myself: Why on earth should I ever fix a broken system for treasure distribution that is related to a pricing system that is also broken? The answer was: It makes no sense at all. A pricing system that sells Glue for 50.000+ GP, but a Sentinal Shield for only 100-500 GP is ridiculous. So, fixing the treasure distribution won't solve the problem, because it is related to the pricing system that is also broken.

After all that, I agree to Angry GM that the whole treasure distribution system is a lie and not worth the work. Firstly, if I need to spend so much work to adjust a system, only to match my personal idea of treasure ditribution, I can easily give away treasure by my own system. Secondly, if I already know how much I want to give away to my players, there is no reason to start calculating this amount to solely fit into a table of a broken system.

---

In conclusion: If you also have problems with treasure distribution, I suggest to do the following:

1.) Become aware of how much treasure you want to distribute for each level. This depends on what you want your players to be able to afford. You also want to ask yourself, if there are some elements to "burn money" like building Strongholds, etc. Don't panic, now that you are using your own distribution, you will always be able to adjust the wealth of your group. In my case, I allow my party to buy a very limited amount of magic consumables. I looked up Sane Magic Item Prices and found out an amount that suits my purpose.

2.) Delete all gemstones and art objects from treasure. If you and your group care as less about that as my group does, don't think about it. Just do it. Gemstones and art objects are only useful to be converted into cash (except reviving diamonds). So, I suggestion to make your DM life easier and don't care for it. Of course, if your players have fun in collecting art for their home base, you might want to go on with it - otherwise don't.

3.) Divide treasure up to several parcels and determine where you want them to be found in the advanture. Consider that you can always add potions and scrolls to your parcels as you want to. If you are running a official WotC campaign, you could also only replace the amount of gold (including gems and art objects) and leave the rest of the treasure as it is. Just do it, as you wish to.

---

Doing so is much easier than trying to hand out treasure according to the rules, only because you fear to break the game balance. There is no balance. Accept it. You will see that your DM life will become less complicated, because you can forget about those dozens tables that have made your life so hard.

Kind regards!

---

Postscript:

If you read this thread, please keep the following in mind:

My intention: My post was some kind of personal summary from another forum, where we discussed the problem of treasure distribution over several pages and there seemed to be a lot of agreement. My aim was to share this with you. I realized that doing so without the background of the previous discussion was negligent, because a lot of people don't seem to understand the problem I am talking about - either because they didn't look up the sources I linked for proving my thesis or because they didn't understand what's exactly the point.

Understanding the problem: I was quite surprised reading replies like "There is no problem of having too much money, because I like wealthy lifestyles." or "In my campaign people can buy magic items, so there is a need for lots of money." (buying items is not intended by RAW). In both cases, people told me how they dealt with the problem and sold it as if there were no problem. It's like denying that there is a lack of infracstructure for blind people in urban areas with the answer that "blind people could buy themselves a guide dog". The problem is NOT not have a guide dog. The problem is the lack of infrastructure. Unfortunately, this is something some people don't get.

My thesis was that there is a huge mismatch between the income of adventurers (3.2 million gold) and the possibilities to spend it (trivial costs, etc.). Therefore, it's unnecessary that 5E provides dozens of tables to make the DM believe, he needs to be careful giving away treasure to the adventurers, although there is nothing to spend it on. To point this out: A DM could also reward his party with 10 million gold per encounter without spending a minute on thinking about it. It would have the same effect. The party wouldn't be able to spend most of it (besides those trivial adventuring costs). Of course, a DM can always implement some mechanics for "burning money" like Strongholds, Castles, etc. But this is already intervention and misses the point. And that leads me to the supposition that the system is broken, because it shouldn't rely on such intervention.

To whom I am talking: If you interpret my posting as being unpolite or so, just keep in mind that I am not talking to you personally. I don't intend any offense. I am just blaming the rules for being inconsistent. That's it. Furthermore, English is not my mother language (as you already might have noticed reading my posts). So, this also might be a reason. I will try my best to avoid the rough edge.

As for AngryGM's post: sorry, couldn't finish it. The writing style is too tedious, too "oh so hard trying to write angry/funny" without being able to really do it in a funny way. As for what I've seen of the argument in the different posts: personally, it doesn't bother me. I like, as a player, to get interesting treasure, other than an arbritarily number of gc. In my games, people play on those golden harps, wear those 1000+gc noble garments to parties, or spend half their fortunes on gambling, whoring and boozing. Whatever fits the character. The tables I played with even did so in 3.x, when treasure actually was supposed to be be transfered in another +1 to AC, or whatever. As a DM, so far everything that was asked for was in a book, somewhere, or easily enough to improvise.

[Mikal]

I think a lot of the confusion I'm seeing comes from people assuming that magic item creation is about profit. At least in 5e, most magic items are not made with the intent to sell them. No one makes a rare, very rare, or legendary items in order to sell them, or else they would not be rare. The reason they are so costly to make is that they are made for use, not for purchasing or selling.

"Well, what about scrolls and potions," I hear the clamoring hordes shout. Not everything someone makes finds use when they intend it. Perhaps a wizard made a 7th-level spell scroll for a companion, but that companion died violently before he had the chance to use it. Perhaps that wizard made it as a paranoia-fueled back-up plan, but he died peacefully of an aneurysm in his tower with all its defenses still active. Maybe an alchemist put everything into making a potion, only for it to be stolen by brigands. Over the years, it has exchanged hands as a curiosity, but it has never found use. After all, who would be daft enough to drink the value of the shire?

Magic itemp should be ancillary to the economy?



A simulacrum is incredibly expensive all by itself, and it does not reduce the cost of creating magic items at all. Time, certainly, but not cost.

That's... not how economies work.
If someone can create something for X, and someone wants to buy it, then it'll be sold for X+Y. If it's rare or legendary, then that means few people create them because the market isn't really open for people to afford it, or they're status symbols, or they're niche products.

That's... also not how the rarity system works in 5e.
If magic items were meant to be created only for personal use, items such as staves of power and robes of the archmagi would be uncommon rarity, and longswords +1 and greataxes +1 would be legendary, because the crafters of those items are, the majority of the time, going to use a staff of power or robe of the archmagi before a +1 axe.

If that's how they were meant to work, then you'd see something like this, which is like, completely the opposite of what you're saying. An example would be like the below.

Sword +1: Rarity- Legendary. Cost to create- 500 gp

Sword +3: Rarity- Rare (Will a Wizard waste time making a +1 sword when they can make a +3 instead for personal use?)

Robe of the Archmagi: Rarity- Uncommon to Rare. Cost to create- 50,000 gp

[jas61292]

First off, D&D is not an economy simulator. Whether or not it makes sense in that regard is immaterial. Secondly, if you do want to assume such people making the rare items must follow PC rules, than they must already have obscene amounts of money, and are likely not interested in spending all that time just to sell what they make.

[FreddyNoNose]

Ahm...has anybody that replied until here even read the article I linked? At least, read the paragraph "Value of Gold" and you will understand what I tralking about.

Lifestyle costs are so trivial compared to the wealth the PCs are expected to gain that they are utterly meaningless after some levels. Of course, you can always say "Hm...I like being rich. But if "there’s really nothing to do with treasure other than pile it up and sleep on it", you aren't rich. Instead, you could also collect stones and tell yourself you would be rich.

Read the article, because it's hardly possible to explain it in a better way than Angry GM does. Read it. It's worth it!

If I have to read another thread to "see your point", you are doing it wrong. Why don't you post on you main account Angry...

[Willie the Duck]

Games much lighter than D&D 5e (which is not a rules light game by any stretch of the imagination) have managed to avoid these problems just fine. Using the 5e economic system involves spending a lot of time doing accounting to figure out the exact details of your pile of money; most of this money is then basically decorative excess because there's so much of it that everything needed can be easily covered while living lavishly with only a fraction, and using it involved finding money sinks.

Can you elaborate on this one? Why and how exactly does 5e require any difficult accounting, if most of the (even lavish) expenses are covered by a fraction? Those seem like counterpoints, but I think I'm missing something.

I think most people are agreeing that the GP in 5e exists mostly for plot coupons and money sinks. OTOH, it is freed from other mechanical purpose explicitly such that it can do so.

Meanwhile in REIGN you spend no time doing accounting and can find real uses for that giant pile of money that aren't just equipment upgrades. It's hardly the only example.

As mentioned with ACKS, REIGN is a game designed around the premise, and is not beholden to the expectations and audience that D&D is.

The premise of REIGN is of leadership (company system, right?). It is explicitly designed for that purpose and gp is one of the primary advancement mechanisms that it is based upon. It makes sense within that system that the main actors of that system would consider gold predominantly as a mechanism to get better at obtaining more gold. That system, like oD&D, 1e, or 3e, is good for some stories, but not others.

But no, instead every criticism of 5e must be met with the specter of Pathfinder, or with the deflection that other editions have the same problem, or with attacking the fault finders with being inferior role players. That WotC might have erred in the design is just impossible.

It's possible that WotC's design decisions were in error. The market will bear that out (5e's amazing popularity seems to say otherwise). However, by all accounts, the decision to decouple gold from advancement mechanics was at least a deliberate choice. One that was made, it least plausibly, because some people were disenfranchised with the upgrade treadmill that the 3e/PF system had exemplified.

[EvilAnagram]

That's... not how economies work.

Oh, boy! Someone gets to explain economics to me on an internet forum! I sure am lucky, otherwise all of the economists and statisticians I work with on a daily basis wouldn't have any use for me!

If someone can create something for X, and someone wants to buy it, then it'll be sold for X+Y. If it's rare or legendary, then that means few people create them because the market isn't really open for people to afford it, or they're status symbols, or they're niche products.

That's not entirely incorrect, but it's also not entirely correct.

For the purposes of this explanation, note that I am not an economist. I do, however, work with economists and statisticians, mostly to make their findings interesting and legible to laymen. In order to do this, I have to have a working understanding of economics, which is an oxymoron according to my economics professor.*

Anyways, you are dancing around the ideas of supply and demand. You've seen those charts before, so let's just simplify it and say that the value of something can be said to be where its supply meets its demand. As supply increases, people will be willing to pay less for something because they will have many options by which to get it. When demand increases, people will be willing to pay more for something because they need it more. Essentially, if people want something, and it is scarce enough, they will sacrifice resources to get it. That's how all markets work.

The price of something is not X+arbitrary number. The price of something is a function of both how available it is, and how much people need it, the supply and demand.

If demand for something far outstrips supply, those items can become prohibitively expensive. That's the fundamental nature of scarcity. Salt is much more important to us than gold (we would die without it), but gold is much rarer, so it is also much more expensive per unit of mass. This has not always been the case throughout human civilization, but it is absolutely the case now. As supply goes up, we place less value on the commodity. As supply goes down, the cost increases.

However, not every supply/demand curve leads to a viable market. If supply exceeds demand, attempting to sell it will be fruitless (breathable air). Likewise, if demand far outstrips supply, it will be prohibitively expensive to purchase (the Mona Lisa). Granted, other means of acquisition are also considered economic activity, but the legal exchange of goods for currency is usually the focus of economics.

Anyways, something that is rare and desired necessarily has value. Whether it is a status symbol or niche doesn't matter. An original Black Lotus from MtG is certainly a niche interest, and in certain circles they're certainly status symbols, but you can start a college fund selling one of those. In fact, being a status symbol creates demand, raising its value.

In 5e, there is a very limited supply of rare and legendary items. They are both useful and valuable, which makes complete sense economically. Being difficult and costly to produce explains why the supply is low, and being useful explains why the demand is high. High demand and low supply makes them expensive, which is entirely sensible.

If magic items were meant to be created only for personal use, items such as staves of power and robes of the archmagi would be uncommon rarity, and longswords +1 and greataxes +1 would be legendary, because the crafters of those items are, the majority of the time, going to use a staff of power or robe of the archmagi before a +1 axe.

I did not say that items were only created for personal use. I said items of extreme rarity are not created for selling at market value. I even gave the example of making an item for a friend. The example which 5e's economic system also leaves open for is services part of "goods and services," as in, "currency can be exchanged for goods and services." Essentially:

• Person X wants a magic sword.
• Person Y can create magic swords, but has no motivation to do so.
• Person X provides resources with which to create a magic sword, and offers to reward person Y for creating the sword.
• This motivates person Y, who charges a price commensurate with the principles of supply and demand.

Thus, the artificer creates without ever having to acquire the resources necessary to create, and every baron who wants to brag about his wealth can afford a +1 sword. This is also pretty much how medieval armor- and weapon-smithing worked, in practice. The materials for making armor and weapons were expensive, so a rich person would provide a smith with the money to purchase the required goods, and the smith would make those goods using the provided resources, only skimming off the top if he had the opportunity to do so without hurting the quality of the product. The smith would then charge a premium for his services.

The only problem arises when players wish to create, as the creation rules demand they use gold equal to the maximum value of the weapon, which means that the DM must either increase the price of purchased items or reduce the cost for creating items whilst increasing the difficulty of creating items in order for prices to make economic sense. However, that's as easy a fix as I've ever seen, so I don't pay it too much mind.**

Also, a Robe of the Archmagi remains scarce because of the resources and skills required to make one. The fact that demand for them would be ridiculously high amongst magic users does nothing to change the supply problem. Scarcity: It's a thing.

Tl;dr: I am not an economist.

*According to him, an economist is someone who understands why we understand so little about economics.
**I prefer to lower the cost and increase the difficulty by adding rolls, but that's just me.

[JackPhoenix]

That's... not how economies work.
If someone can create something for X, and someone wants to buy it, then it'll be sold for X+Y. If it's rare or legendary, then that means few people create them because the market isn't really open for people to afford it, or they're status symbols, or they're niche products.

That's... also not how the rarity system works in 5e.
If magic items were meant to be created only for personal use, items such as staves of power and robes of the archmagi would be uncommon rarity, and longswords +1 and greataxes +1 would be legendary, because the crafters of those items are, the majority of the time, going to use a staff of power or robe of the archmagi before a +1 axe.

If that's how they were meant to work, then you'd see something like this, which is like, completely the opposite of what you're saying. An example would be like the below.

Sword +1: Rarity- Legendary. Cost to create- 500 gp

Sword +3: Rarity- Rare (Will a Wizard waste time making a +1 sword when they can make a +3 instead for personal use?)

Robe of the Archmagi: Rarity- Uncommon to Rare. Cost to create- 50,000 gp

You assume everyone knows how to make legendary items off-hand. What about an apprentice mage who made his first magic wand, assuming he'll upgrade it when he's more powerful, but died before that? What about a religious order which needed to arm a group of holy knights to take on a demon, because one hero wouldn't be enough even with a legendary weapon? What about master wizard who scribed scrolls to teach his apprentices new spells, because you don't give anyone access to your actual spellbook?

And non-consumable magic items last pretty much forever. You know about those people complaining why are they magic armors other than studded leather/breast/half/full plate? What were the wizards supposed to enchant before plate armor was invented? What if +1 weapons are from time and/or culture that didn't had the know-how to create anything better?

[mephnick]

It's strange though- people are fine with it when it comes to stuff like "I don't use swords but want to look like I'm using one, can I refluff a hand-axe?" and "I want to have a monk use longswords, but I don't want to be a Kensei, can I refluff a shortsword as a longsword?" but not when it comes to people wanting to have something more than "Go here. Kill this. Take that. Wash, rinse, repeat."

Because those things are not going against the inherent goals of the system design.

The fantasy-life, political, non-party combat crap people keep trying to use D&D for is.

[Knaight]

Can you elaborate on this one? Why and how exactly does 5e require any difficult accounting, if most of the (even lavish) expenses are covered by a fraction? Those seem like counterpoints, but I think I'm missing something.

5e expects you to track the precise number of coins you have in five different denominations, plus gems. That's acceptable in an economic simulator; it's incredibly irritating when the money is largely pointless pas the first few levels.

As mentioned with ACKS, REIGN is a game designed around the premise, and is not beholden to the expectations and audience that D&D is.

The premise of REIGN is of leadership (company system, right?). It is explicitly designed for that purpose and gp is one of the primary advancement mechanisms that it is based upon. It makes sense within that system that the main actors of that system would consider gold predominantly as a mechanism to get better at obtaining more gold. That system, like oD&D, 1e, or 3e, is good for some stories, but not others.

The company system of REIGN should be interpreted less as a company in the sense of a corporation and more in the sense of a company as a large group (although it can be a mercantile organization of some sort).

REIGN also doesn't use GP or anything similar - because money isn't a major focus it wasn't given particularly detailed mechanics, and instead you work with abstract Wealth and Treasure ratings.

It's possible that WotC's design decisions were in error. The market will bear that out (5e's amazing popularity seems to say otherwise). However, by all accounts, the decision to decouple gold from advancement mechanics was at least a deliberate choice. One that was made, it least plausibly, because some people were disenfranchised with the upgrade treadmill that the 3e/PF system had exemplified.

I wouldn't trust the market that much as an indicator of design quality - marketing, network effects, brand recognition, and other factors are much larger factors in terms of product success.

As for decoupling gold from advancement, that's not my beef with 5e. It's turning money into a low importance peripheral mechanic while keeping it complicated enough to require a lot of tedious accounting (again, five coin types tracked separately). From a design perspective, mechanical weight is essentially a resource. It should be spent more heavily on the major focuses of the game.

ACKS meanwhile can get away with it, because ACKS is a convoluted economic engine with a dungeon crawling game wrapped around it.