+ Log in or register to post
Results 1 to 8 of 8
Monday, 17th January, 2011, 12:14 PM #1
Proposal: Magic Item trade caluse
Proposal: A player may trade with a merchant or another player. If trading with a player, the level and cost of the items must be equal. If trading with a merchant, the level and cost must be equal or lower.
Why? This proposal is aimed to fix some of the problems raised Proposal: Let Players Sell Stuff to Other Players, while still maintaining the integrity of the D&D wealth curve.
Allowing players to trade their magic items for items of an equivalent value addresses the issue of DMs giving unwanted loot, whether it be items that the player dislikes, or if an item type (sword, shield, armor, etc) is replaced before other item groups are filled out.
Also, it just makes sense. For example, let's say I go adventuring and find a L4 Shielding blade. Then I go back to town to see the merchant and he's selling a L4 Sunblade which I like better. It's nonsensical that the vendor would offer me only 168gp for the Shielding blade, but pay the full 840 for the Sunblade.
This would essentially allow players to sell at 100%, if and only if, they spend that gold on an item of equal or lesser value. Therefore, the wealth of the player has not changed (in fact, it may have gotten lower), but the player is happier.
The Result:The player wealth will remain essentially the same, players will be able to generally have the items they want, and DMs will not need to be as concerned with picking the "right" item for the player.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on adverts that
- are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Tuesday, 18th January, 2011, 03:19 AM #2
Well, the underlying economics of D&D has never made sense. Truthfully it makes no sense for any merchant to carry any magic items....outside of maybe +1 items, as having thousands of gold pieces tied up in inventory on the hopes that someone comes buy to pick it up? Not likely.
Currently the system forces people to decide whether they want to upgrade their main 3 items (weapon/implement, armor, neck) or grab some misc. items. Not sure I like the swapping at will. At best I'd allow this "re-train" instead of your regular retrain of a feat/power/etc.
Tuesday, 18th January, 2011, 06:28 PM #3
Defender (Lvl 8)
Tuesday, 18th January, 2011, 07:39 PM #4
Wednesday, 19th January, 2011, 03:05 PM #5
Defender (Lvl 8)
I struggle with that, too, as a DM. As a judge, I'd have no problem at all if you want to award your players the L4 item of their choice. Suitably fluffed up (e.g. their patron commissions the finest magical craftsmen to do a personalized order) that sort of thing can be a great RP experience and a fun way to end an adventure. But it's not appropriate for all adventures, and as a DM, I'd want to have the option to give specific items.
Also, IMO allowing players to trade one-for-one with merchants freely makes it too easy to customize their equipment for specific adventures. "What's that you say? You've got a problem with undead? Pardon me while I go turn in my necrotic weapon for a radiant weapon..."
Wednesday, 19th January, 2011, 06:03 PM #6
Scout (Lvl 6)
I play WotC's Living Forgotten Realms campaign. With the introduction of item rarity into D&D, they added a generic treasure option to all of their adventures.
Pick an uncommon item of your level or less, or a common item of your level+2 or less.
Rare items are only given out as specific rewards.
You are allowed to purchase common items, but not uncommon items or rare items.
You can sell common items for 20% of their price, uncommon items for 50%. You cannot sell rare items at all.
You are limited to owning a number of uncommon items equal to your level and one rare item per tier.
Perhaps something similar can be formulated that would work with L4W. Personally, I think the LFR rules have a big hole when it comes to consumables.
Thursday, 20th January, 2011, 10:33 AM #7
Thursday, 20th January, 2011, 11:22 AM #8
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
Weren't the original rules for reselling and buying weapons designed to give deference to the DMs choice of items to give out? I mean what would be the point of the 20% rule if you could just trade one for the other.
My opinion (house rules in L4W not withstanding) is that DMs should be making the decision as to what they give out, with the understanding that their players have certain preferences. This isn't because I'm a power hungry DM or anything. I just know that sometimes DMs like to use treasure parcels to foreshadow things that are to happen later in the adventure, or provide an edge to PCs in an upcoming encounter.
If a character has something that he/she feels would be useless later on, then the item can either be sold to an NPC after the adventure or an arrangement could be made with the DM to conveniently "lose" the item once its usefulness is expended while "finding" another that is more desirable (O.K. it's a hokey idea, but you get my point).
To Covaithe's point, if trading were to be allowed, it would definitely need to be outside the context of adventure recruiting.
LEB Character: Arkavas - Deva Artivicer 5
L4W Character: Mikara Li Mesadh - Elf Ranger 7
L4W Character: Eithal Lemindt Arehei - Goliath Warden 10
L4W Character: Ixenvalignat - Dragonborn Warlord 3
"Taking one's chances is like taking a bath, because sometimes, you end up feeling comfortable and warm, and sometimes, there is something terrible lurking around that you cannot see until it is too late, and you can do nothing else but scream and cling to a plastic duck." -Lemony Snicket The Slippery Slope