I've played a lot of D&D over the years but very little 5th edition. I haven't really figured out why gold peice rewards remain so high when the two largest money sinks are not emphasized at all. There is no magic item Wal-Mart (good riddance) and domain management doesn't seem very prominent either.

So, past level two or three when everyone has all the mundane equipment they really need you could drastically reduce gold rewards with almost no impact on the game. It isn't worth XP either, so there isn't much incentive to go after it. If you have enough to stay at an inn and buy a few arrows, your good.

Other than creating scenarios like paying ransoms, hiring an army, bribing a baron, etc.,what is money spent on in your 5th edition games? Note:I actually like 5th edition and want to play it more. I'm just trying to gather new information in my old school focused brain.

By rule, not much gold is needed, though the options in the DMG for down-time activities includes some modest support for pricing domains, hirelings, etc.  See the section starting at page 126.  Xanathar's Guide expands on some of those options, starting conveniently on almost the same page, 125.  

I say modest, because for an old-school GM, there is enough there to get started.  For a new player, I have my doubts about the usefulness of those sections, since they seem to assume you already know how to handle that type of play.  On the plus side, if you want to include a money sink to make the gold useful, there is no need to wait until "name" level to start funding a manor, school, etc.

In my campaigns, I've been emphasizing the cost of travel (upping it a little due to scarcity), making clerical NPC special healing likewise scarce, and leaving options for investments in "favors" that lead to information and sometimes particular magic items.  Since it's the only way the players have to pursue magic other than what they find randomly, and the other information is sometimes useful, they've sunk a lot into such networks.  It's a way of getting the players involved deep into society without pinning them down to one spot.

For the most part, aside from a few pricey options like top end armour, it's up to the GM and players. A lot of tables don't really care about the detailed tracking of GP, in the same way some don't care about encumbrance, spell components, XP, etc. and the game works fine for those games. Most players IME, at least in sandboxy games like I run, find plenty of things to spend their money on ie; buying property, helping people, hiring mercenary groups, etc. If the GM want to make gold meaningful in 5e (as opposed to leaving it entirely up to the players) then they need to limit it (which is ridiculously easy), present plenty of opportunities to spend it (including some that have some real effect in-game), or something else (training, or a million other possibilities).

I used magic item manufacturing as a soak. If I go back to 5e, I'll bring training costs back.

Clearly the socially conscious heroes of 5e donate large sums of money to ethical causes like reforesting Mordor and helping Orkish children to grow up in their traditional culture without interference from dark lords and elves.

Overall gold can be used on things like transportation fees paying off NPCs. And downtime housing. Theres also a whole section in the DMG on things like running businesses, owning land and even paying for levelling up. As well as costs to build buildings and the like.

Theres also the potential to commission NPCs to craft things for the PCs up to and including magic items. And there are rules for things like trying to purchase magic items that pop up for sale from NPCs. Xanithars guide adds some new twists to that.

But in the end it really depends on the campaign and the players. Some are going to be really self sufficient and have little use for gold and others are going to want tons of it to fuel their dreams of grand castles, huge armies, or that magical starship they dream of launching.

Would it break 5e to reintroduce separate XP tables, modeled on AD&D, and then XP-for-gold-and-magic-items?

Just a simple yes/no will do, I'm not trying to start an edition war.

Mine spend a ton of money on raise deads at 1000gp/go.

Some magic item creation & commission. Lots of healing potions.

My son's dragonborn Barb-18 just spent 10000gp on a mansion, and 5000gp on a special 'dragon tree' in the garden as a present for his wife.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;1031139Would it break 5e to reintroduce separate XP tables, modeled on AD&D, and then XP-for-gold-and-magic-items?

Just a simple yes/no will do, I'm not trying to start an edition war.

My tabletop 5e game uses XP for GP, at 1:1 up to 10th level, 1:10  for 11 to 20 - but no one is above 5th yet after 16 sessions.
Giving half XP for monsters, the PCs seem to be levelling up slower, if anything.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;1031139Would it break 5e to reintroduce separate XP tables, modeled on AD&D, and then XP-for-gold-and-magic-items?

Just a simple yes/no will do, I'm not trying to start an edition war.

No it won't break 5e. In many ways 5e is like one of the hybrid retro-clones that marry newer edition mechanics with a older edition chassis. Like Blood & Treasure or my own ability/skill system I use for the Majestic Wilderlands. As such it doesn't go belly up if you swap out something with another classic edition. And certainly not with a XP table change.

Uh, clearly hookers and ale.

Alright, so it's pretty much as I figured. Other than a few optional domain management options, there is very little to spend large sums of money on outside of roleplaying created situations. That's actually fine, because it means a I greatly reduce gold rewards without much of a problem. I love D&D, but one of my biggest issues running it has always been the economy. It's never made any sort of logical sense.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;1031139Would it break 5e to reintroduce separate XP tables, modeled on AD&D, and then XP-for-gold-and-magic-items?

Just a simple yes/no will do, I'm not trying to start an edition war.

No, for both. The 5e chassis is surprisingly resilient. As long as you are not a Monty Haul GM, you should be fine. You can also do GP for XP, where gold spent is to spread one's great deeds, reputation. It surprisingly matches up well 1e loot rates to 5e anticipated leveling speed, especially if you allow a Stable of PCs where players can have more than one PC, and party PC levels can have a broader range.

As for the first three "speed bump levels" before one gets their Archetype, it's a matter of taste. Porting over AD&D tables direct could lead to new player frustration at slow progression rates. But as long as you include other XP sources beyond slain monsters you should be fine.

The point of AD&D's different advancement tables was that PC classes were different.  They had different prerequisites and some you could argue were superior than others.

I can see slowing down the 5e advancement, but I'm not sure there's a point to using different tables since all the classes are set up to be the same progressionwise.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1031177No, for both. The 5e chassis is surprisingly resilient. As long as you are not a Monty Haul GM, you should be fine. You can also do GP for XP, where gold spent is to spread one's great deeds, reputation. It surprisingly matches up well 1e loot rates to 5e anticipated leveling speed, especially if you allow a Stable of PCs where players can have more than one PC, and party PC levels can have a broader range.

As for the first three "speed bump levels" before one gets their Archetype, it's a matter of taste. Porting over AD&D tables direct could lead to new player frustration at slow progression rates. But as long as you include other XP sources beyond slain monsters you should be fine.

Well, yeah: treasure.  You get more XP from it in AD&D than killing monsters anyway.

"What is the monster's treasure to the hand that steals it?  Monsters are weak.  Monster loot is stronger!  I gave you this!"