D&D 5E Sane Magic Item Prices

[Maxperson]

And yet, nothing you are saying disproves my point.

Maybe for your specific game, but I wasn't saying "In Maxperson's campaign world where he DM's I...". I said "if I posted to these forums". So, please try to respond to what I was saying, not what you interpret me to be saying.

Other than RAW saying it's very rare to be able to sell swords and leather armor taking from bodies. That counters your statement about selling swords and armor very nicely.

So, if I had a version that makes sense, you'd be okay with the cleric selling magical services in exchange for gold? Even if that left them very wealthy?

Sure. If you were at a tournament for example and the hired cleric on hand wasn't enough, you could probably make quite a bit healing the wounded. Circumstances matter. The norm, though, isn't likely to allow you to use every slot every day, which is why the DC 25 to get max makes sense.

Because, I was just throwing out a quick and dirty example to prove the point that you don't need a magical item to make money. ... You never seemed to stop and think about any other aspect of this, just how wrong I was.

It really helps to have an example that is correct and not wrong. If your example is wrong, it focuses the discussion away from what you intend.

Every day? No. Famous for Hunting? Yes. Very much so. Hunting was a huge deal. A big enough deal to appear in... the vast majority of medieval tales and myths. Whenever a group of nobles gathered together, their seemed to be a hunt or mention of hunting at some point.

Right. So in a given month, maybe you get one or two hunts that happen, and in a year an injury or two that requires a cleric. Hunting accidents are not that common.

And yet, you have never once tried to find a reason to say yes to this idea. It has all been that it is stupid, unreasonable, illogical, ruins the game... never once tried to figure out a way to make it work. Just said no. And no. And NO.

I did and in the first or second response to you, then I repeated it at least once in future posts. I said that a chart like the crime chart in Xanathar's would be good for what you are proposing. That's a resounding yes. It just doesn't guarantee you the full 1140g.

Huh, look at you finding more ways to call the very concept stupid, moronic, and no, no, no, no, no.

Nice Strawman there. You were doing so well for a while, too. That wasn't talking about your concept.

Also, you might be thinking of the cold and flu as a modern disease, affecting generally healthy people with good nutrition and the ability to take a day off if ill. I assure you, that doesn't describe people from the ages of yore when DnD is nominally set.

D&D is not the real world. Cuts don't result in deadly infections the way they did in "the ages of yore." Same with illnesses and flus. Been playing since 1e and I've yet to see an edition of it called Pestilence & Plagues. Diseases and illness exist, but not in the same way as "the ages of yore."

The question you keep avoiding is why is making this much money a big deal? I now have three posters, yourself included who have made reference to the "I'm playing Dungeons and Dragons, not Cubicles and Taxes" or some variation there of.

I've already said more than once that I missed the downtime portion. That song from Frozen comes to mind. "Let it go, let it go!"

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe, or maybe the goal is to run a business. Maybe the goal is political power through economics. Maybe I just think it is a fun side venture to mess with fantasy economics.

You do realize that a goal of all of those, unless the business is a tax shelter, is to make money, right?

 

[tetrasodium]

If there aren't magic item shops, and finding someone to buy or sell a single item takes weeks of downtime, and in-world there is no global standard pricing scheme for magic items...

Why isn't it easy for the DM to price items, especially given a vague price range based on rarity?

I mean, the DM could price something 10x higher or 10x lower than the recommended price, so long as they are happy with the players having that much gold or spending that much.

Outside of magic item shops, I do not see the value in "logical magic item prices" when in world fiction by default means there is no such list in world, there are isolated people who may or may not be willing to spend gold or take gold for individual magic items. And those people tend to be either powerful enough that they can just take the gold or items from people who want to buy or sell, or they are weak enough that they risk other people taking their gold or items.

And I see a detriment. A magic item price list implies the existence of a market for magic items that efficiently clears, which basically implies magic item shops (even if they aren't actual corner stores).

In editions of D&D prior to magic item lists, magic item prices where mercurial and shops rarely existed. In editions with price lists, magic item shops became more common. It is very natural for people, given a list of prices, to go off and actually let players spend gold at that price on those items.

---

Now, the "but rare items are worse than uncommon ones" is a bigger problem in my mind. Making the common items worse, or the rarer items better, is a better solution. Or just don't introduce the common items that are too good into the game as a DM, unless you feel like the players need that "power up".

Again, magic item and their distribution are intended to be one of the DM's levers to determine how the game goes.

---

Alternatively, you could explain why the rarer worse items are better in ways that don't matter to adventuring power. Maybe the boots of levitation are rarer because an ancient civilization made them, and nobody else knows how; meanwhile, the boots of flying where made much more recently. So collectors pay big bucks for the boots of levitation. Much like people might pay more for an anient Egyptian sword than a more recent one, even if the more recent one is better for fighting.

Or maybe boots of levitation can be hooked up to a harness and used to move more mass than boots of flying can be, as the boots of flying's lifting ability pushes through the body of the flier, while the levitation boots cancel out gravity. Such a harness requires precise setup, but makes the industrial application of boots of levitation very strong.

On the buying side, what items the players find to buy is up to the DM. Players looking for something to help them fly, you as a DM determine how hard it is, and what item they find. Maybe they only find boots of levitation.

Forgotten realms is not the only world

ectors are not monopolized enough by Dragonmarked Houses (and the feudal nobility) to justify an Aurum concordian’s wealth?

First off, even within the fields monopolized by the houses, not everyone works directly for the house. Most people within a field are licensed by the house. They may receive training from the house; they pay a percentage to the house; they agree to meet house standards or follow certain practices (thus, standardized pricing for a longsword); and in exchange they can use the house seal. The Aurum includes many people whose businesses are licensed by a house. The most beloved singer in Sharn, from the list above, is surely licensed and booked by Phiarlan or Thuranni; but they aren’t necessarily an heir of the house, which means they will always be an outsider.

Beyond that, the house monopolies themselves aren’t absolute. Cannith dominates manufacturing, but they don’t control fashion or construction. Property management and real estate are options in places where the feudal monarchy has sold off land (which is certainly the case in parts of Breland and other nations). The houses have no role in the military, in religion, in crime, or in civic administration (examples of all those being given above). Anton Soldorak derives his wealth from mines, as do many concordians from the Mror Holds. Though by the principles of the Aurum, to rise to the upper concords you’d have to do more than inherit a mine; it’s Soldorak’s business accumen that turned those mines into an empire and founded the largest mint in Khorvaire.
-source

There is also this more recent article from him detailing why there would be standardized pricing for things

 

[Lanefan]

My take:

Magic items are sellable (or tradeable) and buyable. Sellable in that they have a use, and somebody out there is probably willing to pay you for that item in order to put it to that use. Buyable in that you're not the only adventurers in the world, and parties other than yours have brought back items they don't need and-or can't use, or have upgraded; also artificers occasionally end up with commissions that were never claimed, or old adventurers die and their estates are sold off.

What this means is that if you look to sell something you're almost guaranteed to find a buyer before too long provided you have access to a decent-size city or two. However, if you're looking to buy a specific thing don't get your hopes up: what's for sale at any given time in any given place is completely random both in amount and content, other than some very basics like holy water and continual-light rocks.

If you're dead-set on getting a specific item your best bet is to find an artificer and commission its construction, which depending on the item can easily take up to a year or more.

Somewhat artificially, and with very rare exceptions, I use standard pricing for magic items; mostly because I have neither intention of nor interest in DMing a game of buy-low-sell-high which is what I'd otherwise immediately (and forever!) have. Also, having a single-value system for items makes treasury division loads easier, as we always divide by total monetary value. (e.g. if your share is 5000 g.p. and you've claimed a sword worth 2000 g.p. you'll get the sword and 3000)

 

[CapnZapp]

@Maxperson gloat all you like, you cannot escape that D&D used to support a classic dungeon-delving experience where nobody cares about dowtime purchases like keeps or building orphanages. All the players want with their gold, is to increase their chances of surviving the next adventure. To achieve this, the cost of the items needs to be based on the usefulness of the items to the adventurer.

Discussing how expensive the raw materials are, or the rarity, or the impact on the local economy is just a distraction. It's entirely irrelevant to the game.

The argument "it breaks the game" is just nonsense. I've told this to you probably a dozen times, but for anyone new to the argument: You don't have to use logical and rational prices if you don't have to. Nobody is going to break into your house and forcibly insert new pages into your DMG.

Here are a number of discussions and arguments that only exist because WotC decided to not support a gold economy. That there are people like Max who actively cheers them on while they ruin the game for a great many player is just deplorable.

Nothing Here But Worthless Gold!

Like Quark closely examining Morn’s hidden stash in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode Who Mourns for Morn, if you look too closely at the treasure system in D&D, you’ll find s…

theangrygm.com

Why does gold feel so useless in 5e Dungeons and Dragons?

Answer (1 of 83): Because most people do not play in an actual extended campaign where gold can be spent aplenty. In your standard official WOTC D&D 5e hardcover adventure, the PCs start at 1st to 3rd level and pretty much adventure straight through to the end of the adventure, say anywhere from...

www.quora.com

Without a magic item economy, what is gold for?

PHB page 144, Equipment, Wealth, Selling Treasure Magic Items. Selling magic items is problematic. Finding someone to buy a potion or a scroll isn’t too hard, but other items are out of the real...

rpg.stackexchange.com

Does gold seem... worthless this Edition?

Just this time around, it seems that the edition is focused less on the cool reward you get from killing things, and more about the road traveled. Be this good or bad depending on how the DM comes out, do you think magical items should still have monetary value just for the simple fact...

forums.giantitp.com

WTF do I do with all this gold in 5e Part 1

“What am I supposed to spend my gold on?” That question has sent many DMs of 5e Dungeons & Dragons scrambling to create land holdings, businesses, strongholds, and other gold sinks as an answer…

www.arcanatimes.com

If you don't want to read all that, I can boil it down for you:

People like Max willfully ignore the basic fact that they presume to know better how to play the game. The argument is based on the idea that spending your gold on magic upgrades is a bad way to play the game, and that there is no problem with WotC no longer supporting the playstyle.

Furthermore, these defenders of how WotC shirk their duty ignore the basic fact gold is still shoveled out just like in previous editions. But if you're not interested in putting a break on your adventure to discuss downtime purchases of pirate ships or princely bribes or whatever, you're just sold out of luck, abandoned by the publisher.

I find the argumentation "I can't handle magic item prices so it's good you don't get any" intensely tasteless.

For some of us, the old d20 product Magic Item Compendium provides endless inspiration, and were WotC to publish a similar book for 5th Edition it would be a huge boon for everybody playing dungeons back to back!

 

[Lanefan]

While I largely agree with you here, Cap, I must quibble with this:

Furthermore, these defenders of how WotC shirk their duty ignore the basic fact gold is still shoveled out just like in previous editions.

From what I've seen of published 5e adventures, this edition is stingy as hell in comparison to 0e-1e-2e-3e when it comes to giving out treasure.

4e modules were just weird, in that it seemed a lot of stuff that should have been listed as treasure wasn't...which meant they looked stingy unless one read very carefully and teased out all the stuff - usually things wielded/worn/used by the enemies - that would or could have value when looted.

 

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson gloat all you like, you cannot escape that D&D used to support a classic dungeon-delving experience where nobody cares about dowtime purchases like keeps or building orphanages. All the players want with their gold, is to increase their chances of surviving the next adventure. To achieve this, the cost of the items needs to be based on the usefulness of the items to the adventurer.

Discussing how expensive the raw materials are, or the rarity, or the impact on the local economy is just a distraction. It's entirely irrelevant to the game.

First, nothing I'm doing is gloating. Perhaps you don't know what that word means. Disagreeing with your premise is not gloating.

We played like that in junior high school and high school. Then we grew up and wanted more than hack n' slash. And actually, I think that even in high school we started spending gold on other things, just not that often.

What I've been saying here works with the hack n' slash playstyle just fine. You don't need set pricing to play that way.

The argument "it breaks the game" is just nonsense. I've told this to you probably a dozen times, but for anyone new to the argument: You don't have to use logical and rational prices if you don't have to. Nobody is going to break into your house and forcibly insert new pages into your DMG.

If you don't need logical and rational pricing, then it's even easier for you to just come up with a price and sell items to your players. There's even less need for set pricing once you throw out logic and reason.

People like Max willfully ignore the basic fact that they presume to know better how to play the game. The argument is based on the idea that spending your gold on magic upgrades is a bad way to play the game, and that there is no problem with WotC no longer supporting the playstyle.

Nice Strawman there. I'm not saying that it's a bad way to play the game. I've said that it's super easy to just come up with prices as the DM. Something you denied and then in this last post of yours, demonstrated was super easy by getting rid of logic and reason from your pricing structure.

1e and 2e did not have magic marts, though they did have pricing. In games where magic marts were put in by the DM, PC became too powerful very quickly and it disrupted the balance of the game. 3e built in magic marts and the ability to buy precisely what made your PC the super strongest also disrupted what little balance 3e had.

Now, if you don't care about logic, reason or any semblance of balance, then the game works just fine with magic marts. If you and your group is having fun, that's all that matters.

Furthermore, these defenders of how WotC shirk their duty ignore the basic fact gold is still shoveled out just like in previous editions. But if you're not interested in putting a break on your adventure to discuss downtime purchases of pirate ships or princely bribes or whatever, you're just sold out of luck, abandoned by the publisher.

Come off it man. Enough with the absurd claims. WotC has no "duty" to provide you with gold prices for magic items. Nor is there any accuracy your absurd claim that purchasing pirate ships and bribing NPCs is "downtime." Those are clearly things that would happen during game play.

For some of us, the old d20 product Magic Item Compendium provides endless inspiration, and were WotC to publish a similar book for 5th Edition it would be a huge boon for everybody playing dungeons back to back!

I still use the Encyclopedia Magica. It's even better than the compendium. I certainly wouldn't mind a book like that being made.

 

[Delazar]

While I largely agree with you here, Cap, I must quibble with this:

From what I've seen of published 5e adventures, this edition is stingy as hell in comparison to 0e-1e-2e-3e when it comes to giving out treasure.

4e modules were just weird, in that it seemed a lot of stuff that should have been listed as treasure wasn't...which meant they looked stingy unless one read very carefully and teased out all the stuff - usually things wielded/worn/used by the enemies - that would or could have value when looted.

yeah, my characters are constantly broke... I had to wait level 12 with my fighter to buy my plate armor!

 

[Chaosmancer]

Other than RAW saying it's very rare to be able to sell swords and leather armor taking from bodies. That counters your statement about selling swords and armor very nicely.

So, you think if (before this conversation) I had posted to the forum a story and included the detail about selling four longswords at the shoo in town, people would have come down upon me with "Well actually, RAW states that it is very rare to be able to sell longswords you took from enemies"?

Because... I doubt it. I've never seen this detail cause any consternation among people reading it. It is a perfectly acceptable thing that happens with a lot of regularity.

Sure. If you were at a tournament for example and the hired cleric on hand wasn't enough, you could probably make quite a bit healing the wounded. Circumstances matter. The norm, though, isn't likely to allow you to use every slot every day, which is why the DC 25 to get max makes sense.

Great, so as long as it makes sense.

So, if say I was in a big city, one that had a major population, and say that government was worried about things like necromancy on the recently deceased, and myself being a cleric who can do the ritual of Gentle Repose to prepare the body (a second level spell) could then sell my services, on behalf of the church, to prevent necromancy.

At 100 gp a pop, over a month if a single person dies every day (not unreasonable for a city, who generally have around 3,000 deaths per 100,000 residents per year, meaning you are likely to have closer to 100 people per day) then I could make 3,000 gold. Even if I charge half the going rate, I still make more than my initial idea.

Seems perfectly reasonable that cities would want to work with churches to prevent undeath in the local cemeteries. And as a cleric blessed by the gods with magic, there seems to be little reason I couldn't use that magic to guard the sanctity of death.

So, feel free to tell me how I'm absolutely wrong, this is a stupid and moronic idea and clearly it would never work because of X, Y, and Z. After all, you aren't looking for reasons to say no, they are just going to come out anyways, because clearly I must be cheating or trying to game the system or doing something wrong by getting paid to do magic.

It really helps to have an example that is correct and not wrong. If your example is wrong, it focuses the discussion away from what you intend.

And it wasn't wrong. It just wasn't an iron-clad, lawyer approved defense. I forgot that you must have an unassailable position for all these DMs who are clearly not looking for a reason to say no to an idea that makes money.

I did and in the first or second response to you, then I repeated it at least once in future posts. I said that a chart like the crime chart in Xanathar's would be good for what you are proposing. That's a resounding yes. It just doesn't guarantee you the full 1140g.

Ah, I see. I can't just go and sell healing (a thing that people definitely spend money on) because instead I have to treat it like planning and pulling off a crime. Maybe if you roll really well, people are injured or sick and need help. In a city of hundreds of thousands of people.

Because you keep shooting down ideas for why this would work, focusing on all the ways it wouldn't.

Nice Strawman there. You were doing so well for a while, too. That wasn't talking about your concept.

Really? I didn't talk about using Lesser Restoration to cure illnesses like the flu and colds? I could have sworn that was me you were quoting as you broke down exactly why that wouldn't work using the average income of an unskilled worker to tell me why it was stupid to assume they would spend so much money on curing an illness.

Huh, might want to get your quoting button looked at since it seems to not be working

D&D is not the real world. Cuts don't result in deadly infections the way they did in "the ages of yore." Same with illnesses and flus. Been playing since 1e and I've yet to see an edition of it called Pestilence & Plagues. Diseases and illness exist, but not in the same way as "the ages of yore."

Huh, "real world" applies to how businesses are run, the need for marketing, how often nobles went hunting, how injuries were treated... but not to how infections work?

Weird. I wonder if their is a common thread to how realism is being applied here. Like, it applies when it works against me and doesn't apply when it works for me.

I've already said more than once that I missed the downtime portion. That song from Frozen comes to mind. "Let it go, let it go!"

This isn't about it being Downtime. This is a much more fundamental question that you are running from so hard you've started singing Disney songs.

Why is it that you and every other poster who disagrees with me saw "here is a plan to make money" and immediately assumed that it meant the end of adventuring in a DnD world? Not a single person was like "this would be okay in downtime, but not while we are adventuring". Everyone went forward with the assumption that what I was doing was wrong.

You missed that I said Downtime the first time, but do you think everyone did? I've had about four posters I can think of who responded with how this was a problem, did all of them miss that it was Downtime and would have no issues with it because it was downtime? Clearly not, because I've clarified, and no changes have come from anyone's objections.

So, why is making money, downtime or not, a problem to the point of changing the very nature of DnD for so many DMs?

You do realize that a goal of all of those, unless the business is a tax shelter, is to make money, right?

No, because I listed goals. The Goal of a Goal is not to make money.

If my Goal is to achieve political power through economic power, then my Goal is not to make money. Money is the means. Not the goal.

 

[Maxperson]

So, you think if (before this conversation) I had posted to the forum a story and included the detail about selling four longswords at the shoo in town, people would have come down upon me with "Well actually, RAW states that it is very rare to be able to sell longswords you took from enemies"?

Because... I doubt it. I've never seen this detail cause any consternation among people reading it. It is a perfectly acceptable thing that happens with a lot of regularity.

I don't really care what you do or what other people would do. The only reason I brought it up is because you were using it as a reason to justify your downtime income, and it's not really comparable for the reasons I mentioned.

So, if say I was in a big city, one that had a major population, and say that government was worried about things like necromancy on the recently deceased, and myself being a cleric who can do the ritual of Gentle Repose to prepare the body (a second level spell) could then sell my services, on behalf of the church, to prevent necromancy.

Competing with the other Churches and government hired clerics, sure. I'd have to figure out what sort of system that government used. Probably through a random roll. If a church didn't end up with an exclusive contract, then you could compete with them. On any given day I'd have to see how many people died, how many clerics were available to take care of the repose, whether they were followers of a given faith, etc. and then see if you got work.

At 100 gp a pop, over a month if a single person dies every day (not unreasonable for a city, who generally have around 3,000 deaths per 100,000 residents per year, meaning you are likely to have closer to 100 people per day) then I could make 3,000 gold. Even if I charge half the going rate, I still make more than my initial idea.

Why do you assume that you are the only cleric in the city?

So, feel free to tell me how I'm absolutely wrong, this is a stupid and moronic idea and clearly it would never work because of X, Y, and Z. After all, you aren't looking for reasons to say no, they are just going to come out anyways, because clearly I must be cheating or trying to game the system or doing something wrong by getting paid to do magic.

You aren't wrong about people dying. It's just not only going to be you attending to those that die.

...for all these DMs who are clearly not looking for a reason to say no to an idea that makes money.

I wouldn't know.

Ah, I see. I can't just go and sell healing (a thing that people definitely spend money on) because instead I have to treat it like planning and pulling off a crime. Maybe if you roll really well, people are injured or sick and need help. In a city of hundreds of thousands of people.

Ahh, your Strawarmy has finally showed up. I guess you ran ahead of it this time and had to post a bit before it caught up to you.

Because you keep shooting down ideas for why this would work, focusing on all the ways it wouldn't.

I never said it wouldn't work, though. This is yet ANOTHER Strawman by you. Working differently from how you envisioned it is not shooting it down or saying that it wouldn't work.

Huh, "real world" applies to how businesses are run, the need for marketing, how often nobles went hunting, how injuries were treated... but not to how infections work?

I didn't say businesses are run how the real world does it. I said making money is a goal of businesses. I also never mentioned marketing at all. I don't even know where you pulled that out of. Unless nobles live in the woods with bows and spears in hand, they aren't going to be hunting all that often and again, hunting injuries are pretty rare.

The only one pulling the real world into this is you, and D&D just doesn't use real world infection rates. If it did, with all the cuts PCs get in combat, no party would live to see 3rd level.

This isn't about it being Downtime. This is a much more fundamental question that you are running from so hard you've started singing Disney songs.

Nah. It's your obsession with something that ended pages ago. Let it go man.

You missed that I said Downtime the first time, but do you think everyone did? I've had about four posters I can think of who responded with how this was a problem, did all of them miss that it was Downtime and would have no issues with it because it was downtime? Clearly not, because I've clarified, and no changes have come from anyone's objections.

I couldn't even begin to guess why others missed it.

No, because I listed goals. The Goal of a Goal is not to make money.

You do know that there are multiple goals to things, right? If you don't have a goal of making money, then you've failed at everything you listed before you even began.

If my Goal is to achieve political power through economic power, then my Goal is not to make money. Money is the means. Not the goal.

Go back and re-read, I didn't say THE goal. I said A goal. You don't get to the goal you just mentioned without having a goal of making money as part of it.