Economical Ponderings

[Flazzy]

Skimming through the sample treasure parcels in the economy preview, I noticed each parcel is interchangable between gold, gems and art objects. For example, paragon tier treasure 8: 8,500 gp, or one 5,000 gp gem + one 2,500 gp art object + 1,000 gp, or eight 1,000 gp gems + 500 gp.

HOWEVER - if I found a 5,000 gem + one 2,500 gp art object + 1,000 gp, and I sell them, I do not have 8,500 gp, since the gem sells for 1/5 and the art object sells for 1/5, leaving me with only 2,500 gp. Either that or gems and art objects have the sale cost written beside them, in which case if I wanted to buy such a gem I'd have to pay 27,500-35,000 gp (according with the 110-140% rule). But this would be very strange since magic items' price is definately their buying price (the flaming weapon in the preview has a cost of 1,000 - it's buying price according to the table in the magic item preview).


So what gives?

Plus, what's an ad? An admantine coin worth 1000 gp?

 

[Mort_Q]

Astral Diamond

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

Unless I'm mistaken gems and art objects are considered "trade goods" type items that have an intrinsic value like gold. So, sell price equals buying price. Sure, a merchant actually wants to sell high and buy low, but to make life simple for the DM gems/art objects == gold.

 

[darkadelphia]

I don't think there's any reason to believe gems and art objects sell at the same 1/5 price as magic items. Magic items provide mechanical benefits, and thus their worth to PCs should be in their use and not in their sale. Gems on the other hand are generally used as convenient money in D&D.

Depending on how encumbrance works, I think it would not be unreasonable to slightly increase parcels of coin and slightly decrease parcels of gems--gems are very easy to carry, their portability should, mechanically speaking, make up some of their worth.

But then again, I'm trying to use 4e as a clean slate to resist the urge of overanalyzing such things ;-).

 

[PeelSeel2]

For ease, I just assume the 'value' of art objects and gems is the 1/5 value already.

 

[Greatwyrm]

Where does the 1/5 figure come from anyway?

From the d20 srd at http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/wealthAndMoney.htm:

In general, a character can sell something for half its listed price.

Trade goods are the exception to the half-price rule. A trade good, in this sense, is a valuable good that can be easily exchanged almost as if it were cash itself.

I can see half value on a beaten up sword or suit of armor that failed its previous owner, but not gems and such.

 

[Bold or Stupid]

Where does the 1/5 figure come from anyway?

From the d20 srd at http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/wealthAndMoney.htm:


I can see half value on a beaten up sword or suit of armor that failed its previous owner, but not gems and such.

Umm the 1/5 value is from the 4th ed economics article. Since the SRD is 3e it has no bearing on a 4th edition discussion.

 

[Khaim]

Umm the 1/5 value is from the 4th ed economics article.

Right, which was specifically talking about magic items. Gems and art objects are not magic items.

 

[Torchlyte]

Right, which was specifically talking about magic items. Gems and art objects are not magic items.

But they are similar in that not everyone wants them and they may or may not be in short supply.

 

[darkadelphia]

But they are similar in that not everyone wants them and they may or may not be in short supply.

But 4e's philosophy (as we've seen it so far) emphasizes the fact that this is a game--magic items are worth less monetarily because of the mechanical side-effects of allowing players to easily turn magic items into money and back again. Gems, on the other hand, have no real mechanical considerations other than the fact that they're a much easier way to carry wealth than are coins.