D&D 5E Why I think gold should have less uses in 5e, not more.

[Lanefan]

Right. That's why I think having parallel currencies is the way to go. Then you can be fairly lavish with "worthless" gold which PCs will spend on fun stuff, and let them hoard the power currency which they can then turn into actual power.

Having just one currency forces choices on what to spend it on. Having a different currency for each thing takes away that choice.

 

[Horwath]

Yup. There ya go. So again, we are left with a case of "look, it's something D&D already tried... in 4e."

yeah, and guess what, you can buy that with gold so again you have only 1 currency, but Residium is very "dense" in value, so it's handy for transport.

one more reason for moving to 1PP=100GP=10.000SP=1.000.000CP instead of current 1PP=10GP=100SP=1.000CP.

 

[Staffan]

Having just one currency forces choices on what to spend it on. Having a different currency for each thing takes away that choice.

Yes, and that's the point. Separating mundane and magical currencies means both that you don't have merchants and nobles automatically gaining a lot of personal power through the use of magic items, and that you can have adventurers blinged out with magic stuff who don't know where their next meal is coming from.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

Yes, and that's the point. Separating mundane and magical currencies means both that you don't have merchants and nobles automatically gaining a lot of personal power through the use of magic items, and that you can have adventurers blinged out with magic stuff who don't know where their next meal is coming from.

If you want have separate currencies that truly stay separate, you have to get harsh about imposing currency controls. This is an option, but it does have drawbacks.

If you want rare magic items, you can impose an "Only the Chosen have magic items" system. A milder version, one that lets you get away with items being more common, is some variant on "Only the Chosen may effectively use magic items." An item might look blingly for any user, but will only provide its creamy magical bonuses to a user who pays out of his character-building budget (e.g. with XP) or who meets certain level or other requirements. (With "other requirements" possibly including "Favored by the Gawds, or by the Narrative, or by the DM Almighty.")

Another way to think of it is "how much magic bling can be piled on a low to mid level character before reaching a point where adding even more magic bling just isn't worth it?" If the answer is "more than I'd ever ever ever want to allow as a DM" then that's a slider moved way over to the far right - but a slider that still might be subject to adjustment, somehow.

 

[Horwath]

Yes, and that's the point. Separating mundane and magical currencies means both that you don't have merchants and nobles automatically gaining a lot of personal power through the use of magic items, and that you can have adventurers blinged out with magic stuff who don't know where their next meal is coming from.

levels. attunement and levels.
That is how you prevent rich n00bs to have too much power via magic items.

I.E. attunement slots equal to proficiency bonus
items with attunements required some minimal level to attune.
I.E. while anyone can use +1 sword, a flaming sword that adds +2d6 flaming damage might require level 4 or 5 to attune, maybe even higher.

 

[Staffan]

levels. attunement and levels.
That is how you prevent rich n00bs to have too much power via magic items.

I.E. attunement slots equal to proficiency bonus
items with attunements required some minimal level to attune.
I.E. while anyone can use +1 sword, a flaming sword that adds +2d6 flaming damage might require level 4 or 5 to attune, maybe even higher.

That's a way to fix one of the issues, but not the other where you could sell your boots of striding and springing and retire on the proceeds.

 

[Willie the Duck]

If you want have separate currencies that truly stay separate, you have to get harsh about imposing currency controls. This is an option, but it does have drawbacks.

You can also just make exchange between the two inefficient. Players are a lot less likely to spend plot funds on character build funds activities if they only get 3:4 value for doing so.

 

[Horwath]

That's a way to fix one of the issues, but not the other where you could sell your boots of striding and springing and retire on the proceeds.

it's like you kill a mexican drug lord and loot his goldplated AK-47s studded with diamonds.
you can retire with selling those.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

PCs could choose to retire early with a few thousand gold, but they'd be missing out on a lot, mainly power.

At level 5 you're pretty strong, but an orc war band, an evil lich, or a dragon in your area can still ruin your life on a whim. If you keep leveling up you'll be able to defend yourself and your family/friends much better, and that's without even touching the possible immortality, multiverse hopping or god-slaying you can participate in if you survive long enough.

You can treat gold as not the reward, it's just the thing you use to buy stuff that'll keep you alive to get the real good stuff.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, and that's the point. Separating mundane and magical currencies means both that you don't have merchants and nobles automatically gaining a lot of personal power through the use of magic items, and that you can have adventurers blinged out with magic stuff who don't know where their next meal is coming from.

I have no problem with merchants and - more importantly - nobles being able to buy magic items. Adventurers won't (and IMO shouldn't) be the only market for such things.

And I think it should be an in-character choice whether to eat well and not buy that last potion, or buy that last potion and live off forage....and not have the money needed to bribe the next gate guard that wants bribing.