Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ancalagon" data-source="post: 7346523" data-attributes="member: 23">[MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION]:&nbsp;&nbsp; The sub category is definitely on the good track.&nbsp; And I think it would help &quot;fix&quot; some problems.But I'm still not sure how to deal with items that are clearly in the wrong category.&nbsp; A +1 sword (uncommon) is clearly better than a vicious weapon (rare - it does +7 damage on a critical).&nbsp; And I think particular example forces us to think a bit about the root of the system.So the vicious weapon is more expensive but costs more, because it has a greater rarity.&nbsp; Why should rarity affect the price?&nbsp;&nbsp; You are Bob the clever fighter with a big bag of gold at the magic pawn shop and you need a magic sword.&nbsp; Why would you pay more for the vicious weapon?&nbsp;&nbsp; I can only see two possible answers1:&nbsp;&nbsp; PCs and NPCs don't fully understand how magical items work.&nbsp; WE - the players and GM - understand perfectly (let's hope!) the bonuses of a +1 and a vicious weapon.&nbsp; The PCs and NPCs do not.&nbsp;&nbsp; To them the vicious weapon, based on the partial information they have, is better, and therefore, worth more.2:&nbsp; There are magical item &quot;collectors&quot;.&nbsp; This is how I've resolved this issue in my campaign (there are occasional magical item auctions).&nbsp; In the Yellow City, the ruiling class is made bored and very wealthy slugmen.&nbsp; Many of them collect things, and some collect magical items.&nbsp; Their desire for the relatively rare vicious weapon drives up its price.&nbsp; Even though a +1 sword is &quot;better&quot;, it's less interesting to have in your collection than the vicious weapon.&nbsp; In other campaign the collectors could be different - wealthy nobles of all ilk is usually a good answer.So, in conclusion, a price system based on rarity, as defined by the DMG, is not &quot;rational&quot;.&nbsp; We therefore have to decide &quot;what's wrong&quot; with our PCs/NPCs and keep this in mind when pricing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ancalagon, post: 7346523, member: 23"] [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION]: The sub category is definitely on the good track. And I think it would help "fix" some problems. But I'm still not sure how to deal with items that are clearly in the wrong category. A +1 sword (uncommon) is clearly better than a vicious weapon (rare - it does +7 damage on a critical). And I think particular example forces us to think a bit about the root of the system. So the vicious weapon is more expensive but costs more, because it has a greater rarity. Why should rarity affect the price? You are Bob the clever fighter with a big bag of gold at the magic pawn shop and you need a magic sword. Why would you pay more for the vicious weapon? I can only see two possible answers 1: PCs and NPCs don't fully understand how magical items work. WE - the players and GM - understand perfectly (let's hope!) the bonuses of a +1 and a vicious weapon. The PCs and NPCs do not. To them the vicious weapon, based on the partial information they have, is better, and therefore, worth more. 2: There are magical item "collectors". This is how I've resolved this issue in my campaign (there are occasional magical item auctions). In the Yellow City, the ruiling class is made bored and very wealthy slugmen. Many of them collect things, and some collect magical items. Their desire for the relatively rare vicious weapon drives up its price. Even though a +1 sword is "better", it's less interesting to have in your collection than the vicious weapon. In other campaign the collectors could be different - wealthy nobles of all ilk is usually a good answer. So, in conclusion, a price system based on rarity, as defined by the DMG, is not "rational". We therefore have to decide "what's wrong" with our PCs/NPCs and keep this in mind when pricing. [/QUOTE]

Verification