New thread.
EDIT:
Partially re-posted from here.
The number and types of magic items available in a community depend upon its size. Each community has a base value associated with it (see Table: Available Magic Items). There is a 75% chance that any item of that value or lower can be found for sale with little effort in that community.
(Found here.)
You can't fit your WLB or whatever money you have.
You can have a 75% chance to find an appropriately-valued magic item, which includes wands at reduced charges, as defined by Charges, Doses, and Multiple Uses:
Many items, particularly wands and staves, are limited in power by the number of charges they hold. Normally, charged items have 50 charges at most (10 for staves). If such an item is found as a random part of a treasure, roll d% and divide by 2 to determine the number of charges left (round down, minimum 1). If the item has a maximum number of charges other than 50, roll randomly to determine how many charges are left.
For an item that's worthless when its charges run out (which is the case for almost all charged items), the value of the partially used item is proportional to the number of charges left. For an item that has usefulness in addition to its charges, only part of the item's value is based on the number of charges left.
Hence, if a wand with an explicit charge number is a is valued within a community's base value, there is a 75% chance that said wand is available.
This is due to the nature of abstraction.
For some, this is immersion-breaking. This is understandable.
The problem, however, is that by denying this abstraction, you are fundamentally changing the rules for your own preferences. This is, of course, okay for individual games. That's not really the point, though, as the rules support the abstraction for ease of game play.
It's the same reason we use hit points, AC, the common tongue, and a constant gold/silver/copper standard wherever you go. It makes the game playable more than immersive.
(Of course, the rules mostly support a viable world in and of themselves, with it's own rules and elements strictly and niftily defined, but there are those rare points where the rules just go, "Aguuuuuhh-...duh?" instead.)
At any rate, I feel that it's pretty conclusive: this is how it works. You may choose to change things and alter how it works for your game (or insist on reading English in a very nonstandard way), but that's your option.
Please discuss here.
I thought there was a maximum gp/community, above and beyond the limit/item, which means you can't buy unlimited stuff, too?
... does not seem to be supported in PF (though I believe it was the rule in 3.5).
I looked at Settlements, but the closest I could find was in the Base Value and Purchase Limit rules.
This section lists the community's base value for available magic items in gp (see Table: Available Magic Items). There is a 75% chance that any item of this value or lower can be found for sale in the community with little effort. If an item is not available, a new check to determine if the item has become available can be made in 1 week. A settlement's purchase limit is the most money a shop in the settlement can spend to purchase any single item from the PCs. If the PCs wish to sell an item worth more than a settlement's purchase limit, they'll either need to settle for a lower price, travel to A larger city, or (with the GM's permission) search for a specific buyer in the city with deeper pockets. A settlement's type sets its purchase limit.
Hm. I learn something new every day.
EDIT:
If they want <wands with less than maximum charges>, ORDER IT. It's not 'right there', but it can be there in a day or two, as long as anyone who can make it is around.
I.e. treat it like any other custom item you want.
Eeeeeeeeeeeeexcept that this is actively prevented by the rules here.
(When an item is created, it is fully charged.)
we're talking generating those items, <snip> not the elementary math of figuring the cost per charge. <snip> Trying to shuffle the argument off into 'it's this easy to calculate land' is more properly being deceitful. <snip>
The randomly generated treasure tables for towns do not include variant items. It's really quite simple that way. They most CERTAINLY do not include "I want a CLW Wand with 5 charges." At the very, very best and loosest interpretation, you see if the Item is available at all, and then you RANDOMLY see how many charges it has.
I totally see where the miscommunication is coming from.
You're saying "the rules say you can acquire a magic item of up to X-value with % success, but don't allow you a method to generate specific charges of wands" which, after a fashion, is true.
The problem is this:
At the very, very best and loosest interpretation, you see if the Item is available at all, and then you RANDOMLY see how many charges it has.
This is false; as you've correctly pointed out, there are no rules on any sort of random generation tables to perform this function.
What they are saying is "the rules say you can acquire a magic item of up to X-value with % success, hence you can ask for a wand of B of Y-value (and thus by definition acquire a wand of less than full charges)" which is totally legit.
It just so happens that the method you find the value of a given wand is by how many charges it has compared to the total, hence the
See, you're looking at it as the inverse of how the actual function goes, and stating that it doesn't work that way (which is absolutely correct), but that's because they use the statement of the inverse as a short-hand for the actual process, which is expressly covered by the rules.
EDIT: fixed quote boxes
But that's all gameplay stuff. RAW, you sell the stuff at half price and buy at full price, and its RAI as well.Ah, I see the tack you're taking now!
Yes, you sell "at half price" for the value of the charges that are present. Otherwise, you're saying that, according to the rules, you can sell a mostly-used wand (with a lower value) at half of the full price.
the first part is correct. When did I ever say otherwise? I'm not sure how you were possibly thinking I thought otherwise?
==Aelryinth
Without giving the qualifier that I did, but insisting that you must pay for a fully charged item, you've set up a dissonant double-standard for how buying and selling work.
Still waiting for rules quotes on this, please.
EDIT: fixed accidental double-post
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which are all listed at full value and full charges.
Yes, but with express rules that dictate how valuable something is withe fewer charges.
Not specific items at specific price points for those items. Which is against RAW and RAI.
Citation needed.
Ashiel brings up the Luck Blade. Note for the description of the Luck Blade, 'when randomly rolled, d4-1 wishes'. This does not mean '75% chance of being present.' It means if you roll up a luck blade for random loot, or guaranteed availability in a city (ie x items from table Y), it's got a variable number of wishes.
If you order a Luck Blade, you can SET the number of Wishes.
If you tell the DM, I want a Luckblade with 2 wishes, roll for it, he is just going to roll for a Luckblade, and it's going to have random or full wishes, as the DM wants, if one happens to be present. He's certainly not obligated to keep rolling until he finds one with 2 wishes.
Always random, there. Specific trumping regular rule, as it were.
Actually, this is inaccurate, due to being only partially correct.
(You can find it listed such once on the "greater medium specific magic weapon" chart and three different times in the "greater major specific item" chart.)
Hence, you can find the chart-specific luck blade, as it qualifies (by your previous suggestions) as a different item "on a chart".
Hence, if there's a 75% chance that an item with the value as a blade with 1 wish is remaining, one can point to it on an official chart as a specific item with a specific value.
these RAW arguments often seem like nothing more than a bludgeon for people to brain one another. Personally, I find it rather precious people are trying to tell one another how to DM the magic availability rules, especially when it explicitly calls these guidelines subject to GM discretion.
As are all the rules, incidentally, via Rule 0. :)
Magic Walmart has been around for a long time, some people never liked it and never played with it, others handwave it because they rather the players just get what they need and move on, some try to bring some sort of economic logic to it, and so on, people generally find the fit that works for their group.
I agree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also: we're discussing the availability of paladin potions.
In defense of the market, the paladins might be selling at 50 gp, but the merchants are all buying them out, hauling them out to small towns where only clerics are, and selling them at 300 gp and making a sweet profit while doing so. Guaranteed money!
Or, the paladins might be selling at 300 gp and keeping the money to do good deeds instead of those TN bastard merchants.
Charging what the market will bear is the market. Nothing to do with reproductive organs at all.
==Aelryinth
This isn't true in the slightest. Those paladins could make a much larger profit and do more good by selling at lower prices. Specifically, by selling at lower prices, they benefit more people with ready access to healing substances, and they have more guaranteed customers actively interested in specifically coming back to them (to give them more money) when they need things.
This is a fabulous way to do more and help more simultaneously.
I'd like to see a rules citation that says Paladins should charge more for the potions they brew just because it's on someone else's spell list.
There is none. words as written says you're 100% correct. Aelryinth is pointing out the mental loop you need to jump through to have them sit by side.
A person could figure out that a Paladin made it, just based on caster level if they know paladins. But if they were the same level and both are divine magic, i'm not sure you could tell.
True.
As a GM, suppose your players bought 10 LR potions from a Paladin (or better yet, made them herself) and want to sell them for 150 gp to a merchant. Would you or disallow, and how would you explain it in the world why the prices are they way they in the world? :)
RAW, no, because they would have to sell for half the "normal" price (i.e. the same price they created it for).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow Tacticslion, good job. :o
On the subject of the Luck Blade which Aelryinth insists is an exception to the rule, it is actually the proof of the rule, because here is the rule (which I had quoted before).
Many items, particularly wands and staves, are limited in power by the number of charges they hold. Normally, charged items have 50 charges at most (10 for staves). If such an item is found as a random part of a treasure, roll d% and divide by 2 to determine the number of charges left (round down, minimum 1). If the item has a maximum number of charges other than 50, roll randomly to determine how many charges are left.
Prices listed are always for fully charged items. (When an item is created, it is fully charged.) For an item that's worthless when its charges run out (which is the case for almost all charged items), the value of the partially used item is proportional to the number of charges left. For an item that has usefulness in addition to its charges, only part of the item's value is based on the number of charges left.
Aelryinth insisted that the luck blade was unique, but it really isn't. It has charges but they are nonstandard charges, and correctly notes that the number of charges are determined randomly when they are random loot, but you can also go out and buy them at different charges if you find a settlement that has them within their GP limits (such as a metropolis with some of the +GP limit advantages found in the GMG).
It shows how the rules work, because the rules in fact were not random bits of text thrown on a page using a calligraphy pen and a baboon's red cheeks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also like to point out that paladin potions are worth less than normal potions because CL affects more than just the potency of the spell within. CL affects the potency and durability of the magic item itself. A CL 1 potion has a +2 saving throw bonus (which can come up when dealing with AoE attacks or a blue dragon, etc) while a CL 3 potion has a +3 saving throw bonus (not a big difference but it is there).
As others have pointed out, people in the D&D world have methods of appraising the potency of magic items (from detect magic to identify spells, and an identify spell only costs 10 gp if you want an expert to examine it before you commit [like pawnstars]).
Price for items is determined by CL * spell level * multiplier. You buy at 100%, you sell at 50%. That's the way the game works. Paladins and Rangers can produce a few niche items cheaper. That's okay. The ones that they produce cheaper are also niche things that are good for adventuring parties who are light on full casters.
The game designers did a good job at reducing the amount of "must-have" classes compared to previous editions.
As a GM, suppose your players bought 10 LR potions from a Paladin (or better yet, made them herself) and want to sell them for 150 gp to a merchant. Would you or disallow, and how would you explain it in the world why the prices are they way they in the world? :)
RAW, no, because they would have to sell for half the "normal" price (i.e. the same price they created it for).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
New thread.
EDIT:
Partially re-posted from here.
(Found here.)
The number and types of magic items available in a community depend upon its size. Each community has a base value associated with it (see Table: Available Magic Items). There is a 75% chance that any item of that value or lower can be found for sale with little effort in that community.
If you look at that link, it lists this key item:
The following guidelines are presented to help GMs determine what items are available in a given community. These guidelines assume a setting with an average level of magic. Some cities might deviate wildly from these baselines, subject to GM discretion. The GM should keep a list of what items are available from each merchant and should replenish the stocks on occasion to represent new acquisitions.
...
If you are running a campaign with low magic, reduce the base value and the number of items in each community by half. Campaigns with little or no magic might not have magic items for sale at all. GMs running these sorts of campaigns should make some adjustments to the challenges faced by the characters due to their lack of magic gear.
These are guidelines, not firm rules, and note that it's fully within the guidelines for GMs to reduce it to very little or nothing at all.
You should absolutely expect that GMs will vary the availability of magic items from group to group because it's more of a world-building thing than a game-mechanics thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These are guidelines, not firm rules, and note that it's fully within the guidelines for GMs to reduce it to very little or nothing at all.
You should absolutely expect that GMs will vary the availability of magic items from group to group because it's more of a world-building thing than a game-mechanics thing.
This (mostly) is correct! However, there are rules (those that are printed) and there are things the GM does on their own (those things that are not printed).
My point has been to clarify what is printed.
Thy why it is printed this way is also significant: it's the most balanced of the options, by enforcing general availability based on the size and population of effects, you have a general hierarchy that you can work with as you level. It is, in fact, as much a part of the game and balancing it as Wealth By Level (which is also, quite notably, a guideline, but one that very specifically is tied to game balance).
What we can say: "This is what the rules say; but this other way is how I (or my GM) run it." (which may or may not be the same thing.)
What we cannot say: "This isn't available by RAW." (because, as-written, it is.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, how often do your players buy/craft a wand, use 1-49 charges of it, then sell the remainder?
Depends on how frequently they intend to use it. The original designers for 3.x noted that there's usually not a great difference between 50 charges and being unlimited over the course of a typical campaign unless the spell is going to get spammed a lot.
Let's use a wand of haste as an example. In Pathfinder on the medium XP track, you need about 20 equal CR encounters to level from one level to the next. If you used your wand once per encounter for every single encounter, the wand would last you 2.5 full character levels. Of course, you probably won't use the wand every single encounter (a lot of encounters you will mop up without needing to use it). Eventually the wand will become obsolete because it's low CL makes it a waste of an action (CL 5 haste, greater dispel magic, try-try-again) or it won't last long enough (5 rounds is a short time at high levels where you're fighting a loooot of stuff at one time).
Now as to my players specific, pretty frequently (and I do too when I'm a player) if they are item artisans. The money you make from selling the item is equal to the money invested into the item, which in turn means that you have lost nothing from the perspective of money invested.
For example, a wand of fireball costs 5625 gp to create or 112.5 gp per charge (market price = 225 gp / charge). Since the market price of the item is 225 gp per charge, I can dump say, 10 charges and then sell the remainer for 4,500 gp and turn it into another magic item with no money lost at all except what I consumed in charges.
In the same vein, a lot of wands that get collected from NPCs (such as the partially charged wands on evil wizards, clerics, bards, summoners, etc) will frequently get sold and their resale value converted into magic items that the party wants. For example, if our primary divine caster is a druid, a wand of death knell is pretty useless to her without UMD, so we can sell that wand off and then create a different thing.
Those that create items can redistribute their assets very efficiently.
EDIT: Also, your typical wand lasted more levels in 3.x. The "fast" XP track in Pathfinder is intended to model the 3.x progression more closely, since in 3.x, you only need about 10-12 equal CR encounters to level up; which means that you get about 5 levels before your wand is consumed.
Fixed an error relating to that above.
I'd still like to see some really solid rules justification for the idea that you have to treat consumables with the same name but differing numbers of charges or even different caster levels as separate items for purposes of the 75% check. I don't think the fact that they have different values is very convincing, and I think there's at least circumstantial evidence that it isn't what the designers intended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a side note, you find a loooot of partially charged wands and scrolls (yes scrolls, they can have more than 1 spell on them) on NPCs throughout the typical game. NPC gear has an allotment for limited use items and you will frequently find things like partially charged wands on these lists.
For example, your typical 5th level heroic NPC is expected to have about 450 gp worth of limited use items on hand, and in the case of a spellcaster, their weaponry also can be in the form of wands and staffs (1,400 gp).
In such a case, you might encounter such an NPC with the following items in their loadouts.
Wand of knock (2 charges, 180 gp)
Wand of tiny hut (1 charges, 225 gp)
Wand of lightning bolt (6 charges, 1350 gp)
Naturally, if you clobber this villainous NPC, you'll collect the loot. If it doesn't interest you, you'll sell it off. Of course it's assumed that you the PCs are not the only people in the process of doing this sort of thing since the PCs are a few in millions if not billions of sentient creatures that traverse the world and trade treasures.
Generally speaking, I bet a lot of those NPCs got those wands secondhand. Either that or ol' boy fried a lot of do-gooders with lightning prior to encountering the PCs (but then, wouldn't he probably be higher than 5th level?).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd still like to see some really solid rules justification for the idea that you have to treat consumables with the same name but differing numbers of charges or even different caster levels as separate items for purposes of the 75% check. I don't think the fact that they have different values is very convincing, and I think there's at least circumstantial evidence that it isn't what the designers intended.
Depends. Are the multitude of NPCs floating around with partially charged goodies circumstantial evidence that they did? It's not like we don't have pretty much the exact same norms in reality when it comes to trading, well, anything.
"Here's a used car. It's cheaper but it's already amassed X miles on it,"
"We've got fifty copies of this comic book, but this one is in mint condition."
"This gun's model number means it was an early version, and it's a little more prone to breaking,"
If anything, I'd like to see some solid rules justification to the contrary, because all that we have currently is where the rules show us this is how it works and examples of items that have charges being devalued with loss of charges but still having purchase prices (such as luck blades, wish rings, etc), along with a standard rule for determining the market value of magic items with limited charges (which applies for things like wands and rings of the ram).
It seems there is a lot of evidence that indeed you can buy partially charged goodies just like other magic items, and little to suggest the contrary (since you'd really need something that explicitly says you cannot since the general rule is that you can).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd still like to see some really solid rules justification for the idea that you have to treat consumables with the same name but differing numbers of charges or even different caster levels as separate items for purposes of the 75% check. I don't think the fact that they have different values is very convincing, and I think there's at least circumstantial evidence that it isn't what the designers intended.
Well they ARE different items. They have different costs and one has more uses of it's effect than the other.
You can go through the entire list of magic items that is under a Settlement's base value Roll 75% and see if the town has it.
A Thorp has 50gp Base Limit. They have an unlimited number of 50gp or less items that you care to ask for. Every single 0th or 1st level spell in a scroll or potion is 75% available.
A higher Caster Level on a potion might similarly be available. A slightly more powerful Potion but nonetheless the same kind of potion.
It's kinda like how you can expect to see multiple versions of Windows at a store despite the latest one being the most up to date.
NPCs floating around with partially charged items isn't what I'm talking about. I agree that it's possible to buy partially charged items; when I do my 75% checks for wands, for example, I determine the number of charges they each have randomly.
Where this argument loses me is that I should be doing that same check for each and every possible charge level/caster level individually - that there should be an average of 3 wands of fireball at every charge level, rather than an average of 3 wands of fireball, which have various charge levels. I don't think the rules support that in particular.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only real issue I have with shopping for partially charged wands is that, in theory, this gives you up to 50 chances to make that 75% check - i.e., basically guaranteed to find any wand in any town.
"I check for a 35 charge wand."
"What about 34?"
"What about 33?"
...and so forth, and I can't imagine that this level of quantization was intended by the 75% rule.
So I use a houserule/interpretation that you check once for the wand's availability at 75%, and that wand you find has a random number of charges up to whatever the settlement can support. In other words, almost all wands you buy are partially charged, but you don't get to pick the exact number of charges. It seems like a decent compromise on the issue.
An excellent compromise, if it works for you and your table! :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NPCs floating around with partially charged items isn't what I'm talking about. I agree that it's possible to buy partially charged items; when I do my 75% checks for wands, for example, I determine the number of charges they each have randomly.
Where this argument loses me is that I should be doing that same check for each and every possible charge level/caster level individually - that there should be an average of 3 wands of fireball at every charge level, rather than an average of 3 wands of fireball, which have various charge levels. I don't think the rules support that in particular.
I think that's a fair house rule, but keep in mind that it can further the martial/caster disparity because it quickly reinforces the idea that you need full casters in your party, and it breaks the way the system works.
For example, you simply cannot find a wand of fireball with full charges in anything except a metropolis without it being random a random generation item, but you can find a near burnt out old wand of fireball in most settlements. But you'd never even get to the random charge check if you started with treating all wands of fireball as the same item (because they'd never be within the gp limit of the towns when you check their base price).
It would create an even greater debacle when it came to caster levels. Do you determine the caster level randomly as well? This seems like a lot of unnecessary work and additional rules to answer a "problem" that isn't actually a problem and only breaks down from a theoretical perspective (if you consider a town having lots of cheap consumables a "breaking down").
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will also point out that the idea of all mundane items always being available no matter how small the settlement is potentially more problematic than magic items - a Thorpe of six buildings at a landlocked crossroads has mithril barding for the paladin's winged celestial war hippo. It also apparently has sailing ships.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An excellent compromise, if it works for you and your table! :D
Indeed. It could be a fine house rule (barring the problem mentioned in my last post). However, one thing that I think Ryric and others are missing is that you're paying for those charges.
If they don't have the wand you want, you're either going to pay more or less for it depending. In some cases you simply won't be able to at all (if they don't have a 1 charge wand of fireball in a village, they don't have it at all). But no matter what kind of wand you're getting (be it a CL 5 wand of fireball with 4 charges or a CL 8 wand with 1) you're still paying the appropriate amount of GP / charge at market value, so you're not getting any sort of special discount or anything. >_>
And since NPCs just get whatever feels nice and is within their (albeit small) WBL, that seems pretty fair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will also point out that the idea of all mundane items always being available no matter how small the settlement is potentially more problematic than magic items - a Thorpe of six buildings at a landlocked crossroads has mithril barding for the paladin's winged celestial war hippo. It also apparently has sailing ships.
Hahaha, that's a good observation. XD
Well noted sir. :3
EDIT: Although to be fair, the magic item purchase rules also note that they can be used for expensive mundane items, so let's not make fun of it toooo much.
It does make me giggle imagining a character hawking off a sailing ship. "Special discount sailing ship, but you gotta move it to the ocean". :P
An excellent compromise, if it works for you and your table! :DIndeed. It could be a fine house rule (barring the problem mentioned in my last post). However, one thing that I think Ryric and others are missing is that you're paying for those charges.
If they don't have the wand you want, you're either going to pay more or less for it depending. In some cases you simply won't be able to at all (if they don't have a 1 charge wand of fireball in a village, they don't have it at all). But no matter what kind of wand you're getting (be it a CL 5 wand of fireball with 4 charges or a CL 8 wand with 1) you're still paying the appropriate amount of GP / charge at market value, so you're not getting any sort of special discount or anything. >_>
And since NPCs just get whatever feels nice and is within their (albeit small) WBL, that seems pretty fair.
No, the point you are missing is that charged items basically circumvent the availability rules.
At 75% chance of having a given item and you treat each charge level as a separate item, then you will have 37+ wands of every spell in every town(up to the wealth limit of the town). Every town that is large enough will have 3 luck blades for every frostbrand, and so on. I really do not think that is the RAI here.
I would like to see some more RAW support for the bolded section.
No, the point you are missing is that charged items basically circumvent the availability rules.
Pretty sure no one's "missed" anything. We just disagree.
If things are not supposed to be available, there are many other superior ways of making them less available.
At 75% change of having a given item and you treat each charge level as a separate item, then you will have 37 wands of every spell in every town(up to the wealth limit of the town). Every town that is large enough will have 3 luck blades for every frostbrand, and so on.
Will you? Or might you? That is a substantial difference.
Beyond that, please note that, as previously mentioned, a GM has final say on any availability at all.
I really do not think that is the RAI here.
Your belief is noted. Do you have a developer citation?
.
At 75% change of having a given item and you treat each charge level as a separate item, <snip>
I would like to see some more RAW support for the bolded section.
Granted:
For an item that's worthless when its charges run out (which is the case for almost all charged items), the value of the partially used item is proportional to the number of charges left.
There is a 75% chance that any item of this value or lower can be found for sale in the community with little effort.
These are two statements that directly speak of the value of different items.
I have more of the text quoted upthread, along with the appropriate links.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But they really don't. Because you can't get the exact one that you want and you pay for what you get. It's like if I wanted to go to town and find a sword to fight demons. I check if there's a +1 evil-bane sword. 75% chance, oops, there wasn't. How about a a +1 evil-bane mace morning star? Oh, now we're talkin'.
Same deal. Do they have a wand with only 7 charges? No? Crud. How about this thing that's really similar? Okay, that'll do. *gives gold appropriate to the CL/charges being bought*
You're not circumventing the availability rules anymore than you are by choosing a different weapon or slightly different enhancement.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, this is only a problem if you have a problem with common items being commons. Wands, potions, and scrolls aren't supposed to be rare. Technically speaking, one could even say that anything under 16,001 gp isn't truly rare in the most literal of senses.
** spoiler omitted **
.
At 75% change of having a given item and you treat each charge level as a separate item, <snip>I would like to see some more RAW support for the bolded section.
Granted:
For an item that's worthless when its charges run out (which is the case for almost all charged items), the value of the partially used item is proportional to the number of charges left.There is a 75% chance that any item of this value or lower can be found for sale in the community with little effort.These are two statements that directly speak of the value of different items.
I have more of the text quoted upthread, along with the appropriate links.
Full quote for context
Base Value and Purchase Limit This section lists the community's base value for available magic items in gp (see Table: Available Magic Items). There is a 75% chance that any item of this value or lower can be found for sale in the community with little effort. If an item is not available, a new check to determine if the item has become available can be made in 1 week. A settlement's purchase limit is the most money a shop in the settlement can spend to purchase any single item from the PCs. If the PCs wish to sell an item worth more than a settlement's purchase limit, they'll either need to settle for a lower price, travel to A larger city, or (with the GM's permission) search for a specific buyer in the city with deeper pockets. A settlement's type sets its purchase limit.
That quote is specifically referring to the value listed in the table, and in no way, form or fashion implies that different value == different item.
A wand of Fireball is a single item with a value proportional to the number of charges remaining. There is nothing in your quotes that even remotely states that I should treat a Wand of Fireballs at 50 separate items.
If value difference alone is enough to let you roll again, what stops questions like "Hm, no wands of hold person with 8 charges? How about a wand of hold person with 8 charges and a 10 gp garnet on the end?"
Did you actually look at the table you're referencing?
It's exclusively a list of "base value", and the number of minor, medium, and major magic items available within the town.
Same thing here, if you want to go that route.
It is literally just "items of X value; also xdx items of X category".
That's it.
EDIT:
If value difference alone is enough to let you roll again, what stops questions like "Hm, no wands of hold person with 8 charges? How about a wand of hold person with 8 charges and a 10 gp garnet on the end?"
I suppose the GM. There may be some thing about custom magic items, however that I don't know about.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Further, how far down does this 'it's a different item' rabbit hole go?
What about "no wands of hold person with 8 charges? how about a wand of hold person with 8 charges that has a clue to its function?"
"No +1 longswords? How about +1 longswords that shed light?"
"No +3 shields? What about +3 shields with the Jeggare coat of arms? No? How about the Thrune coat of arms?"
Further, how far down does this 'it's a different item' rabbit hole go?
What about "no wands of hold person with 8 charges? how about a wand of hold person with 8 charges that has a clue to its function?"
"No +1 longswords? How about +1 longswords that shed light?"
"No +3 shields? What about +3 shields with the Jeggare coat of arms? No? How about the Thrune coat of arms?"
Oh, these are really easy to answer: none of that changes their in-game value.
Interestingly, upon thinking about it,
If value difference alone is enough to let you roll again, what stops questions like "Hm, no wands of hold person with 8 charges? How about a wand of hold person with 8 charges and a 10 gp garnet on the end?"
... is actually either a) two items (and thus an additional expense) or b) a wand (and thus is the same value/cost as a wand without) or c) not actually an item (as there is no where in the rules that notes its value, unless you interpret it under the "items with value after charges are expended" which wands notably are not, per RAW).
Also Mean Mutton pointed out above:
Some cities might deviate wildly from these baselines, subject to GM discretion.
The rules are exactly as noted. The GM (of course) has the option of changing them.
A further great and terrible thing from those rules:
The GM should keep a list of what items are available from each merchant and should replenish the stocks on occasion to represent new acquisitions.
This means that, according to RAW, a GM needs to know if any given merchant has any given thing. This is probably one of the (if not the) most often ignored rules I've ever known, and with good reason. Man. 'Dat paperwork.
Still, it provides a rather immersive experience, one supposes!
Further, how far down does this 'it's a different item' rabbit hole go?
What about "no wands of hold person with 8 charges? how about a wand of hold person with 8 charges that has a clue to its function?"
"No +1 longswords? How about +1 longswords that shed light?"
"No +3 shields? What about +3 shields with the Jeggare coat of arms? No? How about the Thrune coat of arms?"
Oh, these are really easy to answer: none of that changes their in-game value.
Interestingly, upon thinking about it,
If value difference alone is enough to let you roll again, what stops questions like "Hm, no wands of hold person with 8 charges? How about a wand of hold person with 8 charges and a 10 gp garnet on the end?"... is actually either a) two items (and thus an additional expense) or b) a wand (and thus is the same value/cost as a wand without) or c) not actually an item (as there is no where in the rules that notes its value, unless you interpret it under the "items with value after charges are expended" which wands notably are not, per RAW).
Also Mean Mutton pointed out above:
Some cities might deviate wildly from these baselines, subject to GM discretion.The rules are exactly as noted. The GM (of course) has the option of changing them.
A further great and terrible thing from those rules:
The GM should keep a list of what items are available from each merchant and should replenish the stocks on occasion to represent new acquisitions.This means that, according to RAW, a GM needs to know if any given merchant has any given thing. This is probably one of the (if not the) most often ignored rules I've ever known, and with good reason. Man. 'Dat paperwork.
Still, it provides a rather immersive experience, one supposes!
So, if I want to spite the rest of the player at the table, I walk in, and ask the DM do you have a wand of X with 1 charge, 2 charges, etc. until I have exhausted the magic item supply of the town in question?
DM: Oh, yesterday, a ranger came in looking for a bunch of wands, so I don't have any +1 swords, but hey I have 3 wands of Charm Animal...
And still not a single rule that is even close to saying that different price == different item. You have rules that acknowledge that magic items can have varying prices, but it doesn't logically follow that different prices means it is a different item.
There is no raw support for 75% check for every item of every caster level of every charge, it's just a couple over zealous fans trying to dictate how they play is the right way to play. It destroys any semblance of wbl by NPC level, destoys any attempt at immersion and will lead to overly wealthy players who turn evil and raise the first thorp they find. I would completely ignore the hogwash being bandied about in this thread, it is really kind of shameful in my opinion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
immersion and will lead to overly wealthy players who turn evil and raise the first thorp they find.
Players: "Alright we start attacking the guards."
Me: "You what?"
Players: "We figured out that we were only getting 200 gold. But the town itself has nigh infinite magic items based on our rolls earlier. But given this is a really poor village we cna only assume that the biggest threats are like npc's up to 6th level."
Me: "Let me get this straight. In a nation where the poorest village has nigh infinite magic items made by casters of ludicrous level, you want to take your level 3 characters and become marginally wealthier by overthrowing that village?"
Players: *a couple starting to look a little sheepish* "Yeah....yeah, that's the gist of it."
Me: *smiles* "Good luck."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to be much more fluid in my approach to magic items. Generally speaking I don't bat an eyelash at normal behavior. And if normal behavior occurs nothing really triggers a response out of me. Obvious cheesing is difficult to pull off and the first person to attempt to rob a magic shop quickly finds out why people just don't knock over gun stores in the real world.
More to the point, like a gun store, I imagine all the really dangerous stuff isn't kept in the shop. I imagine it's in the hands of the court wizard, the guard, or the clergy for any number of reasons. Maybe the court wizard stops by weekly with soem government appointed funds to buy up those things he deems too dangerous for the public. Maybe the keeper is a pious man and donates all his near dead wands to the church so they can use them for the sick and the poor. Maybe the king has put a moratorium on the sale of magic items outside of a few sellers sponsored by the crown.
Then of course there's the question of who buys what and for why. For example I imagine wands of cure light wounds are as common as dirt due to their usefulness and ease of which practically any class can use them. However in a community lacking any spellcasters the buyer may only take or have one or two and value potions a bit more.
For me the immersion problem doesn't come in because I expect my players to burn it all down, but because I expect them to ask why someone else hasn't. If every crummy thorp has thousands of gold pieces worth of magic items, you need beyond-Forgotten Realms density of high level characters to make it plausible for them to survive in a typical D&D/Pathfinder threat environment.
I should check and see just how badly this idea wrecks a certain plague-based AP installment, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me the immersion problem doesn't come in because I expect my players to burn it all down, but because I expect them to ask why someone else hasn't. If every crummy thorp has thousands of gold pieces worth of magic items, you need beyond-Forgotten Realms density of high level characters to make it plausible for them to survive in a typical D&D/Pathfinder threat environment.
I should check and see just how badly this idea wrecks a certain plague-based AP installment, too.
Depends on the items in question.
Brew Potion - Minimum CL3rd
Craft Wondrous Item - Minimum CL3rd
Craft Arms and Armour - Minimum CL 5th
Forge Ring - Minimum CL 7th
Craft Rod - CL 9th
Craft Construct - Minimum CL5th but effective 7th since Armas and Armor is a prerequisite feat.
Craft Wand - CL 5th
Scribe SCroll CL 1st
You also have to understand that items outlive their makers in many cases. Nothing stops a Ring of Sustenance from being hundreds to hundreds of thousands of years old with proper care.
So you have to ask yourself what level of caster can this community support, and does it really matter given they can still have heirloom items brought in by traveling merchants, passing adventurers, and previous spellcasters in the community.
I didn't say you needed high level characters to *make* the items; rather that you need a lot of them sitting around protecting these 50 person settlements to explain why they aren't regularly burned to the ground by bandits, given the incredible density of wealth in all settlements under this interpretation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that when it comes to the 75% gp limit, it's important to accept that it is, to some degree, an abstraction for ease of play. It's not that every single settlement has 75% of all magic items under that price, it's that there's a decent chance that someone just happens to have that one item you need. It's kind of a Schrodinger-esque thing—the village might only have a couple magic items, but there's a good chance that they items they have are relevant to the party's needs.
Also, obvious cheesing of the 75% availability rule (Like checking for a wand with 34 charges, then 33, then 32...) should be dealt with by a reasonable GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't say you needed high level characters to *make* the items; rather that you need a lot of them sitting around protecting these 50 person settlements to explain why they aren't regularly burned to the ground by bandits, given the incredible density of wealth in all settlements under this interpretation.
You don't?
The problem with your assumption is the belief no one picks up and uses these things. In fact there's no guarantee such items have any value to the bandits outside of the monetary. In which case a trade caravan is still a better deal.
Again, there's a reason why gangs don't knock over gun stores with any form of regularity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me the immersion problem doesn't come in because I expect my players to burn it all down, but because I expect them to ask why someone else hasn't. If every crummy thorp has thousands of gold pieces worth of magic items, you need beyond-Forgotten Realms density of high level characters to make it plausible for them to survive in a typical D&D/Pathfinder threat environment.
I should check and see just how badly this idea wrecks a certain plague-based AP installment, too.
The cost of 750 gp or more for every attempt to cure blood veil by potion would keep the price out of the hands of everyone but aristocrats, I would think.
I think the sheer cost of utilizing the city's hypothetically infinite potions, scrolls, and wands to cure thousands of people would ultimately stymie the magical approach.
I'm pretty generous about shopping for items (my players have asked for and bought partially charged wands before), but none of my players have actually tried the "okay, how about L2? L3? L4? L4 with glitter?" approach.
If they ever did, I'd probably humor them for a couple rolls and then just say naw, they're actually out.
(When I actually roll the 75%, I usually announce "checking the dice for spite." =P)
I didn't say you needed high level characters to *make* the items; rather that you need a lot of them sitting around protecting these 50 person settlements to explain why they aren't regularly burned to the ground by bandits, given the incredible density of wealth in all settlements under this interpretation.You don't?
The problem with your assumption is the belief no one picks up and uses these things. In fact there's no guarantee such items have any value to the bandits outside of the monetary. In which case a trade caravan is still a better deal.
Again, there's a reason why gangs don't knock over gun stores with any form of regularity.
The monetary value is exactly the point. One village knocked over and an entire gang is set for life. This isn't "robbing a gun store" in the middle of a metropolis - that probably still won't happen - it's a world where the bandits and samurai from Seven Samurai team up to loot the village, because all the bags of rice in the province aren't going to offset the kind of wealth that's sitting around in every little settlement.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The monetary value is exactly the point. One village knocked over and an entire gang is set for life. This isn't "robbing a gun store" in the middle of a metropolis - that probably still won't happen - it's a world where the bandits and samurai from Seven Samurai team up to loot the village, because all the bags of rice in the province aren't going to offset the kind of wealth that's sitting around in every little settlement.
You're missing the analogy.
The reason people don't knock over gun stores is because the owner will shoot you.
The same applies to bandits who think it'd be a swell idea to knock over a whole village to get at its magic goodies.
You're talking about a group of bandits trying to knock down a village covered in guns. And guns that shoot guns who also shoot exploding guns. And some of those guns make your head explode, and other guns cover you in acid. And then some of the guardsmen start drinking potions and now you're fighting giant four armed guards who have been itching for years to get a hold of some bandits because he was too smart for adventuring and too violent and stupid for banditry. Then the evil cult lying beneath the village spills forth with its army of undead because the time of prophecy has come. Then the goblins pop out of hiding for the hell of it, and gods help you you killed someone's parents and that kid is going to be Batman, and then the wizard pops out wondering why you are carting his items away in a hurry and well...
Then you have to get away with it.
Because governments tend not to sit around when it turns out a little later that one of the vassals they have sworn to protect was blown up by common bandits.
So they'll either do the sensible thing and hunt the roving army (because the point where you're wiping out communities is when you stop being a bandit and start being an army) or they hire adventurers.
Adventurers who just learned you have a crap ton of wealth.
And the worst part is you can't eat the scrolls. You can't ride away on the staves. And a lot of them are drained because Old Jeb had a few adept levels and he sure as hell wasn't going to let your leader get away without getting a few hits from that 5 charge enervation wand he was saving for the next time the tax collector came around.
So yeah boss, can we get pack to jumping lone travelers? Less chance of becoming a low level encounter in an adventure path.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though by that logic, even backwater villages have so much overwhelming magical firepower available that only a ludicrously dangerous entity (or at least one with a decent amount of SR) could even threaten it.
Well, frightful presence actually causes creatures of low enough HD to panic, so a dragon could be okay, but otherwise...
Yeah, an orc horde showing up to attack a town and getting magic missiled/lightning bolted/fireballed to death with dozens of 3 charge wands probably isn't what's intended.
There's hardly likely to be many NPCs in a hamlet of 50 that can even use a spell trigger item or spell completion item - the village might be full of "guns", but only a small handful of people are likely to be able to actually use any of them. They might drink a fair number of the potions before the bandits got everyone, I suppose.
And looking at a map of, say, Varisia, there are good number of outlying, tiny settlements that are a long way from any kind of authority that could respond effectively. It's hard enough to figure out how they survive out in an area full of nasty humanoid monsters without putting extra incentive for villains in terms of giving them proportionally immense amounts of wealth that they can sell after a trip to Riddleport, or whatever.