A little system for selling magic items

[maggot]

Okay, so I was thinking of a base of 10 for the DC, just like in your system. So the table would be created based on a formula of 10+sqrt(price/K). To match your caster level system, K would vary according to item type. For it would be about 400 for weapons, but it would be more like 12 for scrolls.

And that is where I get stuck. Should you use the same divisor for all items, or should a wand of cure light wounds be substantially easier to get rid of than a +1 shield. I know my parties buy many more wands of CLW than +1 shields.

You can also vary K according to rarity, saying that K for cure light wounds wands is much higher than K for magic stone wands. Thus the difficulty of selling the popular cure light wounds wand is much easier than selling the far-less-popular magic-stone wand.

Of course, a simple table is what is needed, not 10+sqrt(price/K) for some K. So I like your caster level only system a lot. It leaves spell level out of the equation though, so a wand of fireball at 9th level has the same DC as wand of divine favor at 9th level. Both would be hot items for the respective buyers, but one costs a bunch more.

Maybe the DC should be 10+caster level+spell level? So 22 for the fireball wand and 20 for the divine favor wand?

 

[haiiro]

So I like your caster level only system a lot. It leaves spell level out of the equation though, so a wand of fireball at 9th level has the same DC as wand of divine favor at 9th level. Both would be hot items for the respective buyers, but one costs a bunch more.

Maybe the DC should be 10+caster level+spell level? So 22 for the fireball wand and 20 for the divine favor wand?

That's an interesting point. In Sold!, I used the DMG's guidelines for cash on hand based on settlement size as a net, if you will. Items with a low CL and a high MV, which should probably be a bit harder to sell than items with a low CL and a low MV, are "caught" by the cash on hand limitation. (IE, a smaller community will be able to afford the low CL/low MV item, but not the low CL/high MV item.)

It's not a perfect approach, but it avoided another layer of complexity that I felt distracted from the original goal of keeping it simple and abstract.