So, first off, HELLO AGAIN PAIZO FORUMS! :D
Second off, my posts have occasionally gotten people worked up a bit, not at me, but at what what other players have done that I ended up asking about (Not saying that this is the case here, but I never really know what will cause that XD). So, relax, chill, and read on. The players involved are my friends, and to date everything they've ever done is from ignorance or misunderstanding. Never maliciousness.
So, had an interesting conversation with a friend/player. He was lamenting that he couldn't afford an awesome amazing 100K+ weapon in a game we were in at our level.
Unless he were allowed to start a business in the game of course, because apparently you can make absurd amounts of money doing so.
I pointed out that we really didn't have downtime in that game, so, it really wouldn't work, he disagreed, but he seemed to drop it.
Fast forward to a game where that friend/player is the GM, and we have another player join, one who is a good friend of that GM, and has shown him ways to "break" pathfinder in the past (Last time being the Candle of "Hi, I'm Pun-Pun"). Lo and behold, he was allowed leadership (Previously banned, GM says it was always restricted, but no, it was effectively banned, you couldn't take it, it could only be given for story reasons (Such as becoming Mayor of a town, etc.)), and has turned his leadership into a Large Business.
Which kinda tells me where the original player got the "Make tons of money for awesome stuff" idea.
My concern, is that in the past, both friends have displayed a lack of understanding of pathfinders rules, frequently mistaking their homebrew from other games with actual rules (More one than the other), or making their own without a proper understanding of what our group has come to refer to as "Base Pathfinder rules" (Almost anything published by Paizo, mostly as a result of me saying, repeatedly, "Well, that may be how it is in your version of Pathfinder/DnD, but in the actual Base Pathfinder game it works [this way] for [this reason], and if it doesn't, then [list of balance problems] results.", thankfully my group values me for this, and doesn't find my tendency towards LAWR a problem).
Could be jumping at shadows on this one, but, rather know what I'm talking about ahead of time. I've arrived at this, by one person telling me he found a system in "Base Pathfinder" to make enough money to afford an amazing item, and in that person's game, someone who routinely shows him new "Creative uses of game mechanics" starts playing, using that supposed system.
If it ends up that his set-up is just a roleplaying prop. I will owe him an apology (And actually deliver it, wouldn't be the first time), and I officially will stop caring. I have no problem with him having leadership, or a merc troop. I'm only concerned about balance. Hell, playing a character in charge of a Merc troop sounds like it could be fun.
So:
1) Is there a good guide on using the business running (Alternate profession, also downtime rules) somewhere?
2) Does any of the following make sense to anyone, we're level 6, and we started with 33K gold.
Large Business 4 Managers 14k Month
467GP/Day
Leadership
Boon:None
Tactic:Standard
LB+5 Moral+2
Victory:0 Moral:0
It's some notes on his character sheet.
He's apparently making a mercenary company, and letting his followers/cohorts run it.
Heck, his character seems purpose built towards this goal.
3) Can you seriously make lots of money with this?
4) I don't really have any problem with a player making tons of money (Opposite really), I'm more concerned about the other players taking this to other games. We have several games going on at the same time, and any understanding, tactics, etc shown in one game, rapidly end up in another. Several of these games GM's frequently use me as a sounding board, and rely upon me for rules based questions (Severe blind leading the blind here...). Do you think this game system would cause balance issues?
----
Full Disclosure: I was originally going to make a Knowledge monkey/item creation wizard. I didn't want a combat role. GM made it a lot more difficult for me to do so, and still be valuable to the party... so I made a Blockbuster blaster wizard. After this other characters reveal, I asked, and received permission (Sorta) to to take leadership myself, and am taking on an apprentice. The Apprentice is not mine yet, it's a level 3 NPC, and I'll be taking care of him. The apprentice will specialize in item creation for the party. And I've spent almost as much time building his backstory and personality as I did my character (I do not have Leadership yet, as I must ear it storymode, unlike the other player). My intent isn't to game the system, I just recall how difficult item creation was in his game last time, and thought having it in the party would be helpful. My character has no items made by the apprentice, and I have not benefited from their feats.
I realize that this does potentially make me look the pot to his kettle. XD
But, I've never played a character who has had another character they're responsible for, and I'm going to have so much fun doing so! :D
It's entirely possible that the other player wants to do something similar and, as I mentioned above, if that's what he's up to (And not attempts at creating game mechanics advantages), more power to him! :D
If he does start making tons of money, I intend to make sure that he doesn't try to utilize the apprentice to start mass-producing magic items for him. The apprentice is there to help the party's utility and flexibility, as well as for role play, not to be a cog in a money making machine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which kinda tells me where the original player got the "Make tons of money for awesome stuff" idea....
<snip>
1) Is there a good guide on using the business running (Alternate profession, also downtime rules) somewhere?
The honest answer is: The player will make as much money as the GM says he can. There are rules, but the GM is responsible for arbitration and many decisions (such as stats of followers and cohort, amount of downtime etc), so the system will do... well, what the GM makes it do.
2) Does any of the following make sense to anyone, we're level 6, and we started with 33K gold.
That is 8th level wealth, by standard, so your characters are probably overgeared for their level. This isn't a problem unless the GM isn't also adjusting encounters, and probably using the slow advancement track. Or mandating suboptimal item choice (e.g. "no more than half on combat items").
Large Business 4 Managers 14k Month
467GP/DayLeadership
Boon:None
Tactic:Standard
LB+5 Moral+2
Victory:0 Moral:0
Leadership requires 7th level in Pathfinder.
That seems to be a mash of the alternate Profession rules and... something else: The APR don't mention Leadership, Boons, Tactics, Morale or Victory... those read more like things from Ultimate Campaign. Attempting to look at the APR rules, however:
- Assuming he has 6 (i.e. max) ranks in the skill, his 4 assistance (which allow him to spend 0% of his time running the business) would require a between 12 and 96 days to recruit - which I'm assuming has been hand-waved.
- A Large business with 6 ranks in the skill has a setup cost of 5000gp x Ranks = 30,000gp. i.e. All but 3,000gp of his wealth.
- A large business has a labor factor of -10 (due to min 10 employees), plus an additional -4 due to the four assistants. For a total of -14 to Profession checks to make profit.
- The listed 14,000gp/month indicates that (assuming the character takes-10) the character must have a +18 in Profession (something), thus after the LF of -14 is taken into account, the remaining +4 makes for a take-10 of 14.
- The above business will take 2 months to recoup its initial investment costs, but also cost 5000gp every time the PC gains a rank in the skill to upgrade the business.
- If the GM is willing to hand-wave large amounts of time to have happened prior to game start, the character could in theory have almost any amount of cash the GM wishes them to have. But this is no different to most characters that can argue background professions/noble titles/etc, especially those involved in magic item creation (especially if the GM permits Eberron material, as there are feats to drop the cost of magic item creation by up to 75%)
Or in fewer words: Either the business counts against the character's starting wealth, or the GM is handing out extra starting wealth to the character.
... to elaborate the above: The intent of the rules is that, regardless of character background they start with a certain amount of wealth at campaign start (33,000gp in your case), and everyone starts with the same. The business has a value and counts against the character's wealth - most PCs invest in magic items to help them in their actual vocation (adventuring), but if some wish to invest in business, that is also fine. But it should be a choice on the part of the player, and they shouldn't get to spend their starting wealth twice - much like PCs with magic item crafting feats should not get to double their magic item quota - because the starting wealth is starting wealth (as in final value, not what the PC paid for it).
My concern would be less with the wealth/day that the business generates - most campaigns I've seen struggle to go for more than a couple of months and even then, the wealth gain from adventuring massively dwarfs what his business will generate - and more with the question of whether the resulting "I spend all my wealth on a business and not gear" character can actually pull his weight in combat/adventuring. If they need to be carried, I'd argue a decreased share of the loot, as the character isn't actually worth an equal share (and has alternative income anyway).
But again: GM fiat rules all here.
In an extreme example: If he's (hypothetically) had the business for 10 years at campaign start, he could theoretically be a millionaire. But that would be grossly unfair, unbalance the game and render the attempt to run a campaign largely a wasted effort - it probably won't be enjoyable. So assuming your GM is sensible, he's likely a pauper besides his business.
I'm sorry, but any player that actually introduces Pun-Pun into a game is absolutely being malicious. I followed that thread when it was created, and even the creator and those that helped expand on it constantly warned against it's actual use. They stated repeatedly that it was a thought exercise and anyone who brought it into a game should effectively be strung up by their sensitive bits and left in agony.
If the player read through enough on how to get it to work, they read enough to know they shouldn't have done it, period.
The best way to make money with Ultimate Campaign's downtime rules is to build a ton of Magical Repositories, use them to get a bunch of Magic capital, craft magic items using your Magic capital and the Spark of Creation trait, and sell them. You make a profit of 30% of the magic item's market price every time you sell one.
But yeah, having more money than your WBL can cause balance issues, there's really no question about that.
Considering 100gp is practically $1,000 in Golarion I see nothing wrong with maybe giving them an extra 500gp every two weeks in game from their successful business. They are still vastly more wealthy than anyone else basically, but it certainly won't break their WBL.
In short, ignore the rules.
The Wealth By Level guideline exist for a reason.
Explain to your player that even if they are playing fantasy-world Tony Stark, their WBL is the maximum amount their character has access to while adventuring.
Resupplying periodically is fine. Breaking the game with excess wealth is not.
Tell the player he's successful. His character has a business and is quite rich, however, most of his assets are tied up in the business itself. The fact that he's rich is now a plot device.
The Wealth By Level guideline exist for a reason.
Explain to your player that even if they are playing fantasy-world Tony Stark, their WBL is the maximum amount their character has access to while adventuring.
Resupplying periodically is fine. Breaking the game with excess wealth is not.
Tell the player he's successful. His character has a business and is quite rich, however, most of his assets are tied up in the business itself. The fact that he's rich is now a plot device.
The OP isn't running this game, they are playing in it and another player has convinced the GM to allow it. The OP is asking where the rules are coming from.
Considering 100gp is practically $1,000 in Golarion I see nothing wrong with maybe giving them an extra 500gp every two weeks in game from their successful business. They are still vastly more wealthy than anyone else basically, but it certainly won't break their WBL.
In short, ignore the rules.
To echo Skylancer here: The OP is not the GM of that game, merely another player seeking advice regarding the legitimacy of the tactic for future games (to which the answer is: Not very, but a GM could be fooled into thinking otherwise).
That said, the suggestion of allowing the character to have a background business/title/extortion racket (or similar) to provide a moderate income is a good one (looking at the alternate business rules, they're not bad but a lenient GM stands a good chance of seeing the WBL utterly destroyed), but such a thing should come with a cost - and specifically a cost at the table. Such a cost could be a feat, monetary investment etc, but it should be something that impacts the character. The amount would depend on the character level, what the cost was and what the GM finds appropriate for the setting.
As a note on the Alternate Profession rules: I suggested they're ripe for abuse because they're based on static modifiers to try and balance against mechanics which can easily be optimized to render them trivial - it's the difference between Rules As Written and Rules As Intended.
As an example: A 6th level half-elf cleric has 16,000gp starting wealth and one rank in Profession (brewer). He invests in a masterwork Large business 6,125gp x 1 rank = 6,125gp, which has a Labor Factor of -10 and he brings on 4 assistants to free up his own time, at the cost of another -4 to profit checks.
In order to keep his brewery profitable, he puts his half-elf feat into Skill Focus (Profession [brewer]), ensures his Wisdom at character creation is 16 (5pts for 14, +2 racial), and puts another 4000gp into a Circlet of Wisdom +2, and (if allowed) buys the Ring of Aptitude +4 (Profession [brewer]) from the 3PP Loot for Less series (1,600gp), resulting in a final Profession (brewer) bonus of: 1 rank + 3 class skill + 4 Wisdom + 4 Ring + 2 masterwork - 14 labor factor = +0.
At first glance, that looks terrible. But then he rolls for an average of 10,500gp per month, or if permitted takes-10 for 10,000gp per month, repaying the cost of the business in under 3 weeks and earning him around 2500gp a week for zero further effort or cost on his part.
This character can still be a reasonably built character, and has another 4,275gp to spend on other items (magic arms & armor), so they won't suck at adventuring, and in any game where large amounts of downtime (or even simply time - the business requires none of his time, afterall), the investment can rapidly accrue to cause the character to be vastly more wealthy (and thus overgeared) than the system expects for his level.
This is, I'm reasonably sure, not what was intended with the system, but it is a way in which it can be used or abused for maximum gain vs minimum expenditure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately, the GM decides level of wealth...
I've never seen anything published that allows you to become rich without adventuring, that's WHY you adventure, right?
Unless you are running the game, there is nothing you can do about this.
If the GM allows for obscene wealth using whatever it is this guy has made, just copy it.
If you are all rich, none of you are rich... right? ;)
Having run Kingmaker, many of the PC's had businesses and organizations. The encounter chart from Ultimate Campaign helps to do it, or the GM can just talk to the player to not do the unbalancing thing.
If they refuse I would stop playing/running.
No gaming is better than bad/annoying gaming.
I've had my share of GMs running story-heavy campaigns in Pathfinder that tipped over into potential over-poweredness. Ironically, the less they focussed on game mechanics, the better they were at leaving an impression with players (they hadn't GMed since 2nd ed. D&D and weren't that much into grid combat and rules per se).
Having a stake in a company, in the OP's case, equals having a stake in the game world in general. The bigger the investment, the more your GM has you by the nuts.
This is a trick taken straight from Classical tragedy, increase height to make the crash the more memorable.
If you've read the Gentleman Bastards novels, the author basically starts out with that trick.
|
I'd say make sure you know your player's intent. I have a little bit of a reputation as a power-gamer among our home group, I suppose that is the role I fill. So, no surprise when the GM and other players were a bit wary when I wanted to make a business for our Kingmaker campaign.
After 2 years game time I have a functional mercenary company and am building a military academy to go with it. It is profitable, but I've so far spent all the profits on buying birthday presents for the other characters in the game each year and improving the business so I haven't made back my initial investment yet. I could probably hire some more teams, spam certain rooms, and really break things open, but I'd rather let the business grow naturally in game. So YMMV.
You are not the GM.
I'll say that again. You are not the GM.
If something in their game is making the game less fun for you, then sure talk to them about it, but don't try and force you view of the rules, no matter how correct you are and how many forum posters agree with you, on their game. It almost certainly won't improve either the game or your friendship.
If another characters wealth and special treatment, if their not following 'the rules' or anything else makes it so you can't have fun then either talk with the GM and group to try and resolve it or quit.
Wow, got lots of help.
First off Raynulf. You went above and beyond the call of duty with that one, and I appreciate it greatly. Wish I could do more than Favorite it. XD
As it is, through your help I did discover a discrepancy in that players information. He actually still had some decent gear, more than the 3K he would have had remaining. It was not something that I was looking for, but I did end up passing it along to the GM to arbitrate, along with the following.
Because of your help, and everyone else's in this thread, I was able to approach the GM with a degree of knowledge and discuss this with him, and share my fears. (Without sounding like a complete idiot)
The end result, as the GM explained it to me, is that the GM didn't really want to shower the party with loot like he did last game, and then end up having to take it away from the party when it got pretty bad balance wise.
He saw having a controllable flow of income (That the player apparently wants to re-invest into the party as a whole) as a preferred method to mounds of treasure. He's going over it to make sure everything is above board, and is going to address the player's accounting practices with him, in regards to the "Having more starting gold than he should" part.
Overall, it does looks like he's going to reinvest it into the party, so, yeah. Probably will be fine for this game, as Alex pointed out. :)
And the knowledge will help in other games when this spreads, since the other players in the game are just now starting to notice what he's up to. And now I'll be in a position to help explain whats going on to the other players, several of whom are getting a bit irritated. Thus continuing my role as party mediator. XD
Again, thank you all, I can't say it enough. :)
Skylancer, my reference was not complete. What happened was that the player told the GM about Candles of Invocation... and resulted in one of the more awkward forum threads I made on here. End result is that the GM had never heard of Pun Pun (Neither had I), but most likely the original player had. Aside from using candles to cast Gate, use Gate to bring forth a creature with Wish, Wish for more candles, and eventually loot/stat books/etc. He did nothing else Pun-Pun like. It was eventually taken care of. Both players are genuinely not malicious in intent, outcome may be a different matter. One routinely displays a desire to bend (If not break) the system in search of the most optimal builds, the other a desire to find new and clever ways to play. It was a bad mixture, and honestly, I probably shouldn't have brought it up. I was kinda stressed at the time (Unrelated work matter), and didn't edit appropriately, which doesn't excuse it. I apologize.
Dave, you're right of course. I have no intent of shoving "my" rules down any throats, or causing any problems in that manner, but I may end up doing so none the less. Outcomes care nothing for your intent.
My role in our group is generally to know the rules and system, so that when rule issues pop up, it's helpful to know what our various GM's are ruling on and the consequences to it, before you make a ruling. The Grapple system was all kiiiiinds of fun to explain. Thankfully we found a handy flow-chart, very helpful.
That said, I think you're also a little wrong. Not in what you said, but your read on this situation. This GM had a game run for over 2 years, and it died because 1 player was significantly more wealthy than the others and significantly more power than the others. He decided not to talk to that player, and even when that player offered to re-roll when he thought game-balance was being affected, he told the player to keep going, keep building their power and wealth, it was fine. Even while that party member was dishing out damage in the early thousands (Watch how you mix 3.5 and Pathfinder! Good lord! D: ), he encouraged the player to go further.
Then he used a magical EMP grenade to wipe out EVERYONE'S items. Effectively permanently. Because apparently balance had become an issue, and he saw no other way to fix it. The game died almost immediately, just 2 sessions before the final battle with the end boss for the entire campaign. This game that's started is an attempt at resurrecting the dead game, nearly a year after it died.
My concern is not rules. I trust the rules because they are made by experienced players/editers/etc, they are not perfect, but ignoring them is potentially dangerous. I have no problem when my GM homebrews, or rules counter to the established rules. And all of my friends know that if I ever go overboard, I want them to let me know. So far, we've had no problems of that kind.
My concern and desire is for everyone to have fun, and nothing else. That is, of course, what games are for. :)
Thank you Dave, its good to be reminded of that. I will be wary, and make sure that I don't ruin any one else's fun. It's the type of thing you may never notice, until you've already done it, at which point it's kind of too late.
Conman, that comment and your name, well frikking done. XD
Torbryne, BoSheck, geierkreisen (I copy pasted your name XD), KujakuDM, Doomed Hero, Heretek, Castilonium, you all had good points as well, as well as some tips I will keep in mind, warnings to heed, and ideas to pass on.
Again, thank you all, you answered my questions admirably, I consider the topic closed, and am unlikely to respond further. Thank you for your consideration of both me, and my friends.
(Though, I was disappointed by the lack of cowboys riding bombs, but hey, the thread title WAS too long. XD)
Then he used a magical EMP grenade to wipe out EVERYONE'S items. Effectively permanently. Because apparently balance had become an issue, and he saw no other way to fix it. The game died almost immediately, just 2 sessions before the final battle with the end boss for the entire campaign. This game that's started is an attempt at resurrecting the dead game, nearly a year after it died.
Wow. That part sounds like some scary bad GMing. I'd keep a close eye on the downtime rules for the run of this campaign.
First off Raynulf. You went above and beyond the call of duty with that one, and I appreciate it greatly. Wish I could do more than Favorite it. XD
Glad I could help :)
"Even while that party member was dishing out damage in the early thousands (Watch how you mix 3.5 and Pathfinder! Good lord!
I ran a "No Holds Barred" 3.5 game up from 4th to 16th level, with some heavy modification to some prestige classes. It got... interesting.
Between the lizardfolk Fighter/Barbarian/Totemist/Fist of the Forest (who had an AC over 70 by 12th level), the Fighter/Man-of-Will/War Hulk*, Psion/Thrallherd* and Stormdruid/Bonded Summoner*, they could reliably dish out over a thousand damage a round to a single target by 12th level, and the difference in survivability between the characters was rather profound. By this point though I had long since thrown away the monster manual.
Things could get a bit weird in 3.5.
Then he used a magical EMP grenade to wipe out EVERYONE'S items. Effectively permanently. Because apparently balance had become an issue, and he saw no other way to fix it. The game died almost immediately, just 2 sessions before the final battle with the end boss for the entire campaign. This game that's started is an attempt at resurrecting the dead game, nearly a year after it died.
Sounds like a blend of two issues: The GM liking to empower the PCs (understandable, I do to) and the GM not wanting to directly address the issue that was causing trouble, so hit everyone equally with the nerf bat so it would be 'fair'.
I could go on a rant about the "equal = fair" fallacy... but that's not the point.
The point is, that if he's aware of the problem he stands a better chance of being able to avoid making it again. Which is a good thing: The GM chair should be a learning experience.
|
|
If a player came to me in my game and said "my character wants to start a business in order to raise a stupid amount of money in order to acquire a crazy-expensive magic item" I would love that. There's enough adventure hooks and fodder for gameplay in that concept to last a good 20 sessions, and creating/acquiring his item would be the capstone of the entire campaign.
If a player came to me in my game and said "my character wants to start a business in order to raise a stupid amount of money in order to acquire a crazy-expensive magic item" I would love that. There's enough adventure hooks and fodder for gameplay in that concept to last a good 20 sessions, and creating/acquiring his item would be the capstone of the entire campaign.
I think the whole point is that it shouldn't take 20 sessions. The point is to aquire piles of cashy money quickly, so that the player can enjoy their 100kgp item long before it has to compete with several castings of Gate .
If a player came to me in my game and said "my character wants to start a business in order to raise a stupid amount of money in order to acquire a crazy-expensive magic item" I would love that. There's enough adventure hooks and fodder for gameplay in that concept to last a good 20 sessions, and creating/acquiring his item would be the capstone of the entire campaign.I think the whole point is that it shouldn't take 20 sessions. The point is to aquire piles of cashy money quickly, so that the player can enjoy their 100kgp item long before it has to compete with several castings of Gate .
This was the point (even if not clear at the time) of my earlier comment about "It will make as much as the GM says it does", and why these kinds of things can cause an imbalance in the game:
- Adventuring produces wealth/power based on the number of sessions.
- Businesses produce wealth/power based on the passage of in-game time.
Given that game sessions and in-game time are two separate and largely unrelated things, it can bork up the expected wealth/level quite dramatically in either direction unless the GM manages the passage of time reasonably carefully.
|
|
If a player came to me in my game and said "my character wants to start a business in order to raise a stupid amount of money in order to acquire a crazy-expensive magic item" I would love that. There's enough adventure hooks and fodder for gameplay in that concept to last a good 20 sessions, and creating/acquiring his item would be the capstone of the entire campaign.I think the whole point is that it shouldn't take 20 sessions. The point is to aquire piles of cashy money quickly, so that the player can enjoy their 100kgp item long before it has to compete with several castings of Gate .
Meh, I think my way is more fun for everyone involved. :)
Large Business 4 Managers 14k Month
467GP/DayLeadership
Boon:None
Tactic:Standard
LB+5 Moral+2
Victory:0 Moral:0
Just looked back at this again, and had a thought: Is the purpose of the Leadership feat to give him free employees?
If LB is referring to Leadership Bonus (i.e. Great Renown + Stronghold + Fairness and Generosity), and he has a positive Charisma modifier, he could theoretically have up to 12 employees, which using the above house rule would drop the -14 labor factor to a mere -2, requiring only a +6 in Profession (mercenary) for him to make the 14,000gp/month listed, which is a piece of cake to get with a mere 1 rank, which keeps the cost of the business extremely low (5,000gp).
If the GM has gone this route, there's a few things to consider:
- The Alternative Profession Rules do not work with Leadership like that, as published, and frankly that allows a feat to essentially give 12,000gp per month, which could be considered excessive.
- The Leadership feat says nothing about your followers working for you unpaid. They're loyal followers, not slaves, and either way they still need to eat.
- Given this is a mercenary company, where employees (i.e. followers) are almost certain to die from time to time, there is very likely to be a penalty to the leadership score soon, if not immediately.
- Assuming that a PC starts with both Great renown and Fairness and generosity bonuses at campaign start is... generous. Especially if (per the above) he isn't paying his followers...
It could be argued that it is reasonable to consider having Leadership affect the business rules... but by default they do not interact with them at all, and care is recommended to avoid accidentally creating a monetary perpetual motion machine.