Dracorage's page

I recommend the Guild 2 for anyone looking for an economic simulation game. It is a computer game, gosh, can you imagine trying to write and run a robust economic simulation game by hand?

My only problem with the system will be occasionally checking treasure and rewards in published products to ensure that a gp reward/item value wasn't labelled as sp by accident.

Yes, you're right with this. A roleplay game cannot have a realistic economy system (and be fun). Just some pseudo-realism. :)

What I mean is that the buying power of the everday people is drastically increased if you reduce the prices of valuable items and leave the middle income as it was. The longsword is, as I said, just an example. It's not about the worker really buying the longsword, it's about the relative worth of his income. When the prices of valuable items, like weapons, armor or elixiers, drop significally but the income stays the same, the relative worth of the income rises. In this case (from 1e to 2e) by about the factor 10 - 15! And I don't think that was intended by Paizo.

Dracorage wrote:

Rysky wrote:

A worker and a Hireling are two different things.

Earn Income in the beginning of the Skills section would be closer to the standard worker, which for a level 0 aka a Commoner, would be 5cp a day.

Okay, now I get your point. Although I don't see what an unskilled hireling would do different than the worker. And/or why he gets double the money.

Either way, the income of 5 cp a day only means that four (instead of two) months of work are equivalent to a longsword. Still missing the proportion. I think, Paizo forgot to change the income numbers. Just my two coppers. :)

1) the double part is if you drag someone along on a adventure, which brings with it a high rate of mortality.

2) An unskilled hireling would be “hey kid, wanna earn some coin real quick? Can you take this package to this location?” You ordering pizza from a pizzeria does not make the pizza makers Hirelings.

3) what does longswords have to do with anything?

1) No, I mean, why does an unskilled hireling (1 sp/day) would earn twice as much as a worker (5 cp/day).

2) I know what hiring means. I just don't see what makes the income double just by being hired. Unskilled people mostly will be hired, else they will earn nothing.

3) Making clear the missing proportion by example. Either Paizo wanted to change the system from gold to silver standard. Then they should not only reduce the price of a standard valuable item (the longsword) but also the middle income of everyday people. Or they wanted to dump prices of valuable items so that the longsword is no more equivalent to 150 days of unskilled work but equivalent to 10 (or 20) days of unskilled work.

A worker and a Hireling are two different things.

Earn Income in the beginning of the Skills section would be closer to the standard worker, which for a level 0 aka a Commoner, would be 5cp a day.

Okay, now I get your point. Although I don't see what an unskilled hireling would do different than the worker. And/or why he gets double the money.

Either way, the income of 5 cp a day only means that four (instead of two) months of work are equivalent to a longsword. Still missing the proportion. I think, Paizo forgot to change the income numbers. Just my two coppers. :)

The adventurer will typically only accept above average workers, or the adventurers may exhibit an aura or danger that the weaker workers will not approach, or they will expect more pay. Additionally, some of the pay might be going directly to a guild, not to their pocket. Alternately some of it may be going to other work related expenses, as opposed to living expenses, such as tools, tool maintenance, and other items tied to amount of time worked, not time lived.

Lets be honest however, any spare money left-over is probably going to paying to feed their children (and potentially elders) until their children can start working at an untrained level to help cut back their cost.

Creative explanations, I have to admit. :) But that may only solve the problem of too rich workers. Still I have to pay for 10 days unskilled work as much as for a weapon. I think this is disproportinate.

That adventurers have to pay that much more, because they are adventurers, doesn't convince me. And for the least, rules don't say so. Rules say, price is doubled for going on adventures. But why should the baker want more for baking bread? No danger with that. A higher skilled baker for the adventurer? Come on. :)

Dracorage wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Hireling is not an average citizen, they're someone hired by an Adventurer.

The baker who works at his bakery everyday is not a Hireling.

Untrained hirelings in 1e:

Well there's your issue.

Hirelings in 2e:

Hirelings wrote:

Paid laborers can provide services for you. Unskilled hirelings can perform simple manual labor and are untrained at most skills. Skilled hirelings have expert proficiency in a particular skill. Hirelings are level 0. If a skill check is needed, an untrained hireling has a +0 modifier, while a skilled hireling has a +4 modifier in their area of expertise and +0 for other skill checks. Hirelings’ rates double if they’re going adventuring with you.

I don't get the issue. What's the difference for you between e.g. a porter in 1e and soneone who can perform simple manual labor (2e)?

Hireling is not an average citizen, they're someone hired by an Adventurer.

The baker who works at his bakery everyday is not a Hireling.

Untrained hirelings in 1e:

"Examples of untrained hirelings include a town crier, general laborer, maid, mourner, porter, or other menial worker."

Trained:

"The amount shown is the typical daily wage for mercenary warriors, masons, craftsmen, cooks, scribes, teamsters, and other trained hirelings."

Talking about realism: Sure it seems to be a bit more towards that, but Paizo missed to change a central point - the income of unskilled and skilled workers. An unskilled hireling still earns 1 sp a day. So ten days of (unskilled!) work is worth a longsword, two months a chain mail. I know the worker couldn't buy these because of his costs, but that's not the point. A skilled one earns still 15 gp a month. After a year of comfortable living (minus 4 gp) he's a rich man.

Viewed from the base point of income the new money system is broken.

Has anyone looked at the specialists so far? I think some of them really struggle because of heightening issues and not enough spell variety obsoleting their early bonus spells or making them just kind of suck.

I am surprised the Conjurer gets so well off! Perhaps just in comparison to the others? I just worked through some signature spells from 1e. Web got heavily nerfed, even a success is not really a... success. What is -10 ft to speed good for? Stinking cloud got also hit hard. I mean, the ongoing sickness after leaving the cloud deserved to be banned. But there is no real sickness any more. Just a ridiculous -1 on a failure. And last but not least, tiny hut is gone. But that wasn't meant to be the combat spell it was always used as, right? :)

I have to say the reason I avoided arcane casters in PF1 was in part- once you are out of spell slots, you are a bad crossbowman (or woman, etc.) Between "cantrips scale respectably" and you can rely on your focus powers 1-3 times per fight, I don't mind that spell slots are individually weaker.

And this brings us back to my original post.

I think you can say yes to my question part B. On his superb spells of 1e the wizard got nerfed. But he received good substitutes, meaningful cantrips (which are perhaps a misnomer now) and more versatility with focus spells and arcane thesis.

I hope, I can convince my player. :)

Dracorage wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Dracorage wrote:

So all in all: As a player playing a mid-level wizard, why should I bother switching from 1e to 2e?

Well, what's your goal here?

Is it to be the most powerful character you can? If so, you definitely shouldn't switch.

Is it to not have the other players feel left out or feel forced to play casters because you are, too? Maybe you should.

Is it to have a clearer and more consistent rules system where you can build your character more easily without worrying about as many fiddly bits? Again, switching may be in your future.

Is it to have better non-spell options in general, allowing you to better solve problems without using magic? Again, PF2 may be for you.

But really, as PossibleCabbage notes, switching systems mid-campaign for any reason is usually not a great plan. Rather than actually switching if the above apply, think about doing PF2 for your next game rather than switching mid-stream.

I admit, I didn't elaborate on the reason for my asking, apologies.

I'm the GM and I'd like to switch, and I have to switch mid-game (if anytime), cause we are playing a year-long campaign which presumably will go on (forever?) many years.

My concern is that my wizard player will be unhappy about the nerfed spells. He definitely is not the always-wanna-win guy, but I can understand if he'd say, why should I switch when all I get is a nerf for my favourite spells.

Hence my question.

To say, the rest of the group will have more fun, is a good point (of view).

What level are they right now ? Because an option might be to try out an ad hoc game with the new rules to see how they like it? But there isn’t going to be high level published stuff for a while - although maybe there will be variable tier PFS stuff that goes relatively high. But my guess would be 7 at most?

Good guess, they are at 6th level.

Yes, might be an option. But our sessions are so rare. But you can't help with that. :)

The fundamental framing of that question is really bizarre.

That aside, PF2 wizards are more fun unless your primary source of enjoyment is just winning.

Framing was not intended, just asking a question. And what's bizarre with that? No offense meant, I am not a native speaker and maybe I an missing a (semantic?) point here.

Dracorage wrote:

So all in all: As a player playing a mid-level wizard, why should I bother switching from 1e to 2e?

Well, what's your goal here?

Is it to be the most powerful character you can? If so, you definitely shouldn't switch.

Is it to not have the other players feel left out or feel forced to play casters because you are, too? Maybe you should.

Is it to have a clearer and more consistent rules system where you can build your character more easily without worrying about as many fiddly bits? Again, switching may be in your future.

Is it to have better non-spell options in general, allowing you to better solve problems without using magic? Again, PF2 may be for you.

But really, as PossibleCabbage notes, switching systems mid-campaign for any reason is usually not a great plan. Rather than actually switching if the above apply, think about doing PF2 for your next game rather than switching mid-stream.

I admit, I didn't elaborate on the reason for my asking, apologies.

I'm the GM and I'd like to switch, and I have to switch mid-game (if anytime), cause we are playing a year-long campaign which presumably will go on (forever?) many years.

My concern is that my wizard player will be unhappy about the nerfed spells. He definitely is not the always-wanna-win guy, but I can understand if he'd say, why should I switch when all I get is a nerf for my favourite spells.

Hence my question.

To say, the rest of the group will have more fun, is a good point (of view).

So all in all: As a player playing a mid-level wizard, why should I bother switching from 1e to 2e?

My BFC spells get (heavily) nerfed. What's in for me? The best things in 2e (in general opinion), the 3-action-system and the versatility in character advancement, are they any good in the light of the nerf? Isn't the new action system more a benefit for the fighting classes? And my character advancement was already fine because of the nice BFC spells I could aquire.

If you look at some lower level spells like web, stinking cloud, summon monster one could come to the point that wizard got nerfed. But is that true? Or is it like they got capped at their top-most abilities (read: spells) but got more options at the "bottom" like battle-useful cantrips, including shield?