Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Daniel D. Fox" data-source="post: 4700133" data-attributes="member: 55033">The minimum level is required to craft it on the player's end.An executioner's axe is handled how tools are; innately, tools are better-suited for trades than for war. Thus, it is a superior weapon (as only someone that's canny, or strong enough to swing it can use it as a weapon). Some of the weapon's prices are based on pure panache; others on the material type. As in the instance of a superior mithril slingshot, there is obviously some suspension of disbelief that has to happen. However, there was a necessity to create quality subtypes for ease o fuse.And yes, players could technically pick up the trash axes and resell them. However, weapons only resell at 1/3rd their value at the source for raw materials, or can be dealt with through a fence or merchant that purchases used weapons at 1/2 the price. However, the likelyhood of the players findiing a master craftsman who works in mithril is slim, especially at lower levels (in my game). I use the level requirements for crafting as a template for distribution of quality of weapons. Finding a craftsman that works in steel is likely to be a task unto itself (inevitably unfolding into an "adventure", since my game world revolves around establishing contacts to get what you need).ivI defined the cost by quality based on a +70gm mechanic. I justified this by the average wage a soldier makes over roughly 7 days. Plus, I didn't want to jack the prices up super high, as flooding the market with more coin so players can purchase awesome arms and armor makes it far too easy for them to buy up sundry goods in massive wholesale (which is the complete opposite of what I was trying to achieve and as I see it, one of the outstanding issues with D&D throughout its various iterations). 70 was my magic number, pulled straight from my keister -working well enough to make it hard to get great items, but not so high as to be unattainable and imbalancing the price of foodstuffs. What I achieved in my game was an economy driven by grain. Grain as a basis for living justified the prices for every item in the list. As I looked at salaries (and took some huge leaps of assumption based on the cost of living), a normal craftsman will likely have to tuck away gold for months before he can ever buy a sword, much less other luxury goods. My approach was simple - create costs for items based on pseudo-reality that makes sense once a DM dumps the common tropes associated with the D&D world. Meaning, there are no vast mounds of treasures, much less dragons to guard them. There are certainly ruins, and heck - there are certainly treasures of antiquity and historic civilizations. But I don't scale treasure distribution by level, as my players and I make some far different assumptions about levels and how the world works. That''s an entirely different discussion, but works out extraordinarily well with the rules posted above.And regarding your opinion about the first sessions? Nope, uh-uh. We've been using these same rules back since 2nd edition. We have a very strict approach and application of these rules. Since we've been using them, I've never had a band of players collect inordinate amounts of "trash". People do keep the items if they can carry them, in order to refurbish them into new weapons under the Craft Arms and Armors rite.4E afforded worldbuilders such as myself a great level of elegance to fully integrate these rules into a low magic setting. While they might not work as "well" for people who're using the uneven and silly treasure distributions by monster levels (ala Diablo at the table), it works very well in low magic settings if throw out a lot of the assumptions D&D makes in the books. And the best part? You don't have to shove a square peg into a round hole using these options. They're extremely flexible and scalable.Cheers,Daniel</blockquote>

Verification