On this piece from several days ago...
"You keep saying the entire game must be rewritten. You base it on some logic where the way that PCs acquire the very same magic have profound influence on the entire game as is and any future supplements. "
I think the first key and flaw is that changing the HOW they acquire does impact the items so that you do not end up getting "the very same" magic items.
The assumption of a utility pricing svheme that **is used** for pc buy and sell of magic shifts the gain to cost ratio a great deal. Players will tend to see this from efficiency standpoint. After all the GM is handing them a market based on utility, not typical market factors.
So, magic items that are "second best" **to this party** can be cashed out and items more potent **to this party** brought in.
Second and related, after tier 1 and maybe tier-2 gold/wealth is not a direct combat boost power up, but once you provide a utility market for more and more powerful magic you effectively weaponize gold.
You have now taken major non-combat setting influencers and thrown them into competition with combat function and given the GM is establishing market driven by "utility" which mostly is a euphemism for "combat value."
Magical wellstone - wells with this stone in their construction for at least a full and new moon will never run dry or become foul or tainted as long as the stone remains. Those annointed in this water drawn fresh under the new moon will be cured of diseases. On the full moon, it will cure injuries.
Would so called utility based pricing make these items which are tremendous value to the vast majority of the world (but almost no practical use to wandering monster killers) set its price at say higher than a +2/+ 2 handaxe?
Sent from my [device_name] using
EN World mobile app