Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrankTrollman" data-source="post: 1209824" data-attributes="member: 14225">You wander away for a while and people are already coming up with stuff like this.OK, I think everyone here needs to get a grip:1> Magic doesn't give a crap whether an item is "slotted" or not.2> Magic doesn't give a crap whether it is providing a "common" or "unusual" bonus type.3> Magic doesn't even care how much it costs.These are all game mechanical concerns. Concerns put in for the explicit purpose of maintaining gamebalance in a certain type of game where wealth is handled as an alternative score keeping method and noone thinks outside the box.In a game where people put a little bit of thought into the ramifications of spells like Fabricate and Plane Shift - Player Wealth Guidelines are essentially out the window anyway. In those games, people are going to have to find their game balance point by some means other than Wealth/Item Cost.---So Item Cost, especially at the high end, is a metagame concenr that only makes sense if the DM and players all sign to the metagame agreement to allow it to matter. It requires a deliberate agreement by all parties involved to accept an irrational limitation to their character's actions in the interests of maintaining a specific agreed upon state of game balance.So the only possible evaluation of what an item should cost is one based upon those metagame balance notions. Following the formula is nice in theory - but as you've doubtless noticed it breaks down in a lot of places (such as the unlimited use Cure Light Wounds item).+6 to every stat is nowhere six times as good as a single +6 to one stat item. Acting like it should somehow cost more than six times as much just because some chart says it should is exactly as dumb as arguing that you should be able to have Continuous Activation Unlimited Charges True Strike or Cure Light Wounds for 3 grand.The item costs less than the chart says it should because it is nowhere close to the power that the chart implies that it would have.-Frank</blockquote>

Verification