Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 7136632" data-attributes="member: 6683613">We're just swapping personal preferences here now, but to me, when the whole point of the system is to simulate that prices for rare goods are not fixed, having a list price underneath it all seems... misleading. Having an abstract modifier to say "the people want this item this much" feels better aesthetically to me. But as you say, the math is the same.I maintain that auctioneers would tend to stick to rounder prices. You don't hear about Picassos being sold for $5,000,750.I'm not familiar with this Sane Crew thing, but it sounds pretty self-explanatory. I don't use the rarity system as anything more than an extremely rough guideline; most magic items in my campaign are homebrew anyway.Well, I can always extend the table. Or, I can be a little cleverer with the table:[code] 0 ... 500 gp 1 ... 640 gp 2 ... 800 gp 3 ... 1,000 gp 4 ... 1,250 gp 5 ... 1,600 gp 6 ... 2,000 gp 7 ... 2,500 gp 8 ... 3,200 gp 9 ... 4,000 gp10 ... 5,000 gp11 ... 6,400 gp12 ... 8,000 gp13 ... 10,000 gp14 ... 12,500 gp15 ... 16,000 gp16 ... 20,000 gp17 ... 25,000 gp18 ... 32,000 gp19 ... 40,000 gp20 ... 50,000 gp[/code]With this one, whenever you go up ten ratings, you multiply by ten. Twenty ratings of course for a hundred. So for values 21-40, just use this table but append two zeroes. For 41-60, append four. And so on. (Obviously, you could just do this with a 1-10 table, but going up to 20 seems more useful.)Or, if they want to focus on economics, you can let them do that too.</blockquote>

Verification