# Gold or Silver Standard?



## JoeGKushner (Jan 20, 2008)

Another thread talking about currency made me wonder... should gold be the standard in a POL setting?

I say no.

Right now, copper pieces make about zero sense since most things are priced in gold, especially from an adventurer's point of view.

Silver standard would allow other types of metals like bronze and electrum to be added while making things like platinum and gold 'real' treasures.

Opinions?


----------



## simply not edible (Jan 20, 2008)

I don't see this having any effect whatsoever.

Smaller currencies will always be useless to high-level adventurers. Changing teh standard currency will do nothing to change that.

What the "standard" is doesn't matter from a mechanical pint of view. It could be enriched uranium cores, and the game won't change one bit fom it.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Jan 20, 2008)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Silver standard would allow other types of metals like bronze and electrum to be added while making things like platinum and gold 'real' treasures.



I'm not sure bronze is a good idea as a coinage (tin is cheaper than copper, so it would actually be worth less than a copper piece; plus there's always a problem when alloys are uses as coins, since you can never be sure how much of each metal are in the coin).

But in general I see your point.

It might be also be worthwhile to space out the value between silver and gold a bit.  D&D assumes a 10:1 valuation, but right now (in the real world) it's currently 55:1.  You could make more use of trade bars, or "bits" and "coins", where a bit is 1/8th of a coin.  The standard currency could be silver bits, while a gold bit is actually worth 8 silver coins (64:1).  A single gold coin would then be worth 512 s.b., enough to live comfortably for weeks or months (depending on your lifestyle).

(You'd have to assume that a "coin" is about the size of a Spanish doubloon (with a diameter of at least two inches) and easily cut into eighths at your local blacksmith)

I find this math easy, but those of you more used to a metric system would probably have issues trying to count in powers of two, unless you're a computer person.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 20, 2008)

I say the "standard" should be tiered. Heroic at silver, paragon at gold, and epic at platinum. This is to say, that a heroic might get 100 silver as a good reward, a paragon 100 gold, and an epic 100 platinum. The exchange rate and item pricing should take this into consideration to build the system so that the math works out. That way you don't have to just start counting up higher and higher numbers and maybe those different metals will actually mean something.

My 15th level 3e game uses things like adamantine bars for currency.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Jan 20, 2008)

simply not edible said:
			
		

> Smaller currencies will always be useless to high-level adventurers.



I just want to point out that this is a 3-ism. 4E doesn't seem to have assumed wealth levels. You could play a 20th level Paladin who still uses the same longsword he had at 1st level and has tithed all his money to the church; in which case every s.p. counts when he can't rely on charity to get him dinner.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jan 20, 2008)

Also copper and silver may be worth more in a PoL world, perhaps the mining of gold or simply the fact that gold is worth so much ad thus is horded/protected and rarely used means copper and silver have a more prominent place. 

We could have adventures where at the first say 5-levels copper-rewards make common sense and can actually afford things like room and board, sharpening of weapons/repairs, etc. 

Silver would be for more higher adventures things you would find raiding a large pirate encampment or thieves-guild or given as reward from a rich-baron. 

While gold would be something you found amongst a Dragon's horde, or given to you by a King from the Kingdoms treasury.


----------



## simply not edible (Jan 20, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I just want to point out that this is a 3-ism. 4E doesn't seem to have assumed wealth levels. You could play a 20th level Paladin who still uses the same longsword he had at 1st level and has tithed all his money to the church; in which case every s.p. counts when he can't rely on charity to get him dinner.




I see your point, but I believe that, even with less emphasis on magic items, there will still be lots of those in the game. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a WBL-table in the new DMG just as there was in the previous one.

But, of the things hereabove, I'd say that it might indeed be more viable if the conversions were larger than 10:1. This would at least give the smaller currencies a longer lifespan. (Should have thought of that myself!)


----------



## Gargoyle (Jan 20, 2008)

I've always preferred a silver standard in my campaigns, to keep gold more rare and valuable, and to make copper pieces worth something.  

But in the long run, it really doesn't matter much, and I rarely changed it from the official rules...too much trouble.  So whatever it is in 4e, I'll probably use.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 20, 2008)

...should someone be making a "Cross of Gold" speech right about now?   

I like the idea of gold being more rare and valuable.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 20, 2008)

This is a 3e-ism but I actually found the economic portion of the Dungeonominicon over at the old WoTC boards very useful.  It made very good points based on the structure of wealth and magic in 3e, now 4e is probably going to change a lot of those but it still provides a basic framework that can make the upper end of the economic "system" make at least some sense.

High-end magic items had ridiculous prices in gp in 3e, I mean once you got past the first couple + equivalents you're talking about hundreds of pounds of gold.  Yet with various conjuration, creation, or summoning spells raw materials of any kind become trivial past a certain level.  Want platinum summon a djinn and have it provide, bind a lantern archon and produce potentially thousands of everburning torches, etc.  Now if you follow this logical course simple specie currency is purely a artifact for the unwashed masses.  Above a certain level it becomes worthless since characters of that level can effectively have as much as they desire via magic.  

What this means is while there can be a trade in high-powered magical items they can't be bought for anything so crude as a raw material beyond a certain level.  Beyond 15,000gp you can't buy it with gold or silver or even platinum.  It takes souls, or gems useful as spell components, or weird planar currencies based on things like raw chaos, bottled pain, high level scrolls, etc.


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 20, 2008)

more valuable gold does create one problem: dragon hoards. In fact, that's why I think the standards are so close together. If gold is a hundred times more valuable than silver, then a dragon hoard is a hundred times more valuable. Ruh roh.

Alternatively, you end up on effecively a gold standard, as everything is measured in hundreds of silver pieces.

I don't know what to do with that, other than posit that possibly only the largest of wyrms have beds of coins they can lie down on. Of course, when they get to that size, the amount of coinage in a bedding-pile is even more staggering.

Hmm. It would mean that if the bed is made out of copper, it's a ten-thousandth (instead of just a hundredth) as valuable. Win!


----------



## A'koss (Jan 20, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I just want to point out that this is a 3-ism. 4E doesn't seem to have assumed wealth levels. You could play a 20th level Paladin who still uses the same longsword he had at 1st level and has tithed all his money to the church; in which case every s.p. counts when he can't rely on charity to get him dinner.



From what we know about magic items (which have prices in gold for purchase & creation), we can safely assume that there will be assumed wealth guidelines still in 4e.

Further, with it being confirmed that there are still 'plussed' weapons & items in the game (a route I wish they hadn't gone...), the game must assume that you will have them and be balanced accordingly - perhaps just not to the extent characters depended on them in 3e.

And while I might like to see a silver standard it is a moot point as far as 4e is concerned, they've already went over this in a podcast and are keeping the gold standard.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 20, 2008)

I voted silver because it feels right when you say a longsword costs "150 silver pieces". That sounds like a lot to lowly peasants, as it should.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 20, 2008)

Gold is fine for adventurers, who operate on a different economic scale than the general populace. Silver would be more "realistic" for the common man. But as mentioned above, this has zero mechanical effect, so I'm fine with whatever they settle on.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 20, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> From what we know about magic items (which have prices in gold for purchase & creation), we can safely assume that there will be assumed wealth guidelines still in 4e.




Really? I can't find that info on ENworld's 4E page, where did they say that? Regarding prices for purchase and creation. I personally loathe the precise purchase prices and was hoping they might piss off.


----------



## A'koss (Jan 20, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Really? I can't find that info on ENworld's 4E page, where did they say that? Regarding prices for purchase and creation. I personally loathe the precise purchase prices and was hoping they might piss off.



You can find the Des. & Dev. article on it here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071203

Quote: _"Fourth Edition D&D improves that useful tool by explicitly linking a magic item's level to its price. For example, all 9th-level magic items now cost the same number of gp to craft or to purchase."_


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 20, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> You can find the Des. & Dev. article on it here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071203
> 
> Quote: _"Fourth Edition D&D improves that useful tool by explicitly linking a magic item's level to its price. For example, all 9th-level magic items now cost the same number of gp to craft or to purchase."_




Boooooo!

Thanks for linking it though. At least it makes more sense than the 3E stuff and will presumably be less fiddly.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 20, 2008)

My preference is for a copper standard.  I'd prefer there to be almost two types of wealth- coppers, which you use for day to day things like food, and then very valuable items with which you might barter for expensive goods like magical armor.

Want to buy dinner and a bed at an inn?  Use coppers.  Want to convince a learned smith to create you a magical sword?  You'll pay him with an emerald you found in some crypt.  And no, he won't give change.

The emeralds are useless at the inn (ok, you could use them, but you'd be overpaying by a mile), and the coppers won't help with the smith, no matter how many you bring to him.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 20, 2008)

I voted "Other."

I'd rather a barter economy.

Small, everyday transactions-- currency is fine.

When you're talking about the value of magic items, currency gets ridiculous, fast.

I mean, who _minted_ all these coins? Is there not a finite number of coins in the world?

Especially a PoL world?


----------



## Irda Ranger (Jan 20, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> You can find the Des. & Dev. article on it here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071203
> 
> Quote: _"Fourth Edition D&D improves that useful tool by explicitly linking a magic item's level to its price. For example, all 9th-level magic items now cost the same number of gp to craft or to purchase."_



Besides the total nonsensicalness of that statement (it practically violates a law of physics to imagine a good that costs the same at market as to produce), I don't think that leads to assumed wealth guidelines.  It's just a cost to produce.  The 4E system seems to be built such that you can have as much or as little magic as you want, and as long as everyone in the party has the same amount, game on.  One playtest report specifically mentioned how they got all the way to 10th level without a single item being handed out, and no one really noticed.

At the very least, I really, really hope you're wrong.  The wealth & item requirements in 3E were its hands-down worst feature, and one of the main reasons I gave up on the game.  This may seem like an extreme statement, but if 4E still has wealth-by-level requirements, I will consider the whole project a failure.  I realize it won't be failure in everyone's eyes, but it will be in mine.  I'll just have to stick to Iron Heroes and Conan until they're updated to 4E Core mechanics.


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 20, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Besides the total nonsensicalness of that statement (it practically violates a law of physics to imagine a good that costs the same at market as to produce), I don't think that leads to assumed wealth guidelines.  It's just a cost to produce.  The 4E system seems to be built such that you can have as much or as little magic as you want, and as long as everyone in the party has the same amount, game on.  One playtest report specifically mentioned how they got all the way to 10th level without a single item being handed out, and no one really noticed.
> 
> At the very least, I really, really hope you're wrong.  The wealth & item requirements in 3E were its hands-down worst feature, and one of the main reasons I gave up on the game.  This may seem like an extreme statement, but if 4E still has wealth-by-level requirements, I will consider the whole project a failure.  I realize it won't be failure in everyone's eyes, but it will be in mine.  I'll just have to stick to Iron Heroes and Conan until they're updated to 4E Core mechanics.



Minor nitpick (I like to post those, don't I? I'm sorry!) and it's probably already been pointed out, but: I suspect the quote means "the amount that it costs to produce an item is the same for all items of the same level, and the amount that it costs to purchase an item is the same for all items of the same level", not "the amount that it costs to produce a ninth level item is the same as the amount that it costs to purchase a ninth level item, and this amount is equal for all ninth level items"

I had a brief freak out period in an old campaign where I had a nation of scholar-mages who used as their currency standardized potions and scrolls (with spellcraft checks to read them at DC 5 -- and the occasional cursed scroll being merely the cost of doing business as a moneylender!). Their moneychangers ran the magic-marts, and invested heavily in gemstones and slave-trading with the outside world. You do otherwise run out of raw ore pretty quickly.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Jan 20, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Besides the total nonsensicalness of that statement (it practically violates a law of physics to imagine a good that costs the same at market as to produce)




I'm pretty sure they don't mean that the selling price is equal to the crafting price, but rather that the crafting price and selling price are EACH identical for a given item.



> At the very least, I really, really hope you're wrong.  The wealth & item requirements in 3E were its hands-down worst feature, and one of the main reasons I gave up on the game.  This may seem like an extreme statement, but if 4E still has wealth-by-level requirements, I will consider the whole project a failure.




"Wealth and item requirements" ≠ "wealth-by-level requirements." First off, wealth-by-level was CLEARLY a suggestion in 3e, not a "requirement." You could easily ignore those tables altogether.

Secondly, just because players are assumed to have a certain amount of wealth/resources doesn't mean that those resources will be as necessary in 4e as they were in 3e. For example, I'm guessing/hoping that 4e will see the end of monsters with DR that requires magic weapons to overcome. We already KNOW that they're making certain other magical items less mandatory by doing things like giving red dragons the ability to "burn away" your fire resistance. And the move to per-encounter and at-will spells means that you won't need to carry around wands of Cure Light Wounds to heal up the party between encounters, while abilities like Second Wind will probably limit the party's reliance on healing potions.

So basically, a 15th-level party with no magical items will certainly be less powerful than a 15th-level party with the "recommended" wealth, but in 4e the DM can hopefully adjust for that by just pitting the party against monsters a couple levels lower, rather than radically adjusting stuff as you'd have to do in 3e.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 20, 2008)

Gold? Silver? It's all just a way of keeping score. Does it really make a difference whether a longsword costs 15 gp or 150 sp? Or, for that matter, 15 sp or 150 gp? It's all relative to expected character wealth, after all.

That said, Thirdwizard's suggestion of silver at heroic, gold at paragon and platinum at epic does serve to cut down on the number of unnecessary zeros at higher level.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 20, 2008)

There will be wealth/level requirements in 4e.  There HAS to be.  Or at least their equivalent.

1: Encounters at a particular level are balanced by creating monsters that are appropriate for the expected power level of characters at that level.

2: Magic items increase a character's power level, often in combat.

3: If the increase from magic items is NOT factored in to monster design, then when characters get magic items they will be overpowered compared to monsters.

4: If the increase from magic items IS factored in to monster design, then characters who do not have magic items will be underpowered in comparison to monsters.

5: The only solution is to assume a particular amount of magic items, and create a system to tell DMs what that amount is at each given level.

Now, maybe the amount of boost provided by magic items will be lower in 4e.  In 3e, thanks to +X to stat items and other stackable bonuses, magic items counted as a very considerable portion of a PCs power in combat.  In 4e, maybe that portion will be lower, which will make a mismatch between expected items and actually possessed items less of a big deal.

But it will still be there if there are no guidelines.

This doesn't mean that we will get wealth-per-level guidelines precisely, but I expect to AT LEAST see a note in the DMG saying something like,

"The following chart shows the levels by which a character is expected to have obtained the listed magic items:" and then a chart that explains when a fighting character should have a magical sword of each power level, and so forth.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> There will be wealth/level requirements in 4e.  There HAS to be.  Or at least their equivalent.




No, I don't think so. I think you're really overstating the potential problem massively, in a way that's faintly hilarious to anyone who played 1E/2E. Do you think monsters back then we built "expecting" X magical items of Y level per player? Because I sure as hell don't. Did the DMG have a table like the one you described? I don't remember it.

Didn't seem to hurt anything, in my experience.

In 3E this semi-psychotic "balance" obsession came in, and so we had our detailed tables of GP of magic items and monsters designed tightly around expectations, expectations, furthermore, which were NOT written into the DMG (like no advice on how you had to ensure your PCs all got +saving throw items if they didn't want to die a lot at higher levels), and guess what, whilst "monty haul" or "treasure-free" campaigns were more obvious, I seriously did not notice the game being significantly more balanced than when we were eyeballing it in 2E.

Maybe others did, I'd be interested to hear from them if so, but it seems that that system caused as many, if not more, problems than it solved.

I really honestly believe any similar chart in the DMG would have a similar effect.


----------



## A'koss (Jan 20, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Boooooo!
> 
> Thanks for linking it though. At least it makes more sense than the 3E stuff and will presumably be less fiddly.



The real kicker of course being that if money can be spent on magic items, that is _all _ large sums of money will ever be used for. This is the reason why I've always railed against them being on the market (at least the mid-level items on up).

Forget about PCs building castles, cities, armies, mansions, servants and the myriad other things PCs could be spending their money on to actually contribute to the setting...


----------



## morbiczer (Jan 20, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I'm not sure bronze is a good idea as a coinage (tin is cheaper than copper, so it would actually be worth less than a copper piece; plus there's always a problem when alloys are uses as coins, since you can never be sure how much of each metal are in the coin).




Real life coins were always alloys to some degree or another. 

The actual silver content of the coins varied over time. Usually it did decline, so newer coins had les silver content, and more copper (I think it was usually mixed with copper). This gradual decline in silver content was in times a major income source for kings and other rulers. Every year new coins would be minted, with usually slowly declining silver content, and people had to exchange their older coins for these newer coins in a 1:1 ratio. Since the old coins had more silver in them, ther was a profit for the king. 

And in mediaval times gold coins were very rare for a long time. The Romans (and people before them) minted gold coins, but this practice came to a halt after the fall of the Roman Empire in Western Europe. There were just sliver coins + some byzantine and Arab gold coins. The mining of gold coins restarted in Europe just in the 13th century in Italy.

Western European currency was clearly silver based. I'm pretty sure there were no copper coins either. Although sometimes silver coins had far more copper in them than silver. 


But D&D is not a scientific simulation of medieval times, so the old gp - sp - cp is okay I guess.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 20, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> No, I don't think so. I think you're really overstating the potential problem massively, in a way that's faintly hilarious to anyone who played 1E/2E. Do you think monsters back then we built "expecting" X magical items of Y level per player? Because I sure as hell don't. Did the DMG have a table like the one you described? I don't remember it.
> 
> Didn't seem to hurt anything, in my experience.
> 
> ...



I'm probably a bad example, since I eyeballed in 1e and 2e, and I continued to eyeball in 3e.

What the guidelines did was to cut down on the amount of eyeballing that I needed to do in 3e when I followed them. I could quickly eliminate from consideration monsters that were obviously too weak to make a good challenge or too powerful for the PCs to handle.


----------



## A'koss (Jan 20, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> No, I don't think so. I think you're really overstating the potential problem massively, in a way that's faintly hilarious to anyone who played 1E/2E. Do you think monsters back then we built "expecting" X magical items of Y level per player? Because I sure as hell don't. Did the DMG have a table like the one you described? I don't remember it.
> 
> Didn't seem to hurt anything, in my experience.
> 
> ...



Just a couple of things to consider. In 1e/2e you couldn't buy magic items so all that you could ever acquire were those (generally) appropriately leveled items you found in modules. Item creation in those days were more of a hassle than it was worth so was almost never done by the PCs. 

Earlier editions also had a lot more "ceilings" than 3e had. Saving Throws were fundamentally different in those days - your saves got easier as you got higher level to the point where they were all pretty much gimmes to make in the high teens. AC had a hard limit (-10) so the range of AC across the game was very compressed and items only got you so far. Stats had a hard limit as well and there were very few ways to boost them. HD caps limited HPs from Con. Caps on Attack Progressions...

In 3e the sky was basically the limit (especially when magic items became easily purchasable) so more attention had to be paid to game balance.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Jan 20, 2008)

Until the general costs of living are significant relative to the expected wealth of an adventurer, the use of gold or silver does not matter.

if a commoner can live in comfort for his natural lifespan with a 3rd level adventurers average wealth, I do not see the issue being one of any great importance.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Irda Ranger (Jan 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> There will be wealth/level requirements in 4e.  There HAS to be.  Or at least their equivalent.



I stand by what I said, but let me clarify a bit.

First, I agree with your contention that in 4E 15th level monsters were balanced against 15th level PC's with a "Charlie Brown's Christmas Tree" worth of 15th level items. I think that's right.

But my point was that 4E has magical item assumptions, while 3E had magical item requirements.  In 3E you were required to hand out items because of the nature of the class design; if you wanted to maintain intra-party balance the melee characters needed their items.  It just didn't matter how much you futzed with the CR's; a high-level caster is merely inconvenienced by a lack of items, while a high-level Fighter is just frakked.

I think the whole point behind "Fighters Have Powers" and "+6 Wands" is that each class is balanced against the other at any given level of magical item possession, from Zero to Monte CookHaul.  The Powers balance out the Spells, and the Elder Wand balances out Excalibur.  No one has anything? No problem. Everyone's got Artifacts? No problem.

Now, you'll still have to fiddle with the Monster Levels to keep challenges at the right level (a 15th level party with items is more potent than one without), but at least no one person within the group will consistently outshine all the others in an itemless situation.

At least, that's my theory about what they're shooting for. It would be nice too if there was a little rule of thumb somewhere about how many "levels" items add to effectiveness, so that you know "No items? OK, treat these guys as -2 Lvl", but even if they don't I trust I'll figure it out eventually.


----------



## Afrodyte (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I'd rather a barter economy.  Small, everyday transactions-- currency is fine.  When you're talking about the value of magic items, currency gets ridiculous, fast.  I mean, who _minted_ all these coins? Is there not a finite number of coins in the world?  Especially a PoL world?




I concur.  Besides the internal logic of it, there's also the RP value to consider.  You could design a complete adventure around the prospect of gaining a particular magic item.  Not to mention making a long-term enemy of an NPC who reneges on such an agreement.

*PC Fighter:* OK, here's that Whatchamacallit you asked for.
*NPC Wizard:* Oh, my!  Wonderful!  Thank you.
*PC Fighter:* So . . . what about that keen vorpal sword you promised me?
*NPC Wizard:* The what?
*PC Rogue:*  The keen vorpal sword you promised him.  Not to mention the enchanted cloak and armor you promised me.
*NPC Wizard:* I did?
*PC Cleric:* Yes.  And a boatload of healing potions too.
*NPC Wizard:* You don't say?
*PC Sorcerer:* Perhaps a _fireball_ would jog your memory.
*NPC Wizard:* Oh, gee!  Look at the time!  Well, gotta go!  Good luck with the adventuring thing.
*PC Cleric:* Stop him!
*NPC Wizard:* *casts _teleport_ and escapes - for now*
*PC Fighter:* Why do they always do that?
*PC Sorcerer:* (to Rogue) What are you doing?
*PC Rogue:* Adding him to the list.
*PC Cleric:* You keep a list?
*PC Rogue:*  Yeah.  Just in case there's some sort of shadowy organization that requires me to kill people for no reason other than to join said shadowy organization, I'll have plenty of candidates to choose from.
*PC Fighter:*  Really?  Who's on there so far?​


----------



## Nyeshet (Jan 21, 2008)

One thing I've noticed is that using gold coins to purchase everyday items (backpack, sword, etc) lowers the worth players associate with it. Finding 100 gp after an encounter with a bandit group is nothing of note. But if you have most items bought with silver (after having adjusted the prices to more realistic levels), finding 100 gp is suddenly a major event - even if they perhaps gained nearly as much value in silver (say 700 sp) only a week or so before. If gold is used less often it is perceived to have more value. 

Silver standard. It should have been used in the first place. 

As for a PoL setting - barter and cp / sp (the latter being uncommon except in larger settlements).


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 21, 2008)

Silver should be the default currency. Even if it is just a shifting of decimals it feels better.


----------



## Campbell (Jan 21, 2008)

I never found the Wealth by Level guidelines problematic. What was problematic was balancing classes in such a manner that not all classes were effected by wealth in the same way. A wizard should be just as boned without level appropriate gear as a fighter is.

As far as the issue of a gold or silver standard goes I'm not really an advocate of one over the other. My only hope is seeing more in the way of gold or silver pressed into bars and less in the way of piles of coin in published adventures.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 21, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> No, I don't think so. I think you're really overstating the potential problem massively, in a way that's faintly hilarious to anyone who played 1E/2E. Do you think monsters back then we built "expecting" X magical items of Y level per player? Because I sure as hell don't. Did the DMG have a table like the one you described? I don't remember it.
> 
> Didn't seem to hurt anything, in my experience.
> 
> ...




1e and 2e most certainly did have expected wealth by level.  It didn't state it explicitly, but it was certainly there.  Look at every module.  How often do you see Vorpal swords in 1st level modules?  How often do you see 9th level NPC's with no magic items?  There's a reason for that.

It may not have been explicitly stated, but, it was there.  

Never mind that higher level monsters needed +X weapons to fight.  Why did you never see low level monsters needing that?  After all, if there is no assumed wealth by level, then it's perfectly valid that 1st level parties should have magic weapons.

/edit

And, back on topic - a silver standard won't matter after about 5th level.  PC's just have too much cash and stuff for it to matter.  Moving the decimal isn't exactly going to change the experience for most players IMO.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jan 21, 2008)

One kind of economy/bartering idea that I extremely liked was bartering for Tokens or information in the Goblin Market from Changeling: The Lost. Gave a real sense of the fantastical, etc. when you had players trading their own tears shed from sorrow for a powerful token, or having to find out what a "Heart's Bow" was to barter with for information.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> One kind of economy/bartering idea that I extremely liked was bartering for Tokens or information in the Goblin Market from Changeling: The Lost. Gave a real sense of the fantastical, etc. when you had players trading their own tears shed from sorrow for a powerful token, or having to find out what a "Heart's Bow" was to barter with for information.




Sounds like a perfect seed for a Feywild "Great Bazaar" location.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 21, 2008)

Nyeshet said:
			
		

> One thing I've noticed is that using gold coins to purchase everyday items (backpack, sword, etc) lowers the worth players associate with it. Finding 100 gp after an encounter with a bandit group is nothing of note. But if you have most items bought with silver (after having adjusted the prices to more realistic levels), finding 100 gp is suddenly a major event - even if they perhaps gained nearly as much value in silver (say 700 sp) only a week or so before. If gold is used less often it is perceived to have more value.
> 
> Silver standard. It should have been used in the first place.



Maybe it's a side effect of being able to do math in my head, or of playing D&D and various other RPGs for over 20 years, but I don't think I'd be excited at finding gold just because it's gold.  Yes, even gold has lost its sense of wonder for this jaded gamer. 

It might work for newer players for a few levels, but after that, it just becomes an extra level of detail which isn't worth worrying about. The time the players start routinely rounding off silver to the nearest ten is the time to switch to a gold standard, when the players start rounding off gold to the nearest ten, it should be time to switch to platinum.


----------



## DM_Matt (Jan 21, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> ...should someone be making a "Cross of Gold" speech right about now?
> 
> I like the idea of gold being more rare and valuable.




Count me as surprised that a William Jennings Byran reference showed up before a Ron Paul reference.  Hooray for historically literate membership!


----------



## Crothian (Jan 21, 2008)

Electrum!!!


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jan 21, 2008)

As I mentioned in the other thread, I prefer a silver standard in a PoL setting because within the mechanics of the D&D world, silver has more true value than gold. Gold is valuable because... well, you know, it's pretty and stuff.    In theory, someone out there who can cover all the necessities of life and then some would like to have a pretty necklace made of it, so next time traders come through, they can take this pretty metal off our hands and will probably give us a lot of the necessities of life for it. 

Silver is pretty too. But more importantly, even a first level cleric can use it to create holy water to use against undead, or to cast a protection from evil spell on the village defender. Or it can be applied by a sufficiently skilled smith to make a weapon more potent against a host of high and low level threats. (obviously the examples I give are 3e based, they could change everything in 4e, etc) On the other hand, while you will often see material components of "X gp worth of oils/inks/playdoh/etc" the only mechanical use for gold I can think of is the gold ring focus for shield other. 

So, while in a setting with a strong central government (or two or three that honor currencies) the gold piece standard is as good as any other version of that social fiction we call money, in a PoL setting I see silver as a better standard since it has the precious metal aspect *and* a practicality that gives it value in even the most isolated community.

Maybe in my next campaign the economy will operate on a Salt Standard.


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 21, 2008)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Alternatively, you end up on effecively a gold standard, as everything is measured in hundreds of silver pieces.



Or in units of, say, 240 silver coins.  Which together weigh one pound.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I voted "Other." I'd rather a barter economy. Small, everyday transactions-- currency is fine. When you're talking about the value of magic items, currency gets ridiculous, fast. I mean, who _minted_ all these coins? Is there not a finite number of coins in the world? Especially a PoL world?



Yes, there's a finite number of coins. You'd never really run out of them though; their value would just escalate.  But then all the prices in the PHB would be wrong. 

Alternately, you could create a special currency that is used only for magical items.  They really are more expensive than anything else in the economy, other than Castles and Warships, or the cost of fielding an army for months at a time.

Perhaps magical items have a de minimus g.p. cost (a masterwork sword is all you need), and rest is something more rare and only used in making magical items.  Perhaps a special kind of crystal that can only be distilled from fresh demon blood. If the crystals lose their potency after only a couple hours there wouldn't be a market in them; so it's purely a "go get your own" thing.


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 21, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Yes, there's a finite number of coins. You'd never really run out of them though; their value would just escalate.



I would look at metal coins the way we look at cash today, as something you carry for _liquidity_, i.e. in case you need to buy something.  You don't generally hold on to thousands of dollars in cash, even if your net worth is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.  A quasi-medieval lord would hold his wealth in land, which yields an income measured in pounds (of silver) per year, and luxury goods, not coins.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 21, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Alternately, you could create a special currency that is used only for magical items.  They really are more expensive than anything else in the economy, other than Castles and Warships, or the cost of fielding an army for months at a time.....Perhaps magical items have a de minimus g.p. cost (a masterwork sword is all you need), and rest is something more rare and only used in making magical items.  Perhaps a special kind of crystal that can only be distilled from fresh demon blood. If the crystals lose their potency after only a couple hours there wouldn't be a market in them; so it's purely a "go get your own" thing.






			
				:) said:
			
		

> High-end magic items had ridiculous prices in gp in 3e, I mean once you got past the first couple + equivalents you're talking about hundreds of pounds of gold. Yet with various conjuration, creation, or summoning spells raw materials of any kind become trivial beyond a certain level. Want platinum summon a djinn and have it provide, bind a lantern archon and produce potentially thousands of everburning torches, etc...Above a certain level it becomes worthless since characters of that level can effectively have as much as they desire via magic...What this means is while there can be a trade in high-powered magical items they can't be bought for anything so crude as a raw material beyond a certain level. Beyond 15,000gp you can't buy it with gold or silver or even platinum. It takes souls, or gems useful as spell components, or weird planar currencies based on things like raw chaos, bottled pain, high level scrolls, etc.



You mean like this?  Key thing is that you allow smaller magic items to be bought in the specie economy.  Because beyond a certain point these things aren't an important power boost anymore so having lots of them isn't a great help.  Whereas more powerful magic items are by their nature potentially more disruptive if available early or too easily.  But you still want to be able to properly reward PC via "money".  So instead you have that cut-off point, beyond it mere specie is worthless and it takes something cosmologically valuable like souls-chaos-xp-expensive spell components-favors of extraplanar beings-whatever.  It serves the dual purpose of granting more DM control over the powerful items while separating them from the specie economy so that PCs can plow their wealth into things beyond the highest tier of mechanically optimum magic items.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 21, 2008)

*Wow!*  Silver is winning by about a 3-1 ratio; the reverse of what I would have expected.

I'm a traditionalist and thus prefer the gold standard.  That said, I wish adventure designers would recognize there are more types of coin in the game than gold and silver.  I do the treasury in our games and I can always tell when we're playing a modern "canned" module: there's no entries at all in the c.p., e.p., or p.p. columns!

Lanefan


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jan 21, 2008)

Heck, stick with the gold standard, and even go back to giving 1 experience point per gold piece gained (in other words, greed pays    )

  But remember, the Tax Man Cometh, and if your PC has gold, the King wants to share in your good fortune.  He is the Lionhearted King, which means he wants the Lion's Share of your gold - which means he wants ALL of your gold.

  Barter was common in medieval times.  I can see copper and other small denominations being used (and a thriving black market and under the table exchanges) but if someone is walking around with a king's ransom of gold, that's going to grab a lot of attention of the kind you don't want to have.

  So keep the gold standard, but remember common folk barter or use small coinage like copper.  Gold coinage, especially in large sums, is the stuff of heroes, villains, and the fantastically wealthy.


----------



## A'koss (Jan 21, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Alternately, you could create a special currency that is used only for magical items.  They really are more expensive than anything else in the economy, other than Castles and Warships, or the cost of fielding an army for months at a time.



I would _love_ to see mid-tier on up magic taken out of the gold piece economy and into one of it's own. Large sums of gold then might actually see some _other_ use in the campaign (castles, armies, mansions, servants, etc...).

I like the idea of magic being bartered for with other magic (several lesser items for a greater one), ingots of magical metal (adamantine, mithril, abyssal steel, etc.), body parts from exotic magical monsters (eye of a beholder, demon's heart, dragon scales, etc.) and so on.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 21, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> There will be wealth/level requirements in 4e.  There HAS to be.  Or at least their equivalent.



Maybe not quite: see below.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> 1e and 2e most certainly did have expected wealth by level.  It didn't state it explicitly, but it was certainly there.  Look at every module.  How often do you see Vorpal swords in 1st level modules?  How often do you see 9th level NPC's with no magic items?  There's a reason for that.
> 
> It may not have been explicitly stated, but, it was there.



Hussar, what you are describing is not quite wealth-by-level: rather, it is item-cap-by-level (ie none of an item better than +X until at least level Z).

Given that 4e will classify items by level, I think that this latter sort of cap may be more likely. Thus, it does not matter how many +1 weapons a 3rd level character has (after all, they can only use one of them at a time) - but they can't have a +2 one until they are 7th (or whatever).

For this sort of system to work, a couple of restrictions have to be in place:

1) no +1 items that stack;

2) a limit on the number of character stats boostable by +1 items (in order to ensure that after the first one or two such items no cumulative benefit is gained by owning more, but only a substitutable benefit) - maybe this could be done instead by hosing item slots;

3) some way of restricting trade in magic items that makes sense in game, so that a 3rd level character can't just sell all their +1 items to buy a +2 one.

The first of these is fairly easily to implement (and has been fairly widely called for). The second isn't too challenging, and fits with the death of the big six. The third seems hard to reconcile with the continuation of gp as a universal currency (as posters on this thread have noted) but maybe it will be PoL to the rescue - perhaps to get better items you either have to make them or else buy them in the City of Brass (or from deities or whatever) and the rituals make them, and to travel to those marketplaces, aren't available until the appropriate levels.


----------



## Baron Opal (Jan 21, 2008)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> So basically, a 15th-level party with no magical items will certainly be less powerful than a 15th-level party with the "recommended" wealth, but in 4e the DM can hopefully adjust for that by just pitting the party against monsters a couple levels lower, rather than radically adjusting stuff as you'd have to do in 3e.




That's what I do now. What am I doing wrong?


----------



## Lurker37 (Jan 21, 2008)

I voted 'other'.

Apologies in advance for the length of this post.

I guess my main problem with the prices for magical items is the ridiculous number of coins that would have to be physically conveyed to a vendor to purchase something.

In these days of paper notes, bank cheques and electronic transactions, we are able to conduct transactions in thousands and even millions of dollars. That was simply not possible prior to the invention of paper currencies like the pound note.

Consider the size and weight of a gold dubloon. Now look at how many of those you need for a vanilla plus 3 item. 

Let's also assume that moneychangers don't typically handle coins in wagonload-bulk, simply because they don't have a Scrooge McDuck Moneybin-type edifice out the back of their shop.

Assuming a lack of a handbag of TARDIS-dimensions or a ritual capable of teleporting tonnes and tonnes of metal, how on earth are the players going to get several oxen-cart-loads of coinage from dungeon to vendor? (Who, presumably, is set up comfortably in a major city, wizard academy or private estate, and not in a shack right outside the lair of the terrifying beast with a well-deserved reputation to be A Clear And Present Danger and Too Big Too Mess With). Anyone naive enough to assume that a convey of wagons transporting this coin over several miles is going to even make it halfway without being fallen upon by every currency-using sentient within a hundred leagues deserves the disappointment of being left sitting on the vendor's front step at 3am, wondering where all that money went. Even if the bandits and ogres don't get the money, then the veritable sea of paupers and beggars that would swarm to the convoy certainly would.

Gold coins were big and heavy, yes, but a single chest of them could hold a king's ransom. They were not used in everyday trade.

By the same logic, any coins of more valuable metals should be so rare as be virtually legendary in their own right, probably named individually the same way unusually large diamonds are.

There's a reason we have the word 'priceless' in our vocabulary - it was possible for an item to be so expensive that no feasible amount of currency could purchase it. 

It's my opinion that magical items should be priceless, and not sold for coin - at least, not in full. There would still a coinage cost - they have to maintain living costs, after all, but these are but a fraction of the full price charged. Instead, you would either have to provide a similarly priceless item in exchange, like an exceptional gem, or else you would first have to go to great lengths to secure the esoteric materials required to craft these items. The dangers and difficulty involved would, of course, equate to a level-appropriate adventure. (Conversely, such a material could be found in a treasure trove in lieu of an item, allowing the player to use it to barter for an item.)

Continuing that train of thought, prior to the advent of mass-production items beyond the quality used by the common citizenry were not generally produced in quantity and then set out on a shelf or in a window in the hopes of attracting a buyer. Instead, due to the time and materials required, they were generally made on commission. At most there would be a handful of display pieces to demonstrate that the craftsman had the skill required to fulfill commissions. 

In other words, my preferred way of handling a magical item economy is a far cry from the Magi-mart assumption in 3E, and neither requires nor benefits from the availability of thousands and thousands of coins.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jan 21, 2008)

I was always partial to Gygax's BUC system (basic unit coin).

Simply find the current costs of items in your own country (in the real world) and convert them to BUCs.  It's easy, 1 BUC = 1 Currency in your country.  Be it dollar, euro, pound, whatever.  Of course, it helps to have some common medieval item prices too like swords and steel armor, but most any RPG has equivalents for these.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 21, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> There will be wealth/level requirements in 4e.  There HAS to be.  Or at least their equivalent.




I'm sure 4E will have an equivalent to wealth by level, but it doesn't have to be as restrictive as it was in 3E.

The reason I find 3E's WBL system so oppressive is that magic items have radically different effects on different classes.  Warrior types are hugely dependent on their magic items; casters far less so.  Therefore, if you hand out more or less treasure than normal for WBL, you mess up the balance between the classes.

If magic items have roughly the same impact on all classes (which they seem to be shooting for with stuff like wizard implements), then life is a lot easier for the DM who likes more or less loot in a campaign.  If you hand out less loot, just scale back the monsters a bit to match.  If you hand out more loot, scale the monsters up.  At that point, WBL becomes truly a guideline, instead of a rule in guideline's clothing.


----------



## Delta (Jan 21, 2008)

I'm a proponent of a copper (well, copper/silver pence) standard, with real-world clasical valuations (1-12-240).

The mechanical difference is this -- Let's say you get 5,000 base units treasure. In 3E, you have no choice but to get a magical _bag of holding_ to carry around your 5,000 gp. In a pence-based system, you can convert your 5,000 copper pence to 20 gold coins and carry that around in your robe.

In short, the base unit should be the bottom of the scale, not the top.


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 21, 2008)

I voted silver.

I agree with a lot of the things pro-silver and pro-copper people have already posted. 

Plus from a thematic standpoint, silver fits PoL better than gold.

I'd also kinda of like to see things like steel (ala Dragonlance) coins and things of that nature used in the base game. 

Also, some form of bartering rules. 

I like the visual of the low levels Pcs saving a village from goblins bandits, and the villagers give them a flock of sheep as a reward. And actually having those sheep be a valid reimbursement.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 21, 2008)

When it comes to hauling around large amounts of cash (when they're not just lugging treasure back to town from an adventure), I've always sort-of assumed they convert most of their coins into gems.  A 1000 g.p. gem weighs a whole lot less than 1000 g.p..... 

And, I also assume there's a fair amount of barter involved when it comes to buying and selling magic items; that said, I still count everything in g.p. as it's a useful way of keeping track of wealth.

If the PoL setting doesn't allow for buying and selling of magic items at all that'll immediately become one of the more challenging aspects of the game: how to convert this +3 polearm that you found in the field but don't want into a +3 shortsword that you do want. (and, what explanation could possibly be used to justify "no trade in magic items", that would stand up under the scrutiny of...well, anything?)

Lanefan


----------



## loseth (Jan 21, 2008)

[Lazy loseth fails to read through whole thread, running the risk that he may simply be repeating what others have said.]

I think it's important to keep in mind that there's a difference between A) a standard and B)what adventurers would normally carry. If adventurers continue, in 4e, to be super-rich and continue to have a need to cart around all or most of their wealth with them, then I'm sure they'll prefer gold over silver, and magic items over both as their main form of transportable wealth. Nothing wrong with that. 

But, for me, the 'standard' is what the world functions in: what people quote prices in, what items are listed in in the PHB, what orcs demand as tribute, what shares in merchant operations are denominated in, what barons count their revenue in, etc. In the real middle ages, this was always silver. Not copper, not gold--always silver. 'One pound' (i.e. the ancestor of the currency still used in England) was a virtually universal denomination of money throughout former Roman lands and it meant, literally, one pound of silver. Now, just because your salary was, say £12 per year, that doesn't mean that the king would show up to pay you with 12 coins. In fact, most of the time, no pound coins actually existed--it was just a money of account. The king might actually pay you a dozen gold nobles, two or three bars of silver, a few dozen silver marks, a hundred pennies (a silver coin in the middle ages) and a few dozen farthings (a quarter of a small silver coin), but instead of that mouthfull, he'd just say, 'here's your twelve pounds, Castellan; don't spend it all in one place.'

That's how I like to think of money in D&D: gp, sp or whatever represents a money of account (and an average weight), but what someone actually pays when they buy a 60gp sword could be any old mish mash of coins and pieces of metal. This is true of a non-POL setting, and even more true of a POL one. The only thing I'd like to switch is to have the base unit of account be the sp rather than the gp. Or, even better, give the 'sp' a more thematic name, like 'mark.' Or maybe divide all prices by a factor of ten and make the base unit the pound. Swords might cost £5 and a warhorse £20. Then a gp could be a coin worth one pound--it would still be a gold coin, but would represent one pound of silver. This way, the standard could be silver, but adventurers could still carry around their precious, low-weight gp. But in any case, however it's accomplished, a silver standard just gives me way more of a medieval feeling, which I really like in my D&D games, POL or otherwise (I realise that this isn't to everybody's taste, though).


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 21, 2008)

47 pounds of gold is the cost of a +1 two handed sword in 3e. Even if players deal mostly with platinum, a few levels later, it is the same problem.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 21, 2008)

The 3 things that always bugged me about 3E's magic and money were:
1. XP to create magic items- mages would rarely, if ever, do it. Therefore very little items out there
2. Mr High Level Paladin lusts after a Holy Avenger to defeat evil in the world: cost 120,000gp (weight: 2400lbs- WHOA). But really wouldn't he do better with 6000 mercenaries for 100 days or 600 for just under 3 years!
3. Every village of 90 people (from the DMG) has 450gp of spare gold lying about (thats 50 days wages for every adult in the village) and any item of 100gp value is available- thats a BIG list. They'd be luky to have 45gp in cash and 1 item (that is not an animal or building) worth 10gp!
/END RANT
Glad I got that off my chest.. sorry for the slight hijack


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 21, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> (and, what explanation could possibly be used to justify "no trade in magic items", that would stand up under the scrutiny of...well, anything?)



Trust. 

You have to find someone willing to deal...

in a position of power where they can can't just be robbed...

but not so strong Players would be fools to trust them. _"We, the country powerful and rich enough to be interested in magic items thanks you for your donation to our war effort"_...

Then both sides have to trust each other or Prove the things are not cursed.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jan 21, 2008)

Other - the way Dragonlance does it: Steel piece standard.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 21, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> (and, what explanation could possibly be used to justify "no trade in magic items", that would stand up under the scrutiny of...well, anything?)Lanefan



I can certainly see only very low levels items being traded, with a very very rare, 1 or 2 higher level trade. Just cos of the problems of moving money, although the Templars did it very wel!
But no trade, not realistic


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 21, 2008)

Reveille said:
			
		

> Other - the way Dragonlance does it: Steel piece standard.



The problem with this is that it ignores the very good reasons why the coinage metals were used for that purpose and given that name.

Copper, silver, and gold are all easy to shape, particularly in terms of stamping them with the image of a king or a seal of some kind or just pouring them into coins or ingots. They resist corrosion fairly well (especially gold). It is very easy to tell if gold is pure or not, simply because so few things (if anything at all) known to the mideival world would be more dense than gold. They are not needed for more important things (iron is much more needed for tools, weapons, and building materials). There are a lot of physical properties and economic reasons that support the use of gold, silver, and copper for coins...

A medieval society probably couldn't even make a good coin out of steel, let alone a large enough number to be traded as currency.


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 21, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> The problem with this is that it ignores the very good reasons why the coinage metals were used for that purpose and given that name.
> 
> Copper, silver, and gold are all easy to shape, particularly in terms of stamping them with the image of a king or a seal of some kind or just pouring them into coins or ingots. They resist corrosion fairly well (especially gold). It is very easy to tell if gold is pure or not, simply because so few things (if anything at all) known to the mideival world would be more dense than gold. They are not needed for more important things (iron is much more needed for tools, weapons, and building materials). There are a lot of physical properties and economic reasons that support the use of gold, silver, and copper for coins...
> 
> A medieval society probably couldn't even make a good coin out of steel, let alone a large enough number to be traded as currency.




I agree with all that. But Dragonlance is/was a Points of Light setting. And the people in it commonly used steel coins because steel was much more important in their difficult gritty lives than gold. They melted the coins down into armor, and weapons, and tools. Thats why it fits.

As to the how, sure it may have been hard in Medieval times. But in DnD we have people that can do magic to alter the physical world and have craftsmen that can create amazing fantastical creations. Its not too hard to think of them being able to mint neat steel coins.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 21, 2008)

Silver standard by preference for me.

Gold then becomes something that is used between Lords and Nations in settling big debts, but isn't usable in everyday commerce (any more than you could go into a supermarket today and offer a lump of gold for your weekly shop).

Then big ticket items like magic items are always handled by the "barter equivalent value" process. A "cost" for magic items can then be used for their equivalent worth, rather than the price you can go and buy one for. Similarly nobody "buys" a castle - you have to employ architects, masons and labourers at sp rates per day to build your castle or dungeon.

That's what I'd like to see, anyway.

Cheers


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 21, 2008)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Maybe in my next campaign the economy will operate on a Salt Standard.




Presumably because you think the NPCs ought to have a salary, no?


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 21, 2008)

Bring back electrum pieces!
















…Just kidding.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 21, 2008)

The Human Target said:
			
		

> I agree with all that. But Dragonlance is/was a Points of Light setting. And the people in it commonly used steel coins because steel was much more important in their difficult gritty lives than gold. They melted the coins down into armor, and weapons, and tools. Thats why it fits.




Except that that pretty much ignores the whole process of manufacturing steel in medieval society.  Making steel by hand is a very labor-intensive process.  It'd be idiotic, especially for people leading such dirt-poor lives, to make the steel into coins, and then go through the whole process again to turn the coins into weapons and armor.  Besides, they didn't have stainless steel back then.  The stuff would rust.  If it was being passed from hand to hand, getting exposed to skin oils all the time, it'd rust very quickly.

If you were going to use steel as a unit of currency, you'd just trade in steel goods directly.  Much more likely, you'd just stick to using gold, silver, and copper.  If your life was so difficult that you couldn't spare the labor to make new gold/silver/copper coins, you'd just use the ones already in circulation (and the value of those coins would shoot up).



			
				The Human Target said:
			
		

> As to the how, sure it may have been hard in Medieval times. But in DnD we have people that can do magic to alter the physical world and have craftsmen that can create amazing fantastical creations. Its not too hard to think of them being able to mint neat steel coins.




First off, if they have the considerable magic required to make steel coins economical, why are they wasting it on steel coins?  Why not use it for something that would help them in their "difficult, gritty lives?"

Second, who is working all this magic?  Are there wizards someplace churning out Mordenkainen's Easily Reforgeable Non-Rusting Steel Coins?  If so, how come the Knights of Solamnia aren't boycotting the heck out of them?  It's certainly not clerical magic, since that vanished with the Cataclysm and it was after the Cataclysm that the steel coin system got started.

Third, this argument boils down to "a wizard did it," which is something of a cop-out.

Bottom line, having steel coins as a widespread form of currency requires a serious rethinking of the economic system--the magic "technology" involved would surely have some major ramifications beyond simple coinage.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jan 21, 2008)

The Human Target said:
			
		

> I agree with all that. But Dragonlance is/was a Points of Light setting. And the people in it commonly used steel coins because steel was much more important in their difficult gritty lives than gold. They melted the coins down into armor, and weapons, and tools. Thats why it fits.
> 
> As to the how, sure it may have been hard in Medieval times. But in DnD we have people that can do magic to alter the physical world and have craftsmen that can create amazing fantastical creations. Its not too hard to think of them being able to mint neat steel coins.




If people are melting down coinage to make weapons doesn't that make it _less_ useful to use steel for coins?  I mean wouldn't it just be easier to use the raw steel to make the weapon?  DL's coinage system always bugged me.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 21, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> The real kicker of course being that if money can be spent on magic items, that is _all _ large sums of money will ever be used for. This is the reason why I've always railed against them being on the market (at least the mid-level items on up).




The sale of magic items makes SENSE however. The PC's are likely to end up with something they cant use, particularly since fighters are even more tied to what type of weapons they use now. What happens when they try and sell that +2 pick no one wants? Does the universe suddenly grind to a halt as demi-powers convene on the auction in an effort to snatch away such an unbelievable item (despite magic items not being THAT rare)? You need guidelines for trading magic items, and commissioning their creation.



> Forget about PCs building castles, cities, armies, mansions, servants and the myriad other things PCs could be spending their money on to actually contribute to the setting...




Yeah, the 8 guys who really want to just play Warhammer might care. Most modern players dont give 2 farts about counting their flour mill's units per season. That playstyle has greatly diminishes since the old days.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Jan 21, 2008)

silver standard works well for making a treasure trove of a lot of gold more special.

20cp=5bp=1sp
20sp=4ep=1 gp= 1/10 PP 

looks good to me.

Under such a spread 250 GP is a LOT of treasure.  10 PP is a fortune. 

BUT...D&D and the GP have such a close relationship histrically that it feels like D&D when one is shoppign with heaps of gold coins.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 21, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> The sale of magic items makes SENSE however. The PC's are likely to end up with something they cant use, particularly since fighters are even more tied to what type of weapons they use now. What happens when they try and sell that +2 pick no one wants? Does the universe suddenly grind to a halt as demi-powers convene on the auction in an effort to snatch away such an unbelievable item (despite magic items not being THAT rare)? You need guidelines for trading magic items, and commissioning their creation.




The problem is that for there to be a real trade in magic items, there needs to be both sufficient magic items to sustain the trade, and sufficient buyers.  That works in a cosmopolitan setting such as Planescape or the Forgotten Realms.  In a points-of-light setting... not so much.

Now, PCs should certainly be able to sell magic loot.  But in most cases, they should not be able to get anywhere near the purchase price of a new-made magic item.  If you're trying to sell a _+2 pick_, the odds are terribly against your finding somebody who actually wants such a weapon enough to shell out full price.  Much more likely, you'll sell it to a low-level warrior type who's happy with _any_ magic weapon, or to a travelling trader who'll take it in hopes of someday offloading it on some other sap.  Either way, you'll get rooked on the price.  The warrior can't afford to pay much, and the trader is too savvy to do so.

IMO, when you go to sell a magic item, the sale price should depend on a) the size of the market (small town, large town, small city, et cetera) and b) the demand for the item.  A _+2 greatsword_ is something that lots of people would want, so it should bring a solid selling price; a _wand of sepia snake sigil_, on the other hand, is a very specialized item which not many people would have any interest in buying.

Conversely, when going to buy a magic item, you shouldn't have your pick of the list.  Instead, there should be a table one rolls on to see what items happen to be available just now (probably just the regular treasure table).  If you want a specific item, you'll usually need to commission it custom-made from a suitably powerful wizard.



			
				ehren37 said:
			
		

> Yeah, the 8 guys who really want to just play Warhammer might care. Most modern players dont give 2 farts about counting their flour mill's units per season. That playstyle has greatly diminishes since the old days.




Modern players aren't interested in counting the output of flour mills, sure, but that doesn't mean they have no interest in things like castles and armies.  They just want an NPC vizier to take care of all the fiddly details.  D&D could quite easily support spending money on such things, so long as a) players don't have to sweat the details, and b) there's something interesting to _do_ with castles and armies once you've got them.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 21, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I stand by what I said, but let me clarify a bit.
> 
> First, I agree with your contention that in 4E 15th level monsters were balanced against 15th level PC's with a "Charlie Brown's Christmas Tree" worth of 15th level items. I think that's right.
> 
> ...




I agree completely and will be very happy if this is how 4e handles items.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 21, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> The sale of magic items makes SENSE however. The PC's are likely to end up with something they cant use, particularly since fighters are even more tied to what type of weapons they use now.




Weapon proficiencies (and related feats) should be greatly expanded so that fighters don't become bound to one particular weapon.

Restrict them to type (slashing, bludgeoning, piercing, or ranged), sure, if you want to.

Throwing away magic battleaxes because you took Weapon Focus in dwarven waraxe is not conducive to "cool!" play.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 21, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Thanks for linking it though. At least it makes more sense than the 3E stuff and will presumably be less fiddly.




I don't have a problem with prices for magic - I just think the prices for magic were too extreme.  I'd like to see someone go through and really redo the economic system of D&D to make it a little more "realistic."  Realizing of course just how silly a concept that it.  It would only have to be done once, and then the work would be over with.

In the real world, silver was the main currency in Europe because there was very little in the way of gold mining in Europe.  Copper coins were not extensively used (if I'm remembering things right), hence the reason for pieces of eight, and I think getting into creating smaller coins would be of little use.  For smaller than silver, go with barter.  Use gold only for the big ticket items.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 21, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> I'd like to see someone go through and really redo the economic system of D&D to make it a little more "realistic."  Realizing of course just how silly a concept that it.  It would only have to be done once, and then the work would be over with.




Totally agree.

I think the economy needs to be based on the chicken-day. A man should be able to work for a day to feed himself for a day.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Weapon proficiencies (and related feats) should be greatly expanded so that fighters don't become bound to one particular weapon.
> 
> Restrict them to type (slashing, bludgeoning, piercing, or ranged), sure, if you want to.
> 
> Throwing away magic battleaxes because you took Weapon Focus in dwarven waraxe is not conducive to "cool!" play.




Kind of off-topic, but I like the PHB2 (IIRC) system of retraining feats (or even classes) which can eliminate this particular issue.

In my current campaign, I'm moving towards having small items be easily purchased/sold, and larger more valuable magical items can be sold in major auctions which the magical universities sponsor three times a year.

I think it needs to become a little tougher to sell the big stuff - I always wonder why a fighter would carry around 100,000 gp of gear if he could convert it to actual gold; isn't the reason most of PC's adventure presumably to get rich so they can live a life of leisure?  In 3E it felt like they adventured so they could get more gold, so they could buy better gear to adventure more, so they could get more gold, so they could...  etc, etc.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 21, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Isn't the reason most of PC's adventure presumably to get rich so they can live a life of leisure?  In 3E it felt like they adventured so they could get more gold, so they could buy better gear to adventure more, so they could get more gold, so they could...  etc, etc.




Speaking only for myself-- but at the same time, I suspect, for 95% of the PCs out there-- I adventure to accumulate power.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Speaking only for myself-- but at the same time, I suspect, for 95% of the PCs out there-- I adventure to accumulate power.




Exactly.  Kill things and take their stuff so you can kill more powerful things and get more powerful stuff.

I've always had a hard time wrapping my head around the D&D economy, especially if you consider the heroes in the minority in the "world".  If 1st-level commoners dominate the world, the PC's are going to have very little use for massive amounts of gold because there won't be much to spend it on.  On top of that, there shouldn't be a ton of coinage in a PoL setting because it's not practical on a day-to-day basis.

So back to the original point, when the players find magic items, especially ones that they can't use or are not as powerful as the ones they already have, what is the one thing they want to do?  "Covert" those items into ones that they can use/want.  

So why not remove the "gp" conversion altogether and employ a simple process?  Doing so with also maintain a more realistic "economy" for the PoL setting - one that is separate from the PC/hero economy.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Speaking only for myself-- but at the same time, I suspect, for 95% of the PCs out there-- I adventure to accumulate power.



Damn. I always hoped you did it to rescue the world from demons, devils and lich kings! Well, at least that's what I do (except I haven't had to go up against lich kings)

I think in a PoL setting, the typical adventure goal is to ensure that his personal PoL can continue to shine. Wealth doesn't help you if the Ogres come to burn down your village!
(Though this doesn't mean it isn't also about power or egoistical need - off course you'd be the best to hold all power, since that would make everyone safe. And not seeing your village burned by ogres certainly helps yourself a lot, too.)


----------



## Rouens (Jan 21, 2008)

My group  uses Gems as standard treasure, it's easier to carry and very valuable. 
Won't work for all. But if I have to choose between coins, I rather have a realistic silver standard, but don't skimp on trade goods that's even more realistic to carry around. I mean those orc raiders are probably going after stuff they can use instead of "useless" gold. Though they could think:  "It's shiny, nice". Gems and jewelry are even more realistic to steal then anyways.


----------



## jester47 (Jan 21, 2008)

Speaking of a Gold Standard in D&D makes me want to make a joke about a certain political figure being my DM, but this is politics and a no no.

In truth I think silver is best.  Vikings loved hacksilver.  Silver is in all the best westerns (the movies not the hotels).  The best betrayals always involve silver, never gold.  Who fights wars for platinum?  If you price everything in silver gold becomes like it is today, valuable...  There should be a reason everyone wants gold: because everyone HAS silver.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 21, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> So why not remove the "gp" conversion altogether and employ a simple process?  Doing so with also maintain a more realistic "economy" for the PoL setting - one that is separate from the PC/hero economy.



Wasn't that something you could do in Dungeon Siege? That's so video-gamey!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 21, 2008)

At the risk of getting off topic a bit, for what I consider a pretty good example of a medieval economy, watch Rob Roy (1995). (It's also a kickass movie in its own right, of course.)

You get to see an economy in action from peasant to noble. The peasants deal in live animals. The nobles deal on the strength of their signature (signed notes) and their wealth is contained primarily in land.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Damn. I always hoped you did it to rescue the world from demons, devils and lich kings! Well, at least that's what I do (except I haven't had to go up against lich kings)




Do you do that at 1st level, or do you accumulate the power you need first?

More power = bigger good deeds.

I think you had sort of a knee-jerk reaction there to the phrase "accumulate power."


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 21, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> The problem is that for there to be a real trade in magic items, there needs to be both sufficient magic items to sustain the trade, and sufficient buyers.  That works in a cosmopolitan setting such as Planescape or the Forgotten Realms.  In a points-of-light setting... not so much.
> 
> Now, PCs should certainly be able to sell magic loot.  But in most cases, they should not be able to get anywhere near the purchase price of a new-made magic item.




Agreed. I'm thinking either 1/3 to 1/2 tops. What would be preferrable is something that lets you leach the power out of an existing magic item to fuel the creation of something else. Perhaps you destroy the pick, but in doing so enable the creation of a +1 weapon of another variety or something. What I'm really getting at is there needs to be a way to transform unwanted items into wanted items. Either via selling and buyi8ng what you want, rituals, commissioning the creation of something, etc.




> Modern players aren't interested in counting the output of flour mills, sure, but that doesn't mean they have no interest in things like castles and armies.  They just want an NPC vizier to take care of all the fiddly details.  D&D could quite easily support spending money on such things, so long as a) players don't have to sweat the details, and b) there's something interesting to _do_ with castles and armies once you've got them.




I disagree that many are even interested in that. WOTC has done a fair amount of research into what sells. notice how there were very few supplements on raising armies, running towns etc... Heroes of Battle and Stronghold Builders were about it. Most of the books out now are about impriving YOUR character, not their hordes of mooks no one wants to fiddle with in the first place. The game has changed a lot since D&D was barely anything more than an excuse for your army's leaders to go get more loot to build a better army. 

Its a special type of player thats interested in that. There needs to be a way for joe average hack and slasher to turn wealth into something USEFUL for their character, as opposed to whores and million gold piece frilly hats.


----------



## jester47 (Jan 21, 2008)

I will side with China Mieville on this one:  Adventurers are in it for the money and the expereince.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Weapon proficiencies (and related feats) should be greatly expanded so that fighters don't become bound to one particular weapon.
> 
> Restrict them to type (slashing, bludgeoning, piercing, or ranged), sure, if you want to.
> 
> Throwing away magic battleaxes because you took Weapon Focus in dwarven waraxe is not conducive to "cool!" play.




From what we know however, thats not the direction they are going. They indicated that a spear fighter, a sword and board and a 2 handed axe fighter will all have a very different feel, and draw upon different powers. Unless the fighter can easily swap their specialties, weapons outside their focus wont do them much good.


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 21, 2008)

So, factoid for those who want to pursue this currency step for themselves (I'm considering it).

As of last friday, copper traded at 80 pounds of copper to one pound of silver, and silver traded at 54 pounds of silver to one pound of gold.

Allowing silver to inflate in price relative to copper (since elves use so daggum much of it in their art, spells consume some of it, &c) it's pretty reasonable to cast 100 copper coins to the silver coin, and 50 silver coins to the gold coin.

I suggest holding the value of the copper piece as constant between the 3.x economy and this putative silver-based economy, thus allowing a direct translation, 1 gp = 1 silver coin.

If you want to keep the currency names the same, I suggest you call this silver coin the "guild piece", allowing 1 gp to stay 1 g.p., just using a different acronym 

Also humorous is that the new golden coin has the purchase power of exactly one 3.x potion. Coincidence? Probably. So?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 21, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> What would be preferrable is something that lets you leach the power out of an existing magic item to fuel the creation of something else.




I loathe this idea. (Nothing personal.)

Just as I don't like players looking at +1 swords and seeing gold pieces, I don't want them looking at +1 swords and seeing, "Magic item battery."



> What I'm really getting at is there needs to be a way to transform unwanted items into wanted items.




I agree with you. It definitely needs to be addressed.

Yet I think the 4e approach is more likely to be, "Let's have fewer unwanted items." I think this translates into fewer items overall.

However, I also think that's doomed to failure. I have no solution.  :\


----------



## A'koss (Jan 21, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> The sale of magic items makes SENSE however. The PC's are likely to end up with something they cant use, particularly since fighters are even more tied to what type of weapons they use now. What happens when they try and sell that +2 pick no one wants? Does the universe suddenly grind to a halt as demi-powers convene on the auction in an effort to snatch away such an unbelievable item (despite magic items not being THAT rare)? You need guidelines for trading magic items, and commissioning their creation.



Like myself and a few others have already suggested - create a special economy for mid-level on up magic items. Powerful magic can only be bought with other magic. You don't like that +2 pick? Trade it in. Want to buy or comission something new? Gold can buy low level items, but higher level magic is worth more than gold to the owner. 

You have to purchase it with ingots of magical metals like adamantine, mithril or abyssal steel. You sell exotic body parts of powerful monsters - the primary eye of a beholder, a demon's heart, dragon scales. You trade in imprisioned souls (if evil), bottled hope and other esoteric commodities.

That frees up large sums of gold for other uses in the game.



> Yeah, the 8 guys who really want to just play Warhammer might care. Most modern players dont give 2 farts about counting their flour mill's units per season. That playstyle has greatly diminishes since the old days.



What no D&D players out there want to build a castle, raise armies and wage wars? No players out there who want to start their own guild? No players out there who want their own mansion and to live in luxury when not butchering the BBEG du jour?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 21, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> From what we know however, thats not the direction they are going. They indicated that a spear fighter, a sword and board and a 2 handed axe fighter will all have a very different feel, and draw upon different powers. Unless the fighter can easily swap their specialties, weapons outside their focus wont do them much good.




But we don't know if the spear fighter will be different from the longspear fighter, or the (long)sword and board fighter is different from the (bastard)sword and board fighter, or even if the greataxe fighter is different fromt he greatsword fighter.

From what I have seen, I believe 4e will be balanced around styles, and the styles around broader weapon properties (including but not necessarily limited to Type).

I really think the idea of a 1st level fighter locking himself into a specific weapon (ie, Weapon Focus: Longsword) is just _bad design_.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I loathe this idea. (Nothing personal.)
> 
> Just as I don't like players looking at +1 swords and seeing gold pieces, I don't want them looking at +1 swords and seeing, "Magic item battery."




You know my feelings on this.      It's not ideal but I definitely think it's the lesser of two evils.  I'd much prefer this if it eliminates the need to devote an entire game session to accounting every once in a while.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Yet I think the 4e approach is more likely to be, "Let's have fewer unwanted items." I think this translates into fewer items overall.
> 
> However, I also think that's doomed to failure. I have no solution.  :\




This hints at one of my biggest problems with 3ed.  At higher levels, the "bad guys", even the mooks, have magic items.  So at the end of any given adventure, the PC's are hauling around tons of +1 weapons, armor, rings of protection, etc.  They are needed to give the enemies a boost to provide a challenge for the PC's but the PC's have no need for these items, other than to pool the funds they get for selling them and convert them into items they do want.  

Why not just eliminate the middle man?

"Leeching" the magic energy from items is kind of wonky I'll admit but I think it's feasible with some restrictions.  Maybe a system where you can convert magic items into craft points that can be used to create new items later on.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> At the risk of getting off topic a bit, for what I consider a pretty good example of a medieval economy, watch Rob Roy (1995). (It's also a kickass movie in its own right, of course.)
> 
> You get to see an economy in action from peasant to noble. The peasants deal in live animals. The nobles deal on the strength of their signature (signed notes) and their wealth is contained primarily in land.




Another great example of this is in _The Baroque Cycle_ by Neal Stephenson, set in the same time frame as _Rob Roy_.  One of the overarching themes is the way that new systems of handling money are coming into being at the end of the 17th century.  Nobles have to live on the power of their credit because they simply can't get a hold of any coins!  Spain had a monopoly on them, essentially.

Now I have this image of PC's signing promissory notes using their magic items as collateral.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 21, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> This hints at one of my biggest problems with 3ed.  At higher levels, the "bad guys", even the mooks, have magic items.  So at the end of any given adventure, the PC's are hauling around tons of +1 weapons, armor, rings of protection, etc.  They are needed to give the enemies a boost to provide a challenge for the PC's but the PC's have no need for these items, other than to pool the funds they get for selling them and convert them into items they do want.




The implication is that 4E will do away with this particular problem, which will go a long way towards solving the overall problem.  I've spent way too much of various game sessions selling off low-level magic, almost all of it +1 weapons or armor or rings of protection.  Get rid of that one problem, and the rest doesn't seem as egregious.  My run-of-the-mill NPC's rarely had magic items in 1st or 2nd edition, and I didn't feel like my game suffered for it, and I never had to go through the same treadmill of selling/buying of magic.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Do you do that at 1st level, or do you accumulate the power you need first?
> 
> More power = bigger good deeds.
> 
> I think you had sort of a knee-jerk reaction there to the phrase "accumulate power."




I don't know about Mustrum, but my knee-jerk reaction is to the statement that one adventures _TO_ accumulate power.

If my character is adventuring to accumulate power, I'm usually playing an evil character.  Most of my characters adventure to do good deeds or for personal reasons.  Accumulating power is a by-product of adventuring, not the explicit goal.  (Unless you count "get the pieces of the ancient artifact together so you can use it to save the world" as accumulating power, but even then the accumulation is incidental to the larger quest.)


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 21, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> You know my feelings on this.      It's not ideal but I definitely think it's the lesser of two evils.  I'd much prefer this if it eliminates the need to devote an entire game session to accounting every once in a while.




Yes, but a choice of two evils assumes that all other choices have been ruled out. That's simply not the case here. 



> This hints at one of my biggest problems with 3ed.  At higher levels, the "bad guys", even the mooks, have magic items.  So at the end of any given adventure, the PC's are hauling around tons of +1 weapons, armor, rings of protection, etc.  They are needed to give the enemies a boost to provide a challenge for the PC's but the PC's have no need for these items, other than to pool the funds they get for selling them and convert them into items they do want.




If the PCs have fewer magic items, the bad guys will have fewer magic items. Again, we _already know_ that 4e is reducing the number of magic items. 

What universal law says that all magic items found by the party must either be useful or easily converted to some useful currency? I missed that part.



> Why not just eliminate the middle man? "Leeching" the magic energy from items is kind of wonky I'll admit but I think it's feasible with some restrictions.




Why not allow all PCs the ability to physically leach the magic out of items on the fly? For hit points or experience points or Action Points? There are all sorts of really wonky, really Gamist options out there. The sky's the limit. 

That extraordinarily Gamist approach, that reduces magic items to just another resource or currency, is quite a surprise coming from you. You're basically just booting the problem, throwing up your hands, and accepting the path of least resistance-- _which is almost always going to be the *most* Gamist._

Why does the solution have to be the one that most debases the "magic" in magic items?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 21, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> I don't know about Mustrum, but my knee-jerk reaction is to the statement that one adventures _TO_ accumulate power.
> 
> If my character is adventuring to accumulate power, I'm usually playing an evil character.  Most of my characters adventure to do good deeds or for personal reasons.  Accumulating power is a by-product of adventuring, not the explicit goal.  (Unless you count "get the pieces of the ancient artifact together so you can use it to save the world" as accumulating power, but even then the accumulation is incidental to the larger quest.)




So given the choice between defeating a lich, or defeating a handful of goblin bandits, what does your 1st level character do _first_?

Does he choose the path of greater good or greater power?


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That extraordinarily Gamist approach, that reduces magic items to just another resource or currency, is quite a surprise coming from you. You're basically just booting the problem, throwing up your hands, and accepting the path of least resistance-- _which is almost always going to be the *most* Gamist._
> 
> Why does the solution have to be the one that most debases the "magic" in magic items?




Because with the current state of 3ed, it's the path of least resistance.

Now 4E may drastically limit the dependence of magic items or suddenly cure players or their desire to "upconvert" but until we see it in play, we don't know.

So using 3ed as we know it, changing magic items into a variant currency that's easier to manipulate is the easiest to implement, and it's pretty much how the game is played already.

The concept that players will leave magic items behind, even if they are are little or no use to them, is a losing battle in my opinion.  It won't happen.

So if players are going to lug around everything they find, either strictly enforce encumbrance rules or real-world economy (good luck with that), or reduce the need for accounting.  I vote the latter.

I guess you could suddenly say that no towns in the "world" have enough cash to purchase magic items that the players are trying to sell but that's nor really fun for the players.


----------



## ZappoHisbane (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> So given the choice between defeating a lich, or defeating a handful of goblin bandits, what does your 1st level character do _first_?
> 
> Does he choose the path of greater good or greater power?




That's not a choice between good and power.  That's a choice between impossible and possible.

What you really want to ask is do they go attack the bandits robbing from the rich and giving to the poor (and keeping the money for themselves), or stopping the feral wolves that are ravaging the local's livestock, for little or no reward.  At which point it comes down to a question of alignment and playstyle.  Not every group is going to pick the same answer.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 21, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Just a couple of things to consider. In 1e/2e you couldn't buy magic items so all that you could ever acquire were those (generally) appropriately leveled items you found in modules. Item creation in those days were more of a hassle than it was worth so was almost never done by the PCs.
> 
> Earlier editions also had a lot more "ceilings" than 3e had. Saving Throws were fundamentally different in those days - your saves got easier as you got higher level to the point where they were all pretty much gimmes to make in the high teens. AC had a hard limit (-10) so the range of AC across the game was very compressed and items only got you so far. Stats had a hard limit as well and there were very few ways to boost them. HD caps limited HPs from Con. Caps on Attack Progressions...
> 
> In 3e the sky was basically the limit (especially when magic items became easily purchasable) so more attention had to be paid to game balance.




Except that it wasn't, instead of paying attention to game balance, they simply slapped in a "suggested wealth" (of a ludicrous value), took out all the old "money sinks" (castles etc.), priced up magical items with precise prices like they were commonly bought and sold, and walked off assuming it would all be ok.

I really don't see much of a difference between that and 2E, say, except that it's much more prescriptive in what is "expected", giving players a sense that something is "owed" to their characters, whilst making monty haul campaigns more obviously cheesy.

I really preferred magic item creation being "more of a hassle", too, but that's another thread.


----------



## KidSnide (Jan 21, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> I disagree that many are even interested in that. WOTC has done a fair amount of research into what sells. notice how there were very few supplements on raising armies, running towns etc... Heroes of Battle and Stronghold Builders were about it. Most of the books out now are about impriving YOUR character, not their hordes of mooks no one wants to fiddle with in the first place.




It's certainly true that 3E was about improving your character, not your character's army and domain.  However, that's all putting the cart before the horse.  The reason that raising an army isn't very interesting is because D&D doesn't have a good mass combat system.  Who cares what ammunition your 2000 elven archers are using if they can't really fight anyone.  Believe me, nobody would care about +5 swords if D&D didn't have a satisfying combat mechanism for small groups.

Of course, core D&D shouldn't maintain it's focus on individual combat.  (And it will.  As noted, WotC isn't nuts.)  

But in year 3 or so, I would like to see a good mass combat system based on the core 4E principals.  That is to say - units should behave like units and should have interesting characteristics based on what the units are made of.  Presumably, spear units would all have a certain feel that is different from sword units, but orc units would also work a little differently than dwarf units.  The hard problems are (A) figuring out how units interact with individual characters and (B) making sure that the various classes all have different cool things they can do in mass combat that don't make people chose between having fun during mass combat battles and having fun the rest of the time.

But if we had a good mass combat system, folks could start caring about armies and castles because your army effectively becomes your character's most important piece of equipment.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 21, 2008)

KidSnide said:
			
		

> But if we had a good mass combat system, folks could start caring about armies and castles because your army effectively becomes your character's most important piece of equipment.



The Black Company d20 book had good mass combat rules.  Better than Heroes of Battle in most respects.  If you merged the DMG2 mob rules, the HoB rules, and the BCCS rules you'd get about the best mass combat possible within the bounds of the d20 system.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> So given the choice between defeating a lich, or defeating a handful of goblin bandits, what does your 1st level character do _first_?
> 
> Does he choose the path of greater good or greater power?




He chooses the path of greater good.  Which means he goes after the bandits, because the lich will swat him like a bug and no good will be accomplished.


----------



## rob626 (Jan 21, 2008)

*cash mechanic*

On Carrying Cash:  The Living Greyhawk series sort of explained the whole "carry ten tons of gold to pay for a magic sword" thing.  The gold wasn't actually accumulated so much as the adventurers accumulated favor or possibly some gems and used the purchase price of high end magic items as a short hand for how the character came to possess it.  

Instead of role-playing the power bartering session with the uber-wizard LG assumed that kind of detail took place in the background.  Like it or don't but that's the way they treated the enormous amounts of cash.  They assumed the character had that much in assets and could convert it to what the seller wanted in their downtime.

On Magic Item Disposal:  As a DM I encourage my players to give the low level items they did not want to npc's in the campaign. 

Give the head of the militia a +1 Spoon of Doom and he is your pal for life.  

Give the local orphan a Ring of Whatever +1 and he you can be sure to have an informant (who is much more likely to survive, by the way) when the party needs a favor.  

Give the village drunk a Dagger +1 with the firm condition that he turn his life around.  This actually happened in one campaign.  When he rode up on his shining horsie as a level 5 paladin years later and thanked the pc's for a second chance in life, it went over very well.

My point is there have always been creative methods of dealing with the "useless" magic items.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 21, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> What no D&D players out there want to build a castle, raise armies and wage wars? No players out there who want to start their own guild? No players out there who want their own mansion and to live in luxury when not butchering the BBEG du jour?




Like I said, it takes a special type of player interested in that. Out of my group of 6, only 1 is that type of player. I had to go to 3rd party supplements to get decent rules, which tells me that, in general, your average player isnt that interested in army building. Any of the completes far outsold Heroes of Battle if that tells you where interest lies. Hell, it wasnt until I pointed out that they lived in a hovel that the remaining 5 took any interest in actually spending gold on a remotely decent lifestyle for their characters. Even still, most of their gold goes towards buying more power for themselves, which is fairly understandable given their deadly lifestyle.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> But we don't know if the spear fighter will be different from the longspear fighter, or the (long)sword and board fighter is different from the (bastard)sword and board fighter, or even if the greataxe fighter is different fromt he greatsword fighter.
> 
> From what I have seen, I believe 4e will be balanced around styles, and the styles around broader weapon properties (including but not necessarily limited to Type).
> 
> I really think the idea of a 1st level fighter locking himself into a specific weapon (ie, Weapon Focus: Longsword) is just _bad design_.




I think its based off type. Polearm, sword, bow, etc, based on the pick entry, where it listed the weapon type. I wish they had gone broader myself as well.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 21, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> This hints at one of my biggest problems with 3ed.  At higher levels, the "bad guys", even the mooks, have magic items.  So at the end of any given adventure, the PC's are hauling around tons of +1 weapons, armor, rings of protection, etc.  They are needed to give the enemies a boost to provide a challenge for the PC's but the PC's have no need for these items, other than to pool the funds they get for selling them and convert them into items they do want.




Really every edition had this issue. In 1st you gave that junk to your henchman. In 3rd you sold it to get yourself better gear. Really only 2nd lacked a way to dispose of it in a beneficial fashion under the assumed play style.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I think the economy needs to be based on the chicken-day. A man should be able to work for a day to feed himself for a day.




Surely it needs to get a bit more than that to feed his wife and chidlins, though...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 21, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Surely it needs to get a bit more than that to feed his wife and chidlins, though...




I could have said all sorts of things about skilled vs. unskilled labor, subsistence vs. economic prospects, the length of the work day, child labor, and so on, but  I didn't want to clutter the simplicity of the core sentiment.

EDIT: I don't half wonder if the worst possible unskilled labor is "torch bearer for adventuring party."


----------



## Irda Ranger (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> EDIT: I don't half wonder if the worst possible unskilled labor is "torch bearer for adventuring party."



Speaking of which, 4E would benefit from some good hireling rules in the PHB (not in the DMG). When was the last time the PC's hired a half-dozen hireswords and some torchbearers? Where are the mules? What with the Warlord now passing out buffs left and right a second rank of Warrior archers would be a pretty nice benefit in the Heroic Tier.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Just as I don't like players looking at +1 swords and seeing gold pieces, I don't want them looking at +1 swords and seeing, "Magic item battery."




What if it is simply 'easier' to create a +2 sword from a +1 sword?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 21, 2008)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> What if it is simply 'easier' to create a +2 sword from a +1 sword?




I'd rather there were easy ways to improve the +1 sword, than to cannibalize the +1 sword to make an entirely different +2 sword. 

Semantics, maybe.


----------



## jester47 (Jan 21, 2008)

With about 90 chickens you can eat 1 a day and they will replace themselves.
Don't ask me how I know.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> EDIT: I don't half wonder if the worst possible unskilled labor is "torch bearer for adventuring party."




It's going to get worse for hired help in 4E without Summoning spells.  "Check for trap dude" will quickly replace "torch bearer" as worst NPC job.


----------



## Gundark (Jan 21, 2008)

Here is a place where D&D should emulate WoW IMHO. In WoW 20 gold is a lot of money that a lot of chracters just don't see until higher levels (Granted now that WoW has been around for awhile most players know how to make more money, my 2nd 70 has way more gold than my first 70). 

It made more sense on the economy than chracters packing thousands of gold pieces.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Jan 21, 2008)

I read somewhere that there is a 3 hour rule for simple labor.   If a loaf of bread takes less then 3 hours to pay for yuo are doign okay, 3 hours work and you can get by, more then 3 hours work and you are going to suffer. 

the thing is D&D PCs never much worry about buying a loaf of bread so it doesn't matter much if food costs 10gp a week or 2 sp a week. 

I suppose in a plausible game economy a man/month of simple labour should cost at least 60 loaves of bread. 120 cp in 3e.


----------



## HeinorNY (Jan 21, 2008)

I'll be happy with whatever rule that changes the game so my character doesn't need to walk around carrying 30,000 coins in his backpak anymore.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 21, 2008)

Ok, this list is a just a conversion of Gold prices to silver coins. No price changes, just the prices are listed as how many silver coins one pays to get the item. This list is for those who want to inflate gold's value like the _one pound of silver = a gold peice_ idea.
[sblock=PHB items in silvers] "$"= Sells for full value [trade good]
Weapons		
Axe, battle	100 sp	6 lb.
Axe, dwarven war	300 sp	8 lb.
Axe, great	200 sp	12 lb.
Axe, hand	60 sp	3 lb.
Axe, orc double	600 sp	15 lb.
Axe, throwing	80 sp	2 lb.
Bolas	50 sp	2 lb.
Bow, Arrows (20)	10 sp	3 lb.
Bow, composite long	1000 sp	3 lb.
Bow, composite short	750 sp	2 lb.
Bow, long	750 sp	3 lb.
Bow, short	300 sp	2 lb.
Chain, spiked	250 sp	10 lb.
Club	—	3 lb.
Crosbow bolts, hand (5)	10 sp	1 lb.
Crossbow bolts (10)	10 sp	1 lb.
Crossbow, hand	1000 sp	2 lb.
Crossbow, heavy	500 sp	8 lb.
Crossbow, light	350 sp	4 lb.
Crossbow, repeating heavy	4000 sp	12 lb.
Crossbow, repeating light	2500 sp	6 lb.
Dagger	20 sp	1 lb.
Dagger, punching	20 sp	1 lb.
Dart	5 sp	½ lb.
Falchion	750 sp	8 lb.
Flail	80 sp	5 lb.
Flail, dire	900 sp	10 lb.
Flail, heavy	150 sp	10 lb.
Gauntlet	20 sp	1 lb.
Gauntlet, spiked	50 sp	1 lb.
Glaive	80 sp	10 lb.
Greatclub	50 sp	8 lb.
Guisarme	90 sp	12 lb.
Halberd	100 sp	12 lb.
Hammer, gnome hooked	200 sp	6 lb.
Hammer, light	10 sp	2 lb.
Hammer, War	120 sp	5 lb.
Javelin	10 sp	2 lb.
Kama 	20 sp	2 lb.
Kukri	80 sp	2 lb.
Lance	100 sp	10 lb.
Longspear	50 sp	9 lb.
Mace, heavy	120 sp	8 lb.
Mace, light	50 sp	4 lb.
Morningstar	80 sp	6 lb.
Net	200 sp	6 lb.
Nunchaku	20 sp	2 lb.
Pick, heavy	80 sp	6 lb.
Pick, light	40 sp	3 lb.
Quarterstaff	—	4 lb.
Ranseur	100 sp	12 lb.
Rapier	200 sp	2 lb.
Sai	10 sp	1 lb.
Sap	10 sp	2 lb.
Scimitar	150 sp	4 lb.
Scythe	180 sp	10 lb.
Shortspear	10 sp	3 lb.
Shuriken (5)	10 sp	½ lb.
Siangham	30 sp	1 lb.
Sickle	60 sp	2 lb.
Sling	—	0 lb.
Sling Bullets (10)	1 sp	5 lb.
Spear	20 sp	6 lb.
Sword, bastard	350 sp	6 lb.
Sword, great	500 sp	8 lb.
Sword, Long	150 sp	4 lb.
Sword, short	100 sp	2 lb.
Sword, two-bladed	1000 sp	10 lb.
Trident	150 sp	4 lb.
Urgrosh, dwarven	500 sp	12 lb.
Whip	10 sp	2 lb.

Armor		
Armor spikes	+500 sp	+10 lb.
Barding, Medium creature	×2	×1
Barding, large creature	×4	×2
Banded mail	2500 sp	35 lb.
Breastplate	2000 sp	30 lb.
Buckler	150 sp	5 lb.
Chain shirt	1000 sp	25 lb.
Chainmail	1500 sp	40 lb.
Full plate	1,5000 sp	50 lb.
Gauntlet, locked	80 sp	+5 lb.
Half-plate	6000 sp	50 lb.
Hide armor	150 sp	25 lb.
Leather Armor	100 sp	15 lb.
Padded armor	50 sp	10 lb.
Scale mail	500 sp	30 lb.
Shield spikes	+100 sp	+5 lb.
Shield, heavy steel	200 sp	15 lb.
Shield, heavy wooden	70 sp	10 lb.
Shield, light steel	90 sp	6 lb.
Shield, light wooden	30 sp	5 lb.
Shield, tower	300 sp	45 lb.
Splint mail	2000 sp	45 lb.
Studded leather	250 sp	20 lb.

Gear
Backpack (empty)	20 sp	2 lb.
Acid (flask)	100 sp	1 lb.
Alchemist’s fire (flask)	200 sp	1 lb.
Alchemist’s lab	5000 sp	40 lb.
Ale, Gallon	2 sp	8 lb.
Ale, Mug of	4 cp	1 lb.
Animals		
~Chicken $	2 cp	—
~Cow $	100 sp	—
~Dog, guard	250 sp	—
~Dog, riding	1500 sp	—
~Donkey or mule	80 sp	—
~Goat $	10 sp	—
~Horse, heavy	2000 sp	—
~Horse, heavy war	4000 sp	—
~Horse, light war	1500 sp	—
~Horse, light	750 sp	—
~ox $	150 sp	—
~Pig $	30 sp	—
Antitoxin (vial)	500 sp	—
Artisan’s tools	50 sp	5 lb.
Artisan’s tools, masterwork	550 sp	5 lb.
Ballista	500 gp	—
Banquet (per person)	100 sp	—
Barrel (empty)	20 sp	30 lb.
Basket (empty)	4 sp	1 lb.
Bedroll	1 sp	5 lb.
Bell	10 sp	—
Bit and bridle	20 sp	1 lb.
Blanket, winter	5 sp	3 lb.
Block and tackle	50 sp	5 lb.
Bottle, wine, glass	20 sp	—
Bread, per loaf	2 cp	½ lb.
Bucket (empty)	5 sp	2 lb.
Caltrops	10 sp	2 lb.
Candle	1 cp	—
Canvas (sq. yd.)	1 sp	1 lb.
Carriage	1000 sp	600 lb.
Cart	150 sp	200 lb.
Case, map or scroll	10 sp	½ lb.
Castle	500,0000 sp	—
Castle, Huge	1,000,0000 sp	—
Catapult, heavy	800 gp	—
Catapult, light	550 gp	—
Chain (10 ft.)	300 sp	2 lb.
Chalk, 1 piece	1 cp	—
Cheese, hunk of	1 sp	½ lb.
Chest (empty)	20 sp	25 lb.
Cinnamon $	10 sp	 1 lb.
Climber’s kit	800 sp	5 lb.
Cloths		
~Artisan’s outfit	10 sp	4 lb.
~Cleric’s vestments	50 sp	6 lb.
~Cold weather outfit	80 sp	7 lb.
~Courtier’s outfit	300 sp	6 lb.
~Entertainer’s outfit	30 sp	4 lb.
~Explorer’s outfit	100 sp	8 lb.
~Monk’s outfit	50 sp	2 lb.
~Noble’s outfit	750 sp	10 lb.
~Peasant’s outfit	1 sp	2 lb.
~Royal outfit	2000 sp	15 lb.
~Scholar’s outfit	50 sp	6 lb.
~Traveler’s outfit	10 sp	5 lb.
Cloves $	150 sp	 1 lb.
Coach cab	3 cp per mile	—
Crowbar	20 sp	5 lb.
Disguise kit	500 sp	8 lb.
Everburning torch	1100 sp	1 lb.
Feed [mount] (per day)	5 cp	10 lb.
Firewood (per day)	1 cp	20 lb.
Fishhook	1 sp	—
Fishing net, 25 sq. ft.	40 sp	5 lb.
Flask (empty)	3 cp	1½ lb.
Flint and steel	10 sp	—
Flour $	2 cp	 1 lb.
Galley	30,0000 sp	—
Ginger $	20 sp	 1 lb.
Grappling hook	10 sp	4 lb.
Hammer	5 sp	2 lb.
Healer’s kit	500 sp	1 lb.
Hireling, trained	3 sp per day	—
Hireling, untrained	1 sp per day	—
Holly and mistletoe	—	—
Holy symbol, silver	250 sp	1 lb.
Holy symbol, wooden	10 sp	—
Holy water (flask)	250 sp	1 lb.
Hourglass	250 sp	1 lb.
House, grand	5,0000 sp	—
House, simple	1,0000 sp	—
Ink (1 oz. vial)	80 sp	—
Inkpen	1 sp	—
Inn stay (per day) Common	5 sp	—
Inn stay (per day) Good	20 sp	—
Inn stay (per day) Poor	2 sp	—
Iron $	1 sp	 1 lb.
Jug, clay	3 cp	9 lb.
Keelboat	3,0000 sp	—
Keep	150,0000 sp	—
Ladder, 10-foot	5 cp	20 lb.
Lamp, common	1 sp	1 lb.
Lantern, bullseye	120 sp	3 lb.
Lantern, hooded	70 sp	2 lb.
Linen, sq. yard $	40 sp	—
Lock (amazing)	1500 sp	1 lb.
Lock (average)	400 sp	1 lb.
Lock (good)	800 sp	1 lb.
Lock (very simple)	200 sp	1 lb.
Longship	10,0000 sp	—
Magnifying glass	1000 sp	—
Manacles	150 sp	2 lb.
Manacles, masterwork	500 sp	2 lb.
Mansion	100,0000 sp	—
Meals (per day) Good	5 sp	—
Meals (per day) Common	3 sp	—
Meals (per day) Poor	1 sp	—
Meat, chunk of	3 sp	½ lb.
Messenger	2 cp per mile	—
Mirror, small steel	100 sp	½ lb.
Moat with bridge	50,0000 sp	—
Mug/Tankard, clay	2 cp	1 lb.
Musical instrument, common	50 sp	3 lb.
Musical instrument, masterwork	1000 sp	3 lb.
Oar	20 sp	10 lb.
Oil (1-pint flask)	1 sp	1 lb.
Paper (sheet)	4 sp	—
Parchment (sheet)	2 sp	—
Pepper $	20 sp	 1 lb.
Pick, miner’s	30 sp	10 lb.
Pitcher, clay	2 cp	5 lb.
Piton	1 sp	½ lb.
Pole, 10-foot	2 sp	8 lb.
Pot, iron	5 sp	10 lb.
Pouch, belt (empty)	10 sp	½ lb.
Ram, portable	100 sp	20 lb.
Ram, siege	1,000 gp	—
Rations, trail (per day)	5 sp	1 lb.
Road or gate toll	1 cp	—
Rope, hempen (50 ft.)	10 sp	10 lb.
Rope, silk (50 ft.)	100 sp	5 lb.
Rowboat	500 sp	100 lb.
Sack (empty)	1 sp	½ lb.
Saddle, Exotic Military	600 sp	40 lb.
Saddle, Exotic Pack	150 sp	20 lb.
Saddle, Exotic Riding	300 sp	30 lb.
Saddle, military	200 sp	30 lb.
Saddle, pack	50 sp	15 lb.
Saddle, riding	100 sp	25 lb.
Saddlebags	40 sp	8 lb.
Saffron $	150 sp	 1 lb.
Sailing ship	10,0000 sp	—
Salt $	50 sp	 1 lb.
Scale, merchant’s	20 sp	1 lb.
Sealing wax	10 sp	1 lb.
Sewing needle	5 sp	—
Ship’s passage	1 sp per mile	—
Siege tower	2,000 gp	—
Signal whistle	8 sp	—
Signet ring	50 sp	—
Silk sq. yard $	100 sp	—
Sled	200 sp	300 lb.
Sledge	10 sp	10 lb.
Smokestick	200 sp	½ lb.
Soap (per lb.)	5 sp	1 lb.
Spade or shovel	20 sp	8 lb.
Spell component pouch	50 sp	2 lb.
Spellbook, wizard’s (blank)	150 sp	3 lb.
Spyglass	1,0000 sp	1 lb.
Stabling (per day)	5 sp	—
Sunrod	20 sp	1 lb.
Tanglefoot bag	500 sp	4 lb.
Tent	100 sp	20 lb.
Thieves’ tools	300 sp	1 lb.
Thieves’ tools, masterwork	1000 sp	2 lb.
Thunderstone	300 sp	1 lb.
Tindertwig	10 sp	—
Tobacco $	5 sp	 1 lb.
Tool, masterwork	500 sp	1 lb.
Torch	1 cp	1 lb.
Tower	50,0000 sp	—
Vial, ink or potion	10 sp	1/10 lb.
Wagon	350 sp	400 lb.
Warship	25,0000 sp	—
Water clock	1,0000 sp	200 lb.
Waterskin	10 sp	4 lb.
Wheat $	1 cp	 1 lb.
Whetstone	2 cp	1 lb.
Wine, Common (pitcher)	2 sp	6 lb.
Wine, Fine (bottle)	100 sp	1½ lb.[/sblock]


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 22, 2008)

Two easy suggestions.

1.  *ALL* magic items are rare and unique.  That +1 sword oughta be highly valued, not because it is a +1 longsword, but because it is "Rat-squasher, the sword that saved the Village of Hovel from a horde of were-rats 50 winters ago and was thought to be lost forever."  

2.  The PHB prices are just fine, but you just have everyone on a silver standard by eliminating gold as anything other than either a unit of measure.  That longsword still costs 15 gp, but it means carrying 150 sp instead of 15 gp - 3 lbs. of metal vs. 1/3 of a lb.  Simple encumbrance and desire not to handle so much coinage makes it impossible to carry thousands of gold pieces and get people to accept them.  A modern example is the joker who pays his taxes or buys a car using pennies - more often than not, he has to have a truck haul them in and most places won't accept them unless they are already in coin rolls.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 22, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Speaking of which, 4E would benefit from some good hireling rules in the PHB (not in the DMG). When was the last time the PC's hired a half-dozen hireswords and some torchbearers? Where are the mules? What with the Warlord now passing out buffs left and right a second rank of Warrior archers would be a pretty nice benefit in the Heroic Tier.



I'm pretty sure that they won't be there. One of the stated aims (can't remember where - maybe one of Mearls's blogs excerpted into Worlds & Monsters) is to let every player take their turn when it is their turn, and not to clog when they take their turn. Thus they're getting rid of familiars, summoned creatures, the shapechange spell, etc.

They're not going to do all that and then reintroduce hirelings to reclog things.

There are mechanical solutions to hirelings which don't have to clog play - eg in HeroQuest/Wars they give adds to the PC's action rather than perform actions of their own - but I doubt that these solutions would work very well in D&D, with its very detailed timing and location rules for combat.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> It's going to get worse for hired help in 4E without Summoning spells.  "Check for trap dude" will quickly replace "torch bearer" as worst NPC job.



Most of those traps will be gone, I think, to be replaced by encounter traps (where detection is less of an issue).


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 22, 2008)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> Two easy suggestions.
> 
> 1.  *ALL* magic items are rare and unique.  That +1 sword oughta be highly valued, not because it is a +1 longsword, but because it is "Rat-squasher, the sword that saved the Village of Hovel from a horde of were-rats 50 winters ago and was thought to be lost forever."




Invent a mind control laser that makes me forget 25 years of finding +1 swords and I'll actually care again. 

I think people take this sense of wonder thing to absurd levels. You aren't going to feel like you're 12 again. I'm never going to enjoy the Usual Suspects as much as the first time either. Give it up wildebeest, yer done.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 22, 2008)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> ALL magic items are rare and unique.  That +1 sword oughta be highly valued, not because it is a +1 longsword, but because it is "Rat-squasher, the sword that saved the Village of Hovel from a horde of were-rats 50 winters ago and was thought to be lost forever."



Taking a slightly different tack from Ehren37:

The problem with this is that it doesn't recognise the difference between PC and players. Yes, PCs in the gameworld may well care about the history and significance of an item (just as collectors of artwork and memoribilia do in our own world). But _players_ can't be expected to care unless the history and significance impact on their own gameplay.

Because D&D's mechanics are generally indifferent to matters of ingame history and significance (eg Rat-squasher is not noticeably better at squashing rats than any other +1 sword -even in the Village of Hovel - and is noticeably worse than any +2 sword out there), players usually (and justifiably, in my view) don't care about those matters.

Weapons of Legacy tried to bridge this divide between PC's interest and player's interest, by linking the history of an item to the unlocking of its powers. A bit cheesy, perhaps, but did it do the job? I've read posts from GMs praising it, but I've never had a sense of whether or not non-GM players liked it.


----------



## hornedturtle (Jan 22, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Agreed. I'm thinking either 1/3 to 1/2 tops. What would be preferrable is something that lets you leach the power out of an existing magic item to fuel the creation of something else. Perhaps you destroy the pick, but in doing so enable the creation of a +1 weapon of another variety or something. What I'm really getting at is there needs to be a way to transform unwanted items into wanted items. Either via selling and buyi8ng what you want, rituals, commissioning the creation of something, etc.




Isn't that what the Artificer does from Eberron?


----------



## CanadienneBacon (Jan 22, 2008)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Another thread talking about currency made me wonder... should gold be the standard in a POL setting?
> 
> I say no.
> 
> ...



I am a gold-standard kind of DM, personally.  Gold is what I have been using and will continue to use.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 22, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Like I said, it takes a special type of player interested in that. Out of my group of 6, only 1 is that type of player. I had to go to 3rd party supplements to get decent rules, which tells me that, in general, your average player isnt that interested in army building. Any of the completes far outsold Heroes of Battle if that tells you where interest lies. Hell, it wasnt until I pointed out that they lived in a hovel that the remaining 5 took any interest in actually spending gold on a remotely decent lifestyle for their characters. Even still, most of their gold goes towards buying more power for themselves, which is fairly understandable given their deadly lifestyle.




I would think it is largely a factor of what gets in the basic rule book.

1e and earlier had rules for building castles, attracting followers etc and it was quite a natural thing for the players to want their PCs to do across the board in my experience.

I was always disappointed that 3e had abandoned any concept of that kind of RPGing in the core rules. I'm not surprised that not many people were interested in it if there wasn't baseline support for those activities.

In 1e, castle building was the big money sink required to take money out of the PC's hands and into the economy. In 3e magic item 'purchasing' notionally took its place, but I found it much harder to believe in - spending 50,000gp on building a castle was actually lots of little bits of money going to lots and lots of people for their work. Spending 50,000gp on a single item... much harder to rationalise for me.

Cheers


----------



## Fenes (Jan 22, 2008)

Makes me glad I don't use exact coin numbers anymore, but something a bit like the d20 modern's wealth levels.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 22, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> They're not going to do all that and then reintroduce XXX to reclog things.




Well, _not right away_.

But it's pretty much a fundamental (marketing) tenet of game design these days, to strip the rules down for relaunch, and then add complexity upon complexity until the whole thing _has_ to be rebooted.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 22, 2008)

hornedturtle said:
			
		

> Isn't that what the Artificer does from Eberron?





Dunno, I've never really looked at the class. But imagine if you destroy an item, and trap the essence in a gem or something via ritual. You can then use that gem to fuel the creation of a similar item. It keeps items rare, allows pc's to dispose of unwanted items, and upgrade their own legacy gear.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 22, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I would think it is largely a factor of what gets in the basic rule book.




Given the research put into 3e, isnt it a more logical assumption that interest had waned? 1e grew out of your army's general adventuring in order to finance their "real" goal of playing a wargame. Why not cut out the middleman and just play a wargame, theres tons of them out there. 2nd edition recognized D&D's strength, that of a story/adventure focused on your character, and the army building goal started to fall y the wayside, along with the dreadful playstyle of lugging dozens of torch bearers, porters and other time wasters into a dungeon. Birthright wasnt a resounding success, so again, the interest in that playstyle had waned. WOTC has put out a lot of research into creating 3e, and if the interest was as solid as the grognards would have people believe, I'd wager that the company would chase those dollars. They largely have not. 

Until someone coughs up some credible evidence that a significant portion of the playerbase really wants to sit down and order 200 suits of ringmail, wage wars and build towers, I think its safe to assume that playstyle has been losing ground due to lack of interest.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 22, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> WOTC has put out a lot of research into creating 3e, and if the interest was as solid as the grognards would have people believe, I'd wager that the company would chase those dollars. They largely have not.




Sure they have.  It's called DDM and it sells very well indeed (although I admit sales are bolstered by the fact that the minis are usable in regular D&D).  So obviously the interest is there.



			
				ehren37 said:
			
		

> Until someone coughs up some credible evidence that a significant portion of the playerbase really wants to sit down and order 200 suits of ringmail, wage wars and build towers, I think its safe to assume that playstyle has been losing ground due to lack of interest.




The playstyle you're talking about, where you micromanage a zillion details--yes, that's losing ground, mostly because computer games can handle that sort of thing infinitely better.  But that doesn't mean people are only interested in dungeon crawls.

Note also that castles and titles need not be a prelude to a wargame; you can just as easily use them as a springboard for political intrigues, or a way to open up new avenues for character development.  3E does a poor job of supporting that style of play, but 4E, with its new social mechanics, may work better.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Jan 22, 2008)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I was always partial to Gygax's BUC system (basic unit coin).
> 
> Simply find the current costs of items in your own country (in the real world) and convert them to BUCs. It's easy, 1 BUC = 1 Currency in your country. Be it dollar, euro, pound, whatever. Of course, it helps to have some common medieval item prices too like swords and steel armor, but most any RPG has equivalents for these.



This would go great with the old ICE suppliment "...And a 10ft Pole."  If you can find it, I suggest it.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Jan 22, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> 2nd edition recognized D&D's strength, that of a story/adventure focused on your character, and the army building goal started to fall y the wayside, along with the dreadful playstyle of lugging dozens of torch bearers, porters and other time wasters into a dungeon. Birthright wasnt a resounding success, so again, the interest in that playstyle had waned.



Depends on what you mean by "playstyle."  If you mean keeping track of lots of fiddly details, then yeah.  It's much easier to play Command & Conquer that handles that for you.

But you can have armies and castles (or other groups, guilds, churches, academies, etc.) in a game without getting a Ph.D. in logistics or being buried in record-keeping.  Most of it can be abstracted away with some good game design.

As a simple "for instance", my current group's campaign has two "money systems" - a "gold standard" (normal D&D commerce rules) and fairly abstract but simple to manage "Wealth Point" system.  You just dump gold into WP (50:1) until you have enough WP for certain "big purchases", such as fiefs, titles, followers, etc.  WP invested in land or mercantile interests generate regular WP dividends, which can pay for lifestyle, etc.

In my group I have taken advantage of this "wealth system" more than any other PC, and the time burden overhead has been ... 2 hours, total? over the course of the campaign (~2 years).  And it's been a lot of fun for me, and has generated in-game benefits (my PC gets invited to all the Noble's parties (and hence, plot hooks and quest help) because he's a man of society).

You could also have followers or troops move in group-units (on action to resolve 20+ men), or be even more abstract and resolve whole battles with a few throws of the dice.

And this can all be part of "the story" that is D&D's strength.  If the system is simple enough to manage so that it's not a headache, a player can still concentrate 95% of the time on his character (as I do), but also have a Keep to defend, or armies to command (for story-based advantages), etc.  This really adds to the depth of gameplay, and creates "buy in" for the players who take advantage of this system.  I think D&D has missed out on a lot of what it is capable of for lack of at least providing good options and choices in this department.




			
				ehren37 said:
			
		

> WOTC has put out a lot of research into creating 3e, ... Until someone coughs up some credible evidence that a significant portion of the playerbase really wants to sit down and order 200 suits of ringmail, wage wars and build towers, I think its safe to assume that playstyle has been losing ground due to lack of interest.



I would not assume WotC is infallible.  They may be asking the wrong questions.  As I said above, there is no doubt that wargames as they were run and presented in the 70's are on their way out, but that does in any way mean that a well designed and presented system would not have appeal to modern audiences.

To use a computer game analogy, "First Person Shooters" are very popular, but that does not mean that "Unit Command" (or "Fleet Command") games such as Command & Conquer are totally on the outs.  Even really "big picture" games like Civilization IV spend a lot of time a resources on "scenario packs" where you work your way through a particular war or series of battles from history.  And they're popular despite the lack of story that D&D has!  It's all just a matter of good game design.  People can have fun lots of different ways.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 22, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> But you can have armies and castles (or other groups, guilds, churches, academies, etc.) in a game without getting a Ph.D. in logistics or being buried in record-keeping.  Most of it can be abstracted away with some good game design.




I agree completely. I miss the rules for building and maintaining strongholds. I have played in several games over the years where the players were nobility. There was no wargaming at all, but there were great sessions regarding political intrigue, dealing with your vassals, etc.



> As a simple "for instance", my current group's campaign has two "money systems" - a "gold standard" (normal D&D commerce rules) and fairly abstract but simple to manage "Wealth Point" system.  You just dump gold into WP (50:1) until you have enough WP for certain "big purchases", such as fiefs, titles, followers, etc.  WP invested in land or mercantile interests generate regular WP dividends, which can pay for lifestyle, etc.
> 
> In my group I have taken advantage of this "wealth system" more than any other PC, and the time burden overhead has been ... 2 hours, total? over the course of the campaign (~2 years).  And it's been a lot of fun for me, and has generated in-game benefits (my PC gets invited to all the Noble's parties (and hence, plot hooks and quest help) because he's a man of society).
> 
> ...




Your wealth point system is a fantastic idea! I'm totally stealing this for my new 4e campaign.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 22, 2008)

D&D is not an economics simulation.  I'd almost prefer an "economy" that specifically fails to stand up to scrutiny just to rub it in the nose of anyone who thinks that it should.  That's as far as my thinking takes me.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 22, 2008)

I'm mostly just surprised that there's  135 posts and counting on this topic now.  Wow.

Does it really matter?  It's just an arbitrary thing anyway.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 22, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> I'm mostly just surprised that there's  135 posts and counting on this topic now.  Wow.
> 
> Does it really matter?  It's just an arbitrary thing anyway.




"On this topic" is relative.


----------



## The Shadow (Jan 22, 2008)

KidSnide said:
			
		

> But if we had a good mass combat system, folks could start caring about armies and castles because your army effectively becomes your character's most important piece of equipment.




I agree.  And I'd add that True20 points the way to a really easy and usable mass combat system:  "Combat Unit" is just a template you add to any creature, that beefs it up in specified ways to represent that it's really a unit of such creatures.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jan 23, 2008)

Silver Standard 100%. I have always been bothered by senseless D&D economics. For gold to have any value it must be more rare. Who the heck would value a gold necklace when it isn't really more valuable than couple of gold coins. That whole "It's only D&D so that kind of stuff isn't important" stuff is IMO ridiculous because characters in a immersive world will encounter little details that make the setting seem real. 

If all someone wants is a dungeoncrawl world that's fine, however I love DMing/creating settings that feel real (at least within the boundaries of Fantasy).



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 23, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I agree completely. I miss the rules for building and maintaining strongholds. I have played in several games over the years where the players were nobility. There was no wargaming at all, but there were great sessions regarding political intrigue, dealing with your vassals, etc.



And best of all, once a PC or a party has a castle or similar stable base of operations, the DM has something for the bad guys to attack! 

I'd like to see some sort of nod toward stronghold construction in 4e, whether it's geared toward individual PCs building them or whole parties collaborating on one or two.

Lane-"if you don't like gold pieces, I'll take them"-fan


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jan 23, 2008)

I love gold, it needs to be keep as the standard.  With that said, I do wish that hey had standardized rules on building homes, castles, forts, cities, etc. in the DMG.

After all, part of the points of light concept should involve building a stronghold against the encroaching darkness and then defending it.



Darn you Lanefan for beating me to the post


----------



## Aeolius (Jan 23, 2008)

In 4e, PCs are supposed to begin as heroes, right? They are larger than life. Thus, I present to you the new standard coin:


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 23, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Depends on what you mean by "playstyle."  If you mean keeping track of lots of fiddly details, then yeah.  It's much easier to play Command & Conquer that handles that for you.
> 
> But you can have armies and castles (or other groups, guilds, churches, academies, etc.) in a game without getting a Ph.D. in logistics or being buried in record-keeping.  Most of it can be abstracted away with some good game design.




I mean just general interest in being a "warlord". I believe modern gamers aren't particularly interested in building outside of their own characters, be it bars, castles, armies, etc. I dont disagree that it can be a great plot hook. Hell, I basically handed one of my players a couple cantons on a silver platter in Oathbound to get him invested in the world. I'm just saying that the focus has gotten a lot more narrow.  People arent interested in leading 200 men to glory, they are interested in their own characters glory. Personal anecdote... I was always less invested in Ars Magica when playing a group of grogs than "my" magus, a sentiment shared by much of the group. Similarly, the time we played Birthright, most of us werent interested in the reagent phase (or whatever its called). Despite it being our characters leading, it didnt feel as personal as the adventure segment. 

Now dont get me wrong, I personally think such rules SHOULD be more fleshed out in the core book. I just recognize that for the majority of gamers nowadays, such interests aren't at the forefront, and they need a gold sink that benefits them in a way they enjoy (IE, personal avatar improvement). The benefit doesnt have to, and IMO, should be, as profound as it is in 3rd edition. But I think it needs to be there for Joe Average quasi powergamer.

To tie this back in the OP, Id say something along the lines of moving to a silver standard, while keeping magic item "prices" on the gold standard, might create a decent situation. Actual character improvements are incredibly pricey, but available for the super wealthy, giving those who don't care about hiring men at arms, super hookers or fancy meals a goal to which they can funnel their coinage, while limiting the benefits available.


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Jan 23, 2008)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> I'd almost prefer an "economy" that specifically fails to stand up to scrutiny just to rub it in the nose of anyone who thinks that it should.  That's as far as my thinking takes me.




How unfortunate.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 23, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I agree completely. I miss the rules for building and maintaining strongholds. I have played in several games over the years where the players were nobility. There was no wargaming at all, but there were great sessions regarding political intrigue, dealing with your vassals, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Your wealth point system is a fantastic idea! I'm totally stealing this for my new 4e campaign.




There was a similar system in _Mastering Iron Heroes._ That system (designed, btw, by 4E developer Mike Mearls), let characters trade their wealth money to gain influence, manors, cohorts, followers, and so on. 

Wealth feats are gained by spending _wealth points_ - which you get by putting gp into your _wealth pool._ 100 gp put in buys 1 wealth point. Wealth points can be cashed in for 50 gp each. And they can be used to invest in the wealth feats. It's a pretty cool system.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 23, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> There was a similar system in _Mastering Iron Heroes._ That system (designed, btw, by 4E developer Mike Mearls), let characters trade their wealth money to gain influence, manors, cohorts, followers, and so on.
> 
> Wealth feats are gained by spending _wealth points_ - which you get by putting gp into your _wealth pool._ 100 gp put in buys 1 wealth point. Wealth points can be cashed in for 50 gp each. And they can be used to invest in the wealth feats. It's a pretty cool system.



Hmmm...put in 100 now, but you can only get out 50 later if you need it.  Sounds like some real-life investment schemes to me.   That said, what are the wealth feats and are they any good; I ask because there might be some potential here for my game.

Lanefan


----------



## S'mon (Jan 23, 2008)

Silver for mundane stuff & everyday goods.  Gold for magic and high value goods like plate armour.  I've gone to a silver standard for my Wilderlands PBEM and it works well.

Edit: I'm fine with full plate costing a thousand pieces of gold.  But a thousand pieces of gold should be a *lot* of money.  No more 500,000 gp town houses, please.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 23, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Given the research put into 3e, isnt it a more logical assumption that interest had waned? 1e grew out of your army's general adventuring in order to finance their "real" goal of playing a wargame. Why not cut out the middleman and just play a wargame, theres tons of them out there.




I don't agree with your premise at all. OD&D onwards was all about the individual RPG experience and since I started D&D in 1975 I've not known anyone who used it as even a slim basis for wargaming (although wargaming still took place amongst my friends and people I knew - there was no overlap).

So I can't see your assertion about 1e as being true at all (and it wasn't supported by any of the gaming magazines of the day either, whether The Dragon, White Dwarf or any of the multitude of amature press offerings).

During 1e there was the assumption that as your PC grew in power he would become more of a political force in the campaign landscape, and he would accumulate personal power in terms of land and followers as well as in ability to hit things, cast spells and avoid being killed through increased hit points.

After doing the research for 3e WotC decided that they wanted to focus on "Back to the dungeon" because that gave the easiest entry for the majority of people. It perhaps isn't a surprise that the sub-level 10 gaming experience is widely considered in online communities some of the most satisfying; It seems certain that less testing in all kinds of ways was done at the higher levels. I very much doubt that their research was detailed enough to say "interest in building strongholds has waned". We know that the research showed that the plethora of settings was bad for business and I'd bet that "Back to the dungeon" was just a simple way of cutting the Gordian knot and helping people to recapture the original ethos of those early games of D&D.

Stronghold rules never took more than a few pages in the DMG and a few column inches in the PHB anyway; I'd guess that excepting Planescape campaigns there were a lot more adventures which ended up using castles than using outer planes, yet quite a few pages got devoted to outer planes in the 3.5e DMG (something that I'm certainly happy WAS included).

So I stand by my assertion - if basic rules are provided, then those people that want to use them find it easy to use them, and people who are not interested will gloss over them and not use them (how much of the DMG really sees regular use anyway?)

Cheers


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 23, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> I'm mostly just surprised that there's  135 posts and counting on this topic now.  Wow.
> 
> Does it really matter?  It's just an arbitrary thing anyway.




And this contributes to the thread in what way?

By all means make a statement of your opinion backed up by your reasoning, but don't indulge in drive by shootings in a thread please.

Thanks


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 23, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> I'm mostly just surprised that there's  135 posts and counting on this topic now.  Wow.
> 
> Does it really matter?  It's just an arbitrary thing anyway.




It's one of those things that matters a lot to a certain group of gamers - myself included - but not at all to an entirely seperate and equally valid set of gamers.  I don't make apologies for having a wierd obsession with certain simulationist details (I've figured out GNP's for kingdoms in my game world before), but I certainly realize that it's not something I want to try and impose on anyone who doesn't share the interest.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 23, 2008)

I am surprised that silver is doing so well.


----------



## Derren (Jan 23, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Does it really matter?  It's just an arbitrary thing anyway.




I certainly won't boycott 4E because of this issue. It actually doesn't affect my decision if I buy 4E or not at all, but to me a world simply seems much more "realistic" when people don't have to wak around with lots of gold coins in their pocket just to buy their needed goods.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 23, 2008)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I am surprised that silver is doing so well.




*shrug* There's not a lot of reason to _not_ use a silver standard, and it appeals to those of us who feel gold was too cheap in previous editions.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 23, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> I certainly won't boycott 4E because of this issue. It actually doesn't affect my decision if I buy 4E or not at all, but to me a world simply seems much more "realistic" when people don't have to wak around with lots of gold coins in their pocket just to buy their needed goods.



And walking around with a bunch of silver works better?

It's a simple enough solution to posit that the gold coins are _smaller_ and contain less metal, isn't it?  Or that in this economy gold is relatively plentiful compared to silver or something.

It is odd that people carry around wads of twenties in their wallets today instead of just briefcases full of ones?

I understand the wish to create a more simulationist environment.  That I get.  Why a silver standard meets some criteria as a better simulationist environment than gold---that's what I'm a little confused on.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Jan 23, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> It is odd that people carry around wads of twenties in their wallets today instead of just briefcases full of ones?
> 
> I understand the wish to create a more simulationist environment.  That I get.  Why a silver standard meets some criteria as a better simulationist environment than gold---that's what I'm a little confused on.





I think that's the point to some: they want to carry a pocket full of twenties (gp on silver standard) as opposed to a briefcase full of ones (gp as typical for D&D).


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 23, 2008)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> I think that's the point to some: they want to carry a pocket full of twenties (gp on silver standard) as opposed to a briefcase full of ones (gp as typical for D&D).



Exactly. For example, as it stands a horse or a good suit of armor cost hundreds of gold pieces. Imagine that instead they costed hundreds of silver pieces, but could be bought with only one or two gold pieces. It means you need fewer coins to purchase meaningful objects.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 23, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Exactly. For example, as it stands a horse or a good suit of armor cost hundreds of gold pieces. Imagine that instead they costed hundreds of silver pieces, but could be bought with only one or two gold pieces. It means you need fewer coins to purchase meaningful objects.




Just for comparison, at current trading prices, silver is about 1/55 the value of gold (~$16 per ounce vs. ~$880). Rounding that to 1/50, we could easily get a very interesting coinage system.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 23, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Just for comparison, at current trading prices, silver is about 1/55 the value of gold (~$16 per ounce vs. ~$880). Rounding that to 1/50, we could easily get a very interesting coinage system.




Throughout most of history, the valuation was in the 12-1 or 13-1 range, I think.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 23, 2008)

ArmoredSaint said:
			
		

> How unfortunate.



Just stay off my lawn and I won't have to call your dad.


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 24, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Just for comparison, at current trading prices, silver is about 1/55 the value of gold (~$16 per ounce vs. ~$880). Rounding that to 1/50, we could easily get a very interesting coinage system.



Ahem.

Yeah, as I said upthread, Gold is trading at about 50x silver, and silver is trading at about 100x copper.

So let 1 (new) silver coin = 1 (old) gp, 1 (new) copper coin = 1 (old) cp, and therefore 1 (new) gold coin = 50 (old) gp.

The math is easy, I just wonder what I should move the cost of iron to. Also, one pound of (new) gold is equal in worth to 2500 (old) gp -- a +1 sword is worth a pound of gold, instead of 40 pounds of gold.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 24, 2008)

Huh, I can't believe I didn't think of this sooner with the talk of ones vs. twenties...

In US history (as far as I am aware, and I am open to correction), precious coinage has mostly been minted as copper pennies, silver dimes, quarters, and dollars, and golden dollars (the size of dimes) and $5 to $20 Gold Eagle coins. In the days when individual dollars had a lot more value than they do right now, the twenty dollar bill _was_ a gold coin.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 24, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> There was a similar system [to the one Irda Ranger mentioned] in _Mastering Iron Heroes._ That system (designed, btw, by 4E developer Mike Mearls), let characters trade their wealth money to gain influence, manors, cohorts, followers, and so on.



Funny you should say that.... 

In essence, the wealth system in Mastering IH gives you access to a number of "virtual feats" that any character can use at any time in the game (you don't need to spend feat slots to get them), but that require wealth points to actually make use of them. This includes the basis of the Leadership feat (broken out between followers and cohorts), getting a stronghold, having entree to a particular social circle, etc. as well as some interesting game benefits (a bonus on social skill checks, ability to get out of jail free, etc.). I've expanded the use of wealth IMC to include affiliation-related stuff (if your wealth is associated with that of a particular noble house or merchant coster, you cement your allegiance to that organization) and to deal with "basic lifestyle" issues. It's quite useful.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 24, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Funny you should say that....
> 
> In essence, the wealth system in Mastering IH gives you access to a number of "virtual feats" that any character can use at any time in the game (you don't need to spend feat slots to get them), but that require wealth points to actually make use of them. This includes the basis of the Leadership feat (broken out between followers and cohorts), getting a stronghold, having entree to a particular social circle, etc. as well as some interesting game benefits (a bonus on social skill checks, ability to get out of jail free, etc.). I've expanded the use of wealth IMC to include affiliation-related stuff (if your wealth is associated with that of a particular noble house or merchant coster, you cement your allegiance to that organization) and to deal with "basic lifestyle" issues. It's quite useful.




Yeah, I have Mastering on my shelf and the .pdf on my computer. _Iron Heroes_ is my favorite 3e based system (not counting its magic system of course...although there are some pretty interesting alternatives out there).

I'm hoping Mike Mearls might have imported something similar into 4th Edition. 'Cuz if he didn't, I'm houseruling it in.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 24, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Throughout most of history, the valuation was in the 12-1 or 13-1 range, I think.




Yup.  In 5th-4th century BC Greece it went from 20-1 to 10-1 when Persian gold started flooding in.  Or with the original English coinage, AIR 12 silver shillings to one gold sovereign; likewise sestertii to denarii.  Silver has been cheap the past hundred years or so.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 24, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Silver has been cheap the past hundred years or so.



Because of silver produced as a byproduct to other types of mining where the minerals were co-located in the same veins of ore.  And that there's just so much more of it than say gold or platinum but wasn't exploitable prior to modern mining techniques.

1/20 gold to silver ratio sounds like a good compromise.  Lower than the current inflated gap between the metals but rounded off to a close position to the historical difference for easier math.


----------



## hopeless (Jan 24, 2008)

*Money,money, money...*



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Another thread talking about currency made me wonder... should gold be the standard in a POL setting?
> 
> I say no.
> 
> ...




I agree, unless you're running a game in Sharn or Waterdeep gold should be rare and most coincs would be copper and silver but silver should be the most valuable outside of gems although if I remember rightly electrum was worth about 1/2 a gold piece so it would be more prominent than gold would whilst anyone carrying platinum ought to be afraid of being robbed purely because those that see it think they're absolutely loaded...

I've been thinking of using UK currency as a comparison, so a small copper piece being the same as 1p, a large copper piece being the same as 2p, a small silver piece being the same as 5p with a large silver piece being the same as 10p.
Then we go to the small electrum piece being the same as 20p a large electrum piece being the same as 50p with a small gold coin being the same as £1 and a large gold coin being £2 a small platinum piece being the same as £5 and a alrge platinum piece being the same as £10...

How are you valuating a bronze coin?


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 25, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Exactly. For example, as it stands a horse or a good suit of armor cost hundreds of gold pieces. Imagine that instead they costed hundreds of silver pieces, but could be bought with only one or two gold pieces. It means you need fewer coins to purchase meaningful objects.




I think you are missing the point.  In a silver standard (heck even in a gold standard), there *aren't* any gold coins that the average person will ever hold in their hand, with most gold coins being relegated to some king's vaults - and then more than likely as gold ingots instead of coins - as a reserve for all the money actually circulating - thus the ability to issue, say, 10,000 silver coins (at the standard 50 coins/lb in D&D), while only needing 20 pounds of gold to back it.

The light warhorse in the PHB costs 150 gp.  That means you'll have to carry 1500 sp worth of coins (30 pounds of coins).  

It should be interesting to note that the pre-decimal British £sd system issued primarily pence as the main coinage, with more valuable shillings also circulated.  There were no pound coins (gold or silver) until the issue of the gold sovereign in 1489.  Given that the sovereign represented 240 pence worth of silver (there was no silver pound coin at the time) and the ratio was roughly 12/1 (on average), that means that gold is 12 times as valuable as silver.  Similarly, in D&D, gold is 10x as valuable as silver, so there really shouldn't be very many gold coins at all.  

What the gp in D&D represents (same as it does real-world), in conjunction with the sp, is fungibility.  Nothing more.

In order for the silver standard to work in D&D, you have to eliminate gold coins from circulation while keeping all book prices in gold (i.e. that 150 gp warhorse now costs 1500 sp.)  Note that the "old" sp is still silver, but just a different size/weight coin than the silver gp coin.  What this means from a practicality standpoint is that, other than starting equipment/money, all treasure is gonna be silver or copper coins, which means the PC's buying power goes down.  Which is fine when you consider that one of the probably goals of everyone here (me included) who wants a silver standard is to make buying/selling magic items much more difficult.

The really interesting thing that I don't think has ever been covered is in regards to the 50 coins/pound standard in D&D - the density of gold is nearly twice that of silver, and copper is less than twice as dense as gold.  So - that gp (at 50 coins/pound) weighs around 9 grams, which makes the volume of that coin roughly roughly .5 cm^3.  The size of the coin in the PHB is roughly 1.17 inches (2.9718 cm) across, which means that, for the given volume of .5 cm^3, the coin would have to be .0067 cm in thickness (roughly 1/37 of an inch thick).  At those thicknesses, your gold coins are gonna soon get melded together while you carry them and handle them.

Going back to the 1st edition 10 gp coins/pound, each coin weighs roughly 45 grams, and for the given 2.9718 cm diameter in the 3.5 PHB, the coins become a respectable roughly 1/8 inch thick - much more believable.  More importantly, this is nearly identical to the modern British one-pound sterling coin (granted it is mostly Cu-Zn, but is still roughly the same size and weight as a real gold guinea coin).

Basically - for the fungibility (1 gp = 10 sp), the amount of coins you can carry per pound of weight is much greater for silver due to the difference in density between silver and gold and the gold/silver ratio.  That is - 10 sp coins equal 1 gp coin, but if the coins are all the same size per the 3e PHB, then you should be able to either carry 50 gp at one pound, or 1000 sp at one pound.


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 25, 2008)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> I think you are missing the point.  In a silver standard (heck even in a gold standard), there *aren't* any gold coins that the average person will ever hold in their hand, with most gold coins being relegated to some king's vaults - and then more than likely as gold ingots instead of coins - as a reserve for all the money actually circulating - thus the ability to issue, say, 10,000 silver coins (at the standard 50 coins/lb in D&D), while only needing 20 pounds of gold to back it.



You don't need a reserve when the money in circulation is already made of precious metals worth exactly as much as their weight implies.  You only need a reserve when the money in circulation is, say, paper bank notes, which say they're worth a certain amount of gold or silver, because they're a written promise to deliver that gold or silver upon demand at the bank.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 25, 2008)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> You don't need a reserve when the money in circulation is already made of precious metals worth exactly as much as their weight implies.  You only need a reserve when the money in circulation is, say, paper bank notes, which say they're worth a certain amount of gold or silver, because they're a written promise to deliver that gold or silver upon demand at the bank.




True, assuming you don't worry about real-world things like debasement of coinage in order to mint more coins from the same amount of specie, which will lead to inflation, which will require that that 15 gp longsword might now cost 20 gp.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 25, 2008)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> I think you are missing the point. (following snipped for space)



Err... what? Nonsense. If I want to say that the new silver piece is equal in value to the old gold piece, and that the new gold piece is worth 20-100 times the value of the new silver piece, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that it can't be so.

Setting the new game under a silver standard has nothing to do with absurd twists of fantasy economics and setting verisimilitude, as it simply involves altering the costs in the DMG and the expected value of any given coin. This is a game, after all. D&D monetary systems don't make much sense anyways. I think you are reading far too much into the words "silver standard". No one is meaning it in a literal economic sense, as far as I can tell. After all, few of us here are economists.

I think _you_ are the one who missed my point completely, especially since you try to correct me by saying a few things that I have already said (changing the value of the sp to match the old gp).


----------



## S'mon (Jan 25, 2008)

BTW IMC standard gold coins (gold pieces) are 1/100 lb and about the size of a dime or British 5p piece.  I also have large gold coins (gold crowns) which are 1e style 1/10 lb and worth 10 standard gp.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Jan 25, 2008)

simply not edible said:
			
		

> It could be enriched uranium cores, and the game won't change one bit fom it.




I like that idea!  Gather too much wealth and you explode!


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 25, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> 1/20 gold to silver ratio sounds like a good compromise.  Lower than the current inflated gap between the metals but rounded off to a close position to the historical difference for easier math.




Looking in Wikipedia (and we all know Wikipedia is always right) the valuation in pre-1492 times was between 6-1 and 12-1.  After that, largely due to the discoveries of huge mines in South America, the value of silver decreased.  

For ease of use, and because it stays within the general bounds of historical reality, I'd pick the same 10-1 ratio of silver to gold that D&D currently uses.  In real life, the ratio varied of course, but in game I wouldn't worry about that unless it worked for a particular campaign angle I was shooting for - even the 10's of thousands of silver coins the PC's are likely to bandy about won't affect the economy of a large kingdom.  It takes the budgets of Kings and Queens to do that (one African King caused the value of gold to be depressed in Egypt for something like 14 years after he passed through, he was spending so much of it).

Gold coins tended to be hoarded, but they did still get used occasionally - I would assume for ease of use that one could easily spend gold on big ticket items like horses and armor.  I would probably also have coins similar to the spanish pieces of eight exist (break them into pieces to pay for stuff), although I wouldn't ask my players to track that level of detail!


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 25, 2008)

Well, considering I've done away with platinum coins in my game and use different conversion rates (100cp = 1sp; 100sp = 1gp; any prices in gp are sp instead), I'm all for silver coins as the standard unit.

For me, platinum coins break the suspension of disbelief because there's never been any culture using coins from that material (to my knowledge). I'd rather introduce kauri shells.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 25, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Looking in Wikipedia (and we all know Wikipedia is always right) the valuation in pre-1492 times was between 6-1 and 12-1.  After that, largely due to the discoveries of huge mines in South America, the value of silver decreased.




What they needed was a slick marketing campaign to sustain the perceived value.

Something like, "Silver is forever!" should work.

(Oh, and seize control of the supply, of course.)

Hey 3cat, I really enjoyed your last post about the density/thickness of coins.

What about coin clipping? Nobody could afford to accept coins at face value-- you'd want to weigh them all.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 25, 2008)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> For me, platinum coins break the suspension of disbelief because there's never been any culture using coins from that material (to my knowledge). I'd rather introduce kauri shells.




I agree, hence my Large Gold Crowns at 1/10lb, a relic of 1e days!


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 25, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> What they needed was a slick marketing campaign to sustain the perceived value.
> 
> Something like, "Silver is forever!" should work.
> 
> (Oh, and seize control of the supply, of course.)




The Spaniards were woefully unaware of the concept of devaluation.  I think they had a pretty strong control of the supply of silver, actually, they just couldn't stop themselves from spending the stuff.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> What about coin clipping? Nobody could afford to accept coins at face value-- you'd want to weigh them all.




This is true, but it would be something that happens so often that it would be standard practice to weigh coins, and therefore not really something to deal with in game unless a particular adventure works it in somehow...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 25, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> This is true, but it would be something that happens so often that it would be standard practice to weigh coins, and therefore not really something to deal with in game unless a particular adventure works it in somehow...




Well there would probably have to be two divergent approaches.

The Rat-on-a-Stick guy and other small-time vendors certainly aren't carrying a set of scales with them everywhere they go (although I think they might have a decent Appraise skill to guesstimate weight by hand). But at the same time, they're probably spending their coins at similar vendors, so they don't particularly care whether a coin has been clipped or not. They're just putting it back into the system as fast as they earn it. In the course of the day they might see no more than a handful of coins anyway.

Anybody who deals with large sums of money-- including anybody who wants to grow their wealth-- is going to want a nice set of scales.

I do believe coin clipping was punishable by death, FWIW, but it would seem to be a hard thing to prove. Certainly the possession of a clipped coin is not evidence of a crime. You'd need to find the clipper's shop, coin shavings, and whatever materials he used to melt the shavings down into ingots or lumps again.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Jan 25, 2008)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> The light warhorse in the PHB costs 150 gp.  That means you'll have to carry 1500 sp worth of coins (30 pounds of coins).





many people are working with the assumption the prices would go from gold to silver in name so it would  be 150 sp for that horse if the game used a silver standard. 

That way a fortune in gold IS a fortune in gold.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 25, 2008)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> many people are working with the assumption the prices would go from gold to silver in name so it would  be 150 sp for that horse if the game used a silver standard.
> 
> That way a fortune in gold IS a fortune in gold.



Define "fortune".  I mean, is it really bothering people that a fortune in gold has to be 10,000 coins instead of a fortune in gold being 100 coins? Is it bothering people that there are few/no real-world precious metals for coins above the value of gold?  Is this not what mithril, adamantium, and unobtanium are for?

If there's anything about D&D monetary schemes that bothers me it's the use of gems as a medium of exchange.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 25, 2008)

The prices need a bit of rebalancing.  A horse shouldn't cost ten times a longsword - 150 sp for both would be fine.  OTOH full plate armour *was* and should be extremely expensive, I'd be ok with it costing 15,000 sp, though 1,500 sp might be ok.


----------



## Pssthpok (Jan 25, 2008)

Well, I don't care what 4E does as long as it addresses the issue of average wage.

The way it is now, a laborer earns an average of 1sp/day. Comparing that to a recent US survey which stated that the average American laborer earns ~9.50$/hour and that boils down to a silver piece equaling about 76$ US.

Which makes a gold 760$ US. Being paid biweekly, an average D&D laborer earns 1 gp/fortnight.

Which makes a suit of full plate (1,500 gp) worth 1.14$ million US.

If, as someone earlier in this thread pointed out, the relationship between gold and silver were more accurately represented (i.e. 55:1), then a suit of full plate would 5.5-times more expensive, or 6.27$ million US.

Which is, of course, preposterous. Full plate was expensive, but over 6 million dollars?! No chance.

Putting everything on the gold standard perverts the value of lesser coins, but I'm not sure a simple switch to a silver standard fixes anything. More or less, in order to fix the issue it needs to be reimagined from the ground up.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jan 25, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> The prices need a bit of rebalancing.




I agree.  But the 3E DMG lists the daily wage for labor at 1sp.  My vague assessment of the wheat and most other commodity prices (except for salt - sheesh) is that they are ok too.  So from that perspective, the current prices seem to already been on a "silver standard".  At least for things that adventurers don't usually buy.  

For things adventurers buy, the prices seem to be either calculated in terms of what will make the PCs go "ouch" or just made up willy-nilly without any thought given to the value of the materials or labor that would go into making the item.  

IMO the 3E Arms and Equipment guide is full of really horrendous and arbitrary prices, so I shudder to think of what 4E is going to look like if someone doesn't improve the research on these things.  It's not like I expect DnD to be historical simulation, so 100-10-1 for copper-silver-gold is fine and convenient.  But 1 gp/lb for barley and 2sp/gallon for ale is an example of just being stupid.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jan 25, 2008)

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> The way it is now, a laborer earns an average of 1sp/day. Comparing that to a recent US survey which stated that the average American laborer earns ~9.50$/hour and that boils down to a silver piece equaling about 76$ US.




There are two issues to consider here.  One is what the DMG means by "laborer".  I don't think an American laborer, working in an environment with minimum wage laws and child-labor laws and all of that really is comparable to a medieval "laborer".  I would look outside the US for comparisons.  I would think that a thatcher would make 2sp/day, and his teenage or spouse assistant probably makes 1 sp/day.



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Which makes a suit of full plate (1,500 gp) worth 1.14$ million US.




This is more the issue IMO.  50lbs of silver is worth 250gp.  One has to conclude that either armor-quality steel is worth multiple times it's weight in silver (in which case maybe sp stands for "steel pieces"?)  Or that armorers make 100gp a week or hour?  Basically, I think a sensible look at material and labor costs for producing these items would give a good result.

AFAIK iron and silver were more valuable in Medieval times than they are now, both in general terms and in relation to gold.  I'm ok, for bookeeping purposes, with the current 10:1 ratios.


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 25, 2008)

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> The way it is now, a laborer earns an average of 1sp/day. Comparing that to a recent US survey which stated that the average American laborer earns ~9.50$/hour and that boils down to a silver piece equaling about 76$ US.



There is no reason to assume that a pre-industrial peasant would have the same wage as a 21st-century American laborer.  If anything, the pre-industrial peasant would have a wage similar to a 21st-century _African_'s -- maybe a dollar or two per day.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 25, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I do believe coin clipping was punishable by death, FWIW, but it would seem to be a hard thing to prove. Certainly the possession of a clipped coin is not evidence of a crime. You'd need to find the clipper's shop, coin shavings, and whatever materials he used to melt the shavings down into ingots or lumps again.



Actually, the "uttering" (ie passing in the course of a transaction) of a counterfeit coin was a crime in early 19th century Britain - though it was capital, I think, only on the third conviction.



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> The way it is now, a laborer earns an average of 1sp/day. Comparing that to a recent US survey which stated that the average American laborer earns ~9.50$/hour and that boils down to a silver piece equaling about 76$ US.



As others have said, this comparison will yield no historical information. The wealth of even a low-payed person in a contemporary industrial society bears no historical comparison even to the first half of the twentieth century, let alone earlier periods.



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> There is no reason to assume that a pre-industrial peasant would have the same wage as a 21st-century American laborer.  If anything, the pre-industrial peasant would have a wage similar to a 21st-century _African_'s -- maybe a dollar or two per day.



From memory, about a fifth of the world lives below the World Bank's poverty line of $2 a day _purchase power parity_ (ie they in fact earn much less than $2 a day, but in the measure we inflate that to take account, through a somewhat controversial methodology, of the lower cost of living in the person's country).

Whether these standards of living are comparable to pre-modern ones is a tricky question, because the economies in question are very different from pre-modern economies focused on susbsistence rather than international trade.

There are plenty of economic historians who write on pre-modern economies, whose books will answer some of the questions raised in this thread.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 26, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Setting the new game under a silver standard has nothing to do with absurd twists of fantasy economics and setting verisimilitude, as it simply involves altering the costs in the DMG and the expected value of any given coin.
> 
> I think _you_ are the one who missed my point completely, especially since you try to correct me by saying a few things that I have already said (changing the value of the sp to match the old gp).




Why bother changing the value of coins if you are also changing costs in the book?  You *have* to do one, but not both, in order to have an appreciable effect on the game.  

I'd do the following:

1.  There are no gold coins in normal circulation in any quasi-medieval campaign setting.  The copper piece becomes a silver penny that represents the basic unit of coinage.  Larger transactions can use a silver piece.  The only way to have an actual gold piece is to find it in some treasure horde (rarely), mine the ore, or have some other extraordinary means of obtaining them.
2.  A 15 gp longsword still costs 15 gp, but you have to lug around 1500 cp or 150 sp to pay for it.
3.  Treasure hordes get bumped down one "level" (i.e. if it calls for 1d6x1000 cp and 1d6x100 sp, you simply have 2d6x1000 cp in the horde.)

Basically, without trying to get involved with the craziness of having multiple different types of coins of different denominations, All you have to do is take a cue from the pre-decimal British system - the penny (cp) is the basic coin; 12 pence (cp) = 1 shilling (sp); 20 shillings (sp) = 1 pound (gp) with only the silver penny and shilling (or denominations thereof) being in circulation and no actual gold or silver pounds being minted.  Of course, you can use whatever ratio you want (100 cp = 10 sp = 1 gp can still be used).

You *could* have some cultures in your campaign world that *do* use both gold and silver, much like the arab dinar and dirham were used.  Interestingly enough, when Mansa Musa, ruler of the Mali Empire, passed through Cairo on his way to the hajj in the 1300's, spending gold like a drunken sailor, he caused rapid inflation in North Africa that lasted over 10 years to recover from - similar things could easily happen in your campaign world.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 26, 2008)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> Why bother changing the value of coins if you are also changing costs in the book?  You *have* to do one, but not both, in order to have an appreciable effect on the game.



Why? I don't see your logic at all...

Again, I don't think you understand what the effect on the game that I want happens to be. Doing what I said results in the exact effect I want.


----------



## Roman (Jan 26, 2008)

I did not read the thread, but I voted for gold. The gold standard has a D&D tradition to it and has a better ring to it for contemporary gamers. The silver standard was used in much of history, but I still prefer gold for my fantasy RPGs.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 26, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Why? I don't see your logic at all...
> 
> Again, I don't think you understand what the effect on the game that I want happens to be. Doing what I said results in the exact effect I want.




You wanted to change the book values and change the values of coinage, as per the following posts you made:



			
				TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Setting the new game under a silver standard has nothing to do with absurd twists of fantasy economics and setting verisimilitude, as it simply involves altering the costs in the DMG and the expected value of any given coin.






> TwinBahamut]Exactly. For example, as it stands a horse or a good suit of armor cost hundreds of gold pieces. Imagine that instead they costed hundreds of silver pieces, but could be bought with only one or two gold pieces. It means you need fewer coins to purchase meaningful objects.






			
				TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Err... what? Nonsense. If I want to say that the new silver piece is equal in value to the old gold piece, and that the new gold piece is worth 20-100 times the value of the new silver piece, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that it can't be so.




Changing the book value of items so they are in silver pieces, but then making silver pieces so much more valuable does nothing much at all.  You've devalued items, but overvalued coinage.  This isn't using a silver standard, it is acting like the Federal Reserve Bank, manipulating the economy.

If that is what you want to do - fine, but it isn't basing the game on a silver standard.

You actually have to do one, but not both.  Otherwise, your coinage becomes fiat money.


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 26, 2008)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> You wanted to change the book values and change the values of coinage, as per the following posts you made:
> ....
> If that is what you want to do - fine, but it isn't basing the game on a silver standard.
> 
> You actually have to do one, but not both.  Otherwise, your coinage becomes fiat money.



Sure it is! It's just changing the relative value of silver due to the actual mineral occurring in a different frequency than it does here on earth, or being more easily extractable.

It's not a fiat money in the sense that I think that you're using it, because you're not looking at the relative scarcity of the specie it's being applied to; if instead of Gold and Silver we spoke of Goldesque and Silveresque, it'd be a lot clearer what we're talking about doing here (because I agree with Twin Bahamut).

Because honestly, the prices at which things are pegged aren't that realistic to start with. It's already fiat money: X coins are worth Y goods because Gary Gygax (/Monte Cook/Mike Mearls) says so.
There's nothing wrong with saying "Silver economy, in which the base coin is silver, and you will primarily be interacting with silver coins. A longsword costs 15 of these coins; a horse costs 75 of these coins, and so on".


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 26, 2008)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> Changing the book value of items so they are in silver pieces, but then making silver pieces so much more valuable does nothing much at all.  You've devalued items, but overvalued coinage.  This isn't using a silver standard, it is acting like the Federal Reserve Bank, manipulating the economy.
> 
> If that is what you want to do - fine, but it isn't basing the game on a silver standard.
> 
> You actually have to do one, but not both.  Otherwise, your coinage becomes fiat money.



You seem to be confusing world-building, where we decide what our imaginary game world will be like, with policy, where the state decides what the rules in its jurisdiction will be.

If, as DM or game-designer, I declare, "A longsword will now cost 15 florins," that is very, very different from declaring, as king within that game world, "A longsword will now cost 15 florins."


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 26, 2008)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> You wanted to change the book values and change the values of coinage, as per the following posts you made:
> 
> Changing the book value of items so they are in silver pieces, but then making silver pieces so much more valuable does nothing much at all.  You've devalued items, but overvalued coinage.  This isn't using a silver standard, it is acting like the Federal Reserve Bank, manipulating the economy.
> 
> ...



Err, first, I already said that the use of the term "silver standard" is completely different in this thread than it is in real-world economics. After all, this is just a discussion of preferred relative values of coinage in a game system. Real world economics have absolutely nothing to do with this.

I am not manipulating the economy because there is no economy to manipulate.

Again, I have to say that you are completely missing my point.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 26, 2008)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Sure it is! It's just changing the relative value of silver due to the actual mineral occurring in a different frequency than it does here on earth, or being more easily extractable.
> 
> It's not a fiat money in the sense that I think that you're using it, because you're not looking at the relative scarcity of the specie it's being applied to; if instead of Gold and Silver we spoke of Goldesque and Silveresque, it'd be a lot clearer what we're talking about doing here (because I agree with Twin Bahamut).
> 
> ...




Granted, the prices aren't realistic, but there is no reason why your D&D economy can't be self-consistent, no?

Saying "A longsword costs 15 of these coins..." is fine, but my point is that the equivalent of the "copper piece" will be the most heavily traded coin, not the equivalent of the "silver piece," so most of the time, the longsword that costs 15 "silver pieces" really means that the purchaser is going to hand over 150 "copper pieces" (assuming 10:1 like we do right now in D&D).

I guess a more concrete example would be that the blacksmith says that the standard noble's sword costs 4 shillings.  What this means is that most of the time, a buyer is going to hand over 80 pence, not 4 shillings.  For a comparison of wages, the average daily wage for a thatcher between 1261 and 1520 was about 4 pence (starting a 2d in 1261 and ending up at 5.25d by 1520).  The average knight earned about 2s/day in 1316.  (This is all from the medieval price list on Fordham Univ's website.)

So - the hero makes 40 pence/day - 10x what the commoner makes.  Very similar to D&D, but unlike D&D, the knight in the real-world is most likely actually carrying around 40 coins instead of 2.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 26, 2008)

Fordham's is your friend.  http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/medievalprices.html
For the economy side of world building its actually extremely easy to set prices.  Define the currency system and relative worth of various levels of currency.  Like the entire copper-silver-gold/pence-shilling-pound array and fix the price of a staple item.  I prefer to use the price of grain for this purpose.  Then pick a historical period and use that as a baseline to determine the prices of other goods relative to the staple serving as baseline.

EDIT: Just saw 3catcircus's last post beat me too it.  But at the same time the issue of which coins are being USED is effectively on another axis from what most of the posters here are discussing.  They're talking about setting the relative pricing and value of items in context to the monetary system.  Also working at a more fundamental level than the price control via economic system manipulation level they're not saying x shall be worth y as a king would, they're saying balance of commodities between x and y is z.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 27, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Fordham's is your friend.  http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/medievalprices.html
> For the economy side of world building its actually extremely easy to set prices.  Define the currency system and relative worth of various levels of currency.  Like the entire copper-silver-gold/pence-shilling-pound array and fix the price of a staple item.  I prefer to use the price of grain for this purpose.  Then pick a historical period and use that as a baseline to determine the prices of other goods relative to the staple serving as baseline.
> 
> EDIT: Just saw 3catcircus's last post beat me too it.  But at the same time the issue of which coins are being USED is effectively on another axis from what most of the posters here are discussing.  They're talking about setting the relative pricing and value of items in context to the monetary system.  Also working at a more fundamental level than the price control via economic system manipulation level they're not saying x shall be worth y as a king would, they're saying balance of commodities between x and y is z.




True, but the problem is, what most people are discussing does nothing to change the dynamics of the game.  Saying "a silver piece is now worth what a gold piece was worth and a gold piece is now worth what 20 gold pieces was worth" and then turning around and saying "change all book prices to the next lower category" means that you are shifting the scale without changing the actual values involved.  

By making the prices shift while at the same time making the coins more valuable as TwinBahamut suggested, you aren't making gold more valuable - you are making silver more valuable.  The only easy-easy way to make it more valuable is to keep the book prices as-is while removing all of the platinum and the majority of the gold coinage from circulation.  You are artificially creating the use of  the silver piece as the basis of the economy this way, but it _isn't_ what the definition of a silver standard is.  A silver standard only means that you are using a set quantity of silver to define the basic unit of currency.  By doing what TwinBahamut suggests, you are forcing prices to fit the money instead of the other way around.

The original intent of the thread was to figure out if it made sense for people who are far apart and disconnected from one another to have gold as the primary medium of exchange, with JoeG's point being that copper made no sense as the standard *since prices are in gold*, but making silver the standard would allow other types of metals to be used for coins while making gold and platinum really valuable.

The problem is one of, I think, semantics - due to the fact that the coins are referred to by their metal type, rather than some different name.  "What do you mean that I can't use gp to buy this 50 gp armor?!?!"  It is much easier to think of the coins as penny, dime, dollar.  You can still charge $1 for something, but if all of the dollar coins/bills are removed from circulation, the buyer may be forced to pay in pennies or dimes (with nickels and quarters and half-dollars being fractional denominations.)  A real example of what I am talking about is the US $2 bill (ignoring the fact that it is fiat money).  There are $2 bills around, but most of them are sitting in banks rather than in retailers' tills.  Wanna buy a $2 soda?  Give the cashier two $1 bills.  Same amount of money, different amount of physical pieces of money.


----------



## Traycor (Jan 27, 2008)

simply not edible said:
			
		

> I don't see this having any effect whatsoever.
> 
> Smaller currencies will always be useless to high-level adventurers. Changing teh standard currency will do nothing to change that.



Well, at current prices, anything except gold is useless to even lvl 1 characters. Why have silver (or for that matter copper) at all if they will never be used?

Change the standard I say. A copper piece should be a day's wages for most folks.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 27, 2008)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> True, but the problem is, what most people are discussing does nothing to change the dynamics of the game.  Saying "a silver piece is now worth what a gold piece was worth and a gold piece is now worth what 20 gold pieces was worth" and then turning around and saying "change all book prices to the next lower category" means that you are shifting the scale without changing the actual values involved.



That is so incomprehensibly wrong.  They HAVE changed the value, to use your example the longsword used to be worth 15/50lb of gold, now is worth 15/50lb of silver, while gold has gone from being worth 10 to 20lb of silver per pound.  In short the sword has gone from being worth .3lb of gold to being worth .015lb of gold.  Massively increasing the value of gold.  You have increased the value of silver yes but also of gold.  Both are now worth much more as can be seen by the decreased value of commodities in relation to set quantities of these metals.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 27, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> That is so incomprehensibly wrong.  They HAVE changed the value, to use your example the longsword used to be worth 15/50lb of gold, now is worth 15/50lb of silver, while gold has gone from being worth 10 to 20lb of silver per pound.  In short the sword has gone from being worth .3lb of gold to being worth .015lb of gold.  Massively increasing the value of gold.  You have increased the value of silver yes but also of gold.  Both are now worth much more as can be seen by the decreased value of commodities in relation to set quantities of these metals.




And it won't matter one bit if the PCs are still carrying around x amount of silver instead of x amount of gold, doing what you propose.

The fighter gets 150 gp as average starting wealth in the current 3.x rules.  Now, what you are proposing is to give him an average of 150 sp.  But that 15 gp longsword now costs 15 sp.  It does *nothing* to change the ability of PCs to lug around a silver mine with them, flood a town with cheap silver, and spend like a drunken sailor buying magic items (which are now priced in sp).

What I am saying is the following:

The fighter still gets an average 150 gp worth starting money.  Only now it is 1500 sp.  That longsword still costs 15 gp, but he has to carry more weight in money to pay for it.  Instead of finding 1,000 gp in the dungeon, he finds 1,000 sp, but that +1 longsword still costs 2,315 gp, so it is gonna take him a bunch more trips to dungeons to afford one (or pay the smithy in installments or on layaway).  That loaf of bread still only costs 2cp, though, so the commoner, making 1 sp/day (in the form of 10 cp/day), can still buy 5 loafs of bread to feed his family for the week.

Look - saying everything costs less but people don't carry gold is fine if you want to do that. 

I prefer a more realistic (in the sense that anything in D&D could every be realistic) approach to money, based upon how people really interact with money.  How many people will ever see a $1000 bill?  A $100 bill?  A $1 bill?  When you withdraw $100 from the bank - do they normally give you a single $100 bill, or a mix of $20s, $10s, and $5s?


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 27, 2008)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> And it won't matter one bit if the PCs are still carrying around x amount of silver instead of x amount of gold, doing what you propose.
> 
> The fighter gets 150 gp as average starting wealth in the current 3.x rules.  Now, what you are proposing is to give him an average of 150 sp.  But that 15 gp longsword now costs 15 sp.  It does *nothing* to change the ability of PCs to lug around a silver mine with them, flood a town with cheap silver, and spend like a drunken sailor buying magic items (which are now priced in sp).



And you seem to fail to realize that aside from you no one here is trying to address that issue.  They AREN'T trying to adjust the purchasing power of pc characters.  They're trying to move the price points themselves to a level slightly less outrageous and more consistent with historical prices.  And they want to do this so that they can raise the relative value of gold enough that when large quantities are found it will be impressive to players as a result of its improved purchasing power in the context of the setting.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 27, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> And you seem to fail to realize that aside from you no one here is trying to address that issue.  They AREN'T trying to adjust the purchasing power of pc characters.  They're trying to move the price points themselves to a level slightly less outrageous and more consistent with historical prices.  And they want to do this so that they can raise the relative value of gold enough that when large quantities are found it will be impressive to players as a result of its improved purchasing power in the context of the setting.




And what everyone else either fails to realize or willfully disregards is that moving the price point down while raising the relative value of coins _isn't_ a silver standard.  You'll note that JoeG's original post and poll *doesn't* address the idea of changing prices, only of making gold and platinum coins more valuable, which is what I've been discussing.


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 27, 2008)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> And what everyone else either fails to realize or willfully disregards is that moving the price point down while raising the relative value of coins _isn't_ a silver standard.  You'll note that JoeG's original post and poll *doesn't* address the idea of changing prices, only of making gold and platinum coins more valuable, which is what I've been discussing.



Either you're misinterpreting, um, everything...
... or one of the poll options (platinum) is completely impossible.

My guess is that we're trying to solve completely different things. I'd like to solve the fact that gold is the standard medium of exchange and thus mundane; I don't care too badly about portable liquid wealth, because it's an abstraction, and my characters are already fully laden with loot.
I'm attracted to silver coinage because it lets me posit an easily transfered, standard unit of wealth (_for adventurers_) above the level of the base coin that isn't platinum. This isn't platinum's fault; it's just not as cool as gold is for the purpose.
ninja edit: By easily transfered, by the way, I mean "not a gem or art object", not "dollar bill woo!" 

You seem very dismissive of this point of view; am I just misreading you?


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 27, 2008)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Either you're misinterpreting, um, everything...
> ... or one of the poll options (platinum) is completely impossible.
> 
> My guess is that we're trying to solve completely different things. I'd like to solve the fact that gold is the standard medium of exchange and thus mundane; I don't care too badly about portable liquid wealth, because it's an abstraction, and my characters are already fully laden with loot.
> ...




I'm not dismissive; I just don't think the intent of people who want to both raise the value of coins and lower the value of items at the same time is keeping to the original topic's intent.  But, I might be wrong.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 27, 2008)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> And what everyone else either fails to realize or willfully disregards is that moving the price point down while raising the relative value of coins _isn't_ a silver standard.  You'll note that JoeG's original post and poll *doesn't* address the idea of changing prices, only of making gold and platinum coins more valuable, which is what I've been discussing.



I would say willfully disregards, myself. After, Haven't I said multiple times in this thread already that the definition being used in this discussion for "silver standard" is not really the typical economic one that you are using?

As a whole, I think there are two things that people in this thread want to see changed about the economic system. First, people want a real reason for silver coins to be considered valuable and useful for PCs. Second, people want gold coins to be more rare and valuable than they are currently. where you need a wagon full of gold to buy even a mundane suit of armor or a cheap magic item. You can argue whether or not this is at all related to a "silver standard", but these points are what people want to see changed, so any discussion of whether this is related to a "silver standard" or not is actually quite irrelevant.

If you ask me, what I proposed concerning altering prices and changing the relative value of gold and silver is one solution to the actual concerns of people in this thread. I have never cared at all whether this was an actual "silver standard" or not.


----------



## Zelster (Jan 28, 2008)

I think World of Warcraft has the right idea in the 100:1 exchange rate.  100 copper for 1 silver, and silver is the most that an average daily laborer could hope to earn.  Reserve the gold and platinum currencies for the ultra-wealthy (such as adventurers) and base the economy on what regular peasants could expect to earn.


----------



## Fenes (Jan 28, 2008)

Did anyone ever simply say "ok, the gold pieces are smaller than the silver pieces, so the material value evens out"?

And the whole discussion just reinforces my belief that taking exact amounts of money out of the game was a good one.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 28, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> And the whole discussion just reinforces my belief that taking exact amounts of money out of the game was a good one.



Where is this from?  Should this be in a scoop, because I haven't heard that about 4e.


----------



## Fenes (Jan 28, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Where is this from?  Should this be in a scoop, because I haven't heard that about 4e.




It's a house rule in my campaign, loosely styled after the d20 modern system of wealth levels.


----------



## Belgarath (Jan 30, 2008)

*my main problem*

I really dont care if an average everyday guy would need to spend no money in his wages for months to buy a sword. If that is the value they want to put on a sword in the game, that is fine.

Where i think the whole thing breaks down is that a laborer gets 1 sp a day. The poor meal will cost 1sp. Ok, that will feed just him and him alone. What about any family he has, or people that will depend on him to feed them. Even a laborer should be able to scrounge out enough money to be able to feed at least one other person. 

Lets go back to the equivalent modern sytem. A minumum wage worker in the US will earn around $60-70 a day for a full days work. That would mean that one cheap meal, like say a McDonalds value meal, would cost around $70 dollars. Even in the poorer countries, it is my understanding that someone who works can at least feed a small family regularly.

A gallon of ale costing $200? A  *common* meal being the around the same? A stay at a common inn being effectively $350 a night? That would mean that an artisan would be able to feed just himself if he ate a common meal everyday. It seems like what they are calling common, really isnt very common. It tends to be more high end from what i see. 

And before anything is said, there is a thing called relative wealth. A dollar might not mean much to a US citizen, but it may mean food for days in a poorer culture. But that would only mean that instead of earning $70 a day, a laborer might earn $1. But consider, the meals would also change prices, being a 20 cents (or something like that) instead of $10.

Easiest answer as far as I am concerned is dont change the cost of the items, only change the wages. Make a laborers pay 20 sp/week or something along that lines. That lets him feed himself, one other person and also be able to occasionally buy necessities like new clothes or whatever


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 30, 2008)

Belgarath said:
			
		

> Where i think the whole thing breaks down is that a laborer gets 1 sp a day. The poor meal will cost 1sp. Ok, that will feed just him and him alone. What about any family he has, or people that will depend on him to feed them. Even a laborer should be able to scrounge out enough money to be able to feed at least one other person.



You're absolutely right.

The answer: instead of fiddling with whether it's a gold-based or silver-based system, just change the labourers' wage to something that makes a bit of sense within the existing system, then adjust other wages to suit.  It doesn't take much - even a jump to 2 or 3 s.p. a day might suffice.

As for food costs; what we see in the PHB is the cost of eating out, with the "poor meal" still being the equivalent of eating at McD's in our culture.  In the quasi-medieval system used by most game worlds, much of the food would be grown on site or bartered for, costing next to nothing.

Where the wage system falls flat isn't food so much, but clothing and shelter; and again a small jump is all that's needed to fix it, without messing with everything else.

Lanefan


----------



## S'mon (Jan 30, 2008)

I don't know where people get this idea that a labourer should be able to feed a family on his (farm hand) or her (maid) daily wage.  Historically through the middle ages these people didn't get paid at all, they got food & shelter - and liked it! 
If you want your game world economy to resemble modern USA, certainly you need to up wages.  But the low paid NPC wages are clearly based off a medieval largely subsistence level economy.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 30, 2008)

Belgarath said:
			
		

> Where i think the whole thing breaks down is that a laborer gets 1 sp a day. The poor meal will cost 1sp. Ok, that will feed just him and him alone. What about any family he has, or people that will depend on him to feed them. Even a laborer should be able to scrounge out enough money to be able to feed at least one other person.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> A dollar might not mean much to a US citizen, but it may mean food for days in a poorer culture. But that would only mean that instead of earning $70 a day, a laborer might earn $1. But consider, the meals would also change prices, being a 20 cents (or something like that) instead of $10.



But in fact most people in poor countries (indeed, a good many people in industrialised countries, perhaps the majority) can't afford to feed themselves and their families on purchased meals. I have eaten the modern-day Kenyan equivalent of a "poor meal". Most Kenyans could not afford to regularly purchase such meals. Like poor people everywhere, they make their own meals. Indeed, in non-industrialised countries, not ony do people prepare their own food but they frequently do it using produce they have grown themselves.

Now if you want to monetise all of the economic activity in your gameworld (so that the daily income for a labourer includes not only their wage but the economic value of all the subsistence production in which that person engages) go for it. But that sounds like an ambitious project to me. After all, real-world economist have trouble agreeing on the economic value of non-marketised production in our real-world economies.


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 30, 2008)

Belgarath said:
			
		

> Where i think the whole thing breaks down is that a laborer gets 1 sp a day. [...]  Lets go back to the equivalent modern sytem.



There is no equivalent modern system, because this is not a modern industrial economy; it's a pre-modern agricultural subsistence economy.

If you want to compare it to anything in the present day, you should compare it to rural Africa, where the average worker is not middle class at all but dirt poor.


			
				Belgarath said:
			
		

> It seems like what they are calling common, really isnt very common. It tends to be more high end from what i see.



In a pre-modern economy, you have large numbers of people who can barely feed themselves and a tiny, tiny elite living in something vaguely resembling a modern lifestyle -- by skimming off "rents" from all those farmers, or by serving those wealthy landowners.

Those on the low end don't go clothes shopping, they don't eat out, and they don't even handle money.  They have a hut with a dirt floor and no windows, and they're given a new outfit each year.  They're happy simply to feed themselves and to see _some_ of their children live to adulthood.


----------



## Belgarath (Jan 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> There is no equivalent modern system, because this is not a modern industrial economy; it's a pre-modern agricultural subsistence economy.
> 
> If you want to compare it to anything in the present day, you should compare it to rural Africa, where the average worker is not middle class at all but dirt poor.
> In a pre-modern economy, you have large numbers of people who can barely feed themselves and a tiny, tiny elite living in something vaguely resembling a modern lifestyle -- by skimming off "rents" from all those farmers, or by serving those wealthy landowners.
> ...





That is just the point of what i am making. It states that a *common* meal is 3 sp. That would mean a common meal according to their culture. Even if we discard the entire modern to pre-industrial problem, it still leaves that something that is *common* is still 3 times the rate that a laborer makes in a day. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 30, 2008)

Belgarath said:
			
		

> That is just the point of what i am making. It states that a *common* meal is 3 sp. That would mean a common meal according to their culture. Even if we discard the entire modern to pre-industrial problem, it still leaves that something that is *common* is still 3 times the rate that a laborer makes in a day. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever




The prices in the PHB are for PC's - those prices are for meals you'd buy in an inn, not what it would cost for a peasant to prepare it in their hovel.  That's how I've always interpreted it, at least.


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 30, 2008)

Belgarath said:
			
		

> That is just the point of what i am making. It states that a *common* meal is 3 sp. That would mean a common meal according to their culture. Even if we discard the entire modern to pre-industrial problem, it still leaves that something that is *common* is still 3 times the rate that a laborer makes in a day. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever



It's "common" for people who can buy meals when they do buy meals.  Even in the US, most families couldn't eat out every day even a few decades ago.  In fact, most families couldn't afford to eat meat daily until after WWII or so.


----------



## Belgarath (Jan 30, 2008)

I dont know. Maybe it is the entire terminology that is getting to me. I have always much rather preferred the way gurps handled it for money. With that system, a poor farmhand still has the "money" to eat a meal a day and it all works out. He can even scrape up a little extra here and there for other stuff. Remember, that it might not be actual coins that he gets like in the modern world. It might be that those meals are part of his work, and the landowner feeds him. I can deal with that.

My problems is that quite frankly, the mathematics of it all doesnt work out at all with the terminology. The entire thing equals up to two completely different economies at the same time, which frankly annoys me. I can see an adventurer living well and eating things that most people wont be able to afford, but dont call it a "common" meal then. A meal should be a meal should be a meal. According to D&D, even trail rations - a simple fare that is just enough to live off of - is worth 5 times what a laborer can afford. Again, this makes no sense at all to me


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 30, 2008)

Belgarath said:
			
		

> The entire thing equals up to two completely different economies at the same time, which frankly annoys me.



That's how the real world works outside modern economies.  We're used to virtually everyone in modern America and Europe being middle class.  In a medieval economy, the middle class isn't the bulk of people; it's the tiny class of shopkeeps and craftsmen between the peasants and the landowners.


----------



## Belgarath (Jan 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> That's how the real world works outside modern economies.  We're used to virtually everyone in modern America and Europe being middle class.  In a medieval economy, the middle class isn't the bulk of people; it's the tiny class of shopkeeps and craftsmen between the peasants and the landowners.




So even a first level character is a multimillionaire in his or her own culture? According to the system that is exactly the case. They are not the middle class guys who are living fairly well but still have a bit of money trouble. They have enough money even after buying equipment to live at a standard that the "common" person can only dream of. Then why adventure? Money obviously isnt a problem. Even the artisans and skilled men cant even touch them.


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 30, 2008)

Belgarath said:
			
		

> So even a first level character is a multimillionaire in his or her own culture?



In a sense, yes, but he doesn't have the purchasing power of a wealthy American; he simply has vastly more money than the peasant folk.


			
				Belgarath said:
			
		

> They have enough money even after buying equipment to live at a standard that the "common" person can only dream of. Then why adventure?



Presumably a young man with arms and armor did not buy them with his vast wealth; he's the second or third son of a landed noble, and he won't inherit any land.  Unless he can carve out his own place in the world, he won't have anything to pass on to _his_ sons.


----------



## Belgarath (Jan 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> In a sense, yes, but he doesn't have the purchasing power of a wealthy American; he simply has vastly more money than the peasant folk.
> Presumably a young man with arms and armor did not buy them with his vast wealth; he's the second or third son of a landed noble, and he won't inherit any land.  Unless he can carve out his own place in the world, he won't have anything to pass on to _his_ sons.





All of that just reinforces my distaste for the sytem as it stands. A sword in this system is simply too valuable to hand away even if it is to your favorite student or son. Each character would have to come from some extremely wealthy begginnings to even start out at all. According to the books a suit of leather armor is 10gp. This is way out of the range of any normal person. A warrior should be able to get something even better than that. I mean come on, this is boiled leather we are talking about. Even considering the fact that it took a tanner some time to mold it into the proper shape and all, its still worth way more than what a commoner should be able to afford.

Look at it this way too. Say you see some dirty person who is wearing some even stained leather armor. Wouldnt it seem surprising that some guy who looks like a homless bum is wearing the equivelant of an armani suit? The mathematics of it all simply does not work out


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 30, 2008)

Belgarath said:
			
		

> A sword in this system is simply too valuable to hand away even if it is to your favorite student or son.



A sword is too valuable for a landed noble to give to _his son_?


			
				Belgarath said:
			
		

> Each character would have to come from some extremely wealthy begginnings to even start out at all.



Of course.  This isn't the Land of Opportunity.  Now, a peasant conscript could find himself surrounded by lots of lootable arms and armor, and he could rise through the ranks, so to speak, but it would be rare -- the kind of thing a PC might do.


			
				Belgarath said:
			
		

> According to the books a suit of leather armor is 10gp. This is way out of the range of any normal person.



I'd have to think about how much a cowhide would cost in a medieval economy, but I don't think it would be cheap.  After all, look at how much a leather trench coat costs today, when we raise far more cattle far more cheaply than in the past.

Through most of history, the armor we now consider normal for that era was often the armor of the very richest members of that society.  Only the very wealthiest Greeks were armored _hoplites_, for instance, and only the wealthiest of them had a bronze helmet, breastplate, and greaves.  Even amongst the hoplites, most had quilted linen armor.


----------



## Belgarath (Jan 30, 2008)

There is something that you seem to have forgotten though. This is not an entirely accurate historical world. There is one thing that they have that we didnt - working magic.

Take your example of not knowing as much about raising cattle. I think this isnt right. What if some retired ranger or druid decided he was going to take up farming. How much knowledge about it would he be able to aquire if he can actually speak with animals himself. He would even be able to teach some of it to someone who cant cast the spell. 

This is a world that has not developed our level of technology. That does not mean to say it is ignorant or backwards. It simply has another resource that we didnt. A cleric of a nature god or druid would have a lot of information on how to raise crops from his diety.

Granted, if you look at the class breakdown in the DMG, spell casters are pretty rare. That does not mean that would they have learned cannot be passed down to be used by "mundane" people. Im not talking about everyone using spells, im talking about it being common knowledge that if you want a good crop you need to rotate your fields.

Even some of the magic user stuff would be viable. Think of the things a mage would have to know about physics, engineering and other "sciences" to be able to perform his magic or at least can learn if he set his mind to it.


----------



## BradfordFerguson (Jan 30, 2008)

*metal change = name change*

changing the metal of the coinage simply amounts to a name change.  4E will hopefully be keeping it simple, so they should GET RID OF THE COPPER PIECE even.  Making silver the "new gold" and copper the "new silver" just amounts to a name change.  You could make the change to make it FEEL like more of a low fantasy setting than standard 4e will turn out to be.

the copper piece is a joke.  anything that costs a copper piece needs to be torn out of the PHB.  Screw water and food and ale!  Who tracks when their PCs shower or poop?  Why should you track when they drink and eat?  It's just not interesting to me.

chalk? candles?  If you have a player that wants to put it on their character sheet, then great, otherwise I don't want em taking up space in my PHB.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jan 30, 2008)

Belgarath said:
			
		

> That is just the point of what i am making. It states that a *common* meal is 3 sp. That would mean a common meal according to their culture.




The 3.5 SRD is more specific IIRC:  "Common meals might consist of bread, chicken stew, carrots, and watered-down ale or wine."

So perhaps:
>  1/2 lb loaf of bread = 2 cp
>  chicken stew = ?  a whole chicken is 2 cp.  Why not take that as an upper limit.
>  carrots = ? Say vegetables are probably twice grain by weight - due to labor and  fragility.  1 cp for 1/2 pound of carrots (mmmmm good)
>  ale = a mug of ale is 4 cp (this is very expensive compared to historic prices IMO)

Maybe 9 cp total?  I don't know how you get to 3 sp in this case.  I think that the DnD people didn't think much about reality of their prices, and I seriously doubt they took the few minutes to do the computation that I did above.

I think the above, in the case of ale at least, are tavern prices anyway.  Eyeball a recipe for brewing ale, with it's proportions of barley, etc., or look at historical ale prices, by the gallon compared with laborer wages for the same time period and I think you'll find that the ale price in DnD is too high.  Same thing goes for meat prices compared to the price of an ox.

Then again, think about what you pay for a hotdog at a stadium event, and I think the DnD prices make for good "let's fleece the out-of-towner" tavern price.  However, I think DnD should list the real prices for the benefit of PCs who might own a farm and for non-upscale taverns.



			
				Belgarath said:
			
		

> Even if we discard the entire modern to pre-industrial problem, it still leaves that something that is *common* is still 3 times the rate that a laborer makes in a day. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever




I agree, commoners spent time at the tavern.  But "laborers"?  I think we need a more precise definition of what that means.  There are all sorts of laborers, especially in a world without child labor laws.  They're not all going to get paid the same.  I prefer to think of 1 sp/day as the bottom scale of the labor market.

What does it take for a laborer to support a family as head of household?  Given the amount of labor that it takes just to run a household (spinning cloth, baking the bread, etc.) I think it's reasonable to assume that one of the adults of the household spends at least 1/2 a day at home, more in in a household with infants obviously.  It's not unreasonable to assume that a head-of-household laborer would have to earn subsistence wages.

I recently read a ball-park figure from a historian at 8 bushels grain/adult/year.  That's just bread consumption assuming a bulk of, but not all, calories come from bread.  I'd say another 50% of that value would/could go to clothes, other foodstuffs, etc.  Say equivalent of 3 adults/year in a household.  8 bushels grain = about 400 lbs = 400 cp * 150% = 600 cp/year = 50 cp/month per adult.  x3 adults = 150 cp/month = about 5 cp/day.

The 1 sp only comes your way on days that you work, so you're not getting 365 sp/year.  Also, there are tithes, taxes, fines, etc.  And I'm not convinced that 150% grain price is your total living expense.

Basically I think 1 sp/day is ok in an order-of-magnitude way.  2 sp/day wouldn't be bad either.  A sword at 15 gp, and many other prices in the 3.5 SRD though, IMO don't stand up to this order of magnitude thought experiment.


----------

