What will the role of treasure be in D&D Next

I'm curious as to how treasure will fit into the scheme of D&D Next - specifically, monetary treasure. 

With no real-life living expenses to pay, players oftentimes see treasure solely as a route to new magical items. But with D&D Next's movement away from magic as an expected part of a character's growth, is there an expectation of what exactly the characters will have to spend money on?

In 3rd and 4th, it was almost assumed that cash gained from adventuring would be used to acquire or improve magical items, and as such became more of a "gift card" than an actual gift in and of itself.  I wonder if there will be guidelines or suggestions of other reasons players should value cash rewards.

Maybe they could think about adding mechanical effects from stuff such as buying a castle or some land (beyond the obvious) as its something most long term gamers try at some point. 

Money often gets overlooked past level 10, my only real solution would be to make money more of a scarce comodity in the game.
From what I recall in AD&D, gold is allowed to flow freely specifically because there's nothing to do with it.  Past the point where you could afford plate armor, or optionally commission master-crafted gear, the only thing to do with gold was to build a keep or donate to a church.

Of course, at least for a while there, you also earned XP for each gold piece found, so that was enough reward in itself.
The metagame is not the game.
     A castle, or other mundane item, needs to have a game effect.  Making gold scarce has no effect of itself.  Whether you have 1 gold or 1 million gold, the question is what can you do with it.  Having magic to buy worked very well.  Taking it out of the formula leaves a major hole.
I woud welcome less of a emphasis on treasure.  I would get the game away from the kill monster/loot monster/find the next spawn mentality that sometimes creeps in.  Aragorn didn't stop to rifle the dead orcs pockets for loose change.  I would be happier with goals and rewards being more story based.

Which is not to say a given character's story goal couldn't be to fill a big room with money and swim around in it Scrooge McDuck style, but I don't think it should be the default. 
Maybe they could think about adding mechanical effects from stuff such as buying a castle or some land (beyond the obvious) as its something most long term gamers try at some point.



This is exactly what I'd like to see - some sort of "What to do with your gold" section in the PHB that talks about other, more RP-centric uses for monetary treasure. Perhaps with a correlating section in the DMG fleshing out average costs of such alternate rewards - example costs for wizard's towers, castles & keeps, etc.

The more I read about D&D next, the warmer and fuzzier feeling I get.  It's like I didn't realize what was missing from the game until they put it back. 
I disagree with one thing.

Anything involving scrooge mcduck SHOULD be default. 
I guess a lot of it comes down to what the ultimate goal for your character is.  I've seen quite a few characters in the past who had a long term goal of "Raise X money to perform Y task."  Often, X is such a large number that the only possible way to acquire it would be to do extremely dangerous work, such as being an adventurer.

Of course, if they actually succeed at those goals, then it usually meant rolling up a new character.
The metagame is not the game.
Gold is great at low levels (buy more stuff!) but after a certain point, it does lose it's luster. Story rewards like titles of nobility, being knighted, named elf-friend, and so on become much more interesting once you've bought two of everything on the list and a warehouse to store it in.
A castle, or other mundane item, needs to have a game effect.  Making gold scarce has no effect of itself.  Whether you have 1 gold or 1 million gold, the question is what can you do with it.  Having magic to buy worked very well.  Taking it out of the formula leaves a major hole.

I can't help but feel that this doesn't solve anything.  Instead of saving up 20k to buy new gloves with +2 strength on them, you save up 20k to buy a keep that grants a +1 training bonus to hit and damage.

I guess it solves the "magic walmart" phenomenon, but it doesn't solve the underlying root of that problem.  Of course, that would require you to buy into the idea that "spending ridiculous wealth to amplify your adventuring ability just so you can get more loot to get more plusses" is a problem in the first place, which is not necessarily a given.

The metagame is not the game.
Gold is great at low levels (buy more stuff!) but after a certain point, it does lose it's luster. Story rewards like titles of nobility, being knighted, named elf-friend, and so on become much more interesting once you've bought two of everything on the list and a warehouse to store it in.



There have been games where I have bought patents of nobility or knighthood with gold.  Never forget the importance of greed to the powerful ;)

The more I read about D&D next, the warmer and fuzzier feeling I get.  It's like I didn't realize what was missing from the game until they put it back. 



I totally agree with this.


However, back on topic. The problem with money is the huge amounts of it. Even at low levels. I'm going to use 3.X as an example since it is the one I'm most familar with. 

The average treasure that should have been gained per encounter was about 400gp for a first level encounter. If you went as high as third level, any character would be able to retire in style. Not nobility rich, but enough that they would never have to worry about anything ever again. 

Right now, I'm enjoying Next in that respect. Lots of the creatures have only a few coins (and low value ones at that). However, in D&D the economy breaks down- it ALWAYS breaks down. Seriously. A few grand of gold and you can basically hire an entire village for a week or so. In most cases Castles and other major investments cost far more then they realistically should, simply because they are made to suck huge amounts of gold away from PCs. In truth, fortification building takes more in game TIME then available cash. 

I remember in 2nd Ed (I think), there was a re-occuring monthly maintence cost. However, it did not take level into account. It was just basically a food and drink and lodging for the month type thing. I would love to see as a  modular rule, an upkeep cost. Something like the following;

Sparse; 10gp x level
Standard; 20gp x level
Good: 30gp x level
Extravagent: 50gp x level

This would take into account food and lodging, maintaining and replacing used mundane gear, and sundries that most people don't bother with (seriously, how many characters have more then the sets of clothes then what they started the game with?).

Cobblestone Chaos: A general all around blog. Mainly wargaming, but also some RPG thoughts, game philosophy, and industry thoughts.

Baatezu's Advocate: The angry, NSFW blog. I rant and rave, and generally act politically incorrect.
I like players owning buildings and other intresting stuff
 
i don't know if it would mess up the math of the game to much but things like :
planar lore library spending at least 1 hour in this library gives you a bonus when using the planar lore skill.
you would have +1 +2 and +3 libraries and they can get very expensive.

 
I too think gold should be hard to come by, but relevant outside of just buying more cool stuff.

Maybe a system where your total gold value goes toward developing an overall character Prestige value which can reach certain threshholds that produce added bonuses to wealth-related interactive situations, or be bonuses that can be selectively added to Diplomacy or Intimidation type checks. Buying land, castles, armies would invest into this value.

This may help replicate how wealth can be power and how that power is used in certain Diplomatic or Intimidating situations. I'd also like to see these bonuses become instant negatives in certain situations where the adversary is bitter of your fortune and would like to do something about it! So if you decide to pull out the wealth card, that option would come at a risk.
I too think gold should be hard to come by, but relevant outside of just buying more cool stuff.

Maybe a system where your total gold value goes toward developing an overall character Prestige value which can reach certain threshholds that produce added bonuses to wealth-related interactive situations, or be bonuses that can be selectively added to Diplomacy or Intimidation type checks. Buying land, castles, armies would invest into this value.

This may help replicate how wealth can be power and how that power is used in certain Diplomatic or Intimidating situations. I'd also like to see these bonuses become instant negatives in certain situations where the adversary is bitter of your fortune and would like to do something about it! So if you decide to pull out the wealth card, that option would come at a risk.



or maybe use your gold to bribe officials to get a knight title.
so you have the same benefit of free loging as the knight background does. 
I want the game to function just as well if characters receive 5 gold a level as it does when characters receive 500K gold a level. I don't think money should be a balancing factor.
Ah yes.

The role of treasure. Some adventurers do eventually get some and the DM must have ways... sensible ways for them to spend it.
Magic items
Buildlings
Henchmen

All nice.
What fun it is to worry about finances when the king, the queen, and most of the major knights and nobles come to your castle, eat up all your fod, and leave with half your officers. Hriing a new captian of the guard and master of horse.

I remember a low magic game where the party ended up spending half their treasure hiring guards and buying traps to protect the treasure as there were nothing but frivolus things available for purchase with high enough price tags. How much wine could you buy really?

One DM even let PCs buy hero insurance which granted automatic healing and resurrections depending on your level. The costs were brutal..

I like army and business management myself.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

The idea of finding treasure every time you fight something is a little off to me.

I think what should be done is to get rid of the idea that you find large sums of ready useable gold and switch that to objects the players have to barter with.

Kill a whole tribe of goblins and their wizard.  You don't get gold you get a silver embroidered dress (said goblin wizard loved his dresses) and all of their weapons that are now pretty much scrap iron and maby some glass beadwork.  And in some rare cases you could throw them a gold piece or two, but most of the value should be in barterable goods.

Actually trying to sell most of that would get you less overall value than bartering it for something specific.

Say your running low on the vittles, go see if any of the people running the stalls at the market would take some of the glass beadwork in exchange for a few days supplies.  Need a new sword see if the blacksmith needs some of those old weapons for scrap iron.  Know a wizard that has horrible taste, see if he will enchant your sword for that dress.

Getting actual coin in the world should be a lot harder to obtain and should come from things like, dragon hords, armies of enemy nations (they gotta pay the troops even when they are on the march) are a few encounters that would actually have some kind of coin that the players could get their hands on.



Things I loved about 2e wealth.

You couldn't by default purchase magic so it was designed with the idea that you would want to shape events beyond the party level.

War galleys were a favorite of mine.

I also loved to own siege equipment and hire men to man them.

Why enter te wizards tower when you can lay waste to it with boulders.

That and 2e has a wealth of specialized equipment to add to your versatility.

Then there are mounts. Training gryphons for combat etc.

The non magic items were always my favorite anyway.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

I'd like "bonuses" to no longer be considered "magical" in nature.

The bonus your "Keep" provides isn't magical... and, let's say we provide Noble's Clothing with a +1/5 to Diplomacy with "Nobles" (suggesting that NPCs should have "Titles" that can be manipulated. Or... "Wilderness Bedding" - could provide you with a bonus to Hit Point recovery after an extended rest (don't even get started on the "5 Minute Work Day" - it doesn't exist in my world - so this is a perfectly viable concept).

I'd like magical items to ONLY have powers - and no bonuses.

Higher level mundane items - (Like Keeps) could have bonuses AND powers - but also cost an upkeep of some sort.

I'd also like them to destroy "Small Adventuring Party" - and go with "Mercenary Group with Camp Followers". 

I'd like them to develope and entire leveling system for the "Group" - and a purpose for the Camp Followers that travel with you outside of "Helping to attack or defend."

Players should also be required to obtain Titles themselves to advance further... and those Titles should be at what was once Paragon and Epic.  These Titles should have Guidelines in the DMG... and, not unlike Epic play... they should be a collaboration between DM and Player as to what they are and how to fulfill them.  Money sinks would most certainly be part of this.

Heck - I could even see "Titles" being granted after completing "Feats" (Yes, I know that "Feat" is already used). Think of Achievements in video games. You complete them - get a Title - and in some games a small bonus.

Things like Flight should only be available through expensive rituals... or trained flying mounts (also expensive) - with perhaps Flying Ship and Floating Castle being further down on the "cost" level.

===

Restrictions are important - and I'd listen to the wizard complaints on these boards if it were against the "Viability of Worlds" as opposed to "Viability of my pet class."

Making fantastical abilities - larger bonuses - roleplaying strengths cost money is an excellent way to not only solve the issue with money bloat... but to motivate players to achieve new things.

Currently we have:

Levels
Gear

That's it...
I totally agree that this is an issue. The game needs to reward players, and meaningful use of treasure has always been a reward.

I think that a good direction to go would be to have rules for affiliations, like were introduced in the 3.5 PHB2. I'd describe it as just a generalization of buying a castle... you could buy a castle and set up an affiliation of your own, but you could also join existing one like a church or a kingdom. Then you could use treasure from adventuring to influence or support the aims of your affiliation. So maybe you use the money to raise an army so your kingdom can conquer its neighbor, or defend itself from its neighbor. I think this could be a neat way to expand player participation into a bigger stage, with more money allowing the character to take a bigger role.
I feel that it needs to be stated that the large influx of treasure into a society can have a drastic effect on the economics of that area. In additionm to paying an armorer to make a set of full plate armor you will have made him a rich man. These skilled artisans in every facet of medievil quasi real world are great ways to change the over all poverty level . Thus perhaps creating an upper middle class. In our games treasure has a huge inpact on the land the adventurers live in. Balancing Next to accomidate such variables will make adventuring partys effects on a given society less of an economy breaker.
  The p.c.'s can change the poverty level of a given fife by simply spending a few hundred gold in one place. This also gets huge ammounts of attention toward p.c.'s who reap both the benefits of Fame and fortune as well as the hinderances. (adventure hooks are found here). Monte Haul gaming is not good for Nexts game design. Wealth should matter and be worthwhie goal to begin an adventuruing career. It should also be relevant at higher levels as the p.c.'s garner more of it. The last thing an adventurer should be saying is "more wealth? bah!" These are of course just my own views. Feel free to comment.
High level campaigns should not just be a group of 5 adventurers... but a group of 5 organizations (in a sense).

- Jason had his Argonauts

- Achillies had his Myrmidons

- Romance of the Three Kingdoms is built in this fashion with larger than life characters and their entourages on great campaigns.  Liu Bei and his cadre - Cao Cao and his generals - etc.

- Odysseus has his crews.

- Sinbad the Sailor

- Robin Hood has his Merry Men

- Plato had the Academy

- Aristotle had the Lyceum (philosophers being replacements for mages and clerics)

The world is full of examples of famous men who transition into the world stage as leaders of like-minded individuals. D&D (and many RPGs) should try to reflect this in some way - even if it only modular (and provides a means for the "Loner" character to strive for something as well).

High level campaigns should not just be a group of 5 adventurers... but a group of 5 organizations (in a sense).

- Jason had his Argonauts

- Achillies had his Myrmidons

- Romance of the Three Kingdoms is built in this fashion with larger than life characters and their entourages on great campaigns.  Liu Bei and his cadre - Cao Cao and his generals - etc.

- Odysseus has his crews.

- Sinbad the Sailor

- Robin Hood has his Merry Men

- Plato had the Academy

- Aristotle had the Lyceum (philosophers being replacements for mages and clerics)

The world is full of examples of famous men who transition into the world stage as leaders of like-minded individuals. D&D (and many RPGs) should try to reflect this in some way - even if it only modular (and provides a means for the "Loner" character to strive for something as well).




Odysseus  and Sindbad don't go on adventures together. You'll never had 5 "Classical Heroes" and their entourages.

Odysseus  and Sindbad don't go on adventures together. You'll never had 5 "Classical Heroes" and their entourages.


Among the Argonauts, some sources place Heracles (and Iolaus), Bellerophon, Laertes, Orpheus, Medea, possibly Atalanta, and numerous others.  Many of these were heroes in the traditional sense (being semi-divine) and many others went on to become worshipped as minor gods in their own right.  It was like the classical Justice League.
The metagame is not the game.