Selling items : illogical rule ?

[FadedC]

Me .. I'm hoping they will allow trading between PCs in Living Forgotten Realms.

Sadly that's very unlikely. This was allowed in early Living Greyhawk and it led to so much abuse (and in some cases cheating) that it was abolished.

 

[The Little Raven]

And people wonder what the 'Use Rope' skill is for...

What is... the best way to waste a skill point?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Just for the record:
50 % resale value is fine?
20 % resale value is not?

---

And why create magic items? Simple - you get exactly what you want, and don't have to kill anyone for it, nor acquire a merchant.
If you can have whatever you want by going shopping, don't enchant items. Just don't.

And 20 % resale value might also be the result of the Disenchant magic item ritual - the Merchant guarantees that he can at least break even if he takes the most suboptimal route to sell the item.

 

[Celebrim]

What is... the best way to waste a skill point?

No, the best way to waste a skill point is to put points in Diplomacy in a campaign which has no social encounters.

If all you ever meet is undead, oozes, and constructs, your diplomacy skill is utterly useless.

Putting skill points into History when your campaign world has no history is a complete and utter waste.

And putting skill points into Streetwise when your campaign has no urban settings is likewise a complete and utter waste.

Similarly, putting skill points into craft skills in a campaign where high quality crafted goods are readily, cheaply, and universally available is pretty much a complete and utter waste.

Hmmm...

 

[JohnSnow]

Now you're on to a very good point.

Depreciation.

...


Please, right now, go outside and try to sell your 1969 Ford Mustang Boss 429 for it's full new price... For those not into cars, that car is now 39 years old, originally sold for under $5,000 (US) in 1969, and now can sell easily for over $100,000 (US) to the right collector, or for at least half that amount instantly at any car dealership in the US - still 10x what it originally cost.

If you're going to concern yourself with depreciation, you might also want to concern yourself with appreciation, too.

That's not "appreciation," it's (at least partially) inflation and rarity. Let's tackle inflation first.

If your 1969 Boss 429 has been fully restored, it might as well be new. So, the start of your value comparison is not what the car cost then, but what a comparable car would cost now. For comparison, a 2008 Mustang Cobra (not quite comparable, but close) retails for about $40,000 (US).

Now, we get to rarity. Is 2.5x a fair increase for something that is VERY rare. Of course it is. Yes, there are collectors willing to pay full price to (or through) a reputable dealer.

People are constantly trying to apply modern standards. Remember. No internet. No newspaper. No mass media of any kind. No telephone. A BIG city has 25,000 people in it. The total population of a region the size of the United States is probably 6 million.

You have something that maybe 1 person in 1,000 can afford. That means in the biggest city in the continent (a fantastical Waterdeep-sized metropolis of 500,000), there are maybe 500 potential buyers. In the average big city, you'll be lucky to find 25.

How many of them do you think an errant vagabond just arrived in that city is going to be able to meet in one day? One week?

Your merchant has the connections, but he's taking a risk. Is he getting an undue profit? Maybe. Maybe it should be closer to 50% of sale price.

However, at this point, I'm going to put forward a comment. If you're spending a lot of your game time on profession skills, craft skills, and trying to map out a realistic economy of the D&D world, your game probably isn't as fun as it should be.

My two cents.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

Just for the record:
50 % resale value is fine?
20 % resale value is not?

50% is fine when the cost to create is 1/25 of resale value
20% is not when cost to create is 100% resale value

 

[bardolph]

The PHB says that you can sell a mundane or magical item at a flat rate of 1/5 of total price .

It seems a illogical rule .

More , the PHB says that you can sell rituals at half price , and that making magic objects costs equal the market price .
If you make a +1 sword that costs you 1000 gp , you can sell it at 1000 gp . It's an anti-market rule .

There is some logical explanation to this ?

It works for WoW. Why shouldn't it work for D&D?

I think these rules assume that the PCs are in the adventuring business and not the merchant business. The PCs simply don't have time to study markets and find appropriate buyers for their stuff, but virtually anyone with enough cash on hand will buy something for 20% of its retail value.

From a game mechanics perspective, I assume the rules are written this way to avoid abuse by players. They represent a worst-case baseline for the PCs, and are supposed to represent GAME economy instead of WORLD economy. For the GAME economy to work, you need to be able to bleed off their cash (by making them pay retail price for everything), while at the same time restricting their out-of-adventure income (by making them sell at 20%).

If you as a DM want to run a market simulation, then obviously you're going to have to houserule a few things to make it work. If the PCs have viable buyers, and can find markets for their things (this should require a few Streetwise checks at minimum), then go ahead and bump up the resale value of their things to something better than 20%. For magic items, you can allow the PCs to shave off some of the production cost (again, they will have to find markets first). Even then, you will need to set limits: eventually, markets will either saturate (for selling) or dry up (for buying).

Keep in mind, though, that PCs are going to get filthy rich if you allow them, and you will have to reduce the treasure haul of your adventures to compensate.

That said, I like the rules as written. They encourage players to stick to their adventuring career, and not to become after-market merchants instead. It's better for the rules to be too stingy and rely on DMs to house-rule them up, than for the rules to be too generous, and force DMs to house-rule them down.

 

[Kraydak]

Just for the record:
50 % resale value is fine?
20 % resale value is not?

---

50% resale, no purchase tax vs.
20% resale, 125% purchase?

4e is three times less efficient from the PC's POV. Yes, that makes a huge difference. It takes NPC profit margins from acceptable to blatantly unfair, which causes RL social friction if enforced.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

50% resale, no purchase tax vs.
20% resale, 125% purchase?

4e is three times less efficient from the PC's POV. Yes, that makes a huge difference. It takes NPC profit margins from acceptable to blatantly unfair, which causes RL social friction if enforced.

And we wouldn't want the masses of adventures looting dead bodies to cause an uprising against the merchant guilds?

 

[Particle_Man]

I think the thing is, the merchant is not trying to just rip the PCs off.

Imagine Throghoer wants to sell his Dagger of Frost. The merchant thinks:

"Hmmm...not much frequent contact with adventurers, those crazy nuts. And those that want magic daggers might not want a Dagger of Frost, and those that want magic Frost weapons might not want that to be a dagger, as opposed to an ax or sword. Man, I could be sitting on that weapon and never sell it. Bummer. Well, I guess I could disenchant it and then use the residuum to custom-make something else, should I run into another crazy adventurer. They might even appreciate that I can make items to order. Ok, I'll offer the guy its residuum value, so at least I can break even when I strip it for parts."

As opposed to:

"It is a PC! Haha! Now to invoke the NPC guild of merchants code to screw PCs over! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!"

Adventurers are relatively rare in this world, and tend to Change the World. Points of Light and all that.