|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I've noticed that if you make rations worth 3 sp, and 5 cp per week, they divide in to a clean 5 cp per day.
This allows for easy management of ration purchases on a more precise daily scale. A 4 sp per week ration supply does not easily divide, at 5.71... cp per day, making it difficult to log rations in VTT's on a daily level using the vanilla costs.
Additionally, when using this metric, all of the items in an adventurer's pack will add up to exactly 1 gp, and 5 sp, equal to the cost of the adventurer's pack itself (vanilla, the a la carte cost of an adventurer's pack is worth 1 gp and 6 sp). Which means that PC's who opt to remove items from their adventurer's pack can simply deduct the price from the adventurer's pack, as if buying the items individually.
Ultimately, this price change would be small to the point of having a negligible impact on balance, and provides for easier bookkeeping, gives more versatility in in-game shopping, and allows for easier customization of a starter kit.
I know Paizo is winding up for their new core rulebook, so I figured this might be worth putting out, even if it is very minor in the grand scheme.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It doesn't matter. Most GMs don't even bother tracking your rations when you are making thousands of gold in un-needed loot.
When a healing potion costs 30 weeks of rations, why bother tracking rations?
Cordell Kintner wrote: It doesn't matter. Most GMs don't even bother tracking your rations when you are making thousands of gold in un-needed loot.
When a healing potion costs 30 weeks of rations, why bother tracking rations?
As I said, very minor in the grand scheme. But the purpose of this post is it's such a small change, why not?
As for me, most games I've been a player in track rations. And my suggestion is a home rule I've been implementing and will continue to implement in games I'm a game master in regardless if a dev sees it.
Paizo is in a period where they are taking in some feedback in regards to the errata, so I thought I'd toss this small bit forward, especially when it's as simple as changing a single number.
Personally, I'm not holding my breath anyone of import actually saw the thread. But, it's not gonna be seen if never put up.
Seconded. If it's so much non-important, why even give a price?
Megistone wrote: Seconded. If it's so much non-important, why even give a price?
I'd be against no price. Most of the games I play in like a bit of pre-travel book-keeping and survival.
When I said non important, I meant the price change would not impact balance significantly, and the current model is only really 'broken' in the sense it's finnicky with VTT's and produces inconvenient repeating decimals when it comes to tracking rations on a more short-term time frame. These are minor inconveniences at worse, and Paizo has bigger fish to fry.
I find rations themselves an important element. And I don't see Paizo just waiving ration costs. Food is not free in Golarion, after all. On the bright side, if they did, then Golarion would have a lot less beggars.
moosher12 wrote: I've noticed that if you make rations worth 3 sp, and 5 cp per week, they divide in to a clean 5 cp per day. Nothing in the game suggests that individual rations actually cost 1/7th the price of a weeks worth of rations. If you want to make it easy, just say there is a slight upcharge for individual rations so you can buy bulk for 4sp/week or buy an individual for 6cp. That should solve things.
moosher12 wrote: This allows for easy management of ration purchases on a more precise daily scale. I have to ask... How often do you find the need to buy individual days of rations vs just buying then by the week? I can't say that I've ever ran into a situation where I wanted/needed to by individual days of rations. Are your characters poor enough that you'd want less than a weeks food?
graystone wrote: Nothing in the game suggests that individual rations actually cost 1/7th the price of a weeks worth of rations. If you want to make it easy, just say there is a slight upcharge for individual rations so you can buy bulk for 4sp/week or buy an individual for 6cp. That should solve things. When most VTT's tally up the worth of what you're holding, I'd rather use a proportional cost for one primary reason: Sometimes math mistakes happen, and it's good to be able to sanity check and make sure you did things right. Changing the conditional price of objects based on the number of objects you buys makes it more complicated than it needs to be.
Tell me honestly? What sounds simpler for you. It's 4 sp as a set, or 4 sp and 2 cp if you buy it a la carte, or it's 3 sp and 5 cp, a la carte or as a set.
graystone wrote: I have to ask... How often do you find the need to buy individual days of rations vs just buying then by the week? I can't say that I've ever ran into a situation where I wanted/needed to by individual days of rations. Are your characters poor enough that you'd want less than a weeks food? I myself, and some fellow players, often just keep certain items at a neat level. Say, keeping rations at 10 or 20 at all times, and just topping it off to the target number whenever we get to town. Say you were traveling for 3 days, and wanna top off to 20 from 17, instead of buying 7 and going up to 24.
graystone wrote: I have to ask... How often do you find the need to buy individual days of rations vs just buying then by the week? I can't say that I've ever ran into a situation where I wanted/needed to by individual days of rations. Are your characters poor enough that you'd want less than a weeks food? Also, running as a GM, I've had multiple sessions where the expected outing was only a day after much of the food was non-rationed food (food that was obtained either by cost of living expenses, or individually bought from eateries as a matter of roleplay.), and I've had players only wanting to stock up 1 or 2's days rations to basically be a "intended only for the trip," and when it's 1 Light Bulk per ration, can see the desire to keep it slim.
moosher12 wrote: Tell me honestly? What sounds simpler for you. It's 4 sp as a set Again, as I've NEVER had to price out a single ration, it can't get easier that how it is already.
moosher12 wrote: I myself, and some fellow players, often just keep certain items at a neat level. IMO, that's a you problem. As I have already said, if you REALLY, REALLY NEED to get even numbers, just pay the extra fraction of a cp to do so... I mean we ARE talking about numbers under the minimum of accepted coinage... At most, we're talking overpaying 4 cp.
moosher12 wrote: Also, running as a GM, I've had multiple sessions where the expected outing was only a day after much of the food was non-rationed food (food that was obtained either by lifestyle, or individually bought from eateries as a matter of roleplay.), and I've had players only wanting to stock up 1 or 2's days rations to basically be a "intended only for the trip," and when it's 1 Light Bulk per ration, can see the desire to keep it slim. Ah... the rules say Rations
Item 0
Source Core Rulebook pg. 288, errata 4.0
Price 4 sp (1 week)
Hands 1; Bulk L
1 week is L bulk, not L/ration: the entry isn't called ration after all.
moosher12 wrote: When most VTT's tally up the worth of what you're holding, I don't have much experience with the character sheet tracking of VTTs. But aren't you able to override the price for the items for your own games?
Invoking the first rule would probably be easier than trying to convince random internet strangers or Paizo devs to change the price formally for everyone.
graystone wrote: Ah... the rules say Rations
Item 0
Source Core Rulebook pg. 288, errata 4.0
Price 4 sp (1 week)
Hands 1; Bulk L
1 week is L bulk, not L/ration: the entry isn't called ration after all.
No, 1 week is 7 L Bulk.
Core Rulebook pg. 287, Gear Statistics
Tables 6–9 and 6–10 list Price and Bulk entries for a wide variety of gear. Any item with a number after it in parentheses indicates that the item’s Price is for the indicated quantity, though the Bulk entry for such an item is the value for only one such item.
breithauptclan wrote: moosher12 wrote: When most VTT's tally up the worth of what you're holding, I don't have much experience with the character sheet tracking of VTTs. But aren't you able to override the price for the items for your own games?
Invoking the first rule would probably be easier than trying to convince random internet strangers or Paizo devs to change the price formally for everyone. While this is true, it does not work for the VTT I use, roll20.
So, the mechanic is there to aggregate the cost, but it also aggregates the weight.
So roll20's sheet will treat 7 rations as costing 4 gp, and weighing 1 L
When by the game's rules, 7 week's rations should cost 4 gp, and weigh 7 L. See my post above for the source.
I did put a request in the roll20 Paizo sheet maker to fix the problem, but until then, switching the stacking of rations to 1, and letting it weigh 1 L, and cost 3.5 cp was my easiest fix.
moosher12 wrote: graystone wrote: Ah... the rules say Rations
Item 0
Source Core Rulebook pg. 288, errata 4.0
Price 4 sp (1 week)
Hands 1; Bulk L
1 week is L bulk, not L/ration: the entry isn't called ration after all.
No, 1 week is 7 L Bulk.
Core Rulebook pg. 287, Gear Statistics
Tables 6–9 and 6–10 list Price and Bulk entries for a wide variety of gear. Any item with a number after it in parentheses indicates that the item’s Price is for the indicated quantity, though the Bulk entry for such an item is the value for only one such item. Ok, that does seem right. I guess that's how much people care about rations as no one has ever mentioned I was doing wrong all these years.
breithauptclan wrote: moosher12 wrote: When most VTT's tally up the worth of what you're holding, I don't have much experience with the character sheet tracking of VTTs. But aren't you able to override the price for the items for your own games?
Invoking the first rule would probably be easier than trying to convince random internet strangers or Paizo devs to change the price formally for everyone. Additionally, originally I was just going to keep it a private home rule. The primary reason I suggested it was because I thought that the fact it made the a la carte cost of an adventurer's pack equal to the cost of an adventurer's pack would make it surprisingly more useful than it initially seemed.
And as I mentioned earlier. People at Paizo mentioned in streams that suggestions might be heard and used. I thought the rule would provide a minor convenience to a lot of people, so I wanted to bring it to attention. It's no main course, but it could definitely be a pleasant seasoning.
Even if it never becomes official, maybe some other GM's might find use in it for their own home rules.
graystone wrote: ]Ok, that does seem right. I guess that's how much people care about rations as no one has ever mentioned I was doing wrong all these years. To be fair, I agree it's a VERY easy rule to miss. I don't imagine many people think to actually read Gear Statistics, and assume the item will have everything that's needed in its entry. The Core Rulebook is a big book.
Honestly for item sets, they should probably modify Bulk to be something like "L Bulk per item", or something, "L Bulk per day" in the case of rations to make reading items less dependent on underlying rules.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
1 week of rations isn't a quantity, it's how long the rations last. It doesn't say 4sp (7 rations), it is just describing how long 4sp of rations would last.
Rations are just hardtack and some nuts and jerky, things that won't go bad on the road. It's not a lot of food, just enough to keep you going. If you wanted some real food you would forage, or buy some at an inn or something.
Cordell Kintner wrote: 1 week of rations isn't a quantity, it's how long the rations last. It doesn't say 4sp (7 rations), it is just describing how long 4sp of rations would last.
Rations are just hardtack and some nuts and jerky, things that won't go bad on the road. It's not a lot of food, just enough to keep you going. If you wanted some real food you would forage, or buy some at an inn or something.
While that is a valid point, and even with the fact Paizo makes some heavy simplifications, I have a hard time believing that enough food to keep you minimally fed for 7 days is only light Bulk. Pathfinder 1E would have classified the same as 7 pounds. And the definition that I use would assume that a day's ration is 7 Light Bulk.
Under Core Rulebook pg. 272, "As a general rule, an item that weighs 5 to 10 pounds is 1 Bulk," placing rations under this assumption in an appropriate range.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
moosher12 wrote: I have a hard time believing that enough food to keep you minimally fed for 7 days is only light Bulk. I heavily doubt that that is Rules as Intended. You may change your mind after watching this video
Surviving on REAL D&D Rations for 3 Days
Dancing Wind wrote: moosher12 wrote: I have a hard time believing that enough food to keep you minimally fed for 7 days is only light Bulk. I heavily doubt that that is Rules as Intended. You may change your mind after watching this video
Surviving on REAL D&D Rations for 3 Days I did some research.
Core Rulebook pg.272, Estimating an Item's Bulk.
As a general rule, an item that weighs 5 to 10 pounds is 1 Bulk, an item weighing less than a few ounces is negligible, and anything in between is light.
If we assume that a week's worth of rations is Light Bulk, that means that you are surviving 7 days off of less than 5 pounds of food.
If we assume that a week's worth of rations is 7 Light Bulk, and if we use the Pathfinder 1E and D&D interpretation that a day's ration is 1 pound, then that would make 7 Light Bulk more sensible than 1 Light Bulk.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
moosher12 wrote: If we assume that a week's worth of rations is Light Bulk, that means that you are surviving 7 days off of less than 5 pounds of food. Obviously you're not a backpacker. Between jerky, dried fruit and nuts, and hardtack/crackers, it's quite easy to get your calorie requirements for a week in less than 5 lbs.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Bulk in 2e is supposed to be abstract, because tracking weight in 1e sucked. Who cares that a week of rations is L bulk? In real life, a dagger probably weighs in under a pound, and a Greatsword could weigh in up to 40 lbs. A flask of oil is weightless, so technically you can carry as many as the GM will let you, yet 10 scrolls will weigh as much as a longsword.
The whole point of bulk is to stop nitpicking over the weight of things. So stop doing that please.
Cordell Kintner wrote: Yet it's okay that 999 coins are weightless? Agreed, that is an interesting simplification, but it tracks, especially since the only way anyone will bother to track it otherwise is if you're using a VTT. We often kept with the 0.02 pound per coin metric when using roll20.
At least it tracks. 1000 coins would be about 2 bulk, given the 0.02 estimate would place it at 20 pounds, probably reduced to one for the fact it will assume an orb to teardrop shape in storage.
Would not be surprised if they considered making 100 coins Light Bulk, but deciding against it for player-side simplicity.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
And, in any event, you're welcome to homebrew anything that doesn't fit your personal conception of what Golarion is like.
The rules allow an easy-to-calculate package of a week's worth of rations. The bulk works; the price works, the characters are able to accomplish all of their goals.
By the rules, it isn't any more complicated than that.
You can add as much complexity and simulation of the real world as you like in your game. No one will stop you. But it's unnecessary and the rules don't need to change so everyone else is playing by your view of How Things Ought To Be.
Cordell Kintner wrote: Bulk in 2e is supposed to be abstract, because tracking weight in 1e sucked. Who cares that a week of rations is L bulk? In real life, a dagger probably weighs in under a pound, and a Greatsword could weigh in up to 40 lbs. A flask of oil is weightless, so technically you can carry as many as the GM will let you, yet 10 scrolls will weigh as much as a longsword.
The whole point of bulk is to stop nitpicking over the weight of things. So stop doing that please.
Fair, then moving away from Bulk, bare in mind the core purpose of this thread is not the Bulk, but the cost. I wanted to propose simplifying the cost to an easily divisible number (5 cp per day's ration). Because it made book keeping easier.
Dancing Wind wrote: And, in any event, you're welcome to homebrew anything that doesn't fit your personal conception of what Golarion is like.
The rules allow an easy-to-calculate package of a week's worth of rations. The bulk works; the price works, the characters are able to accomplish all of their goals.
By the rules, it isn't any more complicated than that.
You can add as much complexity and simulation of the real world as you like in your game. No one will stop you. But it's unnecessary and the rules don't need to change so everyone else is playing by your view of How Things Ought To Be.
Not sure what to say. From the beginning, and I'll quote, I found it "Very minor in the grand scheme." My proposition was just something I found while adapting the system to roll20 that had surprisingly more convenient results than I initially expected.
Do I think it's how things "ought to be?" Not really. I just thought it seemed useful, and if you all thought it was useful, you all might make use of it. It was a suggestion, not a demand. Honestly I'm not sure why I bothered. Gonna close up here. I've said my pieces. If it's trash it's trash.
Yes, but have you factored in inflation? If adventurers start in year X and the campaign continues until year X+10, prices go up. Furthermore, inflation affects different products, so you have to factor that in - bread could go up 5% but beef could be at 22% higher.
moosher12 wrote: Megistone wrote: Seconded. If it's so much non-important, why even give a price?
I'd be against no price. Most of the games I play in like a bit of pre-travel book-keeping and survival.
When I said non important, I meant the price change would not impact balance significantly, and the current model is only really 'broken' in the sense it's finnicky with VTT's and produces inconvenient repeating decimals when it comes to tracking rations on a more short-term time frame. These are minor inconveniences at worse, and Paizo has bigger fish to fry.
I find rations themselves an important element. And I don't see Paizo just waiving ration costs. Food is not free in Golarion, after all. On the bright side, if they did, then Golarion would have a lot less beggars. Just to be clear, I was seconding your suggestion.
I was also thinking, like graystone, that individual rations could be priced a little higher, with a discount being given when you buy 7 days of them; but it would be an isolated case in the rules, and your objection regarding VTTs is worth considering.
What Cordell Kintner says is also true: you can consider the pack of rations a single object, instead of a collection of 7 one-day rations.
But all in all, I think there is a little extra value in having things neatly divided, and nothing lost in making the change.
Cordell Kintner wrote: It doesn't matter. Most GMs don't even bother tracking your rations when you are making thousands of gold in un-needed loot.
When a healing potion costs 30 weeks of rations, why bother tracking rations?
Some people like to. Let them have their fun. Personally I have moved on.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Megistone wrote: But all in all, I think there is a little extra value in having things neatly divided, and nothing lost in making the change. What is "lost" is that you'd be forcing everyone else to start tracking rations as a 1/day commodity instead of a 1/week commodity as it currently is. It would make it more granular to keep track of and kind of become a problem for the bulk system. And all for no reason.
Megistone wrote:
What Cordell Kintner says is also true: you can consider the pack of rations a single object, instead of a collection of 7 one-day rations.
Well the game considers it to be a single object so if anyone wants to make it more finicky than that then by all means do so, just please don't force the rest of us to also do that.
Megistone wrote: Just to be clear, I was seconding your suggestion.
I was also thinking, like graystone, that individual rations could be priced a little higher, with a discount being given when you buy 7 days of them; but it would be an isolated case in the rules, and your objection regarding VTTs is worth considering.
What Cordell Kintner says is also true: you can consider the pack of rations a single object, instead of a collection of 7 one-day rations.
But all in all, I think there is a little extra value in having things neatly divided, and nothing lost in making the change.
I thank you for and appreciate the clarification. My apologies, I misunderstood your post the first time around.
Thezzaruz wrote: What is "lost" is that you'd be forcing everyone else to start tracking rations as a 1/day commodity instead of a 1/week commodity as it currently is. It would make it more granular to keep track of and kind of become a problem for the bulk system. And all for no reason. I mean, you'd still have to track rations as a 1/day commodity anyway. A pack of rations is for a week of adventuring. So you have to keep track of 7 days of adventuring by vanilla anyway.
If 7 days go by, and you only are in the wilderness for 2 days, you've still got 5 days of rations left, vanilla or otherwise. If the rations are wasted on the 7th day, not only would that be a home rule, it'd be a waste of your character's money.
Unless your characters forego tavern food and eat nothing but hard tack and berries for breakfast, lunch and dinner during their town stay. Then by all means, let rations be the only metric.
But to your credit, my suggestion is assuming the definition that Rations weigh 1 L Bulk per day, rather than 1 L Bulk per week. I'd really love to see a Dev confirm which is true, as in the Core Rulebook on page 287, there is a rule that states that when a parenthesis states that an item comes in a set, the Price is for the set's quantity, but the Bulk is for individual partitions (For example, 5 sacks cost 1 cp, but collectively weigh 5 Light Bulk). As the parenthesis divided rations in to a set of 7 days, it would be easy to assume that this rule applies. But this rule seems to be contested, and I have not found a dev confirming one way or another.
This old thread is the only other one I could find discussing the topic.
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42ra8?Rations-Bulk
If it is true that a week's rations is indeed 1 Bulk for all 7 days, then I would concede that partitioning rations in to individual days would not be needed. Though the Core Rulebook should probably have a * mark to clarify that. There is certainly room on the page, as that page has empty space.
graystone wrote: moosher12 wrote: graystone wrote: Ah... the rules say Rations
Item 0
Source Core Rulebook pg. 288, errata 4.0
Price 4 sp (1 week)
Hands 1; Bulk L
1 week is L bulk, not L/ration: the entry isn't called ration after all.
No, 1 week is 7 L Bulk.
Core Rulebook pg. 287, Gear Statistics
Tables 6–9 and 6–10 list Price and Bulk entries for a wide variety of gear. Any item with a number after it in parentheses indicates that the item’s Price is for the indicated quantity, though the Bulk entry for such an item is the value for only one such item. Ok, that does seem right. I guess that's how much people care about rations as no one has ever mentioned I was doing wrong all these years. Kind of a tangent, but does this mean that a quiver of 10 arrows is 1 Bulk, not L bulk? 8| That would actually be a pretty big change from how I generally see it played, which would impact a whole lot of characters.
Arrows say: Price 1 sp (price for 10); Bulk L
Ferious Thune wrote: Kind of a tangent, but does this mean that a quiver of 10 arrows is 1 Bulk, not L bulk? 8| That would actually be a pretty big change from how I generally see it played, which would impact a whole lot of characters.
Arrows say: Price 1 sp (price for 10); Bulk L
Arrows aren't listed on tables 6–9 and 6–10 so it's a non-issue for them. That and saying 1 week is for rations that last a week [vs 7 individual 1 day rations] makes more sense now that someone else mentioned it. It falls in line with entries like rope and chain where length is listed: we don't expect the listed bulk to be by the individual foot of length do we?
In addition to not being in the gear section, arrows also aren't listed as "arrow (10)", which is the format that would indicate that the bulk was for one arrow.
Ferious Thune wrote: Kind of a tangent, but does this mean that a quiver of 10 arrows is 1 Bulk, not L bulk? 8| That would actually be a pretty big change from how I generally see it played, which would impact a whole lot of characters.
Arrows say: Price 1 sp (price for 10); Bulk L
Honestly I was wondering the same thing. I ran in to the same problem when I started GMing. It looks like since it's not under the Adventuring Gear panel, the rule would not apply to it.
Honestly to be safe, I just made it a home rule that the Bulk of ammunition would aggregate to 10 Arrows is 1 Light Bulk for simplicity in my personal games. I think, and I would italicize 'think' if I could, that rules as intended ammunition is an exception, but I home ruled the clarification that way to be safe.
graystone wrote: Arrows aren't listed on tables 6–9 and 6–10 so it's a non-issue for them. That and saying 1 week is for rations that last a week [vs 7 individual 1 day rations] makes more sense now that someone else mentioned it. It falls in line with entries like rope and chain where length is listed: we don't expect the listed bulk to be by the individual foot of length do we? I would argue that rations less last a week, and more last 7 days, due to the fact Cost of Living is a separate purchase. I'd reason that if a character buys a week of Fine Standard of Living and a week of rations on the same day, they would not both expire seven days later, but when their respective days are spent. This is regardless of how Ration Bulk works.
For example, if a player on Sunday bought rations and a week of Fine Cost of Living, if they only spend 1 day in town, and 6 days traveling, I'd have them use 6 of their 7 days of rations, and 1 of their 7 days of Cost of Living, leaving the remaining for next week.
Granted, this might not be a vanilla intention, as the rules for Cost of Living don't specify these sorts of interractions, and rations simply do not have rules. I just don't feel it fair to charge my players for 7 days of food if they get less then 7 days out of the purchase. I'd at least want to put their remaining days forward to the next week.
moosher12 wrote: I just don't feel it fair to charge my players for 7 days of food if they get less then 7 days out of the purchase. I'd at least want to put their remaining days forward to the next week. Great! You can do the detailed bookkeeping in your game any way you like.
But Paizo does not need to issue an Errata that makes the rules of the game more complicated for everyone else on the planet who plays Pathfidner.
You can homebrew any subsystem that you like. An errata that forces everyone else to play that way too is a bit much.
Dancing Wind wrote:
Great! You can do the detailed bookkeeping in your game any way you like.
But Paizo does not need to issue an Errata that makes the rules of the game more complicated for everyone else on the planet who plays Pathfidner.
You can homebrew any subsystem that you like. An errata that forces everyone else to play that way too is a bit much.
Again, to remind, the core suggestion is made under the assumption that Rations are Light Bulk per day. I've still yet to see an official source to confirm the intent. I've sourced the underlying rule multiple times in this thread. People in the earlier thread I also have sourced were convinced it might have been the same interpretation.
There is a possibility with reasonable supporting evidence that rules as intended, a week's rations are 7 Light Bulk and 4 sp.
The errata would not be forcing everyone to play in a way that is too much if everyone was potentially, unintentionally or not, home ruling it to be lighter than it is, as the bulk of the part is not equal to the bulk of the set. I wholeheartedly agree that under those conditions, daily ration costs would be needless.
If anything, I believe that the belief that a week's rations is 1 Light Bulk and 4 sp is a home rule based on an incorrect reading, perpetuated to the point of popular assumption (Like how people believed the OGL was share-alike, when in fact it is not, because people told them it was so, and the misconception perpetuated into popular assumption). But no matter how popular it is, if it's a home rule, it's still a home rule.
If a developer confirms the actual intent, and if 1 Light bulk and 4 sp is the real intention, I would retract my statements, as yes, dividing 1 Light bulk in to 7 partitions would result in a weight unit too small to need daily division. I wholeheartedly agree that under that condition, daily ration costs would be needless.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
moosher12 wrote: If anything, I believe that the belief that a week's rations is 1 Light Bulk and 4 sp is a home rule based on an incorrect reading, perpetuated to the point of popular assumption (Like how people believed the OGL was share-alike, when in fact it is not, because people told them it was so, and the misconception perpetuated into popular assumption). But no matter how popular it is, if it's a home rule, it's still a home rule.
If a developer confirms the actual intent, and if 1 Light bulk and 4 sp is the real intention, I would retract my statements, as yes, dividing 1 Light bulk in to 7 partitions would result in a weight unit too small to need daily division. I wholeheartedly agree that under that condition, daily ration costs would be needless.
Actually, now that I look over the section in question, I'll have to disagree: "Any item with a number after it in parentheses indicates that the item’s Price is for the indicated quantity, though the Bulk entry for such an item is the value for only one such item." Now, note the entry in question: "(1 week)" going by the entry, it states "the Bulk entry for such an item is the value for only one such item" and the entry is for a single item denoted by the 1. Now if it was instead listed as 7 days, then it'd be a different story.
graystone wrote: Actually, now that I look over the section in question, I'll have to disagree: "Any item with a number after it in parentheses indicates that the item’s Price is for the indicated quantity, though the Bulk entry for such an item is the value for only one such item." Now, note the entry in question: "(1 week)" going by the entry, it states "the Bulk entry for such an item is the value for only one such item" and the entry is for a single item denoted by the 1. Now if it was instead listed as 7 days, then it'd be a different story. Hm, now that you bring it up, that is a good point now that I think on it. Good find.
This is certainly enough to strongly sway me toward a potential possibility that 1 week is indeed 1 unit.
In that case, I'll use that definition for now, and retract the suggestion.
graystone wrote: Now if it was instead listed as 7 days, then it'd be a different story. No, it wouldn't. 50 feet and 10 feet were already mentioned here. (7 days) and (7) aren't the same.
Also, if 7 days would have meant something, then why not 168 hours or 600 inches?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I would like to mention that a price adjustment doesn't mean that you have to play it any differently, it would just be easier to price a single day of rations.
I would love to see the pricing of equipment, trade commodities and consumer goods change with each errata pass. Lets get some value out of each new printing; change all the minor numbers by insignificant amounts. Market conditions change all the time. Player sensibilities shift over time. No reason we should be shackled to the past. Decades of inertia can be overcome, if only we have the courage to short the market.
Making a weeks worth of rations a nice round multiple is a great start. If it matters so little as to be beneath accounting for most parties then it stands to reason no meaningful complaints will be filed. The willful nonparticipants are going to continue ignoring the extraneous bookkeeping and those of us with too much time on our hands will be engrossed with determining the price efficiency of buying kits or their contents individually. Glorious!
I know it would have taken more room for each piece of equipment to put in print but I really think the system could have very much benefitted from instead using a Diablo/RE4 style attache case equipment management system instead with a baseline number of squares arranged in a square plus a whole extra sheet for your equipment.
Dagger/Club/Gauntlet/Etc - 1x1
Shortsword/Scimitar/Axe - 2x1
Spear/Longsword/Bastard/Etc - 3x1
Longspear/Glaive/etc - 5x1
Rope - 2x1
Potions/Bombs/General Alchemical Items? 1x1 (Stacks up to 5)
Rations 1x1 (stacks up to 20)
Coins - 1x1 (stacks up to 100)
Halfling/Gnome/Small Humanoid - 3x5
Human/Elf/Medium Humanoid - 5x9
... and so on. Yeah, it would be more space in the book but I just think it's cooler and would create a kind of inventory minigame for players to fiddle around with that would be fun or could just be ignored like the rest of equipment/bulk/weight system are. /shrug
And we could get little cardboard cutouts of the most common items to go along with the character tokens! And it would be really intuitive when high Strength and Hefty Hauler get more squares. This would even open up another front on the timeless squares or hexes argument.
Yep, and neat little visualized supplements like dry erase Bags of Holding which would each have their own storage space you could fill in.
Themetricsystem wrote: I know it would have taken more room for each piece of equipment to put in print but I really think the system could have very much benefitted from instead using a Diablo/RE4 style attache case equipment management system instead with a baseline number of squares arranged in a square plus a whole extra sheet for your equipment. Very loosely related, but you'd probably like Backpack Hero.
Alright folks. I did some math. I found proof that 1 week's rations is 1 Light Bulk for the set.
A an Adventurer's Pack costs 1.5 sp, and weighs 1 Bulk.
An Adventurer's Pack contains 1 Backpack, 1 Bedroll, 10 Chalk, 1 Flint and Steel, 1 Rope, 2 week's Rations, 1 Soap, 5 Torches, and 1 Waterskin.
The total stats of the items are as follows.
----------------------------------------------------------
Cost | Bulk | Item
----------------------------------------------------------
1 sp | 0 Bulk | Backpack
0.2 sp | 1 Light Bulk | Bedroll
0.1 sp | 0 Bulk | Chalk (10)
0.5 sp | 0 Bulk | Flint and Steel
8 sp | 2 Light Bulk | Rations (2 weeks)
5 sp | 1 Light Bulk | Rope
0.2 sp | 0 Bulk | Soap
0.5 sp | 5 Light Bulk | Torches (5)
0.5 sp | 1 Light Bulk | Waterskin
----------------------------------------------------------
Total | |
----------------------------------------------------------
16 sp | 1 Bulk | Adventurer's Pack (a la carte)
15 sp | 1 Bulk | Adventurer's Pack (pack Price)
So yes, indisputably, 1 week's rations is Light Bulk for the set. The math works out.
Still, I would suggest reducing the Price of rations to 3.5 sp per week's rations, to make the Cost of an adventurer's pack equivalent, as doing so would reduce the cost of 2 week's rations to 7 sp, and therefore make the contents of the adventurer's pack equal to the adventurer's pack.
Players alike would be able to top off their weekly ration supply instead of buying a whole extra week's rations if they wished to, or they can just buy the week's rations as normal.
Minor Edit: Darn, ascii graphs don't translate well in this website. Oh well.
It is a common business practice to sell a fixed set of items for a slightly lower amount than buying them individually.
Or [failed my will save] buying them in Bulk.
So you get a discount for buying the set "Adventurer's Pack". If you start removing and substituting items, it costs more.
Or, as you have said, the difference between prix fixe and a la carte
|
