Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5201438" data-attributes="member: 2011">I think the example of Valahad is a good one.He would want to have a different item, but he currently doesn't.He would want to have a "Let me trade this 1000 GP item for an equal value 1000GP item" with a vendor, but vendors don't do that. They give you 200 GP for your item because that's the economic rules.I dislike the concept of metagaming player desires into the economics of the game system.Once per level, you get to trade up an item even AND you get to trade it for the exact item you need, regardless of the fact that the town he is in, doesn't have a magic shop in this DM's adventure. Why is this allowed? Because a player has an old +1 item that the PC no longer has use for.Not because it makes consistent sense In Character, but because someone wants to modify their magic items Out of Character.I just see this, again, as the "bigger, better, badder" syndrome. My +1 item isn't helpful and I don't want to sell it for gold, I want to replace it with an equal value item that is helpful.This proposal is both a fluff consistency issue (why exactly would a merchant trade an item straight up?) and a balance issue. When a 10th level PC has:+3 weapon, +3 armor, +3 neck item, and 5 other useful items, that PC is more powerful than one that has:+3 weapon, +3 armor, +3 neck item, and a +2 weapon, +1 armor, a +2 neck item and 2 other useful items.This is unnecessary power creep.Players will less often put other "not the big 3" items on their wish lists because they can get some of the boots and waist items and hand items via trade ins instead of getting them via wish list.And, a higher percentage of their wish lists will become the big 3, with a less common (typically potent) not the big 3 item on occasion. Why? Because they can acquire equal level useful secondary items using this technique.Today, there is a some reasonable incentive (both crunch and fluff) to put secondary items on wish lists. With this proposal, that incentive will lessen somewhat.There is a game balance reason why items get sold for 20%. If someone can reacquire the equivalent of that other 80% for a single item every level, they are gaining.I go back to "just because someone can think of something and it sounds good on the surface does not make it really a good and balanced idea".</blockquote>

Verification