Selling items : illogical rule ?

[Hambot]

Streetwise skill checks allow for a PC to get the best prices. So barring owning your own business, there is a use for the skill that can translate into improved $$$. Having been to countries where everyone barters for everything and I didn't know how to properly, 1/5th sounds about right! Streetwise and savvy people are those that can get near full $ out of a market for an item.

 

[Sashi]

If you want to make an adventure out of finding a worthy buyer for that +6 sword of mighty squicking, go right ahead. The default rule is for when you want to dispose of stuff without going to the trouble of playing it out.

And the extra GP acquired from that adventure happens to be exactly equal to one of the GP treasure parcels! Imagine that!

 

[npiccini]

I couldn't agree more with posters that have questioned why 14 pages have been devoted to this topic!!

There is no widespread demand for a reworked, realworld economic system in 4e.

Just because a handful of posters are screaming for the ability to bargain better deals for their equipment doesn't justify WotC publishing a splatbook on economics.

Earlier in the thread, people began to reason out what would have to go into a book or discussion about setting prices based on supply and demand, and, personally, the splatbook would be ridiculous, talking about things like goblins seizing iron mines and what not.

If the big problem is you would like your high-Charisma statted character to be able to bargain better deals, then
1) talk to your DM first and make sure it will be worth it for you to build a high Cha character for that purpose (heck, you don't want to do the build if the DM isn't willing to allow that option in the first place)
2)When you acquire an item or create an item, talk to your DM about spending/wasting several days of game time while you go around the city/sending portals/etc bargaining for the best price. Realistically, even just drumming up business in the nearest town might take a whole day to play buyers off of one another, travel throughout the city to get to this buyer or that one, especially if they are nobility. In the meantime, does the rest of your gaming group want to sit around and wait for you to do this? If they do, great - now you've got yourself the perfect scenario to work some skill challenges etc etc. If they don't, if they are more content having tossed their loot to the peddler for 20% of its value and are eager to get back to bust some orc-ass, you may have a gaming group problem.
3) Either way, NOTHING in the rules says you can't do this! I personally don't want a DMG that dedicates 20 pages to different fleshed out examples of skill challenges. The seven pages or so and five examples was just fine. The rules to create skill challenges are the most important part of that section anyway.


I just don't see what people are fighting about. There's nothing broken in 4e's economic BALANCE rules.

 

[bardolph]

The economy is set up to keep player wealth in line with their level, and if I start changing stuff around, I'm going to have to **** with their treasure gain to keep it all balanced (why bother when wizards went to such great lengths making loot so simple to track now?). I plan on telling my players this if they ask why they can't get a better deal on their unused items. I doubt they will want to trade a loss of loot for more gold, so I'm not too worried (may not be true in your group, be warned).

I think this is the primary point. If you're allowing PCs to haggle their way to riches by reselling used equipment, then you're going to have to reduce the amount of actual shiny stuff in all of their treasure hauls. This shouldn't be too hard: simply calculate the resale value of all the non-shiny stuff (according to your houserules), and subtract that much shiny stuff from the treasure. Of course, now you'd be FORCING your players to play merchant in order to keep up, but if everyone's having fun in the marketplace, there ya go.

If you don't reduce the "shiny ratio", your PCs will probably run away with the system, and you'll probably find yourself inventing new ways to rip the PCs off.

 

[MrGrenadine]

The PCs are supposed to be making their cash from adventuring, not from playing merchant.

I might have been ninja'd on this point, but D&D isn't a combat game--its a roleplaying game (that includes rules for combat).

And if someone wants to play the role of a adventurer who has a side gig as a traveling merchant of some sort, then bully for them. Hell, the system should be robust enough for players to own shops, inns, castles, farms or whatever.

Its just up to that player's DM to make that role feasible by tweaking the economy so it makes more sense.

MrG

 

[Rel]

Some folks in this thread are getting a bit insulting in some of their replies. Tone it down. If you make me close a thread that interests me (and this thread interests me) then I shall become vexed.

You wouldn't like me when I'm vexed.





To be fair, some of you may not like me now but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Syrsuro]

My take on this is that it is a simple matter of managing players expectations.

If the rules state that the players are only going to get 20% of the value of their items when they sell it, that leaves me free to give them MORE - as appropriate to my economy - without anyone whining about it.

On the other hands, if the rules state that they can sell their goods for 50% of their value, and I don't think that fits with my economy and I change it to a lower value - inevitably someone will feel short-changed.

By setting the player's expectations on returned value low, they give the DM the ability to design their world however they see fit. Unless you feel that you are somehow BOUND by those statements in the book and unable to change things in whatever way you wish - I really don't see the problem.

And, NO, this is not a "But the DM can fix it" argument. It is a "design in the way that gives the DM the most flexibility with the least hassles" argument - because no one complains when they get MORE than they expected. The only way they could have made it more flexible would be to say that you can't sell stuff at all, just in case I wanted to make them to sell it for only 10%.

Carl

 

[Jormungand]

If I want to play an intelligent, wise character in 4e, I have to choose:
(1) don't play the character.
(2) break the economic model to pieces.
The economic model is *so* bad that I would have to deliberately not role-play to avoid breaking the model. Beer-and-pretzel games FTW! Role-playing FTL!

I'm slightly offended by the clear implication that a character who is not roleplayed to object against the economic system - and dedicates himself to what he finds far more fun, in my case high adventure and intrigue - is then playing some beer-and-pretzel game. Looking at 4e, it's almost as if the designers put more effort into rules relating to adventure, combat and action than those detailing economic reform. Isn't it awful.

 

[gnfnrf]

But when I go to town, and find a guy selling a +2 version of my favorite weapon, and I say "hey, I'll trade you my +2 weapon for the +2 weapon you're selling" and he says "no way, man, your +2 weapon is only worth 20% of the value of my +2 weapon" - that's when the 4e buying/selling model gets a little weird.

Essentially, the 4e rules mean I can never realistically rely on selling stuff I find but don't want, or stuff I used to want but now I don't want it any more (maybe I upgraded).

Doesn't this happen exactly the same in 3E, except the merchant says "50%" instead?

--
gnfnrf

 

[Staffan]

It is *never* worth selling something that has any value at all to you.

Let's say you're an 8th level fighter, who has been using his +2 longsword for a few levels. You and your party defeat a bunch of Shadar-Kai, and among the loot you find a +3 longsword.

Now, you can either:

• Keep both, which means you have a +2 sword and a +3 sword, or
• Sell the old sword, leaving you with a +3 sword and 360 gp.

Which is most useful to you?

Infinite chickens?

In 3e, the total value a community has of any good is equal to the community's gp limit times the population divided by 20.

So, let's say you have a village of 500 people (gp limit 200). Together, they have (500*200/20) 5,000 gp worth of any one good. One chicken is worth 2 cp, or 0.02 gp. That means that in this 500-people village, there are (5,000/0.02) 250,000 chickens.

So it's not like 3e economy made much sense either.