Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7592627" data-attributes="member: 12731">I KNOW you know what I am talking about, so just to show the absurd and insulting nature of this argument: 1) Expensive stuff becomes more rare than cheap stuff.2) The DM can always just say &quot;no&quot;, which makes stuff exactly as rare as he or she wants it.But this is in no way a good argument not to provide the numbers at all. Having them and then deciding not to use them is different from not getting them at all.Now you're clutching at straws. I won't deign this with a reply.O'REALLY(PS. If you're so convinced magic item pricing isn't for you, then don't buy the product. That would be a much more friendly outlook than actively arguing to deny this products to others, people like me)You're still not getting it? Now you're even arguing in favor of my argument!YES rarity is a function of price, which should be a function of utility.+3 swords being more expensive than +1 swords might be because fewer artificers can make them. You can even make up stories that explain how the art of +3 weapons being lost to time, so each such weapon you find is a relic of the past.But D&amp;D is a game and the gameplay reason is and should be +3 swords being more expensive than +1 swords is because they grant more power, have more utility.Then and only then can you use the preceding &quot;rarity arguments&quot; to justify these prices. But the utility-based price comes first. It is the base price that you can then modify or multiply as you wish.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 7592627, member: 12731"] I KNOW you know what I am talking about, so just to show the absurd and insulting nature of this argument: 1) Expensive stuff becomes more rare than cheap stuff. 2) The DM can always just say "no", which makes stuff exactly as rare as he or she wants it. But this is in no way a good argument not to provide the numbers at all. Having them and then deciding not to use them is different from not getting them at all. Now you're clutching at straws. I won't deign this with a reply. O'REALLY (PS. If you're so convinced magic item pricing isn't for you, then don't buy the product. That would be a much more friendly outlook than actively arguing to deny this products to others, people like me) You're still not getting it? Now you're even arguing in favor of my argument! YES rarity is a function of price, which should be a function of utility. +3 swords being more expensive than +1 swords might be because fewer artificers can make them. You can even make up stories that explain how the art of +3 weapons being lost to time, so each such weapon you find is a relic of the past. But D&D is a game and the gameplay reason is and should be [b]+3 swords being more expensive than +1 swords is because they grant more power, have more utility.[/b] [I]Then and only then can you use the preceding "rarity arguments" to justify these prices.[/I] But the utility-based price comes first. It is the base price that you can then modify or multiply as you wish. [/QUOTE]

Verification