Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7346284" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think a lot of the obvious points have been made: pricing has to be relative to level; it's hard to build in the effects of cumulation/stacking, but these are pretty crucial for balance; etc.Elaborating on another point that's been made: +1 leather is not a heap more valuable than studded leather, and so probably shouldn't cost the same as getting +1 studded, or +1 plate, which allows breaking out of the limits of the armour chart.The same sort of thing goes for weapons, too. Compared to a +0 longsword, a +1 longsword grants (say) about +1.5 to expected damage per attack (say your base chance to hit is 7/10, for 1d8+4; well now it's 3/4, for 1d8+5). But a +1 dagger, compared to +0, grants only about +1 to expected damage per attack (7/10 for 1d4+4 becomes 3/4 for 1d4+5). (The dagger's expected damage multiplier is about 11/9, compared to 5/4 for the longsword - pretty comparable, but working on a smaller base.)That said, some weapons are more likely to faciliate landing other damage bonuses (eg sneak attack) which makes the maths harder and increases their desirability.If you're going for a price list you want constant rather than purchaser-relative prices. But I think you do want to think about optimal uses - so daggers and shortswords need to be priced to reflect a thief's interest in them, rather than the quirky dagger-fighting paladin. And with items that can stack, evaluate the higher-level ones (eg same bonus but no attunement required, or no encumbrance, or whatever else signals them as higher level) on the basis that they are stacking with the lower-level ones, and hence price them at even higher level.The same probably goes for potions, wands etc that duplicate spell effects. (Another consideration that points in the same direction: in 5e the AD&D function of attack spell wands (giving MUs something to do) is replaced by cantrips.)I think this depends a lot on what the item is.If the consumable is 100 gp, and the permanent item is 200 gp, and the party has (say) 5,000 gp to spend, then I agree with you - they'll buy the permanent.But if the party is poor (= low level), and needs the item for one particular purpose, then the consumable can become quite attractive - eg they need a PC to be able to breathe underwater for one particular heist; or they need to power up the rogue with magic to get one good sneak attack against the wererat; or whatever it is.To try and abstract out a general principle: if consumables are cheap compared to permanent items, they become attractive to players of higher level (= richer) PCs trying to build a grab-bag of capabilities; if they're relatively expensive (eg half price), then they're attractive mostly to player of (relatively) lower level PCs wanting to boost their capabilities for some particular focused purpose.Either seems a viable approach, but maybe the second is closer to the default spirit of 5e?This is more-or-less how 4e handled it, although mediated through the treasure parcel system.</blockquote>

Verification