Belt of physical perfection pricing wrong?

Belt of Physical Perfection seems to be priced wrong according to the magic item piece values table.

Ability bonus (enhancement) is Bonus squared x 1,000 gp
Multiple different abilities is Multiply lower item cost by 1.5

There for +2 ability is 4,000GP times 3 equals 12,000GP , 1.5 times to the lower would cost 14,000GP not 16,000GP. why is both lower cost going hit with the 1.5 times?

Big edit. had a major math error.

There for +2 ability is 4,000GP times 3 equals 16,000GP which is the price of the belt. No 1.5 times 4,000GP for the lower item cost. I know they are all technically the same ability and there is not lower item cost BUT the belt of Belt of Physical Might is priced at 10,000GP which is correct according to the formula in the table.

4000 gp x 3 is 12,000, not 16,000.

Every additional power beyond the first gets the 1.5x multiplier, not just the lowest.

The prices in the book are correct.

2^2 * 1000 for one stat (4000) +
2^2 * 1000 * 1.5 for second stat (6000) +
2^2 * 1000 * 1.5 for third stat (6000) = 16,000

There for +2 ability is 4,000GP times 3 equals 12,000GP , 1.5 times to the lower would cost 14,000GP not 16,000GP. why is both lower cost going hit with the 1.5 times?

Because the multiplier applies to all lower costs, not the lowest.

Quote:

There for +2 ability is 4,000GP times 3 equals 12,000GP , 1.5 times to the lower would cost 14,000GP not 16,000GP. why is both lower cost going hit with the 1.5 times?

Because the multiplier applies to all lower costs, not the lowest.

Seems like it should say "Multiply lower item(s) cost by 1.5" then

Seems like it should say "Multiply lower item(s) cost by 1.5" then

Doesn't need to. As it says "lower" and not "lowest", it would apply to all lower costs.

Multiple Different Abilities: Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that take up a space on a character's body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price.

Quote:

Seems like it should say "Multiply lower item(s) cost by 1.5" then

Doesn't need to. As it says "lower" and not "lowest", it would apply to all lower costs.

Quote:

Multiple Different Abilities: Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that take up a space on a character's body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price.

Read that again, please.

Nothing indicates a later addition has to be a lower priced addition.

That is why you add a Heavy Load Belt (1,000) to a Belt of Strength +2 (4,000) for a total of 5,500 rather than add a Belt of Strength +2 to a Heavy Load Belt, which would be 7,000.

/cevah

Read that again, please.

"each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price"

Nothing indicates a later addition has to be a lower priced addition.

That is why you add a Heavy Load Belt (1,000) to a Belt of Strength +2 (4,000) for a total of 5,500 rather than add a Belt of Strength +2 to a Heavy Load Belt, which would be 7,000.

Actually, I believe the 'multiple different abilities' text is meant to refer back to the 'multiple similar abilities' text where it IS stated that the most costly ability goes first;

"Multiple Similar Abilities: For items with multiple similar abilities that don't take up space on a character's body, use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities.

Multiple Different Abilities: Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that take up a space on a character's body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price."

The two bolded phrases seem to be referencing the prior section. At which point, "additional power" would seem to mean 'after the most costly' and the order you add the abilities doesn't matter... the price is the same (5,500 gp in this case) either way.

The multiple similar abilities applies to non-slotted items only, and is generally there for staves.

Though it sounds like the belt does match the pricing guidelines, it's also worth remembering that it wouldn't be wrong if it didn't.

Many factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items. The easiest way to come up with a price is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced, using that price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values.

The correct way to price an item is by comparing its abilities to similar items (see Magic Item Gold Piece Values), and only if there are no similar items should you use the pricing formulas to determine an approximate price for the item

Existing item costs come first and the table is only a guide for when they don't exist.

Cevah wrote:

Read that again, please.

"each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price"

Nothing indicates a later addition has to be a lower priced addition.

That is why you add a Heavy Load Belt (1,000) to a Belt of Strength +2 (4,000) for a total of 5,500 rather than add a Belt of Strength +2 to a Heavy Load Belt, which would be 7,000.

Actually, I believe the 'multiple different abilities' text is meant to refer back to the 'multiple similar abilities' text where it IS stated that the most costly ability goes first;

"Multiple Similar Abilities: For items with multiple similar abilities that don't take up space on a character's body, use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities.

Multiple Different Abilities: Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that take up a space on a character's body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price."

The two bolded phrases seem to be referencing the prior section. At which point, "additional power" would seem to mean 'after the most costly' and the order you add the abilities doesn't matter... the price is the same (5,500 gp in this case) either way.

Using abilities, costliest at 100%, rest at 150%, is the assumed Market Price a crafter will sell it at. If, however, you are adding abilities, there is no choice. That added ability, whatever the relative price, is at 150%. The Market Price will may be different. My example of adding Strength +2 to a existing Heavyload belt shows this. Crafting Price is 7,000, but Market Price is 5,500.

/cevah

CBDunkerson wrote:

Cevah wrote:

Read that again, please.

"each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price"

Nothing indicates a later addition has to be a lower priced addition.

That is why you add a Heavy Load Belt (1,000) to a Belt of Strength +2 (4,000) for a total of 5,500 rather than add a Belt of Strength +2 to a Heavy Load Belt, which would be 7,000.

Actually, I believe the 'multiple different abilities' text is meant to refer back to the 'multiple similar abilities' text where it IS stated that the most costly ability goes first;

"Multiple Similar Abilities: For items with multiple similar abilities that don't take up space on a character's body, use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities.

Multiple Different Abilities: Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that take up a space on a character's body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price."

The two bolded phrases seem to be referencing the prior section. At which point, "additional power" would seem to mean 'after the most costly' and the order you add the abilities doesn't matter... the price is the same (5,500 gp in this case) either way.

Using abilities, costliest at 100%, rest at 150%, is the assumed Market Price a crafter will sell it at. If, however, you are adding abilities, there is no choice. That added ability, whatever the relative price, is at 150%. The Market Price will may be different. My example of adding Strength +2 to a existing Heavyload belt shows this. Crafting Price is 7,000, but Market Price is 5,500.

/cevah

That's just stupid and ass-backwards. It's almost like I've seen it happening somewhere.

No sane merchant is going to sit there and sell an item for less than how much it costs to actually make it. In fact, it goes against the rules to do that, since all items that are crafted are sold for twice their crafting value, which becomes their purchasing price.

So if you want to be really stupid about this, that belt would actually be on the market for 14,000 gold.

It also creates a logical inconsistency amongst the rules, since an item like that should have one set value, regardless of how it's actually made. Although I understand how that happens in a real world setting, this setting contains Dragons and stuff. And we know those are about as real as...well, you get the idea.

Cevah wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

Cevah wrote:

Read that again, please.

"each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price"

Nothing indicates a later addition has to be a lower priced addition.

That is why you add a Heavy Load Belt (1,000) to a Belt of Strength +2 (4,000) for a total of 5,500 rather than add a Belt of Strength +2 to a Heavy Load Belt, which would be 7,000.

Actually, I believe the 'multiple different abilities' text is meant to refer back to the 'multiple similar abilities' text where it IS stated that the most costly ability goes first;

"Multiple Similar Abilities: For items with multiple similar abilities that don't take up space on a character's body, use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities.

Multiple Different Abilities: Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that take up a space on a character's body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price."

The two bolded phrases seem to be referencing the prior section. At which point, "additional power" would seem to mean 'after the most costly' and the order you add the abilities doesn't matter... the price is the same (5,500 gp in this case) either way.

Using abilities, costliest at 100%, rest at 150%, is the assumed Market Price a crafter will sell it at. If, however, you are adding abilities, there is no choice. That added ability, whatever the relative price, is at 150%. The Market Price will may be different. My example of adding Strength +2 to a existing Heavyload belt shows this. Crafting Price is 7,000, but Market Price is 5,500.

That's just stupid and ass-backwards. It's almost like I've seen it happening somewhere.

No sane merchant is going to sit there and sell an item for less than how much it costs to actually make it. In fact, it goes against the rules to do that, since all items that are crafted are sold for twice their crafting value, which becomes their purchasing price.

So if you want to be really stupid about this, that belt would actually be on the market for 14,000 gold.

It also creates a logical inconsistency amongst the rules, since an item like that should have one set value, regardless of how it's actually made. Although I understand how that happens in a real world setting, this setting contains Dragons and stuff. And we know those are about as real as...well, you get the idea.

But at the same time, if that belt is sitting on the market at 14K and there's a functionally identical one next to it for 11K, it won't sell.

But it's not going to happen like that. No one making the thing to sell is going to make it the more expensive way.
The PC crafter making it to use may do so, since he only has so much money available at first. So he'll pay the higher price to craft, but if he then sells it to buy something else, the selling price will be based on the market value, not how much it took him to make it.

That's just stupid and ass-backwards. It's almost like I've seen it happening somewhere.

No sane merchant is going to sit there and sell an item for less than how much it costs to actually make it. In fact, it goes against the rules to do that, since all items that are crafted are sold for twice their crafting value, which becomes their purchasing price.

So if you want to be really stupid about this, that belt would actually be on the market for 14,000 gold.

It also creates a logical inconsistency amongst the rules, since an item like that should have one set value, regardless of how it's actually made. Although I understand how that happens in a real world setting, this setting contains Dragons and stuff. And we know those are about as real as...well, you get the idea.

Since 14,000 is way above the Market Price of 5,500, it won't sell.

If the GM doesn't know the order of effects, it is assumed that the most expensive one came first. If you know the order, then you know that fir first one does not have the +50%, but the rest do. A Merchant does not care what order an item is made. There is always someone who makes it most efficiently. That sets the Market Price. Less efficient makers must pay more to craft it, but cannot sell it for any more than the maker who who sets the price.

Just above here it states:

Since different classes get access to certain spells at different levels, the prices for two characters to make the same item might actually be different. An item is only worth two times what the caster of the lowest possible level can make it for. Calculate the market price based on the lowest possible level caster, no matter who makes the item.

The maker of the 5,500 belt has a cost of 2,750. He makes 2,750 profit.

/cevah

Cevah wrote:

Read that again, please.

"each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price"

Nothing indicates a later addition has to be a lower priced addition.

That is why you add a Heavy Load Belt (1,000) to a Belt of Strength +2 (4,000) for a total of 5,500 rather than add a Belt of Strength +2 to a Heavy Load Belt, which would be 7,000.

Actually, I believe the 'multiple different abilities' text is meant to refer back to the 'multiple similar abilities' text where it IS stated that the most costly ability goes first;

"Multiple Similar Abilities: For items with multiple similar abilities that don't take up space on a character's body, use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities.

Multiple Different Abilities: Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that take up a space on a character's body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price."

The two bolded phrases seem to be referencing the prior section. At which point, "additional power" would seem to mean 'after the most costly' and the order you add the abilities doesn't matter... the price is the same (5,500 gp in this case) either way.

I'd have to agree with you're reading and understanding of this rule. They are referencing the previously stated convention of ordering the enchantments by value. This is obvious when you look at the bolded text. It is referencing the discount given in the previous rule with similar enchantments. it is not creating a new rule/convention, but adding to it.

What part of "each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price." do you not understand?

No matter what the current Market Price of a magic item is, if you ADD a power, you are EXPLICITLY told to add 50% to the price of that additional power.

/cevah

Cevah, we understand it just fine... we're just interpreting "each additional power" differently.

You are taking those words to refer to all powers added at a later time than the first. We are taking the same words to refer to all powers which cost less than the most expensive one.

Your interpretation would make sense except that the text also clearly refers back to the prior section, where it is explicitly stated that the most expensive power is added first at cost and then the costs of less expensive powers adjusted AND the text in the table itself;

"Multiply lower item(s) cost by 1.5"

Lower item cost... not later item cost as you are arguing, but LOWER. In your 'add belt of strength +2 (4000) to heavy load belt (1000) costs +6000' example you are multiplying the HIGHER item cost by 1.5. That directly contradicts the table.

Thus, I submit that you are misreading the text. It is referring to "additional" LOWER cost items... not additional LATER items.

The PRD disagrees with you.

PRD

Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.

The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.

If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.

This example shows that adding Invisibility (20,000) to a Ring of Protection +2 (8,000), costs the same as the cost of a Ring of Invisibility multiplied by 1.5 (20,000*1.5=30,000) and not Ring of Invisibility plus half of the original ring (20,000+8,000/2=24,000).

/cevah

The PRD disagrees with you.

PRD

Adding New Abilities wrote:

Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.

The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.

If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.

This example shows that adding Invisibility (20,000) to a Ring of Protection +2 (8,000), costs the same as the cost of a Ring of Invisibility multiplied by 1.5 (20,000*1.5=30,000) and not Ring of Invisibility plus half of the original ring (20,000+8,000/2=24,000).

Which is interesting. There will be cases where the cost of adding the new ability is more than the cost of just making a new item with both: Price of adding invisibility to a Ring of Protection +1 = 20K*1.5 = 30K

But yes, in general you're right. Added abilities cost more if you add them in the wrong order. This doesn't effect the base sale price, since anyone appraising the item will be paying based on utility not cost of manufacture and anyone making things to sell will be doing so in the more efficient order.

The PRD disagrees with you.

...
For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.

Interesting. When reading that previously I'd assumed it was referencing the same condition as the table, but (as you note) the example works out differently.

At which point we really have two possibilities;
1: The table and accompanying text are referring only to the cost of multiple abilities at item creation time (most expensive at cost and all others at 1.5x cost) and the rule for adding to an existing item is different (+1.5x cost of new powers).
2: The rules are self-contradictory in some way.

I think #1 is considerably more likely. XD

Many GMs house rule this so players get to recalculate the costs as if they were starting afresh. This might lead to a misunderstanding that this is how the rules are actually written.

The PRD disagrees with you.

PRD

Adding New Abilities wrote:

Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.

The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.

If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.

This example shows that adding Invisibility (20,000) to a Ring of Protection +2 (8,000), costs the same as the cost of a Ring of Invisibility multiplied by 1.5 (20,000*1.5=30,000) and not Ring of Invisibility plus half of the original ring (20,000+8,000/2=24,000).

/cevah

I am having trouble following your math. They way the rule is written is that in your example when adding invisibility to the +2 protection would be a total cost of 38,000. 8,000 for the original ring, plus 20,000 X 1.5.

Doing it from scratch all at once would cost 20,000 + 8000x1.5 = 32,000

Cevah wrote:

The PRD disagrees with you.

PRD

Adding New Abilities wrote:

Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.

The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.

If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.

This example shows that adding Invisibility (20,000) to a Ring of Protection +2 (8,000), costs the same as the cost of a Ring of Invisibility multiplied by 1.5 (20,000*1.5=30,000) and not Ring of Invisibility plus half of the original ring (20,000+8,000/2=24,000).

/cevah

I am having trouble following your math. They way the rule is written is that in your example when adding invisibility to the +2 protection would be a total cost of 38,000. 8,000 for the original ring, plus 20,000 X 1.5.

Doing it from scratch all at once would cost 20,000 + 8000x1.5 = 32,000

He's only giving the cost for adding the Invisibility. Which is, according to this approach, the base cost for Invisibility x 1.5 = 30K, not the cost of item if made normally (20K + 8K x 1.5 = 32K) minus the cost of the existing +2 ring (8K) for a total of 24K to upgrade.

Which is why I suggested the cheaper approach, starting with a +2 Ring of Protection would be to sell it (for 4K) and commission a +2 ring of Invisible Protection (costs 32K for a net 28K).

Gotcha that makes sense.

I guess this is all the more reason to set up a magic item merchant shop in your local metropolis. Then you can sell your old ring for 8,000 and get your shiny new ring with added abilities for 24,000. But then the next step would just be to employ a magic item mage sweat shop and then you could get the ring at cost and sell the old ring at full value and then you get the shiny new ring for only 8,000... I suppose you would have to factor in the cost of labor/salary for your sweat shop mages...

Gotcha that makes sense.

I guess this is all the more reason to set up a magic item merchant shop in your local metropolis. Then you can sell your old ring for 8,000 and get your shiny new ring with added abilities for 24,000. But then the next step would just be to employ a magic item mage sweat shop and then you could get the ring at cost and sell the old ring at full value and then you get the shiny new ring for only 8,000... I suppose you would have to factor in the cost of labor/salary for your sweat shop mages...

Which conveniently would work out to you selling the gear you found to your store at half cost and being able to buy gear from it at full price. Or thereabouts.

Because free money is game breaking.

Which conveniently would work out to you selling the gear you found to your store at half cost and being able to buy gear from it at full price. Or thereabouts.

Because free money is game breaking.

And because most of us really aren't looking for a rousing game of 'Expenses and Exemptions'

thejeff wrote:

Which conveniently would work out to you selling the gear you found to your store at half cost and being able to buy gear from it at full price. Or thereabouts.

Because free money is game breaking.

And because most of us really aren't looking for a rousing game of 'Expenses and Exemptions'

You might be surprised try searching "Acquisitions Incorporated".

The selling your items for half is only assuming you are selling to a retailer who has to make a profit. Or that you are selling on Pathfinder Craigslist "For sale" and so not at full retail. But if you are a character have a full retail shop, and you sell the item it sells for full retail. You would also have to calculate all the expenses of the shop via I think Ultimate Campaign? I could have the book wrong... but at any case, yes you can sell at full retail under certain circumstances. Which obviously would have to be okay-ed by the GM seeing they would have to precipitate the signing of a shop lease or construction of said building etc etc.

Dave Justus wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Which conveniently would work out to you selling the gear you found to your store at half cost and being able to buy gear from it at full price. Or thereabouts.

Because free money is game breaking.

And because most of us really aren't looking for a rousing game of 'Expenses and Exemptions'

You might be surprised try searching "Acquisitions Incorporated".

The selling your items for half is only assuming you are selling to a retailer who has to make a profit. Or that you are selling on Pathfinder Craigslist "For sale" and so not at full retail. But if you are a character have a full retail shop, and you sell the item it sells for full retail. You would also have to calculate all the expenses of the shop via I think Ultimate Campaign? I could have the book wrong... but at any case, yes you can sell at full retail under certain circumstances. Which obviously would have to be okay-ed by the GM seeing they would have to precipitate the signing of a shop lease or construction of said building etc etc.

The other thing I would do, if I was interested in handling such things in game would be to say, "Sure, you can put that up in your store on sale for full price. I'll let you know when it sells." Which might be days or weeks or months. Until then, you get nothing for it.

Or you can sell it to a merchant right now for half price and he'll take the rest as profit when it eventually sells.

Since you're likely to keep on adventuring and go up some levels and find a ton more loot before it sells, you're very likely to be better off taking the half now. 4K now is worth much more than 8K later. Not only won't you have any of the cash for gear to keep you alive now, but by the time you do get it, the 8K is likely to be a smaller fraction of your WBL than 4K is now.

Or if I'm feeling really passive aggressively anti-'Expenses and Exemptions' - make a Profession (shopkeeper) roll. That determines your income, by RAW. That's how the RAW handles all the expenses and overhead and other nonsense of running a business.

Again that's why I say it would have to be GM okay-ed. A passive aggressive pissed off GM can ruin any good idea. I personally would welcome the depth of flavor/game-play of a PC taking on an entrepreneurial endeavour.

If it is something your character wanted as an adventurer then the chances of it not selling would be next to zero. Some other adventurer will snap it up. If it is a randomly generated magical item that came out of a chest in a dungeon, and is more or less useless or not that useful then it might sit on a shelf and collect dust. At that point it would make sense to unload it on another merchant for half the value.

Again that's why I say it would have to be GM okay-ed. A passive aggressive pissed off GM can ruin any good idea. I personally would welcome the depth of flavor/game-play of a PC taking on an entrepreneurial endeavour.

If it is something your character wanted as an adventurer then the chances of it not selling would be next to zero. Some other adventurer will snap it up. If it is a randomly generated magical item that came out of a chest in a dungeon, and is more or less useless or not that useful then it might sit on a shelf and collect dust. At that point it would make sense to unload it on another merchant for half the value.

Depends on how many other adventurers of roughly your level are in the area.

I generally tend towards adventurers being pretty rare, rather than being a standard job description.

Think of it as a justification for the basic rules assumption of "Sell for half price, buy for full", always and anywhere without any regard for supply and demand, which is ludicrous on the face of it.

But we're far off the original topic.

Many GMs house rule this so players get to recalculate the costs as if they were starting afresh. This might lead to a misunderstanding that this is how the rules are actually written.

Actually, many GMs look at the 3.X table, not the 3.x text, which is faithfully copied into PF. The table has a footnote indicating lesser effects have the premium, while the text has the later effects.

In 3 different FAQs, PF has indicated text takes precedence over tables.

/cevah