MAgic Items as Loot and Effect on Player Wealth

[nwn_deadman]

I think the comparison nwn_deadman is making is apples and oranges. In my opinion, the only way to get the effect he seems to want is to take the character wealth level in question, double it and generate random magic items totalling that amount. That would represent the somewhat random nature of the items that characters gain over the levels.

Then, he could travel the land seeking markets for the items he doesn't want to keep. The travel expenses will probably further eat into the 50% value that he gets to retain from the sale of those items. He may have to travel even further to use that gold to purchase items that he really wants.

This is all much more realistic (assuming that there isn't a nearby mega-city where all items can be bought and sold as per the book) but more of a hassle.

That is why the DMG offers the simple rules that it does. If you wish for something more complex, go for it.

If you really think that I am making an apples to oranges comparison, I think you need to go back to college!

IF the players all walk away from the table with 500 gp in value, how in the hell can the one with the magic item have 1000 gp wealth and the rest still have 500 gp?

YOU GUYS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES.

It does not matter that any of the other players would have to pay 1000 gp for the magic item. The FACT is that the one that got the magic item got 500 gp in value just like everyone else.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It does not matter that any of the other players would have to pay 1000 gp for the magic item. The FACT is that the one that got the magic item got 500 gp in value just like everyone else.

The value of a magic item is only what it's agreed to be, except in the case of generating a character above first level.

Reading p43, it's fairly obvious that when generating a character, the market value (not half the market value) counts against the allowable resources.

The implication of this is that a DM should take the full market value of the item into account when deciding if treasure is appropriate for a party of a particular level.

This holds regardless of whether there is one DM and 4 players, or a hundred DMs and hundreds of players.

If a character always elects to take his share in cash, then naturally he will end up with a below-average resource count for someone of his level.

If a party of 4 finds two +1 weapons and 2,000gp, then they might split it as 4 shares of 1,000gp value, as one weapon or 1k gold each. But the DM would count it as 6,000gp of resources that the party holds - 2 2,000gp weapons, and 2k of gold.

What the characters decide to do with the weapons - keep them and use them, or sell them for their "agreed value" - half the actual market value - is up to them.

By taking a magic item to sell, one receives an exact share. By taking a magic item to use, one gets a bargain.

-Hyp.

 

[Starfox]

By taking a magic item to sell, one receives an exact share. By taking a magic item to use, one gets a bargain.

Yea, this is it all in a nutshell. But remember, the price of a magic item is more than an "agreed upon price", it is twice the cost of the components required to make it or 25 times the XP required to make it. So, if demand forces up the price of +1 swords to 3000 gp, they are still only worth 2000 gp, and the material cost of the enchantment remains at 1000 gp.

YOU GUYS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES.

<sarcasm>
I feel that once you got to the shouting stage, Deadman, the issue became moot. Basically, you were asking people on the forum to agree or prove you wrong. If you don't want to see the point of our argument, and hav'nt penetrated the math by this point, I feel you never will. So I rest my case. Have fun giving players twice the usual alottment of magic items, but don't expect anyone else to.
</sarcasm>

If you really want to simulate the way people get some items cheaper because they found them, generate a list of random treasures, and let your PCs purchase these at 50% off, or even bid on from this list, with the starting bid at 50%. But, once again, that would be a campaign rule, it's not supported by the main rules.