| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is true at wealth by level but wont be true in play or at least not at my table. The whole party will sell any item that doesn't immediately fill an essential need and spend all down time crafting wands with their spare gold.Good for them? I'm pretty sure they'll wind up behind in the math by a fair bit if they really do this as much as you seem concerned about, making this a pretty bad idea.
Sorry, is it seriously your contention that a party that sells 4 single use items to create an item of equivalent power that can be used anywhere from "once a day" to "is permanently on" is somehow going to end up behind in resources?
I have a hard time believing that 'raw materials' would need to be tracked specifically as to what item they are for - the intent of using such a generic term is to 'gamify' the crafting process and not get bogged down in the weeds.
Right, every manufacturer just puts in an order at the raw materials store, they don't worry about specifics.
It's weird to me the extremely confident pronunciations in this thread based on common sense economics, crafting, and business sense that show none at all.
It goes into the same bucket that says you can create the materials from nothing by spending an extra 4-5 days working on the item. It's weird to me that everyone is fine with saying you have 'rations' but no one is talking about if it's bread, cheese, and dried meat - and how often it goes moldy or gets ruined by damp dungeons.
No wait, those are minute details of the game - that are 'gamified' away from playing - because they are boring. Much like no one is asking characters to specify how many days they soak a hide in urine to make leather. Some things are *better left out of the game*.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That assumes all magic items are available everywhere, which just seems crazy to me. I realize there are games that play that way, but It just doesn’t really feel like DnD to me. Though admittedly, I’m straying into a different topic. But if someone is playing a everything, always available campaign, then I would imagine they would need to tweak things accordingly. This thread seems like it will help with that.
Well, unfortunately for you, there is now a Rarity system that dictates what items or formulas are readily available, and so most of the items that would fall into this discussion are going to be, while perhaps not trivially easy to acquire, fairly easy to get a hold of.
Also, if these permanent items are available and are so sought after, seems to me the seller would jack the price sky high.
This is a large portion of what has kicked this thread off. The price of consumables compared to permanent items makes them not worth using. You may as well take up burning money as a hobby if you do. Any sane analysis of the situation from an economics point of view dictates that these would not be the prices, either permanent items would go up, or consumables would come down. However, the designers have priced them as they are, so, there you go and here we are.
I didn’t catch this, but are the consumables selling for, at least, half price?
As far as I am aware, it is basically the same as PF1 "Sell for half, Craft for half", with the exception that you now need to buy (or otherwise aquire) a formula to craft an item, but the formulas are relatively inexpensive, so it ends up closer to "sell for half, craft for 0.55 for the first item and half for any more"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, is it seriously your contention that a party that sells 4 single use items to create an item of equivalent power that can be used anywhere from "once a day" to "is permanently on" is somehow going to end up behind in resources?This is true at wealth by level but wont be true in play or at least not at my table. The whole party will sell any item that doesn't immediately fill an essential need and spend all down time crafting wands with their spare gold.Good for them? I'm pretty sure they'll wind up behind in the math by a fair bit if they really do this as much as you seem concerned about, making this a pretty bad idea.
As I mentioned earlier, my assumption is that 'will sell any item that doesn't immediately fill an essential need' covers a lot more than just consumables. If it's only consumables...well, as I've mentioned other places, that won't buy too many on-level items, and I'm less concerned about it.
But that wasn't the idea I was responding to.
Sorry, is it seriously your contention that a party that sells 4 single use items to create an item of equivalent power that can be used anywhere from "once a day" to "is permanently on" is somehow going to end up behind in resources?This is true at wealth by level but wont be true in play or at least not at my table. The whole party will sell any item that doesn't immediately fill an essential need and spend all down time crafting wands with their spare gold.Good for them? I'm pretty sure they'll wind up behind in the math by a fair bit if they really do this as much as you seem concerned about, making this a pretty bad idea.As I mentioned earlier, my assumption is that 'will sell any item that doesn't immediately fill an essential need' covers a lot more than just consumables. If it's only consumables...well, as I've mentioned other places, that won't buy too many on-level items, and I'm less concerned about it.
But that wasn't the idea I was responding to.
I meant to imply that they would buy items to keep up with their essential math maintaining items, but would prioritize wands over other items.
298 posts arguing over something so far removed from the OP that most people would have forgotten the original point (Longstrider is insanely good 2nd level spell <edit> on a wand <end edit>for many builds with a low price point)
Seriously, potions appear to be meant as treasure to keep ONLY if you will need that particular ability a handful of times and will never use it (e.g. Protection for Powerful Undead Lich Mage to offer a hypothetical example). In that case, making a wand is a bad use of money. As much as people want to adjust the rarity rules, they are as much a part of the game as the other rules
There are definitely some spells that would make good scrolls, but, as pointed out by the Longstrider wand, wands are very good use of a party's magic item economy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I meant to imply that they would buy items to keep up with their essential math maintaining items, but would prioritize wands over other items.
Totally fair. I mentioned I might've been wrong earlier in the thread. Just clarifying the impression I was under for my original response.
Personally, I think getting enough Skill items will be costly enough to keep this from getting too out of hand really quickly, but in terms of 1st and 2nd level Wands by, say, 10th level I'm a tad concerned.
I meant to imply that they would buy items to keep up with their essential math maintaining items, but would prioritize wands over other items.Totally fair. I mentioned I might've been wrong earlier in the thread. Just clarifying the impression I was under for my original response.
Personally, I think getting enough Skill items will be costly enough to keep this from getting too out of hand really quickly, but in terms of 1st and 2nd level Wands by, say, 10th level I'm a tad concerned.
I can see that including 1 to 2 skill items if they find one that matches up. I do hope they don't make any spells that grant item bonuses to skills.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see that including 1 to 2 skill items if they find one that matches up. I do hope they don't make any spells that grant item bonuses to skills.
You need more than one or two skill items to stay competitive in more than one or two Skills long term. Of course, how many Skills you want to stay really competitive in will vary a fair bit.
As for spells giving Item bonuses, they never will. Spells definitionally give Status bonuses, just like Items definitionally give Item bonuses.
I can see that including 1 to 2 skill items if they find one that matches up. I do hope they don't make any spells that grant item bonuses to skills.You need more than one or two skill items to stay competitive in more than one or two Skills long term. Of course, how many Skills you want to stay really competitive in will vary a fair bit.
As for spells giving Item bonuses, they never will. Spells definitionally give Status bonuses, just like Items definitionally give Item bonuses.
Magic weapon gives an item bonus and “magic tool” is not inconceivable.
Okay I give up after 50 posts on how whisky turns into ivory.
Time for a new thread on the *actually interesting* subject!
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion - it helped clarify things greatly. I'll look forward to such posts in the future as they have helped me learn the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That assumes all magic items are available everywhere, which just seems crazy to me. I realize there are games that play that way, but It just doesn’t really feel like DnD to me. Though admittedly, I’m straying into a different topic. But if someone is playing a everything, always available campaign, then I would imagine they would need to tweak things accordingly. This thread seems like it will help with that.
Well, unfortunately for you, there is now a Rarity system that dictates what items or formulas are readily available, and so most of the items that would fall into this discussion are going to be, while perhaps not trivially easy to acquire, fairly easy to get a hold of.
Rarity does not tell you what is actually available in any given town/shop. It tells you that if something is available, what would have a higher % chance of actually being present. Moreover, rarity is a tool. A DM is still required to determine how that tool is used.
So, while a particular wand may be common, it doesn’t mean there is a wand shop in town, though if there was, then it would be more likely to have a couple wands that are common, then an uncommon wand
Also, if these permanent items are available and are so sought after, seems to me the seller would jack the price sky high.
This is a large portion of what has kicked this thread off. The price of consumables compared to permanent items makes them not worth using. You may as well take up burning money as a hobby if you do. Any sane analysis of the situation from an economics point of view dictates that these would not be the prices, either permanent items would go up, or consumables would come down. However, the designers have priced them as they are, so, there you go and here we are.Putting fantasy economics to the side for the moment, the prices have always been a baseline, and nowhere has it been said or intended for those prices to never change. I think that is approaching the situation in bad faith.
I didn’t catch this, but are the consumables selling for, at least, half price?
As far as I am aware, it is basically the same as PF1 "Sell for half, Craft for half", with the exception that you now need to buy (or otherwise aquire) a formula to craft an item, but the formulas are relatively inexpensive, so it ends up closer to "sell for half, craft for 0.55 for the first item and half for any more"Thanks for the replies!
Rarity does not tell you what is actually available in any given town/shop. It tells you that if something is available, what would have a higher % chance of actually being present. Moreover, rarity is a tool. A DM is still required to determine how that tool is used.
Sure, but while it never outright states how available, the impression I get from the rulebook is that common items should be fairly widely available (especially in large towns/cities). If you start denying your players access to common items and formulas on a regular basis, they will be fairly justified in being annoyed at you.
Which was my entire point. The game has set up a situation with a very obvious best course of action. Any attempt to "fix" that course of action (rather than change the underlying situation) will simply cause your players to have a justified grievance.
In large town/cities yes as you point out. The sleepy little "town" that is just an inn and two houses for the farmers? probably not gonna find magic Costco there.
Which is a good thing that the crafting rules allow you to earn your max per day even there - note that there is no 'population check' on crafting - you look at the table - and your skill - and your level - and make money per day of crafting towards your goal.
So even in the little fishing village - if you are crafting and know the formula you can crank out items.
|
You can't craft without the materials.
You must supply raw materials worth at least half the item’s Price. You always expend at least that amount of raw materials when you Craft successfully. If you’re in a settlement, you can usually spend currency to get the amount of raw materials you need, except in the case of rarer precious materials.
You can't craft without the materials.
You must supply raw materials worth at least half the item’s Price. You always expend at least that amount of raw materials when you Craft successfully. If you’re in a settlement, you can usually spend currency to get the amount of raw materials you need, except in the case of rarer precious materials.
And outside of specific valuable materials - these are always available. "If you’re in a settlement, you can usually spend currency to get the amount of raw materials you need, except in the case of rarer precious materials."
Not "a large city" or "check this table" - it's just "a settlement" - unlike buying and selling which requires "a settlement of decent size". The language used here is permissive and meant to convey that raw materials are generally available.
So the little fishing village - should have 'raw materials'. If not then you can always deconstruct items for 'raw materials', we have been over that part already - meaning as long as I have access to 'stuff' I can spend time deconstructing it for raw materials.
The rules here don't give a GM an 'out' to point at rules and not allow something - they in fact give the GM plenty of leeway to not allow things but require them to actively say 'no I'm not allowing it'.
I notice a very large trend of Pathfinder 2 using rules that are by default permissive but surrounded by language that makes them ... 'mushy' for lack of a better term. This means that power gamers and GMs both are going to have to stop relying on the rules to assert passive aggressive power at the table - If the GM doesn't want something they are more empowered than ever to tailor the game to their own style - but they are going to have to take all the 'hints' the rules give over decision points for their game and use them to have an assertive voice. Otherwise the rules default to mostly permissive.
Honestly that's a good thing - new GM's aren't going to have enough experience to know what they want really - and the rules should allow for things generally so that same new GM doesn't get overwhelmed.
*edit* - hints.. not hits... *sigh*
"You can usually" =/= "these are always available"
Meaning we can unless there is a specific reason we can't. Based on the wording, the size of the settlement is not a reason why we couldn't. But something along the lines of "Enemy soldiers have already stripped this settlement of anything of value" or "The villagers in this remote settlement are extremely distrustful of outsiders. Only the Tavern will do business with you, and only for food and drink." definitely would be.
In large town/cities yes as you point out. The sleepy little "town" that is just an inn and two houses for the farmers? probably not gonna find magic Costco there.Which is a good thing that the crafting rules allow you to earn your max per day even there - note that there is no 'population check' on crafting - you look at the table - and your skill - and your level - and make money per day of crafting towards your goal.
So even in the little fishing village - if you are crafting and know the formula you can crank out items.
There is a specific rule that limits your crafting earnings, if you intend to sell, based on settlement size. p 237. If you don't intend to sell them you are fine. Compared to the earn income paragraph on page 504 you will only be able to sell items of 0-1 at best in a village. If you are unable to find a special contract to sell something specific to a specific person or organisation that might be present.
"You can usually" =/= "these are always available"
Are you ignoring where I say this in my post just to argue?
"The rules here don't give a GM an 'out' to point at rules and not allow something - they in fact give the GM plenty of leeway to not allow things but require them to actively say 'no I'm not allowing it'."
Definition of usually
: according to the usual or ordinary course of things : most often : as a rule :
So lets change that up with the *definition* of usually:
"You can, most often"
"You can, as a rule"
"You can, according to the usual or ordinary course of things"
There is a specific rule that limits your crafting earnings, if you intend to sell, based on settlement size. p 237. If you don't intend to sell them you are fine. Compared to the earn income paragraph on page 504 you will only be able to sell items of 0-1 at best in a village. If you are unable to find a special contract to sell something specific to a specific person or organisation that might be present.In large town/cities yes as you point out. The sleepy little "town" that is just an inn and two houses for the farmers? probably not gonna find magic Costco there.Which is a good thing that the crafting rules allow you to earn your max per day even there - note that there is no 'population check' on crafting - you look at the table - and your skill - and your level - and make money per day of crafting towards your goal.
So even in the little fishing village - if you are crafting and know the formula you can crank out items.
Yep - to dovetail into the 'consumables are too expensive' discussion - I can see consumables being crafted in batches during downtime in remote locations - with the pure intention of maximizing your ability to 'earn'.
The 'rare materials' line keeps you from crafting really exotic stuff - but I could see crafting potions or trinkets in batches during downtime as good way to keep your 'earnings' in line with level even in the boonies....
The 'can't sell it' just encourages you to then use the items - which of course hints that high prices on consumables is designed to encourage just this method of play - relying less on 'go buy a bunch of stuff at the magic mart' and instead 'craft a bunch of stuff we might need while we have time so our next adventure is easier'.
To be quite honest the more I look at how these pieces fit together the more impressed I am with the dev work - as I doubt this is all coincidence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"You can usually" =/= "these are always available"Are you ignoring where I say this in my post just to argue?
You must be new here ;)