Can someone sanity check; a "link only answer" is an answer that is basically just a link, right? The solution to which is to reproduce at least a summary of the link to protect against rot? Just want to check to make sure I'm not going mad, is there an idiosyncratic different definition on this sub?

@linksassin Struggling to imagine what you're asking mate. On other subs having a summary, explanation, and commentary, is more than enough to make something not a "link only answer".

What are the expectations here?

Clearly the nuances are lost in translation 😅

this one here, facing deletion unfortunately

@linksassin No, sorry but I think you have skim read and made a few mistakes. There is a link IN THE POST. There is also a COMPLETE EXPLANATION in the post. There are assumptions, yes, but I have included the ones I think are pertinent in the post.

Does any of that change your stance that this is a link only answer, or is it hinging more on the specific assumptions?

@linksassin What steps do you believe are missing?

@linksassin Yes, it is different. It does explain if you scroll down

@Lamentix If you want a more detailed breakdown there's a reddit thread here: reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTheScreen/comments/9lewra/… using the exact same method of averaging the tables. It's a reddit link so be warned, reddit has a lot of illegal content

@KorvinStarmast That's why I reproduced the table, the calculation is from the DMG horde tables which are paywalled, I'm not sure this stack's stance on reproducing non-free content but I'm not too happy with it copy pasting the entire chapter.

@NautArch Others are free to reproduce the working out, I explained the method. I'm assuming that you aren't doing this (as I'm not) because it's a ton of work and just not worth doing when others have done it already. Do you understand the scope of what you are asking? Please consult the relevant dozen tables and make sure what you are asking is reasonable, try it yourself.

@GroodytheHobgoblin Btw is the title "PC Wealth upon reaching level (Rounded Amount)" unclear? I can change it if you have a better suggestion. To clarify, it's not the gold gained per level it's the cumulative total gold you should have when you reach the level indicated.

@linksassin Could you please read the description that I have in the answer and see if that satisfies your curiosity? It's not easy because you need to spend a lot of time, but it's not some complex high level math it's just basic addition and multiplication, this isn't a contradiction - it's like counting the grains of sand on the beach, not easy but very simple.

@linksassin Could you confirm that you have run the numbers and come up with something different or if this is more of a theoretical problem you are having?

Sorry, understand you're busy but feels like you're missing a lot here?

If someone comments and says "I am having trouble reproducing the results at X step" I will reply and explain further. Does that solve the issue?

@MikeQ I can try and make it clearer, but that's really all the instructions you need. It's just crawling through the dozen tables.

@MikeQ Yeah, I raised that issue. I'm really not comfortable reproducing content for the express purpose of allowing users to get around paywalls.

@linksassin I'm sorry? You moved the posts and I saw one was remaining. I thought it would be helpful to let you know incase you didn't see it. I did not know this is... against the rules?

@linksassin No, to reiterate what I said above, there is a COMPELTE EXPLANATION IN THE POST of both the methods and the summary.

I am not sure what is not being communicated here linksassin

@linksassin Ok..... yep, really not sure here mate. I have said 3 or 4 times that the summary and method are in the post. You keep saying "So I not only have to follow a link. I then have to go hunting for the explanation? Wouldn't it be better if that was just in the post itself?"

Can you help me understand what is not meshing?

@linksassin I just want to be clear, this is the part you are concerned about? That is not what I understood from your previous comments. I wasn't being dense just didn't know this is what you were referring to.

@MikeQ I'm not sure that's the correct way to paraphrase the method, but in short yes you compare the XP per level table to the horde per CR tables.

@MikeQ Yep, as I said this is something you have to calculate (implying there is no official list).

I can include more information on the assumptions, or perhaps it's easier if link or yourself edit in the assumptions you think are important.

@MikeQ Well, the question is actually "how much gold should you have at level 5", the title is just misleading, so the answer is a bit overkill.

@MikeQ Probably a bit misleading, I did link the source I used for the table, not the reddit. The OP then asked for more info and I linked the reddit post because it had more info.

@MikeQ I mean, not quite. DMG lists horde frequencies, horde loot distribution

The reddit post does go through the entire math

But the frequencies are all listed in the DMG.

Magic items are irrelevant for this situation btw, since it's about gold.

@WillemRenzema Correct, that is over the entire game, you need to calculate when the rolls happen to break it down by level.

You get 7/18/12/8 rolls but you need to divide that through to find each level basically

@MikeQ Correct, I have noted that in my answer too.

"Note that this is total wealth, I'd expect that players will have spent some of this money on goods, services, items, bribes, etc."

Should I expand on this? Is it unclear?

@WillemRenzema I can certainly do that, if that would solve the issue

@WillemRenzema That's why I included the summary, explanation, commentary, etc.

To me that is enough to not make it a "link only answer"

At least that is the kind of standards other subs have

I am not too familiar with this kind of thing on this sub

@MikeQ 🤔

@linksassin Ok, it would have been clearer to point that out from the start or actually if Willem was here from the start that would be even better ^^

@WillemRenzema 👏👏

@ThomasMarkov Definitely, this is the big thing, this sub is particularly idiosyncratic (not saying that's a bad thing, terms like frame challenge are definitely a boon), but it's something you don't encounter until you encounter someone saying "this is a link only answer" when you know it isn't!

Definitely just have to keep pointing out the contradictions and asking "what's missing here?" until you get there

@WillemRenzema Cheers, thanks for your suggestion, definitely going to save a lot of work

Is there any particular part you are unsure about?

@linksassin Uhm, could you read the method and see if it's ok?

My personal preference is "don't look for solutions before problems". The method looks fine to me, and that's how I've calculated it before. I don't think anyone has an issue with the method, so looking to prove the method doesn't hold much value to me. Although it may be site standards to reproduce the entire source, to me it's a lot of noise that doesn't add any value to the answer. Just me though

Finally fixed all the quote and table formatting, looks good in the preview, hit save, everything turns to rubbish haha.

Of course, hit edit again and the preview is back to being pristine...

Does anyone here happen to be a pro at quotes or tables?

@linksassin Yep I had to edit them a lot to get them to work, the others aren't playing nice though. They still show fine in preview but when I hit post they break. Can't see a reason why, there's probably some nuance to it.

Hey hey got #3 to work finally, just 1 more to go

Got it!

Tables will render fine in preview if there's text directly after them, but when you post they need to have a blank line between the table and the text. Good one to keep in mind for next time.

I think they also have different rules for when you have to use | between the preview and post, but I'm not too sure, definitely something to keep in mind too though.

It would be good if you could clear all those comments now. I flagged them earlier as they were addressed but they were skipped. They have eaten all my flags ^^

@linksassin No worries. From my side it would be good to be clear about the issue from the start, think laser focus. I won't guess your thinking but actionable suggestions are more useful to me. It took probably too long to drill down to what the problem was. Do you have any suggestion for me? I will remember to ask "what specific change could I make?" next time too.

Probably more general comments caused more confusion than clarification around that point. Especially since there was an explanation in the post already it seemed to be making a point that didn't make a lot of sense. Hope you can see what I'm saying.

I see, I did not realise that's what you meant at all. On other stacks the term is a little more literal, referring to an answer that is just only a link. The fix there is to include summary, reproduce the conclusions, etc, which I had done.

That's why I came to ask "what am I missing here, it's clearly not only a link but I keep getting told it is"

@linksassin Yep, it was confusing because I already had included both a summary and explanation of how you can reproduce the results. From my perspective it seemed as if you had perhaps not noticed that, which is why I replied asking if you could read my answer and clarify if it's good enough or not. It seemed like you were saying "you need to explain" not "your explanation isn't enough".

@linksassin Yep, essentially you want enough information so that if the site goes down the answer can be reconstructed. Obviously this is waived for things like dndbeyond and is more for references to 3rd party sites

@linksassin Ok. Reading again, specifically saying I need to "explain" is the part that tripped me up. I had explained, it's just that the explanation wasn't to the depth you were after. You made a few other comments that felt to me as if it was the same problem, for example saying that I had copy pasted the answer from reddit when I hadn't and had linked elsewhere. Etc, a few things like that. And from previous interactions that was the impression I had then too, so I guess I had some bias.

Just funny things like "wait, I said I got the post from dndbeyond and linked to dndbeyond, why are they saying I copy pasted it from reddit?, you can't even paste tables"

I understand, that was just my thought process in the moment.

I don't think that's quite the right framing, I don't assume you have bad intention but I'm sure you can see how it seems from my perspective that you missed something. I know you and other mods are very busy so it does happen. I don't think I was jumping straight to that conclusion, but there were several things as I said which did seem that way which is why I asked. Sometimes it helps to have a reminder to slow down, as rushing through can cause more problems than it solves.

Earlier today I was talking to someone and they misunderstood or misrepresented what I said. I just told them "yes that's not what I'm saying, and clarified". Personally I don't feel like this is a big issue, it's just something that will happen. I don't find it all that useful to approach it as the user being malicious, even if they have the opposite interpretation ^^ Particularly on SE, calling out malice is often more dangerous than being malicious haha

@NautArch You can't control expenses, if someone spends more or less than you just have to factor that in. Think of it as net wealth not money in the bank. Magic items in 5e generally don't have a sell/buy price so are irrelevant for wealth calculations.