Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3188697" data-attributes="member: 30001">"Geometric progression" IMO is ok.  Also, I think it exists for products in the real world.  Art and gemstones for example.  I can buy a print for $5 at the flea market, or 5 million $ painting at an auction.  Actual magic item costs are circular reasoning anyway - if the costs of producing a magic sword are geometric with regards to it's plus, then I would expect the costs of buying one to match that.  What I mean by "internal consistency" is really other areas.  For example, there's a note in the SRD that says it's very difficult to find a caster that will cast a spell costing more than 3,000 gp.  Almost in the same breath a 25,000 gp warship appears in the equipment list with no such caveat.  And a 3,000 gp spell could be a 2nd level spell with a 3,000 gp component AFAICT.  Since the buyer provides the material component - why is it's cost a factor in it's availability?  I think stuff like that matters to PCs, even though they're not merchants, and they could understandably ask pointed questions that the DM wouldn't have answers for.I think it's reasonable that there is a correlation between power and wealth.  If a kobold has a 50,000 gp gem and a dragon has 5 cp, I would expect the dragon to quickly rectify the situation.  3E I think has just gone farther in codifying and recognizing this base reality - which I think has not necessarily been for the better - because they've chosen a certain "wealth per level" guideline and made some people believe that the universe will end if this isn't followed.But the availability of magic items AFAICT is completely in the realm of DM campaign decision.  I don't think there's any place in the rules that tells you anything about what PCs should be able to buy and sell - other than very general ideas that a settlement of a certain size can sell an item of a certain XP value.  So I don't think there's a mandate about how to do it.  However, I think in the absence of guidance, most DMs aren't going to want to think about it - the rules won't help them so the quick and easy solution is to make everything available.  "Burning life's energy" isn't that big of a deal though.  DnD characters must understand the effects to some degree.  When the DMG decides that XP is worth 25 gp each, that pretty much sets it's value.  If everyone agrees on what XP is worth in the campaign world, then that's good enough for me.  In the real world gold works the same way - gold has no real value, it's just how much people want it.  Internal consistency just means that a 5 lb gold necklace should be worth at least as much as 5 lbs of gold bars.  Now to some extent, if the process of gaining 10 xp is 50% likely to be fatal, then charging 250 gp for using that 10 xp in a magic item creation process needs some consideration.All they would need to do is decide how NPCs can gain XP.  There's plenty of room in the rules for them to gain XP for non-combat activities.  In that case, using up XP in a magic item creation process is like selling blood - people do it, and as long as they watch how much then everything is ok.Yea, but I also think that the reasoning should go in the other direction too - make the rules so that they produce the sort of fantasy world that you want.  Make castles, for example, cost-effective enough that people would want to build them. In addition to the art and gemstone situation above, I would think people's salaries would be a big counter-example to this.  A CEO is not 1000 times more educated, 1000 times smarter, or working 1000 times as hard as a normal employee, but the salaries don't reflect this.  And people's salaries are one of the basic costs at the root of a lot of prices.Though I would put this in the same category as all other decisions that a DM makes about player ideas - and in those cases a DM is never under any obligation to make things work.  The only difference here is that the DM has fewer rules to back up his decision.Which is exactly why I objected when you said the game isn't about this because IMO it very much is about equipment and wealth because those things translate as power.  And the DM in the OP seems very aware of this too and fearing that the player will some how take advantage of his decisions to gain power.  That fear IMO causes the DM to overreact and start saying silly things about elves.I don't blame you - the job IMO is really one for WotC and game designers.  But as the game evolves, and players ask inevitable questions like "well, if NPC spell casters can charge X gp for casting spells, why can't I?", then it would really help if WotC would take it's decisions seriously.  Habit and tradition has caused them to look at some things from an entirely lop-sided perspective - as if the player and NPC roles in a transaction are always going to be consistently one way.  IMO in a more developed game, PCs are going to be on both sides of economic transactions and the rules need to make sense in all of these situations.</blockquote>

Verification