Proposal: Let Players Sell Stuff to Other Players

[Mal Malenkirk]

Ah... You are doing a LOT of assuming. I'd never assume an item is there as a 'back up'. Never. I assume it's there for someone to actually use.

Well, that takes me back to my original gripe. If every item is here for a purpose, it makes me feel like the whole point of the universe is to provide PCs with the items they want. Sometime, you get something unexpected, if only because the bad guys didn't have the forethought of checking your wishlist.

I think you grossly overvalue the importance of having the perfect magic items on power level. One of my first 4e campaign was run with virtually no magic items (yes, at the other extreme from handing out lots of random items). I just integreted the expect bonuses to attack, defense and damage into level progression. There were very few magic items providing daily/properties, players were very happy when they got anything and they prized it. Encounters were still level +2 to level +4 (I loath easy fights) and the heroes still won.

It's really not a big deal in terms of power level if some of the non core items are purely random.

Let me turn that around a bit. What good is a +1 club in a group where someone needs a Staggering axe +2 to improve? IMO less good than 72gp. At least they got 1/36th closer to there goal.

Well, if you see that way, you see it that way. I just gotta say that in 15 years I have NEVER seen a PC buy an item by 1/36th increments! It always came after one, two or three at the most big windfall.

 

[covaithe]

Watching this thread with interest. Some good points being made, along with a bit of off-topic noise that I'm mostly skimming.

It looks like this proposal is controversial, at best. That does affect my thinking. I personally think that most of the problems people are suggesting are likely to be rare at worst, and not game-breaking. But even if I'm in favor, I'm finding myself not particularly inclined to vote for something that's widely hated.

 

[renau1g]

I think it's not necesarilly hated per se, but rather there's nothing to the proposal to define it so it's too gray to really define and people are looking at potentially worst case scenarios.

 

[ryryguy]

I think a lot of the potential problems pointed out here are definitely real. I also somewhat agree with covaithe in that trading is likely to be so rare, the problems aren't likely to materialize in a serious way.

The reason trading is likely to be rare, is that most people get what they want via wishlists, so they have no reason to trade.

There are corner cases where someone changes their characters or changes their minds about what items they want, but these are rare. And trading isn't likely to help these people that much if they're the only ones trading. One-per-level, like-level item swapping with an NPC vendor is a much better idea for addressing this issue and deserves its own proposal.

The other place where I could see some trading occurring is when characters "outgrow" their items and want to sell them for more than the standard 20%. This probably wouldn't happen too much at first, but could occur more and more often as PCs reach higher levels. Trading for this reason is probably the worst case in terms of problems, as the player who "sells down" will end up with more than the expected amount of money, and the player who "buys up" will end up with better than expected items.

Yes, GMs could fix these imbalances over time, and/or we could come up with trading rules and judge reviews to try to prevent abuses. But why add additional tracking and work for GMs and judges? What is really being gained? (I understand some people just don't like that whole 20% thing, but frankly, that's how the game is designed to work. I think they should just grin and bear it.)

In sum, this is a bad idea because it doesn't do a good job of addressing legitimate concerns, and though little trading is likely to actually occur, the trading that does is most likely to be the problematic kind.

 

[Velmont]

I think the very nature of 4th edition wealth is not proper to trade between PC. I don't like the idea at all.

For wish list, I favor the 'leave the DM choose'. Mal is among my playing group, so, yeah, I like it when it is random once in a while. But that is also because of LEW. With Rinaldo di Senzio, I quickly had a rod of immovability and a hat of disguise. When I received these two items, I told myself I would sell them, as they worth almost 10k together and it was a fortune at the level I had them, but I finally chooses to give them a try.

Those item have been more useful than any +1 weapon I ever had. I can't count the number of time I used them, at least once in each adventure. I would have never put them on my wishlist but they quickly become my favorite items.

Yeah, some items are great for your character, and you should have the opportunity to have them fairly soon and it doesn't become a quest in itself to have your Fire Sword when you are Fighter Tiefling with the feat that give +1 to hit and damage when your power deal fire damage. But gaining some item you didn't expect might also prove to be just as useful.

 

[Kalidrev]

I think the very nature of 4th edition wealth is not proper to trade between PC. I don't like the idea at all.

For wish list, I favor the 'leave the DM choose'. Mal is among my playing group, so, yeah, I like it when it is random once in a while. But that is also because of LEW. With Rinaldo di Senzio, I quickly had a rod of immovability and a hat of disguise. When I received these two items, I told myself I would sell them, as they worth almost 10k together and it was a fortune at the level I had them, but I finally chooses to give them a try.

Those item have been more useful than any +1 weapon I ever had. I can't count the number of time I used them, at least once in each adventure. I would have never put them on my wishlist but they quickly become my favorite items.

Yeah, some items are great for your character, and you should have the opportunity to have them fairly soon and it doesn't become a quest in itself to have your Fire Sword when you are Fighter Tiefling with the feat that give +1 to hit and damage when your power deal fire damage. But gaining some item you didn't expect might also prove to be just as useful.

Here's the problem though, Vel: If every DM you (or someone else) ends up with had the "I don't like wishlists, I'm going to give you what I want to give you" kind of mindset, then you may as well get rid of any idea of players being able to have solid concepts.

For instance: I have been thinking about playing as a Saurai/Ronin style character. I would have him take Weapon Proficiency Bastard Sword (since they don't have Katanas). Being a new character, he would start out at level 1. If he was the only martial character in the group, and the only magic weapon he ended up with was a +1 club... I'd be pretty upset.

Then lets say the next adventure, he switched DMs and then didn't get the armor he wanted. Then the next adventure he didn't get the cloak/neclace/etc that he wanted. Well those DMs just pretty much ruined any kind of concept that should rightfully be able to have about my character.

To MAL: RE: Backup weapons:

Please name one solitary, singular, item/power/effect that is written in any of the published WOTC material that allows one to get disarmed. I'll bet you won't find any. Disarming went away with 3.5 along with sundering, caltrops, and the tanglefoot bag (always an old favorite of mine). With a lack of disarming potential other than DM fiat, there's no NEED for a backup weapon. Use the best of what you've got, get something new, get rid of the old. Find something that no-one wants or needs? Sell it and share the wealth...

 

[renau1g]

A domination effect can force a PC to drop/throw their weapon so having it may come in handy, not handy enough vs a longsword, but that's one corner case . BTW There are tanglefoot bags in the adventurer's Vault

I do think the proposal's been a bit de-railed though...

 

[Velmont]

I don't tell to use random technique. That's good for table top where the DM is well aware of his group. But letting the DM with some judgement is fine too.

Jarel-karn is heavy oriented on ligthning-thunder damage and focus on defensive power to be a kinda of bodyguard. I put on my wishlist the Majram Set. I recieved a Ligthning Sword and a Genasi Soul Armor from Mal. Do I complain...not at all, because he gave me items very useful to me. That's fine. After that I had 2 swords and no neck... but I still carry my 2 sword. They are both +1 and my pinning longsword can always come useful, and I can always drop my lightning sword, take my pinning (but unable to use it as an implement), the drop it and call back my lightning

 

[stonegod]

Please name one solitary, singular, item/power/effect that is written in any of the published WOTC material that allows one to get disarmed. I'll bet you won't find any. Disarming went away with 3.5 along with sundering, caltrops, and the tanglefoot bag (always an old favorite of mine). With a lack of disarming potential other than DM fiat, there's no NEED for a backup weapon. Use the best of what you've got, get something new, get rid of the old. Find something that no-one wants or needs? Sell it and share the wealth...

One monster (level 21 Skirmisher) disarms, the rust monster can disarm (Incarnation has lost his implement because of a similar effect), so there are a few (I searched for "disarm"; there are a few "drop weapon" ones I couldn't find. It is rare, but it still happens. however, thats a bit ancillary.

 

[Kalidrev]

Okay, so I admit defeat on the disarm thing =P There are a few cases out there, but not so much that I would ever think of buying a secondary magical weapon. I'd rather sell it and split the cost among the group if we were all even steven on wealth.