Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7346429" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Ok so some thoughts.First, disclaimers.I have not read all the pages so far. I got thru maybe four. So some of this may be already there.I am not generally enthusiastic on the chances of success or usefulness of this, but that is not a part of this thread so i toss it out only because of the transparency.Some various ideas and thoughts.* I like the idea of a beginning point on focusing on "lvevl" or rather "the place in the campaign where..." for valuing items. I think that approach has multiple layers in it - for instance - an amulet of the planes might be nigh worthless to a party of first level characters if it means they can suddenly go from "outnumbered by orcs" to "outnumbered by fire elementals." Simply put it can go both ways since obviously a cure light wounds twice a day might be huge for beginners but mostly a waste of time for 11th level folks.* I like the idea of defining some standards for basic party assumptions - and even the assumption of combat front and center every session. If that is also shown at the final list as what it is based on then that will help show the final result and how applicable it can be to any given campaign. However, some things to consider:* We need an assumption on rests and the like between those every session combats. We need some basis for knowing whether a scroll of cure light and a scroll of prayer of healing favors the former over the latter because we are not assuming time for short rests or 10m windows of healing. * We need to consider an assumption that some items that have combat usefulness may simply not be able to be scored uniquely as their use is so circumstantially biased to make a "meaningful" score based on utility not worthwhile. So, to start to along these lines i propose we have a sort of "circumstantial pricing" category where we list a "value" assigned by the Gm based on their assumption of how frewuent the circumstance will come up in their game or at least say in the next 5 levels. As a ballpark, Remember the assumption is combat front and center every session:Always - basically every session.Very Common - 8+ session out of 10 Common - 5-7 sessions out of 10Uncommon - 3-4 sessions out of 10Rare - 1-2 sessions out of 10Very Rare - Maybe not at all but maybe 1 session out of 10.So for a great many things this circumstantial factor could be playing a part in the pricing, multiplying the costs to adjust it. Then for many such elements all we have to do is value the "IMPACT WHEN IT OCCURS" and let the frequency/circumstance bonuses adjust for how common it is ***and*** allow an easy way for the Gm to adjust the price list for his campaign.Example: Dragon Slayer sword vs Undead Smiting vs Shiftkiller - we can judge them soley by what their bonuses do and then let the "frequency/circumstantial factor" be something we leave open or even if we choose "uncommon" we provide the Gm the easy way to adjust for frequency in his own campaign by just including the frequency/circumstance calculation.* While i think the "what point it comes into the game" as a good way to settle for "bought" gear, i think actually going to the point of "level" is a false precision. So many of the assumptions going into this still have wide variances depending on parties and challenges. Is there really going to be any case to be made for 10th vs 11th or 12th vs 13th or so on and so forth that will not be basically just arbitrary? So, instead i propose a tier based approach. instead of trying to pin things down to a specific level i suggest we looknat the tiers and basically strive to ***at first*** get to a "working" tier-price instead of level-price. By this i mean that all the items we want to choose to assign a "value to" we assign a value of 1-4 based on what tiers we expect those items to be available in shoppes. That is not saying they might not be there at any, but that we will assign prices to them based on those tiers. Obviously if we **can** achieve a good solid tier-based pricing, then it could be possible to get a more defined "sub-tier-by-level" pricing for dividing them up even further. However if we **cannot** get it even to work at the tier-pricing, why shoot for the level-pricing. Essentially, if we cannot solve tic-tac-toe, best not get to wanting to build suduko puzzles.* Finally we do need a benchmark.Here would be my suggestion of a benchmark for a starting price for an item. At tier-X you should be able to afford at least 1 items with limited but reliable uses that represent powers available at tier-X-1. You should be able to afford more items of tier-x-2. Buying any item of tier-x at tier-x should be extremely difficult, maybe the result of pooled party fund for a single. The idea here is simple, to keep the "most current character abilities" the top of your option pile and let the "bought" stuff be there for filling in the blanks and backup. this also leaves to session based awards and such the options for the Gm to give the players "current tier" items and even "higher tier items" as a matter of story and objective, not just commerce.So, "boots of flying" would be a tier-2 item and would be purchasable at tier-3 prices. meanwhile * Given the way tier-3 is so limited (thinking of limited slots control etc) i think it might be a good idea to have either tier-3 and tier 4 items never be "priced" for sale or to have them definitely take a bump in price beyond the norm.   just a smattering of different ideas - some related to each other.</blockquote>

Verification