This is just one example of how much of a mess the stated economic values in the 5e economy are.
Ugh, the economics in D&D have always been atrocious. There is literally no reason for a War Bow (what people call a Long Bow) to cost more than a sword. Historically, bow staves cost a fraction of a sword. And yes, curing yew heartwood could take upwards of a year...but in most D&D settings, outside of those in desert/arid climes, trees used for making such weapons are abundant. The skill needed to craft them is in no way more expensive than that of making a sword, or god-forbid a firearm. Gold needs to be a commodity hoarded by the nobility and middle class, while silver and copper are the main coinage. Almost everything in the PHB should be valued in Silver.
This is assuming you want to keep the systems in place of counting coins and such, which hasn't quite moved on from the early days of cost of training. A less granular system could be an option.
Case in point: Plant Growth. A 5th level Bard or Druid can make an enormous income just by standing in a large area of farmland and cast the 8 hour version every day, then move on a mile down the road.
My assumption is that the economy assumes magic has already been used for purposes like this. D&D settings do not have a medieval economy, and magic is the reason why.
Case in point: Plant Growth. A 5th level Bard or Druid can make an enormous income just by standing in a large area of farmland and cast the 8 hour version every day, then move on a mile down the road.
5th level characters are probably quite rare, so not many would be wandering around the countryside performing all this spell casting.
If you work with the assumption that your party of chars are quite rare, then the entire structure of the game falls apart. No more high level NPC's to fight. And don't even get me started on the manufacturing of Rare or higher magic items if there are not many 10 plus level Wizards and such in the game to create magic items. The entire economics of the game needs total revamp done an historian of medieval economics.
I think I agree with Golaryn and Third for an increase in options. I don't think there should be "more" in terms of subclasses and classes necessarily (subclasses seeming to be the present editions main way to give players "more"); but rather "more" within subclasses or the base classes. I think optional class features in Tasha's could have been a good start to those options, and they did at least open the door. However for my liking they would need to be done in the way where such options wouldn't be "must haves" going forward for players. This way the game can still be the entry level game Golaryn is talking about, while also giving the opportunity for additional craftwork for more experienced players.
Repeat with race/lineage/backgrouhd. The custom lineage and the gothic lineages I think are going somewhere, though they're not there yet.
I'd also say nothing I'm envisioning I'd consider a fix to D&D as I don't think the game is in any need of repair or is currently broken. Rather, I see my suggestions as ways to "enhance" the game.
MidnightPlat, I completely agree with you. I just made a post earlier about the idea of a "Player's Handbook 2.0" using Tasha's "Customizing Origins" and I think by starting fresh with Lineages instead of Races, allowing more customization across the board would be better. An example I put on my post was a Dragonborn Dhampyr, but instead of just replacing everything about the Dragonborn with the Dhampyr traits, have a Dragonborn lineage that if you were afflicted by a Dhampyr curse, you gain the Vampiric Bite feature and can undergo one of the following: your breath weapon does Necrotic damage, you gain resistance to Necrotic damage, you gain the Spider Climb feature, you gain Sunlight Sensitivity, or etc. Similar in vain to how you can roll or choose Personality Traits, you can have a template Lineage and if you wish to have a non-species related change like becoming a Dhampyr, you can choose or roll for said features
Case in point: Plant Growth. A 5th level Bard or Druid can make an enormous income just by standing in a large area of farmland and cast the 8 hour version every day, then move on a mile down the road.
My assumption is that the economy assumes magic has already been used for purposes like this. D&D settings do not have a medieval economy, and magic is the reason why.
You are taking the opposite approach to what Farling stated. And yeah, D&D is indeed set in a medieval economy. The very items that are available (outside of the abomination of Eberron), are all Iron Age and beyond items, but certainly pre-Industrial age.
Case in point: Plant Growth. A 5th level Bard or Druid can make an enormous income just by standing in a large area of farmland and cast the 8 hour version every day, then move on a mile down the road.
5th level characters are probably quite rare, so not many would be wandering around the countryside performing all this spell casting.
If you work with the assumption that your party of chars are quite rare, then the entire structure of the game falls apart. No more high level NPC's to fight. And don't even get me started on the manufacturing of Rare or higher magic items if there are not many 10 plus level Wizards and such in the game to create magic items. The entire economics of the game needs total revamp done an historian of medieval economics.
If 5th+ level characters were commonplace, then there would be no need for PCs to go out and kill the few evil high level NPCs which exist in the world, since they would already have been dealt with by the members of the general population who were high enough level.
Note that I said rare, not non-existent.
It depends on your campaign where Rare or higher magic items come from. Who says that they are still being manufactured on a regular basis? In Feyrun, all rare magic items could be items that were made during the Netherese empire 2,000 years ago.
There are so many other things that wouldn't work if mid-level magic was commonly available; and no published adventures would work because of what mid-level non-adventurers would use magic spells for. e.g. pirates with a wizard able to cast Wall of Force would easily be able to shipwreck their quarry.
You are taking the opposite approach to what Farling stated. And yeah, D&D is indeed set in a medieval economy. The very items that are available (outside of the abomination of Eberron), are all Iron Age and beyond items, but certainly pre-Industrial age.
The items are faux-medieval, but the economy is not; it has far too many people involved in activities other than subsistence farming.
This is just one example of how much of a mess the stated economic values in the 5e economy are.
Ugh, the economics in D&D have always been atrocious. There is literally no reason for a War Bow (what people call a Long Bow) to cost more than a sword. Historically, bow staves cost a fraction of a sword. And yes, curing yew heartwood could take upwards of a year...but in most D&D settings, outside of those in desert/arid climes, trees used for making such weapons are abundant. The skill needed to craft them is in no way more expensive than that of making a sword, or god-forbid a firearm. Gold needs to be a commodity hoarded by the nobility and middle class, while silver and copper are the main coinage. Almost everything in the PHB should be valued in Silver.
This is assuming you want to keep the systems in place of counting coins and such, which hasn't quite moved on from the early days of cost of training. A less granular system could be an option.
I have always laughed at people that seem to think that high end magic items are attainable by a group of characters. One Major Legendary item (page 133 XGTE) would be the equivalent value of 8 Warships (page 157 PHB). The economic output of a large coastal city might be 8 Warships in a single year, yet we are to assume that any group of 11th-16th chars has that equivalent economic value tied up in a single item, let alone all the Very Rare items (page 135 XGTE).
And yes, the entire concept of coinage is pretty ludicrous. I understand why it is necessary, as most chars are wandering murder hobos (excuse me, armed vigilantes who can be hired to rid an area of some threat), and would need some currency to pay their way. But the typical commoner, at least the agrarian based ones, would very likely only need, or see, cash a few times a year.
I would love for WOTC to hire me to overhaul the economic system, including the enormous wealth concentrating mechanism known as magic items.
This is just one example of how much of a mess the stated economic values in the 5e economy are.
Gold needs to be a commodity hoarded by the nobility and middle class, while silver and copper are the main coinage. Almost everything in the PHB should be valued in Silver.
I'm pretty sure that while items are valued in gold, coins are used rarely. Most people uses trade goods, a barter system, promissory notes, or silver or copper like you said.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Case in point: Plant Growth. A 5th level Bard or Druid can make an enormous income just by standing in a large area of farmland and cast the 8 hour version every day, then move on a mile down the road.
5th level characters are probably quite rare, so not many would be wandering around the countryside performing all this spell casting.
If you work with the assumption that your party of chars are quite rare, then the entire structure of the game falls apart. No more high level NPC's to fight. And don't even get me started on the manufacturing of Rare or higher magic items if there are not many 10 plus level Wizards and such in the game to create magic items. The entire economics of the game needs total revamp done an historian of medieval economics.
If 5th+ level characters were commonplace, then there would be no need for PCs to go out and kill the few evil high level NPCs which exist in the world, since they would already have been dealt with by the members of the general population who were high enough level.
Note that I said rare, not non-existent.
It depends on your campaign where Rare or higher magic items come from. Who says that they are still being manufactured on a regular basis? In Feyrun, all rare magic items could be items that were made during the Netherese empire 2,000 years ago.
There are so many other things that wouldn't work if mid-level magic was commonly available; and no published adventures would work because of what mid-level non-adventurers would use magic spells for. e.g. pirates with a wizard able to cast Wall of Force would easily be able to shipwreck their quarry.
I can work with the concept that magic items were made in a past era, and that knowledge of manufacture lost. That is a handwave that can make a lot of things more manageable in-game. But to that end, there are a few chunks of source books on the manufacture of high end magic items that need to be removed. As for the Wall of Force concept, and published modules falling apart, yeah, the only way it works is if every NPC ship out there has a caster on board who can cast Disintegrate. So bottom line, the entire concept of the rarity of magic, and magical items, has no consistency throughout 5e, and in reality, most of the editions.
In the end, D&D isn't interested in being a realistic economic (or political, or military, or...) simulation, it's interested in being an adventuring setting. It probably can't; the whole concept of dungeons fails to make any sense.
Problem: Warlocks are too limited in theme as a base class to evil/eldritch spells and spell choices. There's no reason that a character that made a pact with an angel should have access to Hunger of Hadar and Summon Aberration.
Solution: Get rid of those spells from the base class and move it to subclass specific spell lists, which would be changed to include more spells than just 10.
Presently I reskin the "dark powers" when you have a Warlock of the "light". Pact of the Chain is called "Pact of Bond" too for the Celestial locks.
I am not a fan of the one and only patron 'lock, so to speak. I have no problem with a Warlock choosing to devote themself to a particular patron, but I would really like an ability to wheel and deal as a Warlock, Constantine style. (Unlockedlock?). I think in my "ideal fix" Rogue and Warlock would be the most enriched allowing both classes to dip into their varied subclasses and piecemeal themselves through power sets that can tier up or be kept in as the character picks new options as they progress. I might even argue getting rid of the Warlocks spell slots in favor of broader range of eldritch invocation options (some of which could bring them spell casting).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I will refer you all to the OP, which states that the suggestion you have must be mechanical. The economic system of D&D 5e does not fit into that category, so I will kindly ask you to take the discussion back on topic. (Also, bashing Eberron is also off topic.)
In the end, D&D isn't interested in being a realistic economic (or political, or military, or...) simulation, it's interested in being an adventuring setting. It probably can't; the whole concept of dungeons fails to make any sense.
That much I can agree with. A true simulation would lead to a very boring game. And the wealth aggregation in dungeons is insane. It always has been. Face it, the vast majority of D&D chars are plunderers on the order of the Egyptian tomb robbers.
But there is nothing stopping WOTC to apply more math that makes sense to the game, and impart the concept that magical items, at least Rare and above, are something that only the highest level, or luckiest, chars, will ever see.
Problem: Warlocks are too limited in theme as a base class to evil/eldritch spells and spell choices. There's no reason that a character that made a pact with an angel should have access to Hunger of Hadar and Summon Aberration.
Solution: Get rid of those spells from the base class and move it to subclass specific spell lists, which would be changed to include more spells than just 10.
Presently I reskin the "dark powers" when you have a Warlock of the "light". Pact of the Chain is called "Pact of Bond" too for the Celestial locks.
I am not a fan of the one and only patron 'lock, so to speak. I have no problem with a Warlock choosing to devote themself to a particular patron, but I would really like an ability to wheel and deal as a Warlock, Constantine style. (Unlockedlock?). I think in my "ideal fix" Rogue and Warlock would be the most enriched allowing both classes to dip into their varied subclasses and piecemeal themselves through power sets that can tier up or be kept in as the character picks new options as they progress. I might even argue getting rid of the Warlocks spell slots in favor of broader range of eldritch invocation options (some of which could bring them spell casting).
You have to keep in mind that many a Warlock does not devote himself to a Patron. It has been stated that many a Patron has no knowledge of the Warlock, and many a Warlock may indeed hate their Patron. But to suggest that a Warlock can sample from a buffet of options breaks the entire concept of classes and subclasses, and you have moved way too far from the theme of D&D.
I will refer you all to the OP, which states that the suggestion you have must be mechanical. The economic system of D&D 5e does not fit into that category, so I will kindly ask you to take the discussion back on topic.
The economics has a direct bearing on mechanical aspects of the game. If people want a less granular system, then the economics needs to be overhauled. If they want the current sort-of-crunchy leftover from OD&D/1E AD&D (plus a ton of inflation), then the game needs to really stress things like encumbrance and logistical maintenance to make any sense. If people want a more story-oriented system, then they need something akin to C7's (now Free Press's) The One Ring and/or Adventures in Middle-Earth (5E compatible) approach where money is sort of taken for granted and your character's lifestyle is handled in a more abstract manner than what it is now. Adventure League already tried a half-assed, badly thought out approach that tried to do both at the same time, which simply DOESN'T WORK....and probably wouldn't work even if you got people from The Austrian School, London School and Chicago School's of Economics to sit down and draft something (assuming you could get people from those 3 disciplines to agree on anything).
I will refer you all to the OP, which states that the suggestion you have must be mechanical. The economic system of D&D 5e does not fit into that category, so I will kindly ask you to take the discussion back on topic.
The economics has a direct bearing on mechanical aspects of the game. If people want a less granular system, then the economics needs to be overhauled. If they want the current sort-of-crunchy leftover from OD&D/1E AD&D (plus a ton of inflation), then the game needs to really stress things like encumbrance and logistical maintenance to make any sense. If people want a more story-oriented system, then they need something akin to C7's (now Free Press's) The One Ring and/or Adventures in Middle-Earth (5E compatible) approach where money is sort of taken for granted and your character's lifestyle is handled in a more abstract manner than what it is now. Adventure League already tried a half-assed, badly thought out approach that tried to do both at the same time, which simply DOESN'T WORK....and probably wouldn't work even if you got people from The Austrian School, London School and Chicago School's of Economics to sit down and draft something (assuming you could get people from those 3 disciplines to agree on anything).
Of course the economics of the game is mechanical issue. As soon as the words GP appear with regard to any item, or service, it is a mechanical issue. As for me, I have always wanted a "crunchier game", where players actually keep track of encumbrance. I am playing a Halfling Rogue in one game, who has Prof in Cook's Utensils. I can't carry them, as I am fully loaded with various other items, and can't afford the weight of the 10 pounds of Utensils as detailed in XGTE.
If players have to deal with Encumbrance and weights, then they have to deal with the economics of the game.
I will refer you all to the OP, which states that the suggestion you have must be mechanical. The economic system of D&D 5e does not fit into that category, so I will kindly ask you to take the discussion back on topic.
The economics has a direct bearing on mechanical aspects of the game. If people want a less granular system, then the economics needs to be overhauled. If they want the current sort-of-crunchy leftover from OD&D/1E AD&D (plus a ton of inflation), then the game needs to really stress things like encumbrance and logistical maintenance to make any sense. If people want a more story-oriented system, then they need something akin to C7's (now Free Press's) The One Ring and/or Adventures in Middle-Earth (5E compatible) approach where money is sort of taken for granted and your character's lifestyle is handled in a more abstract manner than what it is now. Adventure League already tried a half-assed, badly thought out approach that tried to do both at the same time, which simply DOESN'T WORK....and probably wouldn't work even if you got people from The Austrian School, London School and Chicago School's of Economics to sit down and draft something (assuming you could get people from those 3 disciplines to agree on anything).
The economy in D&D can't be fixed completely. There are far too many exploits possible both for making a killing financially as for killing an entire nation's economy. You basically have to just assume nobody's doing either in an egregious manner, and tell your players 'no' if they want to try. The whole concept could be made more robust, sure, but it seems the ongoing approach is not to bother too much with it and play Dungeons & Dragons rather than Cash Flows & Stock Markets.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The basic economic problem is that in original D&D the PCs motivation really was 'go into the dungeon to gain wealth', and if you want that to be a real motivation, there's two needs:
A treasure hoard needs to be meaningful wealth upgrade. If your net wealth is 100 gp, 50 gp of treasure is great. If your net wealth is 10,000 gp, it's petty cash. This basically means you need exponential wealth gain. It probably doesn't need to be as fast as 5e (which is about +57% per level, so over 19 levels you multiply wealth by 1.57^19 or 5,200), but you'll need to come close.
There has to be something that PCs can spend money on, that they will care about. While some players like empire-building, for most of them that's going to be gear upgrades.
To make it so magic items are actually valued loot and the PCs can't just buy anything they want, their level has to escalate in the same way.
Now, a lot of modern campaigns actually aren't primarily about the loot, they're about Saving the Village/Country/World/Universe, and in those campaigns it's not necessary for magic items to be available to buy or sell, making their nominal value irrelevant, but D&D still needs to support the old style option.
The basic economic problem is that in original D&D the PCs motivation really was 'go into the dungeon to gain wealth', and if you want that to be a real motivation, there's two needs:
A treasure hoard needs to be meaningful wealth upgrade. If your net wealth is 100 gp, 50 gp of treasure is great. If your net wealth is 10,000 gp, it's petty cash. This basically means you need exponential wealth gain. It probably doesn't need to be as fast as 5e (which is about +57% per level, so over 19 levels you multiply wealth by 1.57^19 or 5,200), but you'll need to come close.
There has to be something that PCs can spend money on, that they will care about. While some players like empire-building, for most of them that's going to be gear upgrades.
To make it so magic items are actually valued loot and the PCs can't just buy anything they want, their level has to escalate in the same way.
Now, a lot of modern campaigns actually aren't primarily about the loot, they're about Saving the Village/Country/World/Universe, and in those campaigns it's not necessary for magic items to be available to buy or sell, making their nominal value irrelevant, but D&D still needs to support the old style option.
IMO, magic items should never really be for sale. But yes, the system is still built for the "Domain Play" where you have the assets necessary to carve out your own petty fiefdom from the wilderness. And that's okay, since its allows D&D to be flexible. But even then, I think, it could be handled in a less granular fashion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ugh, the economics in D&D have always been atrocious. There is literally no reason for a War Bow (what people call a Long Bow) to cost more than a sword. Historically, bow staves cost a fraction of a sword. And yes, curing yew heartwood could take upwards of a year...but in most D&D settings, outside of those in desert/arid climes, trees used for making such weapons are abundant. The skill needed to craft them is in no way more expensive than that of making a sword, or god-forbid a firearm. Gold needs to be a commodity hoarded by the nobility and middle class, while silver and copper are the main coinage. Almost everything in the PHB should be valued in Silver.
This is assuming you want to keep the systems in place of counting coins and such, which hasn't quite moved on from the early days of cost of training. A less granular system could be an option.
My assumption is that the economy assumes magic has already been used for purposes like this. D&D settings do not have a medieval economy, and magic is the reason why.
If you work with the assumption that your party of chars are quite rare, then the entire structure of the game falls apart. No more high level NPC's to fight. And don't even get me started on the manufacturing of Rare or higher magic items if there are not many 10 plus level Wizards and such in the game to create magic items. The entire economics of the game needs total revamp done an historian of medieval economics.
MidnightPlat, I completely agree with you. I just made a post earlier about the idea of a "Player's Handbook 2.0" using Tasha's "Customizing Origins" and I think by starting fresh with Lineages instead of Races, allowing more customization across the board would be better. An example I put on my post was a Dragonborn Dhampyr, but instead of just replacing everything about the Dragonborn with the Dhampyr traits, have a Dragonborn lineage that if you were afflicted by a Dhampyr curse, you gain the Vampiric Bite feature and can undergo one of the following: your breath weapon does Necrotic damage, you gain resistance to Necrotic damage, you gain the Spider Climb feature, you gain Sunlight Sensitivity, or etc. Similar in vain to how you can roll or choose Personality Traits, you can have a template Lineage and if you wish to have a non-species related change like becoming a Dhampyr, you can choose or roll for said features
You are taking the opposite approach to what Farling stated. And yeah, D&D is indeed set in a medieval economy. The very items that are available (outside of the abomination of Eberron), are all Iron Age and beyond items, but certainly pre-Industrial age.
If 5th+ level characters were commonplace, then there would be no need for PCs to go out and kill the few evil high level NPCs which exist in the world, since they would already have been dealt with by the members of the general population who were high enough level.
Note that I said rare, not non-existent.
It depends on your campaign where Rare or higher magic items come from. Who says that they are still being manufactured on a regular basis? In Feyrun, all rare magic items could be items that were made during the Netherese empire 2,000 years ago.
There are so many other things that wouldn't work if mid-level magic was commonly available; and no published adventures would work because of what mid-level non-adventurers would use magic spells for. e.g. pirates with a wizard able to cast Wall of Force would easily be able to shipwreck their quarry.
The items are faux-medieval, but the economy is not; it has far too many people involved in activities other than subsistence farming.
I have always laughed at people that seem to think that high end magic items are attainable by a group of characters. One Major Legendary item (page 133 XGTE) would be the equivalent value of 8 Warships (page 157 PHB). The economic output of a large coastal city might be 8 Warships in a single year, yet we are to assume that any group of 11th-16th chars has that equivalent economic value tied up in a single item, let alone all the Very Rare items (page 135 XGTE).
And yes, the entire concept of coinage is pretty ludicrous. I understand why it is necessary, as most chars are wandering murder hobos (excuse me, armed vigilantes who can be hired to rid an area of some threat), and would need some currency to pay their way. But the typical commoner, at least the agrarian based ones, would very likely only need, or see, cash a few times a year.
I would love for WOTC to hire me to overhaul the economic system, including the enormous wealth concentrating mechanism known as magic items.
I'm pretty sure that while items are valued in gold, coins are used rarely. Most people uses trade goods, a barter system, promissory notes, or silver or copper like you said.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I can work with the concept that magic items were made in a past era, and that knowledge of manufacture lost. That is a handwave that can make a lot of things more manageable in-game. But to that end, there are a few chunks of source books on the manufacture of high end magic items that need to be removed. As for the Wall of Force concept, and published modules falling apart, yeah, the only way it works is if every NPC ship out there has a caster on board who can cast Disintegrate. So bottom line, the entire concept of the rarity of magic, and magical items, has no consistency throughout 5e, and in reality, most of the editions.
In the end, D&D isn't interested in being a realistic economic (or political, or military, or...) simulation, it's interested in being an adventuring setting. It probably can't; the whole concept of dungeons fails to make any sense.
Presently I reskin the "dark powers" when you have a Warlock of the "light". Pact of the Chain is called "Pact of Bond" too for the Celestial locks.
I am not a fan of the one and only patron 'lock, so to speak. I have no problem with a Warlock choosing to devote themself to a particular patron, but I would really like an ability to wheel and deal as a Warlock, Constantine style. (Unlockedlock?). I think in my "ideal fix" Rogue and Warlock would be the most enriched allowing both classes to dip into their varied subclasses and piecemeal themselves through power sets that can tier up or be kept in as the character picks new options as they progress. I might even argue getting rid of the Warlocks spell slots in favor of broader range of eldritch invocation options (some of which could bring them spell casting).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I will refer you all to the OP, which states that the suggestion you have must be mechanical. The economic system of D&D 5e does not fit into that category, so I will kindly ask you to take the discussion back on topic. (Also, bashing Eberron is also off topic.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That much I can agree with. A true simulation would lead to a very boring game. And the wealth aggregation in dungeons is insane. It always has been. Face it, the vast majority of D&D chars are plunderers on the order of the Egyptian tomb robbers.
But there is nothing stopping WOTC to apply more math that makes sense to the game, and impart the concept that magical items, at least Rare and above, are something that only the highest level, or luckiest, chars, will ever see.
You have to keep in mind that many a Warlock does not devote himself to a Patron. It has been stated that many a Patron has no knowledge of the Warlock, and many a Warlock may indeed hate their Patron. But to suggest that a Warlock can sample from a buffet of options breaks the entire concept of classes and subclasses, and you have moved way too far from the theme of D&D.
The economics has a direct bearing on mechanical aspects of the game. If people want a less granular system, then the economics needs to be overhauled. If they want the current sort-of-crunchy leftover from OD&D/1E AD&D (plus a ton of inflation), then the game needs to really stress things like encumbrance and logistical maintenance to make any sense. If people want a more story-oriented system, then they need something akin to C7's (now Free Press's) The One Ring and/or Adventures in Middle-Earth (5E compatible) approach where money is sort of taken for granted and your character's lifestyle is handled in a more abstract manner than what it is now. Adventure League already tried a half-assed, badly thought out approach that tried to do both at the same time, which simply DOESN'T WORK....and probably wouldn't work even if you got people from The Austrian School, London School and Chicago School's of Economics to sit down and draft something (assuming you could get people from those 3 disciplines to agree on anything).
Of course the economics of the game is mechanical issue. As soon as the words GP appear with regard to any item, or service, it is a mechanical issue. As for me, I have always wanted a "crunchier game", where players actually keep track of encumbrance. I am playing a Halfling Rogue in one game, who has Prof in Cook's Utensils. I can't carry them, as I am fully loaded with various other items, and can't afford the weight of the 10 pounds of Utensils as detailed in XGTE.
If players have to deal with Encumbrance and weights, then they have to deal with the economics of the game.
The economy in D&D can't be fixed completely. There are far too many exploits possible both for making a killing financially as for killing an entire nation's economy. You basically have to just assume nobody's doing either in an egregious manner, and tell your players 'no' if they want to try. The whole concept could be made more robust, sure, but it seems the ongoing approach is not to bother too much with it and play Dungeons & Dragons rather than Cash Flows & Stock Markets.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The basic economic problem is that in original D&D the PCs motivation really was 'go into the dungeon to gain wealth', and if you want that to be a real motivation, there's two needs:
Now, a lot of modern campaigns actually aren't primarily about the loot, they're about Saving the Village/Country/World/Universe, and in those campaigns it's not necessary for magic items to be available to buy or sell, making their nominal value irrelevant, but D&D still needs to support the old style option.
IMO, magic items should never really be for sale. But yes, the system is still built for the "Domain Play" where you have the assets necessary to carve out your own petty fiefdom from the wilderness. And that's okay, since its allows D&D to be flexible. But even then, I think, it could be handled in a less granular fashion.