Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7346521" data-attributes="member: 6919838">One of the points i left out of my list - because it did not fit into the thread conceit that the itmes in the DMg/DND etc can be priced by utility - was that in fact it seems to me that *if* one wants items to be discretely price-able by &quot;utility in abcd&quot;&nbsp; one has to actually build items so that they can be discretely priced with clear measurable differences and distinctions.For example, the +1 shield and +1 armor vs +2 armor or +2 shield pricing can be made to make sense with even geometric pricing per plus&nbsp; *if and only if* you build in other elements that matter to make it work.For example if &quot;attuned&quot; was required for every &quot;always on&quot; type of item bonus and attuned slots were kept small then there is a big difference between the intrinsic value of +1 armor and +1 shield over a single +2 armor or shield - an additional attuned slot left open.That is *just* an example but it goes to the point that some of the pricing issues may be not surmountable within a &quot;utility pricing scheme&quot; especially within a bonded accuracy system without the items being built/rebuilt to make the pricing scheme work. The DND 5e items were not built/rebuilt to make such a system work - in part perhaps because that limits options in design. So, whether or not we can accept &quot;changing items to make pricing work better&quot; as a satisfactory component will likely play a huge role in how successful or how inclusive a &quot;utility flavor abc&quot; pricing scheme can be.IMO</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7346521, member: 6919838"] One of the points i left out of my list - because it did not fit into the thread conceit that the itmes in the DMg/DND etc can be priced by utility - was that in fact it seems to me that *if* one wants items to be discretely price-able by "utility in abcd" one has to actually build items so that they can be discretely priced with clear measurable differences and distinctions. For example, the +1 shield and +1 armor vs +2 armor or +2 shield pricing can be made to make sense with even geometric pricing per plus *if and only if* you build in other elements that matter to make it work. For example if "attuned" was required for every "always on" type of item bonus and attuned slots were kept small then there is a big difference between the intrinsic value of +1 armor and +1 shield over a single +2 armor or shield - an additional attuned slot left open. That is *just* an example but it goes to the point that some of the pricing issues may be not surmountable within a "utility pricing scheme" especially within a bonded accuracy system without the items being built/rebuilt to make the pricing scheme work. The DND 5e items were not built/rebuilt to make such a system work - in part perhaps because that limits options in design. So, whether or not we can accept "changing items to make pricing work better" as a satisfactory component will likely play a huge role in how successful or how inclusive a "utility flavor abc" pricing scheme can be. IMO [/QUOTE]

Verification