Essentials: Magic Item Rarity Explained, it's actually good!

[fba827]

new model as i understand it from the preview = something i like and have been wanting!

a) i don't like -some- magic items being an entitlement (there are just certain items that i think should feel like a reward and defining moments rather than "It's published and i can make it, therefore i have it" (though, in my last campaign, no one actually took enchant item so it hasn't been a big issue, but it was one i was worried about being an eventuality). i like magic item creation and makes for a good staple concept, just it was way too open ended as originally written.
b) not all magic items of the same tier, no matter how you try and define it, will ever be equal. some are just simply better than others

anyway, long story short, the preview is full of win as far as I'm concerned.

 

[eamon]

Actually they do. Otherwise would you like to explain why the cost for a level 1 magical item with the enchant item ritual is identical to one made in a store? I mean, they don't produce it out of thin air and if your PC can make it using the *same* ritual, why is it they can do it far cheaper than your PC can?

Presumably because the real experts know tricks to make these things cheaply. A PC Ritual need not be the only way to create a magic item, after all... Or because they're not making them at all, but selling the excess quantities of long lost artificers - who knows what they were doing, but we've got their creations - the basic, common ones - in sufficient quantity. How, why the merchants can sell the item for the same price the PC can make it for isn't interesting.

Or, perhaps you're right and the market for simple magic items is so fluid that merchants have no margin - and sell these things at cost, making money on additional services or luxury items. In which case, you've made my case for me: if they're selling them at cost, they'll be willing to buy them at cost or for not much less anyhow.

Others are arguing that uncommon and rare items sell for more because they're so valuable in essence. That's a different issue - such an item has a high price which is a not the same thing as a low markup - not in any way.

Put it this way - if you find a rare level 5 item is offered by a merchant (by coincidence since some other adventurer's sold it to him, not because the shopkeep stocks all rare items or even consistently stocks any at all) then would the shopkeep sell it to you for 100% of the nominal level 5 cost? And could you then sell that item back to him for again 100% of the cost? It doesn't make sense. If rarity raises the cost, then the item isn't a level 5 item by cost, it's more.

The system proposed is not consistent.

 

[Aegeri]

You've got my point perfectly eamon actually, but I inherently agree with you that merchants probably *do* have some way of making items cheaper (maybe they just buy enough ritual materials to get it at a discount?). I just view things differently, mostly from an arms race perspective. Those who want the best, biggest and most devastating weapons are those who will pay for them (or work hardest to acquire them).

 

[eamon]

Lot's of people are arguing that rare items are rare and sell better. That means they should have a higher price, not that the fluidity of the market is better.

Obviously, a rare item's scarcity will be represented in the cost. Now, take that rare item's cost, and compare it to common goods of equal cost. Which will the merchant sell for less? the item he habitually stocks and is sure to sell fairly quickly and for which there's considerable competition (any other merchant or artificer can supply it) and easy for him to restock or the item that's rare, difficult to value, and for which there's no competition?

There will be a greater markup for rare items - which is part of the reason for their high price - which means that given the price, the common items can be resold more easily for less loss.

Aegeri, you're arguing rare items should be more expensive - I agree. I'm arguing that given that, the difficulty of buying and selling them will mean that the price difference between buying and selling from a merchant will be greater.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Aegeri, you're arguing rare items should be more expensive - I agree. I'm arguing that given that, the difficulty of buying and selling them will mean that the price difference between buying and selling from a merchant will be greater.

This is true, but from reading the piece, I think the implicit assumption is that the PCs won't be buying Rare items. They'll be finding them in some crypt or being rewarded them by valorous service to the crown or whatever. So precise economic modeling of buying them is irrelevant, and the price rule only exists to make sure the player is compensated properly when getting rid of the item. The rule exists to take the sting out of parting with the awesome item, not to simulate economic principles.

That, plus the fact that while one or two of the game designers might be trained in economics, all of them will be familiar with buying and selling rare books, cards, etc compared to common versions of same. Collectors don't actually look much like the alleged rational consumer assumed by economists. Actually, almost no one does, but that's not an argument for these boards.

 

[RyvenCedrylle]

Since this is teh int3rn3tz and we are required by sacred tradition to have at least one person come in and gripe about every topic, I'll take this one.

Truth be told, it's not a bad rule change in and of itself. It is, however, a terrible rules change 3 years in. It's going to be darn near impossible to implement this on the fly in an ongoing campaign where players have been gaining treasure according to the previous ruleset. You either have to take away magic items (right...) or retain the usages per day rule. As example, allow me to point to the RPGA. A Level 5 LFR character very likely has - not including potions, scrolls and ritual books - five magic items, many of which it seems will be included under the 'uncommon' type. Allowing free reigno of the daily magic item powers is a notable upgrade in power. Now imagine this at high paragon, when a character might be lugging around 14-15 magic items, though not all are in use simultaneously. The "stockpiling items that were far below their level but still had useful, daily powers" has already occurred in this context.

I assume WotC has already thought of this, but as of yet it has not been addressed in any of the DDI articles or the announcement seminars. Suggestions? Commentary?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Try thinking of Rare Items as collector's items and the price as the cover price. The cost of Superman #1 might be only 50 cents - which is the price the PC sees on the cover. But to anyone with the right contacts it could probably sell for a few thousand dollars. The price the PCs are quoted is the cover price - which doesn't matter because they couldn't buy it anyway. Common items are Superman #573 (or whatever) which may say more on the cover but really don't have a resale value.

This is compounded by the adventurers market and the collector's market being very different (and by the time the PCs have the cash to play in the collector's market for a given tier they are in the next tier).

 

[AllisterH]

re: Implementation

I think LFR is going to use its own rules slightly modified...Since 2e, the Living campaigns have also had slightly different economic systems than what the game actually says.

In a home campaign, I think the best sugestion is "only use the rule for a new campaign". Like you said, it won't work in an in-between campaign.

re: Artifacts

Does anyone see this rule encouraging the devlaluation of artifacts. Going forward, I fear designers aren't going to use the great artifact rules since apparently, people couldn't be bothered to use them.

Seriously, to this day, I still don't understand why people want powerful items but don't use the artifact rules. You "want" to break the game but not use the actual rules provided? Huh?

re: Cost
Eamon, I think the problem is that you're forgetting that the PCs can't BUY uncommon and rare items....we don't know what the actual markup of rare and uncommon items actually are now.

We KNOW vendors are selling common items at cost since this hasn't changed, but these new rules mean that we no longer know what the vendor is selling the uncommon and rare items at since the PCs no longer can actually buy them...

 

[Henry]

I believe he is arguing that the Rare items will be hard to shift so a buyer will only offer 20% and the common items will be easy to shift and so should be bought by the middle man for 90%-100% of their listed price.

All this is based on real world retail economics. I may be wrong but I believe that is what he is stating.

I see it a different way - I'll find a $10.00 coffee maker at the Local Maxway/Family Dollar/What-have-you, yet would find the exact same make and model at the Flea Market for $2.00, because no one in their right mind will pay $10 used for something they can buy at the same price new. However, I won't find the local discount store offering it at $2.00 either. "used from a second hand vendor" means cheaper price.

Now, if you want to go to the trouble of setting up discount magic item shops in the campaign, whose magic items have minor defects from their time in the field, that sounds like some fun for the players.

 

[Zaran]

The problem I have with making half the magic items Uncommon is the fact that most magic items with daily powers are rather boring and not very powerful. Making it so players can't make a flaming sword or a cloak of resistance just because they have daily powers seems like a major nerf to me.

I also think that the distinction between uncommon and common is unneeded because by the time a PC can create a magic item it is already becoming obsolete because of both the level limit and the amount of gold it takes to make such an item.

What I really don't understand is this need to strictly designate rules for something that should be the venue of the GM. I guess some people need to be able to say "The rules say you can't do that." This goes along with the DMG telling the GM that they should always say "Yes" to their player's. It IS ok to say "No" if you feel like it would unbalance your game.