Level 2 Wand of Longstrider is basically a permanent +10 speed


Advice

51 to 100 of 327 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

I don't know if it is Deus Ex Machina for NPCs to have items that might be explicitly useful in their given environments. The point of awarding potentially useful consumables is that it might allow the party to realize that there is more that they can do in a given dungeon than is just determined by their character abilities and items they can expect to purchase at their level. The consumables don't have to be in the room where the hazard or challenge is, but if the party remembers they found an appropriate item that could be useful, it feels like it is still playing into player agency for them to decide to use it rather than insist on having to sell it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
I don't know if it is Deus Ex Machina for NPCs to have items that might be explicitly useful in their given environments. The point of awarding potentially useful consumables is that it might allow the party to realize that there is more that they can do in a given dungeon than is just determined by their character abilities and items they can expect to purchase at their level. The consumables don't have to be in the room where the hazard or challenge is, but if the party remembers they found an appropriate item that could be useful, it feels like it is still playing into player agency for them to decide to use it rather than insist on having to sell it.

i don't think that the room the item is in has any sort of relevance.

putting a consumable in a module, that is the only solution for a challenge, is imo one of the worst module designs one can do. If it's not the only solution, then the players best course of action is using an alternative method to bypass the challenge and still sell the consumable. Since again, the value:cost is ridiculously low.

But either way, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with said consumable's pricing.

You could have a "potion of flying" before the unpassable chasm, and if it cost 10gp or 10000 gp, it wouldn't make any difference.

The only difference is actually taking AWAY player agency, because if it was 10000 gp then the players can only pass the unpassable chasm if the gm puts the potion (Deus Ex Machina) but if it was 10gp then the players could have been prepared (player agency) before coming in.

Again:

"awarding useful consumables" the ONLY thing that's relevant to their pricing is making explicitly GM Fiat (Deus Ex) to be available due to absolutely prohibiting cost. As opposed to them being actually available for players to be prepared (player agency).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:


putting a consumable in a module, that is the only solution for a challenge, is imo one of the worst module designs one can do. If it's not the only solution, then the players best course of action is using an alternative method to bypass the challenge and still sell the consumable. Since again, the cost:value is ridicusly low.

I agree with you if it is the ONLY solution to moving the entire story forward. That is bad adventure design. But seeding a dungeon with interesting consumables that do things like fly, passwall, teleport (especially in a setting where teleport is rare), detect scrying, some form of polymorph, and then having places in your dungeons where these kind of spells create opportunities to find even more valuable treasure (but not essential to the story) or to bypass or make easier certain difficult challenges is not "the worst module design one can do." Players assuming that their skills and abilities will always allow them to access everything in a dungeon is what feels like boring design that never pushes the players outside of their comfort zone. I much prefer dungeons that contain party killing threats that require careful and often times resource draining solutions to bypass. Refusing to ever use a consumable is a choice that a team can make, but it is also a choice that should have consequences in play.

Having the cost be too high on them will discourage players from feeling like it is ok to use there items, which is why I have a bit of a problem with the current pricing scheme, but I also see how, if making them is too cheap, then you recreate the wizard with every spell ready to cast off of a scroll problem of PF1, where finding consumables was nearly a waste of time because you already had one of each of them, or what they could do for you, at the ready anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Staves are lackluster

Agreed, though the one good use for them I've seen is to be a True Strike battery. Low-end staff of divination, spend a slot to double the charges, and go ham with attack roll spells. Not much other value in them for a prepared caster, but I guess one spell slot per day is nice.

Houseruling away the one staff limit seems like a viable solution, at least partially.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
shroudb wrote:


putting a consumable in a module, that is the only solution for a challenge, is imo one of the worst module designs one can do. If it's not the only solution, then the players best course of action is using an alternative method to bypass the challenge and still sell the consumable. Since again, the cost:value is ridicusly low.

I agree with you if it is the ONLY solution to moving the entire story forward. That is bad adventure design. But seeding a dungeon with interesting consumables that do things like fly, passwall, teleport (especially in a setting where teleport is rare), detect scrying, some form of polymorph, and then having places in your dungeons where these kind of spells create opportunities to find even more valuable treasure (but not essential to the story) or to bypass or make easier certain difficult challenges is not "the worst module design one can do." Players assuming that their skills and abilities will always allow them to access everything in a dungeon is what feels like boring design that never pushes the players outside of their comfort zone. I much prefer dungeons that contain party killing threats that require careful and often times resource draining solutions to bypass. Refusing to ever use a consumable is a choice that a team can make, but it is also a choice that should have consequences in play.

Having the cost be too high on them will discourage players from feeling like it is ok to use there items, which is why I have a bit of a problem with the current pricing scheme, but I also see how, if making them is too cheap, then you recreate the wizard with every spell ready to cast off of a scroll problem of PF1, where finding consumables was nearly a waste of time because you already had one of each of them, or what they could do for you, at the ready anyway.

but we're not talking about "too cheap" here.

i don't see anyone advocating for pricing allowing one to spam comsumables like candy.

But at the price of "1 permanent item of your level per 4 consumables" it's just WAAAAY too extreme.

Even if you literally cut the cost in a quarter (price per batch) it STILL is really expensive, but at least it approaches the territory of "maybe i can actually use this instead of selling it for raw cash" and "maybe, 1 potion of flying, as a whole party expenditure, is ok for emergency uses".

But at their current pricing?

hell no.

It's more profitable quitting an adventure and selling the consumables you find than actually using them...

And again, this is all comparable to items that already exist in the game. Why on earth would ANYONE craft a potion/scroll whatever, when it's cheaper, faster, more profitable, AND efficient to just make the permanent bersion of said consumable!

how do you "seed" a dungeon with consumables when crafting the consumables in the first place is, economy-wise, a TERRIBLE decision by the crafter.

Or do we assume that all npc crafters are simple morons who can't math?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since neither one of us mentioned the level 2 wand of longstrider in any of our last several posts, we should probably move this thread. Asking about the price points on consumables, what kind of economy that is supposed to create in Golarion and what to be cautious of in house ruling changes seems like a great topic for a pathfinder friday twitch stream.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Doktor Weasel wrote:
And as for alchemists and consumables... Yeah, the consumable pricing is just absurd. The only reason to ever use any higher level alchemical items is if you have an alchemist in the party making them for free. Non-infused alchemical items are just a waste of money.

It's been mathematically shown that there is no such thing in P2E as free crafting.

You still have to pay half. And even if you worked the full length of time to not have to pay the other half, the money saved vs time spent is exactly equal to the money earned and time spent earning an income.

That bard spending his downtime singing on the street? He's "saved" just as much money during his downtime as the artificer who used one of his skill feats just to be able to craft magical items in the first place.

Except the bard didn't have to spend a feat, didn't have to hunt down a formula to get the "savings," and can spend his earnings on the exact same magic item the artificer spent his time crafting or on something else of his choosing (unlike the artificer, who only gets to "spend" his money on his one item).

So yeah, Paizo cracked down on these known "abuses" kinda' hard.

The only benefit that I can see to crafting magical items yourself is that you can potentially obtain one in a situation where you are unable to buy one (such as when you're stranded on a desert island)--provided of course you are somehow still able to get the crafting supplies and formula first.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
And as for alchemists and consumables... Yeah, the consumable pricing is just absurd. The only reason to ever use any higher level alchemical items is if you have an alchemist in the party making them for free. Non-infused alchemical items are just a waste of money.

It's been mathematically shown that there is no such thing in P2E as free crafting.

You still have to pay half. And even if you worked the full length of time to not have to pay the other half, the money saved vs time spent is exactly equal to the money earned and time spent earning an income.

That bard spending his downtime singing on the street? He's "saved" just as much money during his downtime as the artificer who used one of his skill feats just to be able to craft magical items in the first place.

Except the bard didn't have to spend a feat, didn't have to hunt down a formula to get the "savings," and can spend his earnings on the exact same magic item the artificer spent his time crafting or on something else of his choosing (unlike the artificer, who only gets to "spend" his money on his one item).

Yeah, Paizo cracked down on these known "abuses" hard.

The alchemist "free crafting" that is being referred to is Advanced Alchemy.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:


The only benefit that I can see to crafting magical items yourself is that you can potentially obtain one in a situation where you are unable to buy one (such as when you're stranded on a desert island)--provided of course you are somehow still able to get the crafting supplies and formula first.

This assumes the PF1 standard of all items can be purchased everywhere and everyone is always willing to buy your leftover junk. While this may still be the case in PF2, I'm not 100% sure that it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Bartram wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:


The only benefit that I can see to crafting magical items yourself is that you can potentially obtain one in a situation where you are unable to buy one (such as when you're stranded on a desert island)--provided of course you are somehow still able to get the crafting supplies and formula first.
This assumes the PF1 standard of all items can be purchased everywhere and everyone is always willing to buy your leftover junk. While this may still be the case in PF2, I'm not 100% sure that it is.

If the GM is going to stop you from buying a magical item due to setting or scenario, there's nothing stopping him from blocking you from getting the components or formula. Ergo, there are very few practical reasons to waste time with crafting.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Bartram wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:


The only benefit that I can see to crafting magical items yourself is that you can potentially obtain one in a situation where you are unable to buy one (such as when you're stranded on a desert island)--provided of course you are somehow still able to get the crafting supplies and formula first.
This assumes the PF1 standard of all items can be purchased everywhere and everyone is always willing to buy your leftover junk. While this may still be the case in PF2, I'm not 100% sure that it is.
If the GM is going to stop you from buying a magical item due to setting or scenario, there's nothing stopping him from blocking you from getting the components or formula. Ergo, there are very few practical reasons to waste time with crafting.

I, for one, fully intend for certain magic items to be not trivially available, but still craftable. Formulas may be a bit harder to find, but you only need to buy them once. You can also invent them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:


That bard spending his downtime singing on the street? He's "saved" just as much money during his downtime as the artificer who used one of his skill feats just to be able to craft magical items in the first place.

Except the bard didn't have to spend a feat, didn't have to hunt down a formula to get the "savings," and can spend his earnings on the exact same magic item the artificer spent his time crafting or on something else of his choosing (unlike the artificer, who only gets to "spend" his money on his one item).

Non-crafters of higher level are often going to outlevel their money earning opportunities. A 12th level Bard can probably find a decent 12th level performance opportunity in Abasolom or Oppara, but not in a fly speck village, where he might only have level 2 or level 3 audiences. The crafter always earns his level in income towards crafting costs no matter where he is.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Bartram wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:


The only benefit that I can see to crafting magical items yourself is that you can potentially obtain one in a situation where you are unable to buy one (such as when you're stranded on a desert island)--provided of course you are somehow still able to get the crafting supplies and formula first.
This assumes the PF1 standard of all items can be purchased everywhere and everyone is always willing to buy your leftover junk. While this may still be the case in PF2, I'm not 100% sure that it is.
If the GM is going to stop you from buying a magical item due to setting or scenario, there's nothing stopping him from blocking you from getting the components or formula. Ergo, there are very few practical reasons to waste time with crafting.

There's a feat to craft formulas and crafting materials are just a spend money and get them thing by the rules. It's usually not the GM houseruling by fiat that limits item availability in settlements, it's the settlement rules themselves, which bizarrely contemplate that it's hard to find someone able to sell you a Luckblade or buy 200,000 gp in surplus magic items in a hamlet of 80 people.

Exo-Guardians

Xenocrat wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Bartram wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:


The only benefit that I can see to crafting magical items yourself is that you can potentially obtain one in a situation where you are unable to buy one (such as when you're stranded on a desert island)--provided of course you are somehow still able to get the crafting supplies and formula first.
This assumes the PF1 standard of all items can be purchased everywhere and everyone is always willing to buy your leftover junk. While this may still be the case in PF2, I'm not 100% sure that it is.
If the GM is going to stop you from buying a magical item due to setting or scenario, there's nothing stopping him from blocking you from getting the components or formula. Ergo, there are very few practical reasons to waste time with crafting.
There's a feat to craft formulas and crafting materials are just a spend money and get them thing by the rules. It's usually not the GM houseruling by fiat that limits item availability in settlements, it's the settlement rules themselves, which bizarrely contemplate that it's hard to find someone able to sell you a Luckblade or buy 200,000 gp in surplus magic items in a hamlet of 80 people.

Exactly! People ITT seem to be forgetting (or choosing to ignore) that the Rarity rules exist. This isn't PF1, item and formula rarity is a big deal now-- you can't just buy and sell fabulous magical items freely any more. Even in places like Absalom you still have to know the right people, and out in the sticks you might be plain SOL. Want to sell that Potion of Tongues you found and put the money toward a Wand of Tongues instead? 320gp is more than the richest merchant in the county earns in a year, and he's not interested in it anyway...

CRB wrote:

ITEM RARITY

Like many other aspects of the rules, items have rarities.
Player characters might find uncommon magic items for
sale, but only infrequently and often by private sellers
or in clandestine markets. Their formulas are often
guarded and not readily available. Unless the GM decides
otherwise, a character cannot purchase rare items, and
their formulas are lost to time.
...
If a character wants to sell an item, they can sell it
for half its Price (or full Price, if the item was made on
commission), assuming they’re able to find a buyer. The
GM determines whether a buyer is available.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saros Palanthios wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Bartram wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:


The only benefit that I can see to crafting magical items yourself is that you can potentially obtain one in a situation where you are unable to buy one (such as when you're stranded on a desert island)--provided of course you are somehow still able to get the crafting supplies and formula first.
This assumes the PF1 standard of all items can be purchased everywhere and everyone is always willing to buy your leftover junk. While this may still be the case in PF2, I'm not 100% sure that it is.
If the GM is going to stop you from buying a magical item due to setting or scenario, there's nothing stopping him from blocking you from getting the components or formula. Ergo, there are very few practical reasons to waste time with crafting.
There's a feat to craft formulas and crafting materials are just a spend money and get them thing by the rules. It's usually not the GM houseruling by fiat that limits item availability in settlements, it's the settlement rules themselves, which bizarrely contemplate that it's hard to find someone able to sell you a Luckblade or buy 200,000 gp in surplus magic items in a hamlet of 80 people.

Exactly! People ITT seem to be forgetting (or choosing to ignore) that the Rarity rules exist. This isn't PF1, item and formula rarity is a big deal now-- you can't just buy and sell fabulous magical items freely any more. Even in places like Absalom you still have to know the right people, and out in the sticks you might be plain SOL. Want to sell that Potion of Tongues you found and put the money toward a Wand of Tongues instead? 320gp is more than the richest merchant in the county earns in a year, and he's not interested in it anyway...

CRB wrote:

ITEM RARITY

Like many other aspects of the rules, items have rarities.
Player characters might find uncommon magic items for
sale, but only infrequently and often by private sellers
or in clandestine
...

you do understand that forumlas are equally rare to the the items they produce.

AND that you can't invent uncommon/rare recipes any more than you can find them in a city.

In fact, it's called out that recipes have the exact same rarity and availability as the products.

and uncommon/rare recipes need direct GM approval to be invented, exactly like buying those items from the market need direct GM approval.

So, really now, Rarity has exactly 0 things to do here. it's 1000% exactly the same for either crafting or finding/buying the items.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

It always comes back down to "Mother May I?"

Exo-Guardians

3 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

you do understand that forumlas are equally rare to the the items they produce.

AND that you can't invent uncommon/rare recipes any more than you can find them in a city.

In fact, it's called out that recipes have the exact same rarity and availability as the products.

and uncommon/rare recipes need direct GM approval to be invented, exactly like buying those items from the market need direct GM approval.

So, really now, Rarity has exactly 0 things to do here. it's 1000% exactly the same for either crafting or finding/buying the items.

Um, that's exactly my point... just because you happen to find a Potion of X, doesn't mean you can also find

a) a buyer for said Potion,
b) a Wand of X to buy instead, or
c) a formula to Craft such a wand yourself.

Those things are all equally rare, so the odds of having access to several of them at once should be quite slim.

Which is why the assertion "Potions are dumb, everyone will just sell them and buy/craft a wand of the same thing for only 4-5x more" isn't valid. Most magic items simply aren't fungible like that.

Exo-Guardians

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
It always comes back down to "Mother May I?"

It comes down to the story, and what makes sense in the current context. The relative usefulness of Potions vs Wands could look very different if the party is in Absalom or Katapesh as opposed to Sandpoint, or the middle of the Fangwood.

Scarab Sages

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
It always comes back down to "Mother May I?"

As it should. The player controls their character. This includes skills, feats, attributes, and all choices the character makes.

The GM controls everything else. Including item availability, what loot you can find, what loot you can sell, what shops there are, and what those shops are interested in buying.

Your character is for the Player, the world is for the GM, and items are part of the world, not your character.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Saros Palanthios wrote:
shroudb wrote:

you do understand that forumlas are equally rare to the the items they produce.

AND that you can't invent uncommon/rare recipes any more than you can find them in a city.

In fact, it's called out that recipes have the exact same rarity and availability as the products.

and uncommon/rare recipes need direct GM approval to be invented, exactly like buying those items from the market need direct GM approval.

So, really now, Rarity has exactly 0 things to do here. it's 1000% exactly the same for either crafting or finding/buying the items.

Um, that's exactly my point... just because you happen to find a Potion of X, doesn't mean you can also find

a) a buyer for said Potion,
b) a Wand of X to buy instead, or
c) a formula to Craft such a wand yourself.

Those things are all equally rare, so the odds of having access to several of them at once should be quite slim.

Which is why the assertion "Potions are dumb, everyone will just sell them and buy/craft a wand of the same thing for only 4-5x more" isn't valid. Most magic items simply aren't fungible like that.

not really when it's dumb to craft potions in the first place.

there's simply no reason why a crafter, would choose to craft a potion over a permanent item unless he wants to lose money for no apparent reason.

Are the merchants in the setting set on losing money for some reason?

and since magical items don't grow in trees, you expect all of the crafted items to actually be the ones that are easier to craft and more valuable and easy to sell. And all require the same investment and expertise as well.

so, if we follow rarity rules and economics, potions/consumables should really be "extremely rare" simply due to how unprofitable they are and due to their very limited longevity even IF someone made them.

So, really now, in a city you should expect around 10 times more permanent items rather than potions.

since only "dumb" npc's actually bother to craft potions instead of items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Staves are lackluster

Agreed, though the one good use for them I've seen is to be a True Strike battery. Low-end staff of divination, spend a slot to double the charges, and go ham with attack roll spells. Not much other value in them for a prepared caster, but I guess one spell slot per day is nice.

Houseruling away the one staff limit seems like a viable solution, at least partially.

That sounds awful. Who fantasizes about being the Wizard who carries around a barrel full of staves? That's what you'd expect from a parody, not an actual game.

Exo-Guardians

10 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
there's simply no reason why a crafter, would choose to craft a potion over a permanent item unless he wants to lose money for no apparent reason.

What if the crafter only happens to have the formula for a potion and not a permanent item? That's the point, the techniques to make magic items aren't commonly known. Any given crafter would be lucky to have access ONE high-level formula, he doesn't have dozens that he can swap between at will to get the most $$$.

You seem to be envisioning a sort of modern, globalized capitalist economy where wealth is liquid, goods are fungible, and markets are efficient. That's not how Golarion works-- especially not PF2 Golarion. There aren't Magic Item factories churning out Potions and Wands and Rings, setting production targets based on market conditions to maximize shareholder ROI.

Potions and wands aren't consumer goods mass-produced for sale on the open market, they're mystical artifacts created for specific purposes by powerful magic-users poring over dusty tomes and such. Sometimes a magic item outlives its creator (if a reclusive Wizard's tower gets sacked by a mob of superstitious peasants before he can use that Invisibility Potion he brewed to spy on his rival with, or whatever), and such items might survive and end up among a specialty merchant's wares or abandoned in a ruin for adventurers to find.

That's where your Wand of Longstrider comes from, not MagiCorp's offshore manufacturing plant in Tian Xia. The fact that Pathfinder stories are about mighty heroes rather than the daily lives of peasants tends to obscure the fact that even mid-level adventurers are fabulously wealthy and powerful by the standards of the common folk who form the backbone of the feudal, agrarian economy.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Saros Palanthios wrote:
What if the crafter only happens to have the formula for a potion and not a permanent item?

He curses the gods for having a formula that's not worth making...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Saros Palanthios wrote:
shroudb wrote:
there's simply no reason why a crafter, would choose to craft a potion over a permanent item unless he wants to lose money for no apparent reason.

What if the crafter only happens to have the formula for a potion and not a permanent item? That's the point, the techniques to make magic items aren't commonly known. Any given crafter would be lucky to have access ONE high-level formula, he doesn't have dozens that he can swap between at will to get the most $$$.

You seem to be envisioning a sort of modern, globalized capitalist economy where wealth is liquid, goods are fungible, and markets are efficient. That's not how Golarion works-- especially not PF2 Golarion. There aren't Magic Item factories churning out Potions and Wands and Rings, setting production targets based on market conditions to maximize shareholder ROI.

Potions and wands aren't consumer goods mass-produced for sale on the open market, they're mystical artifacts created for specific purposes by powerful magic-users poring over dusty tomes and such. Sometimes a magic item outlives its creator (if a reclusive Wizard's tower gets sacked by a mob of superstitious peasants before he can use that Invisibility Potion he brewed to spy on his rival with, or whatever), and such items might survive and end up among a specialty merchant's wares or abandoned in a ruin for adventurers to find.

That's where your Wand of Longstrider comes from, not MagiCorp's offshore manufacturing plant in Tian Xia. The fact that Pathfinder stories are about mighty heroes rather than the daily lives of peasants tends to obscure the fact that even mid-level adventurers are fabulously wealthy and powerful by the standards of the common folk who form the backbone of the feudal, agrarian economy.

only it doesn't work like that, like at all.

common recipes are actually... common.

magical knowledge is not required to craft magical items.

in fact, with current rules, i envision that most magic item crafters are simple commoners/crafters/merchants that follow a recipe.

secondly, we have exactly the perfect tool for how "rare" those things are, Rarity.

Common rarity means that you should expect, in an average setting, to have access to those items/recipes (in a sufficiently large settlement ofc). They are not long lost secrets guarded in mystic tombs.

Those are the rare/uncommon ones.

Yes, not everyone is making staffs of the magi, but everyone can go in a city and learn how to craft potions of healing, wands of longstrider, and rings of resistance.

That's what the rarity is telling us.

In the worst case, if one wants to make a profit, he'll Invent the recipe for a common magical item he wants to sell, again, no magical knowledge required, just brains/skill.

Common recipes aren't family secrets that are guarded in vaults and passed down generation to generation. They are things that people sit down and discover, things that people buy in capital cities, and things that are traded with one another in guilds.

Next, is how EASY it is to make the items.

Looking at the item list, since it only goes by the LEVEL of the item, it's actually exactly as daunting/easy of a task to make a potion and to make the equivalent permanent magical item.

In short, it's not even easier to craft the potion/consumable, it's EXACTLY as easy as the permanent one.

Lastly, as for how industrialized the setting is. You do realize that there already exist "pamphlets" that freely give out the recipes to all common (non-magical) items, so cheap and easy to find that you can start with one in fact.

There are also clear rules on how to price recipes, and they actually aren't even expensive or uncommon, in fact, it is quite common to walk to a store and buy one.

All those show that the setting is actually extremely far ahead in industrializing crafting.

I don't know how you think Golarion works, but it certainly isn't the age of lost magic where you have to search in ancient civilizations to learn how to make a +1 sword.


Ravingdork wrote:
It always comes back down to "Mother May I?"

That is one of the key conceits of this edition. If you are unwilling to accept it you might want to consider playing a different game/edition. Complaining about it constantly is going to achieve exactly nothing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Saros Palanthios wrote:
shroudb wrote:

you do understand that forumlas are equally rare to the the items they produce.

AND that you can't invent uncommon/rare recipes any more than you can find them in a city.

In fact, it's called out that recipes have the exact same rarity and availability as the products.

and uncommon/rare recipes need direct GM approval to be invented, exactly like buying those items from the market need direct GM approval.

So, really now, Rarity has exactly 0 things to do here. it's 1000% exactly the same for either crafting or finding/buying the items.

Um, that's exactly my point... just because you happen to find a Potion of X, doesn't mean you can also find

a) a buyer for said Potion,
b) a Wand of X to buy instead, or
c) a formula to Craft such a wand yourself.

Those things are all equally rare, so the odds of having access to several of them at once should be quite slim.

Which is why the assertion "Potions are dumb, everyone will just sell them and buy/craft a wand of the same thing for only 4-5x more" isn't valid. Most magic items simply aren't fungible like that.

not really when it's dumb to craft potions in the first place.

there's simply no reason why a crafter, would choose to craft a potion over a permanent item unless he wants to lose money for no apparent reason.

Are the merchants in the setting set on losing money for some reason?

and since magical items don't grow in trees, you expect all of the crafted items to actually be the ones that are easier to craft and more valuable and easy to sell. And all require the same investment and expertise as well.

so, if we follow rarity rules and economics, potions/consumables should really be "extremely rare" simply due to how unprofitable they are and due to their very limited longevity even IF someone made them.

So, really now, in a city you should expect around 10 times more permanent items rather than potions.

since only "dumb" npc's actually bother to craft...

Have you considered that when your PC was taking the time to learn how to cast powerful spells, take an Attack of Opportunity and create potions om the fly in am emergency, that perhaps an NPC was taking the time to learn how to craft things at a much more economical and faster rate? Naaaah. That could never happen. Consumables just dont exist.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Have you considered that when your PC was taking the time to learn how to cast powerful spells, take an Attack of Opportunity and create potions om the fly in am emergency, that perhaps an NPC was taking the time to learn how to craft things at a much more economical and faster rate? Naaaah. That could never happen. Consumables just dont exist.

strawman a lot do you?

i don't mind if npc's are better crafters.

my issue isn't if crafting is good or bad.

my issue is that the same items you can craft with the same money and same feats/investment, are actually seperated into two categaries: literally bad and actually good.

when you can get a permanent verion of most consumables at just 4x the price is my issue.

I wouldn't mind it if consumables had an edge somewhere, but they don't.

they are currently EXACTLY as good as the exact same permanent item, but you only get to use them 4 times instead forever.

It has nothing to do with if the npcs are better at making stuff. If they are better than making stuff, then they are also better at making permanent items.

or is there a justification that somehow makes consumables much more easy to make for NPC only?

So yeah.

Consumables, at their current state, would actually have perished as a market a long time ago.

No ingame justification can keep such an extremely terrible (value wise) market alive.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
how do you "seed" a dungeon with consumables when crafting the consumables in the first place is, economy-wise, a TERRIBLE decision by the crafter.

Not specifically consumables, but I've always had a similar issue. There are a lot of items that are just bad, so who is making them? Where are these Rods of Wonder coming from? There can't be any significant demand for them, they're useless items that only gets printed because it's iconic and produced a few chuckles back in the 70s. Or my favorite punching bag for this edition, the Bracers of Missile Deflection. They're crap, a mundane shield is much better, who would want one? So who's making all the stuff that your party immediately says "It's useless, sell it," and who's buying it?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Saros Palanthios wrote:
shroudb wrote:
there's simply no reason why a crafter, would choose to craft a potion over a permanent item unless he wants to lose money for no apparent reason.
What if the crafter only happens to have the formula for a potion and not a permanent item? That's the point, the techniques to make magic items aren't commonly known.

The entire rarity system would beg to differ.

The crafter simply goes to the local blueprint shop and buys the wand formula. It's common, so anyone can find it easily enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Strill wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Staves are lackluster

Agreed, though the one good use for them I've seen is to be a True Strike battery. Low-end staff of divination, spend a slot to double the charges, and go ham with attack roll spells. Not much other value in them for a prepared caster, but I guess one spell slot per day is nice.

Houseruling away the one staff limit seems like a viable solution, at least partially.

That sounds awful. Who fantasizes about being the Wizard who carries around a barrel full of staves? That's what you'd expect from a parody, not an actual game.

I suppose I'd prefer to be the wizard who has enough spell slots and a wide variety of prepared options. Running out seems pretty lame. If that means a barrel of staves, so be it.

Staves now are kind of like what pearls of power used to be. An extra spell slot or two. Not my fault it's a big stick instead of a tiny gem now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
Strill wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Staves are lackluster

Agreed, though the one good use for them I've seen is to be a True Strike battery. Low-end staff of divination, spend a slot to double the charges, and go ham with attack roll spells. Not much other value in them for a prepared caster, but I guess one spell slot per day is nice.

Houseruling away the one staff limit seems like a viable solution, at least partially.

That sounds awful. Who fantasizes about being the Wizard who carries around a barrel full of staves? That's what you'd expect from a parody, not an actual game.

I suppose I'd prefer to be the wizard who has enough spell slots and a wide variety of prepared options. Running out seems pretty lame. If that means a barrel of staves, so be it.

Staves now are kind of like what pearls of power used to be. An extra spell slot or two. Not my fault it's a big stick instead of a tiny gem now.

You're making an argument based on mechanics. I'm making an argument based on narrative. Those two are not mutually exclusive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i actually like staves as they are now.

sure, if you only use the highest spell possible, they are a max level pearl (or 2), but if you use them for mid level stuff they offer quite the flexibility


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
shroudb wrote:
how do you "seed" a dungeon with consumables when crafting the consumables in the first place is, economy-wise, a TERRIBLE decision by the crafter.
Not specifically consumables, but I've always had a similar issue. There are a lot of items that are just bad, so who is making them? Where are these Rods of Wonder coming from? There can't be any significant demand for them, they're useless items that only gets printed because it's iconic and produced a few chuckles back in the 70s. Or my favorite punching bag for this edition, the Bracers of Missile Deflection. They're crap, a mundane shield is much better, who would want one? So who's making all the stuff that your party immediately says "It's useless, sell it," and who's buying it?

Game designers trying to "balance" are the ones making the items. As for who's buying? not many people. Gotta see things from a gamist standpoint for these.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I don’t agree that common rarity in items means they’re common and ubiquitous for NPC crafters. PCs don’t use the same rules, NPCs have the abilities that are necessary to drive the story (and not ruin it), PC abilities are there to provide a consistent framework to build and run heroes who are better than anyone else.

It’s absurd that a PC can craft anything with Crafting or play any instrument, sing, dance, and act with Perform. But it helps build heroes for the game, so I understand why they work that way. I do assume they work the same way for NPCs, and it’s perfectly legitimate for crafters and even crafting guilds not to have access to every common formula or for a gifted NPC Bard to be unable to play more than one type of instrument.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
If [NPCs] are better than making stuff, then they are also better at making permanent items.

That's a pretty strong assumption you've made with absolutely no foundation in anything. Now sure, you COULD say that. And then you'd have an excuse to post for days on end about how awful the system is and how it should be set on fire and thrown into the bin.

OR... and this is going to sound a bit crazy. But you could choose to NOT make that assumption. Now admittedly there is nothing in the rules that say you have to assume one scenario over another. The choice is completely up to you. One assumption lets you b&~!% and moan about how awful the game is. The other one let's you run a game where the fiction, as presented in the book, makes sense.

Which assumption are you going to choose to make?

shroudb wrote:
No ingame justification can keep such an extremely terrible (value wise) market alive.
Internal Monologue of an NPC wrote:

Hmmmm... I could buy this lesser potion of healing. It can revive someone from dying to fully healed with one drink. And it costs 12 gold pieces, which is a lot. But it could literally save the life of someone I care about. Or I could buy this 1st level wand of heal. Now I don't know how to use a wand of heal. But my local church could teach me and the course only takes a month. Of course this wand costs 60 gold pieces. Sure I could use that wand multiple times, but rent is due at the end of the month and I've got that wedding to attend in the other village and frankly I don't have 60 gold pieces on me, let alone to spare.

I guess for now I'll buy this potion. And look, my father owned one of these and he waited ten years to have to use it. 12 gold pieces every ten years is pretty reasonable. I mean sure by the time I'm sixty I would have been better off buying the wand. But that's forty years down the road. This is a good choice for now

Your right. Consumables make no sense from an in game perspective. You might as well rip out those pages from your CRB. Your not going to need them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Where are these Rods of Wonder coming from?

In the real world we have people who think playing a pyromaniac who burns every book and scroll they see, sings annoying songs and spends their time chasing dogs and horses and trying to kill them is a good way to spend the evening. In the world of Golarion those people also exist within the setting itself.

Now I'm not talking about goblins. I'm talking about humans who think that sort of behaviour is fun. Because some of these people will spend years studying how to make magic items and will then choose to spend all their spare time crafting a rod of wonder. Not because it's useful. But because it's "wacky" and "funny" to give these stupid things as gifts to people. They're the kind of people who have a few friends who tolerate them and keep them company, but ultimately find them really annoying whenever they get started talking about their little hobby and think they would be much more interesting human beings if they would just STOP going on about frigging rods of wonder and make something useful.

I've actually met an NPC in an AP that was like the person I've described above. It was pretty surreal.

Exo-Guardians

1 person marked this as a favorite.

lol, was it Horace Croon?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually heard from one stream with designers that things PCs can do are different (sometimes widely) from what NPCs (e.g. crafters) can do. The rules in CRB are for PCs, not for NPCs.

There is hardly any reason to assume that all NPCs in the world follow the rules for heroes and for heroes the rules are as they are and I suppose they are balanced for this dungeon crawl style of things, not the ideas like "we are going to set up a factory of mag items to sell it to the world because it is simply economically efficient".

I mean, CRB's purpose is not to balance the world economy, it's for heroes and their downtime, so no point to assume NPCs=PCs and think CRB's prices break the world.


No. I did learn into that type of person with Horace, but I played him a bit more Doc Brown then creating rods of wonder annoying. I think it was Strange Aeons but I cant remember for sure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can we just accept that the rules for Fantasy superheroes can not be made into a functioning real world? The PF2 design Team has stated multiple time that is one of their reasons for totally decoupling NPC creation rules from PC rules. The CRB is not a world simulator, it is a very limited scope Hero Simulator.

Now, back on Topic (somewhat), I agree that the current Price philosophy does not encourage PLAYERS to use consumables, which is unfortunate. I will probably make stuff like potions very much unsellable, just to encourage the Team to simply use them.

I am not so worried about the pricing per HP on higher Levels - there consumables are limited by Action economy, not Price economy. Sure it saves Money to guzzle 3 lower Level potions instead of a high Level one, but in combat you Need to minimize those interact Actions.

Out of combat healing is already easily covered by Skill use, that is not what potions are for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will admit to being a little confused by exactly how magic items work in Pathfinder 2 because I haven't read the entire magic item chapter in its entirety yet (saving that for when I am running a game that gets to higher level play) but isn't there a 10 item investment limitation on permanent items? Having a bandolier of wands or a bucketful of staves is pretty much giving up on a lot of other essential magic items.

This thread is largely about identifying the much fewer number of spells that can give really great long term benefits from having as a wand, but whether a caster has it memorized or is carrying it in a wand, any non-consumable is taking up valuable space in the party's total limit of daily resources.

Consumables make sense for parties because of the convenience factor of having a way to do something without having to commit much to it in terms of character build. Wands, scrolls, staves, require casting ability or a skill feat, which might not really be that useful for a martial character that plans on having 10 specific magic items that are going to be their daily bread and butter.

The decision to price consumables out of the "cheap enough to keep one of everything" was clearly intentional and is probably also tied to getting rid of resonance. Yes the playtest had both, but resonance was always considered something that was a pretty far out there test and they probably didn't want to deal with the backlash of dealing with angry players if the consumable cost was low (due to resonance) and then spiked up after they decided to can resonance.

EDIT: Well apparently I am totally wrong again about wands and staves. I guess I will have to read the whole chapter in detail because I don't really understand how weapons and staves are not invested items. PF2 items definintely feel like a more confusing thing to wrap your head around if you are trying to do more than just understand how the one item you just found works.

Whether you like it or not, the developers really wanted to get a way from the Wizard who has a scroll/potion/item for that situation of PF1 that made them such overwhelming powerhouse characters.

And if you don't like it, and you want your magic item economy to work a different way, it is probably one of the easiest things to home brew for your table. As many folks have said, the rules suggested in the CRB are for helping players primarily make characters balanced with each other and adhering to expectations of power that the GM can generally anticipate by knowing the level of the party and trusting that their equipment falls close to those level based expectations. Changing those expectations can be fine as long as everyone is aware of it.

This thread has actually helped me realize that I am much more fine with the cost of magical items and consumables than my initial gut reaction led me to believe and convinced me not to mess with the numbers that the developers spent much longer honing in on then I want to reexamine. If they errata some specific items that slipped through the cracks, I'll keep an eye out for that, and if something feels really, really off, I'll probably ask about it on these boards, but I am pretty comfortable with the overall system, even if there are some wands that will basically work like all-day buffs, and the general approach to consumables will be to hold on to them with the hopes of selling them unless they are really needed before that can happen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Investment is for worn items exclusively. You can have as many wands as you want, limited by price and availability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
If [NPCs] are better than making stuff, then they are also better at making permanent items.

That's a pretty strong assumption you've made with absolutely no foundation in anything. Now sure, you COULD say that. And then you'd have an excuse to post for days on end about how awful the system is and how it should be set on fire and thrown into the bin.

OR... and this is going to sound a bit crazy. But you could choose to NOT make that assumption. Now admittedly there is nothing in the rules that say you have to assume one scenario over another. The choice is completely up to you. One assumption lets you b#%!@ and moan about how awful the game is. The other one let's you run a game where the fiction, as presented in the book, makes sense.

Which assumption are you going to choose to make?

shroudb wrote:
No ingame justification can keep such an extremely terrible (value wise) market alive.
Internal Monologue of an NPC wrote:

Hmmmm... I could buy this lesser potion of healing. It can revive someone from dying to fully healed with one drink. And it costs 12 gold pieces, which is a lot. But it could literally save the life of someone I care about. Or I could buy this 1st level wand of heal. Now I don't know how to use a wand of heal. But my local church could teach me and the course only takes a month. Of course this wand costs 60 gold pieces. Sure I could use that wand multiple times, but rent is due at the end of the month and I've got that wedding to attend in the other village and frankly I don't have 60 gold pieces on me, let alone to spare.

I guess for now I'll buy this potion. And look, my father owned one of these and he waited ten years to have to use it. 12 gold pieces every ten years is pretty reasonable. I mean sure by the time I'm sixty I would have been better off buying the wand. But that's forty years down the road. This is a good choice for now

Your right. Consumables make no sense from an in game perspective. You might as well rip out those...

i'm assuming exactly as much as you.

for some strange reason, you assume that potion/consumable crafting is easier and more common than permanent item crafting.

Sure, you can ASSUME that if you want to justify ludicrous prices that would actually destroy the economy otherwise.

Or you can't assume that in fact they are equally common as their tag suggest, and fix a clearly hazardous part of the game with an Errata.

Also, again, nice strawman there with your example.

You do understand that a Healer, like a level 3 with expert medicine, does an equally good job as the "amazing solution to save my father " you provided.

Or does the strawman example also assumes that healers went extinct as well?

Yes, I can too craft fantastical examples to prove a point, that doesn't make the point correct, just the examples hilarious.

"A need a fare to the port, quick please"
"Sure, that will be 2500$"
"What?"
"Well, do you need it or not?"
"I really need to get to the ship asap."
"Oh you want to go go quickly as well? 3500$"
"But there's a guy next to you that's selling a full car for 10000$"
"Yeah so?"
*Proceed to buy the car, gets to the port, does his job, returns next to the taxi*
"Rides for rent, 500-1000$ per ride"
*in a week he already has made a profit, Taxi next to him goes broke"


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I confess I kind of skimmed the second half of this thread, but I think noone has seen the point here:

Everybody seems to argue from the POV of somebody well-off. But that's simply not the assumption behind those prices.

You need to have a certain minimum wealth to afford making rational decisions. It's been shown over and over again that being poor means life is *more* expensive, not less.

The simplest example is: most of us take it for granted we can make a saving by purchasing in bulk, or even that we're sufficiently well-off that we don't care about such savings.

But when you can't buy an 8-pack of something because you only have money for one, it doesn't matter that the cost of that 8-pack might only been three or four times the price of a single item.

Thus, poverty forces you to buy expensive things.

I think this thinking is the key to the puzzle you seem unable to solve. The idea is that you would want the single potion or scroll or talisman NOW rather than having to wait until you can buy that "8-pack" or permanent item.

In any D&D edition with exponential money, magic items are sort of a perishable good. Having them NOW is when they're useful as strong items for your level. When you can afford the a dime a dozen, they have been turned into relatively uninteresting low-level items.

I'm talking about, say, items with static save DCs. These would quickly go from powerful to meh as you level up.

Obviously this breaks down for any effect that remains as useful at first level as 20th level. But then THAT is the problem.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
i'm assuming exactly as much as you.

Ding, ding, ding! You get it. Now you have a choice. You can:

(1) assume something that makes absolutely no sense and makes the entire fantasy world in which you play in seem like a silly bit of nonsense that completely invalidates the point of consumables. OR

(2) you can assume a scenario where things operate in a way that the pricing of consumables makes perfect sense.

You said it yourself. Both assumptions have equal basis in the core rulebook. You can assume one scenario as easily as you assume the other scenario.

So I ask you again: Which scenario are you going to choose to be the case? Because it is a choice you get to make. What will it be?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:

I confess I kind of skimmed the second half of this thread, but I think noone has seen the point here:

Everybody seems to argue from the POV of somebody well-off. But that's simply not the assumption behind those prices.

Actually that's the precise point I made. A lesser potion of healing is only 1/4 the price of a 1st level wand of healing. Now potions have the benefit that ANYONE can use them with no training required. But more importantly, they're 1/4 the price of the price of a wand. But if someone doesn't even know they'll need 4 uses of a potion of healing and are keeping it on hand for an emergency, that's a savings of 48 gold pieces that they can use on something else. IRL people buy things that are more expensive long term because they're cheaper short term. For an adventurer who uses a 1st level wand of heal every single day, of course the wand is the better investment. But for all the NPCs who don't go into dangerous situations on a daily basis? Makes perfect sense not to shell out for an expensive wand.

Now you might argue like shroudb did that a healer can be called for. But of course that assumes a healer is always on hand. Out on a farm a healer might be an hour's ride away or even a half day's ride away. There's plenty of situations where a potion can be worth the investment over a healer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's do the math. Assuming no crit successes, a greater cheetah elixir takes 17.75 days to craft at level 9 with master crafting. A wand of longstrider takes 24 with the same skill.

For that cost I could craft the proverbial barrel of them and just apply them to my teammates as needed once every 8 hours.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
i'm assuming exactly as much as you.

Ding, ding, ding! You get it. Now you have a choice. You can:

(1) assume something that makes absolutely no sense and makes the entire fantasy world in which you play in seem like a silly bit of nonsense that completely invalidates the point of consumables. OR

(2) you can assume a scenario where things operate in a way that the pricing of consumables makes perfect sense.

You said it yourself. Both assumptions have equal basis in the core rulebook. You can assume one scenario as easily as you assume the other scenario.

So I ask you again: Which scenario are you going to choose to be the case? Because it is a choice you get to make. What will it be?

Nope.

You missed the point again.

your logic says:

Choose:
either the rational scenario that says that the book is simply WRONG in prices.
OR
Accept it as it is, craft a theoritical system that says the exact opposite of the rules (rarity rules exist) and STILL see the market crash and burn.

I only see 1 choice in the above bud.

That Paizo is simply wrong/missed the mark in their pricing model.

a)
Your theoretical scenario where "consumables are common/permanent items aren't" Is actually OPPOSITE of what the Rarity rules suggest.

b)
I didn't assume that consumables are rare and permanent items common. I said that if they are EQUALLY common, as the RULES say they are, then the market for them will crash.

c)
Even if for some bizarre, 100% opposite to how reality and economics work, potions are extremely common, it STILL doesn't make sense to be that expensive.

In fact, if they were extremely common as you suggest, then they would be dirt cheap compared to what we have now.

And even IF for some reason they are still extremely common AND extremely expensive at the same time, THEN the market again will crash, because, as with my Taxi example above, people will just ignore them, they simply are not worth the money.

So, nope.

No matter the weird, drunken, view you may cast upon the setting, a consumable CANNOT be worth 1/4th of an equally powerful PERMANENT item.

It's literally 2000% inflation compared to common sense (where you expect them to be around 1/700-1/2000)

No market, no matter how fantastical, can sustain a 2000% inflation.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's got nothing to do with rarity shroudb. It's got to do with profitability.

Here is the system I choose to go with, it is 100% supported by the rules:

Quote:

NPCs get specialised training that lets them make consumables at a cheaper rate then PCs. NPCs who have even more specialised training are capable of creating permanent magic items at a cheaper rate then PCs.

When applying a similar markup to both items, the amount of profit that can be generated is better with permanent magic items, but it takes greater training.

Most people in the world don't need to gain the effects of a consumable multiple times in a year and instead keep the items on hand for rare situations. Those who do need the effect of a consumable on a regular basis and aren't so wealthy as to be able to throw money away, buy the permanent magic item version and learn how to activate it.

There is enough demand to keep magic item shops stocked with both as outlined in the rarity system in the CRB.

Now you can assume the quote isn't true. But that's a choice you're making.

Here's a question: How is assuming the economics in the book make zero sense working out for playing an enjoyable game?

I expect another tirade from you and more shouting about strawmen. But just remember: Your choosing to react that way. The ability to change your situation and enjoyment of the game is in your hands.


Making wands invested was a genius idea that was proposed by some of us during the playtest. It solved a lot of problems, but unfortunately wasn't picked up by Paizo.
My own idea was giving wands like 5 charges and requiring resonance investment for the first use everyday; this would probably work quite the same with 1 charge/day and eating up a "permanent item slot".

51 to 100 of 327 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Level 2 Wand of Longstrider is basically a permanent +10 speed All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.