| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've been told that PF2 will include a downtime system as part of the core rules, but we've heard next to nothing about how it would function, how crafting and character wealth has been re-balanced inside the new rules, or how the basic economies of settlements and adventuring will operate mechanically in 2E.
Is no one else curious about this sort of stuff? It seems like no one is pondering on any of it.
Are you kidding? We havent even heard about the Bard yet...
I really hope there’s a simple system in the CRB but that they bake in the possibility of a complicated “add-on” subsystem down the track.
I sometimes like running games where the economy has a semblance of genuine simulation. However, for most campaigns I think that’s just wasted effort (and such systems are generally easy enough to break with a modicum of effort).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as they examine and fix the pricing for everything, rather than just changing gp to sp and calling it a day, that's the primary thing needed for the CRB. The pricing for poisons, medicinals, alchemical items, and magic item formulas (especially consumables) need the most attention.
The basic formula should probably yield a 2nd tier potion being 3x as expensive as a 1st tier potion instead of 6x, a 3rd tier potion being 6x as expensive as a 1st tier potion instead of 15x, and so on. Other items should follow suit. This would be a core formula of , rather than 3.x's .
As long as they get that stuff right, detailed economy widgets can wait for a Game-Mastery Guide / Ultimate Campaign book.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm interested in this, but I'm weird. I do population demographics by level analyses.
I'm pretty sure details of the new economic system are a very niche interest and will need to wait for the actual playtest release (and for more than the basics, a later supplement).
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? They've changed from gold to silver?
Some of this is really starting to feel like change for the sake of change.
I actually disagree on this one. Adventurers rapidly hit the point where they're dealing purely in 10 gp increments at a time. Making that 1 GP instead (while roughly maintaining its value) makes the math a lot simpler (and makes PP available once you're dealing in what, in PF1, would be 100 GP increments).
It's also more realistic, but that's neither here nor there.
I guess its very interesting to know if magic stuff are buyable with gp and how much stuff are you supposed to have by what level.
Magic items seriously affect high level gameplay after all.
As long as they examine and fix the pricing for everything, rather than just changing gp to sp and calling it a day, that's the primary thing needed for the CRB. The pricing for poisons, medicinals, alchemical items, and magic item formulas (especially consumables) need the most attention.
The basic formula should probably yield a 2nd tier potion being 3x as expensive as a 1st tier potion instead of 6x, a 3rd tier potion being 6x as expensive as a 1st tier potion instead of 15x, and so on. Other items should follow suit. This would be a core formula of , rather than 3.x's .
As long as they get that stuff right, detailed economy widgets can wait for a Game-Mastery Guide / Ultimate Campaign book.
And how will the average monster loot scale?
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
We know they moved to a silver standard...Really? They've changed from gold to silver?
Some of this is really starting to feel like change for the sake of change.
-Skeld
Not for me. In PF1, the basic unit of currency was essentially the “k”. With a few exceptions, non-consumable magic items cost at least 1k. That “k” represents a thousand pieces of gold, though- 20 pounds if you’re using gold coins. So high-level items cost a literal ton of gold. That’s more than the max for a bag of holding. You need 300 pounds of gold coins worth of magical extradimensional space just to carry your 2,000 pounds of gold coins to pay for a 100k item.
WBL made your first level of adventuring the equivalent of 10 years’ honest work.
Gunslinger was essentially firing a piece of gold with each shot.
And so on. It wasn’t hard to ignore, but the gold-based economy was very silly. It’s a pretty basic fix to scale things down by a factor of ten.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm interested in this, but I'm weird. I do population demographics by level analyses.
Hold on, hold on ... that's weird?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry guys, but I don't buy the "simplicity" and "realism" arguements.
This still feels like change for the sake of change and it's going to create another stumbling block to using PF1 material with PF2 (which might be part of the reason for the change).
-Skeld
Hmm? How so, going off The Gauntlet you just add another 0 on the end to get PF1 pricing and vice versa.
Starting gold is 15, in 1st the average was 150.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry guys, but I don't buy the "simplicity" and "realism" arguements.
This still feels like change for the sake of change and it's going to create another stumbling block to using PF1 material with PF2 (which might be part of the reason for the change).
-Skeld
I sincerely doubt that the Paizo team is including anything because it’s a barrier to conversion. A factor of ten, or shifting the listed currency type, is pretty quick conversion.
It’s not so much simplicity or realism to me, but a feeling. Getting a thousand gold is like getting twenty dollars in PF1- it’s enough to get a fair amount of temporary things, or maybe a permanent thing. That really makes gold feel unimpressive. My enjoyment of the game would genuinely be increased by not having the universal measure of rewards be so worthless.
Obviously, that doesn’t appear to apply to you, which is fair! It’s just numbers getting moved around, after all. I just want to convey that it’s a meaningful change to me, and why I feel that way- even if it doesn’t actually impact practical gameplay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And how will the average monster loot scale?As long as they examine and fix the pricing for everything, rather than just changing gp to sp and calling it a day, that's the primary thing needed for the CRB. The pricing for poisons, medicinals, alchemical items, and magic item formulas (especially consumables) need the most attention.
The basic formula should probably yield a 2nd tier potion being 3x as expensive as a 1st tier potion instead of 6x, a 3rd tier potion being 6x as expensive as a 1st tier potion instead of 15x, and so on. Other items should follow suit. This would be a core formula of , rather than 3.x's .
As long as they get that stuff right, detailed economy widgets can wait for a Game-Mastery Guide / Ultimate Campaign book.
Loot would just be reduced, and have a higher proportion of silver and copper.
Heck, I'd still be happy with straight exponential . That would still yield better pricing on the order of a 3rd tier item being 9x more than a 1st tier item instead of 15x, a 4th tier item being 16x more than a 1st tier item instead of 28x, etc. I'd still be happier with my first proposed formula, but I could live with this.
The goal is to simultaneously encourage people to shift to higher level consumables instead of buckets of 1st level, while also reducing the situation where a high level party needs more gold than has ever been mined in the history of the world to do stuff.
EDIT: also produces results higher than my first formula but lower than straight exponential, if there are things for which caster level actually still matters in PF2. Gives another dial to turn, even though it seems like everything is solely based on spell level. But we don't have the whole picture yet, so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My understanding is that they have made each jump in coinage a bit larger. Instead of copper > silver > gold being the equivalent of a penny > dime > dollar (i.e. 10 c = 1s, 10 s = 1 g), my understanding is that they changed it to 100 c = 1 s, 100 s = 1 g.
This does two things. First, it give each denomination a clear value, particularly copper. In my group, we often don't even take coppers since they aren't even worth the weight it takes to carry them for any character above about level 3. I can't even remember giving out silvers as treasure past level 5 (short of say a silver item, whose worth is expressed in gp). It returns the idea that a silver per day is actually a good job for a commoner.
Secondly, it helps with reduce multipliers at higher levels. If level 1 gear costs 15gp, level 20 gear has to cost 100,000 gp. But if level 1 gear costs 15 sp, now level 20 gear is only 10,000 gp. Since 100,000 gp weighs literally a ton, as in 2000 lbs of gold, giving out treasure at a high level means that either 1) PCs have to have multiple bags of holding dedicated to just carrying gold (and are ONLY carrying gold), 2) all the value is tied up in individual items, but then how do you sell them and then take that money to a different shop, or 3) you have to come up with some OTHER form of currency like gemstones, which has just made gp obsolete.
Instead of completely devaluing their own currency, by not just bump the numbers. The numbers are all make believe anyway, so why not change them to eliminate the issue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about what seem to me the biggest wealth issues?
NPC wealth & reselling, which tie in together.
It's often bugged me that an NPC's mediocre gear was significantly higher than normal treasure (despite NPCs being the most common enemy), and after masterwork levels the equipment still didn't do enough for the NPC martials unless they were buffing with consumables (which was quite often meta-gamey). Or on the flip side, if the gear was put on a monster with levels it could often become too brutal.
Or they're a mid-high level NPC class and really shouldn't be alive given how hard it would be for them to guard their own gear from bandits.
Or the NPCs would have +1 Studded Leather instead of a mw Chain Shirt.
And none of the loot was worth keeping unless somebody intentionally knew to leave a slot open knowing a +1 Cloak would pop up soon enough (and wanted to save 500 g.p.) Or if the designer used one of the most common & effective boosts for a BBEG by giving +1 CR for having PC wealth.
So how do we get effective NPCs using PC rules? (Something the devs have stated we can do.) I should say, how do we do this without skewing wealth and treasure? I have to think they'll be using PC wealth.
Okay, so I rambled a bit there. :P
I would like NPCs to have normal encounter treasure levels, but decent enough equipment to be viable past early levels. I'd like unique NPCs to have treasure that's worthwhile for PCs to use without needing a +1 CR bump to own it.
I think lowering the resale value can aid with this, and this would also make a lot of magic more tempting to keep. Too often in PF1, neat items were sold because they were not worth even half their value compared to other items, so balancing magic item prices would aid here too.
Given that the Redcap has an Expert weapon which doesn't seem to alter his stats (since his normal boot has the same attack bonus & he's doing 2d10 anyway), I don't know what to expect from PF2. Does a Redcap's weapon get worse when he gains a level and needs to be recalibrated?
ETA: And I'd like buying a castle to be a reasonable expenditure because right now a king gets far better defense from hiring adventurers.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm? How so, going off The Gauntlet you just add another 0 on the end to get PF1 pricing and vice versa.
Starting gold is 15, in 1st the average was 150.
Ok, if it's such a trivial change that doesn't really change anything, why make it at all?
(Sorry, I don't know what The Gauntlet is, unless you're talking about Infinity War. I'm suffering from "actively avoiding most PF2 blogs" because I'm waiting for all the playtest rules to come out, instead of trying to piece together and digest this thing one tiny context-free piece at a time.)
I sincerely doubt that the Paizo team is including anything because it’s a barrier to conversion. A factor of ten, or shifting the listed currency type, is pretty quick conversion.
It’s not so much simplicity or realism to me, but a feeling. Getting a thousand gold is like getting twenty dollars in PF1- it’s enough to get a fair amount of temporary things, or maybe a permanent thing. That really makes gold feel unimpressive. My enjoyment of the game would genuinely be increased by not having the universal measure of rewards be so worthless.
Obviously, that doesn’t appear to apply to you, which is fair! It’s just numbers getting moved around, after all. I just want to convey that it’s a meaningful change to me, and why I feel that way- even if it doesn’t actually impact practical gameplay.
That's how the Good Idea Fairy works; it seems like a good idea on its own, then you add it toeverything else and it starts becoming messy.
-Skeld
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Sorry, I don't know what The Gauntlet is, unless you're talking about Infinity War. I'm suffering from "actively avoiding most PF2 blogs" because I'm waiting for all the playtest rules to come out, instead of trying to piece together and digest this thing one tiny context-free piece at a time.)
The Guantlet was a high level magic item shown in the latest blog post. By itself, as you said, we lack most context, but we can tease out a bit of information anyways. But if those teases have no interest for you, that's fair enough.
I wonder if this change seems arbitrary and "change for change sake" to you because you, personally, will see no benefit from it due to your own tastes. It helps my immersion a bit, and that's reason enough for me to be in favor.
Your comment about creating a barrier to using PF1 material might be a design goal seems a bit ill-placed, considering they stated that they tried to make sure adventures would be easy to reuse in the new system. They even showed off an example in action; one of the early podcasts was the DM running a PF1 adventure in PF2, converting on the fly and using new monster entries when available.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weren't they trying to avoid invalidating the lore though? Is the event that lets Goblins be core also the event that makes silver the new gold? ((Joking!))
LOL It's all those good goblins flooding the market with cheap labor that's driven the value of coins down to a silver standard... :P
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Sorry, I don't know what The Gauntlet is, unless you're talking about Infinity War. I'm suffering from "actively avoiding most PF2 blogs" because I'm waiting for all the playtest rules to come out, instead of trying to piece together and digest this thing one tiny context-free piece at a time.)The Guantlet was a high level magic item shown in the latest blog post. By itself, as you said, we lack most context, but we can tease out a bit of information anyways. But if those teases have no interest for you, that's fair enough.
I wonder if this change seems arbitrary and "change for change sake" to you because you, personally, will see no benefit from it due to your own tastes. It helps my immersion a bit, and that's reason enough for me to be in favor.
Your comment about creating a barrier to using PF1 material might be a design goal seems a bit ill-placed, considering they stated that they tried to make sure adventures would be easy to reuse in the new system. They even showed off an example in action; one of the early podcasts was the DM running a PF1 adventure in PF2, converting on the fly and using new monster entries when available.
I find myself less and less inclined as time goes on, to tease information out of blog posts and dev comments. That's why I've been avoiding things like this because I'd rather just wait until I have the actual rules in front of me. The downside of that, of course, is that I periodically get blindsided by something like this.
You are correct that this change seems arbitrary to me because there appears to be no reason behind it (or at least no reason that's been pointed out to me yet), which is definition of an arbitrary change. If something's going to change, I'd like there to be a good reason behind it. For me, the change barrier for game mechanics is low, but this change isn't just about game mechanics, it affects something (the price/cost/value of everything) that's been established in the game world across a few hundred published books. Even that wouldn't bug me so much if the change didn't appear arbitrary (again, having no apparent or stated reason behind it). As I pointed out to Rysky, if it's so trivial, why even make the change at all? Again, I don't like pointless changes and this looks like a pointless change at this time. Hopefully, when the actual rules arrive, I can look at this and say "This is why they made the change and I understand'" at which point I might be cool with it.
My comment about urposfully creating a desgn barrier is a tongue-in-cheek nod to the folks that call edition changes a "money-grab" and attempts to "sell all the same content all over again" so don't take that seriously. If one of the goals is to make it easy to convert on the fly, every change (arbitrary or not) tha the GM has to make drags you further away from that goal.
Regardless, I'll keep my thoughts to myself until August.
-Skeld
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Sorry, I don't know what The Gauntlet is, unless you're talking about Infinity War. I'm suffering from "actively avoiding most PF2 blogs" because I'm waiting for all the playtest rules to come out, instead of trying to piece together and digest this thing one tiny context-free piece at a time.)The Guantlet was a high level magic item shown in the latest blog post. By itself, as you said, we lack most context, but we can tease out a bit of information anyways. But if those teases have no interest for you, that's fair enough.
I wonder if this change seems arbitrary and "change for change sake" to you because you, personally, will see no benefit from it due to your own tastes. It helps my immersion a bit, and that's reason enough for me to be in favor.
Your comment about creating a barrier to using PF1 material might be a design goal seems a bit ill-placed, considering they stated that they tried to make sure adventures would be easy to reuse in the new system. They even showed off an example in action; one of the early podcasts was the DM running a PF1 adventure in PF2, converting on the fly and using new monster entries when available.
I find myself less and less inclined as time goes on, to tease information out of blog posts and dev comments. That's why I've been avoiding things like this because I'd rather just wait until I have the actual rules in front of me. The downside of that, of course, is that I periodically get blindsided by something like this.
You are correct that this change seems arbitrary to me because there appears to be no reason behind it (or at least no reason that's been pointed out to me yet), which is definition of an arbitrary change. If something's going to change, I'd like there to be a good reason behind it. For me, the change barrier for game mechanics is low, but this change isn't just about game mechanics, it affects something (the price/cost/value of everything) that's been established in the...
Well, in my experience, every single Pathfinder party I've played in that has had newbies, the newbies has at some point become really baffled by economy and have to be told "It doesn't make sense, its not worth thinking about it, its game mechanics balance thing"
In otherwords, for a lot of players, old and new, the way economy worked in 1e was immersion breaking. Thats what I see as reason to change it, it was common subject people have criticized and joked about and it makes it impossible to take world's economy seriously when adventurers are taken in account. Like, adventurers are richer than most of rich folk in the setting
Not for me. In PF1, the basic unit of currency was essentially the “k”. With a few exceptions, non-consumable magic items cost at least 1k. That “k” represents a thousand pieces of gold, though- 20 pounds if you’re using gold coins. So high-level items cost a literal ton of gold. That’s more than the max for a bag of holding. You need 300 pounds of gold coins worth of magical extradimensional space just to carry your 2,000 pounds of gold coins to pay for a 100k item.
We just started using Platinum in our groups - You might have a hope of carrying 1,000 platinum, but 10,000 gp is insane. (Not to comment on the insanity of carrying around 1,000 platinum for paying for things...)
|
|
Hmm? How so, going off The Gauntlet you just add another 0 on the end to get PF1 pricing and vice versa.
Starting gold is 15, in 1st the average was 150.
Ok, if it's such a trivial change that doesn't really change anything, why make it at all?
-Skeld
Exaclty because it’s a small seemingly trivial change that doesn’t change anything in and of itself but opens up for a lot of changes in interactions :3
|
|
Another example is that since 1000 gp is 4 years worth of hard work for average commoner, adventuring because you want to become rich is silly because even at level 1 you earn in one adventure more loot than commoners would earn for months if not years. And then is question of "So if you sell all these uber expensive items, who even has money to buy them, this +1 magic sword costs more than average house"
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exaclty because it’s a small seemingly trivial change that doesn’t change anything in and of itself but opens up for a lot of changes in interactions :3Hmm? How so, going off The Gauntlet you just add another 0 on the end to get PF1 pricing and vice versa.
Starting gold is 15, in 1st the average was 150.
Ok, if it's such a trivial change that doesn't really change anything, why make it at all?
-Skeld
I, personally, find that "it's actually physically possible to buy higher level magic items without completing ignoring encumbrance and carry rules" to be a pretty reasonable purpose for the change, before diving into things like how reducing the multiples by a factor of ten makes the math simpler and more accessible for a broader number of players, or how adjusting the multiple makes it easier to justify a functional in-world economy that includes active adventurers. YMMV. But it really is somewhat relevant that the (relatively) simple act of buying a magic weapon around 15th level or so requires moving such a significant quantity of gold that armored cars and porters would be necessary (and the merchant would probably need to tack on a security and money-changing fee...), but simply reducing down to the silver standard shifts the quantities of materials down sufficiently that simple purchases across all levels are much more reasonable and believable when you try to dissect the in-world economy.
So there's a realism factor (how would the current gold-based economy standard even work in-world), an accessibility factor (smaller numbers are easier for a wider array of players to tackle), and a basic functionality factor (how, mathematically, is my character transporting, storing, and exchanging these ludicrous quantities of wealth) that are all improved by the shift to a silver standard.
My comment about urposfully creating a desgn barrier is a tongue-in-cheek nod to the folks that call edition changes a "money-grab" and attempts to "sell all the same content all over again" so don't take that seriously.
Oh, okay. I didn't get that at all. You sounded like you were making the exact argument you meant to be teasing. But fair enough.
Another example is that since 1000 gp is 4 years worth of hard work for average commoner, adventuring because you want to become rich is silly because even at level 1 you earn in one adventure more loot than commoners would earn for months if not years. And then is question of "So if you sell all these uber expensive items, who even has money to buy them, this +1 magic sword costs more than average house"
Monthly Cost of Living, Extravagant (1,000 gp/month): "lives in a mansion, castle, or other extravagant home—he might even own the building in question. This is the lifestyle of most aristocrats."
So the answer would be "aristocrats" as they toss away 1000gp/month JUST on lifestyle. Even the plain old Wealthy spend (100 gp/month). Also there are all those NPC's that need equiping so the PC's can defeat them and take the items in the first place: there are always bad guys that are willing to buy discounted magic items so they can act as foils for other 'heroes'.
We've been told that PF2 will include a downtime system as part of the core rules, but we've heard next to nothing about how it would function, how crafting and character wealth has been re-balanced inside the new rules, or how the basic economies of settlements and adventuring will operate mechanically in 2E.
Is no one else curious about this sort of stuff? It seems like no one is pondering on any of it.
This is not the first thread on this subject: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v2ox?Wealth-magic-items-and-other-systems-of-r eward
In that thread, I made the argument for a more stylized system of wealth (a la Spellbound Kingdoms) that I won't repeat here. I really do want to see where Paizo will come down on the ability to buy and sell high level magic items.
Economics rules in generally are going to be really core to the balance of the game, I think. For instance: consider an alchemist who can afford to carry hundreds of extra crafted bombs versus an alchemist who is limited to the bombs he makes with his resonance every morning.
Honestly, the magic item crafting rules are one of the first things I will look up in the playtest book. They have vexed me for the entirety of 3.X/PF's existance and I hope that the devs have made them less prone to break campaigns.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the magic item crafting rules are one of the first things I will look up in the playtest book. They have vexed me for the entirety of 3.X/PF's existance and I hope that the devs have made them less prone to break campaigns.
Are they prone to break campaigns or are they prone to be useless traps if your GM doesn't allow for downtime in any significant quantities?
Answer: both are true.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the magic item crafting rules are one of the first things I will look up in the playtest book. They have vexed me for the entirety of 3.X/PF's existance and I hope that the devs have made them less prone to break campaigns.
The designers have made them less prone to break campaigns (and simultaneously less likely to be useless in the way Excaliburproxy noted while I was typing this post).
Honestly, they were one of the first things my group had to houserule in PF1, and one of the only rules I can think of where the PF1 rule wasn't an improvement over the 3.5 rule (removing XP cost as a thing was a good idea, but replacing it with no cost for magic item crafting was not). I feel like maybe you and I have talked about this from before I worked at Paizo, but that may have been someone else in the Paizo board community.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We just started using Platinum in our groups - You might have a hope of carrying 1,000 platinum, but 10,000 gp is insane. (Not to comment on the insanity of carrying around 1,000 platinum for paying for things...)
I thought the accepted solution to this has always been for the characters to convert their excess coinage beyond a reasonable amount into smaller, more valuable items. Gems are the primary ones, though fine jewelry and other commodities which have more value to the ounce than gold or platinum also work. But that may be too much work for some campaigns to carry through. (In some adventures, a banking system may also exist, which would allow the amassing of wealth without having to carry infeasible amounts around directly on one's person.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'm having a dense moment. I don't get the real effect of this change.
If they just reduce the cost of everything by 10 it doesn't change the economics at all, a +1 longsword is still going to be 2 years wages (or whatever it works out to be). You still have all the same problems you had before. It changes nothing except the weight of the coins you carry - which may be worth it, but probably easier just to reduce the weight of coins.
If they only reduce the cost of 'adventurers gear' by 10 surely it causes more issues - the cost of residing at an inn and a meal just effectively increased 10 fold. Your average NPC's earnings effectively increase 10 fold. Doesn't it breaks a lot more things?
We just started using Platinum in our groups - You might have a hope of carrying 1,000 platinum, but 10,000 gp is insane. (Not to comment on the insanity of carrying around 1,000 platinum for paying for things...)I thought the accepted solution to this has always been for the characters to convert their excess coinage beyond a reasonable amount into smaller, more valuable items. Gems are the primary ones, though fine jewelry and other commodities which have more value to the ounce than gold or platinum also work. But that may be too much work for some campaigns to carry through. (In some adventures, a banking system may also exist, which would allow the amassing of wealth without having to carry infeasible amounts around directly on one's person.)
My setting has a reliable imperial banking system so my characters tend to carry a lot of their wealth in bank notes.
I think I'm having a dense moment. I don't get the real effect of this change.
If they just reduce the cost of everything by 10 it doesn't change the economics at all, a +1 longsword is still going to be 2 years wages (or whatever it works out to be). You still have all the same problems you had before. It changes nothing except the weight of the coins you carry - which may be worth it, but probably easier just to reduce the weight of coins.
If they only reduce the cost of 'adventurers gear' by 10 surely it causes more issues - the cost of residing at an inn and a meal just effectively increased 10 fold. Your average NPC's earnings effectively increase 10 fold. Doesn't it breaks a lot more things?
- Feasible coins.
- Gold pieces feel valuable, or at least more valuable than quarters.- We only know magic items are changing 10-fold. Rather than leaving inn prices unchanged or divided by 10, what if they’re divided by 5? Or by 2? Mundane armor might be adjusted to fit in your starting budget so there’s no “use this different armor type for one level only”. The daily life stuff can be tweaked to bring low-level adventures closer to regular people.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- We only know magic items are changing 10-fold. Rather than leaving inn prices unchanged or divided by 10, what if they’re divided by 5? Or by 2? Mundane armor might be adjusted to fit in your starting budget so there’s no “use this different armor type for one level only”. The daily life stuff can be tweaked to bring low-level adventures closer to regular people.
This is exactly the price/cost/value PF1 conversion problem I was talking about upthread. I'm glad you've acknowledged that it may be more complicated that multiply/divide by 10.
-Skeld
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love the idea of switching to a silver standard because I've always hated how copper pieces are essentially a waste of space pragmatically and thematically in the current gold standard system. Even at level 1 copper pieces are trivial, and by the time you've reached level 2 they are an absolute waste of time to even mention as treasure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I DO want to be able to play a merchant adventurer who buys trade goods and resells them for profit as they travel and adventure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the idea of switching to a silver standard because I've always hated how copper pieces are essentially a waste of space pragmatically and thematically in the current gold standard system. Even at level 1 copper pieces are trivial, and by the time you've reached level 2 they are an absolute waste of time to even mention as treasure.
Speak for yourself. I once pried up every floor tile in a dungeon because they were worth a cp each... Those 'worthless' tiles ended up buying me a new potion of healing.
- We only know magic items are changing 10-fold. Rather than leaving inn prices unchanged or divided by 10, what if they’re divided by 5? Or by 2? Mundane armor might be adjusted to fit in your starting budget so there’s no “use this different armor type for one level only”. The daily life stuff can be tweaked to bring low-level adventures closer to regular people.This is exactly the price/cost/value PF1 conversion problem I was talking about upthread. I'm glad you've acknowledged that it may be more complicated that multiply/divide by 10.
-Skeld
Hmm, I see what you mean. I think it'll work out without too much trouble, though? That's not stuff that needs to be converted. It helps make the world more flavorful, but it's not something that actually makes a practical difference after level 1. The multiply/divide by 10 will still work with the tweaked numbers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'm having a dense moment. I don't get the real effect of this change.
If they just reduce the cost of everything by 10 it doesn't change the economics at all, a +1 longsword is still going to be 2 years wages (or whatever it works out to be). You still have all the same problems you had before. It changes nothing except the weight of the coins you carry - which may be worth it, but probably easier just to reduce the weight of coins.
If they only reduce the cost of 'adventurers gear' by 10 surely it causes more issues - the cost of residing at an inn and a meal just effectively increased 10 fold. Your average NPC's earnings effectively increase 10 fold. Doesn't it breaks a lot more things?
- Feasible coins.
- Gold pieces feel valuable, or at least more valuable than quarters.
- We only know magic items are changing 10-fold. Rather than leaving inn prices unchanged or divided by 10, what if they’re divided by 5? Or by 2? Mundane armor might be adjusted to fit in your starting budget so there’s no “use this different armor type for one level only”. The daily life stuff can be tweaked to bring low-level adventures closer to regular people.
- Still lugging around a ton of silver now. And people find playing with exchange rates/"Heres your change" fun.
- Player issue. I have no problem with Gold myself.- That's going to make conversions harder but someone else addressed it. As for daily life stuff..., they're adventurers. They go out and risk their lives to Get the lost Relics/Kill the Bandit Lord/Drive off the Cultists/etc. There's a lot of stuff left behind when dealing with the issues presented, they're going to get rich fast anyway.
And without balancing, that first gold pile breaks the game in half if everything is charging measured of Silver.
I will admit there might be a problem when it comes to Gold. If only because I'm running Mummy's mask and trying to math out the worth of some things in Gold and swapping some to silver as it makes a bit more sense.
|
|
Another example is that since 1000 gp is 4 years worth of hard work for average commoner, adventuring because you want to become rich is silly because even at level 1 you earn in one adventure more loot than commoners would earn for months if not years. And then is question of "So if you sell all these uber expensive items, who even has money to buy them, this +1 magic sword costs more than average house"Monthly Cost of Living, Extravagant (1,000 gp/month): "lives in a mansion, castle, or other extravagant home—he might even own the building in question. This is the lifestyle of most aristocrats."
So the answer would be "aristocrats" as they toss away 1000gp/month JUST on lifestyle. Even the plain old Wealthy spend (100 gp/month). Also there are all those NPC's that need equiping so the PC's can defeat them and take the items in the first place: there are always bad guys that are willing to buy discounted magic items so they can act as foils for other 'heroes'.
Which itself is absurd that at high levels, even bandits tend to all have +1 weapons meaning they are already rich
Which itself is absurd that at high levels, even bandits tend to all have +1 weapons meaning they are already richAnother example is that since 1000 gp is 4 years worth of hard work for average commoner, adventuring because you want to become rich is silly because even at level 1 you earn in one adventure more loot than commoners would earn for months if not years. And then is question of "So if you sell all these uber expensive items, who even has money to buy them, this +1 magic sword costs more than average house"Monthly Cost of Living, Extravagant (1,000 gp/month): "lives in a mansion, castle, or other extravagant home—he might even own the building in question. This is the lifestyle of most aristocrats."
So the answer would be "aristocrats" as they toss away 1000gp/month JUST on lifestyle. Even the plain old Wealthy spend (100 gp/month). Also there are all those NPC's that need equiping so the PC's can defeat them and take the items in the first place: there are always bad guys that are willing to buy discounted magic items so they can act as foils for other 'heroes'.
I don't see the point you're making. Is changing to silver making that less true? Isn't the amount people earn ALSO shifting to silver, meaning it's a lateral move? Aren't those same weapons going to be just as expensive, just using a different standard?
Please explain why a new pathfinder bandit isn't as equally rich as a pathfinder classic one...