moosher12's page

65 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Earn Income could be a good avenue, but a full downtime activity feels too long to be worth it with how cheap even a week of rations is. I might go with that, with a reduced cost for a 2 hour campfire activity over an 8 hour downtime activity.

Unfortunately, I don't think the Subsist option will work for my group.In this case, for example, my players felled an owlbear and 3 boars. Someone making a subsist on that check, without the Forager feat, as no one in the party has it, will mean that all of that mass, could only produce 4 days of rations, not even enough to feed our 6 man party for a day. I think you can see where that would not work so well.

breithauptclan wrote:

How long do you want the process of butchering and such to take?

If it is a task that will take a day or two, use Earn Income to process dead carcass into gp worth of rations.

If it is a task that will take less than a day, use Subsist with some sort of benefit for having meat readily available. Perhaps just remove the -5 penalty for spending less than 8 hours on the activity.

I'm thinking of making it the equivalent of a camping activity, so 2 hours. Might not be the most realistic for an actual dressing, but figured it'd be a fine spot for players to feel a benefit and have fun with it.

I wanted to allow my players to extract rations from the animals they fought in Kingmaker to gather meat-based rations to add extra benefit. I'm curious what systems other GM's have used for this sort of thing. So far I am considering giving a certain amount of rations appropriate to the size of the animal, with a Trained Survival check, probably appropriate to the Animal's DC by Level.

My appreciation for any advice.

The Raven Black wrote:
Interestingly, the description of the playtest Animist's spellcasting doe not mention material at all, not even to replace it. It mentions incantations and gestures. Way it is written, those seem to be the usual spell components for any Remastered caster.

I was reading the document specifically to infer whether such item components would be kept. Unfortunately, classes that don't replace material components with another component won't even mention needing such a material, like a wizard won't mention needing a material component pouch. This makes it hard to infer from the animist whether these will be kept or not.

Guess I'll have to wait for the Remaster book to see. But I am curious whether items such as material component pouches, religious symbols, and instruments will no longer be an essential part of spellcasting, (Personally, I think with the direction of the remaster, I rather like the idea of such items no longer being necessary, and doing something like playing an instrument or presenting a symbol could just be a prop to add to the characterization, but no longer actually necessary. I just wish I had an indication of whether that's where they are going with it or not).

Is there any word about whether Wizards will still be requiring Material Component Pouches?

I will add, that I think abstracting ammunition should be an optional rule, rather than a hard rule. While it's not for every table, it is for some. As some like a slightly more simulationist bend. Personally, my table is fine using ammunition, but we play on Roll20, so much of the bookkeeping is easy to keep track of.

Otherwise I agree with most of these points.

I should also stress this is not a perfect expression, but some permutation I believe would be ideal, allowing for a wide range of ranged weapons between Pathfinder and Starfinder.

I am under the assumption that a scattergun uses a removable box magazine, and is reloaded with with 1 action, using a saiga 12 as an example, as opposed to using a built-in pipe magazine such as in a typical pump shotgun.

I would like to propose a notation to apply to both Pathfinder 2E Remastered (for when guns and gears content are eventually brought back), and Starfinder 2E.

I'd like to propose modifying the Reload Entry between Pathfinder and Starfinder. Perhaps using terminology like, Reload 1/Capacity, or adding a "/X" to the reload if it reloads more than 1 piece of ammunition at a time, say Reload 1/4 to refill the commercial scattergun. And for other analog weapons that use loading clips, you could even do something like Reload 1/4 on a weapon with a capacity of 8, where each reload half-fills the weapon.

Additionally, I think for compatibility reasons, the Pathfinder Capacity Weapon Trait should be renamed. (In personal opinion, removed in favor of Starfinder's Capacity Weapon Trait would be preferable to me, as spending an interact action to cycle to the next ammunition piece feels like it defeats the purpose of having a capacity weapon in Pathfinder when it might consume the same action as a reload).

The only problem I see with the excuse of "writing around flight" is that it works better for homebrew campaigns, but is not as applicable for premade adventures, adventure paths, society scenarios, etc.

Like, it can be done, but it defeats the purpose of wanting to use premade works if you are going to be applying heavy mods each time.

I hear it often, make the enemy prepare, but when you want to keep a sense of verisimilitude, that's easier said than done. And some groups won't have enough time to adapt before they are eliminated. So the solution is to either make the enemy more competent and clever than the story intends them to be, to let the enemy always have the perfect composition that coincidentally counters flight, or to outright have to change certain maps to a different, more restricted version, instead of using the original map. Some groups being prepared for specific things is just not thematic, and making them so can risk losing suspension of disbelief.

JiCi wrote:

So we'll have ibuxis, which are lizardfolks... but not awakened lizards??? This is gonna get confusing XD Are catfolks and shoonies gonna be turned into awakened animals as well?

How is it gonna work?

Think the context for awakened animals is they'll lack the cultural context as their more established counterparts. An Amurrun has Garundi culture associated with it, but an awakened cat would not, and would be reliant on it's creator's culture to establish itself. A kitsune would be a transforming mystical creature with a Tian culture association, where an awakened fox would not. Kind of like dealing with a planar scion. Any societies of them would be relatively small, and closely tied to the context of the individuals who raised them. A druid could raise a troop of bears to act as guards, and foxes to act as scouting agents, and they might follow a culture tied to the druid, whereas a wizard doing the same with the same two species, might have a completely different culture.

A Disney's Robin Hood inspired character might, for example, be more appropriate with an awakened animal than with a kitsune. As the kitsune involves transformation into a human, something that character might never use, and would be tied into Tian culture, whereas the other would likely skew Taldan.

Truthfully I was writing up a 3rd party book for "The Awakened" which was essentially this concept (Guess I gotta scrap it now). And frankly the approach above was how I was planning on approaching it.

Glad to see the Awakened Animal. Had plenty of players who wanted to play an anthromorphs. I take it the Anthropomorphic Animal spell will be coming back as a ritual alongside awaken animal? Or will awaken animal add the ability to make the animal anthromorphic?

QuidEst wrote:
Those will still be types of magic, but now they won't be tied down to those seven schools. Gluttony can focus on gluttony, rather than shoe-horning in irrelevant parts of necromancy.

I suppose that makes sense. Thank you for the answer.

What is the plan in regards to Sin Magic and Runelords, as it is thematically closely tied to 7 of the 8 schools.

Lastly, if you want a GM to give you a full-powered monster race. I'd recommend asking your GM to give you a monster template from one of the bestiaries or the book of the dead at the cost of the monster's appropriate template level.

Ghoul for example boosts a creature's level by 1, so you could have them home rule to say that you could sacrifice one class level, and replace it with a full-powered ghoul

I'd consider it a better balanced solution than just boosting the dedication's effects to full power.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
If anything, a bigger concern I have with the whole concept is that Level 1 characters can't be Undead PCs, they need to have leveled up first and then consequently be killed and raised as Undead or something.

This is false. The Book of the Dead has a provision that states that you can be Undead from level 1, but you must pre-dedicate your 2nd-Level Class Feat (or 2nd-Level archetype feat if you are using a free archetype system) to taking the dedication. You gain the benefits of the dedication from the start.

I should also add. according to the Book of the Dead, page 45, it is possible to start as a ghoul from level 1, and say you were killed by a ghoul before the story started. You'll get the benefits of the dedication right away, by promising you'll dedicate your Level 2 class feat to it (Or 1st Archetype Feat if you are using the Free Archetype system).

If your GM automatically allows Uncommon and Rare entries, this would be the least disruptive approach.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Uncommon and Rare traits usually mean that attaining the entry is not automatically granted, because the entry is either are A) potentially disruptive to certain campaigns or tables, or B) something that requires enough conditions to be met that you need a GM to work with you on it. It basically is a check to make sure a GM has a moment to allow or deny the entry before it is put to a character sheet. (My players know, for example, that they have to run any Uncommon, rare, or unique entries by me before taking them, but I also give them the comfort that most of the time I'll say yes, unless it looks unreasonable in this instance).

As for becoming a ghoul, I'd probably say your best bet is to tell the GM that you plan to become a ghoul, and they can try to worm a ghoul-related mini encounter for you into the adventure path.

This is the sort of thing that can be easily wedged into downtime. Ghouls are intelligent, and can probably attempt illusory magics or the like to hunt in a settlement whatever settlement you're in (They don't just have to be their default statblock). You could have a brief encounter where a character is ambushed by ghouls, gets bit, defeats them, and succumbs to ghoul fever before the local cleric finds him. This doesn't even need to be a tactical encounter worth XP. It can just be a footnote of a downtime activity, if the GM is willing to make it so.

NielsenE wrote:

I wound say that neither Discovery or Influence are Recall Knowledge actions. They are their own thing, which doesn't seem to use another base-named action. I would consider them trained only.

In the Kingmaker case you're talking about, at least for the opening feast, the characters should be able to spread out and pick who they interact with. PCs should know the person's name, rough description, and the list of discovery skills before deciding who to spend a Discovery/Influence check on.

Good advice. I was planning on giving them the name and description from the start, and letting them pick who to discover/influence. In my case, I was preparing what check they'd want to make ahead of time since I have their sheets, to save time in the actual game.

Think I'll consider noting the Discovery skills as well to the players with your point.

RexAliquid wrote:

You can try the Lore skills untrained, but does it make sense for the characters to take that approach? Are none of them charismatic?

Not everyone has to talk with the same person at once either. It probably makes more sense to split up a bit while mingling.

I see. I probably should clarify that while PC's can choose the skill they want to use to influence, they use whichever skill the GM picks for them to Discover. Which I am assuming means to use whichever is the most efficient that they have available to.

So I am trying to figure whether I should let them use an untrained Lore to Discover when it would be a raw INT check.

So I am revving up to use the Influence system for the first time in Kingmaker. And I hit the first "What the" moment when I was plotting which Discover checks I should assign each PC to influence Amiri, for example. I noticed that her Warfare DC was low enough, that it was most efficient for everyone to use Warfare, even if untrained.

The Lore entry in the Core Rulebook says that Lore can be used untrained to Recall Knowledge. I technically don't think it counts as a Recall Knowledge, but I am not sure.

I am not sure how to approach this, and was curious if I am supposed to let them use untrained Warfare to influence Amiri, or if only trained Lore skills apply to the Influence subsystem.

VampByDay wrote:
5) New Doctrine: Also, only having two subclasses seems weak for the Cleric, especially when every other class that has subclasses has at least 3. I’ve seen a lot of people begging for a scaled fist doctrine, and I can ge behind that. Have the warpriest’s holy symbol provide the same benefits as the dragon disciple’s ‘scales of the dragon,’ and have them treat their favored weapon as if it was unarmed strike . . . and you are off to the races.

I think a shaman doctrine to give a cleric an occultist spin might be interesting.

moosher12 wrote:

While that would make sense, for consistency, why don't class kit's have a discount?

The Adventurer's pack seems to be an exception among kits in this regard.

If the intent was for kits to have a discount, you'd think class kits would have similar discounts.

Though at the very least, there is still the precedent of Climbing Kits costing the price of rope.

Dancing Wind wrote:

It is a common business practice to sell a fixed set of items for a slightly lower amount than buying them individually.

Or [failed my will save] buying them in Bulk.

So you get a discount for buying the set "Adventurer's Pack". If you start removing and substituting items, it costs more.

Or, as you have said, the difference between prix fixe and a la carte

While that would make sense, for consistency, why don't class kit's have a discount?

The Adventurer's pack seems to be an exception among kits in this regard.

If the intent was for kits to have a discount, you'd think class kits would have similar discounts.

Alright folks. I did some math. I found proof that 1 week's rations is 1 Light Bulk for the set.

A an Adventurer's Pack costs 1.5 sp, and weighs 1 Bulk.

An Adventurer's Pack contains 1 Backpack, 1 Bedroll, 10 Chalk, 1 Flint and Steel, 1 Rope, 2 week's Rations, 1 Soap, 5 Torches, and 1 Waterskin.

The total stats of the items are as follows.

Cost | Bulk | Item
1 sp | 0 Bulk | Backpack
0.2 sp | 1 Light Bulk | Bedroll
0.1 sp | 0 Bulk | Chalk (10)
0.5 sp | 0 Bulk | Flint and Steel
8 sp | 2 Light Bulk | Rations (2 weeks)
5 sp | 1 Light Bulk | Rope
0.2 sp | 0 Bulk | Soap
0.5 sp | 5 Light Bulk | Torches (5)
0.5 sp | 1 Light Bulk | Waterskin
Total | |
16 sp | 1 Bulk | Adventurer's Pack (a la carte)
15 sp | 1 Bulk | Adventurer's Pack (pack Price)

So yes, indisputably, 1 week's rations is Light Bulk for the set. The math works out.

Still, I would suggest reducing the Price of rations to 3.5 sp per week's rations, to make the Cost of an adventurer's pack equivalent, as doing so would reduce the cost of 2 week's rations to 7 sp, and therefore make the contents of the adventurer's pack equal to the adventurer's pack.

Players alike would be able to top off their weekly ration supply instead of buying a whole extra week's rations if they wished to, or they can just buy the week's rations as normal.

Minor Edit: Darn, ascii graphs don't translate well in this website. Oh well.

Themetricsystem wrote:
I know it would have taken more room for each piece of equipment to put in print but I really think the system could have very much benefitted from instead using a Diablo/RE4 style attache case equipment management system instead with a baseline number of squares arranged in a square plus a whole extra sheet for your equipment.

Very loosely related, but you'd probably like Backpack Hero.

graystone wrote:
Actually, now that I look over the section in question, I'll have to disagree: "Any item with a number after it in parentheses indicates that the item’s Price is for the indicated quantity, though the Bulk entry for such an item is the value for only one such item." Now, note the entry in question: "(1 week)" going by the entry, it states "the Bulk entry for such an item is the value for only one such item" and the entry is for a single item denoted by the 1. Now if it was instead listed as 7 days, then it'd be a different story.

Hm, now that you bring it up, that is a good point now that I think on it. Good find.

This is certainly enough to strongly sway me toward a potential possibility that 1 week is indeed 1 unit.

In that case, I'll use that definition for now, and retract the suggestion.

Dancing Wind wrote:

Great! You can do the detailed bookkeeping in your game any way you like.

But Paizo does not need to issue an Errata that makes the rules of the game more complicated for everyone else on the planet who plays Pathfidner.

You can homebrew any subsystem that you like. An errata that forces everyone else to play that way too is a bit much.

Again, to remind, the core suggestion is made under the assumption that Rations are Light Bulk per day. I've still yet to see an official source to confirm the intent. I've sourced the underlying rule multiple times in this thread. People in the earlier thread I also have sourced were convinced it might have been the same interpretation.

There is a possibility with reasonable supporting evidence that rules as intended, a week's rations are 7 Light Bulk and 4 sp.

The errata would not be forcing everyone to play in a way that is too much if everyone was potentially, unintentionally or not, home ruling it to be lighter than it is, as the bulk of the part is not equal to the bulk of the set. I wholeheartedly agree that under those conditions, daily ration costs would be needless.

If anything, I believe that the belief that a week's rations is 1 Light Bulk and 4 sp is a home rule based on an incorrect reading, perpetuated to the point of popular assumption (Like how people believed the OGL was share-alike, when in fact it is not, because people told them it was so, and the misconception perpetuated into popular assumption). But no matter how popular it is, if it's a home rule, it's still a home rule.

If a developer confirms the actual intent, and if 1 Light bulk and 4 sp is the real intention, I would retract my statements, as yes, dividing 1 Light bulk in to 7 partitions would result in a weight unit too small to need daily division. I wholeheartedly agree that under that condition, daily ration costs would be needless.

graystone wrote:
Arrows aren't listed on tables 6–9 and 6–10 so it's a non-issue for them. That and saying 1 week is for rations that last a week [vs 7 individual 1 day rations] makes more sense now that someone else mentioned it. It falls in line with entries like rope and chain where length is listed: we don't expect the listed bulk to be by the individual foot of length do we?

I would argue that rations less last a week, and more last 7 days, due to the fact Cost of Living is a separate purchase. I'd reason that if a character buys a week of Fine Standard of Living and a week of rations on the same day, they would not both expire seven days later, but when their respective days are spent. This is regardless of how Ration Bulk works.

For example, if a player on Sunday bought rations and a week of Fine Cost of Living, if they only spend 1 day in town, and 6 days traveling, I'd have them use 6 of their 7 days of rations, and 1 of their 7 days of Cost of Living, leaving the remaining for next week.

Granted, this might not be a vanilla intention, as the rules for Cost of Living don't specify these sorts of interractions, and rations simply do not have rules. I just don't feel it fair to charge my players for 7 days of food if they get less then 7 days out of the purchase. I'd at least want to put their remaining days forward to the next week.

Ferious Thune wrote:

Kind of a tangent, but does this mean that a quiver of 10 arrows is 1 Bulk, not L bulk? 8| That would actually be a pretty big change from how I generally see it played, which would impact a whole lot of characters.

Arrows say: Price 1 sp (price for 10); Bulk L

Honestly I was wondering the same thing. I ran in to the same problem when I started GMing. It looks like since it's not under the Adventuring Gear panel, the rule would not apply to it.

Honestly to be safe, I just made it a home rule that the Bulk of ammunition would aggregate to 10 Arrows is 1 Light Bulk for simplicity in my personal games. I think, and I would italicize 'think' if I could, that rules as intended ammunition is an exception, but I home ruled the clarification that way to be safe.

Thezzaruz wrote:
What is "lost" is that you'd be forcing everyone else to start tracking rations as a 1/day commodity instead of a 1/week commodity as it currently is. It would make it more granular to keep track of and kind of become a problem for the bulk system. And all for no reason.

I mean, you'd still have to track rations as a 1/day commodity anyway. A pack of rations is for a week of adventuring. So you have to keep track of 7 days of adventuring by vanilla anyway.

If 7 days go by, and you only are in the wilderness for 2 days, you've still got 5 days of rations left, vanilla or otherwise. If the rations are wasted on the 7th day, not only would that be a home rule, it'd be a waste of your character's money.

Unless your characters forego tavern food and eat nothing but hard tack and berries for breakfast, lunch and dinner during their town stay. Then by all means, let rations be the only metric.

But to your credit, my suggestion is assuming the definition that Rations weigh 1 L Bulk per day, rather than 1 L Bulk per week. I'd really love to see a Dev confirm which is true, as in the Core Rulebook on page 287, there is a rule that states that when a parenthesis states that an item comes in a set, the Price is for the set's quantity, but the Bulk is for individual partitions (For example, 5 sacks cost 1 cp, but collectively weigh 5 Light Bulk). As the parenthesis divided rations in to a set of 7 days, it would be easy to assume that this rule applies. But this rule seems to be contested, and I have not found a dev confirming one way or another.

This old thread is the only other one I could find discussing the topic.

If it is true that a week's rations is indeed 1 Bulk for all 7 days, then I would concede that partitioning rations in to individual days would not be needed. Though the Core Rulebook should probably have a * mark to clarify that. There is certainly room on the page, as that page has empty space.

Megistone wrote:

Just to be clear, I was seconding your suggestion.

I was also thinking, like graystone, that individual rations could be priced a little higher, with a discount being given when you buy 7 days of them; but it would be an isolated case in the rules, and your objection regarding VTTs is worth considering.

What Cordell Kintner says is also true: you can consider the pack of rations a single object, instead of a collection of 7 one-day rations.

But all in all, I think there is a little extra value in having things neatly divided, and nothing lost in making the change.

I thank you for and appreciate the clarification. My apologies, I misunderstood your post the first time around.

Dancing Wind wrote:

And, in any event, you're welcome to homebrew anything that doesn't fit your personal conception of what Golarion is like.

The rules allow an easy-to-calculate package of a week's worth of rations. The bulk works; the price works, the characters are able to accomplish all of their goals.

By the rules, it isn't any more complicated than that.

You can add as much complexity and simulation of the real world as you like in your game. No one will stop you. But it's unnecessary and the rules don't need to change so everyone else is playing by your view of How Things Ought To Be.

Not sure what to say. From the beginning, and I'll quote, I found it "Very minor in the grand scheme." My proposition was just something I found while adapting the system to roll20 that had surprisingly more convenient results than I initially expected.

Do I think it's how things "ought to be?" Not really. I just thought it seemed useful, and if you all thought it was useful, you all might make use of it. It was a suggestion, not a demand. Honestly I'm not sure why I bothered. Gonna close up here. I've said my pieces. If it's trash it's trash.

Cordell Kintner wrote:

Bulk in 2e is supposed to be abstract, because tracking weight in 1e sucked. Who cares that a week of rations is L bulk? In real life, a dagger probably weighs in under a pound, and a Greatsword could weigh in up to 40 lbs. A flask of oil is weightless, so technically you can carry as many as the GM will let you, yet 10 scrolls will weigh as much as a longsword.

The whole point of bulk is to stop nitpicking over the weight of things. So stop doing that please.

Fair, then moving away from Bulk, bare in mind the core purpose of this thread is not the Bulk, but the cost. I wanted to propose simplifying the cost to an easily divisible number (5 cp per day's ration). Because it made book keeping easier.

Cordell Kintner wrote:
Yet it's okay that 999 coins are weightless?

Agreed, that is an interesting simplification, but it tracks, especially since the only way anyone will bother to track it otherwise is if you're using a VTT. We often kept with the 0.02 pound per coin metric when using roll20.

At least it tracks. 1000 coins would be about 2 bulk, given the 0.02 estimate would place it at 20 pounds, probably reduced to one for the fact it will assume an orb to teardrop shape in storage.

Would not be surprised if they considered making 100 coins Light Bulk, but deciding against it for player-side simplicity.

Dancing Wind wrote:
moosher12 wrote:
I have a hard time believing that enough food to keep you minimally fed for 7 days is only light Bulk. I heavily doubt that that is Rules as Intended.

You may change your mind after watching this video

Surviving on REAL D&D Rations for 3 Days

I did some research.

Core Rulebook pg.272, Estimating an Item's Bulk.

As a general rule, an item that weighs 5 to 10 pounds is 1 Bulk, an item weighing less than a few ounces is negligible, and anything in between is light.

If we assume that a week's worth of rations is Light Bulk, that means that you are surviving 7 days off of less than 5 pounds of food.

If we assume that a week's worth of rations is 7 Light Bulk, and if we use the Pathfinder 1E and D&D interpretation that a day's ration is 1 pound, then that would make 7 Light Bulk more sensible than 1 Light Bulk.

Cordell Kintner wrote:

1 week of rations isn't a quantity, it's how long the rations last. It doesn't say 4sp (7 rations), it is just describing how long 4sp of rations would last.

Rations are just hardtack and some nuts and jerky, things that won't go bad on the road. It's not a lot of food, just enough to keep you going. If you wanted some real food you would forage, or buy some at an inn or something.

While that is a valid point, and even with the fact Paizo makes some heavy simplifications, I have a hard time believing that enough food to keep you minimally fed for 7 days is only light Bulk. Pathfinder 1E would have classified the same as 7 pounds. And the definition that I use would assume that a day's ration is 7 Light Bulk.

Under Core Rulebook pg. 272, "As a general rule, an item that weighs 5 to 10 pounds is 1 Bulk," placing rations under this assumption in an appropriate range.

graystone wrote:
]Ok, that does seem right. I guess that's how much people care about rations as no one has ever mentioned I was doing wrong all these years.

To be fair, I agree it's a VERY easy rule to miss. I don't imagine many people think to actually read Gear Statistics, and assume the item will have everything that's needed in its entry. The Core Rulebook is a big book.

Honestly for item sets, they should probably modify Bulk to be something like "L Bulk per item", or something, "L Bulk per day" in the case of rations to make reading items less dependent on underlying rules.

breithauptclan wrote:
moosher12 wrote:
When most VTT's tally up the worth of what you're holding,

I don't have much experience with the character sheet tracking of VTTs. But aren't you able to override the price for the items for your own games?

Invoking the first rule would probably be easier than trying to convince random internet strangers or Paizo devs to change the price formally for everyone.

Additionally, originally I was just going to keep it a private home rule. The primary reason I suggested it was because I thought that the fact it made the a la carte cost of an adventurer's pack equal to the cost of an adventurer's pack would make it surprisingly more useful than it initially seemed.

And as I mentioned earlier. People at Paizo mentioned in streams that suggestions might be heard and used. I thought the rule would provide a minor convenience to a lot of people, so I wanted to bring it to attention. It's no main course, but it could definitely be a pleasant seasoning.

Even if it never becomes official, maybe some other GM's might find use in it for their own home rules.

breithauptclan wrote:
moosher12 wrote:
When most VTT's tally up the worth of what you're holding,

I don't have much experience with the character sheet tracking of VTTs. But aren't you able to override the price for the items for your own games?

Invoking the first rule would probably be easier than trying to convince random internet strangers or Paizo devs to change the price formally for everyone.

While this is true, it does not work for the VTT I use, roll20.

So, the mechanic is there to aggregate the cost, but it also aggregates the weight.

So roll20's sheet will treat 7 rations as costing 4 gp, and weighing 1 L

When by the game's rules, 7 week's rations should cost 4 gp, and weigh 7 L. See my post above for the source.

I did put a request in the roll20 Paizo sheet maker to fix the problem, but until then, switching the stacking of rations to 1, and letting it weigh 1 L, and cost 3.5 cp was my easiest fix.

graystone wrote:

Ah... the rules say Rations

Item 0
Source Core Rulebook pg. 288, errata 4.0
Price 4 sp (1 week)
Hands 1; Bulk L

1 week is L bulk, not L/ration: the entry isn't called ration after all.

No, 1 week is 7 L Bulk.

Core Rulebook pg. 287, Gear Statistics

Tables 6–9 and 6–10 list Price and Bulk entries for a wide variety of gear. Any item with a number after it in parentheses indicates that the item’s Price is for the indicated quantity, though the Bulk entry for such an item is the value for only one such item.

graystone wrote:
I have to ask... How often do you find the need to buy individual days of rations vs just buying then by the week? I can't say that I've ever ran into a situation where I wanted/needed to by individual days of rations. Are your characters poor enough that you'd want less than a weeks food?

Also, running as a GM, I've had multiple sessions where the expected outing was only a day after much of the food was non-rationed food (food that was obtained either by cost of living expenses, or individually bought from eateries as a matter of roleplay.), and I've had players only wanting to stock up 1 or 2's days rations to basically be a "intended only for the trip," and when it's 1 Light Bulk per ration, can see the desire to keep it slim.

graystone wrote:
Nothing in the game suggests that individual rations actually cost 1/7th the price of a weeks worth of rations. If you want to make it easy, just say there is a slight upcharge for individual rations so you can buy bulk for 4sp/week or buy an individual for 6cp. That should solve things.

When most VTT's tally up the worth of what you're holding, I'd rather use a proportional cost for one primary reason: Sometimes math mistakes happen, and it's good to be able to sanity check and make sure you did things right. Changing the conditional price of objects based on the number of objects you buys makes it more complicated than it needs to be.

Tell me honestly? What sounds simpler for you. It's 4 sp as a set, or 4 sp and 2 cp if you buy it a la carte, or it's 3 sp and 5 cp, a la carte or as a set.

graystone wrote:
I have to ask... How often do you find the need to buy individual days of rations vs just buying then by the week? I can't say that I've ever ran into a situation where I wanted/needed to by individual days of rations. Are your characters poor enough that you'd want less than a weeks food?

I myself, and some fellow players, often just keep certain items at a neat level. Say, keeping rations at 10 or 20 at all times, and just topping it off to the target number whenever we get to town. Say you were traveling for 3 days, and wanna top off to 20 from 17, instead of buying 7 and going up to 24.

Megistone wrote:

Seconded. If it's so much non-important, why even give a price?

I'd be against no price. Most of the games I play in like a bit of pre-travel book-keeping and survival.

When I said non important, I meant the price change would not impact balance significantly, and the current model is only really 'broken' in the sense it's finnicky with VTT's and produces inconvenient repeating decimals when it comes to tracking rations on a more short-term time frame. These are minor inconveniences at worse, and Paizo has bigger fish to fry.

I find rations themselves an important element. And I don't see Paizo just waiving ration costs. Food is not free in Golarion, after all. On the bright side, if they did, then Golarion would have a lot less beggars.

Cordell Kintner wrote:

It doesn't matter. Most GMs don't even bother tracking your rations when you are making thousands of gold in un-needed loot.

When a healing potion costs 30 weeks of rations, why bother tracking rations?

As I said, very minor in the grand scheme. But the purpose of this post is it's such a small change, why not?

As for me, most games I've been a player in track rations. And my suggestion is a home rule I've been implementing and will continue to implement in games I'm a game master in regardless if a dev sees it.

Paizo is in a period where they are taking in some feedback in regards to the errata, so I thought I'd toss this small bit forward, especially when it's as simple as changing a single number.

Personally, I'm not holding my breath anyone of import actually saw the thread. But, it's not gonna be seen if never put up.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've noticed that if you make rations worth 3 sp, and 5 cp per week, they divide in to a clean 5 cp per day.

This allows for easy management of ration purchases on a more precise daily scale. A 4 sp per week ration supply does not easily divide, at 5.71... cp per day, making it difficult to log rations in VTT's on a daily level using the vanilla costs.

Additionally, when using this metric, all of the items in an adventurer's pack will add up to exactly 1 gp, and 5 sp, equal to the cost of the adventurer's pack itself (vanilla, the a la carte cost of an adventurer's pack is worth 1 gp and 6 sp). Which means that PC's who opt to remove items from their adventurer's pack can simply deduct the price from the adventurer's pack, as if buying the items individually.

Ultimately, this price change would be small to the point of having a negligible impact on balance, and provides for easier bookkeeping, gives more versatility in in-game shopping, and allows for easier customization of a starter kit.

I know Paizo is winding up for their new core rulebook, so I figured this might be worth putting out, even if it is very minor in the grand scheme.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nice find on the errata. Thank you. As well as for the charts. I was already composing similar charts for my own documents, but having a second set to tell me I did it right is good.

The Eldritch Archer does not add a cantrip if you are already a spellcaster, and the Beast Gunner gives you a bonus cantrip if you are already a spellcaster, and appear to utilize your existing spells for their respective abilities.

Are spellcasting classes eligible to gain the Basic, Expert, and Master Spellcasting Feats for the Eldritch Archer or the Beast Gunner? Or are these feats reserved for martial classes in this case?

My gut instinct intuits that it would be allowed, and the eldritch archer would be denied a cantrip, while the beast gunner would grant one cantrip to the original class's spell list, while either archetype would provide a separate spell list, not including a cantrip, of their respective tradition.

As an aside, I am also considering home ruling the Eldritch Archer to grant a bonus cantrip like the Beast Gunner.

Ascalaphus wrote:
I'll happily admit that the writing format for spellhearts is a bit obscure. But for both spellhearts and staves the format is pretty similar. A greater staff does its own thing plus all the things the base staff does. Same story for spellhearts. I don't really see how you can infer from how staves are written that greater spellhearts wouldn't have cantrips.

Ah, to clarify. Staves was supporting TOWARD having cantrips, not against. My apologies for being unclear.

What I meant was "Staves include what was before. That might support that spellhearts include the initial cantrip." but I felt the comparison was not strong enough to be completely sure.

Might decide to rule that it is included for my games in this case. RaW, it feels like a no, but RaI definitely feels like a yes.

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>