Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

A gold piece doesn't buy what it used to


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

1 to 50 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I have heard an argument from some that there are too many gold pieces in Pathfinder. Supposedly you can get closer to a realistic medieval economy by changing the rarity of gold and platinum coins.

The fix is to make 100 coppers equal to a silver, 100 silver to a gold, and 100 gold to platinum.

What does everybody else think?

Sczarni

Due to Pathfinder rules, it is the ratio of 10 to 1. But one could argue that small towns may not have an adequate amount of gold or platinum coins available making it to where you may be stuck with several hundred or thousand silver coins

The Exchange

The anachronism of platinum coins* always bothered me, so I switched many years ago to a silver standard. I kept it on the decimal system, though, because my experiments with alternate money systems in my early years of GMing convinced me that while players love the flavor, they hate having to figure out exchange rates.

So while I understand where you're going with this, I really only advise bumping coins one step up on the value chart and bringing in iron, brass or something similar to replace "copper pieces" as the ballast of all treasure-piles.

* Yes, I know, platinum is infinitely more realistic than titans or elementals. But sometimes it's the little things that bother us.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

The "realistic" medieval economy was typically about 15 units of silver to one of gold, if by "realistic" you mean "the economy of western Europe between 1000 and 1500." The value was reversed in medieval Japan -- silver was actually more valuable than gold, to the point where the Japanese would trade three gold for one silver with Portuguese traders.

Originally, D&D had twenty silvers to a gold, but the 10:1 ratio is much easier to work with for the actual players of the game.

So, first, a 100:1 ratio between silver and gold is not attested anywhere in history that I can find. Second, so what? How does the 10:1 ratio mess up your game?

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fun Fact of the Day: a humble dagger +2 is worth over 166 pounds of gold!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Fun Fact of the Day: a humble dagger +2 is worth over 166 pounds of gold!

Although that's a function as much of the unrealistic size of the gold piece as it is of the value of gold. A Roman solidus was about 4.5 grams, about the weight of a US quarter (a fairly large coin) and still only half the weight of a gold piece. If a gold piece were comparable to a US dime, there would be something like 200 to a pound.


I think it's best to just consider the gold and values an abstraction, because if you don't, things get really darn crazy (not to mention how rigid that makes the system for settings where large quantities of money are not available; such as, say, pre-historic setting).


Simple enough to resolve, Grisham's Law.

To put it more simply for those who never learned Grisham's Law, a +2 dagger is not worth 166 pounds of gold but instead is worth 166 pounds of coins. These nominally gold coins might be, in metal terms, mostly lead with a significant amount of copper, more than enough tin to be worth mentioning, probably enough silver to worth smelting the coins down, with just a smattering of enough gold so that calling them gold coins doesn't force the gods to act.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

I think it's just easier to use tha current system and assume that this :http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0122.html happens quite a bit to adventurers.

The Exchange

cnetarian wrote:
...These nominally gold coins might be, in metal terms, mostly lead with a significant amount of copper, more than enough tin to be worth mentioning, probably enough silver to worth smelting the coins down, with just a smattering of enough gold so that calling them gold coins doesn't force the gods to act.

I always tell my players that electrum coins suddenly stopped being valuable after one clever rogue (a PC, no doubt) discovered that the average merchant, acid test or divination spell could not tell an electrum piece that was 50% gold and 50% silver from one that was, say, only 25% gold and 75% silver. One almost-honest counterfeiting operation and one market-flooding later, the kingdoms of the world gave up on electrum.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
The value was reversed in medieval Japan -- silver was actually more valuable than gold, to the point where the Japanese would trade three gold for one silver with Portuguese traders.

While this was true for a short period of time, in actuality, Japan was a rice based economy, coinage was only used for trade with foreigners, with some of the lower based coinage for small purchases. Japan also had paper money endorsed by the Shogunate. The rice guilds served as Japan's banking system, and they determined the value of money.

One of the reasons for the closure of the borders to Japan, was that too much gold was leaving the state.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I for one like it this way as my kids learned it very fast. Coppers are penneys, silver are dimes and gold are dollars.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.

There's that, too. Why should the money system in-game be more complicated than it is out-of-game? Even Britain eventually gave up on "Look, it's very simple: twenty cp to the sp, twelve sp to the gp, but thirteen sp to the pp, and an ep is half of a pp, which makes it six sp and ten cp. Not counting ha'pennies, florins or groats."

(Another reason to get rid of platinum: the acronym 'pp' tends to cause uncontrollable snickering amongst the youngest of our fellow-gamers.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Tom Lehrer explains the decimal money system. video link

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've always played by the "Rule of Silver system" presented in 3.5 and I believe was reprinted in the core rulebook aka most of the game worlds run on and do business in silver. I don't change prices or anything I just change how I approach things like loot and culture with silver and copper being the $1s and $5s of the universe and what most people spend.

What gets fun is when players start to say encounters hoards of loot, bandit stashes, or banks. They effectively find the amount of loot they wanted (lets say 1000 gp) but you've got 10 times the number of coins they now have to haul and handle. I also like how it always seems to add more weight and verisimilitude especially once they start buying mwk and magic items and start to realize this thing, this item probably costs more than most of the people they save make in 20 years or would take an ox loaded to the brim with saddlebags to carry the loot to pay for it.

Hell I actually just did that to my party where they sold off a bunch of gear they picked up in a recent dungeon, rolled d%, and told them 86% of that money is in silver. They literally spent half the session spending or investing the silver (and copper) so that they didn't have to haul it with them on their caravan. Was very eye opening for them, they felt like they made a killing for their efforts (almost too much lol), and felt a bit richer than their civilian neighbors and started to get the distinction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I opened a thread on a different RPG forum site about this topic, but with a different angle. I wanted to copper and silver pieces to feel like they mattered again.

It seems that after level 1, the significance of copper and silver pieces drops to almost nil.

Making the ratios 100/1 is a fun idea. What I want to do next time I start up a game is to add another currency tier: bronze pieces.
The closest in-game equivalency to the US dollar is a copper piece as far as commoners are concerned, so it made sense to me to add one lower tier.

As a means to keep things from getting too far away from the book's prices, but keeping alive the idea of making copper and silver matter a bit more (thus making gold and platinum more exciting), I want to try shifting down all costs by 1 tier. IE If the book says this sword costs 10 gold, it now costs 10 silver. If the book says this oil costs 10 silver, it now costs 10 copper.

This simple fix shifts silver into more prominence (for a while a least) and makes finding gold much more fun.

Meh, just an idea. ¯\(º_o)/¯

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lincoln Hills wrote:

There's that, too. Why should the money system in-game be more complicated than it is out-of-game? Even Britain eventually gave up on "Look, it's very simple: twenty cp to the sp, twelve sp to the gp, but thirteen sp to the pp, and an ep is half of a pp, which makes it six sp and ten cp. Not counting ha'pennies, florins or groats."

(Another reason to get rid of platinum: the acronym 'pp' tends to cause uncontrollable snickering amongst the youngest of our fellow-gamers.)

That's twenty pennies to the shilling, twelve shillings to a pound, but what was thirteen pounds?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
How does the 10:1 ratio mess up your game?

I think he's referring to the amount of gold passed around, not exchange rates. For instance, a +2 weapon costing a man's weight in gold. If you assume a cp-based economy and change to a 100x system, then items require 100 times less gold to buy, at the cost of making all your books harder to read.

For some people, that makes a world where all the important characters are walking around with magic gear more believable.

Personally, I think the decimal system is easier to work with and I can suspend my disbelief over large values of coins, by assuming platinum is often used instead. That 'man's weight in gold' is only 16 pounds of platinum, which easily fits in the palm of your hand. Gemstones would be even better.

And I think that if 'amount of gold' bothers you, an easier answer is to just change all the 'gp' costs in books to 'sp' or 'cp' costs, rather than messing with how many places the decimals moves.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, that's essentially what my "silver standard" amounted to. ('bp' replaced 'cp' as lowest rung on the totem pole. In some kingdoms it's a brass coin, in others a bronze; that's the beauty of the taciturn 'b'.)

Ross Byers wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
...Even Britain eventually gave up on "Look, it's very simple: twenty cp to the sp, twelve sp to the gp, but thirteen sp to the pp, and an ep is half of a pp, which makes it six sp and ten cp...
That's twenty pennies to the shilling, twelve shillings to a pound, but what was thirteen pounds?

Did I get it reversed? Is it twelve cp to the sp, twenty sp to the - aagh! I can't go through that again! I was referring to the half-crown. Isn't it worth 50% of a guinea, which is a pound and a shilling?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lincoln Hills wrote:

Did I get it reversed? Is it twelve cp to the sp, twenty sp to the - aagh! I can't go through that again! I was referring to the half-crown. Isn't it worth 50% of a guinea, which is a pound and a shilling?

You did.

A shilling was 12d.
A pound was 20s.
A guinea was 1L, 1s or twenty-one shillings (the pound was for the professional, the shilling was a tip for his clerk).

A crown was 5 shillings or a quarter of a pound. The half-crown was half a crown, or 2 shillings and sixpence.

A florin was two shillings.

The coin worth half a guinea was called, unimaginatively, a half-guinea, and it was worth 10/6.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:

Did I get it reversed? Is it twelve cp to the sp, twenty sp to the - aagh! I can't go through that again! I was referring to the half-crown. Isn't it worth 50% of a guinea, which is a pound and a shilling?

You did.

A shilling was 12d.
A pound was 20s.
A guinea was 1L, 1s or twenty-one shillings (the pound was for the professional, the shilling was a tip for his clerk).

A crown was 5 shillings or a quarter of a pound. The half-crown was half a crown, or 2 shillings and sixpence.

A florin was two shillings.

The coin worth half a guinea was called, unimaginatively, a half-guinea, and it was worth 10/6.

I think I am officially lost... this is why I like the Yen... its simple... you have Yen... that is it. No quarters, nickles, dimes, pounds, shillings, whatever. Or bitcoin... I do like bitcoin (I personally have 10 bit coins! Hell yeaz!)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:

Did I get it reversed? Is it twelve cp to the sp, twenty sp to the - aagh! I can't go through that again! I was referring to the half-crown. Isn't it worth 50% of a guinea, which is a pound and a shilling?

You did.

A shilling was 12d.
A pound was 20s.
A guinea was 1L, 1s or twenty-one shillings (the pound was for the professional, the shilling was a tip for his clerk).

A crown was 5 shillings or a quarter of a pound. The half-crown was half a crown, or 2 shillings and sixpence.

A florin was two shillings.

The coin worth half a guinea was called, unimaginatively, a half-guinea, and it was worth 10/6.

I think I am officially lost...

You're not the first to make that observation. That's why HMG got rid of this nonsense in 1970 or thereabouts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:

Did I get it reversed? Is it twelve cp to the sp, twenty sp to the - aagh! I can't go through that again! I was referring to the half-crown. Isn't it worth 50% of a guinea, which is a pound and a shilling?

You did.

A shilling was 12d.
A pound was 20s.
A guinea was 1L, 1s or twenty-one shillings (the pound was for the professional, the shilling was a tip for his clerk).

A crown was 5 shillings or a quarter of a pound. The half-crown was half a crown, or 2 shillings and sixpence.

A florin was two shillings.

The coin worth half a guinea was called, unimaginatively, a half-guinea, and it was worth 10/6.

I think I am officially lost... this is why I like the Yen... its simple... you have Yen... that is it. No quarters, nickles, dimes, pounds, shillings, whatever. Or bitcoin... I do like bitcoin (I personally have 10 bit coins! Hell yeaz!)

It's perfectly simple and easy to figure out, it was only foreigners who had problems with the math, just be born in the first half of the 20th century in England. I cannot figure out why Orfamay forgot to mention the farthing (I think it went away in the 1950s), which was 4 to the pence, and the groat (went away when Victoria was queen), which was 4 pence, and the associated coins like the third farthing. I suppose the groat can get a little confusing since it includes the Irish groat (3d) or the Scottish groat (1s8d) as they were both legal coinage, but it really is quite simple.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
cnetarian wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:


I think I am officially lost... this is why I like the Yen... its simple... you have Yen... that is it. No quarters, nickles, dimes, pounds, shillings, whatever. Or bitcoin... I do like bitcoin (I personally have 10 bit coins! Hell yeaz!)

It's perfectly simple and easy to figure out, it was only foreigners who had problems with the math, just be born in the first half of the 20th century in England.

I agree. I think that's why they got rid of it. In the aftermath of the various world wars, when Europe needed to buy stuff to rebuild its economy, the merchants would go to the English:

* "Oh, certainly, we can sell you those. That will be two costermongers and one octopence the dozen, or eighteen guildmarks the score."

versus the Yanks:

* "Yeah, we got 'em. A dollar each."

It was cheaper to buy from the Americans than to hire the accountants to figure out how much the British goods actually cost.


Or you could do like Dark Sun, where the coins were ceramic chips with their own assigned values based on stamps/glazes applied, or anything else, prices are written in gp because its an easy baseline, and gold is shiny


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:


* "Oh, certainly, we can sell you those. That will be two costermongers and one octopence the dozen, or eighteen guildmarks the score."

I was trying to avoid the mark since people seem to be having problems with understanding the coins that existed. There was never a mark coin or note, a mark was 160d but that was simply a value which made it easier to keep track of accounts, and I repeat the mark was never issued as a coin.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:

Did I get it reversed?...

You did.

[Numismatic summary followed]

Blimey.

Considering that most of my knowledge of pre-decimalized British currency comes from P.G. Wodehouse, I think I did rather well. But I appreciate this info, Orfamay; it'll be useful. (One of my gaming circle recently started running Victoriana, and believe me, you haven't seen British culture truly misunderstood until you see a bunch of Americans play Victoriana.)

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
The coin worth half a guinea was called, unimaginatively, a half-guinea, and it was worth 10/6.

And then you have the sovereign, which was a pound coin and thus often just mean 'pound' in speech, unless you meant the actual coin, since it was a gold coin of a fixed weight and thus was usually worth more than a pound in the value of the gold (like the $5/20/50 coins the US mint currently issues, that are actually worth hundreds of dollars as bullion).

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
It was cheaper to buy from the Americans than to hire the accountants to figure out how much the British goods actually cost.

It's kind of telling that both Canada and Australia switched to dollars before they gained independence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

let's see, 12 coppers to the silver, 20 silvers to the gold. That could work...

In my own setting, it works like this

10 coppers to the silver
10 silvers to the gold
10 platinums to the gold (if anyone bothered to mint platinum coins, which they don't)
6 golds to the adamantine (nobody mints adamantine coins either, because apparently they can rust)
10 golds to the mithral (it's shiny and shelf-stable like gold, and it's waaay easier to work than platinum)


Reminds me that a not-terribly-popular MMO (Minions of Mirth) used the 100:1 ratio.

They also started with tin.

100 tin to 1 copper
100 copper to 1 silver
100 silver to 1 gold
100 gold to 1 platinum

The game also auto-coverted coins upward (or down) as necessary and didn't count for encumbrance and was tied to your account (regardless of which character(s) you were playing as).


Ross Byers wrote:
It's kind of telling that both Canada and Australia switched to dollars before they gained independence.

Yet for a while there was 120 cents to a dollar (a holdover from the 12 pennies to a shilling rate), leading to the french-canadian expression "quatre trente-sous pour une piastre" implying that a quarter was worth 30 cents. Even today, people refer to a single 25 cent coin as "un trente-sous" now and then...

IIRC, Rolemaster also had the 100 silver to 1 gold exchange rate as well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I kind of like the 240 copper to 20 silver to 1 gold rate. I find it "exotically immersing". Kind of like the "league" and the "yard", or the "mile" and the "foot" (no offense to my American friends, but money is pretty much the only metric system you've adopted. Imperial weight, volume and distance measures are just as arcane as the old imperial pound money system).

I do find it a bit sad that copper and silver exist in the game universe with so few actual use in game play. Adopting the 12 copper to 1 silver, 20 silver to 1 gold could - assuming that market prices are adjusted appropriately - increase the value of silver.

On the other, other hand, the relatively low value of gold allows for treasures with astonishingly large quantities of gold pieces, which is more satisfying than "this little pouch of gold coins is worth more than all your magic items combined!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A friend of mine is an older gentleman originally from England.

He insisted that the "12 pence to a shilling" thing was much easier to transact with at a place like a market stall selling vegetables, or loaves of bread, or whatever, because you can split a shilling into an even number of pence five ways: 12, 6, 4, 3, 2.

In decimal, you can only split three ways: 10, 5, 2.

That means you can sell you wares at, say, two for a shilling. One costs sixpence.

Or, 3/s. One costs 4d.
Or, 4/s. One costs 3d.
Or, 6/s. One costs 2d.
Or a dozen/s, which is a penny each.

This utility kind of goes out the window once a penny doesn't buy very much.

But the bewildering array of pre-decimalization British coinage is part of the joke that J.K. Rowling slipped in about wizard money in the Harry Potter series. ("Simple! It's 29 Knuts to a Sickle, and 17 Sickles to a Galleon! See, easy!")

I was in England this past April, and I was struck by the bewildering array of coinage still in use! (Eight different coins in circulation: 1p, 2p, 5p, 10p, 20p, 50p, 1£, 2£).

But back to gaming...

I tried the old English "silver standard" a couple of campaigns ago, where all prices shifted down one coin value. (gp became silver shillings; sp became copper pence; prices in cp became 2/farthing)

4 farthings = 1 copper penny (Note: a farthing was literally a penny chopped into quarters)
12 pence = 1 silver shilling
20 shillings = 1 gold ducat
50 ducats = 1 platinum sovereign

There were three other coins in circulation: the sixpence coin, an oversized copper coin; the crown, an electrum coin worth 10 shillings; and the half-crown, an oversized silver coin worth 5 shillings and sixpence.

Ducats, crowns, shillings, and pence were the size of a modern American dime. 150 of such coins weighed a pound. Sixpence and half-crowns were the size of a modern American quarter. 80 of such coins weighed a pound. Platinum sovereigns were two inches across. 10 weighed a pound.

(Sovereigns weren't normally used in regular transactions. They were normally used by nobles or other rich people to pay large debts to each other.)

This was kind of fun in theory, but we ended up spending way too much time tracking this crap. I ended up just switching back to the decimal silver standard for that campaign.

For my current campaign, I'm using standard coinage (which I'm still calling "ducats, shillings, and pence"). I've also decided to keep the smaller coin size: 150 coins weigh a pound.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Haladir wrote:
He insisted that the "12 pence to a shilling" thing was much easier to transact with at a place like a market stall selling vegetables, or loaves of bread, or whatever, because you can split a shilling into an even number of pence five ways: 12, 6, 4, 3, 2.

I recall reading an article written by a biochemist talking about how 'English measurements' are better for the kitchen because it's easier to double, halve, or otherwise split a recipe, for much the same reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:


I recall reading an article written by a biochemist talking about how 'English measurements' are better for the kitchen because it's easier to double, halve, or otherwise split a recipe, for much the same reasons.

I'm not entirely sure I buy that. Most kitchen measurements are powers of two -- two cups is a pint, two pints is a quart, four quarts are a gallon. It's not that much harder to double 250 ml to 500ml than to double two cups to a pint.

The main advantage of the 12d shilling is that you can divide by 3, which is something you can't do with pints and quarts.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, yes. If the Sumerians had been able to push 'base 12' more strongly, the whole world would enjoy a happier relationship with mathematics. Except those parts of the world who had to divide anything into fifths. But everybody else would point at them and laugh.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:


I recall reading an article written by a biochemist talking about how 'English measurements' are better for the kitchen because it's easier to double, halve, or otherwise split a recipe, for much the same reasons.

I'm not entirely sure I buy that. Most kitchen measurements are powers of two -- two cups is a pint, two pints is a quart, four quarts are a gallon. It's not that much harder to double 250 ml to 500ml than to double two cups to a pint.

The main advantage of the 12d shilling is that you can divide by 3, which is something you can't do with pints and quarts.

Original source


Ross Byers wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:


I recall reading an article written by a biochemist talking about how 'English measurements' are better for the kitchen because it's easier to double, halve, or otherwise split a recipe, for much the same reasons.

I'm not entirely sure I buy that. Most kitchen measurements are powers of two -- two cups is a pint, two pints is a quart, four quarts are a gallon. It's not that much harder to double 250 ml to 500ml than to double two cups to a pint.

The main advantage of the 12d shilling is that you can divide by 3, which is something you can't do with pints and quarts.

Original source

I'm sorry, I must not have been clear.

I believed the article existed. I just thought the guy who wrote it was an idiot.

Now, having read the article, I find that belief confirmed. He's writing about how easy it is to divide pints by two, suggesting that by comparison he has difficulty in dividing milliliters by two. That's not exactly the mark of a rocket scientist. And he talks about how important it is to divide length by three, ignoring the fact that in the kitchen, you never need to measure or divide length -- and you can't divide a pint by three any more easily than you can a meter.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:


I recall reading an article written by a biochemist talking about how 'English measurements' are better for the kitchen because it's easier to double, halve, or otherwise split a recipe, for much the same reasons.

I'm not entirely sure I buy that. Most kitchen measurements are powers of two -- two cups is a pint, two pints is a quart, four quarts are a gallon. It's not that much harder to double 250 ml to 500ml than to double two cups to a pint.

The main advantage of the 12d shilling is that you can divide by 3, which is something you can't do with pints and quarts.

Erg, go just below tablespoons (two to the ounce) and get to the level of teaspoons which are 3 to the tablespoon. 1/3rd of pint (1 pint=2 cups=16oz=32tbl=96tsp) is in fact 32 teaspoons,or if you prefer 5oz 2tsp. Back in the pre-metric days jokes were common about confusing tsp with tbl.


cnetarian wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:


I recall reading an article written by a biochemist talking about how 'English measurements' are better for the kitchen because it's easier to double, halve, or otherwise split a recipe, for much the same reasons.

I'm not entirely sure I buy that. Most kitchen measurements are powers of two -- two cups is a pint, two pints is a quart, four quarts are a gallon. It's not that much harder to double 250 ml to 500ml than to double two cups to a pint.

The main advantage of the 12d shilling is that you can divide by 3, which is something you can't do with pints and quarts.

Erg, go just below tablespoons (two to the ounce) and get to the level of teaspoons which are 3 to the tablespoon. 1/3rd of pint (1 pint=2 cups=16oz=32tbl=96tsp) is in fact 32 teaspoons,or if you prefer 5oz 2tsp. Back in the pre-metric days jokes were common about confusing tsp with tbl.

And this is supposed to be an improvement on dividing 500 ml by three how?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*Old man voice*: In myyy daaay one gold piece gotcha TWO +1 swords. With inflation n seech now I gotta carry a bag a gold just fer a CLW potion! Things were better and simpler then I tell ya!


MattR1986 wrote:
*Old man voice*: In myyy daaay one gold piece gotcha TWO +1 swords. With inflation n seech now I gotta carry a bag a gold just fer a CLW potion! Things were better and simpler then I tell ya!

Somehow I read that In Ol' Granny Smith's voice....


Orfamay Quest wrote:
cnetarian wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:


I recall reading an article written by a biochemist talking about how 'English measurements' are better for the kitchen because it's easier to double, halve, or otherwise split a recipe, for much the same reasons.

I'm not entirely sure I buy that. Most kitchen measurements are powers of two -- two cups is a pint, two pints is a quart, four quarts are a gallon. It's not that much harder to double 250 ml to 500ml than to double two cups to a pint.

The main advantage of the 12d shilling is that you can divide by 3, which is something you can't do with pints and quarts.

Erg, go just below tablespoons (two to the ounce) and get to the level of teaspoons which are 3 to the tablespoon. 1/3rd of pint (1 pint=2 cups=16oz=32tbl=96tsp) is in fact 32 teaspoons,or if you prefer 5oz 2tsp. Back in the pre-metric days jokes were common about confusing tsp with tbl.
And this is supposed to be an improvement on dividing 500 ml by three how?

I don't know if it's an improvement, but it is as easy as keeping track of British coinage pre-decmilization and doesn't require a .333333ml measuring spoon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
MattR1986 wrote:
*Old man voice*: In myyy daaay one gold piece gotcha TWO +1 swords. With inflation n seech now I gotta carry a bag a gold just fer a CLW potion! Things were better and simpler then I tell ya!
Somehow I read that In Ol' Granny Smith's voice....

Dangit, now you got me reading it her voice


Graywolf777 wrote:
I think it's just easier to use tha current system and assume that this :http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0122.html happens quite a bit to adventurers.

That's just awesome!

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
cnetarian wrote:
I don't know if it's an improvement, but it is as easy as keeping track of British coinage pre-decmilization and doesn't require a .333333ml measuring spoon.

I'd let you borrow my one-third-of-a-nanoliter measuring spoon, but I lost it the other day when I sneezed.

Wait, how did we get onto this? Weren't we talking about rates of exchange or something? How many francs to a peso?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
MattR1986 wrote:
*Old man voice*: In myyy daaay one gold piece gotcha TWO +1 swords. With inflation n seech now I gotta carry a bag a gold just fer a CLW potion! Things were better and simpler then I tell ya!
Somehow I read that In Ol' Granny Smith's voice....

I was reading it as Deckard Cain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
cnetarian wrote:
I don't know if it's an improvement, but it is as easy as keeping track of British coinage pre-decmilization and doesn't require a .333333ml measuring spoon.

I'd let you borrow my one-third-of-a-nanoliter measuring spoon, but I lost it the other day when I sneezed.

Wait, how did we get onto this? Weren't we talking about rates of exchange or something? How many francs to a peso?

1 Swiss Franc to 48.93 Philippine Peso.


DeathMvp wrote:
I for one like it this way as my kids learned it very fast. Coppers are penneys, silver are dimes and gold are dollars.

It certainly is the fast way for younger children to compare it to something they know and understand.

Off course in game 'reality' a copper piece is actually a dollar/euro.
A silver piece 10 dollar/euro and a gold 100 dollar/euro.
Realise that a bread for 1 or 2 coppers is indeed the normal price for bread.
The other prices of items actually correlate with that analogy as well.

1 to 50 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / A gold piece doesn't buy what it used to All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.