How are people feeling about the new "money" system?


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do not like the way that money has been changed in the game.

Two reasons:
* - It is an obstical to converting older material.
* - "Grognard-ism" Long time players may not react well to fighting an epic battle to win the princely sum of 150 silver.

How are others feeling?

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I like it so far.

And how is it difficult, are the numbers radically different rather than moving a zero to one side, or is it rewarding PCs with silver and copper?


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I like it. The small town/village economy makes more sense. You still can't poke too deep at it, but it holds up better to casual use.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

It's not difficult at all, really.

As for converting old stuff, there is a simple solution: divide all treasures by 10. After all, if the silver is the new gold piece, then 1 gold in the old system is now 10 silver.

So let's say you have a treasure trove of 1,250 gold. It's now 125 gold. But it is worth 1,250 silver and is just as valuable as it was before.

To be honest, I've long preferred a silver-based economy for my games but didn't want to be bothered converting things to my own economy and just accepted Golarion's gold-based economy. Now? Now it's a lot better in my eyes and honestly won't change that much!

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Rysky wrote:

I like it so far.

And how is it difficult, are the numbers radically different rather than moving a zero to one side, or is it rewarding PCs with silver and copper?

The prices for some things, especially magic times are radically different. Rarity also enters the picture.

So, it is not just a simple matter of changing Gold to silver. Of course, in PF2 150 silver is a "princely sum".


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I like it.

Especially given how meaningless gold often felt by the end if a character's run in 1E.


I like it. Gold being more valuable at lower levels, and giving silver and copper more of a reason to exist in the world is something I like seeing. Now, I still kind of wish we saw a pre-decimalization 1/20/240 conversion rate, but I get that that's probably never going to happen.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No problems other than a few things are overpriced - low level consumables, and that it takes time to adjust. One of the parts I like about 2E.


20 people marked this as a favorite.

Strange... older people often complain about inflation:

"Back in my day, a quarter got you into the movies AND got you a bag of popcorn! You had to WORK for a dollar!"

But now it's reversed:

"Back in my day, treasure hoards were GRANDER! You killed goblins and got GOLD for your troubles! You got REWARDED for your hard work!"

Heh.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I like it, but I wish prices were always listed in terms of sp. The equipment tables in PF1 a rapier cost 20 gp, not 2 pp. Why does it cost 2 gp instead of 20 sp in PF2? If the sp is the standard unit of currency, it’s the unit prices should default to.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:

It's not difficult at all, really.

As for converting old stuff, there is a simple solution: divide all treasures by 10. After all, if the silver is the new gold piece, then 1 gold in the old system is now 10 silver.

So let's say you have a treasure trove of 1,250 gold. It's now 125 gold. But it is worth 1,250 silver and is just as valuable as it was before.

To be honest, I've long preferred a silver-based economy for my games but didn't want to be bothered converting things to my own economy and just accepted Golarion's gold-based economy. Now? Now it's a lot better in my eyes and honestly won't change that much!

Actually, if you take into account that the expected treasure for a character is 1/20 - 1/40 of PF1 (based upon wealth by level), then simply dividing all treasure by 10 does not reflect the new purchasing power in PF2. Thus, saying a 100gp sword in PF1 is 10 gp in PF2 works ONLY at character creation. Look at PF2 page 509 where it says the expectation is that a party of 4 should get 175 gold by the time they hit level 2. Adding the 15 gold gives 15+44 or 59 gp/party member. In PF1, the 2nd level PC was expected to have 1,000 gp


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tholomyes wrote:
I like it. Gold being more valuable at lower levels, and giving silver and copper more of a reason to exist in the world is something I like seeing. Now, I still kind of wish we saw a pre-decimalization 1/20/240 conversion rate, but I get that that's probably never going to happen.

Someone should homebrew a chart of relative coinage value based on region of minting and silver content. Add a Lore: Moneychanger skill you can ply in cities. Get scammed by people paying in Nirmathas coins instead of Absalom coins.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hsui wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

It's not difficult at all, really.

As for converting old stuff, there is a simple solution: divide all treasures by 10. After all, if the silver is the new gold piece, then 1 gold in the old system is now 10 silver.

So let's say you have a treasure trove of 1,250 gold. It's now 125 gold. But it is worth 1,250 silver and is just as valuable as it was before.

To be honest, I've long preferred a silver-based economy for my games but didn't want to be bothered converting things to my own economy and just accepted Golarion's gold-based economy. Now? Now it's a lot better in my eyes and honestly won't change that much!

Actually, if you take into account that the expected treasure for a character is 1/20 - 1/40 of PF1 (based upon wealth by level), then simply dividing all treasure by 10 does not reflect the new purchasing power in PF2. Thus, saying a 100gp sword in PF1 is 10 gp in PF2 works ONLY at character creation. Look at PF2 page 509 where it says the expectation is that a party of 4 should get 175 gold by the time they hit level 2. Adding the 15 gold gives 15+44 or 59 gp/party member. In PF1, the 2nd level PC was expected to have 1,000 gp

A more direct comparison. A party of 4 in PF1 would have over 4,000 gold. Simply changing gold to silver means that they would have about 400 gold, or over 2.25 as much as they should.

Items get more complicated. A +1 longsword in PF1 is 2,315 gold (or 231.5 gold in PF2) but, that same sword in PF2 costs 35 gold (PF2 Core p. 536) which would be a 3,500 gold item in PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:

How are others feeling?

I'd rather they didn't do it as it seems change for the sake of change. On the list of issues with PF2 though, this is pretty near the bottom.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

graystone wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:

How are others feeling?

I'd rather they didn't do it as it seems change for the sake of change. On the list of issues with PF2 though, this is pretty near the bottom.

It was more then that. The designers wanted to stop players from walking past piles of silver.

But, with the way that the prices of all other things changed, I have found it quite frustrating. The same could have been accomplished by simply changing gold to silver, and not otherwise changing the cost of everything.


I’m going to struggle with it, just like I did in 5e... I’m so darned used to the PF1 economy I know exactly what I should be giving out


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:

I do not like the way that money has been changed in the game.

Two reasons:
* - It is an obstical to converting older material.
* - "Grognard-ism" Long time players may not react well to fighting an epic battle to win the princely sum of 150 silver.

How are others feeling?

Coinage besides gold isn't useless? That's great. Perspective of both players and GM.

Consistency/immersion improvements? Also great.

Loving the system and it's a long, long overdue change.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I love the change.I used something like this in my homebrew and always found the D&D gold system a bt odd when people in RL used silver.


Lord Fyre wrote:
graystone wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:

How are others feeling?

I'd rather they didn't do it as it seems change for the sake of change. On the list of issues with PF2 though, this is pretty near the bottom.

It was more then that. The designers wanted to stop players from walking past piles of silver.

But, with the way that the prices of all other things changed, I have found it quite frustrating. The same could have been accomplished by simply changing gold to silver, and not otherwise changing the cost of everything.

IMO, it was done to cut down the size of the numbers: it seems a theme to cut down/simplify the math as much as possible, so making the magic items seem to not cost as much with lower numbers showing does this.

BPorter wrote:
Coinage besides gold isn't useless? That's great. Perspective of both players and GM.

Useless? Not IMO. I once pried up every single tile from a dungeon floor because each was worth 1cp: I made enough money to buy a new wand and it was all mine since no one else wanted to go to the trouble for '1cp'...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I really like it, though I would really prefer them to go to a 100 system rather than a 10.

i.e.

100 Copper = 1 Silver
100 Silver = 1 Gold
100 Gold = 1 Platinum

Maybe have "Large" coins that count for 10 of a currency.

At least to me I would feel like gold and platinum were actually rare and finding a pile of gold that you could lay on top of would make you almost set for life.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

graystone wrote:
BPorter wrote:
Coinage besides gold isn't useless? That's great. Perspective of both players and GM.
Useless? Not IMO. I once pried up every single tile from a dungeon floor because each was worth 1cp: I made enough money to buy a new wand and it was all mine since no one else wanted to go to the trouble for '1cp'...

I have to admit, that sounds a little more "militant" then most people would be.

graystone wrote:
IMO, it was done to cut down the size of the numbers: it seems a theme to cut down/simplify the math as much as possible, so making the magic items seem to not cost as much with lower numbers showing does this.

That's the irony though. A Weapon Potency rune is almost twice as expensive as a PF1 magic weapon.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Having the most common coinage in fantasy settings be straight-up gold always felt extremely off to me. A lot of my DMs just decided to get rid of silver and copper altogether because they felt it was pointless. There was almost never a transaction costing less than a gold where the player just gave them a gold piece because nobody gave a flying flip about silver.

This change to a silver-standard feels way more realistic to me (and I normally don't care about realism), and it'll make me feel like I'm actually participating in a medieval-style economy (or at least an idealized version of it), rather than feeling like I'm using Gil to buy 5 Hi-Potions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like it. Then again, I really enjoyed the intricacies of monetary systems in Exalted and like to differentiate different coinages in my games, especially at lower levels or in civilized settings.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

At the end of the day it's more realistic. And a lot of times I would just throw gold at people who rarely see it like innkeepers and restaurateurs since I rarely had silver pieces on me and they'd be kind of shocked. My DM was actually nice and told my party when they came down in the morning that my character had "bought them breakfast."

I think because we spend the majority of our time as PCs doing fantastical things and because everyone around kind of has to level up as we do, that we forget just how many ordinary people are around us all the time, living their lives, saving a couple gold pieces in an old sock under their straw mattress. I think that should mean something.


Lord Fyre wrote:
graystone wrote:
BPorter wrote:
Coinage besides gold isn't useless? That's great. Perspective of both players and GM.
Useless? Not IMO. I once pried up every single tile from a dungeon floor because each was worth 1cp: I made enough money to buy a new wand and it was all mine since no one else wanted to go to the trouble for '1cp'...
I have to admit, that sounds a little more "militant" then most people would be.

LOl cp's add up more than people think and often 'trash' ends up being a sizable amount of money.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
That's the irony though. A Weapon Potency rune is almost twice as expensive as a PF1 magic weapon.

I don't know why you are conflating these two topics.

Just from Playtest to final 2E rules, Paizo cut-down on MAXIMAL impact magic weapons have, shifting it to Weapon Spec.
So e.g a +3 weapon is no longer in middle of pack for 1-20 appropriate gear, it is now at the upper bounds.
So why then would it be appropriate to compare affordability(WBL%) of a +X weapon in 1E and 2E pricing?
The entire paradigm of gear has shifted, so affordability comparisons just can't be legitimately made:
there is no reasonable price equivalency no matter their specific pricing or currency standard etc.

You might as well compare to pricing in Star Wars D6. Just because it uses d20 doesn't mean 3.x/1E paradigm is valid.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I like how my regular socks cost silver, and my ruby encrusted unicorn hair socks cost gold.


It also feels like this is two separate changes. Perhaps this should have been two separate threads.

One change is the change from gp to sp. By itself that wouldn't affect anything other than the printing of the units that things are priced at.

The other is the rebalancing of the prices of various things. The comparison between how much wealth by level people get for each level, the cost of things like magic runes vs magic weapons, or how much a pair of socks cost.

I actually like both changes. The first change feels better for how much coin things cost. The second change is needed for the value of the various items - like the +3 weapon rune being highest-tier upgrade available.

Silver Crusade

Seems essentially totally irrelevant to me. I neither care nor like nor dislike it.

All D&D economies are best left unexamined. PF2 may be slightly better than PF1 but not by all that much


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Don't care.

150 FantasyBucks works just as well. Silver coins, gold coins, gem stones, kidney stones... whatever.


Gloom wrote:

I really like it, though I would really prefer them to go to a 100 system rather than a 10.

i.e.

100 Copper = 1 Silver
100 Silver = 1 Gold
100 Gold = 1 Platinum

Maybe have "Large" coins that count for 10 of a currency.

At least to me I would feel like gold and platinum were actually rare and finding a pile of gold that you could lay on top of would make you almost set for life.

This, 100%

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Quandary wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
That's the irony though. A Weapon Potency rune is almost twice as expensive as a PF1 magic weapon.

I don't know why you are conflating these two topics.

Just from Playtest to final 2E rules, Paizo cut-down on MAXIMAL impact magic weapons have, shifting it to Weapon Spec.
So e.g a +3 weapon is no longer in middle of pack for 1-20 appropriate gear, it is now at the upper bounds.
So why then would it be appropriate to compare affordability(WBL%) of a +X weapon in 1E and 2E pricing?
The entire paradigm of gear has shifted, so affordability comparisons just can't be legitimately made:
there is no reasonable price equivalency no matter their specific pricing or currency standard etc.

You might as well compare to pricing in Star Wars D6. Just because it uses d20 doesn't mean 3.x/1E paradigm is valid.

Because, as I mentioned when I started the thread, I am trying to convert older Pathfinder material - specifically adventures.


I super duper like it. I hated the silly amount of gold you'd get in p1. Just trying to manage all that weight, spacing and all that stuff. Also just large numbers. But I grew up on videogames where 999 was the max limit for a long time.

Also it just makes counting a lot easier to me--it always annoyed me that after say lv 3-5 or so, basically you never had a reason to even remotely be aware of silver, much less coppers.
That might still happen in this system of course. But for the earlier levels it feels nicer for counting to me.

Exo-Guardians

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the change because it feels a lot more believable than the innkeeper rolling about with several hundred gold on them, or a bladesmith making a pittance for what are honestly fairly intensive and involved products to make.

Grand Lodge

I'm fine with it...shifting everything 1 decimal over is easy enough, and the silver economy makes far more sense from an economics standpoint.

I haven't delved too deep into the overall cost differences in some of the items...but even 1e had huge problems with some of that stuff...which is why no one bought wands of cure critical wounds when you could get 100 times more healing out of a stack of cure light wounds wands for a fraction of the cost.


I like it but uh, I actually changed to a renamed Copper economy for my own part.


I like it from a verisimilitude standpoint. It's less glaring then everyone having tons (sometimes literally) of gold. This coupled with the setting of 1000 coins per bulk instead of 50 to the pound. At 10 pounds per bulk, that's half the weight (and more reasonable, 1/50th of a pound is heavy for a modern coin, and absurdly large for a historical one). No more need to haul around tons of coins for a high end magic item.

The pricing of things has been shifted around. I still need to look things over more, and see it in play before I get a better feel for it. But the main thing that stuck out to me is healing potion price scaling. The scaling in a cost per healing ratio is much worse than in the playtest. And 5,000 gp for a Major potion is just a stupid amount of money. That's enough for a Holy Avenger, a Greater Healing Potion and two Moderates. How is that a good return on investment? The price per average healing gets worse as they get higher level (with the exception of the 3rd level lesser being a better deal than the 1st level minor). The action economy of a high level potion should have a bit of a premium, but not by as much as it currently has.

However, comparing price as a percentage of a character's expected wealth stands up much better. The percentage goes down with the higher level potions, with the exception of the Major Healing Potion which goes back to being a bigger percentage of your total lifetime wealth than all but the lowest level potion). Changing the Major Healing Potion's price to 1500 gp would continue the trend of being able to afford more level appropriate potions as you level. Still, exponential price scaling of something with such linear scaling in benefit feels bad on the surface, even if it makes sense from a game-play standpoint. I haven't run the numbers scaling for percentage of total HP restored, that might might be an even better metric to measure by.

GP/average HP ratio of healing potions, and percentage of total lifetime party wealth at the level of the item (math omitted because I lost it, but still have a log of the results I sent to a friend. It's possible I messed something up, but I did double check things):
Minor: 0.89 gp/hp, 2.29%
Lesser: 0.85 gp/hp, 1.23%
Moderate: 2.13 gp/hp, 0.97%
Greater: 8.51 gp/hp, 0.75%
Major: 75.76 gp/hp, 1.98%

As you can see, the Major is the odd man out here by either measure. I'm hoping that it will get changed in errata. But I'm not holding my breath. A 1500 gp potion would make the GP/HP ratio 22.73 and the percentage of lifetime party wealth 0.59%. Much more reasonable numbers.

For the playtest the GP/HP scaling goes 0.67, 0.62, 0.93, 1.74, 4.85 and 17.01. Still a jump at the end, but a much gentler curve than the final book. I didn't do the wealth calculation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Love it, loathed the stupid WBL numbers of 3.X and PF1e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gloom wrote:

I would really prefer them to go to a 100 system rather than a 10.

100 Copper = 1 Silver
100 Silver = 1 Gold
100 Gold = 1 Platinum

At least to me I would feel like gold and platinum were actually rare and finding a pile of gold that you could lay on top of would make you almost set for life.

A cubic metre of PF1 coins would be about 300,000 of them (assuming they're not packed particularly efficiently).

I'm pretty sure even in PF1, a human-sized pile of gold is enough to live off for the rest of your life. Living is cheap; magic items are what's expensive.

If we went for 10,000 copper = 1 gold, and a copper coin was worth about a dollar (any less and shopping for common goods become impractical) then a cubic metre of gold coins would be worth about three billion dollars. Which is not that far from how much gold is worth in real life.

The problem is, any visually impressive dragon hoard would be enough to break the economy of the game if the players got their hands on it.


I like it. Copper pieces are now worth picking up, crazy encumbrance can be avoided (is that 20,000 gold pieces you have in your belt pouch?) and gold itself feels a lot more valuable.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It all comes down to what kind of a campaign you want to run.

If you want to run a campaign based on scarcity, where PCs struggle to pay their upkeep or live in squalor with Society checks to subsist and have to keep track of where each meal is coming from, that's one thing.

If you want to run a campaign based on buying magic to suit the PCs, it's going to be an economy of plenty. IF the PCs have enough dough to contemplate which magic items in the MagicMart they want to invest in, then they are going to be annoyed to keep track of piddling copper and silver pieces, just like in PF1.

I've played scarcity-based campaigns in the past, and PCs usually managed to thrive by systematically looting all their adversaries, and looking round for bounties equivalent to goblin ears. I found that vaguely troublesome (from a racial tropes point of view), but it was still an enjoyable campaign.


I do understand the Trouble with translating older material, but I guess there is a Guideline for that coming somwhere down the line (maybe the GMG?)

But then I always hate having wealth per Level as part of the Balance consideration and look for easy Workarounds.


Matthew Downie wrote:


The problem is, any visually impressive dragon hoard would be enough to break the economy of the game if the players got their hands on it.

Well yeah. But that's always a problem. Those movie and artwork treasure hoards of massive piles of gold stretching on across a huge room are always impractical. The Hobbit treasure room was probably more gold than all that was ever mined on Earth combined. My group has a joke about artwork of big heaps of treasure. "Oh, look, two thousand gold pieces, five thousand silver and seven thousand copper." If page 530 was a image from an AP, than the treasure would be about that and maybe two magic items.

A realistic fortune is visually unimpressive to us. We're spoiled by the massive treasure pile trope.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:

I do not like the way that money has been changed in the game.

Two reasons:
* - It is an obstical to converting older material.
* - "Grognard-ism" Long time players may not react well to fighting an epic battle to win the princely sum of 150 silver.

How are others feeling?

I think it's more of a flavor change than anything. I've wished D&D was on the silver standard since the mid-80s - about the time Matthew Broderick was bragging about having a purse full of copper in Ladyhawke.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I kind of always liked the idea of large coin economy, kind of reminds me of how irl we go .01, .1, 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000.
A straight comparison with PF1e would result in an 8k gp item being worth 8 large gold coins, while an 80k gp item are 8 pp.

As for rebalancing costs, well that was very much needed to farther separate from PF1e values. There also needed to be considerations for new items, and how old items and mechanics have changed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Very fond of it. Gold is a bit more meaningful now. As I've mentioned before, PF1 didn't even feel like a gold economy, it felt like a 'k' economy. By the time we reached the levels my games started at (five or six), a k was the basic unit of money. 1k to cover every mundane item I'd need for the entire game plus a few minor magical trinkets, and then every permanent magic item from then on was measured in 'k's.

The idea that "one thousand pieces of gold" would be the basic unit of measurement was very unsatisfying. I want "one thousand pieces of gold" to be a tantalizing sum, not get-out-of-bed money by the time I find the game fun.


I am in a PF1e game atm where the GM has basically ignored the WBL table. Feels really weird to be getting 2k and going "well that is all the money I have gotten between level 4 to level 8"

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber

Can't wait how to see how this affects golarion. For years we've been putting prices in the pathfinderwiki pages. I'm not thrilled about having to go and change or delete sentences on hundreds of pages


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Rot Grub wrote:

Strange... older people often complain about inflation:

"Back in my day, a quarter got you into the movies AND got you a bag of popcorn! You had to WORK for a dollar!"

But now it's reversed:

"Back in my day, treasure hoards were GRANDER! You killed goblins and got GOLD for your troubles! You got REWARDED for your hard work!"

Heh.

Yeah, well. The dragon sleeping on a bed of gold and gems is kinda iconic. I guess dragons also now suddenly went through the sudden deflation which has gripped Golarion. :p


I really like it, have used the Silver Standard for 5th Ed for a few years. Gold is generally rare and special, so I like that to be reflected in the multiverse. It also has a bonus of making copper pieces worth carrying.

1 to 50 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / How are people feeling about the new "money" system? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.