The price of 1 / day permanent items vs consumables


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There was a previous thread on this, but it veered into discussing ways of turning whisky into ivory (yes, you heard that right!) so I decided to leave them to it... =)

Something that we respectfully would like to ask for developer input on is this:

A permanent item that lets you enjoy a magical effect 1/day costs only a few times more than the corresponding consumable (which obviously is one-use only). And not twenty or fifty times as much, as in other games.

Could we gain any insight into the thought processes that went into the decision to substantially lower the price-gap?

The issue comes to a point on long-duration spells stored in Wands. As not-worn items, they don't even have to be Invested.

Best Regards


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

I would agree that the price of wands compared to the price of potions and other consumables does not appear to be appropriately balanced.

This said, the issue won't be a problem unless you assume that magic shops exist around every corner in any decent-sized city. If you don't posit the existence of places where you can buy just about any item in the CRB, their relative price ceases to be a huge issue. And it gives a lot more value to the magical crafting activity and the rules for reverse-engineering formulas for items you do manage to get your hands on.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, before this thread as well devolves around Wands Only and their limitations, I just want to point out that for *most* items, it seems limitations on usage doesn't influence actual price.

For a few references that are usable by all, you can compare:
Medics gloves vs potions of healing
Horn of blasting vs ANY bomb or Exploding arrows
Ring of resistance vs potions of resistance
And etc

___

The problem is imo 2 fold since, exactly because consumables are so extremely expensive for a very limited one time benefit, they quickly and often devolve into "never use those, instead sell them for gold"

The second problem is since it "costs" the same to make a batch (4 uses) of consumables both in time, money and "feats" and a permanent item (1 use per day), consumable crafting is beyond terrible and an activity a player should NEVER be involved with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:

I would agree that the price of wands compared to the price of potions and other consumables does not appear to be appropriately balanced.

This said, the issue won't be a problem unless you assume that magic shops exist around every corner in any decent-sized city. If you don't posit the existence of places where you can buy just about any item in the CRB, their relative price ceases to be a huge issue. And it gives a lot more value to the magical crafting activity and the rules for reverse-engineering formulas for items you do manage to get your hands on.

Especially with wands and with any common item, the assumption would be that these items should be craftable by anyone, and there is nothing in the book that says common magical items require special access to purchase beyond knowing the level base of the community you are in. Limiting access would very much be a GM, home game decision, and doesn’t present itself as a default in game.

Also with wands, you need only one formula, “magic wand” to craft endless, reasonably priced items that can grant every spell in the game.

Ps: I don’t think anyone was arguing that the cost of scrolls was too high as a consumable.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Unicore wrote:


Also with wands, you need only one formula, “magic wand” to craft endless, reasonably priced items that can grant every spell in the game.

I was under the impression that you needed a separate formula for each level of an item that has multiple versions at different levels. So that would be 1 formula per level for "magic wand" - which is still efficient compared to 1 formula per specific wand.

You still need a casting of the exact spell on the wand to be able to craft the wand, and you can only use a wand if you have the spell on your spell list (or Trick it), limiting their utility somewhat. Wands are still great, though.


ssims2 wrote:
Unicore wrote:


Also with wands, you need only one formula, “magic wand” to craft endless, reasonably priced items that can grant every spell in the game.

I was under the impression that you needed a separate formula for each level of an item that has multiple versions at different levels. So that would be 1 formula per level for "magic wand" - which is still efficient compared to 1 formula per specific wand.

You still need a casting of the exact spell on the wand to be able to craft the wand, and you can only use a wand if you have the spell on your spell list (or Trick it), limiting their utility somewhat. Wands are still great, though.

"Magic wand" is one item that could have any spell infused in it. Other Magic wands include additional abilities.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Meh. It is how it is, I don't actually have a problem with it.

You buy a scroll or potion you need to use only in emergencies, or a lot of in a short period of time. You buy wands for basically everything else. Especially long duration spells. I think you use consumables you find, and only buy consumables for certain spells.

If you have money to invest, it's better to invest in a wand. The rich get richer, etc. Kind of like the Pathfinder version of The Sam Vimes "Boots" Theory of Economic Injustice.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
vagrant-poet wrote:

Meh. It is how it is, I don't actually have a problem with it.

You buy a scroll or potion you need to use only in emergencies, or a lot of in a short period of time. You buy wands for basically everything else. Especially long duration spells. I think you use consumables you find, and only buy consumables for certain spells.

If you have money to invest, it's better to invest in a wand. The rich get richer, etc. Kind of like the Pathfinder version of The Sam Vimes "Boots" Theory of Economic Injustice.

I think the OP is saying, that beyond one-off adventures that are only going to last for 1 or 2 encounters in the same day, you don't buy potions at all, you buy scrolls, and even then, if it is a spell you are likely to want to cast repeatedly, you buy wands ASAP.

And even using potions you find is going to feel bad as a player, because their resale value is very high in comparison to the value of the effect they offer.

Which (at least for me) isn't to say players will never use potions, but that they will feel awful every time they do because they realize they just burned a fair bit of cash that could have been spent on a scroll (minimally) or a wand (ideally).

And if "it is how it is" it seems like it is that way because the developers chose it to be, which is why the request for developer feedback on this particular design choice.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
And if "it is how it is" it seems like it is that way because the developers chose it to be, which is why the request for developer feedback on this particular design choice.

Right.

PS. Just to heed off the inevitable - I'm not asking for permission to "if you don't like it change it", I already know I can do that.

I would like to know if the much lower ratio of the price of a consumable relative to a permanent compared to other games was a conscious design choice on Paizo's part, and if so, what factors went into that decision?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I certainly prefer the new ratio, as I found it very difficult to get players to actually buy consumables at all.

Like a lot of this is basically the marshmallow test with how it reflects your socioeconomic background, but I at least found it very difficult to spend resources in PF1 on consumables because it felt like I was pissing a scarce resource away. Consumables felt like I was just making it take longer to get the things I really wanted like a +1 to my weapon.

The new dynamic where you essentially are never expected to buy a consumable makes buying them with your own resources feel a lot better. You're not "wasting" money, you're making an investment. It feels less bad if my wand of Heal is used on an ally if I'll get the charge back the next day, rather than my ally essentially spending a decent chunk of my wealth.

shroudb wrote:

The problem is imo 2 fold since, exactly because consumables are so extremely expensive for a very limited one time benefit, they quickly and often devolve into "never use those, instead sell them for gold"

The second problem is since it "costs" the same to make a batch (4 uses) of consumables both in time, money and "feats" and a permanent item (1 use per day), consumable crafting is beyond terrible and an activity a player should NEVER be involved with.

This is the bit that does make it awkward, because I would actually feel bad about actually using a consumable when it could be turned into currency that could go towards permanent upgrade of some sort. But I also kind of feel cheated when the loot from something is just a consumable.

I guess it's not terrible if players just sell consumables they find. Finding a wand that does the same sounds a lot more exciting as a reward.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think people will actually sell items to do this as often as others do. 8 different items have a lot more utility than one once-per-day item, in terms of solving niche problems.

This does, however, seem like a pretty big problem in terms of crafting, where there's no reason to ever craft consumables. That's weird and a definite issue.


One question to add is: What level consumables is the party expected to use regularly? Or emergency only, etc. By which I mean at level? level-2? level-4?

In the playtest, nobody used their set-level item slots for a consumable but sometimes they'd get the most expensive item so they could sell it at half price to buy consumables (some of which were at the same level).
Trickery aside, in higher level play players bought lots of low level consumables, even with a use limit from Resonance. The pricing made me think buying low was intended.
(IMO Treat Wounds actually alleviates the most pernicious aspects.)

If consumables were cheaper in PF2, would higher level parties abuse them?
Is that economics why they seem expensive at level?
Are wands priced w/ the assumption they'll be abused? Or that they'll grow useless over time as better abilities & spells (or frequent Dispels!) replace them?

I think there's a lot of respect being shown for Paizo here in that we presuppose they have well reasoned answers. :)

ETA: And selling consumables was totally a thing in most APs I've played in. Not even worth half their value compared to permanent items.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
This does, however, seem like a pretty big problem in terms of crafting, where there's no reason to ever craft consumables. That's weird and a definite issue.

An ally with a spell book can't choose to copy down a wand you made for them, and some other consumables can be used by characters that can't cast a spell from a wand.

And potions can take less actions to use than a wand does.


Castilliano wrote:

One question to add is: What level consumables is the party expected to use regularly? Or emergency only, etc. By which I mean at level? level-2? level-4?

In the playtest, nobody used their set-level item slots for a consumable but sometimes they'd get the most expensive item so they could sell it at half price to buy consumables (some of which were at the same level).
Trickery aside, in higher level play players bought lots of low level consumables, even with a use limit from Resonance. The pricing made me think buying low was intended.
(IMO Treat Wounds actually alleviates the most pernicious aspects.)

If consumables were cheaper in PF2, would higher level parties abuse them?
Is that economics why they seem expensive at level?
Are wands priced w/ the assumption they'll be abused? Or that they'll grow useless over time as better abilities & spells (or frequent Dispels!) replace them?

I think there's a lot of respect being shown for Paizo here in that we presuppose they have well reasoned answers. :)

ETA: And selling consumables was totally a thing in most APs I've played in. Not even worth half their value compared to permanent items.

you are expected to get equal level permanent and consumables by loot tables, plus a tiny bit extra consumables-2

so you are "expected" to have at least as high level consumables as permanent items, hence the problem of "it's almost always better selling them" comes from.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

I don't think people will actually sell items to do this as often as others do. 8 different items have a lot more utility than one once-per-day item, in terms of solving niche problems.

This does, however, seem like a pretty big problem in terms of crafting, where there's no reason to ever craft consumables. That's weird and a definite issue.

That could very well be on purpose. Wizards had a fair bit of versatility in PF1e. Scrolls just compounded the issue. I could definitely see Paizo making scrolls deliberately undesirable to curb down on that problem while still making them viable as treasure.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I don't think people will actually sell items to do this as often as others do. 8 different items have a lot more utility than one once-per-day item, in terms of solving niche problems.

This does, however, seem like a pretty big problem in terms of crafting, where there's no reason to ever craft consumables. That's weird and a definite issue.

That could very well be on purpose. Wizards had a fair bit of versatility in PF1e. Scrolls just compounded the issue. I could definitely see Paizo making scrolls deliberately undesirable to curb down on that problem while still making them viable as treasure.

the funny thing about that is that Scrolls are actually (imo) the only reasonably priced consumable due to them being 2 levels lower.

it's the OTHER consumables that have issues (like potions, ammunition, alchemical supplies, and etc)


shroudb wrote:
Castilliano wrote:

One question to add is: What level consumables is the party expected to use regularly? Or emergency only, etc. By which I mean at level? level-2? level-4?

In the playtest, nobody used their set-level item slots for a consumable but sometimes they'd get the most expensive item so they could sell it at half price to buy consumables (some of which were at the same level).
Trickery aside, in higher level play players bought lots of low level consumables, even with a use limit from Resonance. The pricing made me think buying low was intended.
(IMO Treat Wounds actually alleviates the most pernicious aspects.)

If consumables were cheaper in PF2, would higher level parties abuse them?
Is that economics why they seem expensive at level?
Are wands priced w/ the assumption they'll be abused? Or that they'll grow useless over time as better abilities & spells (or frequent Dispels!) replace them?

I think there's a lot of respect being shown for Paizo here in that we presuppose they have well reasoned answers. :)

ETA: And selling consumables was totally a thing in most APs I've played in. Not even worth half their value compared to permanent items.

you are expected to get equal level permanent and consumables by loot tables, plus a tiny bit extra consumables-2

so you are "expected" to have at least as high level consumables as permanent items, hence the problem of "it's almost always better selling them" comes from.

I'm aware of the treasure charts. If one went by loot gained, there wouldn't be many consumables in play given PF1 standards.

I think loot wouldn't supply the normal consumables used exactly because of their value, whether the adventure was feeding them to me or not. Unless it was one of those "be given the right item for the boss fight" sort of deals I'd likely keep such loot only until its sell value made a difference in whether I could buy a target item.
Heck, there was hardly a Talisman I'd ever keep (though many do seem better in the final product).

I'm more concerned with actual play & the marketplace. What's being used, and given Paizo's excellent players & GMs on staff, what usage do they see and/or expect?
I'm guessing (which is why I ask) that players might regularly equip consumables at level-4 or thereabouts, where the price is insignificant yet you can get broad versatility. At least I'm likely to. Was that intended and/or does the power curve account for that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:


And potions can take less actions to use than a wand does.

Only if the spell takes multiple actions to cast. Both require an action to draw. A healing wand is far better than a healing potion because you can use the 2 action version to get a much bigger boost from it or the three action for a group heal, or the 1 action to save someone's life as easily as a potion.

A lot of spells do require more than one action to cast, but there is no spell that I would rather have in a potion to be used once, than to have in a wand and spend an extra action casting, but be able to cast every day.


Castilliano wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Castilliano wrote:

One question to add is: What level consumables is the party expected to use regularly? Or emergency only, etc. By which I mean at level? level-2? level-4?

In the playtest, nobody used their set-level item slots for a consumable but sometimes they'd get the most expensive item so they could sell it at half price to buy consumables (some of which were at the same level).
Trickery aside, in higher level play players bought lots of low level consumables, even with a use limit from Resonance. The pricing made me think buying low was intended.
(IMO Treat Wounds actually alleviates the most pernicious aspects.)

If consumables were cheaper in PF2, would higher level parties abuse them?
Is that economics why they seem expensive at level?
Are wands priced w/ the assumption they'll be abused? Or that they'll grow useless over time as better abilities & spells (or frequent Dispels!) replace them?

I think there's a lot of respect being shown for Paizo here in that we presuppose they have well reasoned answers. :)

ETA: And selling consumables was totally a thing in most APs I've played in. Not even worth half their value compared to permanent items.

you are expected to get equal level permanent and consumables by loot tables, plus a tiny bit extra consumables-2

so you are "expected" to have at least as high level consumables as permanent items, hence the problem of "it's almost always better selling them" comes from.

I'm aware of the treasure charts. If one went by loot gained, there wouldn't be many consumables in play given PF1 standards.

I think loot wouldn't supply the normal consumables used exactly because of their value, whether the adventure was feeding them to me or not. Unless it was one of those "be given the right item for the boss fight" sort of deals I'd likely keep such loot only until its sell value made a difference in whether I could buy a target item.
Heck, there was hardly a Talisman I'd ever keep (though...

Well, if even Paizo won't abide by the guidelines she set herself for loot, then why bother with loot levels either way, just give whatever you fancy and be done with it.

If "loot tables" are irrelevant, then so is the whole conversation about "loot distribution and value".

As for reference, i think Deadmanwalking had counted the consumables in the AP and they were kinda close, at least in number.

keep in mind though that the AP was written during the playtest i believe.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So I am looking at the level 9 explosive arrows and the horn of blasting - just the 1/day action of the horn though.

Similarities:

Both take two actions to use. Arrow takes an interact action to activate, then an attack action to fire it. Horn takes two action to set it off.

Arrow does 6d6 fire damage in a 10 ft burst.

Horn does 8d6 sonic damage in a 30 ft cone.

Cost:

Horn costs 700 GP.

Arrow costs 130 GP.

I can buy 5 explosive arrows for a bit less than the one horn of blasting.

My thoughts:

1/day items like the horn of blasting are things that I would get so that I could use them as often as possible. I wouldn't be concerned about wasting them or using them ineffectively because I am not actually losing much for it. Sure there may be a better opportunity to use that item later in the day, but there also may not be.

Consumables are things that I would keep on hand to use in emergencies. The nice part about them is that they are less expensive, so I can afford to have several - and there are no limits on use so I can use them to go nova.

So the horn is used for mooks.

explosive arrows are used for the boss fight since I can fire off one each round for several rounds (maybe two per round if I am playing a ranger).

If consumables cost less, then I could afford to go nova on mooks.


Unicore wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:


And potions can take less actions to use than a wand does.

Only if the spell takes multiple actions to cast. Both require an action to draw. A healing wand is far better than a healing potion because you can use the 2 action version to get a much bigger boost from it or the three action for a group heal, or the 1 action to save someone's life as easily as a potion.

A lot of spells do require more than one action to cast, but there is no spell that I would rather have in a potion to be used once, than to have in a wand and spend an extra action casting, but be able to cast every day.

My fighter happens to have a pronounced preference for healing potions over wands of heal.

And for actions, it's been my experience that the difference of 1 action is very significant when it comes to how a player feels about their turn.

Heck, one of my D&D groups took efforts to persuade me to house-rule healing potions only taking a bonus action to draw and drink and their reasoning was "so you don't have to waste a turn healing."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

So I am looking at the level 9 explosive arrows and the horn of blasting - just the 1/day action of the horn though.

Similarities:

Both take two actions to use. Arrow takes an interact action to activate, then an attack action to fire it. Horn takes two action to set it off.

Arrow does 6d6 fire damage in a 10 ft burst.

Horn does 8d6 sonic damage in a 30 ft cone.

Cost:

Horn costs 700 GP.

Arrow costs 130 GP.

I can buy 5 explosive arrows for a bit less than the one horn of blasting.

My thoughts:

1/day items like the horn of blasting are things that I would get so that I could use them as often as possible. I wouldn't be concerned about wasting them or using them ineffectively because I am not actually losing much for it. Sure there may be a better opportunity to use that item later in the day, but there also may not be.

Consumables are things that I would keep on hand to use in emergencies. The nice part about them is that they are less expensive, so I can afford to have several - and there are no limits on use so I can use them to go nova.

So the horn is used for mooks.

explosive arrows are used for the boss fight since I can fire off one each round for several rounds (maybe two per round if I am playing a ranger).

If consumables cost less, then I could afford to go nova on mooks.

a)horn of Blasting also has an at will ability that you can use all day long on mooks and keep the blast for the boss.

b)it is not invested.

If you plan on using more than 5 arrows in your life, better invest in simple "more horns of blasting" since they pay for themselves for every 5 uses.

thenobledrake wrote:
Unicore wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:


And potions can take less actions to use than a wand does.

Only if the spell takes multiple actions to cast. Both require an action to draw. A healing wand is far better than a healing potion because you can use the 2 action version to get a much bigger boost from it or the three action for a group heal, or the 1 action to save someone's life as easily as a potion.

A lot of spells do require more than one action to cast, but there is no spell that I would rather have in a potion to be used once, than to have in a wand and spend an extra action casting, but be able to cast every day.

My fighter happens to have a pronounced preference for healing potions over wands of heal.

And for actions, it's been my experience that the difference of 1 action is very significant when it comes to how a player feels about their turn.

Heck, one of my D&D groups took efforts to persuade me to house-rule healing potions only taking a bonus action to draw and drink and their reasoning was "so you don't have to waste a turn healing."

you can get Healer's gloves then, no spellcasting required, and they are even FASTER than potions (1 action vs 2)


thenobledrake wrote:

My fighter happens to have a pronounced preference for healing potions over wands of heal.

And for actions, it's been my experience that the difference of 1 action is very significant when it comes to how a player feels about their turn.

Heck, one of my D&D groups took efforts to persuade me to house-rule healing potions only taking a bonus action to draw and drink and their reasoning was "so you don't have to waste a turn healing."

If you feel good about buying healing potions to use as common healing tactics for your fighter in play, great! When I play a champion, I typically try to convince the party to spend my share (and theirs) feeding and housing the poor and refusing ever to sell evil items so they don’t end up in the world again. Letting the economy dictate play style is unfortunate. However, when I GM, I see my players doing it all the time and the pricing of items in PF2 supports a “most effective” purchasing strategy that pushes potions especially into the realm of one shot adventures.


shroudb wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:

So I am looking at the level 9 explosive arrows and the horn of blasting - just the 1/day action of the horn though.

Similarities:

Both take two actions to use. Arrow takes an interact action to activate, then an attack action to fire it. Horn takes two action to set it off.

Arrow does 6d6 fire damage in a 10 ft burst.

Horn does 8d6 sonic damage in a 30 ft cone.

Cost:

Horn costs 700 GP.

Arrow costs 130 GP.

I can buy 5 explosive arrows for a bit less than the one horn of blasting.

My thoughts:

1/day items like the horn of blasting are things that I would get so that I could use them as often as possible. I wouldn't be concerned about wasting them or using them ineffectively because I am not actually losing much for it. Sure there may be a better opportunity to use that item later in the day, but there also may not be.

Consumables are things that I would keep on hand to use in emergencies. The nice part about them is that they are less expensive, so I can afford to have several - and there are no limits on use so I can use them to go nova.

So the horn is used for mooks.

explosive arrows are used for the boss fight since I can fire off one each round for several rounds (maybe two per round if I am playing a ranger).

If consumables cost less, then I could afford to go nova on mooks.

a)horn of Blasting also has an at will ability that you can use all day long on mooks and keep the blast for the boss.

b)it is not invested.

If you plan on using more than 5 arrows in your life, better invest in simple "more horns of blasting" since they pay for themselves for every 5 uses.

Of course, getting that horn means going selling all of the party’s consumables for that entire level, plus a bit extra. Or they could use those arrows on the current adventure’s boss.

I don’t share your confidence that people will reliably sell their consumables to get those once a day items. It will be interesting to find out in the long term how it shakes out for your average player.


Unicore wrote:
However, when I GM, I see my players doing it all the time and the pricing of items in PF2 supports a “most effective” purchasing strategy that pushes potions especially into the realm of one shot adventures.

As a GM do you ever supersede the information found in the rule-book when the result of not doing so is something you find undesirable?

I mean, my own group doesn't include folks that are the type to look over the listing of magical items and compare costs to figure out the prime efficiency of GP to magic item output... but if it did and I didn't fully support that style of play, I think I'd just not have literally every item in the book always be available at listed price and rarity.

Or just keep the adventure going in a way that results in long periods of not being able to pop into a suitably large enough settlement to be able to sell off the acquired items to fund the purchase of the "most effective" items so that the players would only ever get the prime efficiency of magic items result after a period of effectively having made the challenges harder by saving "inefficient" items to be sold.


shroudb wrote:
you can get Healer's gloves then, no spellcasting required, and they are even FASTER than potions (1 action vs 2)

It is very rare indeed that my fighter is literally beside himself...

That said, I suppose I should ask if there is a bit of text I don't know about somewhere in the rules that results in "willing adjacent creature" not excluding the character taking the action.


thenobledrake wrote:
shroudb wrote:
you can get Healer's gloves then, no spellcasting required, and they are even FASTER than potions (1 action vs 2)

It is very rare indeed that my fighter is literally beside himself...

That said, I suppose I should ask if there is a bit of text I don't know about somewhere in the rules that results in "willing adjacent creature" not excluding the character taking the action.

in pf2 it's "ally"

if an ability can't target you but only your friends, it says it targets "ally/ies"


shroudb wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Castilliano wrote:

One question to add is: What level consumables is the party expected to use regularly? Or emergency only, etc. By which I mean at level? level-2? level-4?

In the playtest, nobody used their set-level item slots for a consumable but sometimes they'd get the most expensive item so they could sell it at half price to buy consumables (some of which were at the same level).
Trickery aside, in higher level play players bought lots of low level consumables, even with a use limit from Resonance. The pricing made me think buying low was intended.
(IMO Treat Wounds actually alleviates the most pernicious aspects.)

If consumables were cheaper in PF2, would higher level parties abuse them?
Is that economics why they seem expensive at level?
Are wands priced w/ the assumption they'll be abused? Or that they'll grow useless over time as better abilities & spells (or frequent Dispels!) replace them?

I think there's a lot of respect being shown for Paizo here in that we presuppose they have well reasoned answers. :)

ETA: And selling consumables was totally a thing in most APs I've played in. Not even worth half their value compared to permanent items.

you are expected to get equal level permanent and consumables by loot tables, plus a tiny bit extra consumables-2

so you are "expected" to have at least as high level consumables as permanent items, hence the problem of "it's almost always better selling them" comes from.

I'm aware of the treasure charts. If one went by loot gained, there wouldn't be many consumables in play given PF1 standards.

I think loot wouldn't supply the normal consumables used exactly because of their value, whether the adventure was feeding them to me or not. Unless it was one of those "be given the right item for the boss fight" sort of deals I'd likely keep such loot only until its sell value made a difference in whether I could buy a target item.
Heck, there was hardly a
...

By "normal consumables" I meant the one's players are buying and using, not the ones on the current level's loot chart.

I expect we'll find consumables as on the charts.
I expect those will be sold because they're overpriced. In my case I'll wait until their value makes a difference toward a purchase.
Therefore I expect "normal consumables" to be cheaper, lower-level ones players purchase for a great deal of versatility. For common at-level utility or buffs, wands and permanent items will dominate.

My question is how much did Paizo factor in the ease & likelihood of high level parties purchasing a spectrum of low level consumables?
Or do those consumables compare so badly that they aren't worth the ink to write in inventory? (Though I'd imagine breathing water or flying in an emergency will never go out of style.)
I mean, Paizo did recognize the issue of wands in PF1. I have characters with a few dozen each. Paizo specifically sculpted Resonance (RIP) around that and the consumables issue. Maybe higher pricing is the new solution. Seems so. But that solution wanes with the wealth curve.


thenobledrake wrote:
Unicore wrote:
However, when I GM, I see my players doing it all the time and the pricing of items in PF2 supports a “most effective” purchasing strategy that pushes potions especially into the realm of one shot adventures.

As a GM do you ever supersede the information found in the rule-book when the result of not doing so is something you find undesirable?

I mean, my own group doesn't include folks that are the type to look over the listing of magical items and compare costs to figure out the prime efficiency of GP to magic item output... but if it did and I didn't fully support that style of play, I think I'd just not have literally every item in the book always be available at listed price and rarity.

Or just keep the adventure going in a way that results in long periods of not being able to pop into a suitably large enough settlement to be able to sell off the acquired items to fund the purchase of the "most effective" items so that the players would only ever get the prime efficiency of magic items result after a period of effectively having made the challenges harder by saving "inefficient" items to be sold.

Making the economic system work differently than it is written is more work than I usually want to do. Sure I could generate tables of available items, but that is GM time I don't want to spend doing that, and if I consistently denied my party what they want, it would push them to adopt crafting, which they would probably do anyway because having at least one crafting caster is an incredibly useful party build, and that caster will be a master of spells available, through wands, by mid levels anyway.


shroudb wrote:

in pf2 it's "ally"

if an ability can't target you but only your friends, it says it targets "ally/ies"

I'm not sure how that applies to healer's gloves at all, since they target "a willing adjacent creature" and not something more ambiguous that might or might not include the wearer of the gloves.


thenobledrake wrote:
shroudb wrote:

in pf2 it's "ally"

if an ability can't target you but only your friends, it says it targets "ally/ies"

I'm not sure how that applies to healer's gloves at all, since they target "a willing adjacent creature" and not something more ambiguous that might or might not include the wearer of the gloves.

it means that, if you're willing, you can be a target.

there's specific language it would have if it was to exclude you is what i'm saying.


Unicore wrote:
...and that caster will be a master of spells available, through wands, by mid levels anyway.

I'm not sure what you mean by this bit.

I also think I may have obscured the point of my own question by including too many thoughts at once. What I was trying to ascertain is whether the act of selling off items to purchase the "most effective" is something you want to not be present in your game experience, and if you are willing to do the thing every RPG says to do as a GM when what the book says gets in the way of the game being enjoyable for you.


shroudb wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
shroudb wrote:

in pf2 it's "ally"

if an ability can't target you but only your friends, it says it targets "ally/ies"

I'm not sure how that applies to healer's gloves at all, since they target "a willing adjacent creature" and not something more ambiguous that might or might not include the wearer of the gloves.

it means that, if you're willing, you can be a target.

there's specific language it would have if it was to exclude you is what i'm saying.

...do you have a page reference for this? I'm just not confident that "adjacent" isn't exclusive enough, and I can't seem to locate it myself.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Even ignoring wands altogether I feel like, generally speaking, the price of consumables is just too high.

Like, if I find a potion or flask or bomb in an adventure I might use it, but I could never see myself paying money for these consumables out of pocket given their price unless it was for a very specific purpose (like buying acid flasks when I knew we were chasing a boss that was very weak to acid).


thenobledrake wrote:
shroudb wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
shroudb wrote:

in pf2 it's "ally"

if an ability can't target you but only your friends, it says it targets "ally/ies"

I'm not sure how that applies to healer's gloves at all, since they target "a willing adjacent creature" and not something more ambiguous that might or might not include the wearer of the gloves.

it means that, if you're willing, you can be a target.

there's specific language it would have if it was to exclude you is what i'm saying.

...do you have a page reference for this? I'm just not confident that "adjacent" isn't exclusive enough, and I can't seem to locate it myself.

adjacent is not defined in the whole book, so it's not a "game term" but rather used as a simple word.

according to the definition of the word, i sure hope you're adjacent to your hand... if not, go grab it and have someone sew it back on you^^

I do have the rule text about targeting though:

targets:
"Some effects require you to choose specific targets.
Targeting can be difficult or impossible if your chosen
creature is undetected by you, if the creature doesn’t match
restrictions on who you can target, or if some other ability
prevents it from being targeted.
Some effects require a target to be willing. Only you
can decide whether your PC is willing, and the GM
decides whether an NPC is willing. Even if you or your
character don’t know what the effect is, such as if your
character is unconscious, you still decide if you’re willing.
Some effects target or require an ally, or otherwise
refer to an ally. This must be someone on your side, often
another PC, but it might be a bystander you are trying to
protect. You are not your own ally.
If it isn’t clear, the GM
decides who counts as an ally or an enemy."

From this it's clear to me that if it just says something like "a creature" then you can do it on anyone, including yourself.

Else it would say "target an adjacent Ally"

also, it would make quite a lot of stuff nonsensical if you're not, like "you can't first aid yourself and stop the bleeding, but you can Treat wounds yourself and stop the bleeding and heal yourself in the process" and etc


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Aeon Stone (Pink Rhomboid): 1900gp +15 temporary HP per day
Wand of False Life lv2: 160gp 6+spellcasting mod temporary HP per day
Wand of False Life lv3: 360gp 9+spellcasting mod temporary HP per day


Strill wrote:

Aeon Stone (Pink Rhomboid): 1900gp +15 temporary HP per day

Wand of False Life lv2: 160gp 6+spellcasting mod temporary HP per day
Wand of False Life lv3: 360gp 9+spellcasting mod temporary HP per day

That seems pretty significant, even accounting that a wielder needs an ability to use the wands. The wands let you buff after getting past the minions as well as for several battles.

Makes me kinda miss Resonance. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

adjacent is not defined in the whole book, so it's not a "game term" but rather used as a simple word.

according to the definition of the word, i sure hope you're adjacent to your hand... if not, go grab it and have someone sew it back on you^^

If adjacent is just using it's normal definition, and not a game definition, then it does not apply to the person wearing the gloves because the gloves don't say "a creature adjacent to your hand" or even "a creature adjacent to the gloves" it says "adjacent creature" which means a creature that is next to the character taking the action.

shroudb wrote:

I do have the rule text about targeting though:

targets:
"Some effects require you to choose specific targets.
Targeting can be difficult or impossible if your chosen
creature is undetected by you, if the creature doesn’t match
restrictions on who you can target, or if some other ability
prevents it from being targeted.
Some effects require a target to be willing. Only you
can decide whether your PC is willing, and the GM
decides whether an NPC is willing. Even if you or your
character don’t know what the effect is, such as if your
character is unconscious, you still decide if you’re willing.
Some effects target or require an ally, or otherwise
refer to an ally. This must be someone on your side, often
another PC, but it might be a bystander you are trying to
protect. You are not your own ally.
If it isn’t clear, the GM
decides who counts as an ally or an enemy."

From this it's clear to me that if it just says something like "a creature" then you can do it on anyone, including yourself.

Else it would say "target an adjacent Ally"...

Some effects require you to choose specific targets. Check - doesn't cover adjacent meaning "or yourself" too.

Some effects require a target to be willing. Check - also doesn't cover adjacent meaning "or yourself" too.

Some effects target or require an ally, or otherwise refer to an ally. Check - but this one doesn't, so that's clearly not relevant.

Perhaps this is an issue of non-game terms being used in context that absolutely requires game terms for clarity.

Because where you see it being clear that you can target yourself or else it'd say "ally" I see it as being clear you can target a creature other than yourself even if it's not your ally... but that whole "adjacent" word instead of "within your reach" or some other non-exclusive-sounding language that conveys needing to touch the target, that's making it really unclear (well, more accurately it's making two completely different "clear" interpretations)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

For an existing example of how this will work in reality - I can point to a decade of evidence.

Magical ammunition in pathfinder 1. It was a joke - cost way more than it was worth - and didn't stack with the bow.

Thus *every* magical arrow found was sold. Every. One.

Useless loot is how people would put it - 'just there to sell', 'something for the monster to use against us and didn't get to.'

I don't really see a difference here, most players hold onto consumables out of fear of misuse - because they cost too much - and that was when they were cheap!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think I've ever had a player mention cost of a consumable item as a reason why they held onto it instead of using it...

In my experience, it's almost always "...but what if it would be more useful later?" and them never not saving the item for that hypothetical even. And when it isn't that, it's "I forgot I even had that."

But then my experience with magical ammunition is that it gets used just fine so long as it doesn't end up in the hands of a player that thinks "...but what if it would be more useful later?" until such a point that the whole party has acquired magical ranged weapons.


thenobledrake wrote:
shroudb wrote:

adjacent is not defined in the whole book, so it's not a "game term" but rather used as a simple word.

according to the definition of the word, i sure hope you're adjacent to your hand... if not, go grab it and have someone sew it back on you^^

If adjacent is just using it's normal definition, and not a game definition, then it does not apply to the person wearing the gloves because the gloves don't say "a creature adjacent to your hand" or even "a creature adjacent to the gloves" it says "adjacent creature" which means a creature that is next to the character taking the action.

shroudb wrote:

I do have the rule text about targeting though:

targets:
"Some effects require you to choose specific targets.
Targeting can be difficult or impossible if your chosen
creature is undetected by you, if the creature doesn’t match
restrictions on who you can target, or if some other ability
prevents it from being targeted.
Some effects require a target to be willing. Only you
can decide whether your PC is willing, and the GM
decides whether an NPC is willing. Even if you or your
character don’t know what the effect is, such as if your
character is unconscious, you still decide if you’re willing.
Some effects target or require an ally, or otherwise
refer to an ally. This must be someone on your side, often
another PC, but it might be a bystander you are trying to
protect. You are not your own ally.
If it isn’t clear, the GM
decides who counts as an ally or an enemy."

From this it's clear to me that if it just says something like "a creature" then you can do it on anyone, including yourself.

Else it would say "target an adjacent Ally"...

Some effects require you to choose specific targets. Check - doesn't cover adjacent meaning "or yourself" too.

Some effects require a target to be willing. Check - also doesn't cover adjacent meaning "or yourself" too.

Some effects target or require an ally, or otherwise refer to an ally. Check - but this one...

so, do you also think that you can't use first aid on yourself to stop a bleeding? But you can full on use TReat wounds and every other medicine skill on yourself?

because "first aid" also uses the same exact language.


Yes. That’s exactly what it means.


we see it differently then. I would always rule that you are adjacent to yourself for targeting purposes.

Exo-Guardians

LOL at the way this thread is derailing in a completely different direction than the last one

apparently the topic of consumable prices is just cursed


Strill wrote:

Aeon Stone (Pink Rhomboid): 1900gp +15 temporary HP per day

Wand of False Life lv2: 160gp 6+spellcasting mod temporary HP per day
Wand of False Life lv3: 360gp 9+spellcasting mod temporary HP per day

I think this demonstrates that wands are substantially underpriced. It would probably be worth going through the book and compare wands and similar effects to try to work out a better pricing for wands, possibly giving wands a discount where possible because they arent universally useable (like scrolls appear to have).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:

For an existing example of how this will work in reality - I can point to a decade of evidence.

Magical ammunition in pathfinder 1. It was a joke - cost way more than it was worth - and didn't stack with the bow.

Thus *every* magical arrow found was sold. Every. One.

Useless loot is how people would put it - 'just there to sell', 'something for the monster to use against us and didn't get to.'

I don't really see a difference here, most players hold onto consumables out of fear of misuse - because they cost too much - and that was when they were cheap!

I think this really demonstrates the problem with universal proclamations. I know of noone who would sell magical arrows found as loot (although by god did we never buy them).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:

I don't think I've ever had a player mention cost of a consumable item as a reason why they held onto it instead of using it...

In my experience, it's almost always "...but what if it would be more useful later?" and them never not saving the item for that hypothetical even. And when it isn't that, it's "I forgot I even had that."

But then my experience with magical ammunition is that it gets used just fine so long as it doesn't end up in the hands of a player that thinks "...but what if it would be more useful later?" until such a point that the whole party has acquired magical ranged weapons.

Yes - so when the party is lower than level 3. Oddly that's when you don't find magical ammunition - because it's too expensive to put in the loot tables unless you find a 'single +1 arrow' - that's exciting.

This is the same problem pathfinder 1 staves had - the 'staff given to apprentices' was too expensive to see play until level 8.


shroudb wrote:
we see it differently then. I would always rule that you are adjacent to yourself for targeting purposes.

I can see where your thinking comes from, but that also means you’d be able to administer First Aid to yourself while dying. More importantly that’s just not how that word works.

____________

Personally very much a fan of the change Crafting has taken and consumables in particular. For those against it; is it just a price issue, or something more?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
we see it differently then. I would always rule that you are adjacent to yourself for targeting purposes.

I can see where your thinking comes from, but that also means you’d be able to administer First Aid to yourself while dying. More importantly that’s just not how that word works.

____________

Personally very much a fan of the change Crafting has taken and consumables in particular. For those against it; is it just a price issue, or something more?

i don't think you can administer first aid to yourself when you're dying not because of "range" but rather because, well, you are dying, hence incapable of performing any kind of action.

i'm way against the consumables primarily for price:value. (i.e. too expensive for what they do)

because simultaneously it invalidates any sort of crafting you can do for consumables (you're better off never crafting consumables but crafting permanents at this point)
And
because it promotes selling them to earn cash for permanent items (again because they are expensive)
and
because it invalidates "buying" them. They are now a strictly "found only" resource.

I wouldn't mind if they were, as an example, a one use "very powerful" effect(for their cost). Because you would hoard them for that "powerful effect" then.

But as it stands now, they are just offering what any 1/day items offers in term of power, but at a much higher cost per use.


1/day definitely are the most dependable or reliable; but you can craft consumables in batches of 4 and sell them for 50% a piece. While a Wand of Mage Armor is obviously the way to go, having a handful of consumables ends up giving more buffer space than 1/day items can.

1 to 50 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / The price of 1 / day permanent items vs consumables All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.