|Tiny Coffee Golem|
Matthew Downie wrote:However, if you were playing a Kingmaker-style campaign with years of downtime, and one of your players attempted to use the spell in a way that would by RAW give him an income of 500,000gp a year, you would probably want to either house-rule the spell or house-rule the economy.
Actually, I'd do neither - I'd tell the player to simply not do that, and if he persisted in trying I'd kick him out of the game. Here's why: The economy in pathfinder is sufficiently broken that simply changing the fabricate spell would be a band-aid fix at best. Doubtless the player would find some other spell or rule to exploit in order to make unlimited money. It's simply not worth the effort changing/fixing every spell, rule, guideline, and system in order to prevent a player from exploiting the loopholes in the game.
Regarding the fabricate spell, in the context in which we're discussing spells here, I remain unconvinced. It still seems to me the arguments for its brokenness are being constructed by selectively choosing which real-world/'logical' actions/principles to apply in order to make their case.
I'd let the player but i'd cap what he actually makes to whatever is says in the kingmaker handbook the kingdom generates. Basically instead of farming or whatever you make a suit of adamantine every X months. If you make more there's no one to buy it. The end result is that you have the same amount as the other players, but can roleplay being a raging alcoholic as he spends his copious free time drinking at the local tavern.