In this economy?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 66 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

That's only true in worlds where the WBL rules are an actual world rule rather than a narrative convenience applying only to PCs.

There's a wealth of support for that not being true in Golarion (which features many characters who violate WBL standards).

Shadow Lodge

Ramanujan wrote:

For this setting I was wondering about reducing the economy by a factor of a thousand (so 1 PF2 Platinum = 1 Exile Copper - I.e. player starting wealth is 1.5 coppers), and adding iron coins under copper.

For stone weapons, I was thinking to use the quality variant rule, and having them be -1 to hit for being made of stone and with no slots for runes. And maybe fragile.
For regular quality (+0) i’d use bronze. And Iron would be expert (+1).

It doesn't make sense for copper to be worth more than iron when iron is more useful. Also the party might be tempted to trade in the coppers for iron coins to melt down for better gear.

I'd suggest using stone coins or something.


Skerek wrote:
Ramanujan wrote:

For this setting I was wondering about reducing the economy by a factor of a thousand (so 1 PF2 Platinum = 1 Exile Copper - I.e. player starting wealth is 1.5 coppers), and adding iron coins under copper.

For stone weapons, I was thinking to use the quality variant rule, and having them be -1 to hit for being made of stone and with no slots for runes. And maybe fragile.
For regular quality (+0) i’d use bronze. And Iron would be expert (+1).

It doesn't make sense for copper to be worth more than iron when iron is more useful. Also the party might be tempted to trade in the coppers for iron coins to melt down for better gear.

I'd suggest using stone coins or something.

I thought about that - and also wooden coins as cavewood does exist in the setting but would be rarer than stone, the problem is that without using modern systems where currency are just IOU slips from a bank, the coins have to be able to have inherent value. Which in practice either means pretty (e.g. gemstones), useful (metal coins are meltable) or both (e.g. Gold). And stone coins are generally neither, unless a special kind of pretty stone and wood cannot be melted back/turned into many useful products

In modern day iron is far cheaper than copper. But I guess without demand for copper for electrical wiring combined with increased demand for iron that makes less sense.

Maybe they could be a wood or similar casing containing a very tiny amount of iron?

Alternatively - do away with all current metal coinage, and move to something like Sanderson’s Spheres - glowing crystals could have value to an underground human society who don’t have darkvision.


Captain Morgan wrote:
necromental wrote:
I found one very good article (I think it was Ashiel's blog) about disregarding the "silver piece a day" economy, and actually using the Profession or Craft rules as basis of economy. That said, silvers as basis serve to reduce the ridiculous amount of coins that character usually had to carry. The bad thing about that is that it means it's even more unlikely that dragons are sleeping on piles of coins :D Frankly I would divest the gold from magic item economy and use coins as basis for kingdom building subsystems rather than personal power through items.

There might be something interesting you could do with some sort of raw magical material instead-- something that could be used not only as a currency for purchasing items but also the material used to craft them. But... I dunno how you'd explain that having no intersection with the gold economy. Like, eventually a wizard is going to need to buy a house or whatever, or an island, and I don't see why you couldn't spend gold to get the raw materials a some conversion rate or another.

The alternative is doing away with magical item shops entirely, I guess. But to maintain the level of "let players pick their items" that Pathfinder is based around, you'd basically make crafting mandatory.

I think 'Trade Goods' were in Pathfinder (1) considered 'equal to their monetary value' - this could certainly also encompass rare materials, which probably won't be taken from anyone (like a 100€ bill in a small cafe, they often just don't accept it)

Also consider Coins from those rare materials: mithril (worth 10platinum coins) and the new orichalcum (worth 10 mithril coins)
Some would argue that they are too rare and expensive to do such things, but that would be up to gm discretion (And I think Platinum coins might be an actual things in Jinin)
I admit it would be another question what kind of size and format would be realistic for those coins (it certainly shouldn't end in buying a orichalcum bar, smelting it down, mint coins in higher value)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skerek wrote:
It doesn't make sense for copper to be worth more than iron when iron is more useful.

Are you under the impression that gold coins are worth more than silver and copper because of how useful gold is as a metal?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah you can only make powered rails and like gold carrots out of it. Not terribly useful.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Yeah you can only make powered rails and like gold carrots out of it. Not terribly useful.

xD

But Seriously, how useful a Metal is is rarely a measurement of how much it is worth

If it would be, everyday items made from Iron and Steel would have totally horrendous prices

Copper makes sense as coin metal because its (somewhat) pretty and shiny, not completely common and easy mallable into coins itself

Gold as coin metal (for the 'big' coins) also makes sense because most people think it'S pretty and it is pretty rare (although admittedly it seems to be more common in fantasy)

and silver is the middle ground - which also gives it a good position for things like silverware, not as 'shabby' as copper, but opposed to gold the price is low enough (and the availibality high enough) that one can actually create larger ammounts of stuff from it


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Wanna see something glorious :D!!!

https://i.imgur.com/WgM7A0U.jpg

Look at those wealth by level numbers
(in explanation the total includes the value of the items not just liquid gold)

Interesting. They've abandoned the party sum which didn't really work since not all parties are 4 heroes, and gone for the much more sensible focus on a single character (which you can then just multiply by 3 or 5 or 4 or however many characters you have in your party).

To be clear, are you talking about "Lump Sum"? You are sure it means accumulated wealth including market price of items for a single character?


Zapp wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Wanna see something glorious :D!!!

https://i.imgur.com/WgM7A0U.jpg

Look at those wealth by level numbers
(in explanation the total includes the value of the items not just liquid gold)

Interesting. They've abandoned the party sum which didn't really work since not all parties are 4 heroes, and gone for the much more sensible focus on a single character (which you can then just multiply by 3 or 5 or 4 or however many characters you have in your party).

To be clear, are you talking about "Lump Sum"? You are sure it means accumulated wealth including market price of items for a single character?

Yes, that is what lump sum refers to. And I would be shocked if they don't still have the party table with adjustments for having more or less characters. That table in the link is for building a new character at higher levels.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Zapp wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Wanna see something glorious :D!!!

https://i.imgur.com/WgM7A0U.jpg

Look at those wealth by level numbers
(in explanation the total includes the value of the items not just liquid gold)

Interesting. They've abandoned the party sum which didn't really work since not all parties are 4 heroes, and gone for the much more sensible focus on a single character (which you can then just multiply by 3 or 5 or 4 or however many characters you have in your party).

To be clear, are you talking about "Lump Sum"? You are sure it means accumulated wealth including market price of items for a single character?

Yes, that is what lump sum refers to. And I would be shocked if they don't still have the party table with adjustments for having more or less characters. That table in the link is for building a new character at higher levels.

Just checked; there's a party table, which now also includes the total value of all the treasure (a party lump sum option).


Just to be clear: I'm not interested in the advice and numbers for creating new/replacement characters at higher levels.

I'm specifically interested in
1) expected wealth per level. Both total and cash only. Both for individual levels and accumulated (all levels up til now).
2) average market value of a magic item (for a given level)

And also,
3) Settlement base value (basically, how large a settlement do you need to reliably purchase any given magic item)
numbers for which I can't seem to find in the Playtest (and since numbers are different, I can't just use the PFSRD)

Thx

Scarab Sages

“I found one very good article (I think it was Ashiel's blog) about disregarding the "silver piece a day" economy”

Where can I find this?


Zapp wrote:

Just to be clear: I'm not interested in the advice and numbers for creating new/replacement characters at higher levels.

I'm specifically interested in
1) expected wealth per level. Both total and cash only. Both for individual levels and accumulated (all levels up til now).
2) average market value of a magic item (for a given level)

And also,
3) Settlement base value (basically, how large a settlement do you need to reliably purchase any given magic item)
numbers for which I can't seem to find in the Playtest (and since numbers are different, I can't just use the PFSRD)

Thx

1) You should be covered.

2) Maybe not, but easy enough to work out. The ever excellent Ediwir did such crunching for the playtest and I'm sure will do it again, for example.

3) I'd bet on that being in the GMG, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if it is in the CRB.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
It is a bit jarring to have the value of coins suddenly change. Frankly, I think it's better just to retcon it instead of try to make some in-world explanation of how money has changed due to some event, even those centuries old coins you find in a hoard. You're not going to get a satisfactory answer for the whole world changing it's currency overnight. Just say it's always been like this. Money is an abstraction anyway. But it does make things a bit more rational, and portable. Did anyone actually track the weight of their coins?

My settings generally have paper currency. I tend to run 19th century level tech with a little extra for steampunk.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
lordcirth wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
One really shouldn't look too closely at the economics of banditry in D&D (or Pathfinder).
The economics seem pretty simple to me. Bandits intend to ambush level 0 or 1 NPCs who aren't subject to WBL guidelines and pose minimal threat. Attacking a party of adventurers that are tougher than that is just a fatal mistake.
banditry through pure combat strength is economically and strategically infeasible

That's the same comic that was linked in the post I replied to, and it relies on the assumption that everyone you're attacking follows the WBL table, which is not true.


redpandamage wrote:

“I found one very good article (I think it was Ashiel's blog) about disregarding the "silver piece a day" economy”

Where can I find this?

Tried looking for it, google-fu failed me. I had the article saved somewhere but don't anymore, since I mistakenly purged some old files. Ashiel moved to GitP forum so you can try looking for her there.

51 to 66 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / In this economy? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.