Something I could do without...

[Imruphel]

I've been thinking about this for the past couple of years as well and have told the players in my new campaign (they're at 3rd level) that we will be making up the magic item creation rules as we go along but using the "rules" from 2E's Volo's Guide to All Things Magical and the power components from Unearthed Arcana for inspiration.

Basically, the party is going to have to gather ingredients, components and/or materials and not just drop a bag of gold on the table. We'll use the DMG rules only for calculating time to craft.

 

[Nightfall]

Imp,

Yeah but for every single magic item? Isn't that like, more time consuming and thus disinclining the PCs to want to have magic items they might need?

Just saying...

 

[Celebrim]

To a certain extent I agree with the original poster. Most D&D economies are totally screwed up and unreaslistic. There has never been a decent price list in the history of the game, most things are priced for what are entirely gamist reasons, and although there have been some noble attempts at fixing the problem they have all fallen well short.

So yes, D&D economies are screwed up.

And much of the suggestions are just reinventing 1st edition AD&D without the awareness of the problems that well entail.

A fighter who wants his handy longsword +2 turned into a longsword +3 spends 10,000 gp with his local enchanter. Why? For that much money he can hire a unit of heavy calvalry for the year, with enough left over for a square of archers. That'd probably put more of a hurt on his foes, don't you think?

Try it. The problem was even more acute in 1st edition. The screwed up price lists in which items were costed according to gamist concerns, but labor was costed at its historical prices meant that PC's could leverage an enormous ammount of labor instead of buying items. This let them screw around in all sorts of ways.

But what you'll find is that there are times where Indy's approach is still superior to Belloc's. There are times when a small team of dungeon crawling adventurers is far superior to a teaming swarm of cheap labor.

On the other hand, you will also discover that there are times when Belloc's approach to an 'archaelogical problem' is far superior to going all Indiana Jones in the trapped filled tomb of death. If I was playing the original Tomb of Horrors under 1st edition rules knowing what I know now (but not knowing the module as intimately as I do), I think I'd probably choose to solve it Belloc style - dig the whole place up with a work gang of a few hundred labors, rather than bother dealing with the traps directly (latter editions invented an infiinite horde of demons dedicated to protecting the tomb possibly to stop this otherwise excellent short cut to the end encounter).

 

[Nightfall]

Cel,

You make some excellent points. Good job.

 

[Storm Raven]

XP costs are already a good one.

Specifying monster bits as material components. So instead of 10,000 gp of magic fluff, Bob may need to bring his wizard the body of a cr 14 Abberation to enchant his sword. This also make monsters intrinsically valuable without requiring an explanation of where every single bloody Monster of type blah just happened to aquire cr appropriate loot.

What do you think the 10,000 gp you are spending is going for? Do you have any idea what the going rate for body parts of a CR 14 Aberration is these days?

 

[Nightfall]

Storm,

Better than average?

 

[Storm Raven]

The more I think about it, the less I like using cash as a balancing mechanism as levels advance. It smacks of video games where halfway through the game you're in towns where the local woodsman are chopping down trees with axes worth more than the entire village you started the game in.

You know, there is a cash limit for particular locales just for this reason. You aren't going to be able to purchase expensive items in the backwoods if you follow those guidelines.

The senselessness of it is most apparent in magic items. A high level mage might pay 70,000 gp for 'components' to make a magic staff. Who even has that much magic fluff stored away, and why doesn't the purchase destabilize the economy of the kingdom? For that matter, why isn't sale of magic fluff controlled by law and managed by the kingdom? That'd put a damper on those pesky necromancers and their magic items of doom.

Who says he has it stored away? The smallest size settlement that one could reasonably expect to buy a 70,000 gp item (using the assumptions in the rules) is a metropolis with 25,000+ residents. It seems to me likely that the enchanter would probably need to buy some items from various dealers in such a situation.

And who says that the sale of magic parapernalia isn't controlled by law and managed by the kingdom, but shouldn't that be a campaign setting issue? (Of course, one wonders how they keep tabs effectively, and whether they would use such control for weal or woe, which could easily drive many campaign scenarios).

A fighter who wants his handy longsword +2 turned into a longsword +3 spends 10,000 gp with his local enchanter. Why? For that much money he can hire a unit of heavy calvalry for the year, with enough left over for a square of archers. That'd probably put more of a hurt on his foes, don't you think?

When I want an army, I'll hire an army. When I want a specialist, I'll get a specialist. Why do governments in the modern world spend millions of extra dollars training special forces when they could get ten times as many regular troops for the same cost?

 

[Nightfall]

Cause they like to make things go boom, Stormy?

Plus it's well known, today's governments...not so smart.

 

[Dykstrav]

I can really see Andor's problem with the cash issues in D&D. How many DMs actually enforce the looting rules? Er... that is, cash in a community by demographics?

"Oh cool, we find a chest packed with masterwork scale mail, a +2 dagger, six scrolls, four potions, and nine black pearls? We sell all this loot in the village of Alcras... Huh? What's this 'gold piece limit' and 'assets' stuff you're talking about?"

Many players and DMs gloss over these things as an abstraction. D&D is a game that is full of abstractions despite what some rules-twitchy people claim (hit points in particular can't get much more abstract). In this vein, I describe most of the character's holdings as not being literal sacks of gold and gems. Much of it is tied up in lands and the like.

In and of itself, I have no problem with the idea that a staff of fire is valued at 17,750 gp. I do share Andor's problem that I don't like the idea of a wizard handing over a pouch of gems and just getting such a mighty item like there is a Wal-Mart or Target in every town. Does the Pentagon send truckloads packed with neat stacks of $100 bills to the shipyard whenever the Navy gets a new aircraft carrier? A guy with a sack of gold boullion and assorted gemstones to pay for the rifles issued to the Marines? I understand that its a fantasy game and all, but such situations as this don't stretch logic and imagination, they defy it.

Even major purchases for regular people in the real world rarely involve the exchange of physical cash. People just don't pay for houses and cars with cash, in history or literature. Check out page 101 of the Dungeon Master's Guide. A mansion costs 100,000 gp. Even a 'grand house' costs 5,000 gp.

 

[FireLance]

Many players and DMs gloss over these things as an abstraction. D&D is a game that is full of abstractions despite what some rules-twitchy people claim (hit points in particular can't get much more abstract). In this vein, I describe most of the character's holdings as not being literal sacks of gold and gems. Much of it is tied up in lands and the like.

I abstract it even further. A character of level X simply has equipment worth Y gp based on the standard wealth guidelines. I don't put treasure in my campaign. The player can come up with an explanation of how his PC gained, lost or improved his gear, or not, as he chooses. It makes no difference to the way I run my games.