# Excerpt: Economies [merged]



## quindia

*The Economy Article is Up...*

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080514a


----------



## Boarstorm

*Excerpt: Economies*

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080514a


----------



## Green Knight

They screwed up the monster XP table. They switched the values for Minions and Standard Monsters.


----------



## Dragonblade

Green Knight said:
			
		

> They screwed up the monster XP table. They switched the values for Minions and Standard Monsters.




I noticed that too. Can anyone from WotC pop in and acknowledge whether that error is in the books too? Or just the web excerpt?


----------



## AZRogue

Green Knight said:
			
		

> They screwed up the monster XP table. They switched the values for Minions and Standard Monsters.




Yeah. *sigh*

So, do we know if these are copies of the pages as printed? Or is there a chance we're looking at something before it was fully edited?


----------



## Sojorn

DEing! Holy !@#$. It IS WoW!


----------



## Fallen Seraph

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Yeah. *sigh*
> 
> So, do we know if these are copies of the pages as printed? Or is there a chance we're looking at something before it was fully edited?



I think it is prior to prints, remember the Giants one. That was corrected and was said to be correct in the books.


----------



## Dragonblade

Looking at the code, it just looks like an HTML issue. Let's hope so....


----------



## Boarstorm

Residiium sounds interesting.  It's nice to get a touch of information on the disenchant and enchant rituals, too.


----------



## Kitirat

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Yeah. *sigh*
> 
> So, do we know if these are copies of the pages as printed? Or is there a chance we're looking at something before it was fully edited?




Lets hope so, that is a pretty easy to see error, lets hope they can be a little better at editing for the final print stuff.

It is only the 3rd article of the ones I have seen which makes me less, instead of more, interested in 4th.

Predefined treasure, exactly written out like that?  Not really liking it in principle, but will use as a guideline.


----------



## Shroomy

There was a formatting error in the multi-classing feats table and missing text from the Earth Titan statblock; I'm sure it will be fixed sometime tomorrow morning.  That said, while I appreciate the constant release schedule, someone from WoTC should check on these when they are posted; its only 9pm out there.


----------



## Lord Nat

I really think they have to be showing pre-final editing stuff...
I mean that is a REALLY easy to see screw up.

But anyway,
I am happy to see it is 10 encounters each level, I am a little iffy on how the rewords system works still but it seems more or less about the same.

I like that they lowered selling price to 1/5th market cost. it will keep some of my players who like to try and make a living off finding and selling magic items think a little bit more before they try to break the game with tons of gold.

Over all it seems a much more controlled system on the DMs side.


----------



## FireLance

I think it's nice how the article specifically addresses the point that some people don't want magic item trade in their games, and some people don't want the PCs creating magic items in their games. Those who don't like EITHER magic item trade OR PC magic item creation are still going to be annoyed, though.


----------



## Family

I like the idea of being able to store the energy from my previous magical items as I outgrow them so that I can use them to enchant a custom item that will be useful to me in the future.


----------



## GnomeWorks

_Residuum_? Seriously?

Might as well call it arcane dust and small glimmering shards, because that's what we're looking at. I see some WoW influence there, not that that's a bad thing - WoW's crafting systems are pretty solid, IMO. 

But hopefully their materials for making magic items are a bit more interestingly named than just the one they threw out there...


----------



## Chowder

Green Knight said:
			
		

> They screwed up the monster XP table. They switched the values for Minions and Standard Monsters.




I really hope that this is specific to the excerpt, but given the poor editing of KotS, I have a bad feeling about this...

It's going to be *so* disappointing if the core books are littered with these sorts of errors.  

WotC: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE work on your editing! 

-Chowder


----------



## ppaladin123

You'll have to explain what DEing is. I haven't a clue.


----------



## Kordeth

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> Residiium sounds interesting.  It's nice to get a touch of information on the disenchant and enchant rituals, too.




In before the "ZOMG 4E = WoW!" comments. 

EDIT: Never mind....

More seriously, I like that there's advice on how to tweak the game if you want magic items to be too precious, rare, or dangerous to buy and sell, and that it's pretty clearly set up that even in the "default" setting, selling a magic item is the sort of thing that gets done in a smoky back room in a seedy tavern or in the halls of a fantastically wealthy merchant prince, not Ye Olde Wizard's Shoppe in the town square.


----------



## pawsplay

If you actually want to benefit from their new treasure balancing rules, you're going to need a good spreadsheet for your campaign.


----------



## Boarstorm

Not precisely on topic, but...

Long live the stirge! 

(Daily art preview)


----------



## Kishin

Article said:
			
		

> If I put 5th-level characters through 10 encounters of their level, they’ll gain enough experience to become 6th level. They’ll also gain four magic items above their level (one 6th, one 7th, one 8th, and one 9th), and total gold-equivalent treasure equal to double the value of a 5th-level magic item, or 2,000 gp. That’s the goal, and here’s how it works out in practice.
> 
> When I’m planning those 10 encounters, I look at the 5th-level treasure parcels in the DMG. That’s the treasure I’m going to give out, conveniently divided into ten chunks. The ochre jelly’s not guarding any of that treasure, but the dragon has (let’s say) three parcels.




Interesting. 4E's treasure parcelling system is the way I (and I'm willing to bet a good number of others) have been doing for some time with 3.5E, using the GP values of items and the wealth per level. (Though I tend to make judgment calls on whether or not the party really an influx of items, and lately my players aren't the most thorough lot.

Also, Disenchant Magic Item? All I can say is "In before the latest tidal wave of D&D is WoW!" posts.

Although I must say it kinda amuses me. I quit WoW once my D&D campaign started back up in earnest, and now its like a little piece of it followed me home...

Edit: What follows is an actual conversation I had with a friend as I was reading the article.

Me (reading Disenchant Magic Item): Seriously, if item creation and upgrading in 4E involves 'fragments' disenchanted from other magical items. I will hit the design team with the _Prismatic Spray_ of Judo Chops, such that they will end up stunned, blinded and insane on another plane of existence.
Friend: Heheheh...
Me: (Scrolls down, notes 'residuum)
Me: MEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARLS (/StarTrek)


----------



## Rechan

OH MY GOD! 

They broke down the treasures system, not only by level, but by encounter! 

I NO LONGER HAVE TO DO MATH to figure out how much treasure each PC should have, ever! I never have to BS my way through "What did I get when I pick pocketed" or "Let's go infiltrate that guild hall and steal stuff; what'd we get?" Furthermore, I no longer need to worry my group is underfunded, or that being overfunded will break me. 

THANK YOU WOTC!


----------



## Kordeth

ppaladin123 said:
			
		

> You'll have to explain what DEing is. I haven't a clue.




Disenchanting. Something you can do in WoW to turn crappy or useless to you items into the components to make new magic items.

Actually, if I recall correctly, you can disenchant _anything_ in WoW to get magic item material.


----------



## Sojorn

ppaladin123 said:
			
		

> You'll have to explain what DEing is. I haven't a clue.



Disenchanting. Also kidding with the comment about 4th being WoW but that is in fact disenchanting from WoW in that article.


----------



## keterys

Public Service:

Potions of ...

Healing 50g
Vitality 1000g
Recovery 25000g
Life 100000g

I really want to know if 'Life' means bringing the dead back to life, or is just some huge health value.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I really like disenchanting especially when it comes to being in dungeons. I like the idea of say a fighter or ranger, "disenchanting" by plucking out the magically enchanted rubies on a blade or shaving off the coating of magical dust on a suit of armour. 

It makes alot more sense then lugging back all that loot, instead the rogue for example simply has a pocket full of rubies, etc.


----------



## Sojorn

Kordeth said:
			
		

> Disenchanting. Something you can do in WoW to turn crappy or useless to you items into the components to make new magic items.
> 
> Actually, if I recall correctly, you can disenchant _anything_ in WoW to get magic item material.



Anything of uncommon rarity or above. Which was just about everything after a certain level, yeah.


----------



## Kordeth

keterys said:
			
		

> I really want to know if 'Life' means bringing the dead back to life, or is just some huge health value.




And to use one, do you first have to pick out the cup of a carpenter?


----------



## Brown Jenkin

I hope there is something in the rules on how to deal with players who want to avoid the middleman and start raking in huge profit selling magic items directly.


----------



## Rechan

Odd. I notice that the Major Quest xp is equal to a creature of that equal level (because you're supposed to divide it by the number of PCs involved).

A 1st level monster: 100xp.
1st level Major quest for 4 PCs: 400 (400/4=100x). 

It's far more efficient to just kill monsters than undergo quests, as a multi-session quest = 1 level-appropriate encounter.


----------



## jackston2

I like how exciting potions are now.


----------



## GnomeWorks

Kordeth said:
			
		

> In before the "ZOMG 4E = WoW!" comments.
> 
> EDIT: Never mind....






Honestly, though, it does seem like a rather apt comparison.

And I'll stress, again, that it isn't necessarily a bad thing. WoW's enchanting system is pretty solid, and having something along those lines seems like a good call.


----------



## Rechan

keterys said:
			
		

> Life 100000g
> 
> I really want to know if 'Life' means bringing the dead back to life, or is just some huge health value.



Either it's a poition of Heal IV, or a Phoenix Down.


----------



## pawsplay

Rechan said:
			
		

> Odd. I notice that the Major Quest xp is equal to a creature of that equal level (because you're supposed to divide it by the number of PCs involved).
> 
> A 1st level monster: 100xp.
> 1st level Major quest for 4 PCs: 400 (400/4=100x).
> 
> It's far more efficient to just kill monsters than undergo quests, as a multi-session quest = 1 level-appropriate encounter.




Yeah, I hate that about City of Heroes... um, I mean, 4e's XP system, too.


----------



## Dinkeldog

Disenchanting a magic item into a component that can then be used in later enchanting.


----------



## pawsplay

Rechan said:
			
		

> Either it's a poition of Heal IV, or a Phoenix Down.




Or a potion of having twins and selling your life insurance policy.


----------



## ppaladin123

I suppose that was first introduced into d&d with the artificer's ability to reclaim XP from magic items for crafting purposes. I'm glad they included this as a general ritual. It should cut down on the "aww, not another +1 scimitar!" effect.


----------



## Kordeth

Rechan said:
			
		

> Odd. I notice that the Major Quest xp is equal to a creature of that equal level (because you're supposed to divide it by the number of PCs involved).
> 
> A 1st level monster: 100xp.
> 1st level Major quest for 4 PCs: 400 (400/4=100x).
> 
> It's far more efficient to just kill monsters than undergo quests, as a multi-session quest = 1 level-appropriate encounter.




Except that quest rewards and monster rewards aren't mutually exclusive, so the correct statement is "it's far more efficient to go on quests to kill monsters than to just roam the countryside killing monsters at random."


----------



## jackston2

Well, we used to get nothing from quests.


----------



## Shroomy

ppaladin123 said:
			
		

> I suppose that was first introduced into d&d with the artificer's ability to reclaim XP from magic items for crafting purposes. I'm glad they included this as a general ritual. It should cut down on the "aww, not another +1 scimitar!" effect.




The system only parcelling out four magic items per level should cut down on tha (that and the way equipment bonuses work with monsters!)


----------



## DandD

Bah, back in your days, you used to hunt dinosaurs with sticks and get smelly worthless scales as treasures, and you were glad for it...


----------



## ppaladin123

I'd actually like to institute some rule where artifacts of a certain level cannot be easily disenchanted. It would be kind of weird if the Fellowship of the Ring broke down the One Ring into components for something else.


----------



## A'koss

Whew... this allievated one of my _biggest_ 4e concerns - being able to eliminate the buying and selling of magic items in the game _gracefully_. Disenchant/Re-enchant - works for me.


----------



## Shroomy

jackston2 said:
			
		

> Well, we used to get nothing from quests.




We kind of did in earlier editions.  This is just a more formalized version of the ad hoc XP story awards.


----------



## pawsplay

jackston2 said:
			
		

> Well, we used to get nothing from quests.




Well, other than story awards.


----------



## marune

Kordeth said:
			
		

> Except that quest rewards and monster rewards aren't mutually exclusive, so the correct statement is "it's far more efficient to go on quests to kill monsters than to just roam the countryside killing monsters at random."




And if you kill without making sure to suceed the quest, you are penalized (less XP). That is very nice.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

ppaladin123 said:
			
		

> I'd actually like to institute some rule where artifacts of a certain level cannot be easily disenchanted. It would be kind of weird if the Fellowship of the Ring broke down the One Ring into components for something else.



Could be that the difficulty to disenchant increases with the power of the magic item. (This is under the assumption there is various difficulty levels with Rituals).


----------



## keterys

Assuming 5 PCs, a major quest is equivalent to a _Solo_ creature while a minor quest is equal to a normal creature.

Don't divide one and not the other. It misrepresents the situation


----------



## pawsplay

A'koss said:
			
		

> Whew... this allievated one of my _biggest_ 4e concerns - being able to eliminate the buying and selling of magic items in the game _gracefully_. Disenchant/Reinchant - works for me.




Logically, someone can and will sell a magic item, and someone may buy it. Kings, if no one else.

On the other hand, players being preoccupied with melting down magic items to make other magic items is not really my cup of tea.


----------



## Kishin

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Yeah, I hate that about City of Heroes... um, I mean, 4e's XP system, too.




Despite disagreeing with you in another thread, I have to say... Ten points, sir.


----------



## malraux

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> I hope there is something in the rules on how to deal with players who want to avoid the middleman and start raking in huge profit selling magic items directly.



Um, beyond just a rule saying they can't do that, what would you like?  Pretty simple just to say that unless the players want to create a merchant based campaign, with appropriate rules, that their characters just don't have the contacts/reputation/time to be a full time merchant.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Kordeth said:
			
		

> Except that quest rewards and monster rewards aren't mutually exclusive, so the correct statement is "it's far more efficient to go on quests to kill monsters than to just roam the countryside killing monsters at random."




QFT.

Many quests will involve the killing of monsters, in which you will get XP for killing the monster AND for completing the quest.

Fitz


----------



## FireLance

pawsplay said:
			
		

> If you actually want to benefit from their new treasure balancing rules, you're going to need a good spreadsheet for your campaign.



Or: fifteen minutes and a sheet of scrap paper, before writing down the location and contents of each parcel in your DM notes (you know: the one containing all the monsters, traps and other challenges for the adventure).


----------



## Rechan

So, the only thing one is supposed to really spend gold on is magical items.

I thought 4e was supposed to reduce the dependency on magical items? All your money in 3e was funneled into your equipment. I'd really like to avoid that particular feeling. 

This also makes me wonder what you do if you reduce the amount of magical items in your games period. The "I give you the necessary bonuses of magical items you WOULD be getting this level, instead of giving you the items" method. 

And, here's an important part: That NPC who is carrying around that Level 6 item... can he use that? I mean, if that NPC _can't_ use that item, then I question why that guy has it in the first place.


----------



## hong

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Logically, someone can and will sell a magic item, and someone may buy it. Kings, if no one else.




IIRC, this was one of the seminal conundrums that eventually led me to the wisdom of not thinking too hard about fantasy.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

pawsplay said:
			
		

> On the other hand, players being preoccupied with melting down magic items to make other magic items is not really my cup of tea.



I don't really see it as melting down magic items. I see it likes this.

A rogue, who has learnt to identify magic items is scouring over the remains of the enemies his party kills. He notices a ring on the finger of a wizard, he cuts off the finger and slides the ring off, the ring has a ruby attached to it. The rogue pries off the ruby and pockets it.

What the rogue just did was disenchant that ring.

Now more powerful items, may require say a specific magical incantation to puncture its defences, but for normal basic magic items, simply prying off the thing enchanted works.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Kordeth said:
			
		

> Except that quest rewards and monster rewards aren't mutually exclusive, so the correct statement is "it's far more efficient to go on quests to kill monsters than to just roam the countryside killing monsters at random."



Unless you're playing a solo game, in which case the most efficient way to get xp is to rescue cats from trees and help old ladies accross the road. (Since xp from minor quests don't seem to scale by amount of players).


----------



## Gloombunny

Rechan said:
			
		

> So, the only thing one is supposed to really spend gold on is magical items.
> 
> I thought 4e was supposed to reduce the dependency on magical items?
> 
> All your money in 3e was funneled into your equipment. I'd really like to avoid that particular feeling.



So, use their ideas about disallowing the sale/purchase of magic items.  Then money can be reserved exclusively for ale and whores, as it should be.


----------



## Family

AAAARRRRGGGGG!!!! I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE! I MUST PLAY 4E NOW!!!!!
*Rolls D20 repeatedly*
[mumbles "ritual" "orc" and "dragonborn" amongst other things as he does so]

IT IS SO CLOSE YET SO FAR!

DADDY'S COMING FRANCIS! DADDY'S COMING!!!!!!


----------



## Boarstorm

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Unless you're playing a solo game, in which case the most efficient way to get xp is to rescue cats from trees and help old ladies accross the road. (Since xp from minor quests don't seem to scale by amount of players).




If by cats you mean displacer beasts and if the road is filled with nightmare-driven chariots packed with legion devils, I absolutely agree!


----------



## marune

malraux said:
			
		

> Um, beyond just a rule saying they can't do that, what would you like?  Pretty simple just to say that unless the players want to create a merchant based campaign, with appropriate rules, that their characters just don't have the contacts/reputation/time to be a full time merchant.




And that's a good answer.


----------



## FireLance

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Unless you're playing a solo game, in which case the most efficient way to get xp is to rescue cats from trees and help old ladies accross the road. (Since xp from minor quests don't seem to scale by amount of players).



I get the feeling this is because a minor quest is specific to a single PC. When you're playing a solo game, the distinction between major and minor quests becomes moot.


----------



## A'koss

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Logically, someone can and will sell a magic item, and someone may buy it. Kings, if no one else.
> 
> On the other hand, players being preoccupied with melting down magic items to make other magic items is not really my cup of tea.



My problem with the magic item economy is that if magic items can be bought with gold, then that is all gold is ever worth to the party. 

If you take magic items out of the gold economy you free up it's use for a whole world of other purposes in the campaign - manors, castles, exotic mounts, your own ship, starting your own knighthood, wizard's or thieve's guild, wine, women, song... you name it.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Rechan said:
			
		

> So, the only thing one is supposed to really spend gold on is magical items.



I don't see how this follows at all from "The items you get from killing things/quests will be much better than the ones you can afford to buy/make" which is what the article says.


----------



## FadedC

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I don't really see it as melting down magic items. I see it likes this.
> 
> A rogue, who has learnt to identify magic items is scouring over the remains of the enemies his party kills. He notices a ring on the finger of a wizard, he cuts off the finger and slides the ring off, the ring has a ruby attached to it. The rogue pries off the ruby and pockets it.
> 
> What the rogue just did was disenchant that ring.
> 
> Now more powerful items, may require say a specific magical incantation to puncture its defences, but for normal basic magic items, simply prying off the thing enchanted works.




Well except that say that disenchanting magic items has an expensive material component. And of course requries ritual casting skill and knowledge of the ritual.


----------



## Rechan

A'koss said:
			
		

> If you take magic items out of the gold economy you free up it's use for a whole world of other purposes in the campaign - manors, castles, exotic mounts, your own ship, starting your own knighthood, wizard's or thieve's guild, wine, women, song... you name it.



I believe, good sir, that was 2nd Edition.


----------



## Boarstorm

A'koss said:
			
		

> My problem with the magic item economy is that if magic items can be bought with gold, then that is all gold is ever worth to the party.
> 
> If you take magic items out of the gold economy you free up it's use for a whole world of other purposes in the campaign - manors, castles, exotic mounts, your own ship, starting your own knighthood, wizard's or thieve's guild, wine, women, song... you name it.




To quote a WoWism, "I'll be snorting illusion dust off the stomach of a night elf stripper in no time!"


----------



## Sojorn

Rechan said:
			
		

> And, here's an important part: That NPC who is carrying around that Level 6 item... can he use that? I mean, if that NPC _can't_ use that item, then I question why that guy has it in the first place.



Yes, he can. In fact monsters are designed to do so and not have their math bumped out the window by doing so. But they still get a small benefit.


----------



## Kraydak

jackston2 said:
			
		

> Well, we used to get nothing from quests.




We used to get monetary rewards from quests.  Now, we don't.  Note that bargaining with employers is, officially, pointless.  Any extra "parcels" you net will be coming out of loot from elsewhere.

Given the extreme inefficiency in magic item conversion (3e-> 2 to 1, 4e-> 6 to 1 or 5->1), the parcel system has the potential for disaster.  The 3e system was a diagnostic, while the 4e system is (inadequately) prescriptive: it doesn't give you any feedback, and if the called out magic items aren't carefully rotated between characters, someone is going to end up hurting bad.

You can complain about the complexity of 3e's system, but it had the massive advantage that it was based around selling/buying magic items rather than finding them.  The only variable of significance was the net influx of "value", and everything else was self correcting.  In 4e, each item is crucial, and you can't afford to overload any category of items (if the party has 1 light blade user, 2 daggers in the called out magic items will cause problems, heck, 2 daggers over 2 or 3 adventures will cause problems).  More, characters who need different numbers of "main" items (dual wielders, implement/weapon characters) will cause problems just by existing.


----------



## A'koss

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> To quote a WoWism, "I'll be snorting illusion dust off the stomach of a night elf stripper in no time!"



Now yer talkin!


----------



## small pumpkin man

FireLance said:
			
		

> I get the feeling this is because a minor quest is specific to a single PC. When you're playing a solo game, the distinction between major and minor quests becomes moot.



That would make sense yes, and is backed up by the quests article, however my version is more amusing, and I intend to stand by it.


----------



## erf_beto

Dear God, I LOVE treasure parcels!   
(at first glance anyway)


----------



## A'koss

Rechan said:
			
		

> I believe, good sir, that was 2nd Edition.



And one of the few conventions from that edition I missed...


----------



## Rechan

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> I don't see how this follows at all from "The items you get from killing things/quests will be much better than the ones you can afford to buy/make" which is what the article says.




Because I missed the "Can" in this sentence:

"Characters can use the monetary treasure they find, as well as the gold from selling items, to acquire new magic items."


----------



## LordArchaon

Rechan said:
			
		

> OH MY GOD!
> 
> They broke down the treasures system, not only by level, but by encounter!
> 
> I NO LONGER HAVE TO DO MATH to figure out how much treasure each PC should have, ever! I never have to BS my way through "What did I get when I pick pocketed" or "Let's go infiltrate that guild hall and steal stuff; what'd we get?" Furthermore, I no longer need to worry my group is underfunded, or that being overfunded will break me.
> 
> THANK YOU WOTC!




This is exactly what I thought while reading.

Plus, I was totally amused by the enchant/disenchant thing. Especially BEFORE seeing it's another argument for D&D=WoW. Since of course I never ever played WoW or any other MMORPGS. You WoWers will make me hate the GREAT Blizzard...


----------



## Fallen Seraph

FadedC said:
			
		

> Well except that say that disenchanting magic items has an expensive material component. And of course requries ritual casting skill and knowledge of the ritual.



Well we don't know just how expensive the material component will be, or even if all have it. Hell, if need be, I will equate the cost to having to buy a new knife since the process of prying off melted the knife he was using.

Yup, basic understanding of magical ideas = ritual casting skill. Basic knowledge in identifying magical items = that ritual.


----------



## Rechan

Sojorn said:
			
		

> Yes, he can. In fact monsters are designed to do so and not have their math bumped out the window by doing so. But they still get a small benefit.



The thing I find more important though is that many magical items give you powers.

Most of the items we have seen give some sort of ability. I want to know if the NPC can use those. Because those always seem very COOL.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Rechan said:
			
		

> Because I missed the "Can" in this sentence:
> 
> "Characters can use the monetary treasure they find, as well as the gold from selling items, to acquire new magic items."



heheh, I can see how that could cause a problem yes


----------



## keterys

Magic Items:

Known:
Level 5 base cost 1,000g
Level 15 base cost 25,000g
Level 25 base cost 625,000g

So, ten levels gives x25. So, five levels is potentially x5. I'm guessing it'll work like monster xp -

Ie, like 
Lvl Cost
5 - 1000
6 - 1500
7 - 2000
8 - 3000
9 - 4000
10 - 5000
11 - 7500
12 - 10000
13 - 15000
14 - 20000
15 - 25000

Etc.


----------



## Boarstorm

I probably shouldn't admit this, as it is quite simply badwrongfun, but I never paid one lick of attention to the 3.X wealth per level chart.  I just gave PCs what I wanted to give them when I wanted to give it to them.

Mostly it worked out.  Mostly.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I was thinking about the different potions and this came to mind.

They said higher tiers had different methods beyond Healing Surges to heal, perhaps some of these potions interact with that. So say _Potion of Recovery_, could speed up _Regeneration_.


----------



## ForbidenMaster

Rechan said:
			
		

> So, the only thing one is supposed to really spend gold on is magical items.
> 
> I thought 4e was supposed to reduce the dependency on magical items? All your money in 3e was funneled into your equipment. I'd really like to avoid that particular feeling.
> 
> This also makes me wonder what you do if you reduce the amount of magical items in your games period. The "I give you the necessary bonuses of magical items you WOULD be getting this level, instead of giving you the items" method.
> 
> And, here's an important part: That NPC who is carrying around that Level 6 item... can he use that? I mean, if that NPC _can't_ use that item, then I question why that guy has it in the first place.




Well first I want to make the distinction between magic items and wondrous items.  D&D with less magic items means more mundane items.  D&D with less wondrous items means less winged boots.

Now how I understood it Wizards meant that there would be less wondrous items so that you arent a "Christmas tree".  That doesnt mean that there will be less magic items.  What I think it does mean is that magical items like potions and rituals are going to be more common and more prevelant.  Thats what you will be spending your money on.

As for NPCs and magic items, given what we saw on customizing monsters, magic items NPCs will have magic items already calculated into their stats.  So as long as you mind the magic threshold, all you have to do is give a magic item to an NPC and not actually change their stats.  Magical effects like fire damage, etc. should probably be added.


----------



## Thasmodious

Like several of these excerpts, the point is that the system in place is easy to use, not very complicated, and easily customizable to the type of game that a particular group enjoys.  Yet so many people seem to get caught up on one piece of language or another and start bemoaning how now they must literally write out treasures by level in parcels, or how they hate selling magic items and hate that its still in the game, or how disenchanting is "just like WoW" (really, some of you seem to think WoW literally invented the fantasy genre rather than knock off just about everything else out there).  

The whole point of the system is that its customizable.  Some groups enjoy magic item commerce - researching an item, tracking down a seller, bargaining, getting adventure hooks off of that.  Others hate the idea that you could ever sell a magic item.  The system has room for both.  That's a good thing.  

Pawsplay may be a fan of bags of holding and Quiver's of Elhonna stuffed full of +1 daggers and short swords from the last dungeon foray, but I'm not.  I really like the new/retro direction magic items are taking in 4e.


----------



## Sojorn

Rechan said:
			
		

> The thing I find more important though is that many magical items give you powers.
> 
> Most of the items we have seen give some sort of ability. I want to know if the NPC can use those. Because those always seem very COOL.



According to the customizing monsters article, yes, absolutely.

Unless it's like a potion. Don't put those on a treasure list of something that could use them. 

"Well, um, sorry guys, looks like the BBEG drank all your treasure."


----------



## dungeon blaster

Why are minions worth more XP than standard monsters? My guess is that the columns are switched...


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Sojorn said:
			
		

> "Well, um, sorry guys, looks like the BBEG drank all your treasure."



Or when he fell dead all his potions broke open and the contents spilled out  (I have never done this myself, least face the wrath of my group).


----------



## Boarstorm

Sojorn said:
			
		

> Unless it's like a potion. Don't put those on a treasure list of something that could use them.
> 
> "Well, um, sorry guys, looks like the BBEG drank all your treasure."




Heh, that's what you call MOTIVATION.

"Take him down quick, he's drinking our lewt!"


----------



## Stormtalon

Funny thing is, the single most popular cache of treasure I've ever put in an adventure for my group was a room full of casks of exotic liquors and ales....


----------



## Rechan

A'koss said:
			
		

> And one of the few conventions from that edition I missed...



The one problem is that if you have a player (or a group) who do not care about building castles or nationbuilding, or any of that jazz, then gold becomes worthless to them.


----------



## Rechan

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> Funny thing is, the single most popular cache of treasure I've ever put in an adventure for my group was a room full of casks of exotic liquors and ales....



Put some exotic and expensive whores in there with 'em, and that's the best treasure in all of fantasy.


----------



## Stalker0

I think the 1/5 Gold rate for magic items works well in their default "points of light" setting.

In such a setting, trade is very dangerous because of the constants dangers away from civilization. But that trade is very lucrative, considering I'm basically getting 5 times my investment when I sell a magic item. In a way, it turns traveling merchants into their own kind of adventurers. Instead of killing monsters, they brave the road of commerce.

In fact, I bet that would make an excellent campaign idea


----------



## Rechan

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Or when he fell dead all his potions broke open and the contents spilled out  (I have never done this myself, least face the wrath of my group).



If you're mean, have an NPC who intentionally fills empty potion flasks with water, and puts them in treasure hoards. 

Or worse, have a snake-oil salesman who sells water in holywater flasks.


----------



## Mort_Q

Retain Essence (ecs 32) = Collect Residuum


----------



## A'koss

Rechan said:
			
		

> The one problem is that if you have a player (or a group) who do not care about building castles or nationbuilding, or any of that jazz, then gold becomes worthless to them.



I would be _very_ surprised to find a player who couldn't find _some_ way to spending his hard-earned gold in the game.   

After all, PCs had been doing it right up until 3e...


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Rechan said:
			
		

> If you're mean, have an NPC who intentionally fills empty potion flasks with water, and puts them in treasure hoards.
> 
> Or worse, have a snake-oil salesman who sells water in holywater flasks.



I've had players do that, they would after finishing off their potions, fill the flasks with fake potions and sale them.


----------



## Family

Rechan said:
			
		

> Or worse, have a snake-oil salesman who sells water in holywater flasks.




Adventure hook, then you have to track him down and "disipline" him and "confiscate" pertenant "evidence".


----------



## Rechan

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> Well first I want to make the distinction between magic items and wondrous items.  D&D with less magic items means more mundane items.  D&D with less wondrous items means less winged boots.
> 
> Now how I understood it Wizards meant that there would be less wondrous items so that you arent a "Christmas tree".  That doesnt mean that there will be less magic items.  What I think it does mean is that magical items like potions and rituals are going to be more common and more prevelant.  Thats what you will be spending your money on.



And to me, I'd much rather there be more wondrous items, and no magical swords/armor/amulets. Ergo what I meant by the "You get the +x you're supposed to have for your weapon/armor/amulet this level, and the wondrous items are the magic equipment you get." I like the flying carpet and slippers of spiderclimb and suchlike a lot more than +1 Flaming Sword. 

Though I'm not sure how I would ration out the weapon/amulet/armor _powers_, since I think those are cool too.


----------



## FadedC

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Well we don't know just how expensive the material component will be, or even if all have it. Hell, if need be, I will equate the cost to having to buy a new knife since the process of prying off melted the knife he was using.
> 
> .




Well they said that the material component cost was enough to make the disenchant ritual inefficient, and that removing ti would completely change the balance of the economy towards making magic items. So I'm guessing it's a pretty big cost.

Also remember that you need to learn rituals from a book or use a one shot scroll. So while you could justify the rogue having to throw away a diamond plated knife, and needing to read a scroll on how to pry out rubies which then disintigrates into dust......you are starting to push things a bit. But to each their own.


----------



## Gloombunny

Rechan said:
			
		

> The one problem is that if you have a player (or a group) who do not care about building castles or nationbuilding, or any of that jazz, then gold becomes worthless to them.



That's not really a problem.  He may not have any particular use for the gold, but having it isn't making things any *less* fun for him.  On the other hand, if the player who's interested in nationbuilding has to make his PC severely underpowered by the party's standards in order to nationbuild, that's not gonna be much fun for him.


----------



## CleverNickName

*Breaking down the rate of level-ups*



			
				WotC's Article said:
			
		

> You plan treasure in terms of the eight to ten encounters it takes characters to advance from one level to the next.



  So on average, it takes about 9 well-balanced battles to gain a level in 4E.

For a character to go from 1st level to 30th level, he will need about 270 encounters.

Assuming two encounters per hour, that would take ~135 hours of game play.

At four hours per gaming session, it will take about 34 games.

At one game per week, this will take you 7-1/2 months.

Just for grins:  if the folks over in the WoW message boards can be believed, an experienced _World of Warcraft _ player can max out a character's level in about 100 total hours of play.


----------



## AZRogue

To maximize the monster and quest rewards I can already see my players asking various people around town if they need a Twisted Tiger Talon, or a Buzzard Gizzard ... from the tigers and buzzards that lurk right outside the gates. 

Luckily, the buzzards and tigers are worth such a small amount of XP that they will have to kill a lot of them before I cross off enough Buzzard Gizzards and Twisted Tiger Talons from my treasure list. They'll just have to grind it out.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

FadedC said:
			
		

> But to each their own.



*Nods* I plan on making a variety of rituals more mundane and ordinary.


----------



## keterys

This _actually_ looks good for a possible price chart!

Level	GP
1	360
2	520
3	680
4	840
5	1000
6	1800
7	2600
8	3400
9	4200
10	5000
11	9000
12	13000
13	17000
14	21000
15	25000
16	45000
17	65000
18	85000
19	105000
20	125000
21	225000
22	325000
23	425000
24	525000
25	625000
26	1125000
27	1625000
28	2125000
29	2625000
30	3125000


----------



## Mort_Q

FadedC said:
			
		

> Well they said that the material component cost was enough to make the disenchant ritual inefficient, and that removing ti would completely change the balance of the economy towards making magic items.




That also leaves room for the Artificer as a class... this may get interesting.


----------



## dystmesis

You get 140 magic items over the course of 30 levels. Divided by five, each player gets 24.

So it appears that you get one level 2 item, two level 3 items, three level 4 items, then 4 items of each level until you reach the end, where you get three level 32 items, two level 33 items, and one level 34 items.

I don't know if there are level 31-34 items, though. If there aren't, then I imagine you get eight level 27 items, seven level 28 items, six level 29 items, and five level 30 items.

Or possibly forteen level 30 items.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I think the 1/5 Gold rate for magic items works well in their default "points of light" setting.
> 
> In such a setting, trade is very dangerous because of the constants dangers away from civilization. But that trade is very lucrative, considering I'm basically getting 5 times my investment when I sell a magic item. In a way, it turns traveling merchants into their own kind of adventurers. Instead of killing monsters, they brave the road of commerce.



Well if a merchant can't hire adventurers for protection, they should hire the next best thing.  Monsters.


----------



## Sojorn

Much to my surprise, Wizards choose option three of my predictions. (Short and boring, long and boring or new twist that's interesting).

I would say they cheated by including rewards under "economy" but I suppose rewards ARE the economy of D&D.


----------



## FireLance

Rechan said:
			
		

> Though I'm not sure how I would ration out the weapon/amulet/armor _powers_, since I think those are cool too.



Augment crystals!


----------



## Gloombunny

How come no one made these WoW complaints when Eberron came out and the artificer class had rules for breaking down a magic item and making new items out of the magic you salvage from it?  Oh yeah, because that was before WoW launched...

*headdesk*


----------



## Ravingdork

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Well if a merchant can't hire adventurers for protection, they should hire the next best thing.  Monsters.




That would be AWESOME.


----------



## Hussar

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> That's not really a problem.  He may not have any particular use for the gold, but having it isn't making things any *less* fun for him.  On the other hand, if the player who's interested in nationbuilding has to make his PC severely underpowered by the party's standards in order to nationbuild, that's not gonna be much fun for him.




Sort of.  The problem is, nation building is a very solo activity.  If John wants to build a keep, fine, but, what do the other 4 players do in the meantime.  Building a castle without magic takes years.  So, does John retire his character in the meantime?  After all, it would be a pretty strange thing for John to go off and adventure while his castle is being built.

All that kind of stuff is extremely campaign specific and I'm not sure if the DMG is the best place to deal with it initially.  

To be fair though, I'd LOVE to see some rules and ideas for how to make this work in a campaign.


----------



## DevoutlyApathetic

raven_dark64 said:
			
		

> That would be AWESOME.



This is 4th edition, regardless of what they look like they'll be monsters if we fight them.


----------



## Lancelot

I'm liking what i'm seeing, particularly the relative rarity of magic items (compared to 3rd edition) and the "20% resale value". Looking through a typical 3e module, it gets a bit silly.

A typical 10th level module might have 6x bugbear guards (Ftr 3, each) in an antechamber, guarding a wizard 11 and a cleric 11 in the next room. The number of magic items on these creatures alone is going to be ludicrous... and largely pointless. At the end of the battle, the Wands of Identify come out, and it'll be: 6x sword +1, 6x chainmail +1, 12x CMW potion, +2 headband of intellect, +2 periapt of wisdom... etc, etc.

And then my players begin with the comments: "You know, one day I'd really like to find that factory where they're mass-producing magical swords for the mooks", "Groan - we've already got all the +2 stat buffers... why couldn't he have a headband +4?", "Well guys... nothing exciting, as usual, but the total resale value is 33k, so how about we buy a...".

No piles of low-level magic items for the mooks/minions? Good.
No Bags of Holding filled with dozens of unwanted +1 weapons for resale? Good.
Ritual mechanisms available for those DMs who don't want "Magic Item Shops"? Good.
Finding a magic item becomes exciting again? Great!


----------



## A'koss

Hussar said:
			
		

> Sort of.  The problem is, nation building is a very solo activity.  If John wants to build a keep, fine, but, what do the other 4 players do in the meantime.



You've never fast-forwarded a campaign before? Typically when I ran games where you would have some of the PCs engaged in long-term projects on the side, you just move the campaign forward in chunks. Perhaps just one or two adventures happen during the time these projects are being developed.


----------



## Keefe the Thief

Well, that economy section is:
- easy to adjudicate.
- easy to change if i want to.
- spells out that "you change it if you don´t like it". 

3 out of 3. Well done, WotC.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

A'koss said:
			
		

> I would be _very_ surprised to find a player who couldn't find _some_ way to spending his hard-earned gold in the game.
> 
> After all, PCs had been doing it right up until 3e...



Yeah, I bought magic items with it.  In 2e, we had a couple of DMs who were absolutely dead set against us buying magic items.  Our money just piled up until the first chance to blow it on something we didn't want.  We'd just hand it to whoever wanted it.

I think someone attempted to shake us down for money on the road once and asked for some stupidly high sum like 20,000 gp each.  We asked them what types of coin they wanted it in.


----------



## inkmonkeys

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> In fact, I bet that would make an excellent campaign idea




I'd play it.


----------



## AtomicPope

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> I probably shouldn't admit this, as it is quite simply badwrongfun, but I never paid one lick of attention to the 3.X wealth per level chart.  I just gave PCs what I wanted to give them when I wanted to give it to them.
> 
> Mostly it worked out.  Mostly.



Agreed.

The thing about 3e is Magic items never really added up.  Any stat boost item was worth way more in terms of usefulness.  For a Pally a Cloak of Charisma:
1) Boosted All Saves
2) Boosted their Smite "to hit"
3) Boosted their Lay on Hands

That's a hell of a lot for one item.  But then there are "schtick" items like the Lyre of Building which are hardly ever used in an adventure yet cost a fortune.  If the cost of items doesn't really add up then "Wealth per Level" isn't a good balance.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Rechan said:
			
		

> So, the only thing one is supposed to really spend gold on is magical items.




Aw, come on. The article clearly stats that you will use the money to by your character his own castle.



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> And, here's an important part: That NPC who is carrying around that Level 6 item... can he use that? I mean, if that NPC _can't_ use that item, then I question why that guy has it in the first place.




Um... why wouldn't the NPC be able to use the item? It's just as easy to add the item's bonuses and features to an NPC as it is to a PC. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Fitz


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

A'koss said:
			
		

> You've never fast-forwarded a campaign before? Typically when I ran games where you would have some of the PCs engaged in long-term projects on the side, you just move the campaign forward in chunks. Perhaps just one or two adventures happen during the time these projects are being developed.



This is rather off topic, but I actually have never done that.  Almost all my adventures have some built in time limit and are a series of adventures tied together in a campaign that last 10-20 levels worth of time.

So, magic item creation has never really been an issue for any of my campaigns.  Any player who tried spending that much time to do "out of game" activities like keep building, magic item creation, and the like were yelled at by their party members for wasting time when their enemies were getting away or while the villain had the mayor prisoner and might kill him at any time or when the evil cult might destroy the world.


----------



## GSHamster

One thing I like is that it seems very "novice DM"-friendly.  If the quest and encounter sections are as easy to follow, it will be very easy for a new DM to make a nice little adventure than takes the characters up one level, and gives them decent rewards.

I especially like how it goes a bit into the psychology of rewards, to give the DM some reasoning as to *why* you should hand out loot a certain way.

If the rest of the DMG is like this, it will easily be the best D&D book ever written.


----------



## drjones

The One Ring was not a magic item (by these rules) it was a plot device so I don't think any rules are needed.  Just a 'this item seems very strange and powerful to you, unlike anything you have seen, you doubt you can master it' and if they pursue it anyway 'there is a flash of light and you crumple to the floor, your components gone.  The ring sits as before but now red script dances across it's surface.'


----------



## Rechan

FitzTheRuke said:
			
		

> Aw, come on. The article clearly stats that you will use the money to by your character his own castle.



I stated earlier I misread a sentence.



> Um... why wouldn't the NPC be able to use the item? It's just as easy to add the item's bonuses and features to an NPC as it is to a PC. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.



Well, NPCs work differently than PCs. So, they might not. I seem to recall seeing that before the monsters excerpt came out.


----------



## Klaus

One thing that caught my eye:

specifically calling out a "+1 _magic_ sword", as opposed to just a "+1 sword".

Maybe that keyword means more now?


----------



## keterys

Yeah, I am very impressed with how novice friendly this is (and commented as such in another board I frequent).

One thing learned from figuring out the cost chart... you probably get +1 improvements to magic weapons/armor/etc on increments of 5... ie, +1 at 1-5, +2 at 6-10, +3 at 11-15, etc. Of course, your magic items are higher than your level usually so it's possible you end up with items over level 30, but if not that puts a +6 sword/armor as your cap in epic levels.

Which seems low based on the rest of the math (like for monsters), so there's probably something I'm missing. 1/2 Level + 1/5 Item doesn't come close enough to the +1 / Level we're seeing on scaling things... though I suppose you might also get at least +1/8 ability score increase, and that just leaves 7/40 to get through feats, paths, and power bonuses. 

Hmmhmm. I guess that's dealable.


----------



## A'koss

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> This is rather off topic, but I actually have never done that.  Almost all my adventures have some built in time limit and are a series of adventures tied together in a campaign that last 10-20 levels worth of time.
> 
> So, magic item creation has never really been an issue for any of my campaigns.  Any player who tried spending that much time to do "out of game" activities like keep building, magic item creation, and the like were yelled at by their party members for wasting time when their enemies were getting away or while the villain had the mayor prisoner and might kill him at any time or when the evil cult might destroy the world.



Well... if you design the campaign in such a way as to effectively _prohibit_ any kind extra-curricular activities, what do you expect? But I agree, this is getting OT...


----------



## Rechan

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> This is rather off topic, but I actually have never done that.  Almost all my adventures have some built in time limit and are a series of adventures tied together in a campaign that last 10-20 levels worth of time.
> 
> So, magic item creation has never really been an issue for any of my campaigns.  Any player who tried spending that much time to do "out of game" activities like keep building, magic item creation, and the like were yelled at by their party members for wasting time when their enemies were getting away or while the villain had the mayor prisoner and might kill him at any time or when the evil cult might destroy the world.



The problem with that is:

1) Players who want to make magical items (Or godforbid, you're playing a wizard and you need to put a spell in your spellbook from a scroll) get gimped.

2) More importantly (to me), if you go from level 1 to 20 without ever stopping, the PCs go from 1-2 in about six months in-game.

I give some downtime, even if folks don't have busywork (magical item/spell scribing etc) to do.


----------



## AtomicPope

This all comes as a pleasant surprise.  I really hated the idea of rolling for wealth, just like I hated rolling for monster Hitpoints.  I stopped that way back in 1st edition and I've never regretted it.  There's something lazy and  about rolling up treasure.  It's like saying that there is no real backstory to the monsters, which destroys the illusion roleplaying tries to create.


Thank goodness for the new direction.


----------



## Thasmodious

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> How come no one made these WoW complaints when Eberron came out and the artificer class had rules for breaking down a magic item and making new items out of the magic you salvage from it?  Oh yeah, because that was before WoW launched...
> 
> *headdesk*





What, don't you know?  Through some wrinkle of the space-time continuum, WoW actually invented the fantasy genre.  It all comes from there.

I'm appalled that 4e rips off WoW so blatantly with things like levels, hit points, attributes, magic.  I even read that 4e will allow characters to have mounts.  What a ripoff.


----------



## keterys

> if you go from level 1 to 20 without ever stopping, the PCs go from 1-2 in about six months in-game.




six months? Did it in... I think it was 32 days, but I'll pretend it was a month... in one 3.0 campaign.

But, yeah, silliness ensues.


----------



## Lurker37

Rechan said:
			
		

> And, here's an important part: That NPC who is carrying around that Level 6 item... can he use that? I mean, if that NPC _can't_ use that item, then I question why that guy has it in the first place.




One possibility? Making a hobby out of trying to work out how to activate it, and not daring to put it down in case some other NPC grabs it.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Rechan said:
			
		

> Well, NPCs work differently than PCs. So, they might not. I seem to recall seeing that before the monsters excerpt came out.




I was kidding about the castles.

As far as NPCs working differently than PCs: Not differently enough to make an NPC using a magic item to be difficult. 

I've done it several times already.

Fitz


----------



## Sojorn

AtomicPope said:
			
		

> This all comes as a pleasant surprise.  I really hated the idea of rolling for wealth, just like I hated rolling for monster Hitpoints.  I stopped that way back in 1st edition and I've never regretted it.  There's something lazy and  about rolling up treasure.  It's like saying that there is no real backstory to the monsters, which destroys the illusion roleplaying tries to create.
> 
> 
> Thank goodness for the new direction.



Well, the basic concept was good. Have a chart of what the "standard" reward for a particular level is.

The problem was they made it random, which nulls the standard part. This choose and fill in the blank method of generating a level worth of treasure is very nice.


----------



## Colmarr

Just read the excerpt.

Lots of interesting stuff in there:

1. No random treasure that is below party level. Not sure that I like that idea. "Nothing below level -2" is good. "Nothing below level" strikes me as not so good. Oh well, maybe I'm stuck in 3eville. At least it'll ALWAYS be exciting to find a magic item now.

2a. The major quest rewards table allows for parties of up to 6 characters. That's promising of a good level of flexibility but makes me wonder why the treasure reward table doesn't say the same thing. And come to think of it, why do the treasure rules only award FOUR magic items, if the default party is 5 members? What’s the logic behind someone missing out?

2b. Are there level 1 magic items? I seem to recall from D&DXP that there are, but the treasure rules say level+1 to level+4.

3. Are the "treasure parcels" set in stone or are they only examples? It's odd that gp always come in round numbers. Must be wrapped in those things from the bank   

4. Are there potions other than healing potions (they're the only ones in the treasure charts)?

5. "Magic item shops" are, by default, still around. I think I'm a bit disappointed by that. But at least WotC clearly set out a recommended way of changing that if you want to.

6. Disenchanting magic items produces "residuum". WAY too WoW for my tastes. WoW may not have been the first or best to use the idea, but it can't be denied that it smacks heavily of WoW.

7. There's a random markup on buying magic items. Ooh. I think I like that idea. If a merchant wants a 40% markup, the player has to decide between buying from that merchant at inflated prices or waiting until a later time to buy the same item at hopefully cheaper prices.

With each of these excepts, it's becoming harder and harder for me to resist ordering the DMG. Oh well, I will be strong!


----------



## UngeheuerLich

dungeon blaster said:
			
		

> Why are minions worth more XP than standard monsters? My guess is that the columns are switched...



 once again an oversight... oh i really hope they paid more attention in the actual books, but my hopes are fading...

edit: also the quest reward table is redundant... Why not just say every player gets XP for a standard monster of its Level...

the rest of the article however is nice


----------



## Ultimatecalibur

keterys said:
			
		

> Yeah, I am very impressed with how novice friendly this is (and commented as such in another board I frequent).
> 
> One thing learned from figuring out the cost chart... you probably get +1 improvements to magic weapons/armor/etc on increments of 5... ie, +1 at 1-5, +2 at 6-10, +3 at 11-15, etc. Of course, your magic items are higher than your level usually so it's possible you end up with items over level 30, but if not that puts a +6 sword/armor as your cap in epic levels.
> 
> Which seems low based on the rest of the math (like for monsters), so there's probably something I'm missing. 1/2 Level + 1/5 Item doesn't come close enough to the +1 / Level we're seeing on scaling things... though I suppose you might also get at least +1/8 ability score increase, and that just leaves 7/40 to get through feats, paths, and power bonuses.
> 
> Hmmhmm. I guess that's dealable.




I think the magical equipment bonus will be something like 2-4: +1, 5-8: +2, 9-12: +3... 25-28: +7, 29-30: +8. One of the clue they gave out way back in August was +8 wand.


----------



## AZRogue

So, do characters get a stat boost every even level? I may have missed something before, is why I'm asking. I get that possibility from here:



			
				WotC Article said:
			
		

> Characters gain new attack powers at odd-numbered levels, and they gain new feats, ability score increases, and global adjustments to all their attacks and defenses at even-numbered levels. Both are exciting, but they feel different.




Of course, they could just mean you get the boost at the standard intervals which are even numbered. I'm just checking in case someone knows of a change.


----------



## Lurker59

Based on the rewards in KotS a basic +1 magic item seems to be a Level 1 (360 gold) item. Any additional descriptors, like _dwarven_ on armor, increase that level. For example +1 Dwarven plate armor is described as level 2. A basic +2 dagger is a Level 6 (1800 gold) item.


----------



## Irda Ranger

Keefe the Thief said:
			
		

> Well, that economy section is:
> - easy to adjudicate.
> - easy to change if i want to.
> - spells out that "you change it if you don´t like it".



Yup. I like it.  Especially the second two. 

I'm glad the "official" sale price of items is so low and markups are random.  Sure, that's what I've always been doing, and I can simply dictate whatever to PCs, but having it in the books is less hassle.


----------



## A'koss

AZRogue said:
			
		

> So, do characters get a stat boost every even level? I may have missed something before, is why I'm asking.



I recall someone worked it out from a previous article and the increases were at 4th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 18th, 21st, 24th and 28th level.


----------



## FireLance

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Of course, they could just mean you get the boost at the standard intervals which are even numbered. I'm just checking in case someone knows of a change.



I haven't heard anything about stat boosts from the rules for levelling the KotS characters to 2nd level, so my guess is, probably not _every_ even level.


----------



## Colmarr

Lurker59 said:
			
		

> Based on the rewards in KotS a basic +1 magic item seems to be a Level 1 (360 gold) item. Any additional descriptors, like _dwarven_ on armor, increase that level. For example +1 Dwarven plate armor is described as level 2.




Which suggests that there's more to awarding magic items than the excerpt is telling us. Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## ideasmith

Yahoo! Magic Items Finally Have Levels!


----------



## keterys

Ultimatecalibur said:
			
		

> I think the magical equipment bonus will be something like 2-4: +1, 5-8: +2, 9-12: +3... 25-28: +7, 29-30: +8. One of the clue they gave out way back in August was +8 wand.




Actually, it was a +6 wand.

A basic +1 magic weapon is a 1st level item. A basic +2 magic weapon is a 6th level item.

I'll admit that I also thought it would go in sets of 4, but if you look at the price chart, it seems pretty clear that the 6/11/16/21/26/31 cutoff is a major price jump, which would lend well to the + of the item going up... since Lurker59 has the adventure and discovered +1 is 1st and +2 is 6th, and the prices for those match the chart. It's pretty good evidence. At any rate, we do have evidence that a 21st level character was using +5 armor from a playtest blog and an 11th level character a +3 weapon, so those are perhaps helpful backup information.


----------



## Stalker0

keterys said:
			
		

> Actually, it was a +6 wand.
> 
> A basic +1 magic weapon is a 1st level item. A basic +2 magic weapon is a 6th level item.
> 
> I'll admit that I also thought it would go in sets of 4, but if you look at the price chart, it seems pretty clear that the 6/11/16/21/26/31 cutoff is a major price jump, which would lend well to the + of the item going up... since Lurker59 has the adventure and discovered +1 is 1st and +2 is 6th, and the prices for those match the chart. It's pretty good evidence. At any rate, we do have evidence that a 21st level character was using +5 armor from a playtest blog and an 11th level character a +3 weapon, so those are perhaps helpful backup information.




It would seem then that parties are expected to get +2 items very quickly, seeing as how a level 3 party should be getting at least 1 or two level 6 items.


----------



## keterys

On bonuses, if you can get, say a +7 item by 30th, then to match 30 points of monster increase, it's

+15 (half level)
+7 (item)
+4 (8 stat boosts)
+4 (other)

Which seems eminently reasonable. Even at +6 item, getting +5 from power, path, destiny, feat seems viable.


----------



## keterys

To be honest, I don't plan on giving out _any_ generic +2 (or 3, etc) magic weapons.

I'll wait the extra level so I can give out vicious weapons, frost weapons, etc.


----------



## AZRogue

A'koss said:
			
		

> I recall someone worked it out from a previous article and the increases were at 4th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 18th, 21st, 24th and 28th level.




But those levels couldn't be right since the article said that you get a stat boost only on even-levels.



			
				WotC Article said:
			
		

> Characters gain new attack powers at odd-numbered levels, and they gain new feats, *ability score increases,* and global adjustments to all their attacks and defenses at even-numbered levels. Both are exciting, but they feel different.




I wonder if every even level for an increase is even possible? I don't think it very likely, myself.


----------



## A'koss

AZRogue said:
			
		

> But those levels couldn't be right since the article said that you get a stat boost only on even-levels.



From the "Tiers" article, under the topic of "Starting at Higher Level"... http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080416a

*Determine Ability Scores*. Generate scores as for a 1st-level character, applying racial modifiers. Then increase those scores as shown on the Character Advancement table in the Player’s Handbook, with increases at 4th level, 8th level, 11th, 14th, and so on.


----------



## AZRogue

A'koss said:
			
		

> From the "Tiers" article, under the topic of "Starting at Higher Level"... http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080416a
> 
> *Determine Ability Scores*. Generate scores as for a 1st-level character, applying racial modifiers. Then increase those scores as shown on the Character Advancement table in the Player’s Handbook, with increases at 4th level, 8th level, 11th, 14th, and so on.




Thanks for the link. Makes me wonder which article is closer to correct, heh.


----------



## keterys

Well, 11th and 21st are special, so I'd not be surprised if they both are.


----------



## WyzardWhately

The question on my mind is: Is there still room for freaky wondrous items?  Once the economy steps in to regulate PCs, and make sure they don't fall off of either end of the magic item treadmill, is there still room for portable holes, cubic gates, apparati of Kwalish, and the various other freaky acoutrements that adventurers tended to accumulate pre-3E?


----------



## A'koss

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Thanks for the link. Makes me wonder which article is closer to correct, heh.



Yeah, it certainly doesn't help to have conflicting articles. But since we're given actual levels in the Tiers article (and no indication of gaining AS boosts in KotS) that's probably the way it is... 11th and 21st are probably Paragon and Epic special boosts anyway.


----------



## small pumpkin man

keterys said:
			
		

> To be honest, I don't plan on giving out _any_ generic +2 (or 3, etc) magic weapons.
> 
> I'll wait the extra level so I can give out vicious weapons, frost weapons, etc.



I believe we were promised that there would be no "generic plus items", implying "+2 _magic_" actually means something besides just +2. I could be misremembering though.


----------



## Spatula

Economy & Reward said:
			
		

> It’s a lot easier to be a conscientious DM in Fourth Edition. I don’t have to add up the value of all the treasure I’m giving out and make sure it adds up—I just have to check parcels off the list when I give them out, and make sure that I’ve crossed everything off the list by the time they hit 6th level.



...and hope the PCs don't bypass any of the parcels.  No hidden treasure, or they might not find it!  Or if they don't, you tack it onto the quest reward and there was no point in looking for it to begin with.  While I like wealth guidelines (a necessary part of useful encounter design) it does run into this problem where you feel like the players must get X loot by level Y, which then leads to very linear adventure design.  If there are optional side-treks with treasure (think of a sprawling dungeon that the PCs need not entirely clear out), or hard-to-find treasure, it throws the whole thing out of whack.  Unless the DM adjusts the rewards around behind-the-scene, in which case the PCs get what the book says they're supposed to have no matter what they do.

Also, the major quest reward table is entirely, 100% pointless.  "Divide the XP reward among all the characters who participated in the quest," with columns for different size parties - but when you divide it, it's exactly the same as giving each party member XP for a level N monster, so just say that...


----------



## Incenjucar

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> I believe we were promised that there would be no "generic plus items", implying "+2 _magic_" actually means something besides just +2. I could be misremembering though.




Ehhh.

Plus items are more integral than ever, actually.  See: Monsters not getting full benefits of especially strong pluses, +6 wands, etc.  It's calculated in, though, so you can remove plus items and just give out plus abilities to compensate.

I think the real difference will be that, since pluses are standard, the non-generic abilities will not have to compete with the pluses themselves.


----------



## WyzardWhately

Spatula said:
			
		

> ...and hope the PCs don't bypass any of the parcels.  No hidden treasure, or they might not find it!  Or if they don't, you tack it onto the quest reward and there was no point in looking for it to begin with.




Somebody raised the converse of this issue earlier, which is that there's no point trying to negotiate with your employer for a higher payscale - the GM is supposed to just take it out of your total gain anyway.

I dub this the *Law of Karmic Treasure*.  You never get more or less reward than is proportional to the effort put in.


----------



## genshou

I really think the idea of selling an item at 20% to someone who is going to mark it up to 140% reeks of "Let's not use common sense with our game mechanics" :\


----------



## pawsplay

genshou said:
			
		

> I really think the idea of selling an item at 20% to someone who is going to mark it up to 140% reeks of "Let's not use common sense with our game mechanics" :\




Things like that tend to incite PCs into adding swords and fireballs into their negotiations.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

genshou said:
			
		

> I really think the idea of selling an item at 20% to someone who is going to mark it up to 140% reeks of "Let's not use common sense with our game mechanics" :\



I wouldn't be surprised if Streetwise/Diplomacy can be used as a Skill Challenge to either increase the amount the fence will pay for a item or lower the price he will sale a item.

Streetwise = Know the actual cost of the item on the street

Diplomacy = Bartering


----------



## FireLance

genshou said:
			
		

> I really think the idea of selling an item at 20% to someone who is going to mark it up to 140% reeks of "Let's not use common sense with our game mechanics" :\



Have you compared the price of coffee beans to the price of a latte at Starbucks lately?


----------



## ForbidenMaster

genshou said:
			
		

> I really think the idea of selling an item at 20% to someone who is going to mark it up to 140% reeks of "Let's not use common sense with our game mechanics" :\




Its supply and demand.  There isnt much demand for magic items in the general world, so you arent going to get much for it.  On the other hand if you can find someone who does want a magic item odds are they can pay, and therefor will pay a significant price for it.  If the party can find someone who actually wants a magic item then they should be able to sell it just like a merchant.  But if they cant they are only going to get what the next best price for it is, and thats 20% of the listed value.


----------



## keterys

The scary thing is that it's not that far off from real world product distribution of many products. 4 to 1 isn't that far off, and if we're talking something that is very difficult to sell and expensive to protect...


----------



## pawsplay

FireLance said:
			
		

> Have you compared the price of coffee beans to the price of a latte at Starbucks lately?




Ah, but there, you're paying for the subservience of an employee and the use of an espresso machine.


----------



## Gloombunny

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be surprised if Streetwise/Diplomacy can be used as a Skill Challenge to either increase the amount the fence will pay for a item or lower the price he will sale a item.
> 
> Streetwise = Know the actual cost of the item on the street
> 
> Diplomacy = Bartering



I would also suggest Bluff, to convince the merchant that you have other people you can deal with and will walk away if he doesn't offer a better price.

Or Intimidate, of course.


----------



## pawsplay

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> Its supply and demand.  There isnt much demand for magic items in the general world, so you arent going to get much for it.




What? And at the same time, magic items are incredibly rare and hard to acquire?


----------



## MindWanderer

Likes: Simplicity and excitingness--maybe.  See below.

Dislike: Poor return on sales.  If a DM gives you a lot of cash and wondrous items, and only gives you new slotted items when it's a significant boost for you, you end up with a lot of value as you progress in level.  If the DM gives you lots of potions and slotted items (especially ones you have no interest in), you end up having to sell or expend more, and you end up with significantly less over time.  DMs will still have to conduct wealth-by-level audits every once in a while to make sure that the players' buying and spending habits ended them up in the right place.

In fact, for a discerning player, this can even diminish the "exciting" factor.  As in, "What, a +1 Frost Longsword?  That's nice, but I just got a +1 Vicious Longsword last level.  So long, longsword, I hardly knew ye, and now you're just 100 gp."  Whereas an item that uses a different slot--best case would be an unfilled slot, but one that just hasn't been updated in a long time would be good, too--would end up being worth more.

I also dislike the "markup" mechanic.  You save up money for three levels to buy the toy you really want... and at the next town, it has a 40% markup.  If you can afford it at all at that price, is it better to go ahead and buy it, losing huge amounts of money in the process, or should you wait and try your luck in another town?  Or can that markup be bargained down with skill checks, effectively making Diplomacy training worth cash?  Or, you can disenchant your gear and use the energy to enchant something else, which is somehow less efficient than just selling it (which seems odd--why does the more difficult way of getting rid of loot also net you the inferior return?).


----------



## Mouseferatu

pawsplay said:
			
		

> What? And at the same time, magic items are incredibly rare and hard to acquire?




There's no contradiction there. Think of a Rolls Royce. They're extremely expensive, _and_ there's not much demand for them, partly _because_ they're extremely expensive.

If something is so far outside Person X's price range that he couldn't even _imagine_ paying for it, he has no measurable demand for it, no matter how much he might want it.


----------



## Sir_Darien

genshou said:
			
		

> I really think the idea of selling an item at 20% to someone who is going to mark it up to 140% reeks of "Let's not use common sense with our game mechanics" :\




Agreed.

This is the first major problem I've had with the preview material. I don't know what I'm going to do when my players start becoming merchants. 

I can see them stockpiling gear until they get to a metropolis. Then setting up a store to sell their magic items at 80% and undercutting local merchants. I can also see them sending messengers out to all towns in the vicinity letting other adventurers know about their goods. 

They've done stuff like this before just to make 75% off items in 3.5 and I cannot realistically think of a way to keep it from working.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

pawsplay said:
			
		

> What? And at the same time, magic items are incredibly rare and hard to acquire?



Thus why there isn't a demand. You go to a normal person, "say you know about the Sword of blah, blah, blah" "umm... no" "Would you want to buy it?" "Can it cure my son of his disease" "Well... No, but it can chop things up real nice!" "Then no sorry" 

or

You go to a normal person, "say you know about the Sword of blah, blah, blah" "umm... no" "Would you want to buy it?" "What? Why would I want some weird swording sword, I can just buy one from the blacksmith" "But this thing shoots lightning!" "Right, bub, the asylum is that way"

Essentially, since they are rare the common person doesn't have a use for it, since there isn't knowledge/need to use one.


----------



## ForbidenMaster

pawsplay said:
			
		

> What? And at the same time, magic items are incredibly rare and hard to acquire?




I dont see your point.  Just because something is rare and hard to acquire, doesnt mean that there is a large market for it.  Magic items are specialty items.  Very few people will actually buy magic items.  Therefor if the PCs cant find another purchaser of magic items they have to go to the next highest bidder which is generally a merchant who will only pay 20% listed value.  I dont see the problem with that.


----------



## MindWanderer

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be surprised if Streetwise/Diplomacy can be used as a Skill Challenge to either increase the amount the fence will pay for a item or lower the price he will sale a item.
> 
> Streetwise = Know the actual cost of the item on the street
> 
> Diplomacy = Bartering



 From the Skill Challenges excerpt:


> *Is This a Challenge?*
> It’s not a skill challenge every time you call for a skill check. When an obstacle takes only one roll to resolve, it’s not a challenge. One Diplomacy check to haggle with the merchant, one Athletics check to climb out of the pit trap, one Religion check to figure out whose sacred tome contains the parable—none of these constitutes a skill challenge.


----------



## keterys

> I cannot realistically think of a way to keep it from working.




Nobody buys 'em seems like it would work.

Personally, I'm going to have no magic item shop of note (just the elixir place and a few possible items) and the merchant will buy items so they can be shipped halfway around the world to find someone to buy them, in a process that takes months. Ditto to buy anything of use.


----------



## pawsplay

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> There's no contradiction there. Think of a Rolls Royce. They're extremely expensive, _and_ there's not much demand for them, partly _because_ they're extremely expensive.
> 
> If something is so far outside Person X's price range that he couldn't even _imagine_ paying for it, he has no measurable demand for it, no matter how much he might want it.




But rare, yet desired items tend to have a _high_ resale value. Plus, most ancient swords probably don't wear out for whatever reason, meaning they should behave more like a commodity.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Ehhh.
> 
> Plus items are more integral than ever, actually.  See: Monsters not getting full benefits of especially strong pluses, +6 wands, etc.  It's calculated in, though, so you can remove plus items and just give out plus abilities to compensate.
> 
> I think the real difference will be that, since pluses are standard, the non-generic abilities will not have to compete with the pluses themselves.



Yes, yes, items have pluses, but I distincly remember someone saying that there wouldn't be amy items that _only_ grant pluses, implying that a +2 _magic_ sword isn't _just_ a +2 sword, it's a +2 sword with the "magic" property.

But like I said, I ould be misremembering.


----------



## AZRogue

Treasure Parcels are given out whenever you know it's time to give out treasure. You have your list and when the PCs find the hidden room that has some treasure you mark a parcel off your sheet. If they don't find it you don't mark off a parcel and will mark it off later when it comes time to give out treasure.

In regards to PCs becoming merchants, more power to them I say. I would ask them that if they want to make a merchant campaign then that's fine, and then roleplay all the guys who want to try and haggle their prices down, don't have the money, ask for payment plans, try to steal the items, try to trade worthless items to them, etc. If that's how they want to get their kicks then I would let them but I wouldn't roll over and play dead by just fast forwarding past their merchant endeavors and giving them a blanket bonus to the resale value just because they want one. At the most they might find one actual buyer per session.


----------



## FireLance

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Ah, but there, you're paying for the subservience of an employee and the use of an espresso machine.



And here you're paying for the services of the merchant as a deal broker, and the use of a cart (or other transportation device) to move the item from place to place until he can find a buyer. 

Seriously, though, I think the reason for the drastic fall in selling price (and the rise in buying price) has more to do with gameplay and game balance than any attempt to define how the economy works. It's meant to encourage the PCs to use the items they find (or are given by the DM) instead of selling them and buying something else. Presumably, a similar trade-off will occur for disenchanting and making magic items.


----------



## hong

I cannot believe the concept of an illiquid market is so hard to accept.


----------



## pawsplay

FireLance said:
			
		

> And here you're paying for the services of the merchant as a deal broker, and the use of a cart (or other transportation device) to move the item from place to place until he can find a buyer.




Isn't that functionally the same as the services the PCs can offer to anyone with a magical item to sell? I just don't see how PCs can be anything other than the typical buyers and sellers of magic items.


----------



## ForbidenMaster

pawsplay said:
			
		

> But rare, yet desired items tend to have a _high_ resale value. Plus, most ancient swords probably don't wear out for whatever reason, meaning they should behave more like a commodity.




They do have a high resale value, hence the 10%-40% mark up.  The problem is that you generally wont be able to find anyone who would be willing to pay that much.  The highest you will generally be able to get is 20% from a merchant.  The reason why he doesnt offer more is because he is taking a risk in that he may not be able to sell it again.


----------



## Sir_Darien

keterys said:
			
		

> Nobody buys 'em seems like it would work.
> 
> Personally, I'm going to have no magic item shop of note (just the elixir place and a few possible items) and the merchant will buy items so they can be shipped halfway around the world to find someone to buy them, in a process that takes months. Ditto to buy anything of use.




I could also have their shop burn down, but the end result is they will feel cheated either way. If they are willing and able to pay 100% of the value of the item, it stands to reason (especially for heroic tier items) that other adventurers would be willing to do the same.

If they put effort and resources into attempting to market their devices to others like themselves, then how can you realistically just say that no one will purchase them. Bear in mind that my group plays in a traditional high-fantasy setting where there are other adventurers around with power comprable to the pcs up until the low teens in levels.


----------



## MindWanderer

Sir_Darien said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> This is the first major problem I've had with the preview material. I don't know what I'm going to do when my players start becoming merchants.
> 
> I can see them stockpiling gear until they get to a metropolis. Then setting up a store to sell their magic items at 80% and undercutting local merchants. I can also see them sending messengers out to all towns in the vicinity letting other adventurers know about their goods.
> 
> They've done stuff like this before just to make 75% off items in 3.5 and I cannot realistically think of a way to keep it from working.



The same way you keep them from resting after every encounter: a sense of urgency.  Give them a quest where they won't have time to sit around for months while they wait for other adventurers to show up.  Remember, adventurers are a rare breed, moreso as you go up in level.  Even in a place like Sharn, with a huge population and lots of money, you're still in Eberron where high-level adventurers are extremely rare.  Sure, your PCs could quit adventuring and go into business for themselves, but then they're not really playing the game, and months if not years of game time are going by.  See the d20 Modern FAQ for a similar example dealing with resale glitches.

Like the travelling merchants mentioned in the article, your PCs could go out looking for buyers instead of waiting for buyers to come to them.  This presents an elegant solution: attack them on the road, and give them no or little treasure.  The wealth they should have earned for that encounter is covered by the profit they turn as merchants.  You can also do this if they decide to set up shop in a city, although it's more contrived.  Noncombat encounters (e.g. skill challenges) can cover this as well--any excuse to give out XP.


----------



## TheArcane

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> There's no contradiction there. Think of a Rolls Royce. They're extremely expensive, _and_ there's not much demand for them, partly _because_ they're extremely expensive.
> 
> If something is so far outside Person X's price range that he couldn't even _imagine_ paying for it, he has no measurable demand for it, no matter how much he might want it.




But your new Royce doesn't lose 4/5 of its value right after you drive it for the first time. Theoretically you should be able to find a buyer who is willing to pay a lot, even for a second hand one. Selling items at 1/5 of their value stretches the common sense a little too much.

Regarding the rest of the preview, while I understand that these are just guidelines, I find them very dull and not interesting. First of all, I forsee player complaints that "they didn't get their 4 items for this level". Furthermore, what is the impact of exchanging one gold and potion parcel for another magic item? Or vice versa? What happened to potions other that healing? Again the question - what if the party defeats a villain NPC? What about his magic gear? Can he use the parcel that he's guarding? I hope all of these are addressed in the books...


----------



## pawsplay

hong said:
			
		

> I cannot believe the concept of an illiquid market is so hard to accept.




You made me look up big words. 

Wikipedia has this to say:

_A liquid asset has some or more of the following features. It can be sold (1) rapidly, (2) with minimal loss of value, (3) anytime within market hours. _

Magic items certainly have (2), assuming we are talking about a legendary sword or some other durable artifact. I think (1) easily applies, assuming the items is of obvious utility to wealthy nobility, reclusive wizards, or military orders. (3) doesn't really apply. The only non-liquid attributes we seem to be facing are a lack of a regular forum or marketplace for the items.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

I'm just going to give this update an "ugh."

I've always gone by "Give the players what you think is best for the moment."

There's been MANY situations where I thought about giving the party something, but one player would do something particularly impressive and warrant me changing the planned reward for something else.

Being a DM with good players is all about thinking on your feet and understanding that creative players will always find loopholes.  Instead of trying to avoid the impossible, just go along with the flow and make sure everyone has a good time with it.  Pre-set parcels diminishes that, in my view, and the DMs I've had have all felt the same.  The game is no fun when everything is pre-set.  They have video games for that.

On the bright side, I would _love_ to see how the party reacts to the super low prices for selling, and super high prices for buying.  I'm sure their devilish, evil, wicked minds would concoct something equal parts awe inspiring and horrifying to get around it.


----------



## ForbidenMaster

keterys said:
			
		

> Nobody buys 'em seems like it would work.
> 
> Personally, I'm going to have no magic item shop of note (just the elixir place and a few possible items) and the merchant will buy items so they can be shipped halfway around the world to find someone to buy them, in a process that takes months. Ditto to buy anything of use.




The only issue I see from reading the article is that unless you deliberately fudge the monster treasure, PCs wont be able to acquire specific items that are above their level.


----------



## AZRogue

TheArcane said:
			
		

> Again the question - what if the party defeats a villain NPC? What about his magic gear? Can he use the parcel that he's guarding? I hope all of these are addressed in the books...




I would say that if it's a non-expendable magic item, like a sword or wand, then yes he can use it. If it's expendable, like a potion, I would let him drink the item but no matter how many times he used it there would still be one left in the parcel.  The PCs may think he drank one or two of their potions but you will know the truth and balance will be preserved.


----------



## pawsplay

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> They do have a high resale value, hence the 10%-40% mark up.  The problem is that you generally wont be able to find anyone who would be willing to pay that much.  The highest you will generally be able to get is 20% from a merchant.  The reason why he doesnt offer more is because he is taking a risk in that he may not be able to sell it again.




Very few magic items are going to be made in the first place that aren't of great utility. Further, he can always bank on selling it to another merchant. Permanent magic items don't lose any intrinsic value except from breakage. They're as good as real estate. Like I said, practically a commodity.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> I'm just going to give this update an "ugh."
> 
> I've always gone by "Give the players what you think is best for the moment."
> 
> There's been MANY situations where I thought about giving the party something, but one player would do something particularly impressive and warrant me changing the planned reward for something else.
> 
> Being a DM with good players is all about thinking on your feet and understanding that creative players will always find loopholes.  Instead of trying to avoid the impossible, just go along with the flow and make sure everyone has a good time with it.  Pre-set parcels diminishes that, in my view, and the DMs I've had have all felt the same.  The game is no fun when everything is pre-set.  They have video games for that.



Then for you these tables aren't for you. These are for the many DMs who need a little bit of insurance that their handing out treasure at a balanced pace.


----------



## Sir_Darien

MindWanderer said:
			
		

> The same way you keep them from resting after every encounter: a sense of urgency.  Give them a quest where they won't have time to sit around for months while they wait for other adventurers to show up.  Remember, adventurers are a rare breed, moreso as you go up in level.  Even in a place like Sharn, with a huge population and lots of money, you're still in Eberron where high-level adventurers are extremely rare.  Sure, your PCs could quit adventuring and go into business for themselves, but then they're not really playing the game, and months if not years of game time are going by.  See the d20 Modern FAQ for a similar example dealing with resale glitches.
> 
> Like the travelling merchants mentioned in the article, your PCs could go out looking for buyers instead of waiting for buyers to come to them.  This presents an elegant solution: attack them on the road, and give them no or little treasure.  The wealth they should have earned for that encounter is covered by the profit they turn as merchants.  You can also do this if they decide to set up shop in a city, although it's more contrived.





The massive quest with no downtime detracts from other roleplaying aspects of the game. For example there is no time to build castles, make magic items, join / create organizations, etc. As for adventurer availability see my previos post.

And with the prescence of teleportation magic, there is no road to attack the pcs on. Now with the advent of 4e, teleporting all over may cost money. It doesn't in 3e.


----------



## hong

pawsplay said:
			
		

> _A liquid asset has some or more of the following features. It can be sold (1) rapidly, (2) with minimal loss of value, (3) anytime within market hours. _
> 
> Magic items certainly have (2), assuming we are talking about a legendary sword or some other durable artifact. I think (1) easily applies, assuming the items is of obvious utility to wealthy nobility, reclusive wizards, or military orders.




Tell that to anyone who wants to sell some uranium fuel rods today.


----------



## pawsplay

Sir_Darien said:
			
		

> I could also have their shop burn down, but the end result is they will feel cheated either way. If they are willing and able to pay 100% of the value of the item, it stands to reason (especially for heroic tier items) that other adventurers would be willing to do the same.
> 
> If they put effort and resources into attempting to market their devices to others like themselves, then how can you realistically just say that no one will purchase them. Bear in mind that my group plays in a traditional high-fantasy setting where there are other adventurers around with power comprable to the pcs up until the low teens in levels.




You mean in your campaign, the party paladin is not the only member of his Order in existence?


----------



## Mouseferatu

TheArcane said:
			
		

> But you new Royce doesn't lose 4/5 of its value right after you drive it for the first time. Theoretically you should be able to find a buyer who is willing to pay a lot, even for a second hand one. Selling items at 1/5 of their value stretches the common sense a little too much.




Fine. So replace the car in my example with a large, flawless emerald. It's _still_ something that's very expensive, but there's no common demand.

And it's the sort of thing that a private citizen won't be able to sell for _nearly_ as much as an actual jeweler/dealer with the proper connections.

_Especially_ in a PoL setting like 4E assumes, I have no trouble believing that the PCs aren't going to be have an easy time just "running across" other people with both the money and the need for magic weapons. On occasion, perhaps--and the DM could even make an adventure out of it--but certainly not regularly enough to take into account in the standard rules.

(And of course all this is ignoring the fact that a game like D&D cannot have a system of economics that is both realistic _and_ balanced for game-play _and_ viable for all, or even most, styles of campaign.)


----------



## pawsplay

MindWanderer said:
			
		

> Sure, your PCs could quit adventuring and go into business for themselves, but then they're not really playing the game, and months if not years of game time are going by.




Or they could just carry around the items, until they meet a non-insane, moderately wealthy adventurer NPC. A flaming sword is a better way to carry wealth than jewelry, and less sensitive to dwarven gold market manipulations than coin.


----------



## Sojorn

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Fine. So replace the car in my example with a large, flawless emerald. It's _still_ something that's very expensive, but there's no common demand.
> 
> And it's the sort of thing that a private citizen won't be able to sell for _nearly_ as much as an actual jeweler/dealer with the proper connections.



Speaking of which, the art objects and jewels seem to be listed at their "fence" price.


----------



## pawsplay

hong said:
			
		

> Tell that to anyone who wants to sell some uranium fuel rods today.




I could totally sell those. If it weren't highly illegal, I could get someone on the phone probably by tomorrow afternoon interested in buying them for market price.


----------



## hong

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I could totally sell those. If it weren't highly illegal,




Well, that's the trick, isn't it.


----------



## AZRogue

It shouldn't be that hard to come up with reasons why the PCs can't sell magic items. For instance, they COULD sell an item in a big city, provided they get a license for the sale of "magical heirlooms" (which is expensive), bribe the right people for an audience to apply for the license (also expensive), and then pay taxes on the sale. Oh, and they also will have to include a description of the item should the rightful owner's family show up and lay claim and the PCs have to defend themselves in court for how they found the item and, at least, make some restitution to the owner's family.

And when you're not doing stuff like that just fix things under the hood: Whenever you let the PCs make X amount of money more than they should have, subtract X amount of value from their next batch of parcels.


----------



## ForbidenMaster

TheArcane said:
			
		

> *But your new Royce doesn't lose 4/5 of its value right after you drive it for the first time. Theoretically you should be able to find a buyer who is willing to pay a lot, even for a second hand one. Selling items at 1/5 of their value stretches the common sense a little too much.*
> 
> Regarding the rest of the preview, while I understand that these are just guidelines, I find them very dull and not interesting. First of all, I forsee player complaints that "they didn't get their 4 items for this level". Furthermore, what is the impact of exchanging one gold and potion parcel for another magic item? Or vice versa? What happened to potions other that healing? Again the question - what if the party defeats a villain NPC? What about his magic gear? Can he use the parcel that he's guarding? I hope all of these are addressed in the books...




You may be able to find a buyer in the modern economy, but go to any country that still lives off the land as is the base in D&D and its a different story.  Its the same concept.  A Royce is about as useful and as rare to a "commoner" of a "poor" country as a magic item would be to a the general population of a D&D world, but in the end a person who makes only a gold a month (or what ever it is) isnt going to be able to buy a 20,000,000,000,000gp (for effect) item.  

The solution is that generally your only recourse is a merchant, who because of his own problems and risks, can and will only pay 20% (asside from haggling).


----------



## Sir_Darien

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And it's the sort of thing that a private citizen won't be able to sell for _nearly_ as much as an actual jeweler/dealer with the proper connections.
> 
> _Especially_ in a PoL setting like 4E assumes, I have no trouble believing that the PCs aren't going to be have an easy time just "running across" other people with both the money and the need for magic weapons. On occasion, perhaps--and the DM could even make an adventure out of it--but certainly not regularly enough to take into account in the standard rules.




But the thing is, adventurers do all occasionally go to the biggest city around. If you have a shop full of good swag in that city, priced at 80-90% of book value, the adventurers will come to you, points of light or no.

And whats to say that the party can't build connections with ppl who need magic swag. That paladins a member of a religious order, and that wizard went to an arcane college. The people they studied/trained/worked with didn't fall off the face of the earth. And a few of them could very well be in the market for a +2 flaming longsword (or at the very least may know someone who is).


----------



## pawsplay

AZRogue said:
			
		

> It shouldn't be that hard to come up with reasons why the PCs can't sell magic items. For instance, they COULD sell an item in a big city, provided they get a license for the sale of "magical heirlooms" (which is expensive), bribe the right people for an audience to apply for the license (also expensive), and then pay taxes on the sale.




... and still come out way better than 20%.


----------



## FireLance

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Or they could just carry around the items, until they meet a non-insane, moderately wealthy adventurer NPC. A flaming sword is a better way to carry wealth than jewelry, and less sensitive to dwarven gold market manipulations than coin.



Not a bad idea, and gives the DM the option to use it as a plot hook (perhaps an NPC that the PCs want to get on the good side of is looking for a flaming sword).


----------



## FadedC

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Or they could just carry around the items, until they meet a non-insane, moderately wealthy adventurer NPC. A flaming sword is a better way to carry wealth than jewelry, and less sensitive to dwarven gold market manipulations than coin.




And there is really nothing wrong with that if they want to do it. It may work out, netting them some extra gold. Or it may not work out, netting them 0 gold until they finally sell it in town. Creates an interesting decision for the players......take the gold now and use it right away or wait hoping for more gold later, but running the risk that you won't get that extra 3,000 gold until your so high level that 3,000 gold is no longer relevent.

I disagree about flaming swords being better then coin though......anything that can take months to find a buyer for is by it's very nature not better then coin.


----------



## AZRogue

pawsplay said:
			
		

> ... and still come out way better than 20%.




Only if you let it. And even so, who's to say they'll always want to go to the trouble? Having to put their names down alongside a description of the item and the date of the sale may discourage them even further, once they realize they may be liable for the sale and who they sold it to.

And, if all else fails, as the DM you hand out the money. Just give them less treasure down the road to make up for whatever profit you allowed them to get on an item sale. Same thing in the end.


----------



## pawsplay

FadedC said:
			
		

> I disagree about flaming swords being better then coin though......anything that can take months to find a buyer for is by it's very nature not better then coin.




Yeah, who needs one of those? I'm just baffled by the notion that NPCs are so attached to their magic items they will never sell them at a reasonable price, yet the PCs have extra items just lying around gathering dust.


----------



## Sir_Darien

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Only if you let it. And even so, who's to say they'll always want to go to the trouble? Having to put their names down alongside a description of the item and the date of the sale may discourage them even further, once they realize they may be liable for the sale and who they sold it to.
> 
> And, if all else fails, as the DM you hand out the money. Just give them less treasure down the road to make up for whatever profit you allowed them to get on an item sale. Same thing in the end.




The problem is that if you don't let it, its something you're doing for the sake of game balance that flies in the face of reality. That leads to disbelief in the setting and the game. And agian inventive players can get around the signed names thing with forgery and other devices.

And doling out less treasure is certainly the best option, but I don't like the fact that I have to punish ingenuity. That points to a flaw in the system.


----------



## AZRogue

It's funny because in AD&D we never allowed the selling of magical items at all. They were given to henchmen, trusted friends, or used as a bribe. Selling them just wasn't allowed. And it never was a problem.


----------



## Family

The 4e PHB is $40 Canadian, the best price I can find online is $21 (S&H included). I'll assume a standard 50% markup so the book costs ~$11 to produce with about 15% of that being profit...or 2$ of each sale.

That means the magic 4e PHB that WotC "found" was worth $40 but they sold it for $2.

I'll take my 20% and slip out the back before they let the accountants "review" their in game "ecconomy"

/PS I'm a local store supporter


----------



## Sir_Darien

AZRogue said:
			
		

> It's funny because in AD&D we never allowed the selling of magical items at all. They were given to henchmen, trusted friends, or used as a bribe. Selling them just wasn't allowed. And it never was a problem.




It may not be a problem, but it isn't very realistic. Its a basic fact that people want cool stuff, and if people have cool stuff they don't want, there are other people willing to part with money to acquire it.


----------



## AZRogue

Sir_Darien said:
			
		

> And doling out less treasure is certainly the best option, but I don't like the fact that I have to punish ingenuity. That points to a flaw in the system.




You don't HAVE to punish them. If you like you can let them have all the treasure they want. It just depends how much you want preserve game balance. The system is fine.


----------



## Sojorn

AZRogue said:
			
		

> It's funny because in AD&D we never allowed the selling of magical items at all. They were given to henchmen, trusted friends, or used as a bribe. Selling them just wasn't allowed. And it never was a problem.



This is acceptable too.

Just make that 20% find it's way back to the PCs in the form of more treasure and they can literally give away every item they come across


----------



## FireLance

Now, dusting off my memories of my undergraduate courses in psychology and game theory, I think the key issue is not so much one of "realism" as it is of "fairness".

After all, there is nothing particularly "realistic" about the 50% initial selling price, 100% resale price model that we have gotten used to as the standard, either. It's just that a 50-50 split between the principal (the PC) and the agent (the merchant) seems somehow fairer as opposed to a 1:6 split, considering the initial selling price of 20% and the potential resale price of 140%.

As a DM, you could certainly allow PCs to buy and sell magic items at 100% of the standard item value if you want (for the record, I pretty much did this in 3e). Just be prepared for the players to optimize their PCs' items (unless you give them a restricted list of items they can purchase) and for the resultant knock-on effects on gameplay.


----------



## Sir_Darien

AZRogue said:
			
		

> You don't HAVE to punish them. If you like you can let them have all the treasure they want. It just depends how much you want preserve game balance. The system is fine.




The point was that I must punish ingenuity in order to preserve game balance. That IS the problem with the system.


----------



## Sojorn

Sir_Darien said:
			
		

> The point was that I must punish ingenuity in order to preserve game balance. That IS the problem with the system.



Who's punishing? They get the money from a merchanting skill challenge rather than adventuring. They'll probably get XP for it too. Of course now they've sold the item and can't resell it again for more money and XP.

It comes out of the treasure for that level. Which is like saying that they're being punished for getting XP since that comes out of the XP for that level.


----------



## Sir_Darien

Sojorn said:
			
		

> Who's punishing? They get the money from a merchanting skill challenge rather than adventuring. They'll probably get XP for it too. Of course now they've sold the item and can't resell it again for more money and XP.
> 
> It comes out of the treasure for that level. Which is like saying that they're being punished for getting XP since that comes out of the XP for that level.




I'm afraid I don't understand your argument.

I am saying that I don't feel it is fair to give my players less treasure down the road if they find an inventive way to sell items for more than 20% of the value they would pay for them.


----------



## Sojorn

Sir_Darien said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I don't understand your argument.
> 
> I am saying that I don't feel it is fair to give my players less treasure down the road if they find an inventive way to sell items for more than 20% of the value they would pay for them.



But you don't actually give them less treasure down the road. They're closer to leveling from the skill challenge to sell the item and so are closer to graduating to the treasure from the next level.

Clearer perhaps?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Sir_Darien said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I don't understand your argument.
> 
> I am saying that I don't feel it is fair to give my players less treasure down the road if they find an inventive way to sell items for more than 20% of the value they would pay for them.



The problem is this:  What happens when the PCs find an inventive way to sell EVERY magic item you give them for 100% of its value.  All magic items in 4e of the same level have the same cost.  Now, since we aren't punishing them by lowering the amount of gold or items we are giving them, then they now have 5 times the amount of gold the game expects them to have.

This 5 times as much gold gives them 5 times as many magic items...or possibly just as many magic items, but many, many levels higher.  Which, might be +2 difference on their weapons and armor.  This essentially gives them all a 10% miss chance against enemies of their own level and make their attacks hit 10% more often and do more damage.  Which is pretty powerful.  Monsters are no longer a challenge for them so you increase the level of the monsters you are sending against them, which only makes them level faster...and you have to give out treasure even faster since you are giving them their expected amount of wealth each level.

It's a rather repetitive cycle.  Rather than have to deal with that, it's much easier to do it behind the scenes by adjusting treasure you give them.  You can also save yourself the work of recalculating the amount of treasure you need to hand out all the time by simply saying "No" when they try to find a way to sell an item for more than 1/5th its value.  YMMV, but I prefer my player's innovation to come in the form of interesting ways to solve the problems I throw at them rather than attempts to work around the system so they can make their characters more powerful.


----------



## FadedC

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Yeah, who needs one of those? I'm just baffled by the notion that NPCs are so attached to their magic items they will never sell them at a reasonable price, yet the PCs have extra items just lying around gathering dust.




High price items take a long time to sell. You need to find somebody who....

a) can use it
b) can afford it
c) Doesn't already have it or something better
d) wants that exact flaming sword and not the the shocking battleaxe the merchant is selling

I live in Manhattan and there is a HUGE demand for real estate and apartments here. But yet it can take months or even years to find  a buyer for something.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

FadedC said:
			
		

> High price items take a long time to sell. You need to find somebody who....
> 
> a) can use it
> b) can afford it
> c) Doesn't already have it or something better
> d) wants that exact flaming sword and not the the shocking battleaxe the merchant is selling
> 
> I live in Manhattan and there is a HUGE demand for real estate and apartments here. But yet it can take months or even years to find  a buyer for something.



Or in other words: Yes, the players can sell at 100 % market price value (or something close enough to satisfy them), but they have to wait for it. They might not even have to exclusively  become merchants, but it will take weeks or months for them to give it away, meaning they might gain a few levels in the mean-time. End result is they get the full market price value, but for their financial needs at their new level, it is meaningless.

The merchants is there, now. He offers 20 % of what he hopes to sell the item for NOW.


----------



## AZRogue

Sir_Darien said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I don't understand your argument.
> 
> I am saying that I don't feel it is fair to give my players less treasure down the road if they find an inventive way to sell items for more than 20% of the value they would pay for them.




It may not feel fair to you, but it's balanced. And since the PCs are never going to be aware of it, it's never going to feel unfair. It's for their own good. Like medicine.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Maybe I just have good players/DMs, but what, exactly, is the big problem with letting players buy their own damned magical equipment with the money they've earned?  This idea of "NO NO, THEY CAN ONLY HAVE WHAT THE DM GIVES THEM" is what spreads so much irritation for DMs in the first place, and it's why nobody wants to BE a DM, because there's a stigma of them always being power hungry.

Let the players _play_.  Don't punish them for trying to make money which is, correct me if I'm wrong, the _entire point of being an adventurer_.  And yes, purposefully giving them less money later on down the road IS punishing them.  It's you saying "Nyeah nyeah, you're on my economic railroad, like it or not."  And yes, it is railroading.  When the DM decides that the players aren't mature enough to handle their own in game resources, you may as well just tell them in the first five minutes of the game exactly how the story goes, what they did, and how it ended.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Let the players _play_.  Don't punish them for trying to make money which is, correct me if I'm wrong, the _entire point of being an adventurer_.  And yes, purposefully giving them less money later on down the road IS punishing them.  It's you saying "Nyeah nyeah, you're on my economic railroad, like it or not."  And yes, it is railroading.  When the DM decides that the players aren't mature enough to handle their own in game resources, you may as well just tell them in the first five minutes of the game exactly how the story goes, what they did, and how it ended.



Most players want to be challenged.  They complain and get bored when monsters are too easy to kill.  They want to use their cool new powers and they want to feel that they are useful.

If every combat they go into goes like this:
Player: I roll a 6 on my d20 to hit.  That hits?  Wow these monsters have really poor ACs.  I do 35 damage.
DM: Alright, it dies.
Player: Really?  In one hit?  That was easy.  Let's go find some real monsters.

then players will get bored.  The goal is to challenge them at the right level.  Not too hard to get them frustrated, not too easy that it is a cakewalk.  If you give them too much money, eventually monsters will reach the cakewalk levels.

Sure, most players will tell you that they LOVE the feeling of being way too powerful for their level and knowing how quickly they can defeat monsters.  Don't believe them.  These same players will be the ones complaining in a couple sessions that the game is too boring.  Plus, it is unlikely to be fun for you as a DM to continually come up with interesting encounters only to have them defeated without any real chance to shine.  I know I hate rolling dice when I know the monsters as so far outmatched that they'll never win.

Being a DM isn't about being on a power trip.  It is about having the responsibility to ensure the fun of everyone at the table.  This means making sure no one feels that their character is too weak.  It means making sure everyone has an equal chance to shine.  It means making sure you are having fun running the encounters.  It means coming up with an interesting storyline that entertains your players

And sometimes, to ensure everyone has fun for the long run, you have to tell some people no.  Sometimes that means telling someone they can't buy an item, they can't have a certain feat, or they can't be a certain race.  And other times it means keeping their gold value balanced any way you can.  Whether that means limiting the gold in the future or coming up with reasons why they can't get more than 1/5th the gold when they sell an item, it is part of your responsibility.  If you do it well, they'll never even notice and they'll just have a lot of fun.


----------



## DeusExMachina

While I would have no problem with giving people less reward in the future if they somehow circumvent the 20% resale price, I would also probably see if I could handle some of it in game. Suddenly itbecome sknown that this party has a large amount of money because they had a great deal on some rare items they sold. Sounds like the local thieves'guild might take an interest and try to steal some of it...
Or maybe other merchants will now only sell things to them at a higher price because they know the party is loaded...

The point is that you can keep the game balanced through in game mechanics as well as behind the scenes mechanics. The party sometimes through being inventive gets a lucky break, other times they won't and lose out on it. If in the end it averages out, it will feel like a part of a living breathing world, probably even more so than the actual gradual advancement...


----------



## FireLance

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Maybe I just have good players/DMs, but what, exactly, is the big problem with letting players buy their own damned magical equipment with the money they've earned?  This idea of "NO NO, THEY CAN ONLY HAVE WHAT THE DM GIVES THEM" is what spreads so much irritation for DMs in the first place, and it's why nobody wants to BE a DM, because there's a stigma of them always being power hungry.
> 
> Let the players _play_.  Don't punish them for trying to make money which is, correct me if I'm wrong, the _entire point of being an adventurer_.  And yes, purposefully giving them less money later on down the road IS punishing them.  It's you saying "Nyeah nyeah, you're on my economic railroad, like it or not."  And yes, it is railroading.  When the DM decides that the players aren't mature enough to handle their own in game resources, you may as well just tell them in the first five minutes of the game exactly how the story goes, what they did, and how it ended.



While I sympathize entirely with your point about power-hungry DMs, the game's default reward structure is presumably balanced around the idea that PCs will suffer a "loss" of about 80% when selling a magic item. I'm sure it will be possible to adapt the game to a situation where the PCs suffer no loss for selling magic items, but make no mistake, the DM will have to adapt. The change could be as simple as giving the PCs 10% less treasure, or (something which could be more complex) increasing the level of challenge to suit the PC's higher power level. It is not a punishment - it is changing one default assumption (the rate at which the PCs earn treasure) to compensate for a change in another default assumption (the rate at which the PCs "lose" treasure).


----------



## Aria Silverhands

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Maybe I just have good players/DMs, but what, exactly, is the big problem with letting players buy their own damned magical equipment with the money they've earned?  This idea of "NO NO, THEY CAN ONLY HAVE WHAT THE DM GIVES THEM" is what spreads so much irritation for DMs in the first place, and it's why nobody wants to BE a DM, because there's a stigma of them always being power hungry.



 Players will try to abuse the system no matter what you do.  Hence why DM's are seen as power hungry control freaks.  They have to be to prevent the idiots from ruining the game.



> Let the players _play_.  Don't punish them for trying to make money which is, correct me if I'm wrong, the _entire point of being an adventurer_.



No, that's the point of "adventuring" in an mmo.  In D&D, the point of being an adventurer is adventure.  The stories they discover, the stories they're a part of, the stories thrust upon them unwillingly.



> And yes, purposefully giving them less money later on down the road IS punishing them.  It's you saying "Nyeah nyeah, you're on my economic railroad, like it or not."  And yes, it is railroading.



So what? Railroading is great.  It's awesome.  As long as you're not a damned idiot and tell the players you're railroading them.  Railroading is what keeps the campaign from being ruined by stupid decisions by stupid players.



> When the DM decides that the players aren't mature enough to handle their own in game resources, you may as well just tell them in the first five minutes of the game exactly how the story goes, what they did, and how it ended.



Because they wouldn't play.  That's why great dm's railroad their players without the players ever realizing it.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Players will try to abuse the system no matter what you do.  Hence why DM's are seen as power hungry control freaks.  They have to be to prevent the idiots from ruining the game.
> 
> No, that's the point of "adventuring" in an mmo.  In D&D, the point of being an adventurer is adventure.  The stories they discover, the stories they're a part of, the stories thrust upon them unwillingly.
> 
> So what? Railroading is great.  It's awesome.  As long as you're not a damned idiot and tell the players you're railroading them.  Railroading is what keeps the campaign from being ruined by stupid decisions by stupid players.
> 
> Because they wouldn't play.  That's why great dm's railroad their players without the players ever realizing it.




Maybe I'm just lucky, as I've never had any of those problems.  That's not an issue with the game, that's an issue with your players.



> Most players want to be challenged. They complain and get bored when monsters are too easy to kill. They want to use their cool new powers and they want to feel that they are useful.
> 
> If every combat they go into goes like this:
> Player: I roll a 6 on my d20 to hit. That hits? Wow these monsters have really poor ACs. I do 35 damage.
> DM: Alright, it dies.
> Player: Really? In one hit? That was easy. Let's go find some real monsters.
> 
> then players will get bored. The goal is to challenge them at the right level. Not too hard to get them frustrated, not too easy that it is a cakewalk. If you give them too much money, eventually monsters will reach the cakewalk levels.
> 
> Sure, most players will tell you that they LOVE the feeling of being way too powerful for their level and knowing how quickly they can defeat monsters. Don't believe them. These same players will be the ones complaining in a couple sessions that the game is too boring. Plus, it is unlikely to be fun for you as a DM to continually come up with interesting encounters only to have them defeated without any real chance to shine. I know I hate rolling dice when I know the monsters as so far outmatched that they'll never win.
> 
> Being a DM isn't about being on a power trip. It is about having the responsibility to ensure the fun of everyone at the table. This means making sure no one feels that their character is too weak. It means making sure everyone has an equal chance to shine. It means making sure you are having fun running the encounters. It means coming up with an interesting storyline that entertains your players
> 
> And sometimes, to ensure everyone has fun for the long run, you have to tell some people no. Sometimes that means telling someone they can't buy an item, they can't have a certain feat, or they can't be a certain race. And other times it means keeping their gold value balanced any way you can. Whether that means limiting the gold in the future or coming up with reasons why they can't get more than 1/5th the gold when they sell an item, it is part of your responsibility. If you do it well, they'll never even notice and they'll just have a lot of fun.




Really, I've found the most effective way to provide a challenge is to think WAY outside the box.  I've mentioned it a few times, but I once threw a freaking HUGE giant at the party at one point for storyline reasons.  And it was killed almost entirely by _one player_, not because he had buffs and was overpowered out the wazoo, but because I didn't expect the paladin to put on the crappy belt of climbing and re-enact Shadow of the Colossus.

Side note - that paladin _earned_ his Holy Avenger rip off.

I think the problem is, the players ARE going to notice they're getting ripped off the second they try to buy an item after selling one.  As for controlling their items, we rarely use the Magical Walmart approach; if a player can give me a good and believable story as to how they're going to purchase the item they want, we'll roll with it.  If they just say "I want a new sword of flaming awesomeness," no go.  On the other hand, if they (and this is an example that happened) talk it over with the rogue, and the two of them tell me that the rogue got in touch with some old contacts and hooked the first player up with a disenfranchised wizard hoping to make a quick buck, I'll start going with it.  And the best thing is, they're all but tripping over themselves to give me more ideas for plot hooks .  Later on, that same wizard found himself much more powerful, and was feeling a bit irritable that he let his awesome sword go, and goes after the party.  Or maybe I nudge the fighter while they rest at the inn and say "Hey, roll Listen."  And of course, later, "You notice your sword is missing."  Of course, I leave enough clues to allow them to look after it, while not so many that there's a big neon sign saying "ROGUE STOLE IT, MET WIZARD HERE."

I suppose the idea of taking control away from the players just doesn't seem right with me.  The game isn't supposed to be about the DM playing the game by himself, nor is it about the players just dully responding to yes or no questions, followed by combat.  Again, there's video games for that, and they do it better.  You've got a group of people sitting around you - let them really get involved in it!


----------



## Steely Dan

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> "I'll be snorting illusion dust off the stomach of a night elf stripper in no time!"




Night elves make _the _ best trannies.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm just lucky, as I've never had any of those problems.  That's not an issue with the game, that's an issue with your players.



It's an issue with most players, apparently.



> I suppose the idea of taking control away from the players just doesn't seem right with me.  The game isn't supposed to be about the DM playing the game by himself, nor is it about the players just dully responding to yes or no questions, followed by combat.  Again, there's video games for that, and they do it better.  You've got a group of people sitting around you - let them really get involved in it!



I find that it's more interesting as a player to get involved with the DM in buying magical items, rather than just doing it by myself.
It seems much less interactive to have total control over my buying abilities.  Not to mention less realistic.


----------



## Lizard

Was anyone else disappointed this WASN'T about world-building economics, but instead about handing out loot? Sigh...

I mean, when I saw "Economics", I thought we'd be getting things like cost of daily life, ow much wealth exists in villages, where towns and cities get their income from, acres of farmland needed to support a city, and so on.

Seriously. Instead, it's loot&XP. Oh well...

On the plus side...

a)"Magic item shops" are still in, despite claims to the contrary. (There's the exact same "support" for Wal-Magic in 4e as there was in 3e -- a note in the DMG that magic items can be bought and sold and players are free to do so by default, though the DM can always rule otherwise.)

b)Yes, you still dump that ratty old +1 sword when the +2 sword came along. Sad for all those thinking D&D had become the game where you have one magic weapon that grows with you over your career.

So I get to do a little schadenfreude dance. Go me!

Lastly, some questions:
a)Who the hell EVER used random treasure tables? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? All treasure in my games is hand-placed and by strange coincidence fits the player's needs...
b)Treasure bundles? I guess I'm ahead of the curve...I jot down all the magic items and treasure I plan to hand out between levels X and Y, and then make sure it's scattered over the encounters.


----------



## Steely Dan

Lizard said:
			
		

> Was anyone else disappointed this WASN'T about world-building economics, but instead about handing out loot? Sigh...
> 
> I mean, when I saw "Economics", I thought we'd be getting things like cost of daily life, ow much wealth exists in villages, where towns and cities get their income from, acres of farmland needed to support a city, and so on.





To be honest, that sounds like 2nd Ed snooze-fest material to me, I'm so glad this article wasn't about how much grain the sample town of Bunky sells a year and what their profit margin is or what have you.


----------



## Meladorn

Apply a rough rule of thumb

If the total magic item treasure for a level given out is say 1,000gp and your players baulk at selling it at 20%, or 200gp, just adjust the total amount you give them

Instead, give them 400gp worth and let them sell it at 50% for 200gp

In the end, it's all smoke and mirrors

So long as PC's are at around the right wealth for their level, it's one less thing they'll complain about


----------



## Lizard

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> I probably shouldn't admit this, as it is quite simply badwrongfun, but I never paid one lick of attention to the 3.X wealth per level chart.  I just gave PCs what I wanted to give them when I wanted to give it to them.
> 
> Mostly it worked out.  Mostly.




What? You IGNORED the rules and used your JUDGMENT?

I'm sorry. That's not possible in 3e. Only in 4e is the DM free to do this. In 3e, if you ignored any rules, WOTC ninjas came and killed you. The ability of a DM to be a DM was not present in 3e. The greatest innovation in 4e is the ability to ignore/alter the rules at whim. If you could already do that in 3e...well, what's the point of 4e, then?

Sheesh. Get with the program.


----------



## Lizard

Hussar said:
			
		

> Sort of.  The problem is, nation building is a very solo activity.  If John wants to build a keep, fine, but, what do the other 4 players do in the meantime.  Building a castle without magic takes years.  So, does John retire his character in the meantime?  After all, it would be a pretty strange thing for John to go off and adventure while his castle is being built.




Last 3e game we were in, our party put a lot of effort into designing/building our group's keep, and sure we adventured while it was going up -- we were paying people to build it, we weren't hammering it ourselves, after all.


----------



## Ashardalon

Lizard said:
			
		

> Was anyone else disappointed this WASN'T about world-building economics, but instead about handing out loot? Sigh...



Yep.

Also, weren't we promised an Archon excerpt for today as well? Hmm, looks like. What happened with that?

----

I checked the magic items that came from D&DXP - there are no 1st level items among them. From the article, it would seem that they don't really exist.

I wonder if there is text on customizing treasure parcels for a campaign, for such things as allowing level-equal magic items to be given out.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Lizard said:
			
		

> Was anyone else disappointed this WASN'T about world-building economics, but instead about handing out loot? Sigh...



I certainly wasn't.  To me, D&D economics IS loot.  That's all the players will ever care about.


			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> a)Who the hell EVER used random treasure tables? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? All treasure in my games is hand-placed and by strange coincidence fits the player's needs...



I did.  I just assumed they'd collect the treasure, go back to town, sell the stuff and buy what they wanted.


----------



## Intense_Interest

pawsplay said:
			
		

> But rare, yet desired items tend to have a _high_ resale value. Plus, most ancient swords probably don't wear out for whatever reason, meaning they should behave more like a commodity.




High Resale Value?  To whom?  A king that could purchase a 5,000,000 GP sword would likely much rather arm his entire army with 500 GP swords.  You're going to always scale issues at the highest costs.

Further, a sword is far easier to lose or have stolen than something like a wealth-producing field.  Using it implies that there is a great risk involved with it, because anything that needs a 5mil GP sword isn't an easy task, or you could have just used your army with 500GP swords.  And if not personal risk, its about finding the right Hero to gift it to so as to defend your land, which could become a sunk cost half the time.

And commodities are a liquid concept.  You buy a bunch and you can through economy of scale have a major profit through subdivision where demand entails it.  The Ritual Cost of Disenchantment precludes any gain through economy of scale that couldn't be already gained by just purchasing the 500GP swords in the first place.  Especially because the Sword will never appreciate in value, because the Supply curve is assumed to be static (it always costs X or more GP for a wizard to make Y sword).  It at best serves as an insurance (and not a secure one at that) or as compact coinage.

A stupidly-priced sword for the rich bastard who purchases it must have an immediate demand for it to be worth the set price, and therefore is an easy profit.  However Rich Bastards with Immediate Need is not a given in an inefficient Market like a merchant system.

Magic Items are a form of Health Insurance.  Selling a lesser form of Health Insurance does not immediately garner an equivalent exchange, especially when PCs are the type that are bleeding on the floor when they are demanding it.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Ok, some thoughts:

 You find items which are above your level and thus comparably powerful, but not exactly what you want as a player. +1

 You get enough money to craft at least 2 items at your Level, less powerful but customized. +1

 Ites are sold for 20% or disenchanted for even less: makes you think twice about getting rid off old items. +1

 The story of a place where magical items can be sold at higher prices and new ones be purchased much cheaper can lead to an adventure. +1

 In such places a merchants guild can take taxes for importing and selling magical items which may be 20% - 50% of a magical item´s value. (Where magic is abundant, there are powerful people around.)

 I alway thought buying a magical item at half price as default was way too much... 50% fo an item that is deemed useless to most adventurers (exactly the reason why you sell it)... 20% is the highest price someone would pay just in case... If players sell an item which could be actually usefull for a village, then nothing in the rules tells you that you may not sell it for 50%.

Actually, you could call it a quest and the difference between 20% and the price you sell it could be your quest reward (maybe you even traded the magical item versus a different item)


----------



## Lizard

FireLance said:
			
		

> Have you compared the price of coffee beans to the price of a latte at Starbucks lately?




Or, heh heh, the price WOTC sells a book to a distributor for and the price your FLGS charges you?

(Not picking on WOTC, the 'chain of markup' is pretty standard for all publshers. And actual profit margins at all angles are razor thin. Only an idiot says "This book has only 5 dollars worth of paper, yet they're charing me 30 dollars, that means the Greedy Capitalist Pigs put 25 dollars cash free and clear in their pockets! They should only charge me 5.01 for the book, otherwise, they're greedy!")

In a D&D world, having a magic item is very risky. Offering it for sale will attract the kind of people who will happily kill you and take it. There are probably rituals (of course) which wizards guilds use to "locate" such items and find out who has them. It's a lot easier to kill some traveling merchant than to go into a dungeon, after all. So the high markup reflects the cost of safety and security.

And, damn, there's a plot hook...


----------



## Lizard

MindWanderer said:
			
		

> From the Skill Challenges excerpt:




Of course, this could mean:

"No, we will not make buying a mug of ale from the barkeep a skill challenge! Get on with it!"

OTOH, I can definitely see making bargaining with CMOT Dibbler over the cost of the "guaranteed magikal ringes" he has for sale into one.


----------



## Steely Dan

Lizard said:
			
		

> That's not possible in 3e. Only in 4e is the DM free to do this. In 3e, if you ignored any rules, WOTC ninjas came and killed you.




Well, usually they would just rappel from my ceiling and give us a warning.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Lizard said:
			
		

> What? You IGNORED the rules and used your JUDGMENT?
> 
> I'm sorry. That's not possible in 3e. Only in 4e is the DM free to do this. In 3e, if you ignored any rules, WOTC ninjas came and killed you. The ability of a DM to be a DM was not present in 3e. The greatest innovation in 4e is the ability to ignore/alter the rules at whim. If you could already do that in 3e...well, what's the point of 4e, then?
> 
> Sheesh. Get with the program.




this is exactly the reason why 3rd edition is evil... 

I used random treasure table, its fun to roll and i really hope there are still tables to generate random treasure...
...roll, decide if that treasure is fun, no? roll again!

regarding magic shops: not the existance of magic shops in 3.5 is the problem, but need for an abundance of magic shops and thus very high level people protecting those shops and creating items...


----------



## Lizard

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> _Especially_ in a PoL setting like 4E assumes, I have no trouble believing that the PCs aren't going to be have an easy time just "running across" other people with both the money and the need for magic weapons. On occasion, perhaps--and the DM could even make an adventure out of it--but certainly not regularly enough to take into account in the standard rules.




But isn't the "Cough wandering merchants cough" rule in the excerpt a way of saying, in effect, "No matter where the PCs are, there will be someone to buy their items" -- as opposed to the 3e wealth limits/town size rules, which meant PCs couldn't sell their +4 sword in every hamlet they came across? I read those rules (or guidelines, or suggestions) in the excerpt as saying to DMs, "Don't you worry your pretty little heads about where the money comes from or goes to; if the PCs have loot to get rid of, Travelling Joe will be in the nearest village to take it off their hands."



			
				Article said:
			
		

> *When characters have magic items to sell, a traveling merchant is in town—or will be soon—to take it off their hands.* The same applies to exotic mundane goods as well: No one in the village makes silk rope or has much use for it, but merchants making their way between major cities carry it all the time.



 (Emphasis added)

This seems to directly contradict your assertion above.

Of course, a DM is always free to ignore the rules. At least in 4e. As we all know, it wasn't possible for a DM to ignore the rules in 3e.


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> B I read those rules (or guidelines, or suggestions) in the excerpt as saying to DMs, "Don't you worry your pretty little heads about where the money comes from or goes to; if the PCs have loot to get rid of, Travelling Joe will be in the nearest village to take it off their hands."




Well, yes.


----------



## AZRogue

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> It's you saying "Nyeah nyeah, you're on my economic railroad, like it or not."




Actually, it's the game's economic railroad. The tracks were laid to keep the game as balanced as possible. You can, however, deviate from the wealth/economic guidelines as much as you want, but you should expect consequences in your game as your PCs become too powerful for monsters of their level and it gets more and more difficult to impress them with yet another +5 Holy Avenger. It's called a Montey Haul campaign. 

It can be done and, honestly, I think all DMs do it a few times but the results are quite often undesirable--especially the players. AD&D was a real trial-by-fire for a lot of DMs when it came to learning how much treasure was "too much". It's great that they're continuing with the trend of giving guidelines to help new DMs avoid the common pitfalls of running a game.


----------



## Lizard

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> To be honest, that sounds like 2nd Ed snooze-fest material to me, I'm so glad this article wasn't about how much grain the sample town of Bunky sells a year and what their profit margin is or what have you.




I'm guessing you didn't spend your college years with an article from Different Worlds magazine which detailed acreage needed for population support, plotting out precisely how big the farmlands around each city in your campaign needed to be...


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'm guessing you didn't spend your college years with an article from Different Worlds magazine which detailed acreage needed for population support, plotting out precisely how big the farmlands around each city in your campaign needed to be...



 Wouldn't Playboy be better for that sort of thing?


----------



## Lizard

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I certainly wasn't.  To me, D&D economics IS loot.  That's all the players will ever care about.




Players, sure. But what about us DMs? We've got worlds to build, dammit!


----------



## Lizard

hong said:
			
		

> Wouldn't Playboy be better for that sort of thing?




There were population density tables in Playboy? Damn, I really should have read the articles!

(Always preferred Penthouse. Made me wish I'd gone to a Small Midwestern College.)


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Lizard said:
			
		

> Players, sure. But what about us DMs? We've got worlds to build, dammit!



My rule as of a long time ago was that if my players don't care then neither do I.  Then again, I don't believe in doing work that I don't have to.  I barely believe in doing work that I HAVE to.  Heck, I'm at my real work avoiding doing it by reading and posting messages.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Kordeth said:
			
		

> "it's far more efficient to go on quests to kill monsters than to just roam the countryside killing monsters at random."




ZOMG DND4E IZ WOW!!!1!!one!!!!eleven!!!!


----------



## Psikus

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> The problem is this:  What happens when the PCs find an inventive way to sell EVERY magic item you give them for 100% of its value.  All magic items in 4e of the same level have the same cost.  Now, since we aren't punishing them by lowering the amount of gold or items we are giving them, then they now have 5 times the amount of gold the game expects them to have.




I think even that extreme example (those PCs should be REALLY inventive) could be balanced without having to take any money from the players. Just say that while managing to sell items at full value, the PCs have driven the local magic merchant off business. Or encouraged him to move elsewhere. This way, the cost of getting access of all that gold is make it more difficult, or even impossible, to use it to buy (high level) magic stuff. Since they can still craft as normal, they'll end up with a lot of magic items _up to their level_. 

As long as you restrict the level of items the players have access to, the system shouldn't break. Having every possible slot filled with gear of the same level might be stronger than average, but not so much.


----------



## Fenes

My D&D game just runs so much more smoothly since we ditched wealth. The PCs are expected to be able to afford a certain lifestyle (player chosen, although subject to changes from consequences within the campaign, and PC explanations can range from "has an allowance from rich daddy" to "Gets a stipend from the church" or "Has a fiefdom granted by the king" or "sustains his lifestyle by gambling/performing/swindling/stealing" etc.) and all that goes with it. Anything important (magic item, special bribe/gift, etc.) is played out, like a sort of skill challenge to use the çe term, or as an entire adventure. I didn't read D20 modern, but I think their wealth levels mechanic work similarly.

The system means I don't have to worry about appropriate wealth per level, or how much a magic item is worth, or how much the PCs can sell treasure for. And the PCs do not have to count every gold coin, and know that as long as something is reasonable and balanced, they can get it, either directly as part of their lifestyle, or through an adventure or challenge - and they know that the DM is ok with it, and won't take it away later for ooc reasons, or he'd have vetoed it before.

It's really surprising how much simpler the game runs if one ditches all the coin counting in favor of rough, broad categories such as "rich" or "poor" or "decently well-off".


----------



## Steely Dan

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'm guessing you didn't spend your college years with an article from Different Worlds magazine




There was a magazine based off of that show?!


----------



## Noinarap

The advocates of "Karmic Treasure Theory" might be a little hasty.

(Some folks said earlier that doing something extra in a quest for an extra reward was pointless, since you will lose the reward from another future treasure. This was dubbed "Karmic Treasure Theory.")

It's pretty clear from the article that the treasure guidelines are still, well, guidelines. A DM might throw in some items that the party doesn't want. Those items will be sold or DE'd, lowering their value significantly. Healing potions could be overused, forcing the party to burn through gold faster. A PC might retrain his weapon powers/feats frequently, necessitating more transactions (which will always be at a net loss).

These factors and others- as well as quest successes and failures- will push PC gold a little above or below the suggested values. Some variation should be expected, and so we should expect supererogatory performance to be as rewarding as ever. The treasure parcels are a nice way to maintain the balance of power, but they are not a straitjacket.


----------



## AZRogue

Fenes said:
			
		

> My D&D game just runs so much more smoothly since we ditched wealth. The PCs are expected to be able to afford a certain lifestyle (player chosen, although subject to changes from consequences within the campaign, and PC explanations can range from "has an allowance from rich daddy" to "Gets a stipend from the church" or "Has a fiefdom granted by the king" or "sustains his lifestyle by gambling/performing/swindling/stealing" etc.) and all that goes with it. Anything important (magic item, special bribe/gift, etc.) is played out, like a sort of skill challenge to use the çe term, or as an entire adventure. I didn't read D20 modern, but I think their wealth levels mechanic work similarly.
> 
> The system means I don't have to worry about appropriate wealth per level, or how much a magic item is worth, or how much the PCs can sell treasure for. And the PCs do not have to count every gold coin, and know that as long as something is reasonable and balanced, they can get it, either directly as part of their lifestyle, or through an adventure or challenge - and they know that the DM is ok with it, and won't take it away later for ooc reasons, or he'd have vetoed it before.
> 
> It's really surprising how much simpler the game runs if one ditches all the coin counting in favor of rough, broad categories such as "rich" or "poor" or "decently well-off".




I've done that before. It works pretty well. I have a few players who like counting their coins, so I don't always do it, but I have to say that it works.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Lizard said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> (Emphasis added)
> 
> This seems to directly contradict your assertion above.
> 
> Of course, a DM is always free to ignore the rules. At least in 4e. As we all know, it wasn't possible for a DM to ignore the rules in 3e.




There is a difference between a travelling merchant which happens to be there and a merchant who resides in town. One makes sense, one does not... figure out which...

...its the same with encounter design: a brownbear which happens to run amok when players are around having killed 2 people vs a bear which runs amok all the time having killed 1000 people...

the world is build around the players, not vice versa... at least in a a campaign which is fun to play and not to inflate the DMs ego... it can have a lot of static parts (no magic stores), but it has to be dynamic and adapt to player needs and wishes (travelling merchants which can be there when it fits into your story...)


----------



## Lizard

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> There is a difference between a travelling merchant which happens to be there and a merchant who resides in town. One makes sense, one does not... figure out which...




You missed the point of my post.

Mousferatu seemed to be asserting that, in 4e, magic items would be hard to dispose of, due to the lack of buyers.

The very excerpt we're discussing says that, by default, there will always be a buyer in the next town the PCs stumble across, no matter how small it is. Yes, the DM can change this, but the "expected" rule is that no matter where you are, some merchant will be there with the gold to take your items off your hands.

There were never explicit "magic item shops" in 3e, either, just a general notation to the effect magic items could be bought and sold relatively freely in large cities, based on the community wealth limits. 

"Traveling merchant" is a "special effect". It could be a magic item shop. It could be an ancient artifact where you put a magic item in and gold coins come out. The point is, the expectation is that players will always be able to dump their unwanted shinies, and the default is for the DM to make this an easy task which occurs as a matter of simple note taking -- you say what magic items you want to get rid of, you get 1/5 their value in gold, on to the orc killing. If a DM wants to make the sale of a particular item a complex problem, that's up to him, but it's assumed that magic items are sold off-stage and easily according to a simple formula for value.

It's Wal-Magic in all but name.


----------



## Voss

Well, the economy still feels flimsy, the table error is yet another annoyance, and residuum is... rather silly.  And the traveling merchants are outright ridiculous.  'The world is a dangerous place.  I think I will load up on valuables and hit the road, *just in case* one of those rare bands of adventurers needs something obscure at the last minute'.  *Stab, knife, rend* And the monsters now have more treasure.

So thats my first impression.

My second impression is, of course, that WotC should fire all their editors and hire competent ones.  Its been a week of Just Too Many Cockups.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Lizard said:
			
		

> You missed the point of my post.
> 
> Mousferatu seemed to be asserting that, in 4e, magic items would be hard to dispose of, due to the lack of buyers.
> 
> The very excerpt we're discussing says that, by default, there will always be a buyer in the next town the PCs stumble across, no matter how small it is. Yes, the DM can change this, but the "expected" rule is that no matter where you are, some merchant will be there with the gold to take your items off your hands.
> 
> There were never explicit "magic item shops" in 3e, either, just a general notation to the effect magic items could be bought and sold relatively freely in large cities, based on the community wealth limits.
> 
> "Traveling merchant" is a "special effect". It could be a magic item shop. It could be an ancient artifact where you put a magic item in and gold coins come out. The point is, the expectation is that players will always be able to dump their unwanted shinies, and the default is for the DM to make this an easy task which occurs as a matter of simple note taking -- you say what magic items you want to get rid of, you get 1/5 their value in gold, on to the orc killing. If a DM wants to make the sale of a particular item a complex problem, that's up to him, but it's assumed that magic items are sold off-stage and easily according to a simple formula for value.
> 
> It's Wal-Magic in all but name.



 Oh no, i didn´t miss your point... but you missed mine... 

Maybe in 3.x there was no notion that magic shops existed, but many pc games which attracted players to 3rd edition had shops everywhere, and in FR shops were nearly expected (thayan enclaves + races of faerun racial magical items)

In 4e magical items are hard to dispose off, because there are no buyers is the deafault assumption in your game world, and the economy is build on that (1/5 market price)

that merchants happen to pass by where the adventurers are is just coincidence from your world´s point of view... And merchants with guards and high travel costs should even justify the 1/5 sell price...


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Voss said:
			
		

> Well, the economy still feels flimsy, the table error is yet another annoyance, and residuum is... rather silly.  And the traveling merchants are outright ridiculous.  'The world is a dangerous place.  I think I will load up on valuables and hit the road, *just in case* one of those rare bands of adventurers needs something obscure at the last minute'.  *Stab, knife, rend* And the monsters now have more treasure.
> 
> So thats my first impression.




this is why trade with magical items is soooo expensive that you need 1/5th buy price to be cost neutral and 140% sell price to make money...



			
				Voss said:
			
		

> My second impression is, of course, that WotC should fire all their editors and hire competent ones.  Its been a week of Just Too Many Cockups.





i second this, however...


----------



## Derren

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> this is why trade with magical items is soooo expensive that you need 1/5th buy price to be cost neutral and 140% sell price to make money...




That is a rather weak business model when you base your entire business (and life) on the chance that there might be some superhoeroes adventurers in the next town in the middle of nowhere who want to sell some magical items at a dumping price and being able to sell it for a huge profit in the next town in the middle of nowhere.
Magical item trade is a a nice opportunity for those merchants, but not the main reason for their existence. 
Still the PoL gameworld is a bit unbelievable when traders arrive everywhere on a weekly basis.


----------



## Kwalish Kid

WyzardWhately said:
			
		

> The question on my mind is: Is there still room for freaky wondrous items?  Once the economy steps in to regulate PCs, and make sure they don't fall off of either end of the magic item treadmill, is there still room for portable holes, cubic gates, apparati of Kwalish, and the various other freaky acoutrements that adventurers tended to accumulate pre-3E?



That's a deal breaker for me. If my PCs can't get an Apparatus of Kwalish, there is something wrong with the game.

I'm sure everyone will agree with me.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Derren said:
			
		

> That is a rather weak business model when you base your entire business (and life) on the chance that there might be some superhoeroes adventurers in the next town in the middle of nowhere who want to sell some magical items at a dumping price and being able to sell it for a huge profit in the next town in the middle of nowhere.
> Magical item trade is a a nice opportunity for those merchants, but not the main reason for their existence.
> Still the PoL gameworld is a bit unbelievable when traders arrive everywhere on a weekly basis.



 do you think so? IMHO it is more believable than searching in ruins for items other people lost somehow...

its also on less believable than buying silk in china and selling it in europe for a lot more than they paid there (i don´t know the exact numbers)

or buying cocoa and coffee in africa/south america and selling it for several times as much here...

so that model is not soooo far away from reality...


----------



## Derren

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> its also on less believable than buying silk in china and selling it in europe for a lot more than they paid there (i don´t know the exact numbers)
> 
> or buying cocoa and coffee in africa/south america and selling it for several times as much here...
> 
> so that model is not soooo far away from reality...




Ther difference is that we know that there is silk in china and coffee in africa/south america.

Those D&D traders do not know if there are some adventurers in the next town and even in the unlikely event that there is a band at exactly the time the trader arrives he can't know if those adventurers have a magical item for sale or if he has enough money to buy it. It makes no sense to travel from town to town to wait for this minimal chance. There must be a other reason why the merchants travel everwhere on a weekly basis.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Derren said:
			
		

> Ther difference is that we know that there is silk in china and coffee in africa/south america.
> 
> Those D&D traders do not know if there are some adventurers in the next town and even in the unlikely event that there is a band at exactly the time the trader arrives he can't know if those adventurers have a magical item for sale or if he has enough money to buy it. It makes no sense to travel from town to town to wait for this minimal chance. There must be a other reason why the merchants travel everwhere on a weekly basis.



 He knows that he only appears when PCs want to sell their good^^

No, seriously: it makes the difference between a successful trader and an unsuccessful one... 

Maybe he has some kind of spy network which informs him where Adventurers sell their items... he could have access to the "teleport" rirual so that he can be where he is needed... but its costly to do, so he needs to make profit out of his trades...

Or he could just travel around in places which attract adventurers and then start off to some other place where he can make profit (no profit can be made if he is stationary in small villages)


----------



## Derren

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> Or he could just travel around in places which attract adventurers and then start off to some other place where he can make profit (no profit can be made if he is stationary in small villages)




Traveling around costs money too so unless he has a way to make profit without ripping off adventurers he will be soon very, very poor.


----------



## Kitirat

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> That's a deal breaker for me. If my PCs can't get an Apparatus of Kwalish, there is something wrong with the game.
> 
> I'm sure everyone will agree with me.




Totally. Most important thing IMO.

See ya,
Ken


----------



## Ipissimus

I'd liken the trade in magic items more to a black market, and an illiquid black market at that. I think equating them with drugs or guns in our modern market might not be too far from the truth.

First up, our traveling merchant has to give up the initial 20% outlay. Then, he has to transport them from town to town, so the magic item has to pay a percentage of the cost of the wagon, horses, feed, hands and wear and tear. In travelling, he needs security, probably increased security now that he's carrying a magical item. Then there are bribes, taxes, tolls, local charges for setting up shop in the market, etc. The Merchant's Guild takes a piece of his business as well. Also probably a good idea to pay the local Thieve's Guild their vig so they just don't steal the thing from you.

THEN, the magical item is a highly valuable and risky object to move. So, the Merchant probably deals with the negotiations personally. Now, you can't just put up a sign '+1 sword 1000gp, no lay-by' for this sort of item. One, you'd just asking to get killed and robbed (maybe even by the local authorities in less LG areas). So, you're going to want to make discreet inquiries among reputable buyers who might not slit your throat rather than paying for the goods. Hiring guards to look after you while you're doing all this is also going to be expensive since, again, you want reputable people who are unlikely to slit your throat and take the goods. And you want to pay them well so they don't feel like they're being ripped off.

And we haven't gotten to haggling with the potential customer yet, spending all that time before being told 'no, it's too expensive' and then having to go through it all over again.

Now, if your PCs would rather turn all that into an adventure in itself, more power to you. But it's probably a more efficient use of a party's time/wealth ratio to raid tombs of loot and eat the 80% markdown. After all, the only way anyone would consider selling a magical item is if they were of no use to them anymore, they're just too good to give away on a whim.

Now, if you assume that two groups of Adventurers are going to meet, it presents an interesting dilemma. Imagine an encounter between two groups who are just as avaricious and grasping as each other, even if both are the 'good guys'.  If this group is of lower level than your PCs, they probably can't afford what you're selling and the PCs probably don't want anything they have in trade. If at equal level, then a decent ammount of barter can probably be had, trading useless items for more useful ones (although, if you think they're useless, chances are they're useless to the other party too). If the other group is of higher level, the PCs probably can't afford what they're trying to flog off and they run the risk of the other party beating them up and taking their stuff. 

(am I discussing economics or ecology? I can't really remember anymore...  )

And then we come to religious orders, organizations and nobles. Now, if your Paladin wishes to bring his religious order into DnD economics then I propose that we re-institute the practice of Tithing to the class. I remember, playing a Paladin for 20 years or so, the joys of having to give most of my loot to the orders, along with any magic item I couldn't wear. I'd LOVE to inflict that on 4E just to displace a certain amount of anger and resentment. The same goes for the Order of Mages, the Thieves' guild, Assassin's Guild, etc. And, I think Adventurers should be taxed along with all the rest of the Kingdom's citizens.

As a DM, I'm starting to get a headache just considering the prospect of having to run a deep and realistic DnD economy. I can imagine the reaction of my players at the table if I rocked up and said 'Hey, guys, I don't have an adventure for today... SO instead, your characters will be doing their tax returns! Now, since you've adventured in The Free City of Greyhawk, Waterdeep and Sharn thanks to numerous Plane Shifts, the interdimentional tax collection agency from Sigil is threatening to expunge your essence from the multiverse unless you get these done tonight! So, in other words, if we don't do this, we start a new campaign..."

Yup, that'll go over REAL well...


----------



## Crosswind

To the Pro-4E Magic Item System Crowd:

Can you list an example of a real world good where:
It sells for 5 times as much as the vendor buys it for
The vendor adds no value to the good (either by changing it, or moving it from point A to point B)

I can't.  And it's messing with my chi.  Spare me the chorus of "Can you name a real world good that SHOOTS FIREBALLS!", too.  =)

To the Anti-4E Magic Item System Crowd:

The 20% is a pure disincentive to swap magic items.  That's it.  There is no other reason for it to exist.  My question is, is there a better system out there that creates similar disincentives without such a clumsy mechanic?  Aside from the "I tell my players that if they swap too many things, they will get less" types?

-Cross


----------



## DeusExMachina

Crosswind said:
			
		

> To the Pro-4E Magic Item System Crowd:
> 
> Can you list an example of a real world good where:
> It sells for 5 times as much as the vendor buys it for
> The vendor adds no value to the good (either by changing it, or moving it from point A to point B)





Used books... at least in this bloody country... You often don't get more than 1 single buck for them and then they sell them again for 5 easily...

Also, I believe the idea was that the merchant DID move them from point a to b and that costs money...


----------



## Voss

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> do you think so? IMHO it is more believable than searching in ruins for items other people lost somehow...
> 
> its also on less believable than buying silk in china and selling it in europe for a lot more than they paid there (i don´t know the exact numbers)
> 
> or buying cocoa and coffee in africa/south america and selling it for several times as much here...
> 
> so that model is not soooo far away from reality...




Except none of those economies involved relying on bilking a handful of adventurers while trying not to be eaten by dragons.  Or indeed, finding the adventurers to bilk them.  
There is a huge difference between trying to cashi in on a small handful of people and selling large quantities of raw materials to a national economy.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Re: Vendor sells it for 5x purchase but does nothing with it - Artwork?


----------



## med stud

I'm thinking about introducing mercanes for this purpose. They can always buy items and they can find buyers. If the PCs want to run a similiar operation, they will get involved with the "mercane mob" with all that it entails. Not necessarily violence, but boycotts and finansial sabotage and the like. How do you find the mercanes? Well, the mercanes find _you_, possibly by using a travelling salesman as a cover.


----------



## Torchlyte

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> And yes, it is railroading.  When the DM decides that the players aren't mature enough to handle their own in game resources, you may as well just tell them in the first five minutes of the game exactly how the story goes, what they did, and how it ended.




Hi, I don't know if you remember me. I'm the one who didn't like the example skill challenge because I felt it was railroading the players into playing one way.

This is not railroading because players are not being discouraged from doing things their way, it's merely an arbitrary balance goal. Consider your situation in reverse: should the players be penalized for adventuring instead of haggling? Giving extra gold to group A is the same as taking gold away from group B, so no matter what you're railroading (by your definition, since you're encouraging group B to haggle when they don't want to).

The game gives you treasure parcels to hand out with the assumption that players are unpredictable, so I think the mindset you're taking is fundamentally wrong.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Was anyone else disappointed this WASN'T about world-building economics, but instead about handing out loot? Sigh...
> 
> I mean, when I saw "Economics", I thought we'd be getting things like cost of daily life, ow much wealth exists in villages, where towns and cities get their income from, acres of farmland needed to support a city, and so on.
> 
> Seriously. Instead, it's loot&XP. Oh well...




I'm glad they didn't do this; it would be a very boring reveal... and that's coming from an economics major who very much enjoys that field. I don't need game designers to feed me their guesswork/bull.



> On the plus side...
> 
> a)"Magic item shops" are still in, despite claims to the contrary. (There's the exact same "support" for Wal-Magic in 4e as there was in 3e -- a note in the DMG that magic items can be bought and sold and players are free to do so by default, though the DM can always rule otherwise.)




4e "supports" playstyles other than your own? Oh noes!



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> What? You IGNORED the rules and used your JUDGMENT?
> 
> I'm sorry. That's not possible in 3e. Only in 4e is the DM free to do this. In 3e, if you ignored any rules, WOTC ninjas came and killed you. The ability of a DM to be a DM was not present in 3e. The greatest innovation in 4e is the ability to ignore/alter the rules at whim. If you could already do that in 3e...well, what's the point of 4e, then?
> 
> Sheesh. Get with the program.




Straw troll.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> You missed the point of my post.
> 
> Mousferatu seemed to be asserting that, in 4e, magic items would be hard to dispose of, due to the lack of buyers.
> 
> The very excerpt we're discussing says that, by default, there will always be a buyer in the next town the PCs stumble across, no matter how small it is. Yes, the DM can change this, but the "expected" rule is that no matter where you are, some merchant will be there with the gold to take your items off your hands.




No, Mousferatu asserted that, in 4e, magic items would be hard to dispose of, due to the lack of buyers who will use the items themselves. It's the merchant's job to travel from town to town to try and actually find the above.



			
				Crosswind said:
			
		

> To the Pro-4E Magic Item System Crowd:
> 
> Can you list an example of a real world good where:
> It sells for 5 times as much as the vendor buys it for
> The vendor adds no value to the good (either by changing it, or moving it from point A to point B)
> 
> I can't. And it's messing with my chi. Spare me the chorus of "Can you name a real world good that SHOOTS FIREBALLS!", too. =)




I'm pretty sure soda pop _at least_ fulfills this one, if it doesn't blow it out of the water altogether.


----------



## Wormwood

Lizard said:
			
		

> Was anyone else disappointed this WASN'T about world-building economics, but instead about handing out loot? Sigh...



I think about world-building economics about once every six months. Maybe. 

Loot, on the other hand, I hand out about 5 times per session.


----------



## Nightchilde-2

Yay to 4e for fixing my most hated element, and biggest time-waster, of previous editions.  I refer, of course, to treasure. 

Yay to 4e for including, as something other than ad-hoc awards, a "quest XP" system somewhat similar to my beloved Earthdawn.


----------



## eleran

Sir_Darien said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> This is the first major problem I've had with the preview material. I don't know what I'm going to do when my players start becoming merchants.
> 
> I can see them stockpiling gear until they get to a metropolis. Then setting up a store to sell their magic items at 80% and undercutting local merchants. I can also see them sending messengers out to all towns in the vicinity letting other adventurers know about their goods.
> 
> They've done stuff like this before just to make 75% off items in 3.5 and I cannot realistically think of a way to keep it from working.




How about reminding them they are ADVENTURERS and not shopkeepers?  If they want to do that why don't you all just play monopoly or Acquire instead of D&D?  

sorry, sometimes badwrongfun is just the necessary response.


----------



## Celebrim

> "The 5th-level NPC has a 6th-level item—not because he needs it, but because it’s one of the treasure parcels."




That pretty much settles that simulation is dead in 4e.  It's now official.  Treasure exists not because its reasonable to be where it is or because sentient creatures need and collect stuff.  Rather treasure exists solely because the PC's need it and for no other reason.  Balance and other metagame considerations now completely trump all other considerations.

Hmmm... and is platinum now 100 times as valuable as gold?


----------



## med stud

DeusExMachina said:
			
		

> Used books... at least in this bloody country... You often don't get more than 1 single buck for them and then they sell them again for 5 easily...
> 
> Also, I believe the idea was that the merchant DID move them from point a to b and that costs money...



Not only money, risk is also a factor. You sit on something that is extremely valuable and there is a concrete risk that noone will buy it in your life time. An adventurer comes to you with a sword. You buy the sword for, say, 2000 gp, more money than ten peasants will earn in a lifetime. If you find the right buyer, you can get 12000 gp for it. The problem is that that particular buyer may not show up for twenty years. You stockpile these items and by selling them off at one piece per, maybe six months, you manage to get a good living out of it.

If the adventurer himself wants to sell it, there is no ebay.com for it. Very few people want to buy a 12000 gp sword when that is enough to buy armour and horses for 12 knights. The adventurer can sit on the sword, relying on luck to sell it. Most likely it will become the famous family heirloom in that case. He can spend time to find a buyer, but then that will essentially become his job. That way, he will lose time.

Really, the merchants in this case are like risk capitalists, they make an unsure investment for a potentially great profit. The risks are that the item may not be sold _and_ the item has to be stored safely. I can't see that this is illogical.


----------



## quindia

How long will it be before UNALIGNED PC's realize that merchants have far more magic items and cash than the monsters?


----------



## Jedi_Solo

Crosswind said:
			
		

> To the Pro-4E Magic Item System Crowd:
> Can you list an example of a real world good where:
> It sells for 5 times as much as the vendor buys it for
> The vendor adds no value to the good (either by changing it, or moving it from point A to point B)




First two that come to mind:

Trading in Used Collage Textbooks

Trading in Used Video Games

Even a couple of days later, if you don't have the receipt the price drops by an amazing amount (and let's face it, adventurers won't have the receipt).

I just traded in a bunch of video games a few days ago for store credit.  A couple of older games that weren't in high demand (but still for an XBox 360 and in full working condition with case and instructions) I only got a couple of bucks for.  There are few games for the 360 that you'll see for under $10 (even used).

And if I had turned them in for cash (instead of store credit) I would have gotten even less for those games.


----------



## Jedi_Solo

quindia said:
			
		

> How long will it be before UNALIGNED PC's realize that merchants have far more magic items and cash than the monsters?




Very quickly.

But then the merchants will very quickly band together and stay away from the PC Bandits and hire a bunch more mercenaries to act as body guards (using the merchant's best gear) so everything will quickly balance out anyway.


----------



## DeusExMachina

quindia said:
			
		

> How long will it be before UNALIGNED PC's realize that merchants have far more magic items and cash than the monsters?




Well, that's always been the problem... Of ocurse once it gets out that they killed a merchant, it'll be hard for the pc's to find another merchant even getting close tot hem, let alone that will deal with them fairly. Considering how important merchants must be for the PoL towns, I wouldn't be suprised that the towns would no longer accept the pc's as guests either...

Also, some merchants may just have used up all their cash for cloth or something similar and so now the pc's have 20 bales of cloth on their hands that is worth a lot, but not exactly easy to move...


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Derren said:
			
		

> Traveling around costs money too so unless he has a way to make profit without ripping off adventurers he will be soon very, very poor.




yes, thats why he IS ripping off adventurers... he only pays 20%...


----------



## Wormwood

All I know is, 18 pages before anybody points out the cool Boba Fett tattoo on the rogue chick's arm?


----------



## Lizard

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> 4e "supports" playstyles other than your own? Oh noes!




You rolled a natural one while attacking my point.

A few months ago, one of the biggest "W00tz!" from the pre-4e crowd was "There won't be magic item stores, like there were in 3e!"

Except, of course, there weren't any in 3e, unless the DM wanted there to be. There were prices for magic items, and notes that in major cities, you might be able to find items for sale. What this meant, in actual play, was up to the DM. There might be stores. There might be ex-adventurers looking to unload some loot. There might a strange item here and there in the bazaar. Etc.

But "In 4e there won't be any magic stores! Yay!" was the joyous cry from the multitudes.

Now, what do we have in 4e?

Prices for magic items. And notes in the flavor text you might be able to find items for sale.

In other words -- exactly the same as in 3e. Whether there are stores or not is up to the DM. The only major difference is that, in 3e, the DM had community wealth guidelines, and, in 4e, there's a network of teleporting magic item merchants who show up in whatever town the PCs are in.


----------



## med stud

quindia said:
			
		

> How long will it be before UNALIGNED PC's realize that merchants have far more magic items and cash than the monsters?



Congratulations! You are now the owner of ten bales of silk, two barrels of wine and a sack of spices .

Nothing but guards are stopping the PCs from becoming brigands, it's up to the DM what a merchant will carry.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

eleran said:
			
		

> How about reminding them they are ADVENTURERS and not shopkeepers?  If they want to do that why don't you all just play monopoly or Acquire instead of D&D?
> 
> sorry, sometimes badwrongfun is just the necessary response.



 no need... it can become a very fun campaign... they will soon find out that its need a heavy investment t start such a trading merchant shop... and they will have to deal with thieves, bandids and much worse... adventurers...


----------



## WhatGravitas

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Balance and other metagame considerations now completely trump all other considerations.



How is this different from 3E? :-\

Wait, in 4E - right in the article - there's a way how to exclude magic items from the economy, meaning that you can dole out gold as you wish, fitting the story instead of the metagame conceits.

Magic items _need_ to be regulated, as long as they carry power (character-wise), otherwise the game can easily go haywire. But unlike the last edition, it's possible to decouple magic items from the rest of the economy easily.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Dragonblade

keterys said:
			
		

> Yeah, I am very impressed with how novice friendly this is (and commented as such in another board I frequent).
> 
> One thing learned from figuring out the cost chart... you probably get +1 improvements to magic weapons/armor/etc on increments of 5... ie, +1 at 1-5, +2 at 6-10, +3 at 11-15, etc. Of course, your magic items are higher than your level usually so it's possible you end up with items over level 30, but if not that puts a +6 sword/armor as your cap in epic levels.
> 
> Which seems low based on the rest of the math (like for monsters), so there's probably something I'm missing. 1/2 Level + 1/5 Item doesn't come close enough to the +1 / Level we're seeing on scaling things... though I suppose you might also get at least +1/8 ability score increase, and that just leaves 7/40 to get through feats, paths, and power bonuses.
> 
> Hmmhmm. I guess that's dealable.




I predict +1 bonus increments for items every 3 levels. You should have +10 items by level 30.


----------



## Wormwood

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Balance and other metagame considerations now completely trump all other considerations.



In other words, from my game table to the core rulebooks.

*contented sigh*


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Lizard said:
			
		

> You rolled a natural one while attacking my point.
> 
> A few months ago, one of the biggest "W00tz!" from the pre-4e crowd was "There won't be magic item stores, like there were in 3e!"
> 
> Except, of course, there weren't any in 3e, unless the DM wanted there to be. There were prices for magic items, and notes that in major cities, you might be able to find items for sale. What this meant, in actual play, was up to the DM. There might be stores. There might be ex-adventurers looking to unload some loot. There might a strange item here and there in the bazaar. Etc.
> 
> But "In 4e there won't be any magic stores! Yay!" was the joyous cry from the multitudes.
> 
> Now, what do we have in 4e?
> 
> Prices for magic items. And notes in the flavor text you might be able to find items for sale.
> 
> In other words -- exactly the same as in 3e. Whether there are stores or not is up to the DM. The only major difference is that, in 3e, the DM had community wealth guidelines, and, in 4e, there's a network of teleporting magic item merchants who show up in whatever town the PCs are in.



 No, i think you rolled a natural 1... 
3.x broke together rather fast without magic shops... it was sad, but true... (or you had to give out exactly those items which were needed to survive at higher levels) Also there was no way to get rid of the magic items your NPCs needed to survive and you needed an explanation where they got all their magic items...

Disenchant and enchant magic items rituals do a great deal to diminish the need for regular magic stores... also the default assumption that monsters of equal level have a magic treshold and that defenses, even without magic items are high enough...

(maybe thee could have been more elegant solution, but my hopes here are 5th edition.. 4th edition will become the edition where simplicity and balance are the main goals... and i consider that an improvement...)


----------



## Heselbine

They're concentrating on making the game playable and fun instead of making half-hearted attempts at 'realism'.

Full marks to the designers, I say.


----------



## Andur

Article is o.k.  However, the understanding of the basic principles of economics on this board is pathetic, that's about the norm for society though, so no surprise.

1)  The real value of any good is determined by the market.  PC's want to "offload" magic items quickly ad the DM ALLOWS it, 20% is a fair price, the merchant is going to lowball, he makes an offer and states he's leaving in the morning, the PC's take it or leave it.  If they want to travel for a month or more until they find a buyer who will pay full price or more, have fun playing Buying and Selling instead of Dungeons and Dragons.

2)  Head to your local FLGS, buy a pack of MtG, see how much you can sell the regular lands to the store, see how much you can sell that ultra rare, high game value card.  Then take a look at what you can buy it for.  A "honest" FLGS will buy at half "book" price and sell for "full" book price.

Now back to the article, I don't like the merchant concept at all, it implies more of a web of light than points of light.  Course I don't like selling magic items either, nor buying them.  Potions are one thing, durable goods quite another.  I'll probably be in the reduce cost of disenchant OR just replace the magic items for loot with residium or whatever they want to call it.

I'm not much on having magic items as part of the economy, cp, sp, gp, pp, +1 magic sword, +2 frost wand, astral diamond, +6 Resiliant Radiant Shadoweave Armour, etc...

With magic items I'll probably go the CoH "enhancement" slot path.  So an item will need to be enchanted using one ritual of spirtual bonding, and then can be upgraded through the us of other rituals which use the magical essence.  As the PC levels the item gains additional slots at intervals, so that +1 magic sword one might start off with ends up being a +6 Flaming Radiant Sword of Vengeance at level 30...  This would require not only the filling in of slots, but the upgrade/replacement of certain slots...


----------



## Brown Jenkin

malraux said:
			
		

> Um, beyond just a rule saying they can't do that, what would you like?  Pretty simple just to say that unless the players want to create a merchant based campaign, with appropriate rules, that their characters just don't have the contacts/reputation/time to be a full time merchant.




Yeah, that just doesn't fly well. I've known way more greedy players than I have met players that fit into all the other problem categories. The question of selling directly will come up and a response of "Sorry no, the rules say you can't." is just not good enough to satisfy them. This gets even worse if the party has a thief character with high gather information and other skills and background that would imply that this is in fact just the kind of thing he would be good at. 

This can and will come up in more than a merchant based campaign. This is human nature to want to get the best prices, and by making the price disparities so large it almost begs for players to try to get around it.


----------



## Crosswind

The Enworld Crowd has answered with vigor!  =D  Excellent!

So the examples of a good that fits my criterion are:
Artwork
Used books
Used Textbooks
Used Video Games
Soda Pop

Soda Pop, while its ingredients are cheap and it sells for a lot, doesn't work - the Vendor (the person who makes it) adds value.

Artwork:
So I had to go do some homework for this...but my peoples tell me that a 5x mark-up from bought to sold is -not- common practice.  =)

Used Stuff:
This is probably closer to the truth.  Here, the vendor preys on marginal utility.  A +1 battleaxe is of little use to a wizard, so he might sell it for little, but of a lot of use to a barbarian, so he might pay a lot for it.

But it's going to be tough to argue that, if the PCs find the barbarian, they can't get full price for that axe.

-Cross


----------



## Dizlag

Yeah, I just can't help but notice the direct lifting of "disenchanting" from WOW.  But, that's a good thing.  The computer gaming industry has been taking a lot from the roleplaying game industry and vise versa lately.  This is a good thing.  It truly makes the overall gaming industry better.

And regarding the concern about disenchanting powerful artifacts.  I would assume since you can't make a magical item higher than you're level, you shouldn't be able to disenchant a magic item above your level.  Will that be in the DMG?  I dunno, but it could easily be houseruled.

EDIT:  An entire campaign could be design around the party wanting to "undercut" the merchant's magic item industry.  I would say some powerful merchant guilds could talk to an assassin's guild, or two, to "take care of" the problem.     The party forgot to acquire a merchant permit?  Oh, that's gonna carry an extra fee.  Hehehehe

Later,

Dizlag


----------



## WhatGravitas

Andur said:
			
		

> Head to your local FLGS, buy a pack of MtG, see how much you can sell the regular lands to the store, see how much you can sell that ultra rare, high game value card.  Then take a look at what you can buy it for.  A "honest" FLGS will buy at half "book" price and sell for "full" book price.



Exactly. It sells, because people are buying it at these prices. Despite being a flimsy bit of paper that is useless to the general populace.

Same with magic items - a farmer will never need a _shocking axe of fiery doom_. But some really want them - like the PCs.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Yeah, that just doesn't fly well. I've known way more greedy players than I have met players that fit into all the other problem categories. The question of selling directly will come up and a response of "Sorry no, the rules say you can't." is just not good enough to satisfy them. This gets even worse if the party has a thief character with high gather information and other skills and background that would imply that this is in fact just the kind of thing he would be good at.
> 
> This can and will come up in more than a merchant based campaign. This is human nature to want to get the best prices, and by making the price disparities so large it almost begs for players to try to get around it.




Then you should probably consider talking to the players at the start of the campaign and explain that you want to run the kind of game where the adventurers are interested in adventuring, not merchanting.

If characters insist on becoming merchants, have the next nation along invade.

It's only scaling up the old adage of "when things get boring, have a man come through the doorway with a gun".


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Crosswind said:
			
		

> The Enworld Crowd has answered with vigor!  =D  Excellent!
> 
> So the examples of a good that fits my criterion are:
> Artwork
> Used books
> Used Textbooks
> Used Video Games
> Soda Pop
> 
> Soda Pop, while its ingredients are cheap and it sells for a lot, doesn't work - the Vendor (the person who makes it) adds value.
> 
> Artwork:
> So I had to go do some homework for this...but my peoples tell me that a 5x mark-up from bought to sold is -not- common practice.  =)
> 
> Used Stuff:
> This is probably closer to the truth.  Here, the vendor preys on marginal utility.  A +1 battleaxe is of little use to a wizard, so he might sell it for little, but of a lot of use to a barbarian, so he might pay a lot for it.
> 
> But it's going to be tough to argue that, if the PCs find the barbarian, they can't get full price for that axe.
> 
> -Cross



 If the barbarian has enough money to pay full price... he could also argue that he sold his last axe for one fifth of that and that it was an honest man and you will just trick him... he also can´t tell if its magical, so maybe he will only pay the normal price for an axe...


----------



## WhatGravitas

Dizlag said:
			
		

> Yeah, I just can't help but notice the direct lifting of "disenchanting" from WOW.  But, that's a good thing.  The computer gaming industry has been taking a lot from the roleplaying game industry and vise versa lately.  This is a good thing.  It truly makes the overall gaming industry better.



Actually, it's more like convergent developments... the concept of breaking down items to produce them easier was in D&D in form of the artificer class, which was in the Eberron Campaign Setting (released June 04). WoW was released November 04.

In both cases, breaking down items to recycle them were seen as good idea. That 4E uses this, is just the logical continuation of the artificer principle, which soundness was proven over and over again with WoW. And endless fan houserules. So it's not a "direct lifting" - but I do not deny, that WoW has more than probably helped with the inclusion!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Crosswind

Really?  So it's out of line to play a character with the slightest bit of common sense?

Player:  "...I can sell this item for 4000 gold, or do a little leg work and sell it for 20,000.  Good god, is it worth my time to hang onto this until I find somebody to pay a better price!"

DM:  "You're supposed to be heroic!"

Player:  "Does that mandate being an idiot, too?"

-Cross


----------



## jelmore

Mort_Q said:
			
		

> Retain Essence (ecs 32) = Collect Residuum




I was thinking the exact same thing.


----------



## Jedi_Solo

Crosswind said:
			
		

> But it's going to be tough to argue that, if the PCs find the barbarian, they can't get full price for that axe.




So let the PCs find that Barbarian who can afford to pay full price.  That's an adventure in and of itself.

If I had found the person who would have been willing to pay $10 for that used game that I got $2 for I would have done so.  I have no idea where I could have found said individual (he could have been right behind me in line for all I know).  But finding the Barbarian can easily be an adventure in and of itself which in the end nets more XP and treasure.

So your party has sold the axe for full price.  Now... about that magic sword...


----------



## Crosswind

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> If the barbarian has enough money to pay full price... he could also argue that he sold his last axe for one fifth of that and that it was an honest man and you will just trick him... he also can´t tell if its magical, so maybe he will only pay the normal price for an axe...




Your argument sort of catastrophically falls apart when you realize that that barbarian would have bought the axe from a merchant for full price.  

Though I suspect you knew that, and just wanted to give an example of how a DM can cheerily come up with excuses to rationalize just about any craziness in rules on the part of WotC.

-Cross


----------



## Mercule

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> I hope there is something in the rules on how to deal with players who want to avoid the middleman and start raking in huge profit selling magic items directly.



Why?  

If the players and the GM are of a mental disposition to enjoy dealing with the black/gray market, questing to find which noble/aristocrat/wizard/knight/etc. may want this particular item, or playing shop-keep and the community issues that go with it, I can't see an issue with it.

The main reason most PCs aren't going to try to end-around the middleman is the same reason most of us don't make our living on EBay (a few bucks, sure, but not a lifestyle altering amount).  It's alternates between boring and difficult.  Cutting out the middleman, especially when you have another job (adventuring), is much more complex than it sounds.

Personally, I hope the DMG talks about how to enable players who want to act as merchants, brokers, or archaeologists (so to speak).  Including such guidance is actually probably the best way of deterring people from doing it for non-character related (i.e. scamming the system) reasons.


----------



## EonEdge

Crosswind said:
			
		

> Player:  "...I can sell this item for 4000 gold, or do a little leg work and sell it for 20,000.  Good god, is it worth my time to hang onto this until I find somebody to pay a better price!"
> 
> -Cross




You mean 22,000 to 28,000 you forgot the 10-40 % mark-up


----------



## Zweischneid

Crosswind said:
			
		

> Your argument sort of catastrophically falls apart when you realize that that barbarian would have bought the axe from a merchant for full price.




If he's buying things from merchants (and hence is integrated and knowledgable in the monetary economy), its not really a Barbarian in the first place...


----------



## lightblade

Merchants (at least the honest ones) have reputations for being trustworthy. If a merchant has been in business for any length of time, his reputation will probably be his most valuable asset. Adventurers a) don't have a reputation as salesmen b) move around a lot, so they'd be hard to track down if the axe or whatever was bad.


----------



## Dizlag

Lord Tirian:  You are completely correct.  I forgot about the Artificer in the Eberron Campaign setting.  Thanks for reminding me!

And agreed that this is a nice evolution of the core of that class becoming daily rituals (Creating and Disenchanting magical items) within the power of any character once they've learned the rituals.  Which in my understanding will be available as feats, right?

Dizlag


----------



## Mort_Q

quindia said:
			
		

> How long will it be before UNALIGNED PC's realize that merchants have far more magic items and cash than the monsters?




Merchants *are* monsters.  Grrrrrrr!

If the PCs want to go darkside, that's OK... they just shouldn't expect all merchants to be minions.


----------



## malraux

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Yeah, that just doesn't fly well. I've known way more greedy players than I have met players that fit into all the other problem categories. The question of selling directly will come up and a response of "Sorry no, the rules say you can't." is just not good enough to satisfy them. This gets even worse if the party has a thief character with high gather information and other skills and background that would imply that this is in fact just the kind of thing he would be good at.
> 
> This can and will come up in more than a merchant based campaign. This is human nature to want to get the best prices, and by making the price disparities so large it almost begs for players to try to get around it.



Again, unless the characters decide to spend a significant amount of resources establishing the contacts/reputation/time, then they can't get the full value.  But if you want better reasons, why do you pay more money to buy something from a store than from ebay/craigslist/garage sales?  Because you have reasonable trust in the store brand, the return policies, established levels of quality, etc.  Also, stores are regulated as a business by different agencies (BBB, consumer protection laws, etc).  For your characters to become a business, they need to establish themselves as a reputable provider of magic items.  That starts at selling their items basically at the wholesale price (1/5 market price).  After a few years and many many sales, they can have built up a name for selling quality magic items and can then charge full price, assuming they've spent those few years just selling magic items.  So I really don't think its reasonable for characters to say that they should sell magic items at full price unless they're wanting to play a merchant campaign.


----------



## Nightchilde-2

Mort_Q said:
			
		

> Merchants *are* monsters.  Grrrrrrr!
> 
> If the PCs want to go darkside, that's OK... they just shouldn't expect all merchants to be minions.




Nor, IMO, should they expect the local merchants to NOT hire other adventurers to protect them.


----------



## Keenath

The Economy article kind of makes me chuckle because this "new way of handling treasure" is more or less how I've been doing it for years.  I don't think I've ever rolled treasure according to the monster's type -- I looked at what they give to determine what *sort* of treasures to give them, but the values have always been based on the total per-level value divided by the number of encounters, modified by the type of encounter.  (For example, a raiding party typically won't carry much treasure, but their camp will have a large store of cash and goods -- it's a "feast and famine" style of treasure distribution.  It averages out the same, but it's more fun to find two or three really massive hauls rather than a dozen little rewards, with the occasional "single valuable item" that's worth perhaps one encounter of treasure all by itself -- usually as a hidden treasure that they might miss.)  I haven't done this "packet" thing, but that sounds like it's just an easy way to record what I'm talking about.


----------



## Wolfwood2

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Yeah, that just doesn't fly well. I've known way more greedy players than I have met players that fit into all the other problem categories. The question of selling directly will come up and a response of "Sorry no, the rules say you can't." is just not good enough to satisfy them. This gets even worse if the party has a thief character with high gather information and other skills and background that would imply that this is in fact just the kind of thing he would be good at.
> 
> This can and will come up in more than a merchant based campaign. This is human nature to want to get the best prices, and by making the price disparities so large it almost begs for players to try to get around it.




If that is what the players want to do, then of course it is doable.  You don't need any rules above and beyond what you already have, though.  Selling the goods for full price is an adventure, composed of skill challenges and fighting creatures to get the goods to the right buyer.  The profit they make at the end is the appropriate number of treasure packets.

Simple, see?


----------



## nerfherder

malraux said:
			
		

> Again, unless the characters decide to spend a significant amount of resources establishing the contacts/reputation/time, then they can't get the full value.  But if you want better reasons, why do you pay more money to buy something from a store than from ebay/craigslist/garage sales?  Because you have reasonable trust in the store brand, the return policies, established levels of quality, etc.  Also, stores are regulated as a business by different agencies (BBB, consumer protection laws, etc).  For your characters to become a business, they need to establish themselves as a reputable provider of magic items.  That starts at selling their items basically at the wholesale price (1/5 market price).  After a few years and many many sales, they can have built up a name for selling quality magic items and can then charge full price, assuming they've spent those few years just selling magic items.  So I really don't think its reasonable for characters to say that they should sell magic items at full price unless they're wanting to play a merchant campaign.



Not to mention guild fees...


----------



## Mort_Q

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> Nor, IMO, should they expect the local merchants to NOT hire other adventurers to protect them.




That could make an interesting hook.  A merchant has acquired, legitimately, an item that is invaluable to the PC's latest quest.  They can't afford what he's asking, and they don't have time to go adventuring for more.


----------



## Rex Blunder

I wish that people could specifically reply to a certain post, like on Slashdot, and their replies would appear under that post. Then I could just stay away from the "20% resale value" ghetto and read the interesting posts.

My first eye-opener in the article was the fact that all found treasure was above the level of he PC. "Then why have treasure level at all?" I thought. "Seems like artificial inflation."

Then I read the part about how the PCs could only manufacture treasure of their level and below. Now it makes sense: PCs are able to get whatever they want, of their level and below. But the system retains the excitement of finding otherwise unobtainable items through adventuring. Nice.

The other thing I wondered about is, as someone else mentioned, it's impossible to find level 1 stuff in treasure hordes? Also, level 1 is the only time you'll ever find level 2 stuff in a horde. Kind of strange.


----------



## eleran

AZRogue said:
			
		

> It's funny because in AD&D we never allowed the selling of magical items at all. They were given to henchmen, trusted friends, or used as a bribe. Selling them just wasn't allowed. And it never was a problem.





obviously you were not playing correctly, please turn in any left over materials and notes from that time to your nearest simulationist re-programming center.  And don't eat the green stuff, its gamists.


----------



## Mort_Q

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> I wish that people could specifically reply to a certain post, like on Slashdot, and their replies would appear under that post.




Some forums will autolink in the quote to the post you're quoting, which works fairly well too.  I don't like nested forums myself however.


----------



## Rex Blunder

> I don't like nested forums myself however.




Neither do I, normally. But sometimes I'm like, "Can I skip to the next post that is NOT about the Duke's resistance to Intimidate?"


----------



## Thyrwyn

Crosswind said:
			
		

> Can you list an example of a real world good where:
> It sells for 5 times as much as the vendor buys it for
> The vendor adds no value to the good (either by changing it, or moving it from point A to point B)



Buy a bottle of wine at a restaurant.  Compare price to same bottle at a retail store (state/package store). Compare price to that offered if you purchase said bottle at the winery.  

I can tell you that in Pennsylvania:
1) If a local winery sells a bottle for $6, the Liquor store will have it for $10.
2) If the Liquor store sells it for $10, a restaurant will ask at least $30.

The last ratio is, in my experience, an industry standard - the food service industry generally adheres to a minimum 33% food cost (or a minimum 200% mark-up, however you prefere to look at it.

Fountain Soda is one notable exception to this rule: the last time I worked in the industry, the amount of syrup/water/CO2 in a 32 oz. soda cost less that $.15 - you would be hard pressed to convince me that the convenience of combining the ingredients for the customer justified a $1.54 mark up we charged.


----------



## Kraydak

One interesting thing about this article is that it is the first one where the mechanics don't feel like they were written for the developers.  Previously revealed mechanics tended to create evil corner situations, and so really aren't good for the DM.

This set of mechanics poses severe difficulties either for module developers or for module running DMs.  In 3e, where a PC's magic items are purchases rather than found, it really doesn't matter what magic items are placed in a module, but only the total value.  In 4e, each and every magic item has to be tailored to the party or problems will ensue.  If module writers place magic items and your party can't use it?  Sucks to be you.  Alternatively, module writers can say: 1 level Y item in room Z, of the DM's choice.  The probably result is that if you are going to be running modules, you *really really* want to be running the "standard" party.  Like how in 2e the fighter specialized in longsword as opposed to halberd: thats what the magic weapons were.

Very awkward.  4e might be conceptually simpler, but the DM gives up 3e's ability to *not care* what items he placed beyond getting the monetary conversion value approximately right.


----------



## Protagonist

Great, now 4E even has it's own travelling salesman problem.
What's next? Waiting for the encumbrance rules to find the perfect mix of items to fill a bag of holding?


----------



## Stormtalon

Lizard said:
			
		

> But isn't the "Cough wandering merchants cough" rule in the excerpt a way of saying, in effect, "No matter where the PCs are, there will be someone to buy their items" -- as opposed to the 3e wealth limits/town size rules, which meant PCs couldn't sell their +4 sword in every hamlet they came across? I read those rules (or guidelines, or suggestions) in the excerpt as saying to DMs, "Don't you worry your pretty little heads about where the money comes from or goes to; if the PCs have loot to get rid of, Travelling Joe will be in the nearest village to take it off their hands."




I'm probably gonna have a random table at hand in regards to that travelling merchant.

d10 roll:

1-2: "Ahh, sorry lads, but ye just missed him.  Think he was headed towards [next town]."
3-5: "Aye, he's here, but ye'll have to wait a bit.  Word is he got into a bit o'carousin' last night and is sleepin' it off.  Don't go tryin' to bother him, neither -- his bodyguards be rough customers."
6-7: "Think he's off in [tavern name] settin' up shop.  Better get to 'im quick afore the womenfolk pick his wares clean."
8-9: "Hrm, well, there be a merchant what comes thru here, aye, but he ain't due for another [d6+1] days yet, I don't think."
10:  "Funny ye'd ask that, he shoulda been here by now.  Sure as hell hope nothin' happened to 'im, as Betsy (she's me wife, ye see) had her heart set on some new pots & pans, and maybe some of them dragon-spices we've heard tell about.  Could we bother ye to go look for him?  He usually comes in from [town name]."

So, a 50% chance he's in town, but even then he might not be easily accessible.  At best, they'll have to push through something resembling a christmas shopping frenzy, at worst they'll have to wait for him to sleep off his drunken stupor.  Plus there's a 10% chance something happened to him, and who knows where _that'll_ lead....


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes

Crosswind said:
			
		

> To the Pro-4E Magic Item System Crowd:
> 
> My question is, is there a better system out there that creates similar disincentives without such a clumsy mechanic?  Aside from the "I tell my players that if they swap too many things, they will get less" types?
> 
> -Cross




My solution in my best 3E campaign was rather extreme.. I shipwrecked my PCs on a huge deserted tropical island at the start of my campaign with an assortment of mangy piratey sailors, a mysterious dark ship captain, a conniving whiny navigator, and an assortment of would-be colonists who never reached their final destination.

The island had ancient ruins (Tomb of Absynthor and Rappan Athuk), dangerous critters, a bunch of cannibal savages, and a big red dragon who lived in a volcano and burned ships that got close to the island.

So, no merchants, and no selling items!

Ken


----------



## AlphaAnt

Kraydak said:
			
		

> This set of mechanics poses severe difficulties either for module developers or for module running DMs.  In 3e, where a PC's magic items are purchases rather than found, it really doesn't matter what magic items are placed in a module, but only the total value.  In 4e, each and every magic item has to be tailored to the party or problems will ensue.  If module writers place magic items and your party can't use it?  Sucks to be you.  Alternatively, module writers can say: 1 level Y item in room Z, of the DM's choice.  The probably result is that if you are going to be running modules, you *really really* want to be running the "standard" party.  Like how in 2e the fighter specialized in longsword as opposed to halberd: thats what the magic weapons were.




Not necessarily.  If the rules for parcels are good enough, you don't need to put treasure in a module at all.  Just list what encounters give parcels and how many, and the DM can use the parcel rules to determine what that parcel consists of.


----------



## Thyrwyn

Cross - let's put this in game terms: let's say that it would take the characters a month to find a buyer for their precious magic item; how many encounters could they have had if they were out adventuring?  certainly more than 10, which means they could have more raw wealth by doing what they are good at, and letting the merchant do what he is good at.

In terms of real time and opportunity cost, they are better off selling at 20% than they are spending month to sell at even 140%


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes

I can see why WoTC went with these rules -- 4E is designed with the idea that fast fun gameplay absolutely trumps simulationism.  It's just that I prefer more simulationism in my games.

Really, what an adventuring group ought to do is to make ties with several other adventuring groups, one of significantly higher level  and several of lower level.  Then magic items could get passed down the chain, eliminating the 20% markdown.

Either that or just kill the guaranteed wandering merchant in each village and take his stuff.

Ken


----------



## TerraDave

hong said:
			
		

> I cannot believe the concept of an illiquid market is so hard to accept.




Damn it man, when did you start making so much sense!


----------



## UngeheuerLich

eleran said:
			
		

> obviously you were not playing correctly, please turn in any left over materials and notes from that time to your nearest simulationist re-programming center.  And don't eat the green stuff, its gamists.



 I don´t have my book ready at hand, but if you search the forum, i have already quoted that in ADnD 2nd edition it was explicitely stated that no magic item stores exist... (DMG IIRC)

Thrywin has put it right, i can´t say it better...

but i have one last thing to add:

Epic destiny: *magical item vendor*

_after you have found much more items you could ever use, you think its time to make it into money... just for the sake of making more money. You will always be remembered as one of the richest persons in the world..._


----------



## Wolfwood2

Still another way to handle it would be to have a gentleman's agreement with the players that they're free to make all the money they want, but they promise not to pour it all back into magical items.  If the PCs are using the extra 80% of cash to build castles, buy titles, bribe mercenary bands, and such, then that's good for the game.  That sort of thing is interesting and it's good that they have 'extra' wealth to spend it on.  Too often in 3E I saw PCs who were carrying a fortune in magical equipment, but never spent cash on anything else other than a superior grade of inn.  I recall a DM once pointing out that we were basically homeless bums (who happened to be rich beyond measure).


----------



## Clawhound

I see the low selling price as being part of the character balancing act.

Players are smart. They will sell a less useful item to get an item that synergizes well with their character. A well synergized character can easily perform well above level. Therefore, you must charge an appropriate cost for that synergy. A character must give up (gp, equipment, abilities) equal to his gained ability.

So cashing in a 10th level item is worth it for your character as he gets to make a 6th level item that he gets far more bang from.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> Really, what an adventuring group ought to do is to make ties with several other adventuring groups, one of significantly higher level  and several of lower level.  Then magic items could get passed down the chain, eliminating the 20% markdown.




actually a good idea... but then you need to know such groups... but usually it breaks down, when one group reaches Level cap...



			
				Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> Either that or just kill the guaranteed wandering merchant in each village and take his stuff.




Why do you think magic is so expensive, its because of protection against piracy... expect merchants having secured their goods with rituals much higher then the best stuff they sell to adventurers, and expect him to be a elite monster way above your level (+an elite guard captain and some minions...)


----------



## keterys

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I predict +1 bonus increments for items every 3 levels. You should have +10 items by level 30.




... except the chart I made clearly shows price jumps every 5 levels (at 6th, 11th, etc), and someone with KotS confirmed that you do get the level 2 item at 6th, hence my +6 by 30 theory.

Of course, then someone else who saw the player's handbook confirmed it at 1-5,6-10,11-15, with +6 at 26-30... which puts the discussion to bed, I guess. I still like _guessing_ the way things work over being told


----------



## keterys

That's a fantastic idea... you can sell magic items for 20% usable cash and 30-60% 'community cash' that can only go into businesses, contacts, parties, etc.

Of course, it breaks down at high level where you can probably purchase kingdoms, but really, I guess you're purchasing demiplanes and such at that point anyways.


----------



## Deadstop

This is one of the first things about 4e I've found largely disappointing, though as often happens the complaints so far in the thread have been extreme enough to lead me to develop some sympathy for WotC's system.

As others have mentioned, the treasure parcel system (while it is no doubt convenient for play) seems awfully static and predictable.

The awfully convenient merchants also brought a wince, though unlike Derren I can easily imagine that they are far more than magic item speculators (perhaps bringing goods from the nearest big city out to the villages, and taking farm produce and local craftwork back). The buyer/seller markup on magic items is pretty extreme, though I don't find it necessarily unrealistic unless the assumption is that the PCs will never manage to be on the "high markup" end of the deal.

I'm not too fond of either regular buying and selling of magic items or regular "disenchanting to enchant something else," as both seem to make magic items too mundane. In some settings that take "D&D logic" to its conclusion, like Eberron, that probably does make sense, but in "default POL" it would seem more likely that magic items are antiquities brought up from ancient ruins and either kept and passed down, given away, or sold to the *very* wealthy. (Admittedly, there could still be a merchant who frequently visits a town or village he knows to be near a ruin and takes found "trinkets" off the townspeople's hands at lowballed prices to sell to discerning collectors elsewhere.)

Like many, I'm kind of disappointed that 4e isn't giving us rare and wondrous magic items as the default, but then again it at least seems possible to make the change with less headache than in 3e, and they do have to cater to a wide variety of playstyles.

Lizard has a point about the "normal" economy and the typical wealth of ordinary folks playing an important role in these matters, even if the players at the table don't care directly how Farmer Bob keeps his family fed. How easy it is to liquidate items and buy new ones depends on just how much disposable wealth different people are likely to have. Likewise, how much of the economy is cash-based? Throwing around gold coins will probably get you goods and services in most places, but only if those coins are in turn valuable to the other person in the exchange -- meaning they in turn can exchange them for other stuff. A "deep" PoL setting, with many people struggling merely to survive, may see precious metal having very little value, since it's not directly useful in living another day. Many magic items, likewise, may be interesting curiosities but of little worth to the typical person. Others (a decanter of endless water, perhaps) might be literally priceless to a village constantly on the edge of dying out -- but then it's unlikely the villagers could actually pay even the "book value" of the item in gold, and likely not even if the adventurers are willing to take farm produce, livestock, and/or crafted goods instead.

The 4e default setting seems a bit schizophrenic on these matters -- or maybe it's just "better lit" than many of us were assuming. Gold and silver seem to be useful forms of wealth everywhere, and trade in magical items is lucrative enough that a merchant passing through any given village will pay gold (though far less than he hopes to earn) for them. The amount of gold PCs are "expected" to have is far less than in 3e, which is both good and bad. On the one hand, the regular availability of magic items for sale may be less important if the PCs have less gold to burn and get their most powerful gear from looting anyway. On the other, the traditional vast hoard of gold and gems in treasure seems highly discouraged. (Of course, unless your adventurers are of the Bilbo Baggins "one adventure and retire" type, you likely haven't been handing out fairy-tale treasure hoards anyway.)

As I said earlier, for PoL I like the idea that magic items are effectively antiquities or archaeological finds, with the added bonus of having practical effects in the here and now. Sure, the merchant passing through will take them off your hands, just as he does with the Nerathi Imperial potsherds the villagers occasionally turn up in the fields, but he won't pay anywhere close to what he expects to make from his buyer. If savvy adventurers aren't willing to sell for such a price, then they might be able to bargain him up, or they might choose to look for "real" buyers themselves. (As others have said, to make that a fun part of the game rather than a cash-producing exploit, it would be best to treat that as an adventure/quest of its own, with the greater money gained from the sale as the treasure.) The 4e guidelines for buying and selling magic items make some sense, if magic items are rare and the trade in them is a specialty market or effectively a black market. If +1 swords are easy to make and sold in every sizeable city, then the markup makes a lot less sense, and you're definitely looking at Magic-Mart for at least the low-end stuff.

With luck, such world-building discussion will be part of the full economy-and-reward section of the DMG. It's fine that there's a default -- though right now I'm not quite sure what the default commonality of magic items is supposed to be, nor how that interacts with the default quasi-setting -- but with PoL and Eberron using the same rules system, some kind of guidelines for changing the default and tracking the consequences would be expected.


Deadstop


----------



## Derren

Deadstop said:
			
		

> The awfully convenient merchants also brought a wince, though unlike Derren I can easily imagine that they are far more than magic item speculators (perhaps bringing goods from the nearest big city out to the villages, and taking farm produce and local craftwork back).




Maybe you should read my posts again. I am against magic items speculators as they don't make much sense. Instead magic items are a great opportunity for regular merchants. The problem with that is thatit doesn't really meshes with the Points of Light setup as in such a setting there wouldn't be that much merchant travel as there is according to the economy article.
Personally I never liked the PoL setting anyway and see this article as proof that it isn't really supported anyway.


----------



## Wolv0rine

Okay, by page 13 I think I'm going to skip to posting a reply.  It's too early, and I'm sick.

Anyway, the whole notion of magic item shops and what do adventurers do with items they don't want to use anymore (*puppyeyes**whimper*) always seemed...  daft to me.

What you do is you take your hard-earned bludgeld, and you buy yourself a decent little house for your party/crew.  You have the wizard lay down as many non-detection , protection, and non-entrance spells/rituals as the guy knows.  You have the rogue trap all the entrances and set up "someone's been here" cues (a la the old hair spit-glues to the door trick and whatnot).  with your as-protected-as-you-can-currently-make-it home you then start stashing all the magic gear you don't want to use anymore.  When you have a respectable collection, you hire on a hireling.  You treat him nice, you _equip him with some minor magic equipment_.  You go on an adventure, maybe two.  You pay him well (not so well you get boned out of your comfy Inn rooms, good meals, ale and whores, of course, but well).  Then you hit a town, preferably the one you hired him in.  And you tell him something along the lines of "We'll be resting up here for a a couple days, live it up".
Hireling #1 does what any young buck who's just been treated like a prize squire does..  he runs to his friends and relatives, showing off his magic gear and telling tales of the "Bold, daring, and generous adventurers" who have employed him, and flashes some gold.

All the while you continue to stash your unwanted magic items in your home, as unnoticed as you can manage.

When hireling #2 comes along (and this, logically, should not occur too long after hireling #1's first night of glorious show-offery at home), you equip him too, and pay him well.  You bust your arse to keep these guys alive.  These are NOT expendable NPCs.

And this, my friends, is how you build an army.  A LOYAL army.  Which is the first step toward winning a kingdom by your own hand.  And honestly, if you can't think of a major role for every character to play in a "We rule a kingdom", then you're not trying hard enough.  Worried about "Who gets to be The King?"  Go the Narnia route and have all the warrior-types be the kings (a royal counsel, not unheard of, in stories if not in history), the religious types run the church(es) (which hold as much power as the king), the shady rogue types (depending on what kind of rogue they are) run the Thieves Guild, or whatever kind of thing they specialize in.  The arcane types, obvious, become the much-feared Kingdom Wizard.

As for "Now we can't go on adventures, we have a kingdom to rule", that's what a seneschal is for.  Arthur and his crew managed to find time to go out to war, go out on quests, go out on diplomatic missions, and all kinds of crazy crap.  Your advisers (if you have any) may not like the risks to your life and limb you expose yourself to, but who's in friggin' charge here?  Too bad for them!  

Anyway, just my own thoughts on what to do in lieu of a "magic item shop economy", which I've always hated.


----------



## Lizard

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> No, i think you rolled a natural 1...
> 3.x broke together rather fast without magic shops... it was sad, but true... (or you had to give out exactly those items which were needed to survive at higher levels) Also there was no way to get rid of the magic items your NPCs needed to survive and you needed an explanation where they got all their magic items...




Oddly, I've been running it for eight years with no magic item shops.

YES, players DO find what they need -- that's why I'm a DM, not a computer. If they want other items, they can take crafting feats, or engage in a short scenario to find one for sale, which involves roleplaying interaction with NPCs, from snooty guild mages to sleazy merchants. And if I don't want them to have something...it's not currently for sale. So it goes. The DMG is not the Sears&Roebuck catalog!

Where do NPCs get their items? From looting monsters or from making them, just like PCs. I don't think any player of mine has ever asked why a 10th level evil fighter has level-appropriate gear. He GOT to be 10th level by slaughtering things and taking thier stuff. This happened "off screen", but if one begins with the idea one is playing in a full world, instead of stepping onto a shabby set, it makes perfect sense that Lord Eevyl The Foul was busy killing good-aligned creatures off over yonder hill while the PCs were leveling up somewhere else, and now they meet at last!


----------



## Xardinhul

A'koss said:
			
		

> From the "Tiers" article, under the topic of "Starting at Higher Level"... http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080416a
> 
> *Determine Ability Scores*. Generate scores as for a 1st-level character, applying racial modifiers. Then increase those scores as shown on the Character Advancement table in the Player’s Handbook, with increases at 4th level, 8th level, 11th, 14th, and so on.




Tellingly, 11th level would be your first level in the Paragon tier.  It is possible that when you hit a new tier, its something of a minor template with a suite of benefits, one being additional attribute boost.

Thats just a guess, though.

EDIT:  Ah, already brought up.  Thats what I get for posting before getting to the end of the thread!


----------



## Wormwood

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> Then I read the part about how the PCs could only manufacture treasure of their level and below. Now it makes sense: PCs are able to get whatever they want, of their level and below. But the system retains the excitement of finding otherwise unobtainable items through adventuring. Nice.



Extremely nice. Manages to satisfy my DMing side (giving out cool items) as well as my player side (customizing my character).

+1.5 4e enthusiasm points


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Derren said:
			
		

> The problem with that is thatit doesn't really meshes with the Points of Light setup as in such a setting there wouldn't be that much merchant travel as there is according to the economy article.




Even in a world where there is significant danger in between the ares of civilization, merchants will try to ply their trade.  The more dangerous it gets, the more potential profits there are.  As others have noted, the reason that cities have money is because of trade.  The cities and towns pay money for what the countryside has to offer.  People here sometimes seem to have a limited concept of how much trade existed in the distant past...


----------



## Lizard

Hong said:
			
		

> I cannot believe the concept of an illiquid market is so hard to accept.




I can.

I mean, why should they pay you good money when they can just control your mind, make you hand over your items, and then eat your brain?


----------



## Michele Carter

Voss said:
			
		

> My second impression is, of course, that WotC should fire all their editors and hire competent ones.  Its been a week of Just Too Many Cockups.




The table was corrected before printing, and the "omissions" in KotS were not, as Mike pointed out, actually errors but decisions made for space reasons.

But please do continue to rant about how the editing sucks. It's really bracing.


----------



## Voss

Well, when I start to rant, I'll let you know.  But you folks have consistently done a poor job with it, and I was hoping for a bit more from the new edition.  Previews with obvious errors aren't exactly a great way to sell a product.


----------



## DandD

Lizard said:
			
		

> I can.
> 
> I mean, why should they pay you good money when they can just control your mind, make you hand over your items, and then eat your brain?



 Ehrm, it's illiquid, as in, not liquid. Not illithid, as in, ctulhu-rip-offs.


----------



## Kraydak

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> ...
> _Especially_ in a PoL setting like 4E assumes, I have no trouble believing that the PCs aren't going to be have an easy time just "running across" other people with both the money and the need for magic weapons. On occasion, perhaps--and the DM could even make an adventure out of it--but certainly not regularly enough to take into account in the standard rules...




The funny thing that it is PoL settings that demand magic item liquidity!  In a peaceful society, the demand for adventuring magic items will be low, as will the supply of adventuring magic items dumped on the market because they don't fit their new owner's needs.

In a large land-area PoL setting, you need many adventurers to keep things even marginally under control.  Those adventurers all have stuff to sell and buy.  They are all highly mobile.  End result?  At least by the time you have teleport rituals, you will have "bazaar" cities a la MMORPG.

It is the peaceful, calm societies where you might not be able to sell your (adventuring) stuff/find someone with (adventuring) stuff you want that he doesn't need.  Now, in a PoL setting, those "works of art" in the loot are going to have deflated value (adventurers don't need them, and society doesn't produce much surplus to spend on luxuries) while in peaceful societies they will do well.


----------



## Dragonblade

keterys said:
			
		

> ... except the chart I made clearly shows price jumps every 5 levels (at 6th, 11th, etc), and someone with KotS confirmed that you do get the level 2 item at 6th, hence my +6 by 30 theory.
> 
> Of course, then someone else who saw the player's handbook confirmed it at 1-5,6-10,11-15, with +6 at 26-30... which puts the discussion to bed, I guess. I still like _guessing_ the way things work over being told




Yes, you are correct.


----------



## gizmo33

Why is the magic item economy any different than the economy for any other expensive item?  Because it's magic?  Yes, imagining a port with a bunch of galleons for sale just floating there seems silly too.  Doesn't seem to me like a rule is necessary to prevent that, just some common sense and perhaps some guidelines on the amount of wealth available in a population center, etc.  I don't see why a wheelbarrow full of +1 rapiers would be beneath the interest of an adventurer.

But there I go being a simulationist.  I think in my campaign I'll just stock the dungeon with a fixed number of boxes.  PCs kick the box and an ingot of Lootium pops out and lands in their pocket.  Periodically a glowing star will float by, the player that wins initiative and grabs it gains an action point.  That's fun, easy to resolve, and doesn't require the players to grapple with a lot of esoteric facts regarding the Middle Ages.


----------



## Lacyon

Lizard said:
			
		

> Where do NPCs get their items? From looting monsters or from making them, just like PCs. I don't think any player of mine has ever asked why a 10th level evil fighter has level-appropriate gear. He GOT to be 10th level by slaughtering things and taking thier stuff. This happened "off screen", but if one begins with the idea one is playing in a full world, instead of stepping onto a shabby set, it makes perfect sense that Lord Eevyl The Foul was busy killing good-aligned creatures off over yonder hill while the PCs were leveling up somewhere else, and now they meet at last!




Well, it makes perfect sense if you don't look to hard at why Lord Eevyl The Foul has only 1/3rd the gear of an average 10th-level PC. Even a 7th-level PC will be better equipped than he is.

3E has the same game balance concerns that (if you look behind the screen*) lead to wonky simulationism as 4E, it just goes about satisfying them in a different manner (and ends up poorly serving both, IMO).

*Satisfyingly, my players rarely do. Thus, I expect 4E will give me about as much trouble in this regard as 3E did - which is to say, none.


----------



## DandD

there are still mighty nobles, kings, dragons and even supernatural patrons who will want those pieces of art. And hey, even in a points-of-light setting, decadency in cities will ensure that art will always be highly valued. Especially thanks to decadence, where people in the big safe cities don't care one bit about the plight of those farms and villages out there.


----------



## catsclaw227

Kishin said:
			
		

> Also, Disenchant Magic Item? All I can say is "In before the latest tidal wave of D&D is WoW!" posts.



I haven't read all the way through yet, so I may have missed other posts with similar experiences. Disenchanting items is something that has been done by my group going back to 1e. Most of the groups in the area I grew up in did it as well.  I wonder what percentage of other groups have houseruled this into their game...

As far as we are concerned there is nothing WoW about it.  Kudos for making it an actual game element.

Oh... and Residuum?  I kinda like the name.


----------



## Deadstop

Derren said:
			
		

> Maybe you should read my posts again. I am against magic items speculators as they don't make much sense. Instead magic items are a great opportunity for regular merchants. The problem with that is thatit doesn't really meshes with the Points of Light setup as in such a setting there wouldn't be that much merchant travel as there is according to the economy article.
> Personally I never liked the PoL setting anyway and see this article as proof that it isn't really supported anyway.





Ah, forgive me then. I took your earlier post as suggesting that all the merchants were supposed to be was magic item speculators, who had no reason to be risking themselves for profit unless there happened to be loot-heavy adventurers at their destination.

As for PoL, I like it myself and I suspect they are leaning in that direction with the core (else why talk about it so much?), but I'm also thinking that the "points" aren't as small and unconnected as we fans (or some of us, at least) have been thinking.

You can still get lots of untamed wilderness and towns that are effectively cut off from outside aid even if there is periodic communication and trade between different places.


Deadstop


----------



## Delgar

What I find most entertaining is that in the DMG they provide options for:

-Running a High Magic Game
-Running a Low Magic Game
-Running a game with Magic shops
-Running a game without magic shops
-Giving you an idea of what treasure to hand out and telling you, that you can do it differently

Yet people are complaing that Option A exists or Option B exists. Even though their option C exists as well. I guess people just like to hear themselves bit@h.


----------



## catsclaw227

Voss said:
			
		

> Well, when I start to rant, I'll let you know.  But you folks have consistently done a poor job with it, and I was hoping for a bit more from the new edition.  Previews with obvious errors aren't exactly a great way to sell a product.



The column name mix up on the XP table is an HTML editing error by someone posting to the website.  Not a big deal.


----------



## Primal

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> actually a good idea... but then you need to know such groups... but usually it breaks down, when one group reaches Level cap...




But such groups do not exist in 4E -- it's only about the PCs, period! There are *no* other adventuring parties competing for the "spotlight" and making your PCs feel "insignificant". In fact, there won't be any high-level NPCs in most campaigns, unless they're villains.


----------



## med stud

Primal said:
			
		

> But such groups do not exist in 4E -- it's only about the PCs, period! There are *no* other adventuring parties competing for the "spotlight" and making your PCs feel "insignificant". In fact, there won't be any high-level NPCs in most campaigns, unless they're villains.



Pardon, but what are you basing that assertion on? That's something you made up yourself.


----------



## Derren

WotC_Miko said:
			
		

> The table was corrected before printing, and the "omissions" in KotS were not, as Mike pointed out, actually errors but decisions made for space reasons.
> 
> But please do continue to rant about how the editing sucks. It's really bracing.




Then change it to "online editors". 
A missing ability on monday, a wrong table today, what will happen on friday? Considering how important this phase is, especially with DDI as new feature, this doesn't look to reassuring.


----------



## Lacyon

Primal said:
			
		

> But such groups do not exist in 4E -- it's only about the PCs, period! There are *no* other adventuring parties competing for the "spotlight" and making your PCs feel "insignificant". In fact, there won't be any high-level NPCs in most campaigns, unless they're villains.




...?

I think you forgot to close your sarcasm tag or something.


----------



## SpiderMonkey

Delgar said:
			
		

> What I find most entertaining is that in the DMG they provide options for:
> 
> -Running a High Magic Game
> -Running a Low Magic Game
> -Running a game with Magic shops
> -Running a game without magic shops
> -Giving you an idea of what treasure to hand out and telling you, that you can do it differently
> 
> Yet people are complaing that Option A exists or Option B exists. Even though their option C exists as well. I guess people just like to hear themselves bit@h.




Yup. Prior to all this edition hubbub, I never even bothered with an ignore list. Now due to this thread, it's almost doubled.

"OH NOES! THEREZ CHARTZ FOR STUFFZ I DONT' LIEK!!!! I DONT' CAREZ IF THEREZ ALTERNATIVEZ!!!"

Anyway to address what you've outlined in a more constructive way: Yeah. I'm excited to try out different magic levels within different campaigns. I'm not a firm believer in the "one true way" when it comes to acceptable magic levels, so I'm really digging the flexibility.

Kudos, WotC!


----------



## Cadfan

I am continually amazed at people who believe that D&D should offer an actual model economy.  I am even more amazed at how convinced they are that _I_ need an actual model economy.  

"What will you do when the PCs decide to travel to the city, find buyers, and sell items at full price?" they ask me.  Well, I'll probably roleplay that, and we'll all have a good time.  I'll also have some encounters during which they don't get full treasure until things are back in line.  These encounters will probably be related to their efforts at becoming merchants, such as bandits, or disasters befalling the caravan they're traveling with, or whatever.  And I might have their home town eaten by zombies while they're gone.  That happens, you know.  It conveniently gives them something to go do after they've run out of used magic items to sell.

Personally, I like campaigns where the players aren't rolling in cash.  I keep the economy even more simplified than regular D&D- I run things on barter.  The PCs don't carry much more than pocket change in gold coins.  They do have a smattering of small gems, used items, and owed debts.  They then trade these for what they want.

An uncommon transaction in one of my games would be a PC buying something for 5000 gp.  Where did he get 5000 gp?  How has he been carrying it?  Instead, he might trade a small emerald, a finely carved +1 dagger, and a promise to "handle" the man who was casing the merchant's shop earlier that morning.

Now of course my system doesn't handle a player who intentionally goes out of his way to acquire a hoard of gold coins.  Its not supposed to.  But by not pointing out to the players that I'm doing what I'm doing, I draw their attention away from it and towards more immediate concerns, like those lousy zombies who keep trying to eat their town.


----------



## Evilhalfling

In 3e, it was convenent to just sell of items at 1/2 price with no questions asked, yes the PCs can roleplay out the shopping trips, but for me this contributes to the 20 min of fun 3 hours of gaming that some sessions develoved into.  

I try to run a reasonably simulationist world, but would rather spend gaming time on quests and mysteries than shopping. 

One of my favoriate ideas was The sale of Iutan, (god of trade)  "everything 15% off!" 
Once a year players could pay a (handwaved) fee and set up a stall at in a major city, and buy and sell items for 85% of book value.  This relaxing of pricing was a fun session, and limited by its rarity, after several campaigns/years in my world this date was always looked forward too.  

I advocate keeping the rules as written in 4e, but creating special events where they are relaxed.  It allows the players to "beat the system" without every session turning into a haggling session over loot.


----------



## Voss

If they're going to put in it a system, it should be consistent and workable with the assumptions they're making.  This feels like a clumsy stab in the dark by people who didn't feel like putting the effort it.  Internally, it works  with the way the want to hand out treasure, but it doesn't work with the setting, or much with the role-playing.  You just find a merchant, hit the 'vend' button and call it a day.


----------



## DM_Blake

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> Why do you think magic is so expensive, its because of protection against piracy... expect merchants having secured their goods with rituals much higher then the best stuff they sell to adventurers, and expect him to be a elite monster way above your level (+an elite guard captain and some minions...)




So, adventurers are heroic because normal people don't have destiny, or special powers, or other adventurer coolness.

Except merchants, who for some anamolous reason, far exceed anything the adventurers can do?

Does this apply to epic level adventures? When my PCs are 30th level, will they still be unable to plunder merchant caravans, due to merchants are all "elite monster way above your level"?

Is there any hope of injecting a little verisimilitude into a campaign where this is how merchants exist? Or, will it be like WoW, where NPCs in the town are simply not attackable?


----------



## SpydersWebbing

Remember that bandits are a CR 1. As long as the merchants stay on the road all they're dealing with is bandits. I think we can allow a shrewd merchant ways of repelling them.


As they mentioned merchants have guards for their trains as well. Heck, your guys might be hired by them!

This isn't hard to imagine at all. And besides, the LACK of those merchants could be a quest in and of itself.

Imagination...please...


----------



## drjones

People are assuming that it is a question of X cash now vs. XXX cash in little while.  A dm can perfectly reasonably say 'you might get XXX someday, but noone has offered it yet.' And keep saying that till the campaign is over.  The players can sleep soundly knowing that they did not get 'ripped off' on that +1 dagger they have been schlepping around for a year and never got a dime for.


----------



## DM_Blake

Cadfan said:
			
		

> "What will you do when the PCs decide to travel to the city, find buyers, and sell items at full price?" they ask me.  Well, I'll probably roleplay that, and we'll all have a good time.  I'll also have some encounters during which they don't get full treasure until things are back in line.  These encounters will probably be related to their efforts at becoming merchants, such as bandits, or disasters befalling the caravan they're traveling with, or whatever.  And I might have their home town eaten by zombies while they're gone.  That happens, you know.  It conveniently gives them something to go do after they've run out of used magic items to sell.




Ouch.

So, if players find a creative way to get some roleplaying, have some fun, and make a profit while they're at it, their reward is to know that their future will be less profitable to balance out the profit they just made?

Why bother?

If I were a player in that campaign, it would be very hard to avoid metagaming myself and my fellow players out of even bothering to go to the big city to sell magic items. I would see it as an exercise in futility. Why should I go through all this trouble to earn extra profit, if the cosmic gods will punish me by reducing my future adventuring profit to balance out? Especially if I know the cosmic gods will also make it difficult for me to simply spend that cash on something else I value, like a new magic weapon?

Much easier to just dump the item on the local wandering merchant for a fraction of its worth and get on with my adventuring. Oh boy, cue up the next monster for me to kill and take its stuff.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

DM_Blake said:
			
		

> So, adventurers are heroic because normal people don't have destiny, or special powers, or other adventurer coolness.
> 
> Except merchants, who for some anamolous reason, far exceed anything the adventurers can do?
> 
> Does this apply to epic level adventures? When my PCs are 30th level, will they still be unable to plunder merchant caravans, due to merchants are all "elite monster way above your level"?
> 
> Is there any hope of injecting a little verisimilitude into a campaign where this is how merchants exist? Or, will it be like WoW, where NPCs in the town are simply not attackable?




sorry, but if i am not able to defend myself properly, i would not run through the wilderness with items more worth than a whole kingdom...
...when you reach epic Levels, you don´t need merchants to bring items to you... you visit the city of brass where you get professionally ripped off...


----------



## UngeheuerLich

DM_Blake said:
			
		

> Ouch.
> 
> So, if players find a creative way to get some roleplaying, have some fun, and make a profit while they're at it, their reward is to know that their future will be less profitable to balance out the profit they just made?
> 
> Why bother?
> 
> If I were a player in that campaign, it would be very hard to avoid metagaming myself and my fellow players out of even bothering to go to the big city to sell magic items. I would see it as an exercise in futility. Why should I go through all this trouble to earn extra profit, if the cosmic gods will punish me by reducing my future adventuring profit to balance out? Especially if I know the cosmic gods will also make it difficult for me to simply spend that cash on something else I value, like a new magic weapon?
> 
> Much easier to just dump the item on the local wandering merchant for a fraction of its worth and get on with my adventuring. Oh boy, cue up the next monster for me to kill and take its stuff.




thats the game... its some kind of adventure to sell your goods for proper profit... you could call it a quest, and your players not only get gold, but also XP... so whats your problem?


----------



## Rechan

This thread exploded while I went to bed. 

I will say that, with regards to The Economy of Magical Items, I'll also encourage my PCs to leave heroic tier magical items with town/cities for the purposes of defense. The captain of the guard in Smalltown having a flaming sword owned by the city would be kind've neat. Also funding adventuring companies/orders/churches, and passing the magical items along them.

For Paragon tier, kings and dragons et al will likely appreciate adding to their collection, and probably will pay more than 20%. 

Epic tier, um... I don't know. It'd probably be hard to sell the Sword of Kyuss around you know?

*Also*

If PCs want to negotiate a higher price from an NPC for their mission, I'd just add two treasure parcels together.


----------



## Voss

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> sorry, but if i am not able to defend myself properly, i would not run through the wilderness with items more worth than a whole kingdom...
> ...when you reach epic Levels, you don´t need merchants to bring items to you... you visit the city of brass where you get professionally ripped off...




The same applies at low levels too.  The merchants don't need a target on their back for carrying magic items and other adventuring gear.  The adventurers can suck it up, get some horses, and go to a city.

That way, the merchant can make a decent living sell goods that 99% of the population will actually buy, and avoid death at the hands monsters, bandits or adventurers turned bandits in the process.


----------



## Ximenes088

DM_Blake said:
			
		

> So, adventurers are heroic because normal people don't have destiny, or special powers, or other adventurer coolness.
> 
> Except merchants, who for some anamolous reason, far exceed anything the adventurers can do?
> 
> Does this apply to epic level adventures? When my PCs are 30th level, will they still be unable to plunder merchant caravans, due to merchants are all "elite monster way above your level"?
> 
> Is there any hope of injecting a little verisimilitude into a campaign where this is how merchants exist? Or, will it be like WoW, where NPCs in the town are simply not attackable?



Traveling merchants exceed heroic-tier PCs the way a lot of important NPCs exceed heroic-tier PCs. Some by a little, some by a lot, and some not at all. It requires no strain whatsoever to imagine One-Eyed Holger, the leathery trader whose heavily-armed caravan has been running the salvage circuit between the ruins of Lost Bahria, the almost-abandoned dwarven mines of Plunderstone, the remnant garrison at the Keep on the Borderlands, and the big city of Ailspire. He buys the relics that young adventurers pull out of Bahria, Plunderstone, and the Borderlands raiders, giving them cash on the barrelhead for the goods and bringing the comforts of Ailspire with him.

Sure, the adventurers could try going to Ailspire themselves to sell the goods, but the lords of the city would probably just confiscate them. They don't much care for strange adventurers meddling with their peaceful city and passing around powerful magical objects to gods-know-who. Holger can make deals there because the lords trust him not to sell to problematic people, and because he's got the friends and resources to protect what he buys.  He can sell at the prices he does because people trust his goods; he _needs_ to sell at the prices he does because staying friends with the lords and paying his guards costs big money.

The adventurers can set up shop elsewhere, of course, and merely advertise that they have the goods for sale at a lower price. After they've beaten off the first dozen waves of thieves, swindlers, taxmen and cheats and waited eight months for someone who really does want to pay 80% book for that +2 shocking greataxe instead of 140%, they'll have earned all the profit they get. By the time the adventurers get powerful enough to dismiss these problems easily, an extra 60-80% of full market value on a +2 dagger is going to be about as important to them as the change in their couch cushions.


----------



## eleran

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'm guessing you didn't spend your college years with an article from Different Worlds magazine which detailed acreage needed for population support, plotting out precisely how big the farmlands around each city in your campaign needed to be...





I bet he also got to kiss girls in college


----------



## TwoSix

DM_Blake said:
			
		

> Ouch.
> 
> So, if players find a creative way to get some roleplaying, have some fun, and make a profit while they're at it, their reward is to know that their future will be less profitable to balance out the profit they just made?



Yea, but they don't KNOW that.  I'll even let them keep the extra money for a couple levels, and then something storyline related comes along that makes them want to spend the extra money.  Trust me, it's not as hard as it looks.


----------



## Serensius

DM_Blake said:
			
		

> Ouch.
> 
> So, if players find a creative way to get some roleplaying, have some fun, and make a profit while they're at it, their reward is to know that their future will be less profitable to balance out the profit they just made?
> 
> Why bother?
> 
> If I were a player in that campaign, it would be very hard to avoid metagaming myself and my fellow players out of even bothering to go to the big city to sell magic items. I would see it as an exercise in futility. Why should I go through all this trouble to earn extra profit, if the cosmic gods will punish me by reducing my future adventuring profit to balance out? Especially if I know the cosmic gods will also make it difficult for me to simply spend that cash on something else I value, like a new magic weapon?
> 
> Much easier to just dump the item on the local wandering merchant for a fraction of its worth and get on with my adventuring. Oh boy, cue up the next monster for me to kill and take its stuff.




First thought: But! What if it screws up the system? The players will be stronger than monsters of their level.

Second thought: So? They earned it!

Third thought: But that will create lots of work for me as a DM, in that I have to balance/handwave encounters and xp because the PCs have broken the system.

Fourth thought: It will balance itself after a few levels, maybe give them slightly less treasure  over the course of several adventures. Also, the value of the extra items they bought might simply decrease over time; that Gauntlet of Ogre Power isn't looking as good at level 8 as it did when you purchased it for excess funds at level 4, is it?


----------



## eleran

Voss said:
			
		

> Well, the economy still feels flimsy, the table error is yet another annoyance, and residuum is... rather silly.  And the traveling merchants are outright ridiculous.  'The world is a dangerous place.  I think I will load up on valuables and hit the road, *just in case* one of those rare bands of adventurers needs something obscure at the last minute'.  *Stab, knife, rend* And the monsters now have more treasure.
> 
> So thats my first impression.
> 
> My second impression is, of course, that WotC should fire all their editors and hire competent ones.  Its been a week of Just Too Many Cockups.





Haven't you sent them a resume` yet?


----------



## Cadfan

DM_Blake said:
			
		

> Ouch.
> 
> So, if players find a creative way to get some roleplaying, have some fun, and make a profit while they're at it, their reward is to know that their future will be less profitable to balance out the profit they just made?
> 
> Why bother?



You wouldn't know that was going on.  You'd know that plot appropriate enemies challenged the PCs in various ways over time, and that for similar plot appropriate reasons, these enemies weren't all that wealthy.  If I felt that the loot level was dropping so low that the PCs would start grumbling, I'd compensate with non loot rewards, like favors owed or non saleable assets like titles.

Look, there's a basic problem here, and it has to be solved.

Imagine the PCs, happily at level 9.  They've just finished a major adventure, and they've upgraded much of their gear.  Now they have extra gear they don't want, plus some new gear they can't use.

There are two ways this could go.

They could sell it for a low price, right now.  If they do that, they'll get back 20% of the value of what they sold.  Then they go back to adventuring, and the game's balance stays where its calibrated to be.

Alternately, they decide they want to find buyers themselves, and sell these items for full cost or near full cost.  Lets say they do this.  I as DM have a challenge.  I need the PCs to have gear that's about level appropriate.  I need the players to feel that their quest to sell their stuff was fun, and with effort, successful.

If I let them sell things for full value without any other intervention, I have a problem.  The PCs will have more money than their level suggests, which they'll use to obtain more powerful equipment than their level suggests.  My campaign enters a wealth acquisition spiral.

So how can I intervene?

Well, the easiest way is to make selling the items into a sort of quest on its own, where success in the quest is _success in selling the items._  So they finish this quest, maybe level up to level 10, and now they've got all the gear they had at 9th level plus a bunch of gold.  Conveniently, enough gold that they can buy gear appropriate for 10th level.

And I make up the difference by adjusting the gear owned by the foes they encounter.

Everyone wins.


----------



## Engilbrand

A recent 3.5 game was RttToEE. I had some of the most fun actually playing out what we did with all of the money and crap we found. Silver tea sets and quality brandy got us in great with the local shopkeeper. I like stuff like that.
I love magic items, so I'm looking forward to seeing how I'm going to play things in the new edition. As a player AND a DM. I've never liked needing to "balance" treasures. I'll keep the rough level balances, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to screw them later if they do some good trading now. That just seems... dumb.


----------



## Piratecat

Voss said:
			
		

> Well, when I start to rant, I'll let you know.  But you folks have consistently done a poor job with it, and I was hoping for a bit more from the new edition.  Previews with obvious errors aren't exactly a great way to sell a product.



You can discuss editing problems without insulting people. Do so.

I agree with Derren in this case; while what I've seen of the book editing has been quite good, I'm less impressed by error-checking from the web team. The web entires may need more eyes on them before they go live.


----------



## Primal

Lacyon said:
			
		

> ...?
> 
> I think you forgot to close your sarcasm tag or something.




Sarcasm? I thought that was a fact in 4E... there are no high-level NPCs in the game to "steal" the spotlight from your PCs. That *was* one of the design themes, right?


----------



## Spatula

Lizard said:
			
		

> a)Who the hell EVER used random treasure tables? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? All treasure in my games is hand-placed and by strange coincidence fits the player's needs...



And the players don't think it odd that they just happen to find loot perfectly tailored to their needs?  That sort of DM ham-handedness always grates on my suspension of disbelief.  I'm a big fan of random treasure, at least as far as treasure hoards go.  Where did the dragon get his hoard?  He killed lots of different people and took their stuff, which is ably & easily represented with some random items.  Plus, rolling dice is fun.


----------



## Lacyon

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I agree with Derren in this case; while what I've seen of the book editing has been quite good, I'm less impressed by error-checking from the web team. The web entires may need more eyes on them before they go live.




It'd be nice if they were perfect when they went up, but I know that's not going to happen 100% of the time anyway, so I'm pleased to see them correct errors same-day (it's unlikely I'll ever be copying material for use in a game _the day it goes live_, so that's fast enough for my purposes).

I'd rather know that errors will be fixed in a timely fashion than have the expectation that errors won't occur.


----------



## Rechan

Primal said:
			
		

> Sarcasm? I thought that was a fact in 4E... there are no high-level NPCs in the game to "steal" the spotlight from your PCs. That *was* one of the design themes, right?



NPCs of higher level than your party? Yes.

NPCs of lower level than your party? No. 

When your party is 15th level, it's easy to assume that there are 1st-5th level adventuring parties out there killing orcs sot he 15th level party doesn't have to interrupt their mission to the Elemental Chaos to protect Happytown.


----------



## Rechan

Spatula said:
			
		

> And the players don't think it odd that they just happen to find loot perfectly tailored to their needs?  That sort of DM ham-handedness always grates on my suspension of disbelief.  I'm a big fan of random treasure, at least as far as treasure hordes go.  Where did the dragon get his hoard?  He killed lots of different people and took their stuff, which is ably & easily represented with some random items.  Plus, rolling dice is fun.



As a DM who doesn't make their players count arrows, I haven't found my PCs disliking the situation.

My DM motto is "For the sake of Convenience."


----------



## Serensius

Spatula said:
			
		

> And the players don't think it odd that they just happen to find loot perfectly tailored to their needs?  That sort of DM ham-handedness always grates on my suspension of disbelief.  I'm a big fan of random treasure, at least as far as treasure hordes go.  Where did the dragon get his hoard?  He killed lots of different people and took their stuff, which is ably & easily represented with some random items.  Plus, rolling dice is fun.




Signed. "A +3 flaming halberd? Sweet! Just as I get Greater Weapon Spec: Halberd, that's convenient. I guess this +2 shock halberd was getting rather old.. I'll store it with the others"

I certainly hope they haven't eliminated random tables altogether.


----------



## Henry

genshou said:
			
		

> I really think the idea of selling an item at 20% to someone who is going to mark it up to 140% reeks of "Let's not use common sense with our game mechanics" :\




Forget the espressos -- look at a pawn shop, where a 10 to 1 purchase to markup is not unheard of... And frankly, that's the idea of "magic item vendors" they're basically pawn brokers to powerful people. Don't have two weeks to make that wand of fiery doom, but the pawn broker can get it for you at a premium? Pony up the cash! (Or astral diamonds or what have you...)


----------



## Lacyon

Primal said:
			
		

> Sarcasm? I thought that was a fact in 4E... there are no high-level NPCs in the game to "steal" the spotlight from your PCs. That *was* one of the design themes, right?




This doesn't mesh with various statements by the designers that NPCs of whatever level the DM desires exist whenever the DM desires them to in the place that the DM desires them to be.

It is true that the default setting assumes that adventurers of PC calibre are rare enough that they don't steal the spotlight from the actual PCs. It is also true that those which do exist on-screen don't typically need to be fully statted out unless they are going to fight (either against or alongside the PCs), and even then they don't need the full suite of powers spelled out unless they are going to be in enough fights that they need to use more than a few such powers.

That is vastly different from assuming that they don't exist at all, or are only villains, especially as it pertains to trading magic items among them.


----------



## Cadfan

Lizard said:
			
		

> a)Who the hell EVER used random treasure tables? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? All treasure in my games is hand-placed and by strange coincidence fits the player's needs...



Wait, Lizard wrote this?  Lizard?  You're fired.  We need a new person to be Lizard.  You've spent countless pages expounding a D&D philosophy that has made it very clear that you'd rather stab yourself in the eye with a pen than accept a gameworld which changes based on the story needs of the player characters.  You don't get to admit that you've been playing that way all along.  Not if you don't want to give up your Lizard title to someone else.


----------



## Scribble

Henry said:
			
		

> Forget the espressos -- look at a pawn shop, where a 10 to 1 purchase to markup is not unheard of... And frankly, that's the idea of "magic item vendors" they're basically pawn brokers to powerful people. Don't have two weeks to make that wand of fiery doom, but the pawn broker can get it for you at a premium? Pony up the cash! (Or astral diamonds or what have you...)




Seriously... I think things like Ebay and Amazon Marketplace have changed the way people see commerce.  It's easy for we internet having people to market our used stuff and sell it for what the Pawn hop guys would sell it for.


----------



## Thasmodious

Sir_Darien said:
			
		

> I could also have their shop burn down, but the end result is they will feel cheated either way. If they are willing and able to pay 100% of the value of the item, it stands to reason (especially for heroic tier items) that other adventurers would be willing to do the same.
> 
> If they put effort and resources into attempting to market their devices to others like themselves, then how can you realistically just say that no one will purchase them. Bear in mind that my group plays in a traditional high-fantasy setting where there are other adventurers around with power comparable to the pcs up until the low teens in levels.




If that's the kind of game they want to play, go with it.  Let em be magic item merchants.  You could have a lot of fun with a campaign like that.  They have to adventure to get magic items to sell.  It takes a long time to sell an item.  Even in a high fantasy game there aren't cities full of leveled heroes "in the market". So buyers would come from far and wide.  The PCs have plenty of overhead in maintaining a shop in a large city, security, taxes, payroll, mortgage payments, other bills, etc.  Perhaps an overzealous local bureaucrat or tax collector decides to make their lives difficult.  They have the problem, especially if they are good characters, of having BBEGs be among their main clients.  Do they care who they sell these powerful items to?  Maybe, maybe not.  If they don't, maybe an order of paladins does, and after they sell an item to a evil warlord who wipes out a village, the order decides to do something about it. 

Adventures can come from research by the parties brainy types, who dig up information from libraries and sages and such on ancient tombs, trace histories of fabled items, follow leads and information to try and learn the final resting place of an item (and sometimes they are wrong and its not there).  Then the group has to go get it, of course.  Meanwhile, they have to trust their store to an underling, who is embezzling, and security, which can be beaten. They return to learn a local legend of a thief broke in and stole an item.  Then they have to deal with that...

For a long term arc, you have a good source, as well.  The PCs find, acquire, purchase an item that turns out to be a lot more than they bargained for.  Pretty soon, about 5 buyers seem interested and willing to pay very high prices.  Then there is a break in attempt, an extraplanar being gives them a cryptic message about keeping the item out of the wrong hands, someone attempts to murder them in their sleep...  and events start to spiral from there and suddenly they are knee deep in a plot much bigger than themselves.


----------



## Lacyon

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Wait, Lizard wrote this?  Lizard?  You're fired.  We need a new person to be Lizard.  You've spent countless pages expounding a D&D philosophy that has made it very clear that you'd rather stab yourself in the eye with a pen than accept a gameworld which changes based on the story needs of the player characters.  You don't get to admit that you've been playing that way all along.  Not if you don't want to give up your Lizard title to someone else.




This is the funniest thing I've read in weeks. Thanks, Cadfan


----------



## Bandreus

I don't know... I found these bits on the economy not really satisfying. And residium...bah, I fought against the "DnD is going to be WoW" till now, but I'm seriously starting to change my mind.

Anyway, what I do think is this. There's a whole lot of people out there who just don't want to bother about generating random treasures, dealing with palancing troubles from the amount of cash players earn/equipment level. This kind of people usually love the quick and easy way. Read what's on paper, don't bother about problems (and just hope rules are crafted to not break the game).

Looking at the excerpt from this direction, I think the sistem has serious chances to achieve its goal. Speeding up the game and giving less stuff for the DM to worry about (and taking him less time to Prep).

For all the others, I think 4E is going to be house-ruling-fest


----------



## malraux

Henry said:
			
		

> Forget the espressos -- look at a pawn shop, where a 10 to 1 purchase to markup is not unheard of... And frankly, that's the idea of "magic item vendors" they're basically pawn brokers to powerful people. Don't have two weeks to make that wand of fiery doom, but the pawn broker can get it for you at a premium? Pony up the cash! (Or astral diamonds or what have you...)



Or a more common one, Gamestop.  They pay virtually nothing for games, then resell them to other people for just below the new price.  Pretty close to exactly what the magic item economy is like.


----------



## MrMyth

Sir_Darien said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> This is the first major problem I've had with the preview material. I don't know what I'm going to do when my players start becoming merchants.
> 
> I can see them stockpiling gear until they get to a metropolis. Then setting up a store to sell their magic items at 80% and undercutting local merchants. I can also see them sending messengers out to all towns in the vicinity letting other adventurers know about their goods.
> 
> They've done stuff like this before just to make 75% off items in 3.5 and I cannot realistically think of a way to keep it from working.




I see two real situations: 

1) Characters want to sell items that are either outdated, or useless to the party. Outdated items are probably low level, and selling them for 80% instead of 20% value will likely be a drop in the bucket compared to the party's current wealth. Useless items would be high level equipment they recently acquired, but that no one in the party was suited to use. You could easily make a short quest out of finding the right buyer for it, and they end up walking away with a nice profit that they can spend on a weaker item more fitting for the party. Doing so ends up not shattering the wealth/level guidelines, since they still come out a little bit worse off than if they item they initially found _was_ useful enough to keep.

2) Characters want to make a business out of it. Either there won't be time for it - the plot is too urgent to spend weeks or months setting up Ye Olde Item Shoppe, or it requires them to travel around the world, etc. Or, there is time for it - and you make a full-fledged story-arc out of it. 

They have to deal with angry merchants blacklisting them, acquire licenses, deal with paperwork, find some way to have a regular supply of items, deal with the merchants tirring up public sentiment against them and sending assassins after them, or thieves breaking into their shop, etc. By the time you are complete, they'll have earned some solid experience and gotten a decent profit from the shop. 

Henceforth, you can have the shop bring in a reasonable amount of money every week, and allow them to sell items more effectively - but at the cost of having trouble easily spending that money, since most merchants won't trade with them any longer. Sure, they can buy items off fellow adventurers who come through town, but getting the items they actually want will be much less reliable. All in all, it mostly balances.


----------



## Voss

Bandreus said:
			
		

> I don't know... I found these bits on the economy not really satisfying. And residium...bah, I fought against the "DnD is going to be WoW" till now, but I'm seriously starting to change my mind.




Well, to be fair, disenchanting items into arbitrarium predates WoW by a decade or two.
Its just a little flavorless compared 'Blood of an immortal, heart of a troll, bound together under the light of a dark moon' style of thing.


----------



## Mort_Q

Bandreus said:
			
		

> And residium...bah, I fought against the "DnD is going to be WoW" till now, but I'm seriously starting to change my mind.




3.5e already has _residuum_ of a sort; the artificers _Retain Essence_ ability.  New name, new mechanics, same basic idea.


----------



## keterys

Governments could tax a nominal fee... say 50%... on the official sale of magic items. Merchants are eating that cost for the adventurers when it's at 20%. That's actually all pretty normal and reasonable and cuts a lot into the practice.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I agree with Derren in this case;



*shudder*


> while what I've seen of the book editing has been quite good, I'm less impressed by error-checking from the web team. The web entires may need more eyes on them before they go live.




Still I'll have to agree. They have to do a better job. maybe they should hire Ms. Cook? That would create a beautiful symmetry between Pathfinder and 4E!


----------



## Warbringer

hong said:
			
		

> Tell that to anyone who wants to sell some uranium fuel rods today.




Yeah, they're having to dump them for a 1/5th of the value they buy them for ..

The issue is such mark up usually only exists for illict goods; so, why are magic items illegal in your world


----------



## malraux

keterys said:
			
		

> Governments could tax a nominal fee... say 50%... on the official sale of magic items. Merchants are eating that cost for the adventurers when it's at 20%. That's actually all pretty normal and reasonable and cuts a lot into the practice.



Well, there's likely government taxes, guild fees, protection racket fees to the local thieves guild, identification fees, cursed item protection insurance, rent, dragon protection insurance, etc.  Its not like the only expense of being a shop owner is the 1/5 price to buy the item from adventurers.


----------



## Ximenes088

Warbringer said:
			
		

> Yeah, they're having to dump them for a 1/5th of the value they buy them for ..
> 
> The issue is such mark up usually only exists for illict goods; so, why are magic items illegal in your world



There's a reason the city's ruler tolerates powerful magical objects being sold to just anyone inside his walls? Items that are useless for mundane pursuits but ideally designed for murderously violent types who break through magical defenses to kill powerful people and take their stuff?

I'd say he'd make very, very sure that nothing moved anywhere without his very expensive approval.


----------



## Deverash

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> Still another way to handle it would be to have a gentleman's agreement with the players that they're free to make all the money they want, but they promise not to pour it all back into magical items.  If the PCs are using the extra 80% of cash to build castles, buy titles, bribe mercenary bands, and such, then that's good for the game.  That sort of thing is interesting and it's good that they have 'extra' wealth to spend it on.  Too often in 3E I saw PCs who were carrying a fortune in magical equipment, but never spent cash on anything else other than a superior grade of inn.  I recall a DM once pointing out that we were basically homeless bums (who happened to be rich beyond measure).




That's an awesome idea.  I may have to put that forward as an option.


----------



## Andor

RE: Direct to market PC sales, it's been there in all editions, but most PC are willing to put up with a 50% loss in value as a time saver. Now that it's going to be an 80-93% loss in value... I forsee a lot more PCs getting cranky at the merchants.

In any event this was the bit that caught my eye: "_The 5th-level NPC has a 6th-level item—not because he needs it, but because it’s one of the treasure parcels. The characters don’t find magic items that are beneath their notice—they won’t walk out of the drow enclave with a wheelbarrow full of +1 rapiers. _"

Okay... If the Drow weren't fighting with +1 rapiers I can live with that. But if they were wearing plate mail, I'd better bloody well have the option of leaving with a wagon full of platemail. Otherwise it's just like every computer game ever made where the equipment the badguy was hitting you over the head with doesn't exist, those are just pixels, but he does drop some random loot he wasn't using. Watching a swarm of mosquitos drop a suit of full plate is amusing in Diablo. In D&D? Not so much.


----------



## Simplicity

I love the fact that magic item selling has such a disincentive.

You sell for 1/5th the value.  Then try to buy something new for 10-40% over value?

I can see it now:

PC: I want to sell these bracers.

Merchant: You don't want to sell those to me.  Are they used?  Potentially stolen?  I'll give you practically nothing for them.

PC: Practically nothing is better than keeping these bracers and doing nothing with them.

Merchant: How about this?  You give me 500 gold, and I will take you out back and kick you in the nuts.

PC: 400 gold.

Merchant: (rolls d6).  Deal.


----------



## shadowlance

Maybe this has been discussed but I didn't see it...



> 3,500 pp, or 20 *ad* + one potion of life + one 50,000 gp art object, or 30 *ad* + two potions of recovery




This is from the 25th level loot chart.  Anyone have any idea what the "AD" refers to?


----------



## Derren

shadowlance said:
			
		

> Maybe this has been discussed but I didn't see it...
> 
> 
> 
> This is from the 25th level loot chart.  Anyone have any idea what the "AD" refers to?




Astral Diamonds, worth 50.000 gp I think


----------



## Lacyon

shadowlance said:
			
		

> Maybe this has been discussed but I didn't see it...
> 
> 
> 
> This is from the 25th level loot chart.  Anyone have any idea what the "AD" refers to?




Astral Diamonds, I believe. Could be wrong.


----------



## Engilbrand

If I'm in a game where someone starts hoarding to sell and becomes a pain, I'm going to call him on it. I've gotten to the point where I see my future 10th level character trading magic items to cities for certain things (maybe even magic items), or saving the local missing kid and giving him a +1 Dagger for the trip back to make him feel better. If you litter your old items around the world, and actually make some of them have an impact, you set up the possibility of future events.
Maybe the next campaign starts in a town that the previous heroes had made a home base and built into a city. Maybe that next PC was the little kid who was rescued by the once-mighty hero 15 years ago and he still has the +1 Dagger and has decided to become a hero, too.
Then again, they've also talked about items doing more than just giving a little bonus. In 3.5, I sold a lot of stuff. When Magic Item Compendium came out, though, I saw a lot of items that I would have wanted at low AND high levels. Why can't you have a spare item that you've kept for 10 levels? If it gives you the ability to breathe water for 5 minutes, it's just as useful at 15 as it was at 5.
I like the idea of rare item merchants. Some merchants might be ex-adventurers, other might not even know that they have magic items. If gold isn't as important, though, then who cares how much you get for something? Barter. Give favors. Stuff like that.
Ultimately, read what the DMG says and decide which type of game to play. WotC's fluff doesn't need to be your fluff.


----------



## shadowlance

Derren said:
			
		

> Astral Diamonds, worth 50.000 gp I think




Ok, that's interesting.  I wonder why that doesn't read "30 [price] gp gems".  Are astral diamonds some new special 4e component or something that has somehow snuck past me?

Either way, thanks for the info.


----------



## Simplicity

shadowlance said:
			
		

> Ok, that's interesting.  I wonder why that doesn't read "30 [price] gp gems".  Are astral diamonds some new special 4e component or something that has somehow snuck past me?
> 
> Either way, thanks for the info.




That's because astral diamonds are a new denomination of currency.  Apparently only accepted at your local Epicmart.


----------



## rjdafoe

Crosswind said:
			
		

> To the Pro-4E Magic Item System Crowd:
> 
> Can you list an example of a real world good where:
> It sells for 5 times as much as the vendor buys it for
> The vendor adds no value to the good (either by changing it, or moving it from point A to point B)
> 
> I can't.  And it's messing with my chi.  Spare me the chorus of "Can you name a real world good that SHOOTS FIREBALLS!", too.  =)
> 
> To the Anti-4E Magic Item System Crowd:
> 
> The 20% is a pure disincentive to swap magic items.  That's it.  There is no other reason for it to exist.  My question is, is there a better system out there that creates similar disincentives without such a clumsy mechanic?  Aside from the "I tell my players that if they swap too many things, they will get less" types?
> 
> -Cross




Console Video Games
DVDs
Cars to a Car Dealer


----------



## Voss

So on other topic...


> Characters gain new attack powers at odd-numbered levels, and they gain new feats, ability score increases, and global adjustments to all their attacks and defenses at even-numbered levels




Ability score increases every 2 levels?  How come this hasn't come up before?  
I guess it doesn't matter for the KotS characters because it would put most of the scores that matter at odd numbers, but... wow.


----------



## Dragonblade

Voss said:
			
		

> So on other topic...
> 
> 
> Ability score increases every 2 levels?  How come this hasn't come up before?
> I guess it doesn't matter for the KotS characters because it would put most of the scores that matter at odd numbers, but... wow.




The statement is misleading. IRC, ability score increases only come at levels 4,8,11,14,18,21,24,28.


----------



## keterys

astral diamonds are 10,000g each.
platinum pieces are 100g each.


----------



## Bandreus

also your universal modifier (+ 1/2 lvl) actually go up by 1 every even-numbered lvl


----------



## Voss

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> The statement is misleading. IRC, ability score increases only come at levels 4,8,11,14,18,21,24,28.




And yet both feats and 'global adjustments' come every 2 levels.  Why would it be the second of three statements if it wasn't relevant to conclusion of the fragment, or even the context of the entire sentence?

The sentence is structure as 'you gain this at odd levels, and these at even'.


----------



## Thasmodious

Voss said:
			
		

> So on other topic...
> 
> 
> Ability score increases every 2 levels?  How come this hasn't come up before?
> I guess it doesn't matter for the KotS characters because it would put most of the scores that matter at odd numbers, but... wow.





Note it doesn't say at _every_ even numbered level.  It could just as easily, and likely is, every 4 levels, the old 4/8/12/16/20 model, or every 6 to fit the 30 level scale with 5 stat increases.  The statement talks about how new powers are gained at odd levels and others things are gained at even levels, so as to keep leveling fun as a reward, and not have "empty" levels.  It doesn't state when exactly you get these rewards, just that when you do, it will be at an even or an odd level.


----------



## WhatGravitas

rjdafoe said:
			
		

> Console Video Games
> DVDs
> Cars to a Car Dealer



Not only that - Consider collectibles, like trading carts. Shops by the big booster boxes with a price tag of around 100$ (though as shop, they get them even cheaper). In the MtG case, one card is then 100$ / (36 * 15) = 0.18$ worth. Yet they sell singles (of rares) for 2+ $ - that's an increase of a factor of ten!

Why do they do this? To regain their expenses - the non-rares are much cheaper and are really worth next to nothing and don't sell.

Now you could say "that doesn't apply to Magic Items" - but it does: A merchant may buy five items -  an axe, a staff, a sword, a shield, and a cloak - all of them magic. But now, he sees one adventurer group per town (and that's perhaps generous in a PoL setting). Good chances that none of these items are what the adventures really want (they usually want something specific, as random things are rarely useful to them - they have found random stuff all the time).

So let's say one of four of five adventurer groups buys one item. How does he recoup the loss, because the other items weren't sold on this trip? By making the price for the single sold item astronomically high.

Basically, they buy items without demand, hoping to find demand. Since they know that a good deal of the stuff will only be sold in some years (when a group finds one particular item exceptionally useful) or never, they have to sell the ones they do sell for higher prices - because they would be pretty poor otherwise.

Really, our modern economy cannot compared to that, because in a fantasy world as D&D, there _is no real market_ (except in the market on a market place sense) - not without better travel. If you have to compare, compare it to the black market for weapons - because only a specific clientèle wants these things and the outlets for buying and selling things are similar.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## DaveMage

Deadstop said:
			
		

> The awfully convenient merchants also brought a wince,




Pokemerchants!

Sword-buyer - I choose you!


OOTS will have a field day with this one.


----------



## Voss

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> Note it doesn't say at _every_ even numbered level.  It could just as easily, and likely is, every 4 levels, the old 4/8/12/16/20 model, or every 6 to fit the 30 level scale with 5 stat increases.  The statement talks about how new powers are gained at odd levels and others things are gained at even levels, so as to keep leveling fun as a reward, and not have "empty" levels.  It doesn't state when exactly you get these rewards, just that when you do, it will be at an even or an odd level.




Last time I checked, even wasn't 'multiples of 4'.  Even implies the every, because every other number is even.  If it was every four or something else, you'd have to qualify it as 'some even levels', because 'every even level' is the default.


----------



## Thasmodious

Voss said:
			
		

> And yet both feats and 'global adjustments' come every 2 levels.  Why would it be the second of three statements if it wasn't relevant to conclusion of the fragment, or even the context of the entire sentence?
> 
> The sentence is structure as 'you gain this at odd levels, and these at even'.




You're reading too much into it.  The purpose the sentence is not what goes where, but that leveling has been split between two sets of increases so as to keep leveling interesting and eliminate dead levels.  Those sets are - new powers (you get those on a schedule, too, sometimes a new encounter, sometimes a new daily) on odd and 'other' on even.  That's the statement.  Other includes feats, increases to defense and attack numbers, and stat increases.  But nothing states or implies at what frequency any of these occur other than that when they do, it will be at even levels (so a max of 15 times).


----------



## Voss

So if I told you that 'fire hydrants, apples, and fire trucks are red', your conclusion would be that only fire trucks are red? Because thats the exact same structure being used here.


----------



## Storm-Bringer

Lizard said:
			
		

> You missed the point of my post.
> 
> Mousferatu seemed to be asserting that, in 4e, magic items would be hard to dispose of, due to the lack of buyers.
> 
> The very excerpt we're discussing says that, by default, there will always be a buyer in the next town the PCs stumble across, no matter how small it is. Yes, the DM can change this, but the "expected" rule is that no matter where you are, some merchant will be there with the gold to take your items off your hands.
> 
> There were never explicit "magic item shops" in 3e, either, just a general notation to the effect magic items could be bought and sold relatively freely in large cities, based on the community wealth limits.
> 
> "Traveling merchant" is a "special effect". It could be a magic item shop. It could be an ancient artifact where you put a magic item in and gold coins come out. The point is, the expectation is that players will always be able to dump their unwanted shinies, and the default is for the DM to make this an easy task which occurs as a matter of simple note taking -- you say what magic items you want to get rid of, you get 1/5 their value in gold, on to the orc killing. If a DM wants to make the sale of a particular item a complex problem, that's up to him, but it's assumed that magic items are sold off-stage and easily according to a simple formula for value.
> 
> It's Wal-Magic in all but name.



Well, in Dark Alliance, we always stocked up on a few recall potions just in case.  After we gathered up too much to carry, we zipped back to the hub, sold some stuff off, and went back to adventuring.  I guess this saves them from having to put 'potion of recall' into the treasure tables.

Speaking of Dark Alliance, I did like the magic item break-down thing the sequel had going.  It was pretty elegant and easy to use.


----------



## Storm-Bringer

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> That's a deal breaker for me. If my PCs can't get an Apparatus of Kwalish, there is something wrong with the game.
> 
> I'm sure everyone will agree with me.



I fully endorse this post.

My 1e Magic User had one of those for a while.  Used the claws to batter a ship's hull in the harbour.

Good times, good times...


----------



## cdrcjsn

One of the biggest assumptions people are making on this thread is that PCs will WANT to sell low level items just because they've upgraded to better ones.

When I was playing my 13th level Wizard, I was festooned with +1 Orbs, Wands, and Staves even though I had a +3 Staff of the Warmage.  Those little trinkets had value over and above their +1 to hit and damage.

Likewise, a Rogue will want to keep his humble +1 dagger even though he's now sporting a +2 Flaming Rapier.

Selling magical items just won't be a common occurance and adventurers will want to keep their stuff.  Even if everyone in the party is already using their neck slot and nobody can use another +2 amulet of protection, there is little incentive to sell the item and quite a lot to do other things with it...and there are indeed other things you can do with it.


----------



## Thasmodious

Voss said:
			
		

> So if I told you that 'fire hydrants, apples, and fire trucks are red', your conclusion would be that only fire trucks are red? Because thats the exact same structure being used here.




That's stupid.  Not the same at all.  Even numbers are even numbers.  It is a term that means evenly divisible by two.  It does not mean, counting by two's only.  So if you gain stat increases at 4/8/12/16/20, those are still even numbers.  The focus of the sentence wasn't the small list of things, but that you gain one set of increases on odd and one set of increases on even.  The new attack powers on odd, comes on a schedule, too.  Dailies are 5/9/15 for example.  You gain things other than attack powers on even levels.  These INCLUDE those mentioned in the list in the excerpt, but nothing implies that everything on that list happens every single even numbered level.  Like I said, you are reading too much into a simple statement.  

You also gain utility powers on even numbered levels, but I guess since they didn't mention those in that list, they must have stripped utility powers from the game, that one sentence being an all-encompassing declaration of gameplay and all.  Incidentally, you don't gain utility powers at EVERY even numbered level either (2/6/10/12/16...).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Voss said:
			
		

> Last time I checked, even wasn't 'multiples of 4'.  Even implies the every, because every other number is even.  If it was every four or something else, you'd have to qualify it as 'some even levels', because 'every even level' is the default.



That's why it was named "mis-leading". Normally you expect even not to be limited to multiples of 4.

Or see it another way: 


			
				WotC said:
			
		

> Characters gain new attack powers at odd-numbered levels, and they gain new feats, ability score increases, and global adjustments to all their attacks and defenses at even-numbered levels



You get (attack) powers at odd-numbered levels.
You gain a selection of ability scores, global adjustments to attacks and defenses at even levels. The exact selection varies. 

Off course, you might be right. There was a change, and we get ability increases at every even level. But previous evidence suggests against it, and using the the above interpretation, we don't create contradictions.


----------



## keterys

Voss said:
			
		

> So if I told you that 'fire hydrants, apples, and fire trucks are red', your conclusion would be that only fire trucks are red? Because thats the exact same structure being used here.




No, it isn't. You receive level up benefits on even levels (true). It doesn't say 'all even levels'. 

Any more than you can say that all of the fire hydrants, apples, and fire trucks are crimson which is a shade of red. Some, in fact, aren't.

Even ignoring the number of apples that aren't red or only contain some red.


----------



## AZRogue

Voss said:
			
		

> So if I told you that 'fire hydrants, apples, and fire trucks are red', your conclusion would be that only fire trucks are red? Because thats the exact same structure being used here.




Yeah, I assumed the same thing. This article, though, includes odd levels for ability score increases, and none every other level. 



			
				WotC Article said:
			
		

> Determine Ability Scores. Generate scores as for a 1st-level character, applying racial modifiers. Then increase those scores as shown on the Character Advancement table in the Player’s Handbook, with increases at 4th level, 8th level, 11th, 14th, and so on.




It makes you wonder since they were both released "after" the books were final. I imagine they're both correct and level 11 and 21 are included due to the change in Tier, but otherwise still every 4th level like before.


----------



## Voss

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> That's stupid.  Not the same at all.  Even numbers are even numbers.  It is a term that means evenly divisible by two.  It does not mean, counting by two's only.  So if you gain stat increases at 4/8/12/16/20, those are still even numbers.  The focus of the sentence wasn't the small list of things, but that you gain one set of increases on odd and one set of increases on even.  The new attack powers on odd, comes on a schedule, too.  Dailies are 5/9/15 for example.  You gain things other than attack powers on even levels.  These INCLUDE those mentioned in the list in the excerpt, but nothing implies that everything on that list happens every single even numbered level.  Like I said, you are reading too much into a simple statement.




Sorry if trying to clarify my point makes you angry.
But you say it yourself here: one set (which includes daily and encounter but does not specify when exactly you get either) of increases on odd levels, and one set of increases on even levels.  Ability scores increases are presented as part of that set.  The wording and structure of the sentence provide the implication.  

A *clear* statement would be: you gain attack powers on odd levels, global increases and feats at even levels, and ability score increases at some even levels.



> You also gain utility powers on even numbered levels, but I guess since they didn't mention those in that list, they must have stripped utility powers from the game, that one sentence being an all-encompassing declaration of gameplay and all.  Incidentally, you don't gain utility powers at EVERY even numbered level either (2/6/10/12/16...).



And since they weren't included in the set presented, there isn't any implication that you get them every even level.  So there isn't any conflict.


@And thank you, AZRogue, for providing some evidence as a counter argument for the imprecision in this article.


----------



## AZRogue

Voss said:
			
		

> @And thank you, AZRogue, for providing some evidence as a counter argument for the imprecision in this article.




No problem, amigo. A'koss linked it to me earlier. I thought the exact same thing you did when I read the current article. It's not a difficult conclusion to reach, just not the only interpretation. I think the way they structured that sentence heavily implies something they didn't intend to imply.


----------



## jackston2

The whole point of everything is that gold no longer has to be micromanaged in order to maintain fighting competence.

You can buy an enchanted manor, a pirate ship, an exotic pet, host a birthday festival, whatever.


----------



## Thasmodious

Voss said:
			
		

> Sorry if trying to clarify my point makes you angry.




I'm not angry, your example was just retarded.

Admin here. Don't post in this thread any longer; if you can't avoid being rude, you shouldn't be posting.



> But you say it yourself here: one set (which includes daily and encounter but does not specify when exactly you get either) of increases on odd levels, and one set of increases on even levels.  Ability scores increases are presented as part of that set.  The wording and structure of the sentence provide the implication.




No, you are providing the implication.  It's not there in the sentence or the term.  Even numbers does not mean counting by two, it means numbers evenly divisible by two.  If I count by 4s, 8s, 100s, I am still counting in even numbers.  You made an incorrect implication and now feel honor bound, for some inexplicable reason, to defend it for pages, rather than admit you simply made a mistake.  That's hardly unusual on the internet, to be sure.  And not something I feel the need to waste any more time on trying to explain how language and terminology works to someone who is just being stubborn.  So, in the spirit of internet fair use, I will just say:  lrn2read n00b, and move on with my day.


----------



## AZRogue

The new magic item selling and buying guidelines remind me of the Wish spell:

The players try to circumvent the guidelines and the DM should twist their efforts around and make the effort so much trouble that they're unlikely to attempt it casually ever again. If they are particularly smart about things and very careful you may feel a momentary flash of empathy and let them be rewarded. Later on you just have to decide how much, if at all, you take back to compensate for giving in to your baser instincts.


----------



## Ktulu

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'm guessing you didn't spend your college years with an article from Different Worlds magazine which detailed acreage needed for population support, plotting out precisely how big the farmlands around each city in your campaign needed to be...




Can't say I did.  I was out getting laid.  


I think the economy section looks pretty much as I suspected it would.  Not too different from other games, just simplified (got rid of all the pointless tables that I never used anyway..Woo! more pages for useful stuff!).

As to the 20%, I recently sold a bunch of videogames to a store.  No scratches, and a couple were from the 360.  Four games garnered me $44.67...Or, about %20 of what I paid for them.  I was able to get MarioKart Wii for only $10 of my own cash.

Seems to me the system works fine in the real world, and I don't see how it wouldn't work in D&D.

Ktulu


----------



## Lizard

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Wait, Lizard wrote this?  Lizard?  You're fired.  We need a new person to be Lizard.  You've spent countless pages expounding a D&D philosophy that has made it very clear that you'd rather stab yourself in the eye with a pen than accept a gameworld which changes based on the story needs of the player characters.  You don't get to admit that you've been playing that way all along.  Not if you don't want to give up your Lizard title to someone else.




No, I've spent countless pages expouding on the idea that the rules of the world are the same whether the PCs are there or not...not that being a DM means opening the Big Book Of Random Tables and rolling things for the players, which is a nice straw man of my position.

My question when I'm setting up a story or situation or horde is "Is this *possible*, according to the rules?". If the rules say "A 20th level fighter at full health cannot die from falling from his horse" (to use an example in a thread over on rpg.net), then I'm not going to start an adventure with that happening to an NPC -- unless there's some bizaare circumstance involved (massive poison, perhaps -- or he wasn't at full health, he was down to his last hit point for some reason) which the PCs must then figure out. 

Things usually do change according to the story needs of the PCs, in the context of the rules. If someone takes Leadership, cohorts of the proper level appear. What DOESN'T happen is that the Commoner-1 barmaid becomes a Rogue-7 overnight just because the PC needed a cohort.


----------



## Lizard

eleran said:
			
		

> I bet he also got to kiss girls in college




Should I note I did most of this stuff while hanging out at my girlfriend's apartment on weekends?  She also had notebooks filled with detailed maps of worlds she built...

Ah, the SCA. Greatest enemy of virginity EVAR.


----------



## Lizard

DandD said:
			
		

> Ehrm, it's illiquid, as in, not liquid. Not illithid, as in, ctulhu-rip-offs.




If you look up, way up, way way waaaay up, you can see something.

It's the joke.

Flying overhead.

Apparently, "Detect Humor" is a ritual in 4e, 'cause it sure ain't an at-will power 'round these parts...


----------



## Spatula

cdrcjsn said:
			
		

> One of the biggest assumptions people are making on this thread is that PCs will WANT to sell low level items just because they've upgraded to better ones.
> 
> When I was playing my 13th level Wizard, I was festooned with +1 Orbs, Wands, and Staves even though I had a +3 Staff of the Warmage.  Those little trinkets had value over and above their +1 to hit and damage.



What value is that?



			
				cdrcjsn said:
			
		

> Likewise, a Rogue will want to keep his humble +1 dagger even though he's now sporting a +2 Flaming Rapier.



Why will he want to keep it?



			
				cdrcjsn said:
			
		

> Selling magical items just won't be a common occurance and adventurers will want to keep their stuff.  Even if everyone in the party is already using their neck slot and nobody can use another +2 amulet of protection, there is little incentive to sell the item and quite a lot to do other things with it...and there are indeed other things you can do with it.



...such as?


----------



## keterys

Lizard said:
			
		

> If the rules say "A 20th level fighter at full health cannot die from falling from his horse" (to use an example in a thread over on rpg.net), then I'm not going to start an adventure with that happening to an NPC. What DOESN'T happen is that the Commoner-1 barmaid becomes a Rogue-7 overnight just because the PC needed a cohort.




Someone of 2nd level or higher can't die from falling off a horse in 3.x, but I don't think that would stop me from having it happen. The rules also don't model losing fingers, arms, eyes, legs, etc... but it does happen. 

Similarly, if I had a cool npc that had gotten to know the party and they wanted to adopt her as a cohort, it seems like a shame to let the game system stop the story from flowing naturally and in a more enjoyable fashion.

I think I can safely say that the rules are important for providing a framework for actions the party takes, and that otherwise the story and enjoyment of the group should win out over the rules. I'd go a step further and say that's often true _even for the PCs_.


----------



## Wolfwood2

Lizard said:
			
		

> Things usually do change according to the story needs of the PCs, in the context of the rules. If someone takes Leadership, cohorts of the proper level appear. What DOESN'T happen is that the Commoner-1 barmaid becomes a Rogue-7 overnight just because the PC needed a cohort.




Not even if we do a training montage?


----------



## TwinBahamut

Honestly, I don't think this excerpt is very good at all... I am probably going to have to just ignore all of when I run the game.

The big problem with this entire section is that it seems completely caught up in trying to be a fix for 3E's economic issues, and completely ignores how all of those problems have already been fixed by the addition of magic item levels. In 4E, so long as your players have their primary magic slots covered and no one has magic items very far in level above character level, there is no problem. _Any_ arrangement which fulfills those two conditions would work well in 4E. However, rather than try to provide advice for that directly, this article just dodges around the main issue by giving a lot of advice assuming a particular campaign style and world concept, and in doing so practically reintroduces the absurdity of 3E "Wealth by Level Guidelines".

Honestly, I never understood why people hated the buying and selling of magic items. I _certainly_ don't understand why WotC decided to go with that mentality and make the buying and selling of weapons a ridiculously poor choice. The only effect of the "you sell items at 1/5 value and buy them at 6/5 or 7/5 value" rule is that it encourages players to try to become merchants themselves. It means that players _should_ go out and try to find other people to sell magic items at full value to, and that they are rewarded for doing so. Honestly, I prefer merchants to be useful for the PCs, so I would much rather have the difference to be closer to 9/10 value and 11/10 value or less. After all, if you are talking about something that is worth a king's ransom, a difference of just 5% of its value would still be a killing for any merchant.

I really do like the fact that the book provides useable pre-built reward progressions by level, but I just don't like the "parcel" system very much. I really prefer more free-form approaches to giving out rewards, and I this system is useless advice for me. I don't think the book will be providing any advice that _is_ useful to me, actually...

The whole thing is a bit disappointing.


----------



## DandD

Lizard said:
			
		

> If you look up, way up, way way waaaay up, you can see something.
> 
> It's the joke.
> 
> Flying overhead.
> 
> Apparently, "Detect Humor" is a ritual in 4e, 'cause it sure ain't an at-will power 'round these parts...



Then I'm glad that you used the "Detect Humor"-Ritual to find out that hong was being humourus after I pointed it out to you. 
After all, you're quite resistant to it.


----------



## Cadfan

Lizard said:
			
		

> Things usually do change according to the story needs of the PCs, in the context of the rules. If someone takes Leadership, cohorts of the proper level appear. What DOESN'T happen is that the Commoner-1 barmaid becomes a Rogue-7 overnight just because the PC needed a cohort.



...but contents of the villain's treasure vault change depending on whether the Fighter picks Weapon Focus: Greatsword or Weapon Focus: Falchion.

_I'm_ ok with that.  I just can't figure out why _you're_ ok with that.

What is the difference between a treasure vault of unknown contents that "just happens" to contain gear the PCs actually need when its opened, and an NPC of unknown character class who "just happens" to have the class the PCs need when they seek to hire a cohort?


----------



## Thaumaturge

Cadfan said:
			
		

> ...but contents of the villain's treasure vault change depending on whether the Fighter picks Weapon Focus: Greatsword or Weapon Focus: Falchion.
> <snip>




It's a Schrodinger's vault.  Very expensive.


Thaumaturge.


----------



## Rex Blunder

Meanwhile, in another thread, Schroedinger's Orc (is he a minion or not? we'll find out when we stb him) is not acceptable.


----------



## drjones

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> Not even if we do a training montage?



Only if it has a kick-ass sound track.

This 'if it does not exist in the rules it cannot happen' thing is crazy though.  A book defining a game that models a 'real' world in a 'real' universe would be longer than anyone here could ever read in their lifetime.


----------



## WhatGravitas

As an aside from the economy hick-hack: Has anybody a clue how to scale the treasure rules for non-5 PC parties?

Or have I simply overlooked it?

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Cadfan

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, in another thread, Schroedinger's Orc (is he a minion or not? we'll find out when we stb him) is not acceptable.



Below is a paraphrase from memory.  In Feng Shui, if you shoot someone with two pistols at once using a particular Gun Schtick, you do special damage.  The method of calculating this damage requires telling the player what the Toughness value is of the target.  This is a break from the normal way the game works, where things like an enemy's Toughness are kept secret from players.  Imagine it like a D&D attack that, for whatever reason, requires telling the PC the numeric value of a target's AC.

Pseudo quote: "If anyone complains that this ability results in the player knowing the Toughness of the target, remind them that shooting someone twice in the chest with a pair of berettas is a good way to find out how tough they really are."


----------



## Rex Blunder

That's a good question.

The money value is easy to fix.

For the magic items, my kludge would be to add or subtract a level-plus-2 item for groups of 6 or 4.


----------



## gizmo33

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> The only effect of the "you sell items at 1/5 value and buy them at 6/5 or 7/5 value" rule is that it encourages players to try to become merchants themselves. It means that players _should_ go out and try to find other people to sell magic items at full value to, and that they are rewarded for doing so.




In other words, you would expect the 1/5-7/5 rule to hold up to a simulation where the roles of the players and NPCs change around?  That's a concept, AFAICT, that I've heard many times won't be valid in 4E.  The players in your hypothetical example will fail at being merchants for the same reason that the 1/5-7/5 thing works - because DM fiat will absolutely trump any other rule or system.

The players will only be able to become merchants if the DMs vision of the "story" will allow this.  Otherwise, a series of implausible events will occur to cause them to change their minds (at best).  In fact, if they aren't careful, the merchant PCs might wake up and find that they've turned into minions.


----------



## robertliguori

keterys said:
			
		

> Someone of 2nd level or higher can't die from falling off a horse in 3.x, but I don't think that would stop me from having it happen. The rules also don't model losing fingers, arms, eyes, legs, etc... but it does happen.




Characters of up to 5th level can die from falling off a horse.  They just need really horrific roles for hp and their Con scores.


----------



## jaldaen

drjones said:
			
		

> A book defining a game that models a 'real' world in a 'real' universe would be longer than anyone here could ever read in their lifetime.




At least until we solve the Theory of Everything, then it should fit on an index card that says:
[sblock]"The DM's always right." [/sblock]


----------



## Khaim

Protagonist said:
			
		

> Great, now 4E even has it's own travelling salesman problem.
> What's next? Waiting for the encumbrance rules to find the perfect mix of items to fill a bag of holding?




NP = Platinum?


----------



## Intense_Interest

Crosswind said:
			
		

> To the Pro-4E Magic Item System Crowd:
> 
> Can you list an example of a real world good where:
> It sells for 5 times as much as the vendor buys it for
> The vendor adds no value to the good (either by changing it, or moving it from point A to point B)
> 
> I can't.  And it's messing with my chi.  Spare me the chorus of "Can you name a real world good that SHOOTS FIREBALLS!", too.  =)
> -Cross




Coffee and most other processed beverages.  Frappachinos specifically.  The cost to create a packaged Frappachino is about 7 times less than its production cost.  Your basic soda only costs about one forth of its sale price.

And the Bottler doesn't make it and therefore "adds value".  He just bottles it.  Your local coca cola is shipped in bulk and then packaged in a factory close to where you live.  Unless you want to argue that packaging adds value (which it doesn't)


----------



## Rokes

After reading the first 15 pages, I think I have a major building block for my first 4e campaign.  Comments would be appreciated! 


Cool Name Merchant Guild

HISTORY

Founded X years prior by a famous adventuring party who ruthlessly forced towns and merchants in the area to join and obey.

"Merchant City" is a large city at the crossroads between X larger points of light.  This city is where Merchants trade amongst themselves.  Only those wearing the Guild Signet ring can enter the main area of the city (think Flea Market/Swap Meet).  


MEMBERSHIP

Several Levels of Membership
Liscenses required to sell different kinds of goods.
Certified Appraiser Training/Test
Yearly Dues
Must pay 40% of selling price to Guild.
Strict rules for membership...  need more thought on what they could be.
Magical Signet Ring - Only responds to assigned Guild Member.  (no killing Merchant and stealing ring to gain access to "Merchant City"

RULES

Only one Merchant of a specific good per route.
Can purchase goods from non-Merchants at 20% of appraised value.
All goods sold are at 140% of retail value (determined by the Guild(DMG))
Non-Merchant Guild members can set up permanent shops, but no item being sold to non-guild members can be magical or over a value of X gp.
Merchant Guild Members are not allowed to set up permanent locations.
Anyone selling an item over X gp to a Merchant is required to complete a MG bill of sale which includes personal details of the seller.

To summarize, if you find an item worth of X gp or is magical, it can legally only be sold to a Merchant Guild member who is only going to pay you about 20% of its retail value (or roughly 14% of the actually price to buy it from a Merchant given the 140% selling price).

To purchase a magical item or an item worth of X gp you must find the ONLY merchant who is liscensed to sell those types of items on that specific route.  Even then, it's not guaranteed they'll have the item, although given enough time they could get the item the next time they trade at "Merchant City."  

LIFE

Merchants are often attacked in between destinations.  When attacked by humans or other advanced species, the Merchants themselves are often NOT harmed.  To do so could mean death by a Guild Hit Squad/Assassin.  Monsters are also prevalent and WILL kill the Merchant if given the chance.  The treasure taken, however, varies, as they only take what may interest them (if anything).  Those hired by Merchants for protection who let their employer die often can't find work.  It's not uncommon to come across a wagon in the road that has been attacked with treasure left behind.  If a Merchant comes across such a find, they turn the goods in at the "Merchant City" and receive a small percentage of the value.  Another small portion is paid to the living family of the dead Merchant.  The rest is kept by the Guild.

RUMORS

The Merchant Guild Council is actually in league with various criminal organizations and/or monsterous tribes.  The threat of attack and danger associated with the trade of Magical items keeps prices high, thus keeping their 40% cut high.  (And the lure of making riches trading).

The Merchant Guild is responsible for attacks on some of its own members.  Either members who are rumored to be breaking rules, or those who get too successful/powerful and aren't favored by the council.

ADVENTURING HOOK

A merchant arrives in town seeking members to replace his previous crew.  He needs people of special talents (Healing, Identifying, Scouting, Tracking, Muscle).


----------



## JohnSnow

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Characters of up to 5th level can die from falling off a horse.  They just need really horrific roles for hp and their Con scores.




Oh, for the love of all that's holy! Not this AGAIN!!

Look, I can sum up the next 20 pages of discussion on this topic:

Side A Argument 1) The game rules should be used as the model for all events that happen in the world. Anything other than that kills my suspension of disbelief. 

Side B Rebuttal) That's absurd! D&D has no rules to cover all sorts of events that can and do occur in the real world. If I want something to happen, it can happen.

Side A Rebuttal) If you want something to happen that isn't possible by the rules, you should insert some houserules that allow for it. Anything else is DM fiat/railroading.

Side B Counter-rebuttal) It's not railroading if it doesn't apply to PCs. You can't, by definition, railroad an NPC. Some events are either so improbable, or things you just don't want to have happen to PCs. NPCs don't have that kind of plot protection. Ergo, a houserule for something that will never affect PCs is adding needless complexity.

Side A) NPCs should be treated the same as PCs! (Go back to Argument 1 - Repeat Ad Nauseum).

Just agree to disagree folks. This argument will do nothing but go in circles.


----------



## Scipio202

> Just agree to disagree folks. This argument will do nothing but go in circles.




But 4E doesn't have circles anymore, just argument-cubes.


----------



## Rokes

Scipio202 said:
			
		

> But 4E doesn't have circles anymore, just argument-cubes.




+1


----------



## Engilbrand

Maybe people who want their NPCs to work just like their PCs should... dare I say it? (Dare! Dare!) stick with 3.5.
How do floating cities happen in D&D? I've never seen the spell. "Well. Someone made it at some point. Powerful artifact. Stuff." Ok. So the PCs can do the same?
I like separating PCs from NPCs. I also like this awesome quote and I'm going to apply it.
"If an NPC climbs a tree, and a PC isn't around to see it, does he roll the d20?" I submit that he does not.

I think that the economy stuff only works for PCs. NPCs probably don't sell things to each other for coppers on the gold or the entire economy would shut down. Wait. What am I saying? It doesn't shut down unless I want it to. Never mind. I forgot that I was making stuff up in my head for a moment there.


----------



## gizmo33

Intense_Interest said:
			
		

> Coffee and most other processed beverages.  Frappachinos specifically.  The cost to create a packaged Frappachino is about 7 times less than its production cost.  Your basic soda only costs about one forth of its sale price.




You're equating that to 400% profit?  Seems to me like there are other "costs of doing business" that aren't being considered.

I think a fair back-of-the-envelope calculation for a magic item merchant would be to settle on his standard of living, say 200 gp/month or whatever.  Then factor in bodyguard (assume an EL 5 posse for carrying a typical EL 5 treasure), some taxes/tolls, and get a rough idea of how many items are bought/sold each month.

Assume that the standard of living matches up with the start-up capital required - and that such is balanced with all other career options available to persons of similar means.  Yes, there could be great variations in the experiences of an individual merchant, but if there are 100s of such characters operating in the world, then I would think that the average experience would be at equilibrium.  Otherwise, more people would sign up for the wealth and prestige of being a magic item merchant.

I seriously doubt that any such reasoning went into the buying/selling rules though.  I have never seen any justification from WotC regarding a 4E rule that had to do with anything other than "it works in an MMORPG and is fun/epic/like-you'd-see-in-a-movie" or something to that effect.  Since it's very rare to observe the actual numbers in a buying/selling transaction in a movie, I would expect the 4E design methodology would be inadequate for resolving this issue.


----------



## Piratecat

Thasmodious, please don't post in this thread any longer. Insults aren't appropriate. Email me with questions or complaints.

Thanks, folks. Carry on.


----------



## reezel

Intense_Interest said:
			
		

> Coffee and most other processed beverages.  Frappachinos specifically.  The cost to create a packaged Frappachino is about 7 times less than its production cost.  Your basic soda only costs about one forth of its sale price.
> 
> And the Bottler doesn't make it and therefore "adds value".  He just bottles it.  Your local coca cola is shipped in bulk and then packaged in a factory close to where you live.  Unless you want to argue that packaging adds value (which it doesn't)



Well, I read through a good portion of this thread wondering whyy the obvious examples didn't pop up. Pawn Shops. This is exactly what we are talking about. That's the mark up you expect when you need to get rid of something. Don't even get me started on the mark up from Game Stop. This is not an unknown behavior, you're just not applying it to the vendors we have who would deal in such things.


----------



## Lacyon

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> You're equating that to 400% profit?  Seems to me like there are other "costs of doing business" that aren't being considered.




Seems to me like there are other "costs of doing business" that aren't being considered on the merchant's end as well. So?


----------



## Intense_Interest

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> You're equating that to 400% profit?  Seems to me like there are other "costs of doing business" that aren't being considered.




Alright, a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (also cribbed from a business plan of a friend of mine)

It takes under $500k to open up a coffee franchise in the year 2004.  Even assuming things like perennial costs such as insurance, worker pay, utilities, and supplies, it costs about $.30 for a $3.00 cup of coffee.

Take out milk and its only $.05 per cup.

If a store sells at least 100 cups, and many commonly go through 500 cups a weekday, you will have broken even on the day.

The reason Starbucks has piled around their stores all the incidental comfort crap is the wager that you will purchase an extra cup of coffee every 1 hour you remain in the store.  The only reason Starbucks hasn't opened a franchise on every corner of every street in the world is because Milk Prices and the high-end supply costs of making that much coffee.


----------



## JohnSnow

This thread is growing faster than a Hobbit with an addiction to Ent-draught...



			
				Crosswind said:
			
		

> To the Pro-4E Magic Item System Crowd:
> 
> Can you list an example of a real world good where:
> It sells for 5 times as much as the vendor buys it for
> *The vendor adds no value to the good* (either by changing it, or *moving it from point A to point B)*
> 
> I can't. And it's messing with my chi. Spare me the chorus of "Can you name a real world good that SHOOTS FIREBALLS!", too. =)




Cross, the problem with your example request, and I think why many people have issues here, lies with your assumptions:

For starters, the merchant *is* moving the good from point A (where the PCs sell it) to point B (where he resells it to someone else). In fact, the merchant is not just moving it, he is speculating on his ability to:

a) Find a buyer for the thing.
b) Not lose the product before he can deliver it.

In a D&D world, transportation is not insignificant. In fact, one can probably assume that the relatively high price of some D&D goods is directly related (as it was in the real world) to the difficulty with transporting them. Caravans get attacked. Goods get lost. In early modern times (like the English renaissance), this was just considered the cost of trade. There were lots of products that are analagous to magic items in this time period - high value to some people, totally out of reach of others. Nutmeg, for example, was sold in England at a markup of something like 60,000 percent (600 times!) its purchase price in the Indies.

The reason for this is that trading is _dangerous._ A successful voyage was one that turned a profit in the end, after accounting for all the losses (ships, men, goods, and so forth) incurred in the process of conducting trade. That ridiculous markup let them cover all those costs. And because the backers of the voyage were often based someplace safe, they could afford to risk it. And since the captain/leader of the expedition would be a rich man if he succeeded, they had no shortage of volunteers, despite the inherent dangers.

However, if your PCs really want to become merchants (magic item or otherwise), that's the basis of a campaign, not a way to beat the system. Merchants need contacts, resources, goods to sell, and so forth. This is fertile ground for adventure, and it's hardly a new concept. Look at Han Solo and Chewbacca, or Malcolm Reynolds and the crew of _Serenity_. Further back, the age of exploration (medieval to 19th century) was chock full of "adventurers" who made a living doing everything from "honest trade" to voyages of "purchase" (i.e. piracy). Heck, the very word "adventurer" was first coined to refer to merchants embarking on a new "venture."

And if they instead decide that pillaging merchants is the path for them, they can always choose to follow the path of the highwayman, bandit or pirate. And that's hardly devoid of adventure.

Selling items takes time and energy. That is an adventure in and of itself. One for which the reward is the extra gold the PCs make over what they'd get by selling cheap. This is not "railroading" - it's simply turning an attempt to "cheat the system" into an opportunity for adventure (and fun!) for everyone. How is this a bad thing?


----------



## The Little Raven

Lizard said:
			
		

> A few months ago, one of the biggest "W00tz!" from the pre-4e crowd was "There won't be magic item stores, like there were in 3e!"




Not from me. The closest you'd hear from me is "There won't be vague wealth-based guidelines which do nothing to determine what items are necessary for game balance math to actually work."


----------



## UngeheuerLich

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> snip




Listen to him. He is right.


----------



## pawsplay

Rechan said:
			
		

> Epic tier, um... I don't know. It'd probably be hard to sell the Sword of Kyuss around you know?




"It's yours for 350,000 gp, Mr. Warduke. And no, I don't care how you get it."


----------



## TwinBahamut

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> In other words, you would expect the 1/5-7/5 rule to hold up to a simulation where the roles of the players and NPCs change around?



I don't really think that is the best way to rephrase my argument, actually. 




> That's a concept, AFAICT, that I've heard many times won't be valid in 4E.  The players in your hypothetical example will fail at being merchants for the same reason that the 1/5-7/5 thing works - because DM fiat will absolutely trump any other rule or system.
> 
> The players will only be able to become merchants if the DMs vision of the "story" will allow this.  Otherwise, a series of implausible events will occur to cause them to change their minds (at best).  In fact, if they aren't careful, the merchant PCs might wake up and find that they've turned into minions.



It looks like you are just quoting other people you disagree with... I don't think you are even really addressing my point in a meaningful way. What you are saying I don't agree with at all.

If you have something to say about my point yourself, then please just say it yourself, in your own words. Don't just throw out your ideas of what "the 4E supporters" that you don't like would say. it just confuses the discussion and leads to misunderstandings and bad sentiments.


----------



## TwinBahamut

Mourn said:
			
		

> Not from me. The closest you'd hear from me is "There won't be vague wealth-based guidelines which do nothing to determine what items are necessary for game balance math to actually work."



I agree. I am one of the biggest 4E-supporters you will find, but I like magic item stores and would hate to see them go away.


----------



## The Little Raven

Lizard said:
			
		

> Apparently, "Detect Humor" is a ritual in 4e, 'cause it sure ain't an at-will power 'round these parts...




It made me laugh enough that a co-worker poked her head into my office to see what I was chuckling about, and my explanation garnered a blank stare, followed by rolling eyes and the everpresent "God, you're such a frakking nerd."


----------



## pawsplay

Intense_Interest said:
			
		

> High Resale Value?  To whom?  A king that could purchase a 5,000,000 GP sword would likely much rather arm his entire army with 500 GP swords.  You're going to always scale issues at the highest costs.




And therefore, a PC should find it easier to buy an entire kingdom than one sword. No, I'm sorry, this just does not fly. It's true, the value of items mighe be depressed relative to their theoretical intrinsic value... _but that is all the more true for cash-strapped adventurers than kings_. Realistically, the treasure-hunting PCs should be the merchants and the kings should be paying retail for loot they didn't even capture themselves. Those nutmeg hauling merchants.... think of PCs as merchants who transport +1 swords from ancient ruins. 

There are many reasons to suppose that a sword forged by an archmage might not fetch full retail, but there is no reason to believe those reason don't apply to the presumed buyer as well. A PC would be an idiot to pay 5x what he knows to be the price of the item in general trade. Forget about driving the price of an item up... if it won't move, drive the price of items for sale down!

"Honestly, my man, where are you going to find someone willing to play 5,000,000 gp for that sword? I'll give 1,100,000 now and you can retire forever as a king, and equip your own army with ordinary longswords, with 100,000 gp profit on your venture. Or as an alternative, maybe I'll see if one of the local barons will give me 10,000 gp just to tell him the name of some scrub merchant with a sword he can't sell. It would be a shame if something were to... happen... to your little sword."


----------



## mearls

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I noticed that too. Can anyone from WotC pop in and acknowledge whether that error is in the books too? Or just the web excerpt?




It was fixed. I'm holding a DMG in my hands, and the table is correct.


----------



## Intense_Interest

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Realistically, the treasure-hunting PCs should be the merchants and the kings should be paying retail for loot they didn't even capture themselves. Those nutmeg hauling merchants.... think of PCs as merchants who transport +1 swords from ancient ruins.





PCs die, and at a significant rate higher than your bog-standard merchant.  The reasons merchants don't die more often is because they aren't known to commonly be carrying stupid amounts of magic.  +1 Swords, as I said before in the post you failed to quote entirely, are a higher risk of transport because of their high demand among people who like to stab other people and their relative size and portability.  90% of the +1 Sword trade would or should occur through a Teleportation Ritual Network, if we're going for Simulationism rather than swapping Combat Gamism for Merchant Gamism.




> There are many reasons to suppose that a sword forged by an archmage might not fetch full retail, but there is no reason to believe those reason don't apply to the presumed buyer as well. A PC would be an idiot to pay 5x what he knows to be the price of the item in general trade. Forget about driving the price of an item up... if it won't move, drive the price of items for sale down!




Why, exactly, would an Archmage produce an item on Spec?  Anyone who demands a 5,000,000 GP sword should really, really have a good reason to want it.  And an Archmage would not create it unless he had a buyer set to purchase.  Your presumed roleplay only occurs if you think that the Archmage only existed to assembly-line out 5mil GP swords.  In reality, he would be like an artist creating items for patrons and on specific demand.

Again, the Simulationism and an understanding of Supply curves would entail that the 5mil sword would never be crafted unless there was demand for it, therefore keeping the price as high as it is.


----------



## pawsplay

Intense_Interest said:
			
		

> Why, exactly, would an Archmage produce an item on Spec?  Anyone who demands a 5,000,000 GP sword should really, really have a good reason to want it.  And an Archmage would not create it unless he had a buyer set to purchase.  Your presumed roleplay only occurs if you think that the Archmage only existed to assembly-line out 5mil GP swords.  In reality, he would be like an artist creating items for patrons and on specific demand.




You misunderstood my example. I meant only "a magical sword that is very powerful."


----------



## malraux

pawsplay said:
			
		

> A PC would be an idiot to pay 5x what he knows to be the price of the item in general trade.



I've been somewhat involved in helping deal with my grandmother's estate.  Antique dealers seem to follow roughly this model as well.  Sure it might be crazy to sell something for a quarter of what someone would pay in an antique shop, but the reason for that is I really can't find the person who wants to pay that full price, but I can find an antique dealer.  That's the way it works.  As I've said previously, if the party is interested in giving up adventuring to establish a shop, develop a reputation, join the right guilds, etc, then they can sell items at retail price.  But that's a game best simulated by a different system.


----------



## pawsplay

Intense_Interest said:
			
		

> PCs die, and at a significant rate higher than your bog-standard merchant.




Which should make the PCs asking price... higher.


----------



## JohnSnow

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Realistically, the treasure-hunting PCs should be the merchants and the kings should be paying retail for loot they didn't even capture themselves. Those nutmeg hauling merchants.... think of PCs as merchants who transport +1 swords from ancient ruins.




And when did the PCs build up those contacts? How do they know the king?

You don't just show up one day and say "Hi your majesty, we have a bunch of +1 swords for sale." By the time you CAN do that, the extra profit isn't worth it. Or you've been holding on to the damn things for 4 years.

The point is that the fundamental economics are just fine. Furthermore, becoming a merchant is one available path for adventurers. That's not a bug - it's a feature. A PC who wants to get retail for his old swords should have to go through all the steps needed to establish himself as a merchant. Of course, at this point, he's not acquiring magic swords anymore, but whatever. If that's the route you want your game to go, there's nothing wrong with it. And the system won't break. The extra profit you make on the sale is the reward you get for accomplishing all those challenges that found someone willing to pay full price for your sword.

Again. _There is nothing wrong with this._



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> A PC would be an idiot to pay 5x what he knows to be the price of the item in general trade. Forget about driving the price of an item up... if it won't move, drive the price of items for sale down!
> 
> "Honestly, my man, where are you going to find someone willing to play 5,000,000 gp for that sword? I'll give 1,100,000 now and you can retire forever as a king, and equip your own army with ordinary longswords, with 100,000 gp profit on your venture. Or as an alternative, maybe I'll see if one of the local barons will give me 10,000 gp just to tell him the name of some scrub merchant with a sword he can't sell. It would be a shame if something were to... happen... to your little sword."




Shocker! You mean a PC willing to bully merchants around can essentially steal from them? Sure. If he's unethical and more powerful than the merchant, that's absolutely true.  And if the merchant refuses, he can take what he wants. Of course, now he's got to face the challenge presented by the merchant's guards. And perhaps deal with the wrath of the merchant's guild.

If your PC wants to operate outside the laws of society, he's an outlaw. Now we have another path of adventure to pursue. And those challenges won't necessarily be packing "level-equivalent treasure packets." Which means that sooner or later, everything will be back in line - again.

The default is the result if you're obeying the rules, and as far as that goes, it's perfectly realistic. Accept it and move on. Alternatively, you can try to defy it (or work around it) and embrace the new form of adventure you've embarked on - which still won't get you ahead in the end.

You literally _can't_ beat the system.


----------



## pawsplay

malraux said:
			
		

> I've been somewhat involved in helping deal with my grandmother's estate.  Antique dealers seem to follow roughly this model as well.  Sure it might be crazy to sell something for a quarter of what someone would pay in an antique shop, but the reason for that is I really can't find the person who wants to pay that full price, but I can find an antique dealer.  That's the way it works.  As I've said previously, if the party is interested in giving up adventuring to establish a shop, develop a reputation, join the right guilds, etc, then they can sell items at retail price.  But that's a game best simulated by a different system.




Antiques are not at all the same market. Not everyone wants antiques. Antiques are expensive because a high paying buyer will be found, but in the meantime, the item gets stored for long periods of time, perhaps even a few generation, and at great cost in terms of security and maintenance. And estate sales have to deal with selling a lot of stuff within a certain period of time. Estate sales are typically assumed to underprice items for that reason.

But any fighter in the world would want a magical sword if he could get one. All you need to do is find one with cash.... say, the local baron's son, or one that works for a reclusive wizard.

Anyway, the whole system breaks down if the PCs encounter other adventurers and decide to operate on a swap basis. That's the big reason magic items being so undervalued is ridiculous... they are, at least, equivalent to other magic items. 

Plus, in a Points of Light world, you can swap magic items for many other things that are potentially valuable.... fiefdoms in areas overrun by monsters, a percentage of taxes, a noblewoman's dowry, etc. Grandmother's ruby tiara... or a flaming greatsword? I know which one I would rather have if my kingdom is being attacked by trolls.


----------



## pawsplay

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> And when did the PCs build up those contacts? How do they know the king?




"Your Majesty, those orc-slaying fellows are here. Shall I meet with them?"



> You don't just show up one day and say "Hi your majesty, we have a bunch of +1 swords for sale." By the time you CAN do that, the extra profit isn't worth it. Or you've been holding on to the damn things for 4 years.




But how about one +1 sword? What's the problem there?



> The point is that the fundamental economics are just fine. Furthermore, becoming a merchant is one available path for adventurers. That's not a bug - it's a feature. A PC who wants to get retail for his old swords should have to go through all the steps needed to establish himself as a merchant. Of course, at this point, he's not acquiring magic swords anymore, but whatever. If that's the route you want your game to go, there's nothing wrong with it. And the system won't break. The extra profit you make on the sale is the reward you get for accomplishing all those challenges that found someone willing to pay full price for your sword.
> 
> Again. _There is nothing wrong with this._




Utter nonsense. what is to stop PCs from acquiring more loot while looking for buyers with the rest? Could they not, in fact, form relationships that lead to both loot and the opportunity to sell it?



> Shocker! You mean a PC willing to bully merchants around can essentially steal from them? Sure. If he's unethical and more powerful than the merchant, that's absolutely true.




What's unethical about it? It may not be nice, but why should they put up with bullying from the merchant?



> And if the merchant refuses, he can take what he wants. Of course, now he's got to face the challenge presented by the merchant's guards. And perhaps deal with the wrath of the merchant's guild.




Either the merchant's guild has a bunch of +1 longswords, in which case they ought to be selling them for a reasonable price, or they don't, in which case their "wrath" will be short-lived.



> If your PC wants to operate outside the laws of society, he's an outlaw. Now we have another path of adventure to pursue. And those challenges won't necessarily be packing "level-equivalent treasure packets." Which means that sooner or later, everything will be back in line - again.




My example posits nothing of the sort. I was suggesting the PCs sell out the merchant to a local noble, someone actually the legal authority over the merchant.



> The default is the result if you're obeying the rules, and as far as that goes, it's perfectly realistic. Accept it and move on. Alternatively, you can try to defy it (or work around it) and embrace the new form of adventure you've embarked on - which still won't get you ahead in the end.
> 
> You literally _can't_ beat the system.




Yeah, right. 

So PCs can slay dragons and become immortals, but can't take on the fearsome Merchant's Guild? Okay, sure.  

Here's an idea for a PC: a lone freedom fighter, striking out against the tyrranical Merchant's Guild, grown rich off the blood of heroes, who stand between the local lords and heroes and the magical items they need to stem the attacks by local monsters.


----------



## SlagMortar

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Anyway, the whole system breaks down if the PCs encounter other adventurers and decide to operate on a swap basis. That's the big reason magic items being so undervalued is ridiculous... they are, at least, equivalent to other magic items.



Actually this is a cool idea.  This seems like a great way to handle the problem of random monsters always carrying the weapon the party's fighter uses.  Instead, if the party has long term adventurer friends who they occasionally bump into in a certain town, the party can swap items with them.  Over time, the party will start to accumulate items they know the other party will want to trade for and these other adventurers can also be used as plot hooks.  Win-win.


----------



## Intense_Interest

pawsplay said:
			
		

> You misunderstood my example. I meant only "a magical sword that is very powerful."




Again, why would there be a Powerful Magic Sword created if no one demands said Magic Sword?  If Demand undercuts supply, there is no supply.  And since merchants know that Magic Items don't devalue over time, why would they sell it at less than a competitive market price?  Fire Sale Situations are a matter of scale to them- a World-Saving Sword could probably be purchased for a song if you're the Legit World Saver, but unless the merchant is destitute and immobile, he'd never undercut his highest potential profit.

And when you really need a Powerful Magic Sword, are you really going to try and get close to a production cost price when you really, really need it?   The PCs would never purchase a Dragon Slayer Sword unless they were trying to slay a dragon, and would probably pay close to 5 Giant Slaying Axes in barter if they had enough of a need.

Magic Items are what we think of as Health Insurance.  And PCs are the guys that purchase it when they are bleeding out on the floor. 



> Which should make the PCs asking price... higher.




First, They don't have the ability to sell in bulk.  If they try to carry a wagon full of 50 +1 swords, any group of 50+ orcs, and there is no reason to assume it would just be 50, would risk their stupid pointless little lives for a chance at glory and domination.  Add to that any aware band of sinister plotters could scheme up a bushwhack well above the PCs level if they are carrying enough anything with enough value.

Hell if you tried to sell a wagon full of +1 swords, the Merchant would charge YOU for the rights.

Second, PCs are far more fitted to selling their swords in ones and twos, *as soon as they get them*, and convert them into a better protective shell around their mortal coils.  Their Demand is far more immediate and not at all a logical profit-driven impluse.  Health Insurance, remember?  PCs will pay premium for anything that will let them play longer and end up less dead.

Third, merchants that have a habit of selling good magic items that they pick up on the trail (for cheap) are far more trustworthy than a random group of thugs with Stolen Magic .  Whoever the items were stolen from probably would have struck back against the slow, predictable, killable merchant rather than the getting-the-hell-out-of-dodge wandering bums.  Getting caught with the bag might get you blamed for the whole thing.


----------



## AverageCitizen

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Either the merchant's guild has a bunch of +1 longswords, in which case they ought to be selling them for a reasonable price, or they don't, in which case their "wrath" will be short-lived.



Point.



> So PCs can slay dragons and become immortals, but can't take on the fearsome Merchant's Guild? Okay, sure.
> 
> Here's an idea for a PC: a lone freedom fighter, striking out against the tyrannical Merchant's Guild, grown rich off the blood of heroes, who stand between the local lords and heroes and the magical items they need to stem the attacks by local monsters.



I'd play it.


----------



## Intense_Interest

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Either the merchant's guild has a bunch of +1 longswords, in which case they ought to be selling them for a reasonable price, or they don't, in which case their "wrath" will be short-lived.




Yeah, no.

Considering that a +1 swords don't really grow on trees and that Disenchant/radiuum implies that bulk lesser items could be drained away to make better items, its far more likely the storage of an town's merchant guild looks like:

5 +1 longswords
2 +2 Flaming longswords
10 +5 Flaming Dancing longsword
2 Shields of Arrow Deflection
1 Cursed Shield of Arrow Attraction
200 Javelins of Lightning (1 use)
A single Boot of Thunder
1 +10 Radiant Sword of Godslaying


----------



## Voss

Wait... if the weak weapons don't grow on trees (and are therefor rare) how are they getting the handwavium to make the mega-items?


----------



## malraux

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Antiques are not at all the same market. Not everyone wants antiques. Antiques are expensive because a high paying buyer will be found, but in the meantime, the item gets stored for long periods of time, perhaps even a few generation, and at great cost in terms of security and maintenance. And estate sales have to deal with selling a lot of stuff within a certain period of time. Estate sales are typically assumed to underprice items for that reason.
> 
> But any fighter in the world would want a magical sword if he could get one. All you need to do is find one with cash.... say, the local baron's son, or one that works for a reclusive wizard.



Right, so now you've sold two +1 swords.  Now, having taken the time to do that, assuming both are actually happy with the purchase and don't come after you, what do you do when you get a +2 thing to sell?


----------



## DandD

Voss said:
			
		

> Wait... if the weak weapons don't grow on trees (and are therefor rare) how are they getting the handwavium to make the mega-items?



By using the magical residue-handwavy-stuff and some kind of nifty enchant item-ritual? Or an even more powerful ritual that is far more difficult to accomplish? Like it was hinted in the excerpt and some blog long long ago?


----------



## Andor

malraux said:
			
		

> Right, so now you've sold two +1 swords.  Now, having taken the time to do that, assuming both are actually happy with the purchase and don't come after you, what do you do when you get a +2 thing to sell?




The same thing a car dealer does when a new model comes out. Send their old customers a flyer. Repeat buisness is a good thing.


----------



## Intense_Interest

Voss said:
			
		

> Wait... if the weak weapons don't grow on trees (and are therefor rare) how are they getting the handwavium to make the mega-items?




Allow me to instruct.

Weak Weapons are useful to the more common man and more agreeable to a lord to arm his men with (no one gets more powerful than a king, etc).  They have a higher utility because their cost makes them a more efficient purchase for an army, than a purchase one super sword for a soldier.  

If Items could never be broken down into Radium, there would be a trend to having a +1 sword in every home after enough time.  Not because they grow on trees, but that the Demand is comparable to Supply.

However because there is a possibility to combine a roomful of smaller swords into a single Super Sword so as to slay the dragon when you really, really need to, there is a sink to the supply of low-magic swords.

And considering that there is a cap to supply (only so many wizards working on magic swords in the world), the items would be rare in spite of their high demand.


----------



## AverageCitizen

It's strange to think about this, because it really never occurred to me. Most of my players get the vast majority of their magic items from dungeons. I think that we've been operating under 'Magic item creation is a lost art' as sort of a de facto standard. There are people who could make magic items, but they need a lot of gold to persuade them to stop what they were doing before, so its usually easier to just find them yourself. Unless you had something very specific in mind. Hence, you know, treasure hunting. I didn't realize we were the exception.


----------



## The Little Raven

Andor said:
			
		

> The same thing a car dealer does when a new model comes out. Send their old customers a flyer. Repeat buisness is a good thing.




Man, the real world really breaks verisimilitude.


----------



## quindia

med stud said:
			
		

> Congratulations! You are now the owner of ten bales of silk, two barrels of wine and a sack of spices .
> 
> Nothing but guards are stopping the PCs from becoming brigands, it's up to the DM what a merchant will carry.




That is the problem with the system. If the PCs play nice, the merchant has enough gold to buy whatever they are trying to sell and just happens to have some magic items of his own to unload. If the PC's go rogue, suddenly the merchant is a simple peddler or surrounded by umpteenth level mercenaries. The assumption is just way to contrived and dare I even mention, gamist.

I am looking forward to 4e in general, but things like this will quickly end up in the pile of things to ignore.


----------



## The Little Raven

quindia said:
			
		

> If the PC's go rogue, suddenly the merchant is a simple peddler or surrounded by umpteenth level mercenaries.




Or they get caught with the goods they stole from the merchant they murdered, and have to face the consequences of being murdering thieves.

Contrary to popular belief, this isn't a binary issue.


----------



## Lizard

Cadfan said:
			
		

> ...but contents of the villain's treasure vault change depending on whether the Fighter picks Weapon Focus: Greatsword or Weapon Focus: Falchion.




Honestly? It depends on if the villain pre-existed.

If I've established that the evil blackguard uses a +2 Orc Double Axe (and it just so happens a PC is a half-orc), and then that character dies and is replaced by an elf, the blackguard doesn't get a +2 longbow instead. 

But an evil bandit lord with a magic bow might appear...

One of my inspirations is J. Michael Strazcynski, even if I can't spell his last name.  He talked a lot about the concept of trap doors, of ways to change the overarching plot going forward without changing what's already happened or introducing gross inconsistencies. He was dealing with actors and contracts and the variability of conducting an ongoing series; I (and every DM) is dealing with random rolls and the chaos known as "the PCs". You've got to be flexible.

I just think there's a difference between the DM altering the world, and the rules saying the world has no form.

God can work miracles, but when he's not paying attention, the world has natural laws which keep things going as they should.

Ultimately, a real problem for me is the way the current 4e rules seem to box me in. The 3e MM wasn't just a book of Things For PCs To Kill -- it was a book of starting points. The rules allowed me to staple any class, template, or level to damn near anything. Anything with an Int score could be an NPC, and have any skills, feats, classes, or powers I needed it to have. Kobold manservant? Hobgoblin bodyguard to an elf prince? Orc wizard? Ogre shaman? Half-silver-dragon artist/dilettante? Half-troll/half-green-dragon bandit chieftain? Half-fiend medusa rogue pretending to be a mind flayer? I've statted 'em all up.

4e, it's "Lurker, brute, controller". It exists to appear, beat up the PCs for five rounds, and vanish. It's boring and constraining and limits my creativity to deciding what combat role something should have -- as opposed to building a creature FIRST and then seeing where its abilities and powers naturally place it, if it even is SUPPOSED to be in combat. I've had a lot of fun with NPCs who wouldn't last five seconds in a straight-up fight, but 4e doesn't have any place for them as mechanically distinct creatures. Every ability in the game is centered around combat; anything outside of the battlemat is pure handwaving. Looking at the sample characters, and now we've seen a lot of them, I don't see a single feat or power which is intended to improve performance in "skill challenges" -- the system seems to be an afterthought. You can't, from what we've seen, build a scholar or a diplomat who is actually focused on those abilities; you are Trained in a skill, and that's it.


----------



## Intense_Interest

Lizard said:
			
		

> 4e, it's "Lurker, brute, controller". It exists to appear, beat up the PCs for five rounds, and vanish. It's boring and constraining and limits my creativity to deciding what combat role something should have -- as opposed to building a creature FIRST and then seeing where its abilities and powers naturally place it, if it even is SUPPOSED to be in combat. I've had a lot of fun with NPCs who wouldn't last five seconds in a straight-up fight, but 4e doesn't have any place for them as mechanically distinct creatures. Every ability in the game is centered around combat; anything outside of the battlemat is pure handwaving. Looking at the sample characters, and now we've seen a lot of them, I don't see a single feat or power which is intended to improve performance in "skill challenges" -- the system seems to be an afterthought. You can't, from what we've seen, build a scholar or a diplomat who is actually focused on those abilities; you are Trained in a skill, and that's it.




How does the 4e MM's Roles prevent you from making NPCs instead of normal Monsters?

If I want to make a 2-headed Ogre with Warlock and/or Wizard spells plus some rituals and special abilities, I could do that.  I'd call him mostly artillery with some leader abilities.  He would have some amount of Ogre brutes he bullies around.

Just because the NPC doesn't have a set "role" doesn't mean I'm forbidden from using him.


----------



## jackston2

uh oh here it comes


----------



## JohnSnow

pawsplay said:
			
		

> "Your Majesty, those orc-slaying fellows are here. Shall I meet with them?"
> 
> But how about one +1 sword? What's the problem there?




Sure. That works. Sell your old blades to the king's armorer one at a time. You just have to convince someone to get you an intro. Then beat off the thieves trying to take it from you when word gets out that you've got a magic sword. Finally, you have to meet with the fellow responsible, and then convince him to buy it at your asking price. Of course, he's interested, but he could see clear to giving you full price if you'd just take care of this wee little problem that he has with a troll over in Greendale. Naturally, any treasure you find is yours to keep. Too bad the troll's been doing nothing but pillaging chicken farms.

That's what I mean when I say you can't "beat the system." The DM is the system. If the players try to exploit loopholes, it's the DM's job to close said loopholes.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Utter nonsense. what is to stop PCs from acquiring more loot while looking for buyers with the rest? Could they not, in fact, form relationships that lead to both loot and the opportunity to sell it?




Limited time. And again, the DM is an adaptable human being, not a dumb machine. Only a DM who's an utter moron would let the PCs "beat the system."





			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> What's unethical about it? It may not be nice, but why should they put up with bullying from the merchant?




How is the merchant "bullying" anyone? He's just charging a fair price. Or are you claiming that the markup is unfair? Quite honestly, how do you have any idea what a "fair markup" would be on a magic item?

Or is this back to the theory that because the PCs are powerful, they should be able to take whatever they want?




			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Either the merchant's guild has a bunch of +1 longswords, in which case they ought to be selling them for a reasonable price, or they don't, in which case their "wrath" will be short-lived.




Because nobody ever hoards anything to keep the price up. Tell me, how much do you know about the diamond trade?




			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> My example posits nothing of the sort. I was suggesting the PCs sell out the merchant to a local noble, someone actually the legal authority over the merchant.




Because the local nobility is going to think that the merchant is the problem with all these armed ruffians about. Yeah right. The merchant is just making his living.





			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Yeah, right.
> 
> So PCs can slay dragons and become immortals, but can't take on the fearsome Merchant's Guild? Okay, sure.
> 
> Here's an idea for a PC: a lone freedom fighter, striking out against the tyrranical Merchant's Guild, grown rich off the blood of heroes, who stand between the local lords and heroes and the magical items they need to stem the attacks by local monsters.




Of course, the merchant's guild is responsible for maintaining whatever passes for civilization in this god-forsaken country. For heroic PCs, the merchant's guild is probably composed of people much like them. And, moreover, they probably have clients who are at least as powerful as the PCs, but don't mind playing by the rules.

Besides, I thought we were talking about +1 sword, so the PCs are hardly dragon-slaying immortals just yet. By the time they are, they're probably trying to trade with an Efreeti merchant in the city of Brass, and I doubt he'll appreciate being pushed around either.

You're predicating a whole lot on the theory that these markups are thoroughly unreasonable. I take it you never pay retail?

Or you perhaps think that if you were just tougher, like your PCs are, you wouldn't have to? 

Because, you know, that's the way the world works, right? (Where's that :rolleyes smiley when I need it?)


----------



## AZRogue

What's really funny is a good "Bind On Pickup" rule would help eliminate the PCs reselling the items that you don't want them to resell. Which is very funny.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

AZRogue said:
			
		

> What's really funny is a good "Bind On Pickup" rule would help eliminate the PCs reselling the items that you don't want them to resell. Which is very funny.



Already planning something of the sort, in my first 4e game. Got to love sentient revolvers that will grasp onto your hand if you try to release it to anywhere but its holster (the revolver is slightly organic too, which makes it more disturbing, w00t shooting bone-bullets that are quickly grown inside the revolver).


----------



## Torchlyte

The problem with this new system is that it's difficult to play around with the parcel system. Let's say I want to give each of the PCs a +1 silver dagger in preparation for a Werewolf fight; how do I get that to match up with the 6th/7th/8th/9th array?

I would probably have to convert the worth of everything involved to gold and go from there. The obvious question then is, why can't I just get the values in gold in the first place? The 3e system had its flaws, but there are some clear advantages to gold-based treasure.

This problem would be mainly solved if they also included a table of the total gold value (including the worth of the four magic items) that goes to the party at each level. Whether they actually did that... we'll just have to wait and see. Regardless, it's definitely something I could see jotting down on a DM screen.


----------



## Voss

Intense_Interest said:
			
		

> Allow me to instruct.
> 
> Weak Weapons are useful to the more common man and more agreeable to a lord to arm his men with (no one gets more powerful than a king, etc).  They have a higher utility because their cost makes them a more efficient purchase for an army, than a purchase one super sword for a soldier.
> 
> If Items could never be broken down into Radium, there would be a trend to having a +1 sword in every home after enough time.  Not because they grow on trees, but that the Demand is comparable to Supply.
> 
> However because there is a possibility to combine a roomful of smaller swords into a single Super Sword so as to slay the dragon when you really, really need to, there is a sink to the supply of low-magic swords.
> 
> And considering that there is a cap to supply (only so many wizards working on magic swords in the world), the items would be rare in spite of their high demand.




Sorry, I didn't phrase it quite right. What I meant was, if, as he posited, the weak items don't grow on trees, there aren't enough of them to break down into handwavium and meet larger handwavium requirements that (presumably) the mega-items have.  If there is a little supply of weak items, the strong items, using the same resource, are going to be even rarer.  It would be fairly hard for the Evil Merchant Monopoly to have _+10 swords of godslaying_ if there aren't a lot of _+1 swords of disposable handwavium_ to break down.


----------



## Wolfwood2

Just to point out, none of this is in any way new to fourth edition.  These exact same arguments were had about the assumed economics of third edition at one point or another.  The only change for 4E is to provide a means to break down magic items and use them to build other items, so that PCs can get some value out of stuff even if they can't sell it.


----------



## Intense_Interest

Voss said:
			
		

> Sorry, I didn't phrase it quite right. What I meant was, if, as he posited, the weak items don't grow on trees, there aren't enough of them to break down into handwavium and meet larger handwavium requirements that (presumably) the mega-items have.  If there is a little supply of weak items, the strong items, using the same resource, are going to be even rarer.  It would be fairly hard for the Evil Merchant Monopoly to have _+10 swords of godslaying_ if there aren't a lot of _+1 swords of disposable handwavium_ to break down.




You only have to make the +10 sword of godslaying once.  It'll last the test of time.

You'll always have some new lord wanting some +1 swords for his pug army.  The +1 swords also don't fade away, and you could use the surplus of +1 swords (looting a battlefield, say, in which you have more swords than soldiers).  Those swords are the ones you break down, or else you would have +1 swords in every household and you start running on a magic-sword economy.  A surplus of +1 swords (caused by war, death, famine, plague) gets turned into better swords because you have a surplus.

And there will be a massive strain on the construction of new +1 swords because of the limited supply of able wizards.  You'll always have a good amount of +1 swords, because the scale of demand versus supply, but those swords have to be made for someone and by someone instead of popping up out of the ground.

You'll never have a +5 sword surplus because the demand isn't there in comparison to the limited supply of +1 sword surplus, but those +5 swords don't get commonly broken down, leaving you with a more even spread of magic items instead of vaults full of +1 longswords.

EDIT:

Also, it should be noted that limited supply =/= rare.

Limited supply means that you can't purchase 10,000 +1 swords in one day.  You can buy 100 +1 swords every week for 100 weeks.  Its a supply curve issue.

And because Magic Items don't wear down, after a while you could flood the world with +1 swords if there wasn't a sink in the other direction, such as Radiuum and Super Swords.


----------



## Saeviomagy

Voss said:
			
		

> Sorry, I didn't phrase it quite right. What I meant was, if, as he posited, the weak items don't grow on trees, there aren't enough of them to break down into handwavium and meet larger handwavium requirements that (presumably) the mega-items have.  If there is a little supply of weak items, the strong items, using the same resource, are going to be even rarer.  It would be fairly hard for the Evil Merchant Monopoly to have _+10 swords of godslaying_ if there aren't a lot of _+1 swords of disposable handwavium_ to break down.




One has to assume that handwavium comes from somewhere in the first place...


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Lizard said:
			
		

> Honestly? It depends on if the villain pre-existed.
> 
> If I've established that the evil blackguard uses a +2 Orc Double Axe (and it just so happens a PC is a half-orc), and then that character dies and is replaced by an elf, the blackguard doesn't get a +2 longbow instead.
> 
> But an evil bandit lord with a magic bow might appear...
> 
> One of my inspirations is J. Michael Strazcynski, even if I can't spell his last name.  He talked a lot about the concept of trap doors, of ways to change the overarching plot going forward without changing what's already happened or introducing gross inconsistencies. He was dealing with actors and contracts and the variability of conducting an ongoing series; I (and every DM) is dealing with random rolls and the chaos known as "the PCs". You've got to be flexible.
> 
> I just think there's a difference between the DM altering the world, and the rules saying the world has no form.
> 
> God can work miracles, but when he's not paying attention, the world has natural laws which keep things going as they should.
> 
> Ultimately, a real problem for me is the way the current 4e rules seem to box me in. The 3e MM wasn't just a book of Things For PCs To Kill -- it was a book of starting points. The rules allowed me to staple any class, template, or level to damn near anything. Anything with an Int score could be an NPC, and have any skills, feats, classes, or powers I needed it to have. Kobold manservant? Hobgoblin bodyguard to an elf prince? Orc wizard? Ogre shaman? Half-silver-dragon artist/dilettante? Half-troll/half-green-dragon bandit chieftain? Half-fiend medusa rogue pretending to be a mind flayer? I've statted 'em all up.
> 
> 4e, it's "Lurker, brute, controller". It exists to appear, beat up the PCs for five rounds, and vanish. It's boring and constraining and limits my creativity to deciding what combat role something should have -- as opposed to building a creature FIRST and then seeing where its abilities and powers naturally place it, if it even is SUPPOSED to be in combat. I've had a lot of fun with NPCs who wouldn't last five seconds in a straight-up fight, but 4e doesn't have any place for them as mechanically distinct creatures. Every ability in the game is centered around combat; anything outside of the battlemat is pure handwaving. Looking at the sample characters, and now we've seen a lot of them, I don't see a single feat or power which is intended to improve performance in "skill challenges" -- the system seems to be an afterthought. You can't, from what we've seen, build a scholar or a diplomat who is actually focused on those abilities; you are Trained in a skill, and that's it.




Oh dear lord, _thank you_.


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> Kobold manservant? Hobgoblin bodyguard to an elf prince? Orc wizard? Ogre shaman? Half-silver-dragon artist/dilettante? Half-troll/half-green-dragon bandit chieftain? Half-fiend medusa rogue pretending to be a mind flayer? I've statted 'em all up.




And you can continue statting them up. Well, if your distaste with D&D doesn't cause you to go back to GURPS and/or HERO first, that is.



> I've had a lot of fun with NPCs who wouldn't last five seconds in a straight-up fight,




So have I.



> but 4e doesn't have any place for them as mechanically distinct creatures.




Of course it does. Nothing stops you making an incompetent striker, for instance. Just halve their hp, and they will look mean but go down like a sack of spuds.



> You can't, from what we've seen, build a scholar or a diplomat who is actually focused on those abilities; you are Trained in a skill, and that's it.




Just as you can't build a character who is focused on combat, this is a feature, not a bug.

Yes, you read that right.


----------



## Fanaelialae

cdrcjsn said:
			
		

> One of the biggest assumptions people are making on this thread is that PCs will WANT to sell low level items just because they've upgraded to better ones.
> 
> When I was playing my 13th level Wizard, I was festooned with +1 Orbs, Wands, and Staves even though I had a +3 Staff of the Warmage. Those little trinkets had value over and above their +1 to hit and damage.






			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> What value is that?




I get the impression that cdrcjsn is a playtester who has to be careful answering your questions without violating the NDA.

We've seen from the magic items from DDXP (at least I think that's where they're from- I'm just looking at the Pre-Release Rules Compilation) that magic items do more than just grant a +1 or +2.  That +3 Staff of the Warmage might grant him the effect of Enlarge Spell 1/day, but his +1 Orb of Extendospell might grant Extend Spell 1/day.  The staff is obviously the weapon of choice (because it's +3 rather than +1) but you'd want to use the orb instead if an enemy was beyond the normal range of one of your spells.  Having the staff doesn't render the orb useless.  If the other implements have various useful effects, keeping them around might well be better than getting 20% or even 100% of their value.

It's similar to how in 3.x a Flaming Sword +2 is better than a Dragon Bane Sword +1, but if you know your DM likes to throw a few good dragon fights into his campaigns, that Dragon Bane sword is worth holding on to.  In 4e, however, I imagine this is more generally applicable.



			
				cdrcjsn said:
			
		

> Selling magical items just won't be a common occurance and adventurers will want to keep their stuff. Even if everyone in the party is already using their neck slot and nobody can use another +2 amulet of protection, there is little incentive to sell the item and quite a lot to do other things with it...and there are indeed other things you can do with it.






			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> ...such as?




Your +2 Cloak of Resistance (grants resist all 5 for 1 round 1/day) might be your default neck piece, but swapping it for you +1 Amulet of Health (resist 5 poison) might be a very good idea if you're attacked by a giant cobra.


----------



## Lizard

Intense_Interest said:
			
		

> How does the 4e MM's Roles prevent you from making NPCs instead of normal Monsters?




Because the starting point is "Role" and everything follows from there. Role+level determines basic stats, hit points, etc. You don't think "Wouldn't this be a nifty concept...", stat it out, and then see where the stats take you; you start with "I need a level 15 lurker".

Perhaps i'm wrong and when we see the full rules, I'll apologize. But based on what we've seen, combat role is the primary definer of a character or an NPC, and all else is secondary and done via handwaving.


----------



## Lizard

hong said:
			
		

> And you can continue statting them up. Well, if your distaste with D&D doesn't cause you to go back to GURPS and/or HERO first, that is.




It's up to my players. 

Honestly, I want to buy KOTS and run it, so we can all get a fair look at the rules in actual play, but I think people will stick w/3.5 until the current campaigns end. After that, who knows? Depends on how active Pathfinder support ends up being and if there's cool things from 3PP for 4e.


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> It's up to my players.




Oh well.


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> Because the starting point is "Role" and everything follows from there.




The starting point is whatever you, the DM, want it to be. Role only comes into play if/when the NPC enters combat.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Lizard said:
			
		

> Kobold manservant? Hobgoblin bodyguard to an elf prince? Orc wizard? Ogre shaman? Half-silver-dragon artist/dilettante? Half-troll/half-green-dragon bandit chieftain? Half-fiend medusa rogue pretending to be a mind flayer? I've statted 'em all up. I've had a lot of fun with NPCs who wouldn't last five seconds in a straight-up fight, but 4e doesn't have any place for them as mechanically distinct creatures. You can't, from what we've seen, build a scholar or a diplomat who is actually focused on those abilities; you are Trained in a skill, and that's it.




I don't see why you wouldn't be able to stat any of these creatures up.  

Admittedly, we haven't seen the full extent of the rules set, but 4e is an exception-based design.  You might have to stat most of those from the ground up, using the base creatures as a guideline, but I don't see why it wouldn't be able to be done.  

Just because the MM doesn't include combat-irrelevant powers, doesn't mean that you have to.  And even though you have to build them from the ground up, it's unlikely to be significantly more complicated than applying multiple templates and classes to a creature in 3.x, because it seems to me that 4e is fairly relaxed about how stats work (I suppose it would require more creativity, not that I am in ANY way trying to imply that you are lacking thereof; just saying that creating a creature from mostly scratch seems, to me, to require more creativity than applying a template does).  

Decide what kind of creature to make, what level it falls under, and make sure that it's bonuses are appropriate for that level.  Want a scholar?  Take a human mage from the MM (assuming there is one) and replace his spells with Learned: +5 to all knowledge-based checks.  Think the mage is too tough for a cloistered scholar?  Make him a minion.

Technically, you probably don't even need to give the scholar stats in 4e unless you plan on having him involved in combat, but I can't see there being anything to prevent you from doing so.  Its not like the WotC ninjas will show up at your house because you've committed an act of badwrongfun.  Unless they do, in which case I apologize in advance for having lead you astray.


----------



## marune

Lizard said:
			
		

> 4e, it's "Lurker, brute, controller". It exists to appear, beat up the PCs for five rounds, and vanish. It's boring and constraining and limits my creativity to deciding what combat role something should have -- as opposed to building a creature FIRST and then seeing where its abilities and powers naturally place it, if it even is SUPPOSED to be in combat. I've had a lot of fun with NPCs who wouldn't last five seconds in a straight-up fight, but 4e doesn't have any place for them as mechanically distinct creatures. Every ability in the game is centered around combat; anything outside of the battlemat is pure handwaving. Looking at the sample characters, and now we've seen a lot of them, I don't see a single feat or power which is intended to improve performance in "skill challenges" -- the system seems to be an afterthought. You can't, from what we've seen, build a scholar or a diplomat who is actually focused on those abilities; you are Trained in a skill, and that's it.




I guess it's pointless to say that you don't have to set a role to a NPC that is not meant to be a combat challenge ?

I'm pretty sure the DMG will tell us : " You can make an NPC like this : Cornelius the Sage, Human, Male, History +19".


----------



## Fallen Seraph

skeptic said:
			
		

> I guess it's pointless to say that you don't have to set a role to a NPC that is not meant to be a combat challenge ?
> 
> I'm pretty sure the DMG will tell us : " You can make an NPC like this : Cornelius the Sage, Human, Male, History +19".



I agree, you only need to stat them out as far as they need to be.


----------



## pawsplay

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Sure. That works. Sell your old blades to the king's armorer one at a time. You just have to convince someone to get you an intro.




"Hi! I have a magic sword. Think your king would be interested in that?"




> Then beat off the thieves trying to take it from you when word gets out that you've got a magic sword.




Heck, put out flyers. Let the XP flow.



> Finally, you have to meet with the fellow responsible, and then convince him to buy it at your asking price. Of course, he's interested, but he could see clear to giving you full price if you'd just take care of this wee little problem that he has with a troll over in Greendale. Naturally, any treasure you find is yours to keep. Too bad the troll's been doing nothing but pillaging chicken farms.




"Gosh, that's too bad. I wonder if yonder noble over the hill would be interested?"

Chicken farms, indeed. Who says that vengeful DMing is a lost art?



> That's what I mean when I say you can't "beat the system." The DM is the system. If the players try to exploit loopholes, it's the DM's job to close said loopholes.




I have a hard time thinking of logic, economics, and versimillitude as "loopholes."



> Limited time. And again, the DM is an adaptable human being, not a dumb machine. Only a DM who's an utter moron would let the PCs "beat the system."




Only an utter moron would refuse to allow the PCs a hard won victory over great obstacles.



> How is the merchant "bullying" anyone? He's just charging a fair price. Or are you claiming that the markup is unfair? Quite honestly, how do you have any idea what a "fair markup" would be on a magic item?




I think we've already established that the markup is NOT fair. As far as markup goes, I think it would be like trading in commodities. You buy one +1 sword for 1000 gp from an adventurer who needs cash, take it down the road and find a guyer who will pay 2000 gp. I'd say 10% is more realistic, but 50% is fine for a seller's market. 



> Or is this back to the theory that because the PCs are powerful, they should be able to take whatever they want?




Because the PCs are powerful, they should get the same deals as any wandering merchant.



> Because nobody ever hoards anything to keep the price up. Tell me, how much do you know about the diamond trade?




More than a little, actually. And one thing I know is that anyone selling a diamond, whether hoarding diamonds or not, enjoys the price boost caused by that hoarding.



> Because the local nobility is going to think that the merchant is the problem with all these armed ruffians about. Yeah right. The merchant is just making his living.




There's a very long history of kings excusing themselves from debts, hiring privateers, and randomly arresting merchants and shaking them down for loans or business opportunities. Nobles are, essentially, ruffians who have achieved a high degree of success. William the Conqueror was an armed ruffian. So was Genghis Khan.



> Of course, the merchant's guild is responsible for maintaining whatever passes for civilization in this god-forsaken country. For heroic PCs, the merchant's guild is probably composed of people much like them. And, moreover, they probably have clients who are at least as powerful as the PCs, but don't mind playing by the rules.




I really doubt that. Isolated communities usually depend on local crafts a lot, and they make lots of use of used and repaired items. A city that depended on regular caravans through dangerous country risks disaster.



> Besides, I thought we were talking about +1 sword, so the PCs are hardly dragon-slaying immortals just yet. By the time they are, they're probably trying to trade with an Efreeti merchant in the city of Brass, and I doubt he'll appreciate being pushed around either.
> 
> You're predicating a whole lot on the theory that these markups are thoroughly unreasonable. I take it you never pay retail?




There's nothing wrong with paying retail, if it gets you what you need at a price you can afford. Yes, those markups are unreasonable. Car dealers get by on between 3% and 15% or so on each sale, and I think car sales are an excellent comparison, because cars are expensive, but many people find them useful.

There is a discrepancy between what I could sell a car for, versus a dealership. But that mainly comes down to my lack of a public reputation. The markup is far less than 800%. It's less than 50%. In general, you can get 85% or more of the retail price selling your car on your own. Never trade in, unless you are pressed for time.

There's a ceiling to what someone can charge for a magic item, when there is a competing barter system. PCs may find opportunities to swap items for items. Surely, NPCs don't get that much markup. "I'll trade you this fine +1 axe for those five +1 longswords. You being PCs and all."


----------



## marune

I have to admit that you can't do : Dork, Human, Male, Farmer + 12, Cobbler + 8.

Question is, how many times do these skills will be used by a NPC to give help/hindrance to the PCs faced with a challenge ?


----------



## hong

pawsplay said:
			
		

> "Gosh, that's too bad. I wonder if yonder noble over the hill would be interested?"
> 
> Chicken farms, indeed. Who says that vengeful DMing is a lost art?




"It's a great new fantasy roleplaying game. We pretend we're workers and students in an industrialised and technological society."


----------



## Fallen Seraph

skeptic said:
			
		

> I have to admit that you can't do : Dork, Human, Male, Farmer + 12, Cobbler + 8.
> 
> Question is, how many times do these skills will be used by a NPC to give help/hindrance to the PCs faced with a challenge ?



Farmer: Nature

Cobbler: Thievery (good with your hands)


----------



## marune

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Farmer: Nature
> 
> Cobbler: Thievery (good with your hands)




My point was that we don't need these "profession" skills in D&D, because the skill system purpose is limited to the resolution of challenging encounters.

If a DM wants to decide if Dork has a sucessful farming year, he don't need to roll anything.

BTW, even if I usually don't like detailed skill system, _Burning Wheel _ has one and successfully makes it work (but in this game, skills have another purpose and are used differently).


----------



## malraux

Everything I've seen indicates that magic items in 4e are pretty far from a commodity market.  There's no simple +1 sword (which might be the closest thing to a commodity market you'd find).  I'll agree that consumable items are effectively a commodity, but not weapons or armor.


----------



## Cadfan

Lizard said:
			
		

> Honestly? It depends on if the villain pre-existed.



Right.  But "pre-existed" means "pre-existed in the game," not "pre-existed in my own mind as a DM."


> If I've established that the evil blackguard uses a +2 Orc Double Axe (and it just so happens a PC is a half-orc), and then that character dies and is replaced by an elf, the blackguard doesn't get a +2 longbow instead.



Right.  But "established" means "established to the players, in the game" not "established in my own mind as a DM."

Make those clarifications, and you and I have the same opinion here.  Nobody knows what's in the treasure vault?  Then its whatever I need it to be.  Nobody knows Suzy the Barkeep's abilities?  Then she might be an expert sneak thief on the run from the law.  Or not, depends what I need.


> I've had a lot of fun with NPCs who wouldn't last five seconds in a straight-up fight, but 4e doesn't have any place for them as mechanically distinct creatures.



This has nothing to do with your ever shifting views on object permanency in an imaginary world.  Also, what?


----------



## Fallen Seraph

skeptic said:
			
		

> My point was that we don't need these "profession" skills in D&D, because the skill system purpose is limited to the resolution of challenging encounters.
> 
> If a DM wants to decide if Dork has a sucessful farming year, he don't need to roll anything.



Oh I agree, I meant more it is still possible to replicate


----------



## marune

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Right.  But "pre-existed" means "pre-existed in the game," not "pre-existed in my own mind as a DM."




It's tireless to remind people that nothing exist in the imagined universe until it is shared.


----------



## Hussar

> I think we've already established that the markup is NOT fair. As far as markup goes, I think it would be like trading in commodities. You buy one +1 sword for 1000 gp from an adventurer who needs cash, take it down the road and find a guyer who will pay 2000 gp. I'd say 10% is more realistic, but 50% is fine for a seller's market.




50% markup?  Are you kidding?  Sure, cars go with a small mark-up, but, that's because you sell millions and millions of cars.  Take a look at the mark-up on a Ferrari, or a Bugatti Veyron.  I'm thinking it's slightly higher than 15%.

You are mixing your comparisons Pawsplay.  Cars are typically mass produced and thus enjoy economies of scale.  The only way magic items would resemble cars is if you had magic factories.

A much better comparison is perfume.  Perfume easily has 500% mark-ups.  Hand made, usually, in small amounts, perfume resembles magic items far more than cars do.  ((Note, I am referring to perfume and not eau do toilet))  

I'll admit I'm no economist, but, there are LOTS of commodities out there that get 500% mark-ups.  Have you been to McDonald's lately?  Bought a Coke?  7 cents to pour that coke that you pay a buck and a half for.  Or, how about Starbucks coffee?  High end food items like sushi or truffles?  Many collector items - look at comic books.  500% ROI isn't all that out of line for a number of comics.


----------



## Lizard

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I agree, you only need to stat them out as far as they need to be.




But, you see, the way I run things, I never KNOW how far they need to be. That's why I like the completeness of the 3e stat block even for Bubba the dirt farmer -- whatever he ends up doing in the plot, I've got the stats I need. If someone casts bull Strength on him, polymorphs him into a gnoll and then he gets level-draiend by a wight, I can work it all out by finger in the wind if I want or by the rules if I want.

My "adventure notes" are scrawled ideas about some interesting encounters which might happen. I almost never know what's going to happen, who's going to be important, etc. For my last adventure, the Nameless Palace Guard turned out to be the target of some serious bluff/diplomacy (and got a name), the king who was armed and equipped never got to fight (but needed his sense motive), the queen never rolled a die, and the Captain of The Guard who I thought would be a major player never even walked onstage. (Recylce THAT stat block!)

If I knew ahead of time who'd end up being important and who wouldn't, I'd probably love 4e. As it is, "History +19" doesn't help me when the age finds himself rushing through the woods alongside the PCs, dodging arrows.


----------



## Thunderfoot

Does anyone else notice that the tables only go up to 6 member s in the party?  WotC - WAKE UP!!! There are parties larger than that out there.  Make the tables non-dependent like the good ole' days and gold/encounters to make level - pshaw.  There should be no set number of encounters for leveling, set goals yes, set rewards, no.

Stop playing WoW and get a grip on gaming the old fashioned way.  It may appeal to younger players with no sense of social, historical or real-world sensibilities, but it looks more and more like I'm pulling my 1E/2E AD&D books out of the closet.


----------



## Hussar

Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> Does anyone else notice that the tables only go up to 6 member s in the party?  WotC - WAKE UP!!! There are parties larger than that out there.  Make the tables non-dependent like the good ole' days and gold/encounters to make level - pshaw.  There should be no set number of encounters for leveling, set goals yes, set rewards, no.
> 
> Stop playing WoW and get a grip on gaming the old fashioned way.  It may appeal to younger players with no sense of social, historical or real-world sensibilities, but it looks more and more like I'm pulling my 1E/2E AD&D books out of the closet.




Umm, if you can't extrapolate the math from that table, perhaps D&D is not for you.


----------



## malraux

Hussar said:
			
		

> 5I'll admit I'm no economist, but, there are LOTS of commodities out there that get 500% mark-ups.  Have you been to McDonald's lately?  Bought a Coke?  7 cents to pour that coke that you pay a buck and a half for.  Or, how about Starbucks coffee?  High end food items like sushi or truffles?  Many collector items - look at comic books.  500% ROI isn't all that out of line for a number of comics.



Point of order, commodities are items where there's little differentiation in the supply.  Sugar from Dominos sugar really isn't different from store sugar.  Soda products have variation across the providers (ie coke is different from pepsi from mr pib).  Commodities typically have low mark-ups because you have many suppliers and you really don't care from whom you buy.  Certainly bespoke items like a +1 flaming warpick are not commodities.


----------



## AZRogue

Lizard said:
			
		

> But, you see, the way I run things, I never KNOW how far they need to be. That's why I like the completeness of the 3e stat block even for Bubba the dirt farmer -- whatever he ends up doing in the plot, I've got the stats I need. If someone casts bull Strength on him, polymorphs him into a gnoll and then he gets level-draiend by a wight, I can work it all out by finger in the wind if I want or by the rules if I want.
> 
> My "adventure notes" are scrawled ideas about some interesting encounters which might happen. I almost never know what's going to happen, who's going to be important, etc. For my last adventure, the Nameless Palace Guard turned out to be the target of some serious bluff/diplomacy (and got a name), the king who was armed and equipped never got to fight (but needed his sense motive), the queen never rolled a die, and the Captain of The Guard who I thought would be a major player never even walked onstage. (Recylce THAT stat block!)
> 
> If I knew ahead of time who'd end up being important and who wouldn't, I'd probably love 4e. As it is, "History +19" doesn't help me when the age finds himself rushing through the woods alongside the PCs, dodging arrows.




It's going to be a complete shift from what you're probably used to, I agree. Getting rid of the structure for structure's sake is one of the design goals, I believe. Hopefully, though, there will still be enough tools for you to play with that you will be able to adapt or overlook the design paradigm of this edition. I've heard several people say that the new DMG is one of the best ever made, if not the best, so that certainly points to some interesting stuff still to see. I would expect, at a minimum, some healthy sections on designing worlds and cultures that may be what you're looking for. We'll see soon.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Lizard said:
			
		

> *Snip*



Then fully stat him out, give a scholar weak physical stats and skills, except for things like History (or another field he is knowledgeable in: Religion for example). Don't give him any combat powers, perhaps some utility powers (and if there are "mundane rituals" in the game some of those) and your done.

So you can have a fully stated out character in 4e, that doesn't have to be combat oriented. Or if you just want a quick NPC that is simply walk on role, then you can just stat two, three skills and your done.

It is simply the emphasis in 4e is on "make what you need, not what you don't see".


----------



## pawsplay

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'll admit I'm no economist, but, there are LOTS of commodities out there that get 500% mark-ups.  Have you been to McDonald's lately?  Bought a Coke?  7 cents to pour that coke that you pay a buck and a half for.




Experience tells me that a middle school football game concession stand can get the same buck fifty for a Coke that McDonald's gets.


----------



## pawsplay

malraux said:
			
		

> Point of order, commodities are items where there's little differentiation in the supply.  Sugar from Dominos sugar really isn't different from store sugar.  Soda products have variation across the providers (ie coke is different from pepsi from mr pib).  Commodities typically have low mark-ups because you have many suppliers and you really don't care from whom you buy.  Certainly bespoke items like a +1 flaming warpick are not commodities.




Soda is manufactured from raw ingredients and marked up. We are talking about buying and selling things which are virtually always acquired used. An archmage can charge a markup on his efforts when he makes a magic sword, but everyone else, it seems to me, is roughly in the same game when it comes to buying and selling magic swords that are acquired by adventurers.

It is simply impossible to mark up a magic sword x5 because that suggests a magic sword is not worth a magic sword. If I were doing a "trade in" and I discovered the residual cost accounted for a x5 markup, I would be affronted. Unless you honestly believe PCs would trade five magic longswords for one magic axe of similar properties, the concept is unworkable.

Magic items are like sugar. I don't care who it came from, I care how well it cuts.


----------



## AZRogue

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Experience tells me that a middle school football game concession stand can get the same buck fifty for a Coke that McDonald's gets.




I agree with you. There's no solid concrete in-game reason why the PCs can't sell magic items for the same as a merchant other than the reasons DnD has used since AD&D to prevent magic item sales and whatever reasons the DM wants to come up with. The reason for the restriction is game balance, primarily, and that's something that's either important or not, depending on the group and DM. If you're comfortable not worrying about players getting more money than they should have then I don't think you should worry about it.

You know, when 3E came out many people were upset over magical items being sold in "stores" and PCs being allowed to sell them. Hell, it's still one of the primary complaints (alongside bonus stacking) of all the DMs I know. They're just dialing it back a bit and leaving the option open to close it off completely since many, many people never wanted that door opened in the first place. If you don't mind the door being opened, I don't think you'll have many problems.


----------



## malraux

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Magic items are like sugar. I don't care who it came from, I care how well it cuts.



So you'd be just as happy with a hairgel of permanence as with a holy avenger?  If not, then no magic items are not like sugar.


----------



## keterys

Sale of magic items is like sale of used soda.

Got it. 

Hong's second law seriously should be kicking in by now.


----------



## Shroomy

If my players decide to forgo the lofty pursuits of traditional adventuring for the potentially lucrative career of magic item merchant, I would just let them do it.  There's plenty of adventuring potential there:  obtaining items from unscrupulous adventurers, facing off agaist backstabbing rivals, protecting their goods during the long trek between markets, finding potential buyers, dealing with criminals looking for a piece of the action, scrambling to get the necessary funds, etc., etc.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Shroomy said:
			
		

> If my players decide to forgo the lofty pursuits of traditional adventuring for the potentially lucrative career of magic item merchant, I would just let them do it.  There's plenty of adventuring potential there:  obtaining items from unscrupulous adventurers, facing off agaist backstabbing rivals, protecting their goods during the long trek between markets, finding potential buyers, dealing with criminals looking for a piece of the action, scrambling to get the necessary funds, etc., etc.



To add to the list: Have a Wolf Goddess join your group. (Hopefully someone will know the reference).


----------



## Sojorn

Do people think that when they kill something with no treasure, that they should get upset that the XP for that came out of a later encounter?

Challenges are rewarded with sometimes XP, sometimes treasure, and sometimes both. This is the Tao of D&D.

The way of the DM is to keep the twin rewards of XP and treasure in harmony. The system itself does much of the work, since items increase in cost by x5 every 5 levels. The DM only needs to challenge and reward appropriately. The system can survive the occasional treasure with no matching XP, just as it can survive the occasional XP with no matching treasure.

This is the way of things.


			
				Shroomy said:
			
		

> If my players decide to forgo the lofty pursuits of traditional adventuring for the potentially lucrative career of magic item merchant, I would just let them do it. There's plenty of adventuring potential there: obtaining items from unscrupulous adventurers, facing off agaist backstabbing rivals, protecting their goods during the long trek between markets, finding potential buyers, dealing with criminals looking for a piece of the action, scrambling to get the necessary funds, etc., etc.



Indeed. *sage nod*


----------



## Andor

malraux said:
			
		

> So you'd be just as happy with a hairgel of permanence as with a holy avenger?  If not, then no magic items are not like sugar.




I believe he's suggesting that if you took a used +1 flaming longsword to Ye Olde Killamajig Shoppe and tried to trade it in for a used +1 flaming battle axe you might get offended by the suggestion that the axe is worth 7 times the value of the sword. And when your buddy took that same axe in the next day and tried to swap it back for his sword that you borrowed he would not be pleased to learn that the sword is now worth 7 times what the axe is worth.


----------



## drjones

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Experience tells me that a middle school football game concession stand can get the same buck fifty for a Coke that McDonald's gets.



But can you get the same price for your Kandinsky that Sothebys can?  No.  If in your world magic items are as rare as Coke then there is no reason to have to hunt for a buyer/seller but in a more 'standard' dnd world where magic items are rare and valuable you need access to a clientel with a lot of money but not enough money/power to kill you and take your loot for free.

This isn't buying soybean futures, or even beanie babies on ebay.  It's buying antiques in a world before antiques roadshow.


----------



## malraux

Andor said:
			
		

> I believe he's suggesting that if you took a used +1 flaming longsword to Ye Olde Killamajig Shoppe and tried to trade it in for a used +1 flaming battle axe you might get offended by the suggestion that the axe is worth 7 times the value of the sword. And when your buddy took that same axe in the next day and tried to swap it back for his sword that you borrowed he would not be pleased to learn that the sword is now worth 7 times what the axe is worth.



Agreed, but you'll have much the same experience at a used car lot or pawn shop.


----------



## Destil

Well, 4E still has at it's heart the biggest 3E design problem. The dual power axis. On one axis you have level, and on the other you have gold. Both increase power, they interact in strange ways.

If only they had come to their senses and simply given every item a + to your effective level. So you know a party at level 4 with +3 items is about equal to a party at level 5 with +1 9making these numbers up as I go, of course). No more base wealth by level. No more issues of running a module for a no/high magic world, you know what equivalent you're at.

Because that's the whole problem. 'Expected' vs 'equivalent' is a world of difference.

(Some items need more than a level equivalent, of course. Stuff like boots of flying also needs a 'threshold' value, since before a certain level you just can't fly, and adding them can change the dynamics of the game a lot.)

Ah, well. The simplified rules of 3E's main + items should make this easy enough to reverse engineer out, and I'll happily be attempting such a system here on the boards after June.

...I suppose in retrospect there's a 3rd axis, party size... though that really should be on its own and not part of level.

(I can't claim credit for this idea, a guy I used to play with in a 3E game brought it up. Absoultly brilliant).


----------



## Cadfan

Ah, right.  The "zero profit margin" theory of retail sales.  I do believe I've heard of that from Magic players in my region, trying to trade in their $15 rare for $15 store credit.

Maybe the merchant can make up the difference in volume.


----------



## keterys

True, but he'll need to offer a better deal to invite more profit. Perhaps, say, $18 store credit.

That ought to work. (There's a good OotS for that)


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Experience tells me that a middle school football game concession stand can get the same buck fifty for a Coke that McDonald's gets.



True, but we aren't talking about low cost, easy to acquire items.

Imagine if you had a Ferrari.  That's something a decent number of people would love to have, but it was really expensive to make and it has a lot of value.

Now, imagine you had no phone and no internet and wanted to sell it.  Some people might know someone who has the money to afford one, but it is unlikely.  So how do you find a buyer?  The only thing I could think of is trying to drive around until I found a dealership who was willing to buy it off me since they had the connections to find a buyer.  They likely have a list of former clients with their addresses and those people might have friends who want to buy one as well.

The same thing applies to magic items in a D&D game.  You might find a merchant who has ties to the King of Kingdom A which is a good month travel west from your location.  The merchant is allowed entry to the castle due to an agreement that was passed down from the King's father because the merchant's father helped him out one time.  The King trusts that his good are what he says they are since they've had dealings in the past.  Plus, he knows wealthy nobles in town B, city C, and kingdom D just in case that King doesn't want it.

The merchant is willing to buy the items, but for a lot less than he'd sell them for as he has to hire guards for a trip that long through the wilderness and they cost money.  Plus the cost to feed them and the danger involved.

So, you have the choice of either:
a) Traveling the world for as long as it takes to find someone rich enough to buy them, find one who has an interest in it, convince them that you are trustworthy enough to hand over a large amount of cash to, then sell the item for full price.
b) Sell the item for 1/5th the value to the traveling merchant who is in town immediately with no hassle.


----------



## FireLance

Andor said:
			
		

> I believe he's suggesting that if you took a used +1 flaming longsword to Ye Olde Killamajig Shoppe and tried to trade it in for a used +1 flaming battle axe you might get offended by the suggestion that the axe is worth 7 times the value of the sword. And when your buddy took that same axe in the next day and tried to swap it back for his sword that you borrowed he would not be pleased to learn that the sword is now worth 7 times what the axe is worth.



Of course, pre-4e, the standard widely-accepted PC selling price was 50% of the PC buying price, so you'd get the same situation but with smaller numbers: the flaming battle axe would be worth 2 flaming longswords, and the next day, a flaming longsword would be worth 2 flaming battle axes. So it seems to me that the issue is more of scale and perceived fairness than of logic or principle.


----------



## Spatula

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> The problem with this new system is that it's difficult to play around with the parcel system. Let's say I want to give each of the PCs a +1 silver dagger in preparation for a Werewolf fight; how do I get that to match up with the 6th/7th/8th/9th array?
> 
> I would probably have to convert the worth of everything involved to gold and go from there. The obvious question then is, why can't I just get the values in gold in the first place? The 3e system had its flaws, but there are some clear advantages to gold-based treasure.
> 
> This problem would be mainly solved if they also included a table of the total gold value (including the worth of the four magic items) that goes to the party at each level. Whether they actually did that... we'll just have to wait and see. Regardless, it's definitely something I could see jotting down on a DM screen.



Any magic item of Level N costs X gp.  So they are giving you the total gold value, indirectly.

The problem with just a lump sum of wealth is that there's no guarantees what it's spent on.  You could get the "big six" items, or it could all be invested on an apparatus of kwalish.  I wonder if the actual guidelines in the DMG aren't more strict than what's shown in the excerpt, telling DMs what kinds of items to use.  After all, another necklace when everyone in the party has that slot filled, but is lacking, say, some weapons, is not so useful.  Especially given the low resale value, and since PCs are assumed to have access to magic weapons when it comes to encounter balance.


----------



## hong

Andor said:
			
		

> I believe he's suggesting that if you took a used +1 flaming longsword to Ye Olde Killamajig Shoppe and tried to trade it in for a used +1 flaming battle axe you might get offended by the suggestion that the axe is worth 7 times the value of the sword.




This is why there are no Ye Olde Killamajig Shoppes in 4E.


----------



## Intense_Interest

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Soda is manufactured from raw ingredients and marked up. We are talking about buying and selling things which are virtually always acquired used. An archmage can charge a markup on his efforts when he makes a magic sword, but everyone else, it seems to me, is roughly in the same game when it comes to buying and selling magic swords that are acquired by adventurers.




Your initial assertion is wrong.  Bottlers take the pre-manufactured products that are shipped in and then bottle it.  They are completely different companies than the actual recipe Manufactures.  However you can purchase a $1.25 for $.50 from the Bottler and they would still make a 100% profit.

Secondly, the game is not at all in favor of the adventurers because they have a significant disadvantage of Timing Cost to the traveling merchant in the market microstructure.  A PC that fails to turn over the non-helpful item nigh-immediately is more likely to be killed.  A merchant does not have this problem and therefore can sit on a magic item surplus until the demand for the exchange gives them the advantage.

Observe the Diamond and Health Care systems if you disagree about this scientific analogy.



> It is simply impossible to mark up a magic sword x5 because that suggests a magic sword is not worth a magic sword. If I were doing a "trade in" and I discovered the residual cost accounted for a x5 markup, I would be affronted. Unless you honestly believe PCs would trade five magic longswords for one magic axe of similar properties, the concept is unworkable.
> 
> Magic items are like sugar. I don't care who it came from, I care how well it cuts.




You used an incorrect analogy again.  Sugar is a renewable resource, rather than a manufactured product as a Magic Item is.  Sugarcane is growing out of the ground every year- there is zero issues with economy of scale.  You have to invest considerably more into a magic item, both in GP and in using the crafter's precious time.  

Secondly, you are complaining about the markup again which I've already stated is a economic truth in the market presented.  Commodity Brokers can commonly turn a profit just by holding ownership for a specific amount of time (buy low sell high etc).  Diamond Markets are famous for this.


----------



## Spatula

Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> Does anyone else notice that the tables only go up to 6 member s in the party?  WotC - WAKE UP!!! There are parties larger than that out there.  Make the tables non-dependent like the good ole' days and gold/encounters to make level - pshaw.  There should be no set number of encounters for leveling, set goals yes, set rewards, no.
> 
> Stop playing WoW and get a grip on gaming the old fashioned way.  It may appeal to younger players with no sense of social, historical or real-world sensibilities, but it looks more and more like I'm pulling my 1E/2E AD&D books out of the closet.



The table is a pointless waste of space.... the xp value for the party of size 4, 5, or 6 is just the xp for a monster of the same level as the quest, multiplied by 4, 5, or 6.  That number is then divided by 4, 5, or 6 when handing out the reward...


----------



## Hussar

malraux said:
			
		

> Point of order, commodities are items where there's little differentiation in the supply.  Sugar from Dominos sugar really isn't different from store sugar.  Soda products have variation across the providers (ie coke is different from pepsi from mr pib).  Commodities typically have low mark-ups because you have many suppliers and you really don't care from whom you buy.  Certainly bespoke items like a +1 flaming warpick are not commodities.




I stand corrected.  I was misusing the term to mean "something for sale".  My bad.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Experience tells me that a middle school football game concession stand can get the same buck fifty for a Coke that McDonald's gets.




Yup.  And they both get their 500% profit margin.  What's your point?



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Soda is manufactured from raw ingredients and marked up. We are talking about buying and selling things which are virtually always acquired used. An archmage can charge a markup on his efforts when he makes a magic sword, but everyone else, it seems to me, is roughly in the same game when it comes to buying and selling magic swords that are acquired by adventurers.
> 
> It is simply impossible to mark up a magic sword x5 because that suggests a magic sword is not worth a magic sword. If I were doing a "trade in" and I discovered the residual cost accounted for a x5 markup, I would be affronted. Unless you honestly believe PCs would trade five magic longswords for one magic axe of similar properties, the concept is unworkable.
> 
> Magic items are like sugar. I don't care who it came from, I care how well it cuts.




Wow, that's just wrong in so many ways.  The only reason sugar is cheap is because you have massive competition trying to sell the same product that is fairly easy to produce.

If you have thousands and thousands of wizards mass producing magic weapons, then yes, magic items are like sugar.

If, OTOH, your campaign resembles anything like about 99% of D&D campaigns out there, then magic items are not mass produced.  Thus, the selling price of the item is whatever people are willing to pay.  Small supply plus large demand = high price.  This is pretty basic economics.  We're not talking some stamped out sword banged out by the local blacksmith.  We're talking a well crafted, Damascus steel style weapons crafted by masters.  

Thus, the mark-up is measurably higher.

Tell you what, head down to your local used bookstore and see how much you get for a used book.  Sell it, and then try to buy it back and see how much the mark-up is.


----------



## malraux

Hussar said:
			
		

> Tell you what, head down to your local used bookstore and see how much you get for a used book.  Sell it, and then try to buy it back and see how much the mark-up is.



Really you can just change that to any sort of used item store.  Antiques, CDs, video games, books, jewelry, memorabilia, electronics, clothing, etc.  Heck even stocks have a spread between the buy and sell price, and those are about as close to a purely indistinguishable item as you can imagine.  

edit: For example, if you want to sell on share of Hasbro, you'll only get $36.20, but buying a share costs $37.64.  And that ignores broker fees.  That's a 4% difference in price in products literally indistinguishable in one of the most efficient markets ever devised.  I have no problem with the idea that in a medieval-esque society, magic items will have broad differentials in the buy and sell price.


----------



## Orius

Doesn't look too bad.  

Only glanced over the XP tables.  They change every edition anyway.  And I'd already moved past by the book XP rewards in 3e, since the "level x 1000 XP to level up" formula in 3e was very easy to work with.  I'd give something 250 or 500 x level XP if the party did something significant and 50-100 x level XP for smaller stuff.  There were no individual XP rewards for defeating enemies, since that's the thing that threw 3e XP balance totally out of whack for me in the first place. 

The treasure parcels seem a bit like some things I was doing in my games, sometimes add just add up all the encounters and then distribute the total around the dungeon where I saw fit.  Usually that meant the lion's share with a "boss" or some other major monster, withh the rest hidden in the floors or wall, or in chests and the like.  The real problem with 3e treasure was the assumption that random tables would always equal a certain average amount in the long run, and that PCs would always have a certain amount of wealth, particularly in magic items to balance things out.  I never went entirely by the book with 3e treasure anyway, so it didn't really matter to me.  

I also hope the rules for the DM include guidelines on how to set up custom parcels.  I wouldn't want to be tied into using the same parcels for every single adventure I run. Partially this is because they include fixed gp amounts, that just feels too predictable, and I'd rather something more random.  But then just looking at the parcels it shouldn't be too hard to set up, just stick in 4 magic items 1-4 levels higher than the party, then divide the total gp amount among 6 other parcels.  And my games have been moving past sacks and piles of coins as well and using trade goods instead, so I could just go in and replace some of that with say bolts of exotic fabric, rare spices, ingots of precious metals, and so on rather easily.

The section on commerce doesn't sound much different than what we already have in the game.  It's just simply reiterating that you can find the basic stuff you need in villages, but need a big city for the more off the wall stuff.

The magic item economy sounds pretty good.  Character can make items of their own level or lower, no problem there.  They need to buy or find items that are higher level, and higher level items should be out of their means most of the time, or possibly can't even be bought, depending on how thhe DM wants things.  The disenchantment process sounds like a good way to get rid of items if buying and selling is out of the question.  It also looks like it could make an effective method for the party paladin to destroy evil artifacts in a way that benefits the party as well.  Random markups aren't a bad idea either, if the DM and players want to go through the trouble of playing that stuff out.


----------



## Orius

Hussar said:
			
		

> Sort of.  The problem is, nation building is a very solo activity.  If John wants to build a keep, fine, but, what do the other 4 players do in the meantime.  Building a castle without magic takes years.  So, does John retire his character in the meantime?  After all, it would be a pretty strange thing for John to go off and adventure while his castle is being built.
> 
> All that kind of stuff is extremely campaign specific and I'm not sure if the DMG is the best place to deal with it initially.
> 
> To be fair though, I'd LOVE to see some rules and ideas for how to make this work in a campaign.




For one, involve the whole party in it.  Assume the traditional D&D party of the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue.  Let them run their barony, kingdom, or whatever together. Naturally, only one of them will be the lord of this domain unless two of them are married or something, but they can still cooperate with each other.

 They can work together on the castle -- the fighter oversees the construction to make sure the defenses are adequate, the wizard and cleric can provide magic to assist in construction, and the cleric can also treat construction injuries or bless something, and finally the rogue can takes care of security features (not just traps, but things like murder holes and the like).

Then they run things together.  The fighter is in charge of the army, training, and other martial aspects.  The cleric takes care of spiritual matters, whether running the chapel in the keep, or becoming the high priest of the kingdom.  The wizard handles arcane matters, and the rogue acts as a spymaster.

This can be adjusted to other classes by taking into account the general role each class plays in an overall campaign.  But in the end, it shouldn't just be one PC trying to carve out his own kingdom while the others sit around twiddling their thumbs, if they're going to do it, they should do it in a way that involves the whole party.


----------



## Lurker37

Let's see if i have this straight:

1) The assumed POL setting assumes that travel from the villager to the local city is hazardous, let alone between major cities. 

2) Unless there is a major improvement over the corresponding real-world period of history, voyages by sea can result in loss of cargo, crew and even entire ships often enough for it to be factored into the expected cost of the voyage. In fact, it could be argued that it's even more hazardous since the rumoured sea serpents etc are often real in most campaigns. Because of this, exotic and imported products would already have high levels or markup to compensate for lost stock, so the markup on magic items would not be unprecedented.

3) There is no internet, telephone system or even telegraph network in the average gameworld. Messengers are commonly used. This greatly increases the time required to find prospective buyers, or for intermediaries to find items they know their clients are interested in. Because of this, deals that can be quickly struck in the modern world will take much, much longer in most campaigns.

4) Adventurers will no longer walk out of conquered enemy strongholds with wheelbarrows of low-level items, implying that such items are not readily available in 4E, even if the group conquered clearly had the funds to afford such items at market prices.

5) Items can get broken down to create the components required for more powerful items, so there is a sink to prevent the excess of low-level items that previously plagued some campaigns. This possibly explains 4 - that wheelbarrow of +1 swords was used to make a single +5 sword. 

6) Judging by the prices given, Magic items are expensive enough that only the rich can afford to buy them, and even then not necessarily in large numbers, unless they're buying items inappropriate to their importance in the game. (The local lord may be interested in as +2 frost bow, but could not afford a hundred of them. On the other hand, such a bow would probably not even worth a mention in the City of Brass - it's just beneath the interest of the merchants and the clientèle there except possibly as something to disenchant.) 

7) Merchants are willing to buy the items from PCs at 1/5th of market price, and sell them for seven times that. (We have no indication yet of exactly how much haggling can change those prices.) These merchants are not the buyers for the item - they are the people who make their living by _finding_ buyers for such items. That's a significant difference that some posters seem to have overlooked. The only value the item has is for the merchant the potential for them to sell it for a profit. 

8) There are no specialty magic shops, so anyone wanting to sell a magic item to someone other than a merchant needs to find an end user, or authorised representative thereof, directly.

9) Since the setting is POL, potential customers with the liquid funds to purchase items are unlikely to be all clustered in one convenient location. Travel between points of light will be required.

If these assumptions hold, then the only commodities market I can imagine is for the residue from disenchanting items, and even that would be limited. Anything else is a high-risk proposition. A merchant buying a magic item from a PC is taking a gamble that (s)he will _ever_ be able to find a buyer, or be able to strike a bargain with an intermediary who makes a living brokering these sorts of deals. Closing the deal will likely require contacts that the merchant has either spent years building relations with, services exclusive to members of the Merchants guild in good standing, or months of discreet inquiries and negotiations. 

Furthermore, 4) implies to me that there may be a limited supply of residue to make new magical items - perhaps the secret of how the very first magic items were made was lost several empires ago, and now only the technique of making an item by cannibalising one or more others survives? Maybe some still know how to make 'new' residue, or make items without it, but the process is slow, taking multiple participants weeks if not months? Perhaps magic items can decay over time - so a magic sword of less than artifact status might rust like any other piece of metal, although perhaps more slowly? Any of these would keep the supply of magic items very low.

I'm having a great deal of difficulty seeing this as a commodities market. The antiques comparison seems better to me.

If the PCs wish to try their own luck, then it should either be an adventure as they turn their full efforts to the task, or else they find themselves still carrying the weapon, unsold, ten levels later.

The DM might even hint at this by having the merchant they buy an item from mention  (after the deal is closed!) that (s)he just won a bet they made with another merchant ten years ago when they first bought the item.

Anyway, that's what I infer from what we know so far. Based on that, the convenience of offloading the item for 1/5th value doesn't seem so bad for the party, and is not a guaranteed profit for the merchant - at least not in the short term.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Orius said:
			
		

> This can be adjusted to other classes by taking into account the general role each class plays in an overall campaign.  But in the end, it shouldn't just be one PC trying to carve out his own kingdom while the others sit around twiddling their thumbs, if they're going to do it, they should do it in a way that involves the whole party.



Except when you have the one person in the party who doesn't want to do any of those things.

Fighter: "Right, when are we going to kill some things and take their stuff?"
Wizard: "Whoa, I'd like to build a castle first..."
Fighter: "Wow...that sounds boring...I want to kill things."
Wizard: "No, really...you can have a position on my building team making my castle for me."
Fighter: "Building team?  Umm, you realize I'm a Hero!  Remember, we saved the entire country from that rampaging dragon and I'm the one who got in the killing blow.  I stood up to its attacks for 8 rounds before it died.  I don't want to reduce myself to building your castle."
Wizard: "Of course I remember.  That's why I got the land given to me, remember?  Since I told the King I was the leader of the party.  But, I'll make you the HEAD of building my castle."
Fighter: "So, what does that entail exactly?"
Wizard: "You tell the DM that you are supervising the construction and he'll tell you if anything interesting happens."
Fighter: "So, I don't get to roll any dice?  When is this castle going to be done?  I heard someone in town say their daughter was kidnapped.  I want to go save her."
Wizard: "No time, I'm meeting with the Mayor of the nearby town to negotiate taxes.  It should only be an hour or 2 of role playing.  You can come, though and help."
Fighter: "That's the point...I don't WANT to help...I want to play D&D where we kill things and take their stuff."


----------



## A'koss

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Except when you have the one person in the party who doesn't want to do any of those things.



And this is why we have _DMs_. 

If someone wants to build a castle - great! Another wants to adventure - run a couple of adventures during the time the castle is being built. Perhaps tie the two together... eg. During the adventure the PCs a group of giants become indebted to the PCs and are willing to assist in the building of the castle and helping defend it's borders. Perhaps the PCs rescue some fey of noble birth, sewing the seeds of an important alliance. The point is you find a way to accomodate...


----------



## Thasmodious

Lurker37 said:
			
		

> _...convenient numbered list comprising a valid summary of the issue...'_
> 
> A merchant buying a magic item from a PC is taking a gamble that (s)he will _ever_ be able to find a buyer, or be able to strike a bargain with an intermediary who makes a living brokering these sorts of deals. Closing the deal will likely require contacts that the merchant has either spent years building relations with, services exclusive to members of the Merchants guild in good standing, or months of discreet inquiries and negotiations.




Nice post, and I agree.

I like the idea of shadowy intermediaries.  It reminds me of Depp's character in Ninth Gate.  Introducing the PCs to a whole shadowy, quasi legal, underworld would make for some interesting encounters.  

Someone else pointed out another problem earlier.  That local, regional, and national rulers would not generally be happy about the open trade of powerful magic items over which they exerted no control.  What ruler would want to allow people, potential rivals and enemies, to be able to easily acquire powerful items that could be used against them or endanger their rule right under their noses?  Hence the shadowy.  

Enter the "broker" (a skilled character in his own right, rogue likely).  He makes a living connecting power magic items with new owners, sometimes by rather unscrupulous means.  One or two deals a year gets him by comfortably.  Maybe he meets the PCs because a merchant or fence puts them in contact with him, maybe he just shows up representing an anonymous "interested party".  Maybe he steals an item from the PCs.  Maybe the PCs sell him a powerful flaming greatsword and three levels later learn of an evil warlord armed with a flaming greatsword, wreaking havoc across an impoverished region.  I like this guy already, he's got to go in the new campaign NPC file...

Anyway, rambling aside, you make a solid case for the validity of the 25%-140% magic item trade guideline.


----------



## Ahglock

Andor said:
			
		

> I believe he's suggesting that if you took a used +1 flaming longsword to Ye Olde Killamajig Shoppe and tried to trade it in for a used +1 flaming battle axe you might get offended by the suggestion that the axe is worth 7 times the value of the sword. And when your buddy took that same axe in the next day and tried to swap it back for his sword that you borrowed he would not be pleased to learn that the sword is now worth 7 times what the axe is worth.





This is sort of how I look at it.  Sure we can try to rationalize reasons for such a huge discrepancy and they may be totally valid.  But it is a game and when you penalize the selling of items to such a large degree, its basically just saying people do not sell magic items.  And if that is what you want to say, just say it, don't come up with rules that amount to a flogging for trying to do the act.


----------



## Hussar

Orius said:
			
		

> For one, involve the whole party in it.  Assume the traditional D&D party of the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue.  Let them run their barony, kingdom, or whatever together. Naturally, only one of them will be the lord of this domain unless two of them are married or something, but they can still cooperate with each other.
> 
> They can work together on the castle -- the fighter oversees the construction to make sure the defenses are adequate, the wizard and cleric can provide magic to assist in construction, and the cleric can also treat construction injuries or bless something, and finally the rogue can takes care of security features (not just traps, but things like murder holes and the like).




See, the problem with this is, while everyone has a job, none of these jobs work with any of the other jobs.  Instead of a group activity, like an adventure, you have four concurrent activities, none of which actually require any interaction with each other.  



> Then they run things together.  The fighter is in charge of the army, training, and other martial aspects.  The cleric takes care of spiritual matters, whether running the chapel in the keep, or becoming the high priest of the kingdom.  The wizard handles arcane matters, and the rogue acts as a spymaster.
> 
> This can be adjusted to other classes by taking into account the general role each class plays in an overall campaign.  But in the end, it shouldn't just be one PC trying to carve out his own kingdom while the others sit around twiddling their thumbs, if they're going to do it, they should do it in a way that involves the whole party.




Instead, you have four characters, all doing separate jobs, none of which need to talk to each other, and all of which operate on separate time lines.  This is not what I sit down at the table to do.  

Look, I'm not saying it can't be done, it's just that it's extremely difficult to do and even more difficult to try to include into the baseline mechanics.  We KNOW that everyone wants to go on adventures.  You wouldn't be playing D&D if you didn't.  But, we also know that building a castle is something that only appeals to a subset of the group.  Trying to make that subset a baseline in the game is going to frustrate a LOT of gamers.


----------



## Dormain1

The way I look at it is the 20% value the PC's get when selling an item represents the amount of money they require to spend in order to prove that the item is magical, there are too many instances of shifty salesmen claiming their items are +X when really they are just masterwork

The 140% is just the merchants mark up from the base which he bought the new item

The 20% could also represent the Residuum value of an item

It depends on how you want to represent it


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> To add to the list: Have a Wolf Goddess join your group. (Hopefully someone will know the reference).




_Thanks_.  You know, I just got the ED for that *out* of my head.

Looks like I'll be whistling to myself all day TOMORROW, too.


----------



## Primal

Lacyon said:
			
		

> This doesn't mesh with various statements by the designers that NPCs of whatever level the DM desires exist whenever the DM desires them to in the place that the DM desires them to be.
> 
> It is true that the default setting assumes that adventurers of PC calibre are rare enough that they don't steal the spotlight from the actual PCs. It is also true that those which do exist on-screen don't typically need to be fully statted out unless they are going to fight (either against or alongside the PCs), and even then they don't need the full suite of powers spelled out unless they are going to be in enough fights that they need to use more than a few such powers.
> 
> That is vastly different from assuming that they don't exist at all, or are only villains, especially as it pertains to trading magic items among them.




Well, just take a look at what they did in FR -- no high-level NPCs to steal the "spotlight" and ruin the DM's adventure. Apparently a lot of players whined that it's illogical that they *have* to go on adventuring if there are, say, resident NPCs of level 5+ who could also tackle the job. Likewise, DMs felt they couldn't run an adventure, *unless* they had logical reasons for every NPC not wanting to interfere/help in the adventure. Based on what I've soon of those Dungeoncraft articles, this also seems to apply in a typical 'PoL'-setting, too.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench

> A merchant, agent, or fence buys items from the character at one-fifth the items’ value, in the hope of selling them at significant profit (usually, above the items’ value). Buyers are hard to find, but the profit to be made makes it worth the merchant’s risk.




Eh? one FIFTH?? That's just dumb.  So a 50,000 GP greatsword +3 of KoboldCrunchiness, you sell it for 10,000 gp, no WAY are my players gonna accept that rubbish, nor should I expect them too (unless they blow a skill check and get fleeced ).


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Silverblade The Ench said:
			
		

> Eh? one FIFTH?? That's just dumb.  So a 50,000 GP greatsword +3 of KoboldCrunchiness, you sell it for 10,000 gp, no WAY are my players gonna accept that rubbish, nor should I expect them too (unless they blow a skill check and get fleeced ).



I suppose the alternative is wandering from house to house asking "Do YOU have 50,000 gp and want a greatsword +3?  No?  Oh....Next house then.."

Or knocking on castle doors yelling out "Please, open up and let me see the King...I have a greatsword +3 I just KNOW he'll love!"


----------



## malraux

I'd assert that kings, especially powerful rich ones, would only buy magic weapons from trusted merchants.  Assuming cursed items of any kind still exist, there's no way a king would dare risk picking up an item from random people.  And what better way to hide a magical assassination device than inside an apparently magic weapon.  Powerful persons would be very very cautious around unknown magical items.


----------



## Jedi_Solo

Sure, the king MAY be interested in purchasing the +5 Sword of UberKewlness but there is no way strangers would be allowed to see the king with a weapon (which is kind of required in this situation).  In a world with high magic (as evidenced by the fact the +5 Sword of UberKewlness exists) it is highly unlikely the strangers would be allowed in the same room as the king and the sword even if the sword is only held by the captain of the king's personal guard (who knows what that sword is capable of).

More likely, the PCs announce they have the sword and ask if the king would be interested.  The PCs are then met by the someone from the royal guard (for security reasons), a royal advisor (to speak for the king's interests), a castle blacksmith (to examine the sword) and a castle wizard (to examine the magic of the sword).  Then of course, with an item that expensive, there will be an investigation to make sure that the PCs didn't murder anyone local (or anyone important to friends of the kingdom) to get their hands on the weapon.

Who knows how long all of that will take, and then the King may eventually decide to not buy the sword.

They can go through all of that (and maybe even get nothing in the end) or get 20% right now.


----------



## Knightlord

To be honest, I rarely look at D&D's economy and how it functions. I just assume that it does. And why not just assume? I mean, I playing Dungeons & Dragons, not Economies & Economists (though an Economist would be a fearsome Solo foe, no doubt. ).

Anyways, I don't understand why understanding the Economy of D&D is such a big deal to people. Is it really necessary to know how much money the farmer brings in each year, or how much land it takes to sustain a certain population, or the ins-and-outs of magic item trade, inflation, the king's demand for them, value degradation?

I know that to a DM, his/her world means alot to him/her, and that they wish to make it as immersive as possible for the players, but why is it necessary to "recreate" everything that's in our world and explain in detail how it works. Most people just play D&D to have fun (and I don't mean to be "munchkins") and adventure with their friends. To escape the realism of this world and all of its problems, and imagine a place where you can bash an obvious villain (or someone you just don't like) over their heads and be praised for it.   

Am I wrong?

If the farmer has a bad year, just increase the price of farm goods a little. If war plagues a nation, increase the price of war goods a little to signify scarcity and inflation. It's not really necessary to know the exact formula as to how this occured or how it is going to affect the world (not to mention cluttering your game with "%'s" and "ratio's" and "Zzzz's"), only how is it going to affect the players directly.

Idk, this whole economic debate seems rather pointless in my eyes.

Just my $0.02. 

-As a side note, the new treasure system looks pretty cool, though I will reserve judgment until I actually see it in play.


----------



## vagabundo

Silverblade The Ench said:
			
		

> Eh? one FIFTH?? That's just dumb.  So a 50,000 GP greatsword +3 of KoboldCrunchiness, you sell it for 10,000 gp, no WAY are my players gonna accept that rubbish, nor should I expect them too (unless they blow a skill check and get fleeced ).




Well then they should get into another line of business, heaven forbid, that they should have to work to support themselves. 

The selling of items makes more sense to me now, since PCs only get a fraction of what they are worth. They are like stolen goods, that is about what you will get if you try to sell your loot to fence. 

Actually, the PCs *have* killed something and stolen its stuff!!


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Here's my take on this.  The only difference I see in the 3E and 4E systems is that 4E is trying to discourage the magic shop/selling magic concept via the 1/5 selling price and residuum (I like handwavium, though perhaps I like phlobotinum better).

I would like to see a sidebar explaining what PC's could do to sell magic items at closer to full price - I will probably allow some means of selling at full price - however, it will involve serious time (just as I do it in 3E).  In my current game, I've got magical auctions that take place every 4 months where PC's can try to sell items at higher than the standard sale price.  For big items, I think it should take a long time to find an appropriate buyer if you want to sell full price.


----------



## Mark Plemmons

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Sure, the king MAY be interested in purchasing the +5 Sword of UberKewlness but there is no way strangers would be allowed to see the king with a weapon (which is kind of required in this situation).  In a world with high magic (as evidenced by the fact the +5 Sword of UberKewlness exists) it is highly unlikely the strangers would be allowed in the same room as the king and the sword even if the sword is only held by the captain of the king's personal guard (who knows what that sword is capable of).
> 
> More likely, the PCs announce they have the sword and ask if the king would be interested.




"Bah!  Our king is 25th level!  As such, all magic weapons he encounters cannot be beneath his notice, and must be appropriate for 26th level!  Get out of here with your magic trinket!"


----------



## keterys

Silverblade The Ench said:
			
		

> Eh? one FIFTH?? That's just dumb.  So a 50,000 GP greatsword +3 of KoboldCrunchiness, you sell it for 10,000 gp, no WAY are my players gonna accept that rubbish, nor should I expect them too (unless they blow a skill check and get fleeced ).




Truthfully, I think it makes far more sense that it can't be sold at all. No one has the money or interest to buy such high level items. At least not at anything approaching the price you make them at.

There can be rare exceptions, and I'm guessing that very low level items can actually switch over to a much higher sell rate, but by and large... no buyers, unless you drop your price to the point where it's a steal. And even then, often not.


----------



## Storminator

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Here's my take on this.  The only difference I see in the 3E and 4E systems is that 4E is trying to discourage the magic shop/selling magic concept via the 1/5 selling price and residuum (I like handwavium, though perhaps I like phlobotinum better).
> 
> I would like to see a sidebar explaining what PC's could do to sell magic items at closer to full price - I will probably allow some means of selling at full price - however, it will involve serious time (just as I do it in 3E).  In my current game, I've got magical auctions that take place every 4 months where PC's can try to sell items at higher than the standard sale price.  For big items, I think it should take a long time to find an appropriate buyer if you want to sell full price.




I see it as the part of the game we aren't really playing, just moving on the actual interesting stuff. So it's done quick and easy.

If your players want to make the focus of the game the selling the magic loot, by all means make entire sessions and campaign arcs out of selling items. Making it challenging, introduce enemies that want to prevent them from earning gold, and adventurers that come in and kill them and take their stuff. Perhaps you even handwave the acquiring items, since that's obviously of no interest.

PS


----------



## Fanaelialae

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Chicken farms, indeed. Who says that vengeful DMing is a lost art?
> I have a hard time thinking of logic, economics, and versimillitude as "loopholes."
> Only an utter moron would refuse to allow the PCs a hard won victory over great obstacles.




IMO, it is the DMs duty to maintain game balance.  If a player came up to you and asked to replace their fighter's daily power with: 

Heroic Fighter Power X [Monthly, Reliable]
Hit: 99[W]

would you allow it?  Would you allow it if he gave you logical reasons for it, such as a quest he had to go on to find the one master of this special @sswhoopin technique?  If he pointed out to you that since it is only once every 33 days, it should be 33 times as powerful as a fighter daily?  If he wrote a fifty page short story justifying why his character should have this power?

I wouldn't.  There are some things that imbalance the game.  That power would be one of them.  Allowing players to regularly sell their magic items for 100% value and buy items that are X levels above what they're supposed to have is another.  

Granted, if you enter into a gentlemen's agreement (as someone in this thread suggested earlier) that the money will be spent on items that don't increase the PCs' power, like a castle, I don't see a problem with it.  If you enter into an agreement whereby the players are trading equivalent magic items with the trader, that'd be balanced too (it wouldn't make sense from the point of versimilitude- how the heck does this trader make money if all he ever does is trade items of level X for items of level X- but it should be balanced).  

But if your players are able to sell off all of their magic gear at level 10 (or even 15) to buy even just one level 30 uber sword of god-slaying, it suggests that the DM may have made a mistake.  The party will be lob-sided and actually more prone to dying because of this (since they've pawned all their defensive gear), while at the same time the god-slayer wielding fighter will blenderize everything in sight.  That's not a desirable outcome for anyone, as far as I can tell.

It isn't the DM's job to punish the players, but just like a child trying to stick their finger into an electrical socket because they're curious, sometimes players can be very short-sighted.  The uber level 30 god-slaying sword (at level 10) that looks like fun today, may well ruin the campaign tomorrow.  That's when the DM, like a responsible parent, has to respond with a firm NO.  If your players don't need this kind of regulation, fantastic!  Some, however, do.


----------



## Knightlord

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> It isn't the DM's job to punish the players, but just like a child trying to stick their finger into an electrical socket because they're curious, sometimes players can be very short-sighted.  The uber level 30 god-slaying sword (at level 10) that looks like fun today, may well ruin the campaign tomorrow.  That's when the DM, like a responsible parent, has to respond with a firm NO.  If your players don't need this kind of regulation, fantastic!  Some, however, do.




LMAO! Reminds me of that Family Guy Episode:

Peter: I want this and this. (holds out two candy bars)

Lois: You can have "one", Peter.

Peter: But that man over there got two.

Lois: "I don't care" what the other men are getting, you're only getting one.

Peter: I HATE you...


----------



## Fanaelialae

Knightlord said:
			
		

> LMAO! Reminds me of that Family Guy Episode:
> 
> Peter: I want this and this. (holds out two candy bars)
> 
> Lois: You can have "one", Peter.
> 
> Peter: But that man over there got two.
> 
> Lois: "I don't care" what the other men are getting, you're only getting one.
> 
> Peter: I HATE you...




LOL!


----------



## eleran

keterys said:
			
		

> Sale of magic items is like sale of used soda.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Hong's second law seriously should be kicking in by now.





Not as long as they have breath in their bodies and keys on their keyboards.


----------



## Andor

I do like how in the same breath the People for Extravagant Markup suggest that trying to skirt the established merchants will simultaneously result in hordes of adventurers trying to steal their stuff, _as well as_ hordes of assasins from Wallmart's secret underground lair. 

No wonder there is such a markup on magic items, it all goes into the overhead of maintaining hordes of Ninja Death Squads to protect the items from armies of thieving Paladins.


----------



## drjones

Knightlord said:
			
		

> Idk, this whole economic debate seems rather pointless in my eyes.



Yes, yes, yes.  But if you removed the pointless discussions I suppose this forum would implode from the sudden vacuum.


----------



## Hussar

Andor said:
			
		

> I do like how in the same breath the People for Extravagant Markup suggest that trying to skirt the established merchants will simultaneously result in hordes of adventurers trying to steal their stuff, _as well as_ hordes of assasins from Wallmart's secret underground lair.
> 
> No wonder there is such a markup on magic items, it all goes into the overhead of maintaining hordes of Ninja Death Squads to protect the items from armies of thieving Paladins.




... because that merchant has maybe one or two items, not an entire shop full of them and doesn't exactly spread it around that he has them except to certain people (like adventurers) that might be interested?

If you think 500% is extravagant mark up, you have never been shopping for antiques.  Heck, a first appearance of Superman comic book is worth about 500 000 USD.  That's considerably more than 500% mark up, even taking inflation into consideration.  Yet, surprisingly enough, people aren't going around murdering comic book collectors.

Something to remember here is that the traveling merchant is a feature in Heroic tier.  That means minor magic items only - +2 at best.  In higher tiers, the merchants are going to have access to higher level goodies in order to sell their wares.  

In other words, that dwarven peddler that travels around might have a +1 sword to sell you.  That githyanki merchant you meet after you have made a pretty decent name for yourself, actually belongs to an arcane guild that uses ritual magic heavily to transport items.  Then, once you begin treading on your path to epic greatness, that Lich contacts you with an offer because news of your incredible prowess has perked his interest.


----------



## gizmo33

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I don't really think that is the best way to rephrase my argument, actually.




So you say.  You talked about what a player "should" be doing, for example, and a bunch of other things that I tried to address.  This strikes me as more posturing than argument given the lack of specifics.



			
				TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> It looks like you are just quoting other people you disagree with... I don't think you are even really addressing my point in a meaningful way. What you are saying I don't agree with at all.




Actually I didn't quote anyone but you.  Those statements I made based on the story-based game were my own thoughts, and other than the joke about PCs turning into minions, I don't think they were too far from what seems to be the stated goals of the 4E design.  The point that I was getting at was that the thought experiment of the "what-if" regarding PCs becoming merchants was pretty much explicitly contradicted by the stated design goals of 4E.  For example - monsters (and by implication NPCs) and PCs don't have to play by the same rules.



			
				TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> If you have something to say about my point yourself, then please just say it yourself, in your own words. Don't just throw out your ideas of what "the 4E supporters" that you don't like would say. it just confuses the discussion and leads to misunderstandings and bad sentiments.




I would and I did.  Since the design goals of 4E is an issue, there is a limit to which I can talk about my own thoughts completely out of context since I'm not an author of the game.  Some of this comes down to what you mean by "4E supporters".  The actual statements that I made, regarding the two different standards for PCs and NPCs, comes from the 4E designers themselves.  So you're not wrong by calling those folks "4E supporters" but I think it has a misleading connotation.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> It isn't the DM's job to punish the players, but just like a child trying to stick their finger into an electrical socket because they're curious, sometimes players can be very short-sighted.  The uber level 30 god-slaying sword (at level 10) that looks like fun today, may well ruin the campaign tomorrow.  That's when the DM, like a responsible parent, has to respond with a firm NO.  If your players don't need this kind of regulation, fantastic!  Some, however, do.




There are adventures, where Players just find many many items, but: those items should necer be custom made or bought, rather given for story reasons. Also Encounters have to be balanced around those items... Maybe assign a part of the encounter to the item or add one extra monster which doesn´t give XP.
Monster stomping is fun only for a short time... but it is fun. So you should not completely forbid it...
20% as the basic price still seems a good baseline... but trading item vs item if it is logical seems ok.


----------



## keterys

I was thinking it's probably reasonable to add one additional sale option:

You commission the merchant to sell the item. You get absolutely nothing now, but the merchant will attempt to sell it and take a 20% commission when it does sell. You'll probably get 80% or even 100% for the item, but it will take months or years and there's a small chance it'll be lost/stolen.

Seems to cover the third option without requiring the PCs doing stupid stuff.


----------



## FadedC

keterys said:
			
		

> I was thinking it's probably reasonable to add one additional sale option:
> 
> You commission the merchant to sell the item. You get absolutely nothing now, but the merchant will attempt to sell it and take a 20% commission when it does sell. You'll probably get 80% or even 100% for the item, but it will take months or years and there's a small chance it'll be lost/stolen.
> 
> Seems to cover the third option without requiring the PCs doing stupid stuff.




That's pretty much what I did in my 3.5 campaign when players didn't want to pay my sometimes overly marked down prices. They could leave the items with a friendly merchant, and after every adventure I would roll for the items to see if they sold. Gave them some extra gold but at a time cost.

It kind of made more sense in my campaign though where the players had gotten on the good side of a major trade guild they were fairly confident they could trust. I doubt they would hand their magic items over long term to random merchant.

I also often changed magic item sell prices dramatically based on how easy it would be to find a buyer. A +1 flaming long sword would easily sell for 50% or even 60%. But a +1 halfling sized defending quarterstaff you'd be lucky to get 10% for.


----------



## keterys

So, you can flex the values depending on how nice you want to be, but this whole discussion has prompted me to prepare one bit of canned dialogue for if this ever comes up in one of my games 

'Well, there's a 40% government tax on the sale of magic items that I'm required to hand over for you. So I can either give you 200 now and I'll try to sell it - a nice sword like that, I should be able to move by winter, or by the summer fair at the latest. Of course, if we go to war they might try to seize it as a resource, but that's the risk, isn't it?

Alternatively, I'll take the sword on commission for you. I'll sell it when I'm able to, with a 20% commission. Assuming I can sell it for, say, 1000 or even 1200, that'll net you 400 to 480 gold. Will you be here in February or September, when I return to this town? If not, you can speak to the merchant's guild at Guri which will charge a minor 10g fee to draw the money once it's sold.

Also, I'll need your mark that I'm not responsible for bandit attack or theft. Said same merchant's guild authenticates my honesty as a merchant and you can check with the people in town that I've been honest in my dealings for the past decade, but the guild will offer an insurance policy on your item should you be concerned. The roads are usually pretty safe nowadays and as you can see I travel only in guarded caravans, but I have been hearing some ugly murmurings from those taking the southern roads about orcs. Hopefully another war isn't coming.'


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

keterys said:
			
		

> I was thinking it's probably reasonable to add one additional sale option:
> 
> You commission the merchant to sell the item. You get absolutely nothing now, but the merchant will attempt to sell it and take a 20% commission when it does sell. You'll probably get 80% or even 100% for the item, but it will take months or years and there's a small chance it'll be lost/stolen.
> 
> Seems to cover the third option without requiring the PCs doing stupid stuff.




This was my goal with adding the magical auctions in my world - it may take some time to sell an item, but you'll get closer to full price.


----------



## DM_Blake

I just don't get it. 

I've read a bunch of this stuff about not letting players buy/sell magic items, or restricting it, placing limits, nerfing the whole idea.

Why?

In our world, you can buy a car. Drive it for a while. Then sell it to someone else. No restrictions, no limits, no nerfs.

Or buy a home. Or buy a computer. Or buy a pair of socks. And you can sell those things too. Or even give them away.

And, truth be told, in our world we have to worry about wear and tear. A 10 year old car won't be worth what it was worth brand new because it's old, worn out, breaking down. 

But not so for magic items. Most of these little wonders are nearly indestructible. Sure, some have charges, and a depleted wand is not worth what a fully charged wand is worth. But for most of it, wear and tear is not a factor. No reason at all why a Ring of Regeneration won't sell today for the same amount it sold for a hundred years ago.

So, why should players face arbitrary restrictions on selling their items?

Sure, when they are in a backwater village, there isn't likely to be a buyer in the area with the kind of cash the players want. But later, when they visit the capitol city, there could be hundreds of buyers.

So where do the arbitrary limits come from?

And taking it a step farther, assuming we actually allow our players to sell their unwanted magic items, we must realize that other people are doing the same thing, too. Which creates a market. Which means when players want to buy magic items, there is a market. Which means restricting buying of items begins to seem arbitrary too.

So why all the uproar about buying and selling magic items, anyway?

Situationally, sure, some areas with small populations and little cash flow are definitely not good markets to buy and sell valuable items, whether it be gems, paintings, tapestries, or magic items. But in larger, more lucrative economies, there will definitely be markets for all of these things, including magic items.

Anything else doesn't make sense.


----------



## keterys

> But later, when they visit the capitol city, there could be hundreds of buyers.




Really? I wonder how many buyers for Faberge eggs there are in, say, Hartford Connecticut - a city of 125k people, though metro is more like 1.25 million... 

I figure Faberge eggs compare decently well to major magic items. Hartford is frankly probably too big of a city, but it was my first pick for a place that I thought of as a D&D sized city for population.

I'm not sure you could find 1 buyer at the normal price, nevermind hundreds.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

DM_Blake said:
			
		

> Anything else doesn't make sense.




But unfortunately there are some DMs that don't want to give that kind of control to the players. I agree with you but otheres have different points of view. It could be that they want to run a very magic poor campaign (which should be made clear to the players ahead of time), it could be they are afraid the players will come up with a combo they hadn't considered which could spoil an adventure they planned, It could be that they are afraid that giving that kind of control to the players will break the game rules (even though buying and selling are part of the rules).


----------



## Fanaelialae

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> But unfortunately there are some DMs that don't want to give that kind of control to the players. I agree with you but otheres have different points of view. It could be that they want to run a very magic poor campaign (which should be made clear to the players ahead of time), it could be they are afraid the players will come up with a combo they hadn't considered which could spoil an adventure they planned,




And some DMs might think that it might be best to (at least initially) run the game the way the designers intended it, because they [the designers of the game] just might have had a reason for setting up the treasure rules as they did.



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> It could be that they are afraid that giving that kind of control to the players will break the game rules (even though buying and selling are part of the rules).




There are rules for selling to NPC merchants for 20% "retail", and buying from them for 110% to 140% "retail" (or as low as 90% if you use the merchant-heavy variant).  I don't recall anyone objecting to these rules (except for those who feel that it undercuts the PCs and that the PCs should get more out of the sale).  I can't say that I see any rules at all for players selling directly to NPCs for 100%+ "retail" value, which is what most of the debate seems to be directed at.

IMO, for reasons that have been pointed out multiple times in this thread, for both economic and game balance reasons the rules seem quite good as written, and the PCs probably should be prevented from exceeding the 20% selling price by large margins.


----------



## JohnSnow

DM_Blake said:
			
		

> I just don't get it.
> 
> I've read a bunch of this stuff about not letting players buy/sell magic items, or restricting it, placing limits, nerfing the whole idea.
> 
> Why?
> 
> In our world, you can buy a car. Drive it for a while. Then sell it to someone else. No restrictions, no limits, no nerfs.
> 
> Or buy a home. Or buy a computer. Or buy a pair of socks. And you can sell those things too. Or even give them away.




Modern world. Modern economy. Modern markets. Modern concepts of equity. Modern population numbers. D&D is NOT a "modern world." It's a medieval world. An ancient one, to be sure, but it's no more comparable to the "modern world" than the latter is to _Star Trek_'s moneyless future economy.

At BEST, a D&D world (especially a PoL one) would resemble the economic conditions of the Roman Empire or Europe during the Renaissance.



			
				DM_Blake said:
			
		

> Situationally, sure, some areas with small populations and little cash flow are definitely not good markets to buy and sell valuable items, whether it be gems, paintings, tapestries, or magic items. But in larger, more lucrative economies, there will definitely be markets for all of these things, including magic items.
> 
> Anything else doesn't make sense.




A good-sized modern metropolitan area is 500,000 people, or more. A GARGANTUAN renaissance-era metropolis (like, say, Rome) is 100,000 - maybe. Most "cities" have populations more like 10,000 to 25,000.

Now, of that population, 90% are farmers or common laborers. That means all but 1/10th of the population is not going to have a snowball's chance in hell of affording your pricey object. So, in a Rome-sized metropolis, we're down to 10,000 people by just eliminating the poor and destitute. Now, we can eliminate another half as the lower middle class, people who are reasonably successful, but well below the ability to afford an object of the type you're talking about. Now we're down to 5,000 potential customers, which constitutes the soldiers, adventurers, wealthy, and nobility in the city. Now, of those, at least half still can't afford even a first-level magic item. So, now, before we get to an item the PCs can have at LEVEL 1, we're down to 2,500 people - 1 person in 40. 

Let's guess-timate that of those, 80% are probably uninterested in your gizmo for one reason or another - they don't like magic weapons, wands aren't their thing, whatever. Now, we're down to about 500 guys who can afford a 1st-level magical gizmo and might be interested in the one you have. These 500 guys mostly hang around in one section of town and hobnob with their friends.

Assuming standard demographic fall-off of half for each level up you go, that means your potential customers for a 2nd-level item are 250 guys. By 3rd, it's 125. By 4th, it's 60 or so. By 9th, there's probably only a couple people in a city the size of Rome who are interested. In most cities, you can't move a 7th-level item. In most towns, you'd be lucky if you could sell a single 1st-level item.

And who are they likely to buy from? Some scruffy adventurer they've never met claiming his sword is "magical?" Or Volo the Trader, who provided them with the silks for the outfit they wore to the Midsummer's Ball last year? And the spices for the feast. And the diamonds they gave to their paramour last winter...

I think the answer's obvious.

PCs aren't, by default, merchants. They don't have the connections to get anything like full price, because they're spending their time in dungeons killing monsters and taking their stuff rather than in cities going to balls and impressing noble ladies with their dance steps. And their coin greasing the paws of whoever controls a particular kind of trade.

As I've said, you can absolutely make a campaign out of PC merchants. But in a pre-modern market, selling something just isn't as easy as it is with the internet and amazon. Did anyone of you claiming this would be "easy" ever try to sell something via the classified ads? Did it ever occur to you that THAT would be a vast improvement over the methods your D&D character has available to him?

His options are more like what we can do at a swap meet, flea market, or a garage sale. And how far do you have to mark stuff down to move it at one of those? Honestly, letting the PCs get 20% is generous.

For high-priced items, there's auction houses. And they'll buy for whatever you'll sell for.  I might allow a savvy PC to negotiate the merchant's offer up, just as I'd allow him to try to negotiate the sale price down.


----------



## Serensius

Silverblade The Ench said:
			
		

> Eh? one FIFTH?? That's just dumb.  So a 50,000 GP greatsword +3 of KoboldCrunchiness, you sell it for 10,000 gp, no WAY are my players gonna accept that rubbish, nor should I expect them too (unless they blow a skill check and get fleeced ).




So you plan on telling your players how much the item is worth? Hm.


----------



## gizmo33

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Modern world. Modern economy. Modern markets. Modern concepts of equity. Modern population numbers. D&D is NOT a "modern world." It's a medieval world.




If by "medieval" you mean that the implied setting of DnD is historical medieval Europe than I would disagree, and list a number of obvious differences, let's say elves (or, of more obvious relevance, the mercane).  These differences IMO are substantial and would impact even this particular aspect of the campaign world.  Another problem that I see with using Medieval Europe is that many of the commodity prices, as well as standards of living, are anything but historical.  Compare the wages of a laborer, the value of a knights fee, and the equivalent numbers in 3E DnD, say for instance the monthly expense for "wealthy" status, and I think you might find that historical values are of little use in making sense out of DnD (at least prior versions).  "Moderately rich" people in DnD are *way* richer than IRL AFAICT.

Also, as you say, you can consider elements of (not even in their entirety) Renaissance Europe and the Roman Empire.  I see no logical reason to exclude Arab or Chinese society from the period either.  Again, picking and choosing those elements that you want from whatever society.  3E DnD assumed a pretty high degree of literacy (all but barbarians, IIRC) among the PCs.  Anything but "Medieval" AFAICT.

Your calculations for the market size of a metropolitan area seem to include only persons who live within the walls of the city itself (or maybe including the immediate area), which IMO is forgetting a huge number of persons who would actually buy and sell within the city.  Also, you assume that the state itself, and the private armies maintained by merchants, etc. would not be customers for a +1 sword.  I think customers of the +1 sword would not be just adventurers.

I would expect that "scruffy adventurers" would be the best people to buy magic items from.  "Volo" is probably a little too educated about the value of his wares for a fellow merchant to see much use in dealing with him.  Any competent dealer in magic items, like those who deal IRL in gems and metals, isn't going to simply rely on the reputation of the seller.  A scruffy adventurer would be a nice place to make a few extra gp, though I think he might try to buy and item for 20% of it's price, such a swindle might not be the average result.

The PCs aren't merchants, but many of them have very high diplomacy scores, and the old prejudice of assuming that all PCs are monster-bashing thugs IMO doesn't suit well a game that makes it possible to play other types of characters.  There's no reason to stick all PCs throughout the game with results that would even arguably be suitable only for the most anti-social and naive adventurer. 

The only precedence I see for a x5 mark-up historically would be the spice trade (other than very local market fluctuations, etc. which are irrelevant IMO for determining general characteristics).  IMO are there are a number of differences between the spice trade and magic item trade that makes it not helpful.  Basically, making a 500% profit on a magic item, given the huge amounts of money involved, and considering the even inflated costs of living standard for what 3E DnD says was a wealthy person, it's hard to see why groups of merchants aren't accosting adventurers at the gates of every city.  Think about it - buy a 10,000 gp item for 2,000 gp and make 8,000+ gp profit!?  So it takes you all month to sell it, boo hoo!  8,000 gp is an awesome amount of money for even an entire year's work if the monthly living expenses are any guide.


----------



## Alratan

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> A good-sized modern metropolitan area is 500,000 people, or more. A GARGANTUAN renaissance-era metropolis (like, say, Rome) is 100,000 - maybe.




A couple of minutes of research would be enough to tell you that this is just not true. The population of Rome in Antiquity was around a million people.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Thyrwyn said:
			
		

> Fountain Soda is one notable exception to this rule: the last time I worked in the industry, the amount of syrup/water/CO2 in a 32 oz. soda cost less that $.15 - you would be hard pressed to convince me that the convenience of combining the ingredients for the customer justified a $1.54 mark up we charged.





Nope. Not the convenience at all, just the viability of the whole business. Most fast food restaurants would go under if they didn't sell drinks.


----------



## DandD

Alratan said:
			
		

> A couple of minutes of research would be enough to tell you that this is just not true. The population of Rome in Antiquity was around a million people.



Ehrm, he did write Renaissance, where Rome indeed had far far less inhabitants than at its glorious height as capital of its own empire in the antiquity. 
A couple of seconds reading might show that he's correct.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Alratan said:
			
		

> A couple of minutes of research would be enough to tell you that this is just not true. The population of Rome in Antiquity was around a million people.




renaissance != antiquity


----------



## TheWyrd

I can't say that I'm 100% happy with what I see here.. but in the games I've run I was never big on sticking to the gold per level rules anyway. Lots of good ideas and problems on this thread. I think what I'm going to end up doing is:

 The majority of magic items carry a curse. Not a BIG curse mind you, but enough that the common folk really don't want anything to do with them. A baseline "May you live in interesting times." Isn't going to bother an adventurer.. but will piss off a farmer who keeps getting monsters rampaging through his fields. Not all items will be cursed this way (see item  )

 Drop the parcel value down a bit (75%, a level?, we'll see when I see the full rules) and then add on an additional "bonus" parcel level up to 25% above the base parcel. That way completing the adventure will get you a certain base amount of loot.. but bargaining/finding secret doors/etc actually nets you something extra.

 Residiuum isn't an object but rather a class of objects. Rare gems, starmetal, phoenix feathers in cloaks, the occassional fairy dust. All of these can be pulled from a magic item and used to augment or create other magic items and sometimes the PCs will need to quest for the stuff just so they can create the item they want.

 No magic stores. Most of the PCs will start off with a very basic magic item inherited from their parents or whatever. "Uncle Ben, you never told me the sword hanging over the Mantel was my father's MAGIC sword." Over time they'll find other items and either use it to enhance what they have ("Lets see if the violet flame gem can be embedded in my shield") or they'll adopt it for their own use. ("Wow, my very own set of magic armor.")

 Those who will purchase magic items do so for very good reasons. The local Wizard college will pay 150% price(possibly more) for the +1 Wand belonging to the founder of the college, thought lost in the great disaster. The temple of Pelor in the City of Brass however is only going to be paying 20% price for a +3 Holy Symbol. ("Yeah, we've got a room full of those in the back.. we sell them to initiates who lost their own.")


Ok. That's what I've got. I'm tapped out after my first post.


----------



## Thasmodious

DM_Blake said:
			
		

> So, why should players face arbitrary restrictions on selling their items?
> 
> So where do the arbitrary limits come from?
> 
> Anything else doesn't make sense.




What's arbitrary?  Merchants try to make a profit.  That's the nature of business.  They aren't going to buy a magic sword for 1000gp then turn around and hope they can sell it for 1100gp.  Merchants have lots of overhead.  Profit means the overhead gets paid and there is still money left for the pocket.  No one is going to pay exactly what something is worth, especially when they know its relatively useless to the seller in its current form (hence why they wish to liquidate it).  Wear and tear is not the only thing that affects resell value.  A merchant wouldn't even trade a +1 axe evenly for a +1 sword.  He'll want to see a profit.

Now, let's take your fantasy metropolis.  Even in such a place, buyers for a particular item aren't going to number in the hundreds.  Just because a local noble is wealthy doesn't mean he has a need for a magic staff nor wants to, or can afford to, spend the liquid assets on an item he doesn't really need.  So, the number of people who have a need for the item AND have the means to pay for it AND can be found by the PCs is going to fairly small.  The PCs aren't merchants with large social networks.  And they're not going to go door to door knocking.  They have to get the information to the right people and they likely haven't spent years building up a network of business contacts. The merchant has.  The right merchant knows the right people and can broker such a deal, but he has lots of expenses and wants to profit, substantially.  Now, if they just post fliers and hire criers all over town, the right people might hear about it.  But so will every cutpurse, burglar and career thief in the city, along with the local government.     

Which is another logical, non arbitrary stumbling block.  If you were the ruler of a large city in such a world, what would be your reaction to learning that a group of adventurers had plumbed the depths of the ruined keep on the border of your lands, came back with the fabled Sword of AGHHH and a pile of gold, haven't paid any taxes on their haul, and are trying to sell the sword to your chief political rival for thousands of gold?  Even without that drama, how many local rulers are going to let thousands of gold change hands without wanting a taste themselves?  That's part of the overhead legitimate merchants deal with all the time.  

So if there is an above the board, legitimate market for magic items, its going to move slow and have a lot of overhead.  As we've already mentioned, those operating in a market do so to make profit, good profit with high risk items like magic items.  Running a shop that carries magic items would have a lot of overhead - guild fees, taxes, licensing (local government wants it regulated and records kept of who's buying what powerful items), staff, security (likely a big expense considering the needs and caliber of thief such things would attract), and other such costs.  So, even at 20% in/140% out, the merchant isn't making a tremendous profit.    

More likely, such a market would not exist above board anyway, its too expensive, too risky, government interference would be too great (the duke may simply seize powerful items for himself or to keep them out circulation).  Most likely, the market would be a black or gray one, and those have a great number of operational costs as well, of a different sort.  And, of course, black and gray markets always have a high markup due to the high risk nature of the business.  A government raid/arrest can decimate a shady merchant and it takes a good bit of money and know how to stay a step ahead.  

Combine all of those factors and it suddenly doesn't look arbitrary at all, but quite reasonable. 

This is all just rationalization for the system of course.  The simply fact is that the game is balanced around a certain pattern of acquisition, leading to a certain level of item power enhancing character power so that the encounter by level system remains balanced.  That's the game reason and each iteration of the game, and any RPG where item power is relative, needs such a system.  That it can be easily, logically rationalized shows it isn't just an arbitrary out of game ruleset.  

It's all a baseline anyway for the DM to keep the game in a comfortable level of balance.  There is plenty of wiggle room.  If the group has a number of items outside their skill sets (axes instead of swords, crossbows instead of longbows, etc.) perhaps they meet up with a friendly group of fellow adventurers and those two groups, with equal levels of interest (as in, one group is trying to profit from the other or one group isn't trying to use the other to liquidate illiquid assets), do some trading.  So the group with the axe wielding dwarf trades their near useless greatsword to the other group with a human fighter for the superfluous axe they picked up in their last crawl.  Or the PCs trade the item(s) for a nice GP value in some other form, like land, a building, a title, etc.  When two groups are bargaining from areas of mutual interest (both seek an illiquid, hard to obtain, gain) or both from a desire to rid themselves of an asset that is of little use, the numbers come much closer together.  

But, when you just want to dump useless items for cash, you got to pay the market and there are lots of hands in there taking a piece.



> So why all the uproar about buying and selling magic items, anyway?




that's what I've been wondering.  I don't see why people didn't just read the excerpt, nod their hands sagely, say "nicely done" and move on.  Its not the people who think the new system works fine and both cures the problem of Ye Olde Magic Item Superstore AND doesn't arbitrarily restrict players options (they can still sell old items or disenchant them to use in crafting new items or do anything else with em) that are causing the uproar.


----------



## gizmo33

DandD said:
			
		

> Ehrm, he did write Renaissance, where Rome indeed had far far less inhabitants than at its glorious height as capital of its own empire in the antiquity.
> A couple of seconds reading might show that he's correct.




But then I think it's misleading to count Rome as a "gargantuan" city when it was no longer the largest of the cities of Italy.  Compared to London of the same time period?  Certainly not compared to Constantinople, Alexandria, etc., I would not call Medieval or Renaissance era Rome "gargantuan".  I think that's mixing up statistics from different eras.

In any case, 100,000 people is ok IMO for a large city, and that's backed up by the 3E demographics.  I also didn't think the particulars of Rome changed much about JohnSnow's basic reasoning.


----------



## Andor

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> renaissance != antiquity




Odd isn't it? That we prefer to play in worlds that simulate one of the lowest points in history? Gone the glory of Rome and Byzantium. Lost the wisdom of Alexandria and Phoenecia. What instead do we model our hero's cities after? The squalor of 12th century London or the lost ruins of Troy or Carthage. Not sure what that says about us. ^^;


----------



## Plane Sailing

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> If by "medieval" you mean that the implied setting of DnD is historical medieval Europe than I would disagree, and list a number of obvious differences,




Of course he isn't saying that.

What he IS saying is that D&Dland owes much more conceptually to medieval or whatever period than it does to the modern period.

I'm astonished at the number of people in this thread who believe that any game world should have exactly the same market conditions and freedom of buying and selling that they enjoy in (a presumably) modern western technologically advanced country.

Sometimes it seems as if a mantra which says "the consumer is always right" is being used to judge what is appropriate in D&Dland. I find this surprising.

Regards


----------



## Family

"Oh, and I have this treasure to give out to adventurerers! It's like trick or treat, but all treats."


----------



## AZRogue

PCs being unable to sell magical items was something from AD&D and 2E that some people wanted to keep but was changed in 3E. Toning down on the magic item reselling and including another option all together is something that many wanted. I don't have too much of a problem with it provided it's done carefully but the other DM of my group loathes magic item reselling with a passion. It's just one of the things that 3E changed that some wish hadn't been. It's not something new.


----------



## bert1000

Destil said:
			
		

> Well, 4E still has at it's heart the biggest 3E design problem. The dual power axis. On one axis you have level, and on the other you have gold. Both increase power, they interact in strange ways.
> 
> If only they had come to their senses and simply given every item a + to your effective level.




Yes, I was hoping for a system like this, where the default is NO magic items in the party.  You add some measure of the value of the magic items and this adds to the effective level of the party.  You then send challenges at the party that match their effective level.


----------



## malraux

DM_Blake said:
			
		

> In our world, you can buy a car. Drive it for a while. Then sell it to someone else. No restrictions, no limits, no nerfs.
> 
> Or buy a home. Or buy a computer. Or buy a pair of socks. And you can sell those things too. Or even give them away.



But even those have significant costs involved in transfers.  Property costs 10% to random agents.  Use car dealers certainly aren't known for giving good deals.  Its not as though any of those examples have a 0% cost going to the dealers.  Sure, with newspaper classifieds and craigslist there's a trivial cost to the advertising, but is there a really an equivalent to those in your campaign world.  At best, there might be a really slow version of ebay, and I bet the Mercanes in charge gouge worse than paypal.


----------



## ExploderWizard

My take on the whole magic item economy business is that changing what items are bought and sold for will not really affect the game a lot at all. The "balance" is achieved in other ways so that too much treasure handed out has minimal impact.
We have either hints or facts that support the following points from 4E RAW:

1) Magic items above the PC level cannot be obtained through purchase.

2) Magic items all have minimum levels needed to use them.

3) Certain slots will not be usable before X level ( such as two magic rings at once)

Some of this may be speculation but I have heard these concepts being discussed before.

If these are the truths of 4E reality who really cares if the PC's are wealthy? No matter how much gold a character has at his or her disposal, the equipment that can actually be used in a practical sense is already pre-set and cannot be increased. Once a character has weapons and every slot allowed for that level filled with the best equipment available then all the excess gold is effectively useless as far as personal gear balance issues go. 

One experiment that might be interesting to try is taking a low level character (5th level or so) and giving said character 500,000 gp to spend on personal gear. Do this for a 4E character then do the same with a 3.X character. See which one is more skewed and overpowered for the level. I think the design team took the fact that PC's could (and would) have the best equipment possible for the level when designing encounters. This was impossible to do with the range of challenge in 3.X because the power of what could possibly be equipped varied so much. Sure there were guides about the amount of wealth by level but if that were grossly exceeded then the items would still actually work.

Gold becomes effectively useless for "powering up" in 4E so why worry about how much is floating around?

As a side note I am not a newbie poster. I used to post as Kormydigar but that account encountered technical difficulties that never got resolved.


----------



## Hussar

> Originally Posted by DM_Blake
> In our world, you can buy a car. Drive it for a while. Then sell it to someone else. No restrictions, no limits, no nerfs.




Funny you bring up cars.  I live in Japan.  I drive a 1998 Mitsubishi.  Yeah, old car, but, in a country with no snow, cars last quite a while.  I went into the dealer the other day to find out how much I could get for trade.  His answer?  I have to pay about 500 dollars on top of the new car to dispose of my old car.  I have now talked to about a dozen dealers and gotten pretty much the same answer.  So, "drive it for a while and sell it" is not exactly true.

Heck, when I did work in the car industry, we often got POS cars on trade ins.  We'd usually give about a hundred dollars off the new car and then turn around and sell the clunker to the scrap yard for about 500-700 dollars.  Hey, look 500% ROI.

Yet, you don't see used car dealers randomly trolling parking lots asking people to sell their old cars.  

IMO, the only market that remotely approaches a magic market would be antiquities.  These are fairly singular items that are pretty hard to come by.  Sure, +1 swords are comparatively common and whatnot, but, realistically, it's a sellers market.


----------



## malraux

And like magic items, you really need either trust or extreme knowledgeability to avoid being taken in.  Is that desk really from the 1700s or a modern imitation really well aged is a similar question to is that really a +3 aberant bane dagger or just a +1 dagger with a temporary buff running on it.  And just because the rules don't include magic item wear-down (for good reason I'd say) doesn't meant that magic items don't actually wear out.  The only element of magic stuff that's reasonably standardized is the fairy dust you can get out of each item.


----------



## Fanaelialae

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> We have either hints or facts that support the following points from 4E RAW:
> 
> 1) Magic items above the PC level cannot be obtained through purchase.
> 
> 2) Magic items all have minimum levels needed to use them.
> 
> 3) Certain slots will not be usable before X level ( such as two magic rings at once)




Your first two points are mistaken, actually.

1) Magic items above party level can be purchased, although characters cannot craft an item above their level themselves.

2) The level assigned to items denotes their estimated level of potency, not a level requirement to be used.

You'll find the relevant info here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080514a

3) Magic rings are the only item slot (that we know of) that have a level requirement.  If I remember correctly, you can use one ring slot at level 11 and a second at level 21.


----------



## pawsplay

malraux said:
			
		

> Agreed, but you'll have much the same experience at a used car lot or pawn shop.




In my experience, you can swap any comparable vehicle for another for about $200 plus papers. It's absolutely not like that at any used car lot I know.


----------



## JohnSnow

DandD said:
			
		

> Ehrm, he did write Renaissance, where Rome indeed had far far less inhabitants than at its glorious height as capital of its own empire in the antiquity.
> A couple of seconds reading might show that he's correct.




Exactly. Rome, even into the Renaissance, was still probably the largest city in western Europe. However, its population was a far cry from the Imperial heights of a million or so. Partially, that was simple demographics. Centuries of medieval sanitation (or lack thereof) depleted the population of Europe a great deal. A city comparable to Rome, the crossroads of the Empire, is probably the biggest city imaginable in a D&D setting.

And a city like that is probably more appropriate to the last age and the fallen Empire of Nerath than it is to the current, post-fall setting.

Spend a few moments researching the medieval and renaissance population figures for some notable cities. The results are...educational, to say the least.

Moving on...



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Of course he isn't saying that.
> 
> What he IS saying is that D&Dland owes much more conceptually to medieval or whatever period than it does to the modern period.
> 
> I'm astonished at the number of people in this thread who believe that any game world should have exactly the same market conditions and freedom of buying and selling that they enjoy in (a presumably) modern western technologically advanced country.
> 
> Sometimes it seems as if a mantra which says "the consumer is always right" is being used to judge what is appropriate in D&Dland. I find this surprising.




Thanks Plane Sailing. That's precisely what I was saying. If pressed, I would argue that the setting of D&D, by virtue of its antiquity and magic, is probably more comparable to the early modern period (i.e. the late renaissance, in Europe) than to the middle ages.

I think it's actually interesting that so many people are extrapolating modern standards of living backwards to a D&D world. It's always been argued that D&D worlds tend to be a freewheeling mish-mash of medieval, renaissance, and modern concepts, and NOW I get it.

It seems to me that WotC is actually attempting to craft a default setting (and game) that more closely parallels history, while still being totally different from it. It's interesting that some of their conceits which, it seems to me, should be self-evident are being met with such resistance.

I guess people really do have trouble imagining living conditions other than the ones they're under. Now I know why the "Points of Light" conceit met with such resistance from some quarters.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> Your first two points are mistaken, actually.
> 
> 1) Magic items above party level can be purchased, although characters cannot craft an item above their level themselves.
> 
> 2) The level assigned to items denotes their estimated level of potency, not a level requirement to be used.
> 
> You'll find the relevant info here:
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080514a
> 
> 3) Magic rings are the only item slot (that we know of) that have a level requirement.  If I remember correctly, you can use one ring slot at level 11 and a second at level 21.




The article does seem to back you up   Lets see what the magic items have to say on Friday. Heck my solution would have fixed the gold problem (mostly)


----------



## Fanaelialae

pawsplay said:
			
		

> In my experience, you can swap any comparable vehicle for another for about $200 plus papers. It's absolutely not like that at any used car lot I know.




Honestly, (and I'm not calling you a liar) but that's unbelievable!  

I just bought a car last summer and the dealer wouldn't give me anything for my old car (still ran well, just was quite old).  I finally found a guy who gave me $50 so he could tow it to the junkyard.  Later found out from a friend of mine that I could have gotten $300-$400 if I'd just taken it to the junkyard myself... oh well...


----------



## pawsplay

vagabundo said:
			
		

> Well then they should get into another line of business, heaven forbid, that they should have to work to support themselves.
> 
> The selling of items makes more sense to me now, since PCs only get a fraction of what they are worth. They are like stolen goods, that is about what you will get if you try to sell your loot to fence.
> 
> Actually, the PCs *have* killed something and stolen its stuff!!




But the stuff the merchant sells is _the same kind of stuff]/i]. As we've discussed to death, there are many reasons why the prices would stay relatively low. But they all apply equally to merchants as to PCs. Some merchant has no better chance of seeing than the king than some wandering swordsman.... less, if the swordsman did a favor for the king!_


----------



## pawsplay

Hussar said:
			
		

> ... because that merchant has maybe one or two items, not an entire shop full of them and doesn't exactly spread it around that he has them except to certain people (like adventurers) that might be interested?
> 
> If you think 500% is extravagant mark up, you have never been shopping for antiques.  Heck, a first appearance of Superman comic book is worth about 500 000 USD.  That's considerably more than 500% mark up, even taking inflation into consideration.  Yet, surprisingly enough, people aren't going around murdering comic book collectors.




Wrong tangent. The point is, a comic book collector can be confident of getting around that 500 000 USD, even though he's not surrounded by an NPC Merchant Glow.


----------



## Fanaelialae

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> The article does seem to back you up   Lets see what the magic items have to say on Friday. Heck my solution would have fixed the gold problem (mostly)




Granted, but then people would instead just be complaining about "WOW-esque" level requirements for equiping items.


----------



## Hussar

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Wrong tangent. The point is, a comic book collector can be confident of getting around that 500 000 USD, even though he's not surrounded by an NPC Merchant Glow.




Umm, what?

I was talking about why 500% mark-up is not unreasonable.

YES, if you can find someone to sell your magic item to, you too can get full retail. 

BUT, if you don't want to spend the time and effort, you can do like everyone else does and go to the local pawn shop/fence and flog your ill gotten lucre.  

AND, like any time you go to that sort of second hand market, you get hosed.

You keep presenting a moving target.  Magic items are not like modern commodities.  Yet, you insist on treating them as such.


----------



## pawsplay

Hussar said:
			
		

> IMO, the only market that remotely approaches a magic market would be antiquities.  These are fairly singular items that are pretty hard to come by.  Sure, +1 swords are comparatively common and whatnot, but, realistically, it's a sellers market.




And hence favorable to PCs looking to offload excess magic items.


----------



## pawsplay

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> Honestly, (and I'm not calling you a liar) but that's unbelievable!
> 
> I just bought a car last summer and the dealer wouldn't give me anything for my old car (still ran well, just was quite old).  I finally found a guy who gave me $50 so he could tow it to the junkyard.  Later found out from a friend of mine that I could have gotten $300-$400 if I'd just taken it to the junkyard myself... oh well...




You got fleeced. Anything that still rolls is worth a few hundred just as parts. I once got a $500 trade in on a 16 year old Dodge pickup that burned oil, had a broken speedometer, a window that wouldn't roll up, and a rusted out floor. It was incapable of passing its upcoming inspection.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> Granted, but then people would instead just be complaining about "WOW-esque" level requirements for equiping items.





Not me. If you are going to do a gamist edition and make balance honored above all then go for it. A hybrid of pure rules balance and old school hangovers will end up irratating everyone instead of pleasing everyone.


----------



## hong

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Wrong tangent. The point is, a comic book collector can be confident of getting around that 500 000 USD, even though he's not surrounded by an NPC Merchant Glow.




Information has value.


----------



## Fanaelialae

pawsplay said:
			
		

> You got fleeced.




Yeah, there's a pretty strong implication of that considering I got 1/6 the price I could have gotten.  This was my first time buying a car (my previous car was a hand-me-down) so... you live, you learn.   

Makes me wonder what the junkyard's profit margin is though, if they'll pay $300 to $400 for practically any old junker...



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Anything that still rolls is worth a few hundred just as parts. I once got a $500 trade in on a 16 year old Dodge pickup that burned oil, had a broken speedometer, a window that wouldn't roll up, and a rusted out floor. It was incapable of passing its upcoming inspection.




The one thing I can say for certain is that you're not from New Jersey...


----------



## Hussar

pawsplay said:
			
		

> You got fleeced. Anything that still rolls is worth a few hundred just as parts. I once got a $500 trade in on a 16 year old Dodge pickup that burned oil, had a broken speedometer, a window that wouldn't roll up, and a rusted out floor. It was incapable of passing its upcoming inspection.




Yes, and the fact that the dealer was having a special deal where anything that could roll into the parking lot was worth 500 dollars on trade had NOTHING to do with that. 

Again, YES, if the PC's want to spend the time finding a buyer, then probably, they can get more than 20%.  Nothing in the excerpt actually contradicts that.

However, as the excerpt states, if the PC's just want to flog their gains, easily and quickly, they get 20%.

Why is this hard to understand?

Or have you abandoned your criticism of the 500% markup?  If so, then what exactly are you worried about?


----------



## Storminator

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> Yeah, there's a pretty strong implication of that considering I got 1/6 the price I could have gotten.  This was my first time buying a car (my previous car was a hand-me-down) so... you live, you learn.




You were too busy killing things and taking their stuff... 

PS


----------



## malraux

pawsplay said:
			
		

> And hence favorable to PCs looking to offload excess magic items.



Not really.  Its favorable to those who know the market and the buyers.  No particular reason to know that gold filigreed swords are in fashion in the western town of Plotville, unless you're a merchant who makes it his business to know.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Storminator said:
			
		

> You were too busy killing things and taking their stuff...
> 
> PS



Shhhh!  If word gets out, everyone's gonna want to kill things and take their stuff and there'll be no more stuff for me to kill OR take!


----------



## MinionOfCthulhu

More like World of DungeonsNDragons. Craft. Online. Fourth Edition.


----------



## malraux

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Some merchant has no better chance of seeing than the king than some wandering swordsman.... less, if the swordsman did a favor for the king!



Generic merchant #4, sure.  Samual Walton, the trusted representative of the trade guild, able to acquire the rare spices, creatures and women, who's items have stood the test of time, he has a better chance of seeing the king than the smelly, bloody, heavily armed brigands banging on the king's door.


----------



## Ximenes088

If a DM wants to call a 20% resale on magic items, he can justify it easily. Taxes, a market that has no communication method more sophisticated than hand-carried messages plus maybe a little magic, and the fact that buyers with cash don't feel like getting fleeced on fake goods amply explain why a merchant demands that kind of margin. Players can't go to a big city and try to advertise because the political powers would shut them down as potential troublemakers and untaxed freeloaders. These reasons are plenty to justify the markup.

If a DM doesn't want to call a 20% resale value on magic items, he can change the rules of his gameworld to make it utterly implausible and then contribute to a 42-page thread pointing out that gameworlds that don't match his premises don't match his results. I can't say that it's terribly surprising that a DM who doesn't want to justify something for his game ends up finding it unjustifiable in his game.


----------



## keterys

... and a DM who doesn't care doesn't have to justify it at all, and can work on adventures and actual gameplay instead


----------



## Kraydak

One thing that amuses me is that the RL examples people give of things with huge markups are all "luxury" items (yes, even soda).  For an adventurer, magic items are tools.  Buying a top of the line sword isn't an extravagant, showy expenditure, it is an effort to stay alive.  "Sane" adventurers, if such a thing existed, would be willing to spend a goodly time optimizing their gear, even if the theoretical gain/time ratio was worse than adventuring, because adventuring whilest undergeared results in death.

Adventurers are also relatively well set up for the magic item trade.  Once they enter the paragon tier, they have *huge* mobility and long range communication: exactly what you need to efficiently engage in a trade with a diffuse population of clients/suppliers.  It is hard to argue away the existence of an equivalent to EQ's pre-luclin EC/WoW's pre-linked bazaar IF/Org or any other "trade zone" in a MMORPG.  And once you have a "trade zone" that feeds off of a continent's worth of adventurers, magic items become liquid.  You won't get a brutal cartel either: repressing adventurers either results in them relocating, or them killing you.

Of course, before the paragon tier, you will need to hire teleports/do business with people with teleporting capacity.  A less liquid MI trade, but still functional (which a 6-1 exchange ratio isn't).


----------



## Imp

You don't "have to" justify anything, but stuff that interferes with PC's cashflow tends to go right up to the top of the list.

I mean, you could ignore any & all requests from players to justify anything, but they'd be totally justified in just walking clean out of your game.

(I suppose, given a points-of-light setting, I would justify it by saying that the buyer just doesn't have that much cash and is paying as much as he can. While heroes awash with gold from ancient hoards are going to get taken for as much as possible by cash-strapped authorities desperate for a windfall.)


----------



## theNater

Kraydak said:
			
		

> ...once you have a "trade zone" that feeds off of a continent's worth of adventurers, magic items become liquid.




Doesn't that depend on how many adventurers a continent's worth is?

Which is, of course, entirely up to the DM.


----------



## Thasmodious

Kraydak said:
			
		

> One thing that amuses me is that the RL examples people give of things with huge markups are all "luxury" items (yes, even soda).  For an adventurer, magic items are tools.  Buying a top of the line sword isn't an extravagant, showy expenditure, it is an effort to stay alive.  "Sane" adventurers, if such a thing existed, would be willing to spend a goodly time optimizing their gear, even if the theoretical gain/time ratio was worse than adventuring, because adventuring whilest undergeared results in death.
> 
> Adventurers are also relatively well set up for the magic item trade.  Once they enter the paragon tier, they have *huge* mobility and long range communication: exactly what you need to efficiently engage in a trade with a diffuse population of clients/suppliers.  It is hard to argue away the existence of an equivalent to EQ's pre-luclin EC/WoW's pre-linked bazaar IF/Org or any other "trade zone" in a MMORPG.  And once you have a "trade zone" that feeds off of a continent's worth of adventurers, magic items become liquid.  You won't get a brutal cartel either: repressing adventurers either results in them relocating, or them killing you.
> 
> Of course, before the paragon tier, you will need to hire teleports/do business with people with teleporting capacity.  A less liquid MI trade, but still functional (which a 6-1 exchange ratio isn't).




You're forgetting two simple things.  The PCs have no bargaining power and no market social network.  In a negotiation, many other factors besides the actual value of the item/commodity at hand are relevant.  The PCs have a need, the merchant doesn't.  They need the merchant or brokers contacts, knowledge and abilities to convert their useless items into a form that has value to them.  The merchant has the gold, the PC has the item. The merchant can do many things with his gold.  The PCs are holding a useless item that they can't do anything with except sell (or disenchant).  That need creates a large advantage for the merchant.  Need always does in a negotiation.  I'm sure the system allows for some bartering, we've seen a pretty direct hint in the skill challenges excerpt.  But 20% is a fair baseline considering the PCs hold none of the cards.


----------



## Benimoto

Kraydak said:
			
		

> One thing that amuses me is that the RL examples people give of things with huge markups are all "luxury" items (yes, even soda).  For an adventurer, magic items are tools.  Buying a top of the line sword isn't an extravagant, showy expenditure, it is an effort to stay alive.  "Sane" adventurers, if such a thing existed, would be willing to spend a goodly time optimizing their gear, even if the theoretical gain/time ratio was worse than adventuring, because adventuring whilest undergeared results in death.



If the adventurer didn't have a sword, buying one might be an effort to stay alive.  If he has a +2 sword, getting a +3 one is not.  Prices escalate rapidly.  Items below your level are available and fairly cheap.  Items above your level are unattainably expensive.  Items at your level are priced appropriately to the amount of wealth you may have 

The markup just represents the realities of the world, as defined by the game system.  The adventurers can get level-appropriate magic items fairly easy through adventuring.  They also have comparatively large amounts of money laying around.  Knowing that, the merchants exploit them.

Look at it this way.  You could either spend your time maximizing the amount of money you get from selling magic items, or you could spend that time adventuring.  I would bet that even looking at it from a purely financial standpoint, adventuring is more lucrative.  Not only that, but it also gets you experience, which sets you up to gain yet more lucrative, higher-level treasures.


----------



## Kraydak

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> You're forgetting two simple things.  The PCs have no bargaining power and no market social network.  In a negotiation, many other factors besides the actual value of the item/commodity at hand are relevant.  The PCs have a need, the merchant doesn't.  They need the merchant or brokers contacts, knowledge and abilities to convert their useless items into a form that has value to them.  The merchant has the gold, the PC has the item. The merchant can do many things with his gold.  The PCs are holding a useless item that they can't do anything with except sell (or disenchant).  That need creates a large advantage for the merchant.  Need always does in a negotiation.  I'm sure the system allows for some bartering, we've seen a pretty direct hint in the skill challenges excerpt.  But 20% is a fair baseline considering the PCs hold none of the cards.




Bull.  The PCs, of course, have the ability to flip the merchant off.  If you are in an illiquid market, a very low offer will result in no deals getting done.  In a liquid market, someone else will come along and make a better deal because there is money to be made.

Further, in an illiquid market (which won't happen in a PoL setting, or a plane-hopping setting, but might in a peaceful one) "traditional" merchants are very bad at trading adventurer magic items.  You want someone with massive mobility (to get to clients) and massive, magical communication abilities (to find potential clients).  This means people with access to paragon-level rituals.  Adventurer types, not renaissancian merchant princes.


----------



## pawsplay

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Bull.  The PCs, of course, have the ability to flip the merchant off.  If you are in an illiquid market, a very low offer will result in no deals getting done.  In a liquid market, someone else will come along and make a better deal because there is money to be made.
> 
> Further, in an illiquid market (which won't happen in a PoL setting, or a plane-hopping setting, but might in a peaceful one) "traditional" merchants are very bad at trading adventurer magic items.  You want someone with massive mobility (to get to clients) and massive, magical communication abilities (to find potential clients).  This means people with access to paragon-level rituals.  Adventurer types, not renaissancian merchant princes.




Plus, PCs are more likely to be able to determine the origins and powers of any given item, control the supply of said items except for semi-competition from powerful wizards and clerics who can be arsed to make new ones, do not worry about day-to-day living expenses as they live the lives of medieval playboys, come into more contact with more buyers in more locales than all but the most adventurous merchants, generally have a good reputation with the local nobility for helping with problems rather than squeezing them for profits and interest, and can most easily travel to the ideal markets for any other products. They also fully understand the wants and needs of fellow advenuters, who will probably be 75% or more of their customers, the rest being kings, sages, long-lived intelligent monsters, and the like.

And all that's aside from the fact that the PCs could very well be merchants from respected merchant families who are members of the merchants guild who have decided to take up a life of adventuring.


----------



## Hussar

Kraydak - sorry, but, a magical weapon IS a luxury item.  It's not necessary for the overwhelming majority of the population.

Or, look at it another way.  Magical item trade is akin to illegal arms dealing.  Pretty similar markets actually.  It would be interesting to see what kind of mark-ups we could find in that market.


----------



## Family

Hussar said:
			
		

> Magical item trade is akin to illegal arms dealing. It would be interesting to see what kind of mark-ups we could find in that market.




273.2% on average...but it varries during conflict start-ups...however I can always do bulk orders at a discount. Oh and the premimum stock is about double during initial release.


----------



## pawsplay

Hussar said:
			
		

> Kraydak - sorry, but, a magical weapon IS a luxury item.  It's not necessary for the overwhelming majority of the population.




That's not what a luxury item is. By that definition, a heart pacemaker is a luxury item.


----------



## Ahglock

Really the whether its a good economic model or realistic is kind of irrelevant to me since magic item economics in  a fantasy POL world is kind of hard to really say how it should work, it really comes down to will these rules enhance my game or detract from my game.  

These rules knowing my players, would detract from my game.  Under these rules they would never sell anything to a merchant there would really be only one option sell it your selves.  They wont take any large joy in becoming merchant princes, but if they feel they are getting hosed they will become one to avoid the problem.  And then I would have to deal with all the lame cons and bad fast talk from one of my players over the sale of items.  So for me this will fall into the big never used rule system, I'll have used weapon to armor type table in the 1e PH more than i will use this.


----------



## pawsplay

Ahglock said:
			
		

> I'll have used weapon to armor type table in the 1e PH more than i will use this.




Oh, burn!


----------



## Orius

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Except when you have the one person in the party who doesn't want to do any of those things.




That's a reason why it's good for players to discuss what they're doing with their characters outside the game, so there aren't as many conflicts. D&D is supposed to be a cooperative game, and it's seldom good for the campaign when every player pursues goals for their PCs that aren't compatible.  However, there's always going to be the occasional player that just wants to do his own thing, and damn everyone else's fun.


----------



## Andor

malraux said:
			
		

> Generic merchant #4, sure.  Samual Walton, the trusted representative of the trade guild, able to acquire the rare spices, creatures and women, who's items have stood the test of time, he has a better chance of seeing the king than the smelly, bloody, heavily armed brigands banging on the king's door.




Are those the same smelly, bloody, heavily armed brigands that just killed the dragon, stopped the Orc invasion, rescued the King's daughter, and toppled the corrupt High Priest who was engaged in a power struggle with the King?


----------



## Ahglock

Andor said:
			
		

> Are those the same smelly, bloody, heavily armed brigands that just killed the dragon, stopped the Orc invasion, rescued the King's daughter, and toppled the corrupt High Priest who was engaged in a power struggle with the King?




And if there my players they were smelly and bloody in town or like 5 minutes before they got cleaned up in the nearest inn.(and that is assuming they did not clean up on the way back to town)  And then usually they did not look like heavily armed brigands, sure they were armed but so is every noble or person of wealth.


----------



## Orius

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> This is all just rationalization for the system of course.  The simply fact is that the game is balanced around a certain pattern of acquisition, leading to a certain level of item power enhancing character power so that the encounter by level system remains balanced.  That's the game reason and each iteration of the game, and any RPG where item power is relative, needs such a system.  That it can be easily, logically rationalized shows it isn't just an arbitrary out of game ruleset.




That's it in a nutshell.  It all goes back to the early days of the game when XP was earned from treasure found and magic items used.  In those days a +1 was more potent in the game than it is now, so a lot of DMs tried to cut back on magic acquisition.  Dragon in the old days had frequent articles on cutting back on magic in the campaign, and there was similar advice in the DMG as well.  That's why magic item stores didn't exist, it was to keep the PCs from getting too powerful, and PCs couldn't sell items for that sort of thing to stay logical.  For an extreme view of this, one only has to read a few strips of KotD where it becomes something like an arms race between the players and DM.  But then these were also the same older editions that had modules that were loaded down with gold and lots and lots of maigc items.

I don't mind that 3e tried to change this paradigm.  It might not have worked as well as it was supposed to, what with the silly Christmas tree approach, but at least it assumed the PCs would have some magical might at their disposal and tried to divorce D&D from the pseudo-medival settings into which DMs tried to shoehorn their campaigns. 

Oh and who's to say PCs don't have the social contacts and networks to deal in maigc items?  Every campaign does not have to be about slogging through moldy dungeons.  There's nothing from stopping the PCs from becoming well-known and trusted, or from invovling themselves in the upper social circles of their campaign base.  In fact, some people would say it makes more sense for that paragon character to be considered a hero by the people and have useful friends in high places than for him to be some anonymous grime-crusted tough who's going ruin-hopping.  This is one of the issues thhat should depend on the campaign and how the DM and playeres want to run things.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I think it's actually interesting that so many people are extrapolating modern standards of living backwards to a D&D world. It's always been argued that D&D worlds tend to be a freewheeling mish-mash of medieval, renaissance, and modern concepts, and NOW I get it.
> 
> It seems to me that WotC is actually attempting to craft a default setting (and game) that more closely parallels history, while still being totally different from it. It's interesting that some of their conceits which, it seems to me, should be self-evident are being met with such resistance.
> 
> I guess people really do have trouble imagining living conditions other than the ones they're under. Now I know why the "Points of Light" conceit met with such resistance from some quarters.




As I've said in the past, D&D isn't like real world history, it's more like a Renaissance Fair on crack with magic and stuff like dragons.  I mentioned this a few days ago, that I think WotC is intentionally moving away from the old medieval Europe baseline.  I think part of it is to create a sort of world that can be more culturally and racially diverse, and I think part of it is because trying to model a D&D world on the real world doesn't work very well.  It's better IMO to make a world in which the rules actually make more sense.


----------



## AZRogue

You know, for those DMs who want to ignore the 20% resale value of magical items, there are a few ways around it that still preserve game balance.

1. As was suggested much earlier, you can decrease the amount of treasure in the future so that the increase in gold gained is factored into the PCs' treasure. I like this fix the best (though I would just tell my players "no" if they tried to sell for more anyway) though some people haven't.

2. The other option would be to give XP when a player manages to sell an item for more than 20%. This would keep their XP/Level somewhat in step. Just factor in the added XP to some other encounter since the PCs don't know what they should be getting anyway. Both methods preserve balance. Both are done in the background away from the PCs' eyes and without their knowledge. And both allow a DM to allow players to sell items for more gold if they want.


----------



## hong

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Bull.  The PCs, of course, have the ability to flip the merchant off.  If you are in an illiquid market, a very low offer will result in no deals getting done.




Not the merchant's problem, if you decide you want to find a buyer yourself.


----------



## Andor

There seems to be a consensus that the correct model for evaluating Magic Item sales is the antiquities market, with Faberge Eggs cited as a particularly close parallel.

Having just checked Sotheby's website I find that they charge a commision on a sliding scale starting at 25% and moving down as the price of the item increases.

Their profit on the sale of a Faberge Egg would be 12%, not 700%.


----------



## hong

Andor said:
			
		

> There seems to be a consensus that the correct model for evaluating Magic Item sales is the antiquities market, with Faberge Eggs cited as a particularly close parallel.
> 
> Having just checked Sotheby's website I find that they charge a commision on a sliding scale starting at 25% and moving down as the price of the item increases.
> 
> Their profit on the sale of a Faberge Egg would be 12%, not 700%.



 Sotheby's is not the merchant you're looking for.


----------



## kilpatds

AZRogue said:
			
		

> 1. As was suggested much earlier, you can decrease the amount of treasure in the future so that the increase in gold gained is factored into the PCs' treasure.




Do we have enough information to do the math?  If I let my players sell magic items for 50%, as a campaign wide house rule, by how many levels should I reduce the parcels?

A level 5 set of parcels has one magic item of each level from 9 to 6, and enough cash to buy 2 level 5 items.
That's 12000 gold worth of magic items, so I'd be giving the group an extra 3,600 gp (6000 - 2400), which is an two additional level 6 items.  So it sounds to me like I should reduce the treasure given by a level or two.

That sound about right?


----------



## Wolfwood2

I agree with the sentiment from earlier in the thread that 20% is pawn shop prices.  If your PC has a magic item that he wants to turn into cash *right now*, then he can take the item into a merchant and walk out again in 15 minutes with 20% cash value.  No waiting, no dickering.

Cash today has a certain value all its own.


----------



## AZRogue

kilpatds said:
			
		

> Do we have enough information to do the math?  If I let my players sell magic items for 50%, as a campaign wide house rule, by how many levels should I reduce the parcels?
> 
> A level 5 set of parcels has one magic item of each level from 9 to 6, and enough cash to buy 2 level 5 items.
> That's 12000 gold worth of magic items, so I'd be giving the group an extra 3,600 gp (6000 - 2400), which is an two additional level 6 items.  So it sounds to me like I should reduce the treasure given by a level or two.
> 
> That sound about right?




There are probably several ways to do it and I'm not as good with numbers as some people around here. I was just implying down and dirty adjustment as in the difference between what the PCs got and what they should have got. Write that down and subtract, later, from a random parcel.


----------



## dimonic

Ahglock said:
			
		

> This is sort of how I look at it.  Sure we can try to rationalize reasons for such a huge discrepancy and they may be totally valid.  But it is a game and when you penalize the selling of items to such a large degree, its basically just saying people do not sell magic items.  And if that is what you want to say, just say it, don't come up with rules that amount to a flogging for trying to do the act.




Try buying a wedding ring (or any other jewelry) and then selling it. Anyone who has ever done this will recognize immediately that when you try to sell a used luxury good (as an individual without a store-front or clientelle), you are lucky to get 1/5 of the value. Now make the ring a rare, fancy ring and try to sell it to a dealer. You will get even less of its supposed value.

Now as for 1/5 being a flogging (which by the way is a pun - when you flog something in Brit slang, you are selling it), it is still enough to be meaningful although punitive. The treasures obtained should not be full of useless +1 javelins and nunchuks. But, if you do come by some items that are useless to you, at least you can get some value for them, although in truth, selling items is basically discouraged - as is selling your used luxury goods here in the modern world.


----------



## gizmo33

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'm astonished at the number of people in this thread who believe that any game world should have exactly the same market conditions and freedom of buying and selling that they enjoy in (a presumably) modern western technologically advanced country.




Since when does anything have to be *exact* in order for one to legitimately question the 500% markup situation?  And since when do DnD characters in the average campaign have any of the social limitations of real life history?  I can arm myself in platemail and sword, go out and kill a bunch of monsters in a cave, and trudge back to town covered in blood with a big sack of coins and gems on my back - but then you're going to question the freedom of buying thing?  Doesn't it seem a little disjointed?  

The whole thing strikes me as a meta-game rationalization for wanting to keep PCs from making money off of their magic items.  It would help if the historians on this thread would make an argument based on an appropriate analogy - unfortunately the bulk of trade prices that I've ever seen have been based on local commodities or monopolies where the analogies would be hard to defend.  As best as I can tell, the indignation that the "historians" on this thread are expressing is based on an over-generalization of the "nasty, brutish, and short" standard opinions about the *European* Medieval period.  I think that Islamic social history from the period would be a more accurate fit for the technology, literacy, social structures, etc. of a typical DnD game.  

There seems to be plenty of indication that literate traders and "agriculturalists" (ie. overseers/bailiffs of manors) knew what their goods were worth - but somehow adventurers who can read and write are clueless?  Or somehow the victims of some weird solidarity amongst traders (since the DM plays all NPCs) who insist on making 8,000 gp profit on a 10,000 gp item but will turn up their noses at 5,000 gp?  

But please explain more this thing about how these arguments get translated into your minds as "he wants DnD to work like the modern period".  AFAICT this is not based on very informative statements about *either* the Medieval or modern periods.


----------



## Ximenes088

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> There seems to be plenty of indication that literate traders and "agriculturalists" (ie. overseers/bailiffs of manors) knew what their goods were worth - but somehow adventurers who can read and write are clueless?  Or somehow the victims of some weird solidarity amongst traders (since the DM plays all NPCs) who insist on making 8,000 gp profit on a 10,000 gp item but will turn up their noses at 5,000 gp?



You write as if the merchant was certain to find a buyer for the item at 5,000 gold and that finding this buyer was free. Furthermore, you presume that the merchant runs no risk of theft, swindling, or confiscation by kings. I think you presuming too much for a default D&D world.

What do you suppose that merchant's profit margin is on iron pots and pans? On bolts of good linen? Dyes? Medicines? Tools? Spices? If he's anything like a medieval merchant, you can very well _bet_ he's getting 4:1 profit before the nobles and his own expenses take their cut. So why in the world is he going to take the 2,000 gp he can turn into 8,000 gp via sundries, tools, and low-danger supplies and spend it and 3,000 more buying a magic sword that he will at best get a 2:1 gross on?

PCs don't just have to give the merchant a profit, they have to give him a bigger profit than he'd get on other goods for the same outlay. And it's a passing incompetent merchant who can't do better than 2:1 before subtracting overhead.


----------



## gizmo33

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> You write as if the merchant was certain to find a buyer for the item at 5,000 gold and that finding this buyer was free.




This makes no sense to me.  I'm not sure what you mean but my calculations made no assumptions about finding a buyer for an item for free.  



			
				Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> Furthermore, you presume that the merchant runs no risk of theft, swindling, or confiscation by kings. I think you presuming too much for a default D&D world.




But I'm not assuming that at all.  I'm not saying that a merchant has to buy a magic item for the 10,000 gp that it's worth and turn around and sell if for 10,000 gp.   In fact this statement seems to so willfully ignore a lot of what I've said on this issue that I don't really know where to start.  



			
				Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> What do you suppose that merchant's profit margin is on iron pots and pans? On bolts of good linen? Dyes? Medicines? Tools? Spices? If he's anything like a medieval merchant, you can very well _bet_ he's getting 4:1 profit before the nobles and his own expenses take their cut.




I wouldn't bet that at all.  In fact, barring any actual information to support this I can't distinguish this from a person who's just randomly making up numbers.  the conditions under which a lot of these items were traded, like monopolies on spices or local shortages or whatever, need to be considered.  I also don't think that the relationship between merchants and nobles in terms of taxes and authority and such is uniform across Europe for the time period.  That your statements here don't take these complexities into account leaves me with the strong impression that you're just making this up off the top of your head.  

In fact, in terms of asking me what a merchants profits would be, I would be inclined to work backwards from their standard of living.  Say, just picking a number out of the air (and the DMG could provide specifics), that a merchant lives on 200 gp/month.  That completely makes no sense if you're suggesting that the merchant can regularly make transactions that net him 8,000 gp profit.  You could make the case if you propose that the profession of "magic item merchant" is so prohibitive, and so resource-intensive that such merchants are the princes among princes of the merchant class.  Proposing that finding a buyer for a +1 sword is so difficult that only the very best can do it.  So far as I've seen though, no one on your side of the argument has bothered to consider these factors in any sort of detail.



			
				Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> So why in the world is he going to take the 2,000 gp he can turn into 8,000 gp via sundries, tools, and low-danger supplies and spend it and 3,000 more buying a magic sword that he will at best get a 2:1 gross on?




Why indeed.  But your statement here is based on an otherwise unsupported assertion that 4:1 is historical or reasonable for iron goods.  And that's *not* the same thing as saying that the price of iron from point of purchase to it's final sale price doesn't undergo a 4:1 increase - but such a thing is not really relevant to the profits of a single merchant and single transaction.

Again - I know a lot of people on this board fancy themselves as historians to some degree - so feel free to support these assertions with an actual analogy.



			
				Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> PCs don't just have to give the merchant a profit, they have to give him a bigger profit than he'd get on other goods for the same outlay. And it's a passing incompetent merchant who can't do better than 2:1 before subtracting overhead.




This makes an (IMO unwarranted) assumption that the merchant in question has steady access to trading goods for the same outlay.  I also think that the transportation/storage/etc. costs of 8,000 gp worth of grain would far exceed that of a 10,000 gp magic item.  And I realize that you could be sitting on a mountain of statistical information and actual facts upon which your basing your guidelines for an "incompetent merchant", but I can't tell.


----------



## Andor

dimonic said:
			
		

> Try buying a wedding ring (or any other jewelry) and then selling it. Anyone who has ever done this will recognize immediately that when you try to sell a used luxury good (as an individual without a store-front or clientelle), you are lucky to get 1/5 of the value. Now make the ring a rare, fancy ring and try to sell it to a dealer. You will get even less of its supposed value.




If it's a rare fancy piece of luxury jewlery you don't go to a dealer. You go to Christie's or Sotheby's and get full market price and the Auction house takes a 12-25% premium that gets paid by the buyer on top of what he's paying to you. Both Christie's and Sotheby's opened in about the 1770s btw, so this isn't exactly a new idea, nor is it dependant on modern telecommunications. Heck that's before the age of _rail_.


----------



## Kraydak

dimonic said:
			
		

> Try buying a wedding ring (or any other jewelry) and then selling it. Anyone who has ever done this will recognize immediately that when you try to sell a used luxury good (as an individual without a store-front or clientelle), you are lucky to get 1/5 of the value. Now make the ring a rare, fancy ring and try to sell it to a dealer. You will get even less of its supposed value.




A decent fraction of the "value" of the ring is tied up in the amount you paid for it: conspicuous consumption.  Adventurer's magic items are not luxury items.  They are tools.

+1 sword=tool, +1 sword with an astral diamond in the hilt=luxury item
basic sedan=tool, Ferrari=luxury item

Remember, expensive does not imply luxury.  Even basic cars are expensive.  So is housing.  So are medications (in the US at least).  A computer cluster is expensive, but is still a tool for a numerical simulator.


----------



## drjones

Andor said:
			
		

> If it's a rare fancy piece of luxury jewlery you don't go to a dealer. You go to Christie's or Sotheby's and get full market price and the Auction house takes a 12-25% premium that gets paid by the buyer on top of what he's paying to you. Both Christie's and Sotheby's opened in about the 1770s btw, so this isn't exactly a new idea, nor is it dependant on modern telecommunications. Heck that's before the age of _rail_.



And how long did it take you to get your newly plundered south American antiquity to Sotheby's in 1770?  And how much did it cost to make that happen?  

No reason your players cannot embark on such a monumental voyage for some gold but a quick glance at the rule books will show then that if they instead spent a week adventuring and leveled up a bit they would be more wealthy than if they went to hell and back to sell some piece of junk for the absolute best price they can get.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Andor said:
			
		

> If it's a rare fancy piece of luxury jewlery you don't go to a dealer. You go to Christie's or Sotheby's and get full market price and the Auction house takes a 12-25% premium that gets paid by the buyer on top of what he's paying to you. Both Christie's and Sotheby's opened in about the 1770s btw, so this isn't exactly a new idea, nor is it dependant on modern telecommunications. Heck that's before the age of _rail_.



But who was able to make deals with them then? Nobles? Average people? People of questionable heritage or low-class jobs with no connections to anyone with a more respectable lineage or standing?


----------



## gizmo33

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But who was able to make deals with them then? Nobles? Average people? People of questionable heritage or low-class jobs with no connections to anyone with a more respectable lineage or standing?




The 1:5 rule in 4E is unconditional.  There's no discussion of what role social standing or any of that plays.  The adventurers, who often perform tasks for nobles in many people's campaign worlds, could certainly get the grateful noble to barter on their behalf.  And many PCs in many campaigns ARE nobles.  And dragon slaying is a "low-class job"?  

All of these assumptions IMO are unwarranted - actual Medieval history is a litany of exceptions to your basic premise here.  In fact, the ENTIRE MERCHANT CLASS ITSELF in Medieval history goes against the stated social theory of "farmer/warrior/priest".  Compare/constrast your statements about "respectable lineage/standing" to the conditions facing a typical Jewish merchant in Medieval Europe.  Money talks and BS walks, and 10,000 gp of magic goods is a heck of a lot of money.  My assertion is that waving a chance at 1,000 gp of profit at a merchant is not going to make him think about blowing it for a chance to screw over the PCs because the PC can just take his business elsewhere.  It's only because you're not dealing with a society of merchants, but with a single DM with his fiat and agenda, that any of this is plausible.


----------



## JohnSnow

Andor said:
			
		

> If it's a rare fancy piece of luxury jewlery you don't go to a dealer. You go to Christie's or Sotheby's and get full market price and the Auction house takes a 12-25% premium that gets paid by the buyer on top of what he's paying to you. Both Christie's and Sotheby's opened in about the 1770s btw, so this isn't exactly a new idea, nor is it dependant on modern telecommunications. Heck that's before the age of _rail_.




You're also assuming that Christie's and Sotheby's charged the same for their service _then_ as they do _now._ And, while that's possible, I certainly wouldn't take it as gospel without research.

And, as has been pointed out, getting your item to them for auction is, in that timeframe, an adventure in and of itself. It's not like you could ship it UPS in 1770. You'd either take it there yourself or use a private, respectable (and very well-paid!) courier.

Not to mention that 1770 is pretty solidly _past_ most of the historical models most of us use for D&D games. Although an interesting game could no doubt be set in that period, it would involve changing the social assumptions of the assumed D&D setting a LOT.

Instead of the age of Englightenment, think of Elizabethan England. Your adventurers are the equivalent of Francis Drake and his ilk. Your magic sword is like a captured merchant vessel. Who do they sell something like that to? The only people who can afford it are some nobles, the Queen and the richest merchanting guilds. If they're not willing to pay your price, you can either a) take the price they do offer - no doubt a pittance of full value, or b) hold on to your thing until someone offers you a better price.

In period, both were common. However, the difference is that a pirate like Drake actually has a use for two ships. How much use does your fighter actually have for a backup magic sword?

I imagine giving them as gifts to people you're trying to curry favor with or selling them at a steep discount (or even selling at a steep discount in an attempt to curry favor) are all a lot more common than getting full price.


----------



## pawsplay

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But who was able to make deals with them then? Nobles? Average people? People of questionable heritage or low-class jobs with no connections to anyone with a more respectable lineage or standing?




You mean like this guy?


----------



## pawsplay

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> You're also assuming that Christie's and Sotheby's charged the same for their service _then_ as they do _now._ And, while that's possible, I certainly wouldn't take it as gospel without research.




For most of European history, markups were disdained on principle (although obviously a tradesman had to make a living) and "easy financing" was called usury and illegal.


----------



## gizmo33

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Your magic sword is like a captured merchant vessel.




You mean every fighter of 3rd level and above would have a captured merchant vessel?  I don't think the 1:5 rule is confined to just items worth as much as a ship (in fact, it's not if you look at the published table).  Given the amount of magic goodies possessed by a typical NPC, based on level and demographics and such, magic items are fairly common and I think the merchant vessel analogy doesn't seem appropriate to me.  The market for a +1 sword IMO is far more extensive than just the queen and the richest merchant guilds.

And let's say it's not.  Then the next point of weirdness for me is that all of the arguments for a lack of sellers are used *against the PCs*.  Wouldn't the supposed difficulties of selling a 100,000 gp apply to NPC merchants as well?  And in this case, why aren't rich PCs able to pick up expensive magic items cheaply, so as to spare all these poor merchants the misfortune of owning 100,000 gp items?


----------



## Ximenes088

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> This makes no sense to me. I'm not sure what you mean but my calculations made no assumptions about finding a buyer for an item for free.



I mean that if you say a 50% profit is good for a magic item merchant, and thus you should get 5,000 gold for selling a 10K-creation-cost sword, then you're assuming that the merchant is dead certain he can sell that sword for 10K without paying anything out of pocket. Once you subtract luxury taxes, bribes, security, and the risk premium, the merchant would've been better off spending 5,000 gold on mining picks.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Again - I know a lot of people on this board fancy themselves as historians to some degree - so feel free to support these assertions with an actual analogy.
> ...
> This makes an (IMO unwarranted) assumption that the merchant in question has steady access to trading goods for the same outlay.  I also think that the transportation/storage/etc. costs of 8,000 gp worth of grain would far exceed that of a 10,000 gp magic item.  And I realize that you could be sitting on a mountain of statistical information and actual facts upon which your basing your guidelines for an "incompetent merchant", but I can't tell.



As you request, a brief extract from Charles D'Avenant's "An Essay on the East-India Trade", 1697.

_"I shall therefore only give one instance, and that is pepper, by which some judgment may be made of all the other commodities. Pepper 5000 tuns at 2 d. per lb as it may cost the Dutch in India, amounts to 74,666l. 13 s. 4 d. Add to this 3 d. per lb for freight into Holland, then it costs 5 d. per lb which amounts to 186,666. 13 s. 4 d. Ditto 500 tuns sold in Holland at 12 d. per lb the profit being 7 d. per lb will amount to 261,333. 6 s. 8 d. But this commodity is grown so necessary, and has so obtained, and is of such general use, that it may be sold in Holland at 6 s. per lb which is less than any of the other spices, as cheap in India as pepper. Then 5000 tuns sold in Holland at 6 s. per lb the profit bing 5 s. 7 d. per lb will amount to 2,498,836. 13 s. 4 d."_

The profit on one pound of pepper after transportation? About fourteen and a half times what it cost to bring it. But spices are notoriously high-profit goods. What of ordinary trade in non-luxuries? D'Avenant's pamphlet is useful, for it is against the inclusion of a sumptuary law that would prohibit the export of many luxury goods to India, and thus cut exports in half. He points out, 

_"If this trade be so restrained, by prohibitions, as that there can be sent to India, not above per ann. 200,000 l. The national profit from thence arising cannot reasonably exceed 600,000 l. The companies charge and expence, to support and carry on their affairs abroad, may be modestly computed at per ann. 100,000 l. Which sum will be a great weight upon per ann. 600,000 l. But will fall lightly upon per ann. 1,200,000 l."_

...thus making clear that he expects 3:1 profit on the most banal sundries and ordinaries, completely ignoring high-profit luxury trades. But in a larger sense, it's certainly true that the  grain merchant wasn't usually making 3:1 on wheat- albeit in the fourteenth century, English grain prices varied by up to a factor of four- but PCs don't sell magic swords to commodity brokers. They sell them to gentleman adventurers like those of the East India Company.


----------



## Counterspin

Given that WOTC has revealed the math, I don't see what the problem is, or what medieval economics has to do with it.  If you want to maintain balance that WOTC is trying to produce, but dislike the sale/vale ratio, just lower the value of the magic items you hand out by the difference.  If you prefer realism and don't give a flip about balance, hand them out however you like.


----------



## JohnSnow

pawsplay said:
			
		

> For most of European history, markups were disdained on principle (although obviously a tradesman had to make a living) and "easy financing" was called usury and illegal.




Nice theory. Care to provide actual evidence?

Things were marked up all the time. Nutmeg, for example, was sold in Europe at a 63,000 percent markup. That's 630x it's original price. Which is a little bit of a markup...  

As I understand it, "usury" is defined as "charging interest on a loan of money." It wasn't illegal - it was just considered sinful for Christians to charge one another interest. 

Which is why, for centuries, all the moneylenders were Jewish.  

However, you are right, in a sense. In England (and some other places), "usury" was actually illegal. However, since they still needed moneylenders, to skirt that issue, all jews were property of the crown. Now there's no problem...because the crown (largely) gets to decide what the law is.

Sorry, I just don't buy the "nobody would get away with buying something at one price and selling it at 5 times that" argument. And no matter how much you protest that it's unfair, you, and others, have yet to show that it's actually unrealistic.


----------



## Family

pawsplay said:
			
		

> And "easy financing" was called usury.




Paladins to ARMS the sinful usurers have once again breached the borders of our lands with their low low interest rates under their veil of "secure" storage of wealth!

But first I want to order this Holy Avenger from the Hudson's Bay Trading Company, anyone here have Yon PayPal?


----------



## JohnSnow

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> You mean every fighter of 3rd level and above would have a captured merchant vessel?  I don't think the 1:5 rule is confined to just items worth as much as a ship (in fact, it's not if you look at the published table).  Given the amount of magic goodies possessed by a typical NPC, based on level and demographics and such, magic items are fairly common and I think the merchant vessel analogy doesn't seem appropriate to me.  The market for a +1 sword IMO is far more extensive than just the queen and the richest merchant guilds.
> 
> And let's say it's not.  Then the next point of weirdness for me is that all of the arguments for a lack of sellers are used *against the PCs*.  Wouldn't the supposed difficulties of selling a 100,000 gp apply to NPC merchants as well?  And in this case, why aren't rich PCs able to pick up expensive magic items cheaply, so as to spare all these poor merchants the misfortune of owning 100,000 gp items?




Using the 3.5 PHB, and knowing a little something about the middle ages, by medieval (or even renaissance) standards of living, anything over about 1,000 gp is the province of the rich or very rich. Moreover, anything costing over about 20 gp is the province of the well-off.

A simple sword cost the equivalent of a car back then. (By the way, that means swords are grotesquely underpriced in D&D). Sword, lance, plate armor and a horse? Now you're talking about the medieval equivalent of a Ferrari - bare minimum. That means anything over about 1000 gp is out of reach of all but the very rich. And even a breastplate (200 gp) should be considered a truly "luxury" item.

In other words, any item over 200 gp probably can't be sold to 90% of the population. And any item worth 1000 gp or more probably can't be sold to 99% of the population. And so on. And that's being generous.

But sure, a +1 magic sword (assuming it's a "level 1" item; cost: 360 gp) probably has the same market as a heavy warhorse (cost: 400 gp). Or a bit larger than that of a carriage (cost: 100 gp) and its team of two heavy horses (cost: 200 gp each).

For comparison, a cart costs 15 gp. A wagon costs 35. These things are the prize possessions of the average peasant. That light horse costing 75 gold? He's the prize possession of a pretty well-to-do person.

In other words, comparable to a warhorse, the only market for magic items is the rich and the very rich (or, in some cases, the government).


----------



## gizmo33

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> then you're assuming that the merchant is dead certain he can sell that sword for 10K without paying anything out of pocket.




No, I'm assuming (based on labor and goods prices for 3E since I haven't seen those in 4E yet) that the costs of such transactions would be reasonable.  5,000 gp of bribes, security, etc. is not reasonable IMO.  I'm not aware of any DM that has ever charged a 50% luxury tax on all magic items that PCs brought with them into a city - though I'm sure there is some insane example of that somewhere.



			
				Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> As you request, a brief extract from Charles D'Avenant's "An Essay on the East-India Trade", 1697.




Exactly - thank you.  Now I'm starting to read your example on the spice trade and right way I'm suspecting I'm going to see something on long-distance shipping, and monopolies, etc.  No one is arguing that the adventurer is in India, and the market for the +1 sword is in England.  So the analogy seems to me to be based on the situation of the adventurer who is already sitting in the city in which he wishes to sell his sword - and now somehow the involvement of a single merchant turns it into a 1:5 transaction.  What your analogy would need to demonstrated was that someone calling himself an "adventurer" in Holland was forced to sell pepper for the price of dirt.

Note too - the part about "is of such general use".  This is talking about supply and demand.  This means that an adventurer with a pound of pepper in a sack could sell the product for a good profit because of high demand.  But somehow this exact logic gets turned on it's head and is used to justify why the adventurer would have a *difficult* time selling his +1 sword.  If you're arguing that the demand for a +1 sword is comparable to what you're describing for pepper, then it's a whole new argument.



			
				Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> The profit on one pound of pepper after transportation? About fourteen and a half times what it cost to bring it.




Well the merchant better not call himself an "adventurer" or then he'd be forced by the DM to sell the pepper for 1/5 of it's market price.  Again, the market price difference between India and Holland/England whatever is not relevant to the core transaction we're talking about.  None of the demand forces that are driving up the cost of pepper does anything to keep the PC adventurer from being ripped off and finding himself in the world where one lone greedy merchant seems to be his only customer.



			
				Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> for it is against the inclusion of a sumptuary law that would prohibit the export of many luxury goods to India,




As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, a +1 sword is probably not a luxury good and there is no indication that PCs are being taxed at 50% on magic items that they bring into a city. 



			
				Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> But in a larger sense, it's certainly true that the  grain merchant wasn't usually making 3:1 on wheat- albeit in the fourteenth century, English grain prices varied by up to a factor of four- but PCs don't sell magic swords to commodity brokers. They sell them to gentleman adventurers like those of the East India Company.




But again, a well timed purchase of grain during a time of plenty and a sale during a time of famine can reasonably get you 3:1 or whatever.  However, at what point is this analogy relevant to the sale of the +1 sword by an adventurer?  And if there was suddenly some extreme shortage of +1 swords, and a high demand for them, why in the world would the average (with decent Diplomacy skill) adventurer be completely incapable of getting a reasonable price for his goods?

I really appreciate the facts that you've provided for me to consider.  However, I think the next step is to draw the appropriate correspondances, and the conditions that your facts describe IMO do not completely enlighten me on the nature of an adventurer selling a +1 sword in a city.


----------



## Tervin

Am I missing something here?

Isn't all of this a discussion of the economy of magic items in a fantasy world, of the DM's making, choosing or tweaking? How trade of such commodities is handled in the parts of the world where the PCs travel is basically the DM's decision, as long as it is acceptable to the players. Whether magic items are easy to buy and sell at certain prices depends on culture, which is clearly something the DM can choose. A 500% markup is unacceptable only if the world is made in a way that makes it so.

I have DMed a few hundred players, and I can't remember a single one who thought I didn't have the right to decide how the system of economy worked in the game world. Which to me makes the whole issue be about what the DM prefers. This system is in my opinion clearly superior to 3.x, as it should be much easier to keep the players at a reasonable power level.

(That I myself dislike the whole concept of buying and selling magic items through merchants is another matter - a personal preference that I will have to make a work around for or simply give up, depending on the type of game I want to run.)


----------



## Counterspin

Tervin - The disenchanting rules are being included just for people like you, so that you can do away with the buying and selling of magic items.  

Everyone else - And I will repeat myself.  We know the numbers.  The numbers are important to balance.  If you care about balance, you can shuffle your numbers to fit any standard model and maintain this balance.  Arguing about where the bar is "realistically" is asinine, because we already have the tools to compensate for any rate.  Which is good because clearly no two of us think the same rate is "realistic."


----------



## JohnSnow

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, a +1 sword is probably not a luxury good and there is no indication that PCs are being taxed at 50% on magic items that they bring into a city.




Not a "luxury good" in what sense? It's useful? So's a warhorse.

But it most definitely *is* a luxury good by the metric that really matters: price.

A +1 magic sword (assuming it's a 1st-level item) _retails_ at 360 gp. If we assume nothing has changed in equipment pricing (a big assumption, I know, but bear with me), then it's almost the price of a heavy warhorse. Which means it should be purchasable by about the same percentage of the population.

That means "royals, nobles, and well-to-do members of the middle class (including adventurers)." That's what....1 percent of the population? Less? And that's _a 1st-level magic item._ As you go up in levels, it only gets worse.

And you misread the article. It says the PC can easily unload the item for 20% of its price to a passing merchant in any village. They could go through the effort of finding a buyer themselves, but that takes both time and effort. And in the process, they earn every copper of that extra gold by the hoops they have to jump through.

The point is you just can't sell a magic sword by putting it on eBay.


----------



## gizmo33

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> A simple sword cost the equivalent of a car back then. Sword, lance, plate armor and a horse? Now you're talking about the medieval equivalent of a Ferrari - bare minimum. That means anything over about 1000 gp is out of reach of all but the very rich. And a breastplate (200 gp) should be considered a "luxury" item.




A book I have called "Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades" paints a somewhat less grim picture than what you have here.  Chainmail in 14th c. England was worth about 2 oxen.  Swords seem to me to actually be fairly cheap, there's an internet resource that handles this - though there are quality differences that don't exist in DnD to consider.

DnD armor and weapon prices though, are much higher AFAICT compared to "trade goods" (wheat, oxen, etc.) than their historical counterparts.  I'll grant you that rich people would be your market for armor and such, but I would also suggest that there are a lot more rich people in DnD than you're imagining.  Just look at the typical equipment list of a mid-level NPC and consider what the usual number of these persons are in any given settlement.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> In other words, any item over 200 gp probably can't be sold to 90% of the population. And any item worth 1000 gp or more probably can't be sold to 99% of the population. And so on.




As I've said though, your considerations for supply and demand would work against the merchant as well, meaning that my PC should be able to buy magic swords for less than the market price seeing as that they are so darn hard to get rid of and that my PC is in such a priviledged position as far as his wealth.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> But sure, a +1 magic sword (assuming it's a "level 1" item; cost: 360 gp) probably has the same market as a heavy warhorse (cost: 400 gp). Or a bit larger than that of a carriage (cost: 100 gp) and its team of two heavy horses (cost: 200 gp each).
> 
> For comparison, a cart costs 15 gp. A wagon costs 35.
> 
> In other words, like a horse, it's a tool for the rich and the reasonably well-to-do.




Not sure what this is worth, by a scribbled note I'm looking at says:  "Frankish Ripuarian law valued warhorse at 12 solidi, about six times value of an ox and four times that of good mare."  Now I've seen very high prices for warhorses in the books from the late Middle Ages, but these are specially bred creatures that you would not hitch to a wagon.  And speaking of carts/wagons, 35 gp seems a lot for wood and iron costs based on the 3E numbers, but oh well.  (10 gp = 100 lbs of iron IIRC)

I think a somewhat easier perspective to take on this is cost of living.  You have a number of NPCs walking around with +1 weapons and it presents a certain picture in my mind of suppply and demand that doesn't look to me anything like "Queen and a few elite merchants".  I also think of a typical merchant as someone pulling in earnings of far less than thousands of gp's per transaction.  

I know my statements ere are all over the place in terms of subject, but none of these facts so far are painting a clear picture to me that supports this 1:5 rule.


----------



## gizmo33

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Not a "luxury good" in what sense? It's useful? So's a warhorse.




The comparison is made to a wedding ring.  The custom, in the US at least, is that people don't look for bargains on wedding rings.  Someone earlier in the thread talked about "conspicuous consumption" and added some details.  These circumstances don't seem to be a good fit for a +1 sword.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> But it most definitely *is* a luxury good by the metric that really matters: price.




Actually the factors that contribute to the price of a wedding ring in the US "really matter" and aren't comparable to those that would apply to a +1 sword in a typical fantasy world.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> A +1 magic sword (assuming it's a 1st-level item) _retails_ at 360 gp.



(I think it's a 5th level item, but that doesn't impact your reasoning AFAICT)



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> As you go up in levels, it only gets worse.




Well only worse for the PC and not for the NPC merchant it would seem.  I'm sure if I were to use your reasoning to argue why my PC should be able to buy a vorpal blade for a few cp I would not be successful.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> And you misread the article. It says the PC can easily unload the item for 20% of its price to a passing merchant in any village. They could go through the effort of finding a buyer themselves, but that takes both time and effort. And in the process, they earn every copper of that extra gold by the hoops they have to jump through.




Well if my thoughts are based on a misreading then why the argument?  Why are there so many posts in this thread that are trying to make the case that 1:5 is generally reasonable?  If the 1:5 is based on a certain set of conditions that I would think it more productive to have stated those conditions from the start - instead of a list of anecdotes about spices and captured ships, et. al. that seem to clearly illustrate no particular consistent set of conditions.  (Though I am very grateful for some specifics as opposed to the otherwise unsupported generalizations that I was getting prior to that.)



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The point is you just can't sell a magic sword by putting it on eBay.




Oh, well then I take back having said that.      Oh wait, I didn't.  I roll for initiative against the straw golem.


----------



## Kraydak

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Not a "luxury good" in what sense? It's useful? So's a warhorse.
> 
> But it most definitely *is* a luxury good by the metric that really matters: price.




Luxury markets have mark-ups that don't apply in markets for utility items.  Price has *nothing* to do with whether an item is a luxury item or not.  Bottled water is a (pathological) luxury item, but it isn't expensive on an absolute scale.  A low-end sedan is still expensive on an absolute scale for most people, but it isn't a luxury item.



> A +1 magic sword (assuming it's a 1st-level item) _retails_ at 360 gp. If we assume nothing has changed in equipment pricing (a big assumption, I know, but bear with me), then it's almost the price of a heavy warhorse. Which means it should be purchasable by about the same percentage of the population.
> 
> ....
> 
> And you misread the article. It says the PC can easily unload the item for 20% of its price to a passing merchant in any village. They could go through the effort of finding a buyer themselves, but that takes both time and effort. And in the process, they earn every copper of that extra gold by the hoops they have to jump through.




The article says that magic items are sold at 20% value.  No qualifications.



> The point is you just can't sell a magic sword by putting it on eBay.




So?

As it happens, setting up an eBay clone should be quite doable in DnD.  Magic can provide the rapid communication/transport that eBay runs off of.


----------



## Ximenes088

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> No, I'm assuming (based on labor and goods prices for 3E since I haven't seen those in 4E yet) that the costs of such transactions would be reasonable.  5,000 gp of bribes, security, etc. is not reasonable IMO.  I'm not aware of any DM that has ever charged a 50% luxury tax on all magic items that PCs brought with them into a city - though I'm sure there is some insane example of that somewhere.



And here, you automatically win your point. I believe it is completely and utterly predictable for a lord to forbid the magic item trade within his city without extortionate taxes. You find such taxes totally implausible. When you get to decide how your world operates, I'm not going to be able to prove you incorrect in it.



> Now I'm starting to read your example on the spice trade and right way I'm suspecting I'm going to see something on long-distance shipping, and monopolies, etc.  No one is arguing that the adventurer is in India, and the market for the +1 sword is in England.  So the analogy seems to me to be based on the situation of the adventurer who is already sitting in the city in which he wishes to sell his sword - and now somehow the involvement of a single merchant turns it into a 1:5 transaction.  What your analogy would need to demonstrated was that someone calling himself an "adventurer" in Holland was forced to sell pepper for the price of dirt.



Again, if you get to determine the parameters of the world, you're going to win this dispute. If you really do feel it's advantageous to let your PCs trade in their magic items for 50% or better, then you can justify it perfectly by the terms you've given. If there's a wide market, no market barriers, minimal risk of theft, and high demand for magical items, then you're completely correct- it makes no sense to sell at a fifth of an item's creation price.

But by the same token, I do not feel that you should be terribly surprised if other DMs prefer to let their worlds follow the default model and supply whatever facts of life are necessary to make that model plausible to them and their PCs. It's not implausible that markets would be few, buyers few, barriers to entry high, and taxes extortionate. These are completely reasonable things the DM can declare to make any price he cares be plausible.

It seems to me that you're arguing past the point. I and others like me prefer the 20% sale price and 100%+ buy price. I like that it maps neatly onto power scales and encourages PCs to hold on to their magic items. As a demiurge, I can easily explain why these prices are plausible in my world, and I can do so in a way which is no more injurious to realism than any other explanation. The "it's unrealistic" argument does not work when you're talking to the makers of worlds containing fire-breathing dragons and teleportation. If you're going to persuade people to change the default world, you have to show that a different model is better for the _game_.


----------



## Family

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The point is you just can't sell a magic sword by putting it on eBay.




I work at eBay as a Program Manager in the Trust & Safety department. We get most of the items that the company doesn't want sold through the site off of it, but due to volume some do get through.

Including: Magic Swords, Time Machines, Dimensional Portals, and Fictional Recursers.

Due to the scope of my duties I have not been able to test the validy of their claims.


----------



## Kraydak

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> It seems to me that you're arguing past the point. I and others like me prefer the 20% sale price and 100%+ buy price. I like that it maps neatly onto power scales and encourages PCs to hold on to their magic items. As a demiurge, I can easily explain why these prices are plausible in my world, and I can do so in a way which is no more injurious to realism than any other explanation. The "it's unrealistic" argument does not work when you're talking to the makers of worlds containing fire-breathing dragons and teleportation. If you're going to persuade people to change the default world, you have to show that a different model is better for the _game_.




Real-world realism is a lost cause in DnD, obviously.  However, real-world human psychology isn't a lost cause, and, in fact, is somewhat required.  It is hard to take a game world seriously (taking successful suspension of disbelief as the measurement of taking a game world seriously) if all the human inhabitants are insane.  Fireball doesn't port between RL and the game world, but behavior does, and the economy fall in the latter category: things where realism is possible and valuable, regardless of whether the game world is RL historical or fantasy.

As a note: 4e rules have magic items selling at *salvage* values.  You sell magic items at the same price that you buy the magic item manufacturing components that you could get by disenchanting them.  This isn't unreasonable if you have an atl-atl +1 w/bonuses against monotremes (which only a collector would want).  It is unreasonable if you are selling a longsword +1, flaming (which lots of people want).  The above means that 4e removed PCs selling magic items.  Of course, that should also means that it removed NPCs buying magic items, which would eliminate the market entirely.


----------



## JohnSnow

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Well if my thoughts are based on a misreading then why the argument?  Why are there so many posts in this thread that are trying to make the case that 1:5 is generally reasonable?  If the 1:5 is based on a certain set of conditions that I would think it more productive to have stated those conditions from the start - instead of a list of anecdotes about spices and captured ships, et. al. that seem to clearly illustrate no particular consistent set of conditions.  (Though I am very grateful for some specifics as opposed to the otherwise unsupported generalizations that I was getting prior to that.)
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, well then I take back having said that.      Oh wait, I didn't.  I roll for initiative against the straw golem.




Okay. Fair enough. The eBay thing was just to point out that modern profit margins are, generally, a bad basis of comparison. Keep in mind that, even when I quote you, I'm not just refuting what you've written, but all that's been written by all the folks who mostly agree with you (like pawsplay, for example).

That said, I'll address your 1:5 argument with a comment. I used to work in the auto industry. At the time (1997ish), I was told, by reps from Toyota and Honda, that an automobile engine costs them about $500 to make. One would assume that number holds (reasonably) true for any company.

However, when the engine blew on my 1990 Miata while I was working at that job, I was able to replace it: for *5000 dollars!* Even assuming that half that was installation (which is about right, that means I paid $2500 _in parts alone_ for an engine that cost Mazda about $500 to make. That's a 5:1 markup. And we're not talking about a Porsche, Ferrari, or Lamborghini here. It's just an average, garden variety Mazda.

People keep defending the markup with examples because there are all kinds of examples that totally justify it. People objecting to it usually claim that the PC would have to be an idiot to accept 20% now. However, that value depends entirely on how "at risk" the money is, not to mention what you're actually "giving up." In the default setting, it's been written one way. One assumes there's a raft of justifications for it that make it make sense in the default setting. 

As people have said, the rule is there for game balance. Based on the magic items article, you're essentially sacrificing 1 point of "bonus" when you trade-in something. So, the PC who really wants a flaming axe can trade that +2 frost sword he just found a replacement for in to get a +1 flaming axe. is it fair to argue he should sacrifice 1 point of bonus to be able to customize his gear to that degree? Personally, given those comparisons, I think it's a fair trade, gp value aside.

So then, the more pertinent question might be: why are the GP values 5x higher for going 5 levels up? In the game, is a +3 flaming axe really worth five times what a +2 flaming axe is?

Honestly, I just don't know.


----------



## SteveC

The thing about the D&D economy is that it's created with the typical campaign in line, and it always has been. The rules we have here will work just fine for a roving band of adventurers moving from point of light to point of light and fighting back the darkness. They won't work that well for a campaign where you're dealing with PC merchants or magic item dealers. There's nothing different about that than in previous editions.

One idea for a campaign I've always had is that the PCs would work for and eventually run a magic shop. It would be a combination of a trading/dealing game with cons and deceptions. I've just had a lot easier time selling a more traditional game to my players, which is why I expect you have the rules you do in the 4E DMG.

--Steve


----------



## gizmo33

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> It seems to me that you're arguing past the point. I and others like me prefer the 20% sale price and 100%+ buy price. I like that it maps neatly onto power scales and encourages PCs to hold on to their magic items. As a demiurge, I can easily explain why these prices are plausible in my world, and I can do so in a way which is no more injurious to realism than any other explanation. The "it's unrealistic" argument does not work when you're talking to the makers of worlds containing fire-breathing dragons and teleportation. If you're going to persuade people to change the default world, you have to show that a different model is better for the _game_.




You make a number of points that I think are fair.  The problem is that the context of this was not "1:5 can be justified".  It was "you're rejecting 1:5 because you are thinking anachronistically".  So the basis of this debate was not that *there exists* a system that makes 1:5 plausible, it was that 1:5 was probable and reasonable across all possible campaign worlds that are similar in any way with Medieval Europe.  I also questioned the 1:5 system because the supporting conditions that were being used to defend it - arcane and rigid social structures, anti-social PCs, paradoxical circumstances regarding supply and demand, and exhorbitant taxes on magic items entering a city to name a few - were *not* default assumptions of DnD AFAICT.  I'm not questioning the "realism" of your particular campaign world, because as you say, you're the demi-urge.  I'm questioning the argument that some folks were making that I was being "foolishly modern" in my thinking on this subject.


----------



## Ximenes088

Kraydak said:
			
		

> As a note: 4e rules have magic items selling at *salvage* values.  You sell magic items at the same price that you buy the magic item manufacturing components that you could get by disenchanting them.  This isn't unreasonable if you have an atl-atl +1 w/bonuses against monotremes (which only a collector would want).  It is unreasonable if you are selling a longsword +1, flaming (which lots of people want).  The above means that 4e removed PCs selling magic items.  Of course, that should also means that it removed NPCs buying magic items, which would eliminate the market entirely.



Perversely enough, we already have a real-world example of the exact truthfulness of the default. WoW has demonstrated that the minimal sale price of a disenchantable object is the sale price of the remnants it disenchants into, and that's in a market with no barrier to entry whatsoever and trivial transaction costs. Why is this so? Because you can make things with the remnants that are more wanted than a useless original item. Are WoW players (economically) insane?

The default rules are not a demented assault on economic sanity, and a DM who lets his world use them is not offending against D&D-appropriate levels of realism. A designer who values a world consistent with human experience does not gain any appreciable credit by deciding that 20% is insane while 50% is "realistic".


----------



## pawsplay

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> Perversely enough, we already have a real-world example of the exact truthfulness of the default. WoW has demonstrated that the minimal sale price of a disenchantable object is the sale price of the remnants it disenchants into, and that's in a market with no barrier to entry whatsoever and trivial transaction costs. Why is this so? Because you can make things with the remnants that are more wanted than a useless original item. Are WoW players (economically) insane?




Well, they're not geniuses, that's for sure.


----------



## drjones

Kraydak said:
			
		

> So?
> 
> As it happens, setting up an eBay clone should be quite doable in DnD.  Magic can provide the rapid communication/transport that eBay runs off of.



Man, I am not a grognard but this sentence just made me puke in my hat.


----------



## pawsplay

drjones said:
			
		

> Man, I am not a grognard but this sentence just made me puke in my hat.




You know, you could probably make a decent espresso machine as a level 5 magic item.


----------



## Kraydak

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> Perversely enough, we already have a real-world example of the exact truthfulness of the default. WoW has demonstrated that the minimal sale price of a disenchantable object is the sale price of the remnants it disenchants into, and that's in a market with no barrier to entry whatsoever and trivial transaction costs. Why is this so? Because you can make things with the remnants that are more wanted than a useless original item. Are WoW players (economically) insane?
> 
> The default rules are not a demented assault on economic sanity, and a DM who lets his world use them is not offending against D&D-appropriate levels of realism. A designer who values a world consistent with human experience does not gain any appreciable credit by deciding that 20% is insane while 50% is "realistic".




Well duh.  If you have an item whose only value is in its component parts, it will sell at (or a bit below, extracting the parts will cost something) the value of its component parts.  That puts a floor on the selling price, but does nothing for the ceiling.  Note that in WoW, *useful* items bazaar for much more than the salvage price.

20% is insane because a magic item market tends to liquidity and rapid turn around.  It does that because the people who want magic items have immense mobility and large amounts of ready cash.  Adventurers aren't poor 3rd world farmers with no ability to take their products directly to the 1st world market, nor are they 17th century Europeans dependent on merchants bringing them spices from the Orient.  They can travel to wherever the magic item market is themselves, rapidly.


----------



## pawsplay

Let's face it, adventurers are the East India Trading Company and Waterdeep is London.


----------



## gizmo33

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> As people have said, the rule is there for game balance.




But if the rule is there for game balance, then I think one is in somewhat of an awkward posistion to try to defend it based on versimiltude.  If the rule were not arrived at through a reasonable analysis of "simulation" type stuff, then why pretend that it satisfies that kind of gamer?  The rule appears to me as a gamist, fiat-driven construct designed to take money out of pockets of PCs.  There's nothing evil about that, I just would prefer that it be called what it is.  Obviously you can suggest a bunch of conditions that would create a universal 1:5 situation for magic items, but the lack of presence of these elements in other areas (for example, suggesting that the merchants have to pay 50% tax on their magic items to enter a city but not accounting for why the PCs never do) doesn't pass the simulationist test.  

So it's a game construct, and were it a video game, I would simply sell my items for 1:5 to the local faceless NPC and get on with killing things.  This seems consistent with the more "gamist" design approach that folks are telling me that 4E is taking.  It doesn't surprise me - WotC IMO has shown virtually no interest or ability in any sort of simulationist design or thinking - the only thing vaguely historical in DnD 3E are artifacts from prior editions, and inconsistencies between the costs of raw materials, labor, and finished product (ex. high-quality iron, a weapon-smith's wages, and a longsword) are trivial to find in the rules.  The people who invented the dire flail or decided that a glorified sickle was an exotic weapon doing 1d6 damage were not simulationists.

I think the whole "wealth management by gp" rules is a simulationist construct anyway.  It's not cinematic for heroes to be buying and selling stuff anyway - that's a hold-over from DnD's simulationist days.  If I were going to adopt 4Es gaming philosophy completely, I might just dispense with the whole pretense of looting creatures for stuff and selling it as being completely contrary to the spirit of the rules and distracting to intelligent players and opt for "wealth points" or something instead.


----------



## pawsplay

Heck, formalize "item slots" and let players pick 75% of their own loot, ignore ordinary coin, and create a "wealth reating" for large mundane purchases that can also be used to swap magic items.

There, I think I just gave away a free GSL idea to some publisher.


----------



## gizmo33

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> Perversely enough, we already have a real-world example of the exact truthfulness of the default. WoW has demonstrated that the minimal sale price of a disenchantable object is the sale price of the remnants it disenchants into, and that's in a market with no barrier to entry whatsoever and trivial transaction costs. Why is this so? Because you can make things with the remnants that are more wanted than a useless original item. Are WoW players (economically) insane?




Maybe they are insane.  Something's missing here.  If people will pay 5,000 gp for an item, but they can only sell it to the faceless merchants for 1,000, then what's to stop a player from putting out the word that they'll buy said items for 2,000 and sell it for 4,000?  It seems to me to be a no-brainer that you've got 2,000 easy gps coming to you just because the NPCs are foolish.  I don't know much about WoW, but unless the player has to walk from India to England for every transaction I would think this would be a gold-mine and much appreciated by persons wishing to sell items as well as those wishing to buy.  Of course if I can kill monsters and loot 100000s of gps easily then I might not want to spend time with merchant activities, but that's a zany MMORPG situation and not a satisfying simulation.  WoW might be skewed in that there are no actual, functioning, intelligent merchants who are working the system.


----------



## Stalker0

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Adventurers aren't poor 3rd world farmers with no ability to take their products directly to the 1st world market, nor are they 17th century Europeans dependent on merchants bringing them spices from the Orient.  They can travel to wherever the magic item market is themselves, rapidly.




Keep in mind that magic has been greatly decreased in 4e. I don't think any old adventurer can just snap his fingers and fly at high speeds, or teleport. Most adventurers have to walk just like anyone else. No granted they are going to be better at traveling than your low level farmer, but they still have to deal with many of the problems of the darkness around those points of light.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Maybe they are insane.  Something's missing here.  If people will pay 5,000 gp for an item, but they can only sell it to the faceless merchants for 1,000, then what's to stop a player from putting out the word that they'll buy said items for 2,000 and sell it for 4,000?  It seems to me to be a no-brainer that you've got 2,000 easy gps coming to you just because the NPCs are foolish.  I don't know much about WoW, but unless the player has to walk from India to England for every transaction I would think this would be a gold-mine and much appreciated by persons wishing to sell items as well as those wishing to buy.  Of course if I can kill monsters and loot 100000s of gps easily then I might not want to spend time with merchant activities, but that's a zany MMORPG situation and not a satisfying simulation.  WoW might be skewed in that there are no actual, functioning, intelligent merchants who are working the system.




Honestly, a merchant campaign sounds pretty cool to me.


----------



## JohnSnow

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> But if the rule is there for game balance, then I think one is in somewhat of an awkward posistion to try to defend it based on versimiltude.  If the rule were not arrived at through a reasonable analysis of "simulation" type stuff, then why pretend that it satisfies that kind of gamer?  The rule appears to me as a gamist, fiat-driven construct designed to take money out of pockets of PCs.




*SIGH*

D&D has never been a game aimed purely at simulationists (and in my opinion, hopefully never will). What it has always had is a mostly gamist mindset, tagged with enough simulation to be believable.

Vancian magic, for example, was an entirely gamist construct that the game bent over backwards to justify as a simulation. Gary having a somewhat "backwards" notion of what constituted "balance" aside, the vancian magic system was there for game balance purposes. If you stick by Gary's assumptions about how a game works (including that every character starts at 1st-level, including replacement PCs!), it's even "fair" in the sense that every character has a level and situation in which they get to shine.

Hit points are another example. They exist for gamist reasons, and with healing spells included, characters never have to worry about the slow pace of natural healing. But that slow pace of natural healing was there as a simulationist nod to the fact that people just don't heal that fast. Similarly, their 'abstract' nature was there as a simulationist nod to the fact that real people just can't get stabbed 50 times and be "fine."

So D&D is, and has always been, a gamist system with just enough simulation (or justification) to allow suspension of disbelief. So the new trade-in system can exist purely for balance reasons, but still be based on _entirely justifiable_ simulationist reasons. Those reasons can include: acceptable profit margins, risk of loss, taxation, demand for items, and so on.

The in-world justifications can be found _if you're willing to look for them_, just as has always been the case for (nearly) every "gamist" rule in D&D.

Conversely, if you're unwilling to look for them, you won't find them. Because, at the end of the day, this is *a game* that's intended to be played for *fun*, not a wholly consistent fantasy world simulator.


----------



## Andor

drjones said:
			
		

> And how long did it take you to get your newly plundered south American antiquity to Sotheby's in 1770?  And how much did it cost to make that happen?




Hard to say. The spanish treasure fleets reckoned the voyage at 4 to 8 months, and charged a 20% tax. Mind you that was due to a theoretical Spanish monopoly over trade to the new world. 

Of course by 1770 the trip from _Australia_ to England was only 80 days. And 70 years later it was cheaper to ship gold miners laundry from California to China than it was to have them laundered in San Fransisico. Presumably the greater speed of the Clipper ships reduced overhead. 

Of course by late Paragon tier, the party can just teleport to London.


----------



## pawsplay

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that magic has been greatly decreased in 4e.




I really don't think so. Magic missile all day?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I really don't think so. Magic missile all day?



Magic Missile all day, 
A Fighter is not automatically assumed to carry 6-12 magical items
The Rogue and Bard using "Clerics-On-a-Stick" aka Wands of Cure Light Wounds to heal their comrades after a battle. 
Magic not being able to out-shine everything a "mundane" character does at high levels.

Yes, overall, that is reduction of magic. You can reduce it further, but for real low-fantasy, you have to remove the spellcaster as a playable character class in the first place.


----------



## JohnSnow

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I really don't think so. Magic missile all day?




Except _magic missile_ in 3e was auto-hit, no save, and its damage escalated with level. By comparison, a 4e magic missile is an attack with the following stats:

at-will, +5 atk vs. REF, Range 20, 2d4 + 5 dmg (avg 10).

That sounds almost like a ranger with a longbow...let's compare, shall we?

at-will, +6 atk vs. AC, Range 20/40, 1d10 + 4 dmg (avg 9.5).

Except for the difference in targeted defense, I'd say those are pretty comparable. And that's the ranger's _basic attack_.

Yeah, that's clear evidence that 4e wizards are overpowered.

Yes, low-level magic is pretty ubiquitous. But magic isn't quite the trump card it used to be.


----------



## Ximenes088

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Maybe they are insane.  Something's missing here.  If people will pay 5,000 gp for an item, but they can only sell it to the faceless merchants for 1,000, then what's to stop a player from putting out the word that they'll buy said items for 2,000 and sell it for 4,000?  It seems to me to be a no-brainer that you've got 2,000 easy gps coming to you just because the NPCs are foolish.



It is a perfectly valid world-building choice to decide that's the case, and let PCs undercut the market. The DM will then have to decide where the market stabilizes, somewhere between salvage cost and creation cost, and he'll have to deal with the fallout of PCs being able to acquire optimized magic gear much more easily than by default, but if a DM wants to do that, the world will make perfect sense that way.

And if the DM doesn't want that? The PCs advertise what they've got, Duke B'beg comes over, kicks them around, and takes it. Merchant Prince Smythe has paid off his protection money to the Duke, but the adventurers plainly think they can operate on his turf without paying his fees. That ain't so. The Duke expects all the big merchants in his duchy to come up with their "taxes", and the merchants put up with it because he'll take everything if they try to move out- and besides, it's not like the neighboring lords are much better. It's a perfectly realistic and plausible situation that just happens to both enforce the default and give the PCs a running motivation to push the Duke's teeth in someday.

For just about any level of PC, the same principle can apply in a PoL world. You need a "roof" if you're going to do business, and the roof doesn't come cheap. And if you're really all that ready, willing, and able to carve out your own market and hold it against the land-pirates and thieves that would take it from you, then you're probably playing exactly the campaign you want to play. At that point, if the PCs really are enjoying dealing with the situation, then there's no balance issue in letting them accomplish their mercantile endeavours, as the profit will cover the treasure they'd otherwise have gotten adventuring.


----------



## Andor

drjones said:
			
		

> Kraydak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As it happens, setting up an eBay clone should be quite doable in DnD. Magic can provide the rapid communication/transport that eBay runs off of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man, I am not a grognard but this sentence just made me puke in my hat.
Click to expand...



Well e-bay would be a bit much but perhaps the Barrett-Jackson auctions are worth thinking about. Let's consider this for a second. I don't think the concept of the auction would be foreign to most D&D worlds. 

Let's suppose that the PoL setting has, say, 7 cities that the PCs know about that are large enough to function as centers of trade. 

If 4e contains rules for:

1) Some type of linked scrying/communication device like the Palantir or headbands of communication.
2) Teleportation of goods, or a person with a reasonable weight limit.

Then that is all the PCs need to setup a linked set of auction houses. One warehouse/auction house in each city. Hold an auction as often as the trade calls for. Probably start of with one a year or every 6 months or so, then ramp it up as demand increases. 

A master list of items for auction is assembled. The theatre (probably as nicely appointed as possible) in each city has on stage an announcer/auctioneer in magical contact with the other 6 auction houses. An illusionist projects an image of the item for sale above the stage (including in the one where the item actually is. Obfuscating the location of the loot is good security.) Bidding is conducted in all 7 houses simultaneously. Once an auction has been concluded payment is aranged, and once completed the item is teleported to the appropriate auction house and delivered to the buyer.

If the appropriate magic is available bulk goods sales could even be done this way. (Permanently enchanted circles of teleportation that allow travel between linked locations for example.)

From what we know of the tiers I'm guessing a group would have to be late paragon to early epic to set this up. They'd make a fortune and utterly change the setting for the better. Sounds heroic to me.


----------



## pawsplay

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> And if the DM doesn't want that? The PCs advertise what they've got, Duke B'beg comes over, kicks them around, and takes it.




Except this is 4e, so Duke B'beg is a balanced encounter.


----------



## Sojorn

Andor said:
			
		

> From what we know of the tiers I'm guessing a group would have to be late paragon to early epic to set this up. They'd make a fortune and utterly change the setting for the better. Sounds heroic to me.



Don't you mean epic? (Har har)

Love the idea though. And naturally no one thought of this idea before for the same reason that the PCs keep getting to all these unlooted ruins first.


----------



## Rex Blunder

Pawsplay said:
			
		

> Except this is 4e, so Duke B'beg is a balanced encounter.




Zing! Because while 3e tried to make every encounter balanced, and provided extensive guidelines to do so, we all know that the guidelines were utter failures! So even though the DM tried to provide a CR-appropriate challenge, the Duke still outmatched the PCs! Way to stick it to 3e, Pawsplay!


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> As people have said, the rule is there for game balance. Based on the magic items article, you're essentially sacrificing 1 point of "bonus" when you trade-in something. So, the PC who really wants a flaming axe can trade that +2 frost sword he just found a replacement for in to get a +1 flaming axe. is it fair to argue he should sacrifice 1 point of bonus to be able to customize his gear to that degree? Personally, given those comparisons, I think it's a fair trade, gp value aside.




Going from +2 Sword to +1 Axe isn't balanced (assuming the other attributes are equal in value). 

"The game assumes that the “plus” of each of these three items follows the normal enhancement curve of items in the game: +1 from 1st to 5th level, +2 from 6th to 10th, and on up to +6 from 26th to 30th."

So if at 6th level a player needs to trade the level +2 frost sword (say a level 10 item) he found for a +1 flaming axe (say a level 5 item), and flaming and frost are of equal value, he's screwed...for five levels. If, in the process of placing items, you're putting a weapon in the game for a player that he won't like (and in some cases, one that can't be used with his powers), so he can be punished for trying to get one that he does like (or can be used with his powers) that has nothing to do with realism or balance, it is just petty meanness and some dominance issues.

Magic items are supposed to be a reward, if players are selling magic items, particularly big 3 items, because the DM is never giving them things they like, then the DM isn't giving them a reward. That doesn't stop you from throwing in an occasional item you know nobody will want to mix up the you get x items you can use and some gold and a potion monotony, but that item is just gold or a minor magic item that hasn't been transformed yet.

What the system can do, for a well-intentioned DM, is ensure that a player who is particularly good at wrangling items (and every party has one) doesn't get the +4 level or +3 level item all the time and convert it into something he can use and end up with all great items while someone else gets the shaft. There is no, "Well you're the cleric so we'll sell your level +4 weapon and get the fighter level +4 armor this level to go with the level +4 weapon he got last level."

But, in the hands of a DM that wants to item railroad a player into playing a certain class the 'right' way, the system gives the player no chance to recover (e.g. a cleric that likes to whack things with their halberd never finding any nice halberds but getting heal/buff items all the time as his above character level items). 

Hopefully, the magic item or rewards section will make it clear that magic items are a reward and that the DM should try to give players things that they'll like.


----------



## Stalker0

MyISPHatesENWorld said:
			
		

> But, in the hands of a DM that wants to item railroad a player into playing a certain class the 'right' way, the system gives the player no chance to recover (e.g. a cleric that likes to whack things with their halberd never finding any nice halberds but getting heal/buff items all the time as his above character level items).




The only way to remove that completely would be to take equipment out of the game. The DM is the master of the dungeon, and no rule system can stop a bad DM from screwing with everyone's fun. Sure it can help, and it definitely help inexperienced dms run better games, but if a dm is determined to force characters to play a certain way, then only the players can stop him by voicing their grievances, and/or leaving the game.


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> The only way to remove that completely would be to take equipment out of the game. The DM is the master of the dungeon, and no rule system can stop a bad DM from screwing with everyone's fun. Sure it can help, and it definitely help inexperienced dms run better games, but if a dm is determined to force characters to play a certain way, then only the players can stop him by voicing their grievances, and/or leaving the game.




Yeah, nothing keeps bad DMs from being bad, but making it clear to players that they should expect periodic rewards rather than periodic screwings would go a long way toward encouraging them to find a new DM rather than a new hobby.


----------



## Fanaelialae

MyISPHatesENWorld said:
			
		

> Hopefully, the magic item or rewards section will make it clear that magic items are a reward and that the DM should try to give players things that they'll like.




I should hope, considering that one of the big design goals for 4e is fun, that this is pretty much a given.  They were pretty clear in the article that found magic items are rewards, and a reward isn't much of one if it isn't something any of the players wants.  I would be very surprised if the DMG didn't call out the fact that the DM should award items to the players that they want, not that he wants, and that the "best" reward slot should routinely cycle among the players.


----------

