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

[vagabond_666]

Zapp wrote:

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.

The problem with this argument is that, at the 1/4 a permanent item pricing being discussed, any time I get back to town having found and not used 8 consumable items (because the situation in which they'd be useful hasn't come up yet) I'm much better off selling them and trading them in for a permanent item, and I'm certainly not going to sell 2 consumables to buy 1 different consumable.

I don't know about your Pathfinder games, but that scenario happens pretty much every other session with mine.

[shroudb]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

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.

I was shouting about strawman because that was what you were doing in previous answers. That is, instead of arguing the points, you either went for a personal assault with 0 relation to the actual arguments or in your second case you presented a theoritacl example, which again did nothing to argue the point, and tried to base your whole point into that argument.

As for why it is unsustainable to have a 2000% inflation it really is simple. The profit margin is just extremely huge.

Any merchant can see that if he "buys/finds/crafts/whatever" the permanent version of item X, he can simply use/rent it 4-5 times and he has now come even.

In a week/month/etc he's simply swimming in cash, while the consumable crafter/vendor nearby is sinking.

Potions of healing as an example, with current Treat wounds rules, are 100% obsolete for normal folks. Those simply go to a much cheaper doctor/hedge witch/etc.

And this is normal, you don't expect people in a small village/town to drink potions every time they get injured.

So, those items exist solely for adventurers. But an adventurer will, obviously, expect to get injured more than 4 times. So he will instead go for a wand or something instead of a potion of healing.

Similarly for something like a potion of resistance.

If there are surrounding circumstances that imply that "resistance to x" might be useful for the common folk, like as an example excavation near a volcano, toxic caves, etc. And you have the option of either be protected for 4 hours, or forever.

Then even the common folk will save up and go for the forever option.

If there are not such surrounding circumstances, then I don't think there exist a civilian that'll go "oh, let's grab a potion of resist acid, which is as expensive as 5+ houses, just in case something acid happens 1 time in my lifetime." If he has THAT much money to spent so casually, he'll again opt for the permanent version.

And etc.

Again, the issue is not that potions are "bad". The issue is that they are terrible for their cost. So terrible, that they are simultaneously horrible for both common people and adventurers.

Such a bad market will naturally wither away since no one has a use of said market.

[John Lynch 106]

Quote:

The profit margin is just extremely huge.

This is an assumption you have made. When you make this assumption you are correct, the economics makes no sense. So why are you choosing to make this assumption?

And lol@your post about doctors and healing potions. I guess it’s easy to dismiss anything that doesn’t fit your preconceived notions. Because otherwise you might have to examine why your making the choices you are.

I hope you enjoy playing Pathfinder 2e with the mindset you’ve chosen to adopt.

[shroudb]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Quote:

The profit margin is just extremely huge.

This is an assumption you have made. When you make this assumption you are correct, the economics makes no sense. So why are you choosing to make this assumption?

That's not an assumption. That's a FACT though.

Item X is exactly as expensive as 4-5 consumable X.

We don't assume anything here, we KNOW the prices.

That means that using Item X has an extremely huge margin of profit compared to Consumable X.

There's no assumption here.

Those are simple basic maths.

[Bartram]

shroudb wrote:

Such a bad market will naturally wither away since no one has a use of said market.

No it wont because once again The rules are not an economics simulator. The devs have said this multiple times. They are a narrative engine designed to tell stories about heroic figures going on quests. It is not a simulation of how the world markets work, it is not the physics engine of the world. It is a tool designed to tell stories about heroic figures. Simulating a realistic market is not and has never been a design goal. Constantly trying to make it so is an exercise in futility.

[vagabond_666]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

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.

John, I'm not sure why Shroud has wandered off into this area of discussion with you.

The in setting justifications and what the NPCs are doing and all that jazz are secondary to the main point.

This is a game about the player characters. The player characters have the resources they have and the requirements that they have.

Based on those factors and the price of consumables, no player in their right mind will buy consumables, or do anything with consumables they find except sell them and buy permanent items instead.

As a result the entire consumables section of the core rule book, and most likely any future published materials regarding consumbles, are just wasted ink.

It doesn't matter how you try and explain the existence of something if the players are going to deliberately avoid having anything to do with it, because it isn't worth their while.

[shroudb]

Bartram wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Such a bad market will naturally wither away since no one has a use of said market.

No it wont because once again The rules are not an economics simulator. The devs have said this multiple times. They are a narrative engine designed to tell stories about heroic figures going on quests. It is not a simulation of how the world markets work, it is not the physics engine of the world. It is a tool designed to tell stories about heroic figures. Simulating a realistic market is not and has never been a design goal. Constantly trying to make it so is an exercise in futility.

Yes, and 0 heroes will get scammed though.

Do you know any Adventurer that'll go, "let me grab 4 potions of resistance for the 4 times i'll face fire", instead of "Let me grab a ring of resistance that'll use in my career forever"?

The argument "but the common people though!" was actually brought by those DEFENDING the prices.

For an adventurer, it's obviously hilariously bad to "invest" in a potion instead of going for the permanent version of what he wants.

[John Lynch 106]

vagabond_666 wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

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.

John, I'm not sure why Shroud has wandered off into this area of discussion with you.

The in setting justifications and what the NPCs are doing and all that jazz are secondary to the main point.

This is a game about the player characters. The player characters have the resources they have and the requirements that they have.

Based on those factors and the price of consumables, no player in their right mind will buy consumables, or do anything with consumables they find except sell them and buy permanent items instead.

As a result the entire consumables section of the core rule book, and most likely any future published materials regarding consumbles, are just wasted ink.

It doesn't matter how you try and explain the existence of something if the players are going to deliberately avoid having anything to do with it, because it isn't worth their while.

That is a completely valid point. I don’t have an answer for that. I’m just point out that shroudb’s hysterical screaming about the in game reality is only true because he chooses to make it true.

Of course, how often is a local town going to want to buy a potion of acid resistance?

[John Lynch 106]

shroudb wrote:

.That means that using Item X has an extremely huge margin of profit compared to Consumable X.

There's no assumption here.

Those are simple basic maths.

Just because you want to pretend something is a fact, doesn’t make it so. You’vechosen To assume the above quote is true. I hope that assumption makes your group’s gaming more enjoyable. Because it would be silly to make something behave a way that was unenjoyable.

[Bartram]

shroudb wrote:

Do you know any Adventurer that'll go, "let me grab 4 potions of resistance for the 4 times i'll face fire", instead of "Let me grab a ring of resistance that'll use in my career forever"?

I don't disagree that adventurers buying potions is dumb. I'm pretty sure in all the years I have been playing I have never had a character buy a consumable beyond those necessary for the core functionality of a class (Scrolls for a wizard, wand of cure light for survival etc). For that matter, outside of organized play I am pretty sure I have never sold a consumable either. They get stashed away in case they are needed in the future. Most GMs i have played under have a no selling consumables rule, because, why would the general store merchant want that potion of barkskin? It will just sit on their shelf forever.

That being said, adventurers find consumables constantly and found consumables get used when needed. That is why they exist. Its easy loot to put on an adventure that doesn't destroy the long term balance of the game.

[shroudb]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

vagabond_666 wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

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.

John, I'm not sure why Shroud has wandered off into this area of discussion with you.

The in setting justifications and what the NPCs are doing and all that jazz are secondary to the main point.

This is a game about the player characters. The player characters have the resources they have and the requirements that they have.

Based on those factors and the price of consumables, no player in their right mind will buy consumables, or do anything with consumables they find except sell them and buy permanent items instead.

As a result the entire consumables section of the core rule book, and most likely any future published materials regarding consumbles, are just wasted ink.

It doesn't matter how you try and explain the existence of something if the players are going to deliberately avoid having anything to do with it, because it isn't worth their while.

That is a completely valid point. I don’t have an answer for that. I’m just point out that shroudb’s hysterical screaming about the in game reality is only true because he chooses to make it true.

Of course, how often is a local town going to want to buy a potion of acid resistance?

the only reason i brought up common people and in -setting economy was because people tried to justify the exorbitant prices with "it makes sense for the common people, not the adventurers".

Which i then responded that it actually makes even LESS sense for the common people.

[vagabond_666]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Of course, how often is a local town going to want to buy a potion of acid resistance?

That depends on how many acid barfing wolves live on the outskirts attacking caravans I suppose, but I wouldn't look too hard at that question, because otherwise you end up getting into the whole

"Hardly any, so then supply and demand dictates either they shouldn't cost so much or no-one is making them", and you're back having the economics modelling argument you don't want to have...

[shroudb]

Bartram wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Do you know any Adventurer that'll go, "let me grab 4 potions of resistance for the 4 times i'll face fire", instead of "Let me grab a ring of resistance that'll use in my career forever"?

I don't disagree that adventurers buying potions is dumb. I'm pretty sure in all the years I have been playing I have never had a character buy a consumable beyond those necessary for the core functionality of a class (Scrolls for a wizard, wand of cure light for survival etc). For that matter, outside of organized play I am pretty sure I have never sold a consumable either. They get stashed away in case they are needed in the future.

That being said, adventurers find consumables constantly and found consumables get used when needed. That is why they exist. Its easy loot to put on an adventure that doesn't destroy the long term balance of the game.

exactly this is my issue:

if consumables are so terrible for adventurers that you'll never buy them.

and if consumables are even worse for the common people due to their prices.

then... who makes them and buys them and gets them lost in dungeons and caves?

That's what i mean by "the market will collapse".

WHO uses those consumables that you find laying around in dungeons if they are too terrible for both the adventurer and the common people to actually buy?

John Lynch 106 wrote:

shroudb wrote:

.That means that using Item X has an extremely huge margin of profit compared to Consumable X.

There's no assumption here.

Those are simple basic maths.

Just because you want to pretend something is a fact, doesn’t make it so. You’vechosen To assume the above quote is true. I hope that assumption makes your group’s gaming more enjoyable. Because it would be silly to make something behave a way that was unenjoyable.

are you really arguing that 4000 is NOT 4 times 1000?

Prices are Set in the rules, they are a Fact.

[John Lynch 106]

It only makes less sense if you pretend it does.

As for your prices: please show me where in the rules it says how much an NPC, who has trained all their life, has to pay in materials and labour to create a potion. And then show me the costs they have to pay for permanent magic items.

[Aricks]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

vagabond_666 wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

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.

John, I'm not sure why Shroud has wandered off into this area of discussion with you.

The in setting justifications and what the NPCs are doing and all that jazz are secondary to the main point.

This is a game about the player characters. The player characters have the resources they have and the requirements that they have.

Based on those factors and the price of consumables, no player in their right mind will buy consumables, or do anything with consumables they find except sell them and buy permanent items instead.

As a result the entire consumables section of the core rule book, and most likely any future published materials regarding consumbles, are just wasted ink.

It doesn't matter how you try and explain the existence of something if the players are going to deliberately avoid having anything to do with it, because it isn't worth their while.

That is a completely valid point. I don’t have an answer for that. I’m just point out that shroudb’s hysterical screaming about the in game reality is only true because he chooses to make it true.

Of course, how often is a local town going to want to buy a potion of acid resistance?

It seems like he's trying to reinforce the point made above, that consumables aren't worth crafting, buying or really anything besides vendor fodder, and I'd agree with him.

I think this has been shown with the original post about the longstrider wand. Maybe we should come up with a list of additional examples for the developers. Either it gets ignored, or wands nerfed, or consumables buffed, and we can voice how we want it to go.

[John Lynch 106]

Aricks wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

vagabond_666 wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

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.

John, I'm not sure why Shroud has wandered off into this area of discussion with you.

The in setting justifications and what the NPCs are doing and all that jazz are secondary to the main point.

This is a game about the player characters. The player characters have the resources they have and the requirements that they have.

Based on those factors and the price of consumables, no player in their right mind will buy consumables, or do anything with consumables they find except sell them and buy permanent items instead.

As a result the entire consumables section of the core rule book, and most likely any future published materials regarding consumbles, are just wasted ink.

It doesn't matter how you try and explain the existence of something if the players are going to deliberately avoid having anything to do with it, because it isn't worth their while.

That is a completely valid point. I don’t have an answer for that. I’m just point out that shroudb’s hysterical screaming about the in game reality is only true because he chooses to make it true.

Of course, how often is a local town going to want to buy a potion of acid resistance?

It seems like he's trying to reinforce the point made above, that consumables aren't worth crafting, buying or really anything besides vendor fodder, and I'd agree with him.

I think this has been shown with the original post about the longstrider wand. Maybe we should come up with a list of additional examples for the developers. Either it gets ignored, or wands nerfed, or consumables buffed, and we can voice how we want it...

I seriously doubt anything as fundamental as this is going to get touched by errata.

[Bartram]

shroudb wrote:

That's what i mean by "the market will collapse".

Once again. The rules are not a universe simulator The rules are not concerned with who makes them. They exist for the purposes of easy loot to distribute. The rules for crafting exist for PCs. NPCs are not bound by them. The NPCs don't pay full price to craft potions, because NPCs don't pay anything to craft potions. The rules do not exist for how NPCs get potions. They do *something undefined* and potions come out. The rules do not care to simulate that level of non PC detail.

The market doesn't collapse because the market does not function on PC rules, because the rules are not designed to simulate an economy.

[shroudb]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

It only makes less sense if you pretend it does. But you’ve demonstrated you cannot be reasoned with on this subject so I’m moving on.

As for your prices: please show me where in the rules it says how much an NPC, who has trained all their life, has to pay in materials and labour to create a potion. And then show me the costs they have to pay for permanent magic items.

sure, using basic maths apparently is making assumptions from your pov. Apparently, we must revere the omnipotent cauldron of endless gold that each npc potion crafter is gifted with at adulthood for prices to make sense according to your assumptions.

have a nice day and good gaming Sir.

[Aricks]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

It only makes less sense if you pretend it does.

As for your prices: please show me where in the rules it says how much an NPC, who has trained all their life, has to pay in materials and labour to create a potion. And then show me the costs they have to pay for permanent magic items.

You can buy a wand of longstrider for 160 gp. 10 speed for 8 hours once per day. You can buy a greater cheetah elixir for 110gp, 10 speed for an hour, once.

[John Lynch 106]

So you can’t show me where it says in the CRB? Sounds like you’ve made some pretty strong assumptions on profitability then.

[shroudb]

Bartram wrote:

shroudb wrote:

That's what i mean by "the market will collapse".

Once again. The rules are not a universe simulator The rules are not concerned with who makes them. They exist for the purposes of easy loot to distribute. The rules for crafting exist for PCs. NPCs are not bound by them. The NPCs don't pay full price to craft potions, because NPCs don't pay anything to craft potions. The rules do not exist for how NPCs get potions. They do *something undefined* and potions come out. The rules do not care to simulate that level of non PC detail.

The market doesn't collapse because the market does not function on PC rules, because the rules are not designed to simulate an economy.

oh hey, nice of you to simply ignore the whole argument and just restate your wrong assumptions.

once again:

if an item has no use, then who is making it?

Your justification is really "they grow on potion trees duh!"

thank you for proving me right.

That those items exist just so adventurers can sell them and serve no other purpose than being "pile of gold in liquid form".

THAT is imo terrible design, but each to his own. Feel free to put "Potion of..." "How much does it cost to sell?" in your adventures.

[vagabond_666]

Bartram wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Once again. The rules are not a universe simulator The rules are not concerned with who makes them. They exist for the purposes of easy loot to distribute. The rules for crafting exist for PCs. NPCs are not bound by them. The NPCs don't pay full price to craft potions, because NPCs don't pay anything to craft potions. The rules do not exist for how NPCs get potions. They do *something undefined* and potions come out. The rules do not care to simulate that level of non PC detail.

The market doesn't collapse because the market does not function on PC rules, because the rules are not designed to simulate an economy.

1) This is irrelevant to the fact that the consumables section of the rulebook isn't worth the paper it's printed on, because of the consumable pricing.

2) The game is certainly a game, and doesn't have to justify itself. However, if it lacks verisimilitude then people's enjoyment of the game will suffer.

[John Lynch 106]

Aricks wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

It only makes less sense if you pretend it does.

As for your prices: please show me where in the rules it says how much an NPC, who has trained all their life, has to pay in materials and labour to create a potion. And then show me the costs they have to pay for permanent magic items.

You can buy a wand of longstrider for 160 gp. 10 speed for 8 hours once per day. You can buy a greater cheetah elixir for 110gp, 10 speed for an hour, once.

How much did it cost the NPC to make the wand? And how much did it cost them to make the potion? How many NPCs have the training required to activate the wand?

Here’s a hint: The CRB doesn’t say. So you can assume values that support shroudb’s position. Or you can assume values that don’t support his position.

That said, the elixir does appear overpriced and could stand to be reduced in price to match all the other consumables.

[shroudb]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

So you can’t show me where it says in the CRB? Sounds like you’ve made some pretty strong assumptions on profitability then.

Aricks wrote:

You can buy a wand of longstrider for 160 gp. 10 speed for 8 hours once per day. You can buy a greater cheetah elixir for 110gp, 10 speed for an hour, once.

and before you start with "wands are not for everyone"

a potion of resistance 5 is 45gp and it's for 1 hour.
ring of resistance 5 is 245 gp and it's forever

and those ARE for everyone.

p.s.

assuming that crafting rules work differently for everyone else except the PCs, do you allow the PCs to sell consumables?

Because, as a merchant, I don't think i would buy for 22.5gp a potion that only costs 1 gp to craft.

Again, the moment you start to assume that rules are different than what it's written, the whole things starts crumbling down.

[Bartram]

shroudb wrote:

THAT is imo terrible design

You may not like it, but that makes it neither terrible, nor untrue. It is simply different from what you want.

You want a game where the rules define all aspects of the universe, but that is not the game that Paizo wanted to make. They wanted to (and did) make a game where the purpose of the rules is to create a system for playing heroic adventurers. Simulating things other than Heroic Adventurers is outside of the scope of the rules.

Its like complaining that you don't like chicken, so the wing place down the street is an objectively bad restaurant. You just want something different from what the owners want to provide. Neither option is bad or wrong.

[John Lynch 106]

So in your game NPCs are just rolling around in enough gold that everyone and their dog can throw hundreds of gold away on something they might on,y use a handful of times in their life? What a strange setting you’ve chosen to play in. I hope it’s fun for you.

[shroudb]

Bartram wrote:

shroudb wrote:

THAT is imo terrible design

You may not like it, but that makes it neither terrible, nor untrue. It is simply different from what you want.

You want a game where the rules define all aspects of the universe, but that is not the game that Paizo wanted to make. They wanted to (and did) make a game where the purpose of the rules is to create a system for playing heroic adventurers. Simulating things other than Heroic Adventurers is outside of the scope of the rules.

Its like complaining that you don't like chicken, so the wing place down the street is an objectively bad restaurant. You just want something different from what the owners want to provide. Neither option is bad or wrong.

nothing Heroic in selling every single consumable you find.

you can replace every consumable in the book with "pile of gold" and it'll change nothing for the Heroic adventures of your party.

[John Lynch 106]

Quote:

do you allow the PCs to sell consumables?

Because, as a merchant, I don't think i would buy for 22.5gp a potion that only costs 1 gp to craft.

Sure. Of course it’s strange that your assuming the cost for NPC’s has to be either:

(1) Exactly what PCs pay OR
(2) 1 gp

But whatever. It’s not the strangest thing you’ve posted.

[shroudb]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

So in your game NPCs are just rolling around in enough gold that everyone and their dog can throw hundreds of gold away on something they might on,y use a handful of times in their life? What a strange setting you’ve chosen to play in. I hope it’s fun for you.

if it's something that they'll encounter "a handful of times" then it is much cheaper to buy a permanent item to deal with it rather than a consumable.

That exactly is my issue.

Why buy a "handful of potions of resist" when they are actually MORE expensive than a simple ring that's always on?

Consumables should be priced as such that "a handful of times" favors the consumables over the permanent items. But at just 4x, they are not. They favor the permanent item.

As for "nothing as fundamental" getting chenged in an Erratta, my own proposition wasn't anything extreme and neither requires much space/work:

Change price to be per batch, will take almost 0 space/effort to implement AND it actually goes along with your view of "a handful of times" (bringing them from 4-5x to 16-20x)

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Quote:

do you allow the PCs to sell consumables?

Because, as a merchant, I don't think i would buy for 22.5gp a potion that only costs 1 gp to craft.

Sure. Of course it’s strange that your assuming the cost for NPC’s has to be either:

(1) Exactly what PCs pay OR
(2) 1 gp

But whatever. It’s not the strangest thing you’ve posted.

That then sets a bar of "minimum crafting cost" for NPCs as well.

going by the book, selling an item is half the price of it's cost.

That means that if "half" is more than it costs to make, then simply the NPC has 0 reasons to buy it.

But even at "half" price crafting for NPC, it still isn't really a good option to craft then. Since it's just 8x the permanent item then.

p.s.
nice to see you revert to personal insults when you figure out your arguments make no sense to actually use those.

[Bartram]

shroudb wrote:

nothing Heroic in selling every single consumable you find.

Who said anything about selling every consumable you find? In fact I specifically said selling consumables is typically forbidden in the games I play.

And quite frankly they probably should be in most games. Especially since in PF2 more control is being placed into the GMs hands. Not every merchant has to buy every item, nor have every item available for sale. One of the big talking points Paizo has been bringing out for this edition is putting more control in the GM's hands. This seems like an area where the Gm should take control.

[John Lynch 106]

shroudb wrote:

if it's something that they'll encounter "a handful of times" then it is much cheaper to buy a permanent item to deal with it rather than a consumable.

Sure, it’s cheaper. If they have perfect knowledge as to exactly how many times they will use it and enough funds to pay for it up front.

But hey. Acknowledging that NPCs might not have enough funds to pay 4 times the price is bringing up a straw man. So feel free to ignore this point and anything else that might be used against you.

As for your house rule. Looks cool. Maybe you should use it in your game?

[Aricks]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

So in your game NPCs are just rolling around in enough gold that everyone and their dog can throw hundreds of gold away on something they might on,y use a handful of times in their life? What a strange setting you’ve chosen to play in. I hope it’s fun for you.

Again, you're not addressing the point. The crafting rules are in the book. The item prices are in the book. There are several examples, and I bet we could find more, where the price of a consumable is not significantly less than that of a wand or other permanent item, and e think that's a problem. Some of us who play PFS only work with gold and not what we find in a dungeon, so it matters to us.

[John Lynch 106]

Aricks wrote:

Again, you're not addressing the point.

I only came here to address shroudb’s screams of REALISM!!!

I honestly have nothing else to contribute. I will personally be playing with the rules as written in the book. If the rules produce behaviour that is undesirable at my table I will look at houseruling it to encourage the desired behaviour.

For those of you in PFS I have nothing except to wish you luck. Nothing I say in this thread will change your situation.

[shroudb]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Aricks wrote:

Again, you're not addressing the point.

I only came here to address shroudb’s screams of REALISM!!!

I honestly have nothing else to contribute. I will personally be playing with the rules as written in the book. If the rules produce behaviour that is undesirable at my table I will look at houseruling it to encourage the desired behaviour.

For those of you in PFS I have nothing except to wish you luck. Nothing I say in this thread will change your situation.

a)i'm not screaming, i'm pretty chill atm, vacations and all (<- much more important things^^)

b)again, the issue of "realism" was brought by the defenders of said prices when they start arguing that they make sense because "npcs", when clearly, NPCs only make the problem seem worse.

c)lastly, once more, a simple fix to bring them on par to "a handful of usage" would be enough to make them actually playable and not a waste of pages.

d)my houserules atm are reaching 2 pages. That's more than any other edition ever had in launch. So i'm hoping for some of them to actually be addressed, or else my group will probably abandon this edition soon. And it's a real shame, because i DO like a lot of things in this edition.

[John Lynch 106]

shroudb wrote:

when clearly, NPCs only make the problem seem worse.

Simply staying something doesn’t make it true.

And yeah. If this game has more houserules then any other game, I would totally just play one of those other games. It sounds like it’s more to your taste.

[shroudb]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

shroudb wrote:

when clearly, NPCs only make the problem seem worse.

Simply staying something doesn’t make it true.

And yeah. If this game has more houserules then any other game, I would totally just play one of those other games. It sounds like it’s more to your taste.

when something is backed by factrs it makes it much more true than your empty claims that it's not.

but since, according to your own words, you only came here to troll and actually have nothing to contribute, then i don't see the reason to address you anymore.

have fun and have great games man. Bye.

[John Lynch 106]

I most definitely did not come here to “troll” you, I simply disagree with you. The two are not the same, but I understand why you would want to frame any opposition to your position in that way.

[ChibiNyan]

Don't know why people are fighting. There's 2 ways to view the pricing/crafting of consumables:

1- In-Universe/Economy: NPCs could in theory craft them cheaper than a PC could and get make huge margin, but then they would never buy them from PCs. Intelligent PCs still wouldn't buy these anyways. Not gonna go into the implications of that on the supply/demand, but this is probably not the way to view these anyways.

2- Gamey/balance: Where the item pricing/crafting is based only on the PC Math and doesn't need to make sense in the setting. Smart players controlling their PCs wouldn't buy consumables cause they could afford the permanent one after a few. They are highly incentivized to sell them, though, if the GM would let them.

If selling is not allowed, and buying is discouraged, then it pretty much doesn't matter what the price-tag is. They'll find them for free in dungeons and keep them until used.

Are potions of lower item level than their equivalent permanent item? This could result in edge cases where the potion is the only choice to get a given effect at a specific level.

[Unicore]

The tone of this conversation is getting a little heated, but its progress through the topic is interesting and useful, so I hope people focus more on the issues, realizing that the implementation is something that can be adjusted some at your table.

It feels like the PF2 economy went through atleast six major changes (playtest versions) where rules designed to change the way players used and interacted with magical items was changed and adjusted and then some general formulas were applied to fix costs, but that those formulas may not have all settled well.

John is right that major changes to the entire economic system are unlikely, and that the mechanical issues of consumables really have nothing to do with the whole world because there are not mechanical rules for how the world works in PF2, there are narrative rules: make the rules fit the story, outside of how PCs interact with it.

Shroubd is right that, Unlike Starfinder, resell value is 50%, making finding consumables AMAZING treasure, but only because their value is in not using them. Especially because the changes to resonance and item useage, and how few items actually carry the investment tag makes wands, that can cast spells unbelievably better than consumables, because of the price issue. Mechanically, the game has left consumables in a very bad spot for PCs.

Right now, the mechanics interact with the narrative in such a way that NPCs might very well benefit economically from crafting and selling consumables to each other (since that is a narrative that would justify their inclusion) but as soon as PCs interact with consumables, they are essentially extremely overpriced loot in the context of "value of item/resell-ability." And might as well be thought of gemstones that you might be able to crush once in an extreme life or death situation to get some power out of, but are much better off finding any reason at all not to do so.

This makes them worse than starfinder grenades, because at least in starfinder, no one is really going to give you enough money for the ones you find to keep you from using one you find, even if making them is just not worth it.

IN PF2, for PCs, the consumable is in the double bind of being too valuable as loot to use, and too expensive to build, AND easily superseded by wands that can do everything that consumables can do, usually better, and cheaper (but just requiring a caster to do so), especially with no limit to how many wands can be used in a day. This is not great for the game, because it pushes the game back towards incentivizing the wand wizard crafter as the most useful PC to have in your party. Which is why, probably, all wands probably need a push towards uncommon rarity or some other mechanical fix.

Edit: While consumables are kind of sitting in an awkward play space of being a trap option to build, but a treasure trove to find.

[shroudb]

ChibiNyan wrote:

Are potions of lower item level than their equivalent permanent item? This could result in edge cases where the potion is the only choice to get a given effect at a specific level.

usually no.

Level of the item is usually based on the level of the effect.

so, since "energy resistance 5" is valued as a level 6 effect.

both potion of resistance and ring of energy resistance, which both offer resistance 5, are item level 6.

[Unicore]

ChibiNyan wrote:

Are potions of lower item level than their equivalent permanent item? This could result in edge cases where the potion is the only choice to get a given effect at a specific level.

It looks like potions are generally 1 level ahead of wands in crafting.

[Tursic]

You can use crafting skill to take items apart. You get half the value of item in componets. I think there is a 10% cost to doing so. So you do not need to find a buyer for a high cost item.

[ChibiNyan]

Tursic wrote:

You can use crafting skill to take items apart. You get half the value of item in componets. I think there is a 10% cost to doing so. So you do not need to find a buyer for a high cost item.

I actually like this a lot, even if it makes consumables kind of fodder for this mechanic. Magic Item crafting has always been flavored as requiring all sorts of exotic ingredients and rituals, but the mechanic has always been "Throw cash at it". Now you can at least kinda feel like "I'll use the healing essence of these potions to create a BIGGER heal potion, or a Heal Wand"

It would be cooler if dissasembling only let you make a thematically similar item (Else I'm using this fire resist pot to make a scroll of Cone of Cold), but guess that can just be a house rule.

[Zapp]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

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.

Yes, or rather...

The point is that if you wait until you can afford the more expensive option, you might go entire levels without.

The game clearly expects you to live each day like it's your last.

When it comes to Longstrider wands, this kind of breaks down, since +10 speed is just as good at level 11 as at level 1.

Contrast if the spell gave you your level Speed increase. +1 ft at level 1; +20 ft at level 20. (Slightly ridiculous example but bear with me)

Now the point of saving up for that level 1 wand would be much more dodgy. Each time you could afford the permanent item, it would be made obsolete by the new shiny consumable.

As an adventurer you're not exactly experiencing the feeling of being poor, but certain "cash strapped, relatively speaking".

Any permanent item with a static bonus (equally useful) needs to be pegged to a level, and priced accordingly. And then we just accept that once that level has passed, everyone has made the purchase and we move on.

Either that or the devs bluntly make a list of exceptions: "spells cast from wands cannot last longer than 1 hour" or "you can only ever be affected by a single wand-spell at a time, each new wand-spell ending the duration of the previous" or somesuch.

[Saros Palanthios]

Paizo dev Michael Sayre just posted something in another thread that's relevant to the discussion here:

Michael Sayre wrote:

On the subject at hand, it's important to note that PF2 intentionally divorces character and NPC progression. It is (theoretically at the moment) entirely possible that you could have a 2nd level character who is e.g. Legendary in baking with an unexpectedly high skill modifier. They didn't go out and live an adventuring life and progress in that manner, but they did practice, master, and ultimately reach the highest degrees of functionality in that skill. Similarly, you could have that same character be a level 2 combat challenge, because it's fairly easy for an armored adventurer to take out a baker in a duel, but a level 18 challenge in a baking contest, because their skill in that very narrow field is equivalent to what a level 18 adventurer would be capable of (though said adventurer would also be highly proficient in a great many other tasks as well.)

I might also put forth the idea that the new dynamic works much better from a "realism" perspective in that it doesn't require NPCs who are supposed to present very specific higher level challenges within a given field to also be capable of grappling dragons into submission just because they're supposed to be super good at making cake.

So there you have it, NPCs don't in fact follow the same rules as PCs. The Golarion economy is saved! lol

[shroudb]

Saros Palanthios wrote:

Paizo dev Michael Sayre just posted something in another thread that's relevant to the discussion here:

Michael Sayre wrote:

On the subject at hand, it's important to note that PF2 intentionally divorces character and NPC progression. It is (theoretically at the moment) entirely possible that you could have a 2nd level character who is e.g. Legendary in baking with an unexpectedly high skill modifier. They didn't go out and live an adventuring life and progress in that manner, but they did practice, master, and ultimately reach the highest degrees of functionality in that skill. Similarly, you could have that same character be a level 2 combat challenge, because it's fairly easy for an armored adventurer to take out a baker in a duel, but a level 18 challenge in a baking contest, because their skill in that very narrow field is equivalent to what a level 18 adventurer would be capable of (though said adventurer would also be highly proficient in a great many other tasks as well.)

I might also put forth the idea that the new dynamic works much better from a "realism" perspective in that it doesn't require NPCs who are supposed to present very specific higher level challenges within a given field to also be capable of grappling dragons into submission just because they're supposed to be super good at making cake.

So there you have it, NPCs don't in fact follow the same rules as PCs. The Golarion economy is saved! lol

that's actually irrelevant.

again, the issue isn't if npc can craft them/ow well can craft them.

the issue is "why" when there's a clearly superior option available.

again, since selling stuff back to npc's at 50% cost is supported, there IS a base cost that's above that even for them, and this doesn't support the cost:value of the consumables as written.

atm, they still are only shinning piles of gold, nothing more.

[Saros Palanthios]

shroudb wrote:

that's actually irrelevant.

again, the issue isn't if npc can craft them/ow well can craft them.the issue is "why" when there's a clearly superior option available.

again, since selling stuff back to npc's at 50% cost is supported, there IS a base cost that's above that even for them, and this doesn't support the cost:value of the consumables as written.

atm, they still are only shinning piles of gold, nothing more.

"Why"? Because NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs, so there's no reason to assume production costs are the same for an NPC as they are for a PC. Sure, the PC crafting rules stipulate that it costs a PC only 4-5x more to craft a Wand of X than to brew a Potion of X, but that has no bearing on NPCs. An NPC's cost to produce a Potion of X might be only 5% of their cost to produce a Wand of X, instead of the PC's 20-25%.

How? Maybe they can brew potions in giant vats, but have to hand-craft each wand individually like a PC. Maybe some other reason. The point is, the PC rules don't apply to NPCs, so we can't extrapolate from PC-economics to NPC-economics.

[Saros Palanthios]

The other thing to remember is that successful adventurers represent only a small fraction of the overall population. A typical NPC crafter's customer base isn't spell-slinging PCs-- he might only ever meet a few of those in his whole career. No, the vast majority of his potential customers are mundane, non-magic-using folk. To them, a powerful magic wand is essentially just a useless stick... but even the most ignorant peasant or talentless wizard-academy-washout can benefit from a potion or talisman, whenever he wants, without having to track down a spellcaster of the appropriate Tradition and convince (or pay) her to operate it for him.

So the question isn't "why would an NPC ever craft a consumable item"; if anything, it's "why would a typical NPC ever craft anything but consumables?"

[shroudb]

Saros Palanthios wrote:

The other thing to remember is that successful adventurers represent only a small fraction of the overall population. A typical NPC crafter's customer base isn't spell-slinging PCs-- he might only ever meet a few of those in his whole career. No, the vast majority of his potential customers are mundane, non-magic-using folk. To them, a powerful magic wand is essentially just a useless stick... but even the most ignorant peasant or talentless wizard-academy-washout can benefit from a potion or talisman, whenever he wants, without having to track down a spellcaster of the appropriate Tradition and convince (or pay) her to operate it for him.

So the question isn't "why would an NPC ever make a consumable item"; if anything, it's "why would a typical NPC ever make anything but consumables?"

the issue here is that even items that don't have usage restrictions and work for everyone are still priced at the same exact value.

in short, the "limitations" of wands are not factored in their price at all.

An item's price is solely based on the effect and level it produces, and ease of use, or limitations of use, are not factored in.

People just compare wands because they are the easiest since they have exact potion equivalents. But all permanent items are priced on the same model basically. Which is "level of effect".

With consumables just being based around "a batch of consumables is equal to an equal permanent item".

And to me, and those agreeing with me, this is terrible pricing model, since it destroys the niche of consumables (their niche being "they are better if you use a handful, but worse if you plan on sticking with using said effect")

If a "handful" of consumables costs more than an equal level permanent item, then what's their point? Just buy the permanent.

And if you get consumables as loot, just sell them since they are so extremely expensive that you can get extra permanent items just by selling a handful of them.