Anyone importing 4E’s’Used gear sells for 1/5th if at all’ to other RPG systems?

[Imban]

Man, if anything I'd want to import a different treasure system into 4e.

Getting and sorting through heaps of loot after taking out monsters was always one of the things I liked about previous editions of D&D. And heck, CRPGs that feature it, too.

 

[Allister]

There's another big reason to have the 20% rule.

It actually makes treasure, well, treasure.

In pre 3E, if a DM gives out a random magic item, without the ability to buy magic items, it made little sense to sell it since you wouldn't get what you want.

Since 3e, with magic items being available for sale, any magic item that you find, there's a reason now to sell it. However, at a 50% rate, it means that the random treasure makes no sense.

At 20%, you're more likely to get players to actually keep and use said random magic items.

I think it is a rule that, while gamist, actually understands what will happen in the actual game world unlike the 50% rule.

 

[Treebore]

There's another big reason to have the 20% rule.

It actually makes treasure, well, treasure.

In pre 3E, if a DM gives out a random magic item, without the ability to buy magic items, it made little sense to sell it since you wouldn't get what you want.

Since 3e, with magic items being available for sale, any magic item that you find, there's a reason now to sell it. However, at a 50% rate, it means that the random treasure makes no sense.

At 20%, you're more likely to get players to actually keep and use said random magic items.

I think it is a rule that, while gamist, actually understands what will happen in the actual game world unlike the 50% rule.

Well, that does depend on how realistic your wanting to go. 20% isn't realistic, especially for magic items. Thats like saying you could make a Humvee and sell it for no more than $8,000.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think it is a rule that, while gamist, actually understands what will happen in the actual game world unlike the 50% rule.

I don't think anyone who is currently advocating the 50% rule had any problem making treasure treasure, so to speak.

I know I didn't.

 

[Obryn]

Heck, I don't use 20% in my 4e games!

Still, my players aren't the looting type, when it comes to mundane gear.

-O

 

[Wolf88]

Well... For Allister to actually go out in the backyard and make a fully functional humvee it would cost him so much that i doubt he would be able to sell it back for more than... lets say around 20% what he spent for it

 

[pawsplay]

In medieval warfare, a lot of equipment was scavenged or resold. The price of a longsword is pretty much the price of a used longsword; you would not commission a new blade if you were not a noble. Most swords were produced in quantity under noble patronage, then used, resold, and repaired.

There are plenty of examples in Scandanavian and Saxon burial mounds of weapons and armor that clearly originated in Turkey or Gaul.

This is even more the case with something like a spear, which is basically just a metal wedge sharpented to a point, affixed to some kind of pole.

As for magic items... the Humvee comparison is apt. Magic items are expensive items used by a small segment of the population. But because they depreciate little, I think they are also comparable to jewelry, which has a fairly stable value. Or to chemical rockets, which have a price on the black market of whatever the price point is relative to making your own or brokering a deal to acquire them legally.

The reason 50% makes sense is because, as we have all probably had the experience, having the time and connection to unload something is important. Stores keep inventory, which means a higher price point, because they can wait, but which also reflects higher costs associated with storing and protecting merchandise.

Another problem with the 20% rule is that it makes no sense when you consider the possibility of barter. If you're a merchant and you've had a +3 axe sitting in your shop for a year, wouldn't you jump at the chance to swap it for a +3 sword? Maybe there's a buyer for it. I could see a merchant in that case charging some kind of fee, but certainly not half the price of the item.

This has been denated before on this site. Bottom line: No, and I do not recommend trying this rule in any other game system, or really even with 4e.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Of the things I liked about 4E, one of the chief ones was that players were no longer expected to be scrounging every mundane weapon and chunk of armor after battle. So much so I might implement it in other games. Anyone else feel the same way?

I never saw a group scrounge everything. Past level 3-4, it was coins (including gems/art) & magic only.

If a group in 3e was stripping bloody armor off every mundane enemy, than 4e just means they have to do it 2.5 times as much. I don't see how reducing the sale value of an item means you need less of it...

 

[Wolf88]

I really have the feeling that this basically stops being relevant when our PCs raise a in levels and the cost for their (magical) gear rises so much that it simply cannot be covered by selling random plain ol'steel longswords.

As for selling Magical items, that are supposed to be of "constant value" like gems and such, the ruling should be that 20% of the value is for a "speedy" sale, and honestly they shouldn't have the chance to spend the required weeks-months (not to mention to find the necessary contacts) to land a solid sale.

That should be the case for buying... some simple diplomacy-check based barter is admissible, but for no more than 5% of the item's final price!

Remember, this is Dungeons and Dragons and we kill monsters to take their stuff, not Merchants and Moneymakers where we worry this much about accounting!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Just another feather in "4e doesn't want you to fight humanoids, it wants you to fight MONSTERS" cap.