NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6155147" data-attributes="member: 8461">No "others" have said that, just one person, who then in fact called it an "industry." Likewise, I've already said that having one instance of one person being willing to sell a magic item, and another person who wants to buy it, may constitute a "market." But that's not what's under discussion, and continually pointing that out is tangential at best."Potentially could" doesn't mean that it actually will.I understand, and I disagree. In a fantasy campaign world that's entirely defined by the GM, things are exactly as plausible as the GM says they are, and coming up with rationalizations to support that are easily accomplished.That's not necessarily true. While magical items do have a saving throw bonus equal to [2 + (caster level/2)], and can make saving throws when unattended, only magic armor, weapons, and shields have increased hardness and hit points.Likewise, only magic armor, weapons, and shields (and, interestingly, staves) require that a masterwork non-magical item be used to enchant. The magic item creation rules do say that some wondrous items have additional costs from using a masterwork component, but no wondrous items (or cursed items) explicitly state that they're of masterwork construction.Ergo, Otis won't recognize that the cloak is a masterwork item, since it actually isn't one. Likewise, when he attempts to cut it (e.g. hit point damage), it will fall apart as easily as anything else. That's a presumption about what guesses they'll come to and why; at the very least, it's based on the local history for that area of the game world. Remember that scene in Disney's Prince of Persia movie, where the king is assassinated by putting on a "poison" robe (which certainly seemed magical for how fast and how ambiguously it killed him)? If that's all the peasants have heard about - or is even the most prominent story - they're not going to rush to buy a newly-found magic robe (presuming they even think that it's magic to begin with).See above for why that's not the case. Likewise, having the potential to sell it doesn't rise to the level of economic activity that I'm referring to. The debate here isn't that no one would ever, in any conceivable circumstance, want to buy/sell something - it's that it'd be so rare and face such practical difficulties as to depress economic activity for those items that there'd be no rational expectation of their availability for sale or purchase in most circumstances. In other words, no magic item industry.I have, actually. Through the thread again and again. As such, the burden of proof is on you to show why any of those circumstances aren't plausible, and thus far you've failed to do so even once.The "internal logic" is set by the GM, so if he creates a set of internally logical reason why economic activity for the creation/sale/purchase of magic items is depressed to the point of non-existence, then that's his prerogative. Likewise, coming up with a set of reasons is easy to do, as I've posted many examples of which throughout the thread (see Otis the farmer, above).You keep conflating "the rules of economic theory" with "practical reasons for a lack of economic activity in a certain sector." That's not the case, and I've never said that it was - people can want to buy or sell something all they want, but if there are practical reasons why that's not feasible, then that's pretty much the end of that.It's more correct to say that all of the highly specific and plausible assertions I've made so far would, in fact, prevent a "market" from forming, where "market" is understood to mean "self-sustaining industry" rather than "people wishing they could create/buy/sell a certain type of good."And that justification is easily done with a little imagination. You may not agree with it, but plausibility regarding a fantasy setting is inherently subjective; that said, I don't think that any of the reasons I've presented are in any way particularly far-fetched.</blockquote>

Verification