[Thaumatology] Setting magic item prices to make economic sense

hal · 07-08-2024, 03:29 PM

In the original Enchantment rules, A skill 12 enchanter with a skill 12 base spell, could enchant a POWER 16 enchantment using the time for skill bonus. Spending twice as long to enchant some thing allows you to increase the effective skill by +4

The real problem is the income level required per day's enchantment. There is also the same issue inherent with the price of potions - the working class with a struggling income can't afford the potions.

Note that the cost for enchantment is for a POWER 15 item, with each increase in power value increasing the value appropriately.

A relatively simple fix may be to rethink what mages charge for their services.

For example, struggling incomes would suggest that commonly cast spells would be at half the expected income of enchanters. Spells with a heavy prerequisite count are more costly, while spells with a low requisite chain are cheaper...

You're not paying for the spell per se, you're paying for the educational time invested in the spell via all its requisites.

One thing to ask yourselves is this: how many spell fatigue can be cast in a month? What is the target income per month per GURPS rules, and then divide the income per month by the spell fatigue spent per month. Just as a laborer earns income by working a set number of hours per day per month, so too should a mage's income follow that pattern.

It is unlikely the mage will have nonstop customers in the same vein as a ditch digger labors on the ditches - the mage's income should be based upon both the spell cast as well as the energy cost as well as the frequency of the spell(s) being cast. Casting SEEKER to find lost items may be the most common spell cast for poorer people than say, cure disease (just as an example mind you!)

Lower the cost per fatigue and that would be similar in effect to lowering the number of enchantment days for item. It also opens up a job for struggling mages in your campaign.

Another change I'd suggest is this: think in terms of mage weeks for production instead of mage days. 400 days is 57 weeks of nonstop labor. Why not make the enchantment cost be 285 days instead? Maybe 342 days instead? 285 days with 2 days off is 57 weeks. 342 days is 57 weeks with 1 day a week off. The side benefit would be that quick and dirty can be cheaper, and make life more bearable for the enchanter.

07-08-2024, 03:29 PM	#11
hal Join Date: Aug 2004	Re: [Thaumatology] Setting magic item prices to make economic sense In the original Enchantment rules, A skill 12 enchanter with a skill 12 base spell, could enchant a POWER 16 enchantment using the time for skill bonus. Spending twice as long to enchant some thing allows you to increase the effective skill by +4 The real problem is the income level required per day's enchantment. There is also the same issue inherent with the price of potions - the working class with a struggling income can't afford the potions. Note that the cost for enchantment is for a POWER 15 item, with each increase in power value increasing the value appropriately. A relatively simple fix may be to rethink what mages charge for their services. For example, struggling incomes would suggest that commonly cast spells would be at half the expected income of enchanters. Spells with a heavy prerequisite count are more costly, while spells with a low requisite chain are cheaper... You're not paying for the spell per se, you're paying for the educational time invested in the spell via all its requisites. One thing to ask yourselves is this: how many spell fatigue can be cast in a month? What is the target income per month per GURPS rules, and then divide the income per month by the spell fatigue spent per month. Just as a laborer earns income by working a set number of hours per day per month, so too should a mage's income follow that pattern. It is unlikely the mage will have nonstop customers in the same vein as a ditch digger labors on the ditches - the mage's income should be based upon both the spell cast as well as the energy cost as well as the frequency of the spell(s) being cast. Casting SEEKER to find lost items may be the most common spell cast for poorer people than say, cure disease (just as an example mind you!) Lower the cost per fatigue and that would be similar in effect to lowering the number of enchantment days for item. It also opens up a job for struggling mages in your campaign. Another change I'd suggest is this: think in terms of mage weeks for production instead of mage days. 400 days is 57 weeks of nonstop labor. Why not make the enchantment cost be 285 days instead? Maybe 342 days instead? 285 days with 2 days off is 57 weeks. 342 days is 57 weeks with 1 day a week off. The side benefit would be that quick and dirty can be cheaper, and make life more bearable for the enchanter.