Who knows? Maybe walking around with a personal rain cloud would be annoying to some DMs.
If that the bar, then every spell should be uncommon as some dm might be annoyed by it. ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I'm aware, anything from an AP is uncommon or rare by default. Uncommon and rare also often gatekeep cutesy, flavorful (and often weak) spells and items as a result—like Personal Rain Cloud.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I'm aware, anything from an AP is uncommon or rare by default.
Pretty much it's counted as limited availability. Rarity wears a few hats, so it's hard to point to it any single one and make a point about it: Teleport is Uncommon for a different reason than a Katana.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Old Man Robot, I wonder, would a thesis, or class archetype that basically replaced thesis, that granted the lore master archetype dedication feat at level 1, and maybe granting the bardic lore feat at level 2, then just access to lore master feats be enough of a class archetype/option to cover your vision of an erudite wizard?
That would be pretty weak, all things considered. Especially given that the Wizard can generally just take Loremaster at 2nd anyhow. Loremaster fits well as an "any-class" evergreen option for those who want to expand their options, it's not strong enough to be a tent-pole feature of a class.
But Knowledge should be tent-pole feature of the Wizard. So it would need to be something like the Thaumaturges Estoeric Lore, or the Commander's Warfare Expertise.
The Wizard has such a balance-debt at present that a feature like the above could just be added to the class outright, without fixing anything else.
It's also such a light-weight mechanical addition that it fits into the same new-feature-via-errata size that Alchemists got.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing how the guidance is qualitative rather than a strict rules-based heuristic. No need to point that out again, I get it. What I'm not seeing is the major difficulty you seem to see in making decisions based on it.
The problem isn't if any of us can follow it. The problem is if a newbie GM without much experience or system sense can follow it, or if a less understanding GM will allow swaps or additions. For example, I would think it very fair if a new GM said they didn't really understand the balance implications of giving a wizard school a given spell, and said they wanted to learn more about the system before making such calls.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing how the guidance is qualitative rather than a strict rules-based heuristic. No need to point that out again, I get it. What I'm not seeing is the major difficulty you seem to see in making decisions based on it.
A big issue is that drives a hard-wedge in player experience across different tables, GM's and society play. No two Wizard players can expect the same outcome by default.
It takes what was formally the strength of the Wizard, their larger spell variety, and places several asterisks over it.
I am thinking I have to point this out.
Saying its a problem for a newby GM or drives a wedge in player experience is on;y theoretically a good argument.
No one here has yet to share an experience that validates those concerns, I did ask. I think Paizo knows their players to some degree and that they are just fine deciding with their players when spells meet a theme or not.
But on the driving a wedge idea. Yeah actually in a way it does on purpose. It differentiates player experience through customization on a concept of theme that GMs have a responsibility to decide is appropriate for their game.
The only concern so far that has been brought up that validates the inflexibility of the list is possible PFS concern. I dont play in or run them so I wouldnt be the person to talk on it.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am thinking I have to point this out.
Saying its a problem for a newby GM or drives a wedge in player experience is on;y theoretically a good argument.
No one here has yet to share an experience that validates those concerns, I did ask. I think Paizo knows their players to some degree and that they are just fine deciding with their players when spells meet a theme or not.But on the driving a wedge idea. Yeah actually in a way it does on purpose. It differentiates player experience through customization on a concept of theme that GMs have a responsibility to decide is appropriate for their game.
The only concern so far that has been brought up that validates the inflexibility of the list is possible PFS concern. I dont play in or run them so I wouldnt be the person to talk on it.
The complaint levied is that not it cannot be customised, but that it means the Wizard, when taken on a whole, along with the other issues noted in this and other threads, is simply too GM dependant and has the greatest amount of table variance.
What you might or might not allow at your table is all well and fine, but it's equally plausible that someone might go a different way for a number of different reasons. It's not exactly outlandish to way a concept like "Civic Wizardy" might mean different things to different people from different places.
So it means there is an additional level of uncertainty introduced.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am thinking I have to point this out.
Saying its a problem for a newby GM or drives a wedge in player experience is on;y theoretically a good argument.
No one here has yet to share an experience that validates those concerns, I did ask. I think Paizo knows their players to some degree and that they are just fine deciding with their players when spells meet a theme or not.But on the driving a wedge idea. Yeah actually in a way it does on purpose. It differentiates player experience through customization on a concept of theme that GMs have a responsibility to decide is appropriate for their game.
The only concern so far that has been brought up that validates the inflexibility of the list is possible PFS concern. I dont play in or run them so I wouldnt be the person to talk on it.
PFS is run basically RAW, with its own set of clarifications (some of which are currently subbing for missing errata, like "how many spells do Oracles have?").
In this context it can act as a litmus test for "does this suggestion actually fix the problem, or does it put the onus on every GM to fix it?" Since PFS GMs don't get to use house rules, a fix that requires GM fiat doesn't work there and thus isn't truly a fix to the class itself.
Honestly, one of the things I like about PF2 is that I don't have to have huge lists of house rules and GM rulings in order to run it, which is a problem both in PF1 (because of all the edge cases/ambiguity/outright broken stuff) and 5e (because of how much stuff is just left unclear and for GMs to resolve). I don't consider "just make something up with your GM to fix this" to be a real solution because its not actually fixing the problem: its downloading the problem onto GMs to fix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I'm aware, anything from an AP is uncommon or rare by default.Pretty much it's counted as limited availability. Rarity wears a few hats, so it's hard to point to it any single one and make a point about it: Teleport is Uncommon for a different reason than a Katana.I'm not sure why they didn't separate those into two categories: one for how common something is and another for possibly game-breaking spells. This way, new GMs would know what is game-breaking at a glance.
Since both types are lumped together, new GMs might assume that anything rare or even uncommon is overpowered and end up blanket-banning it, similar to how they treat third-party content.
I think the true point it's conveying is "you should look at this before allowing it". One tag type (Uncommon/Rare) does that just as well as two.
Having two that are trying to say different things implies someone has thought of those things when creating it. That's a big problem for AP items/feats/spells because those are not playtested very much, if at all. It's often unlikely the author can actually say "this is out of line in power and you should think about it before allowing it" and thus the absence of that could be read as an endorsement that its fine when it's really not even remotely fine. And since AP options almost never get errata, there's no fixing that if they get it wrong and mark it Common when it really should be marked "Overpowered". At that point, fixing it requires house rules and custom rulings like the PFS ban list, and that's something I'd really prefer to not go back to.
Uncommon/Rare really just mean "look at this before green lighting it", and putting that on AP stuff accomplishes that perfectly well.
Honestly, one of the things I like about PF2 is that I don't have to have huge lists of house rules and GM rulings in order to run itYeah, stress on the 'huge' here. As we kind of do have such lists :) Though often thankfully in the format 'select one of two - three reasonable rulings for your table'.
Yeah for sure. I think we all have house rules. :) Being able to customize things for your table is part of the appeal of this genre.
Though my PF2 list is mostly quality of life stuff like "you get your hero point refunded if it doesn't improve the outcome", rather than "no you can't take this list of obviously broken feats together no matter what RAW says".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Old Man Robot, I wonder, would a thesis, or class archetype that basically replaced thesis, that granted the lore master archetype dedication feat at level 1, and maybe granting the bardic lore feat at level 2, then just access to lore master feats be enough of a class archetype/option to cover your vision of an erudite wizard?That would be pretty weak, all things considered. Especially given that the Wizard can generally just take Loremaster at 2nd anyhow. Loremaster fits well as an "any-class" evergreen option for those who want to expand their options, it's not strong enough to be a tent-pole feature of a class.
But Knowledge should be tent-pole feature of the Wizard. So it would need to be something like the Thaumaturges Estoeric Lore, or the Commander's Warfare Expertise.
The Wizard has such a balance-debt at present that a feature like the above could just be added to the class outright, without fixing anything else.
It's also such a light-weight mechanical addition that it fits into the same new-feature-via-errata size that Alchemists got.
We have a difference of oppinion about whether the Wizard has a deficit as a class as far as class features that isn't worth getting into here, as the point of this thread is about fixing the wizard through archetypes, which generally should not massively increase the power of a character over a character that does not choose that archetype.
More relevant to this thread, I don't think it is fair to call the thesis a tent pole features of the wizard, unless we are talking about small A-frame tents with multiple poles that hold the tent up. 2 free additional feats, one of which from a different class and not accessible through the Lore Master Archetype feels about on par with what other theses provide and would give the wizard a very strong RK ability. Neither the Thaumaturge nor the Commander are spell casters and both have a non-attack/non-save key attribute, which is what lets them break the rules a little bit on what they can accomplish with recalling knowledge, but the wizard is a full caster with 3.5/4 spell slots (I would argue 4, but acknowledge some here disagree) and an attack Key Attribute. additionally, the Thaumaturge and the commander can only learn a very specific set of things with their specialized lore skill, whereas the loremaster can learn anything. Also, as a full caster, a spell like pocket library is trivially easy to exploit.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the true point it's conveying is "you should look at this before allowing it". One tag type (Uncommon/Rare) does that just as well as two.
I don't really agree. A katana REALLY doesn't need a "you should look at this before allowing it" tag. For it, it's literally a tag that tells you it's not commonly found, full stop. You could remove its tag, like is done in Tian Xia, without the slightest worry about looking at it: it's just a martial weapon from another part of the world.
I think the true point it's conveying is "you should look at this before allowing it". One tag type (Uncommon/Rare) does that just as well as two.I don't really agree. A katana REALLY doesn't need a "you should look at this before allowing it" tag. For it, it's literally a tag that tells you it's not commonly found, full stop. You could remove its tag, like is done in Tian Xia, without the slightest worry about looking at it: it's just a martial weapon from another art of the world.
Any to build on this, for any *edit*common spell a player wants to swap into their list a similar judgement is done. Instead of is this commonly found in this region? its does this spell strongly fit this theme?
If there is an uncommon or rare tag on the spell then the additional you should look at this cause the spell could be disruptive in your game might apply.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the true point it's conveying is "you should look at this before allowing it". One tag type (Uncommon/Rare) does that just as well as two.I don't really agree. A katana REALLY doesn't need a "you should look at this before allowing it" tag. For it, it's literally a tag that tells you it's not commonly found, full stop. You could remove its tag, like is done in Tian Xia, without the slightest worry about looking at it: it's just a martial weapon from another part of the world.
The Katana shouldn't be uncommon at all, IMO. They're using the tag in really inconsistent ways when they say "something is uncommon in Golarian" sometimes and other times "something is uncommon in the Inner Sea but entirely common somewhere else", since at that point the rulebook is making a setting assumption that the rest of the material (including the setting itself) doesn't make.
But yeah, that one is a case where a "Regionally Uncommon" tag or something like that might make more sense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another oddity is that the system itself sometimes undermines the 'purpose' of rarity by giving players bypasses.
Just on a fundamental level it feels weird to simultaneously say that Uncommon and Rare exist to give the GM built-in stop signs before certain content is allowed into the game, and then also include feats that give characters automatic access.
It kind of undermines the premise a bit, and also sometimes leads players and GMs to believe rarity is something that's designed to be paid for.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be tempted to say they need a horizontally wider array of tags that tell you *why* something is uncommon, rather than just that it is, at a glance. Like, to highlight the difference between
"Uncommon in-case you were trying to do a murder mystery it would break"
"Uncommon because we meant for this to be a GM reward"
"Uncommon because its out of place for what we consider the basic fantasy setting"
"Uncommon because its only common to a specific group of people/culture and therefore that context should be present when it's used by default."
You'd have to maybe distill those into tags, but its admittedly kind of messy because up front it wasn't applied evenly to begin with. Like, Bags of Holding are common, even though I'd expect them to be uncommon for campaigns that want transporting things to be harder.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be tempted to say they need a horizontally wider array of tags that tell you *why* something is uncommon, rather than just that it is, at a glance.
Oh my god, yes please. As someone who is using my own setting, untangling why things are uncommon/rare can be a pain. IMO, uncommon for purely reigonal/access reasons (I.E Katanas) shouldn't be a thing, and it should be it's own tag. Ideally tagged with said reigon, as with ancestry weapons.
I'd be tempted to say they need a horizontally wider array of tags that tell you *why* something is uncommon, rather than just that it is, at a glance.Oh my god, yes please. As someone who is using my own setting, untangling why things are uncommon/rare can be a pain. IMO, uncommon for purely reigonal/access reasons (I.E Katanas) shouldn't be a thing, and it should be it's own tag. Ideally tagged with said reigon, as with ancestry weapons.
Thats a good point.
I mean the game was originally designed from a Avistan centric perspective that informed the rarity mechanics, that probably needs to change.| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am thinking I have to point this out.
Saying its a problem for a newby GM or drives a wedge in player experience is on;y theoretically a good argument.
No one here has yet to share an experience that validates those concerns, I did ask. I think Paizo knows their players to some degree and that they are just fine deciding with their players when spells meet a theme or not.But on the driving a wedge idea. Yeah actually in a way it does on purpose. It differentiates player experience through customization on a concept of theme that GMs have a responsibility to decide is appropriate for their game.
The only concern so far that has been brought up that validates the inflexibility of the list is possible PFS concern. I dont play in or run them so I wouldnt be the person to talk on it.The complaint levied is that not it cannot be customised, but that it means the Wizard, when taken on a whole, along with the other issues noted in this and other threads, is simply too GM dependant and has the greatest amount of table variance.
What you might or might not allow at your table is all well and fine, but it's equally plausible that someone might go a different way for a number of different reasons. It's not exactly outlandish to way a concept like "Civic Wizardy" might mean different things to different people from different places.
So it means there is an additional level of uncertainty introduced.
There's also sort of an unfair assumption of responsibility being placed on the GM.
The option for the GM to customize things and create houserules for their players is great and an important tool for making games more enjoyable, but treating it as something necessary or that should be expected is putting a GM in a position where they're a bad GM for simply running a mechanic as Paizo published it, which is not a great place for a community to be putting GMs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am thinking I have to point this out.
Saying its a problem for a newby GM or drives a wedge in player experience is on;y theoretically a good argument.
No one here has yet to share an experience that validates those concerns, I did ask. I think Paizo knows their players to some degree and that they are just fine deciding with their players when spells meet a theme or not.But on the driving a wedge idea. Yeah actually in a way it does on purpose. It differentiates player experience through customization on a concept of theme that GMs have a responsibility to decide is appropriate for their game.
The only concern so far that has been brought up that validates the inflexibility of the list is possible PFS concern. I dont play in or run them so I wouldnt be the person to talk on it.The complaint levied is that not it cannot be customised, but that it means the Wizard, when taken on a whole, along with the other issues noted in this and other threads, is simply too GM dependant and has the greatest amount of table variance.
What you might or might not allow at your table is all well and fine, but it's equally plausible that someone might go a different way for a number of different reasons. It's not exactly outlandish to way a concept like "Civic Wizardy" might mean different things to different people from different places.
So it means there is an additional level of uncertainty introduced.
Civic Wizardry is a great example. I'd likely allow many ward spells in civic wizardry because it makes sense that they would place wards to better protect what they build. Knock and Lock being two obvious examples. Or placing alarm spells at the doors you build, etc, etc.
But another GM probably would not.
Then you'll run into the problem where one a player that played under me takes the same character to another GM, to be told no. They cannot consider Alarm and Lock as part of civic wizardry.
I like the themeing you did there. It shouts this wizard is theming their civic wizardry towards security.
I'd be tempted to say they need a horizontally wider array of tags that tell you *why* something is uncommon, rather than just that it is, at a glance.Oh my god, yes please. As someone who is using my own setting, untangling why things are uncommon/rare can be a pain. IMO, uncommon for purely reigonal/access reasons (I.E Katanas) shouldn't be a thing, and it should be it's own tag. Ideally tagged with said reigon, as with ancestry weapons.
If it were me, I'd tag weapons from the other side of the world as either uncommon or rare, the latter if for some reason they're uncommon even in their own region, and I would increase the price by some significant percentage. OTOH, to my mind, pricing of things in Golarion makes no economic sense, nor does the economic system. 'It's a game' you say. Yeah, I get that. Still makes no sense.
I would add that katanas are probably uncommon even in Minkai, because if Golarion follows the Japanese tradition such weapons are restricted to Samurai. If Golarion doesn't follow that tradition, then I suppose katanas would be common -- in Tian Xia.
If it was a low magic world maybe but in a world where even things like teleport and flight exist its just silly to think things would be so rare considering that even in out world you will find you will find things from different countries brought because they are exotic.
In a world with magic, economy doesn't make sense anyway. What would be the most important goods when you can produce a lot through magic?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There would still be an economy. It would just look radically different.
Economies don't just stand for the Mixed/Market economies of today, as long as people need to trade with others to survive, there will be some sort of economy.
In a world where Geb is an unceasing, mostly labour-cost free, breadbasket of a continent, lowering food prices across the inner sea as well, people will find other things to spend their gold on.
There would still be an economy. It would just look radically different.
Economies don't just stand for the Mixed/Market economies of today, as long as people need to trade with others to survive, there will be some sort of economy.
In a world where Geb is an unceasing, mostly labour-cost free, breadbasket of a continent, lowering food prices across the inner sea as well, people will find other things to spend their gold on.
Yeah, there'll be an economy. This economy will just be far too alien and dependent on the GM.
You speak of Geb, but how common is Create Food? Because no one cares about Geb if food is nearly free to cast.
Also, it's nice to produce tons of food, but how do you refrigerate them? No refrigeration = no transportation for most types of food.
And then, is there any way for a nation or organization to monopolize some goods? Because monopolies can easily imbalance an entire economy.
So many questions that are up to the GM and will end up with extremely different forms of economy.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Create food being a 2nd level spell means your question somewhat answers itself. The number of 4th level casters in the world vs the number of hungry mouths probably means its impact is realistically non-existent. This is probably the answer to most things where the caster needs access to anything above cantrips.
There is whats possible, then there is whats economically viable.
It's why we get fantasties about "Wonder Cities". Places that do leverage their magical capacity to do amazing things. But they are always generally singular places, where the scale makes it viable and functional.
Oh, and war.
Create food being a 2nd level spell means your question somewhat answers itself. The number of 4th level casters in the world vs the number of hungry mouths probably means its impact is realistically non-existent.
A 3rd level caster can cast Create Food 2-3 times a day, it feeds 6 people per casting, but children (half of the population of a medieval society) and small size Ancestries count for much less. So you'll feed between 12 and 72 people with certainly an average of 25 people all on your own. As such you need 4% of the population to sustain everyone when peasants were closer to 80% of the population in the actual middle ages. So it's very far from "realistically non-existent", if you develop such kind of food production you'll have 5 times the economy of your neighbours.
Overall, the second you start speaking about economy in a magic world you'll see everyone disagree because there are so many economy-breaking spells and abilities that there's no way to come to any form of agreement. It's much better to consider that magic has no impact on the economy because reasons.
I think you're forgetting a major factor of why Create Food is not used except by adventurers.
Eating created food is something no one wants to do unless they have to.
It's like trying to live off nutrient bars for the rest of your life.
Bland and unappealing. Pretty much the Sad Man's Special. A fruit from a stall or a home-cooked meal will always outshine it. Even rations are likely to taste better.
You're also asking for a spell casting service. 7 gp per casting, plus 3 gp for a casting of cleanse cuisine to make the flavor interesting for a whopping 10 gp per casting of a two-spell set.
Divided by 6, and you're going to be charged 1 silver piece and 7 copper pieces a day per person, where a square meal of likely similar quality is 3 copper pieces
Create Food is alright for survival, but very few PCs or NPCs are going to be willing to live off of that stuff long term. Create Food even at it's most optimistic leaves you with the cyberpunk dystopian conceptual equivalent to lab-grown synthmeat and bug protein farms.
Prestidigitation is a cantrip that solves all your flavour issues.
You are applying unrealistic modern food standards to a world of potentially starving peasants. It seems silly. Historically farmers were the majority of the population and often only had the one main crop.Any food is better than starvation. Yes of course they would supplement any staple with whatever else they could find. The peasants have plenty of spare time to do that. As for cost peasants would pay with labor and other services.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is also how I liked to play my wizards. This just isn't an option now. The wizard doesn't have a good selection of buffs or debuffs, and the debuffs it does get are to hard to land, to the point I just gave up. It would have made sense that curriculum spells, cast from curriculum slots, would be more powerful. That should have been built into the chassis. You should be better at those arcane theses spells, any wizard can cast charm, but yours is more difficult to resist, and if it doesn't land it should remain uncast. If your thesis is spell shaping, they should be a free action, because it's what you specialize in. We are almost level 5, and I have had a single battle where my wizard made a difference. I don't need to compete as a fighter, but it would be great to be as valuable as a fighter. To land my spells as often as the fighters sword hits (who doesn't run out of sword juice). Is the wizard weaker? Not everyone agrees, but I think so. It certainly isn't as valuable a core class anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's how Preserving. At least, maybe there's something specifically for refrigerating (in PF1 probably? lore is the same...) And for this you don't even need casters, only magical crafting in a magical world.
When you add items, it becomes even more crazy.
For example, a Bountiful Cauldron feeds 12 persons (even more if you consider children) indefinitely at no cost. And the food is good, for those who care about the taste.
The price is 680 gp. If you use it during one year, it's 1.5 silver per person per day (or 5 copper per meal). Obviously, there's no reason to stop using it after a year so this item makes food price negligible.
If we try to infer an economy from these kinds of items and spells we realize that high level characters productivity is levels of magnitude above the peasant productivity. Or, stated otherwise: Your state economy is independent from your population's work it depends only on your high level individuals' work.
If we were applying modern economy to Golarion, 90% of the population would be unemployed as their productivity is too low. It's a bit like having one tractor and 9 plows for 100 peasants. So one uses the tractor, 9 use a plow pulled by oxen and 90 only use their hands. Obviously, such economy is not viable as the 90 barehanded peasants production would be inferior to the single tractor peasant.
|
OTOH, to my mind, pricing of things in Golarion makes no economic sense, nor does the economic system. 'It's a game' you say. Yeah, I get that. Still makes no sense.It tries to make it sensible to go adventuring. Thus compared to the real world, it downplays the value of "regular" work or "passive" magic (like making food, timber, etc.) and increases the economic value of going out and killing things, raiding tombs, etc.
Prices are divinely mandated by Abadar. That's why they are all the same, everywhere, and bear no relationship to the cost of materials or labor or level of scarcity.
If it was a low magic world maybe but in a world where even things like teleport and flight exist its just silly to think things would be so rare considering that even in out world you will find you will find things from different countries brought because they are exotic.In a world with magic, economy doesn't make sense anyway. What would be the most important goods when you can produce a lot through magic?
I don't recall a single spell that creates an object that lasts forever with the exception of maybe wish, which isn't something everybody can access easily, and the only magical stuff that doesn't vanish are magic items which are regular items enchanted with magic. I don't see how there couldn't be an economy in a magical world with these circumstances.
Prestidigitation is a cantrip that solves all your flavour issues.
You are applying unrealistic modern food standards to a world of potentially starving peasants. It seems silly. Historically farmers were the majority of the population and often only had the one main crop.
Any food is better than starvation. Yes of course they would supplement any staple with whatever else they could find. The peasants have plenty of spare time to do that. As for cost peasants would pay with labor and other services.Food standards have room to be pretty high. Pathfinder leans a bit more rennaisance than medieval, and might be beyond in some locations. Many towns are quite far along and getting modernized, especially in the most present years with the steady advent of steampunk technologies. I've said before, but Pathfinder's independent technology level appears to be roughly early 1840s at the moment, at least for most bigger cities.
Also, your statement does not address the expense of buying magically generated food. I made a typo in my earlier post, as it made out the cost to being cheaper than it actually is. It's still 10 gp per 6 servings of food, even if a GM fiated the cost of the cantrip to be waived to free to reduce the cost to 7 gp, when divided by 6, you're still looking at at about 1.2 gp per serving on the low end, and 1.7 gp per serving on the high end.
In short, for what is essentially a flavored protein bar, you're spending money on par with going out to a very nice restaurant in your local city. And this protein bar will cost 39-56 times the cost of the food it's going to be more aptly compared to, which is a square meal. And considering the cost of a square meal is 3 copper and a poor meal is 1 copper, a lot of groceries are implied to be purchased on the scale of copper pieces, as restaurants are not going to be selling food at cost.
I would also add that in general, a lower level spell, especially a cantrip, is not allowed to replace the effects of a higher level...
Life for peasants in rennaisance was pretty harsh still.
Golarian has wildy anachronistic social and technological societies.Even in the mid 1800s Europe had several famines where millions died.
Far worse is your failure to understand the limitations of pathfinders economics system. If people need food, and other people can supply that food at almost zero marginal cost, then the prices adjust to what can be reasonably paid or the population does.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has veered very far off topic, but remember that none of the economic elements of the game are codified in rules outside of how they work for the players. That is because the base line is "have it work however works to tell the best story at your table." So if your table wants a world economy "solved by magic," that is your prerogative, but it probably doesn't work that well for a setting in constant conflict, and hence you wont see much of that in pre-written adventures.
It is the same reason the setting and lore folks don't want to go around setting settlement stat blocks for places that might eventually be used in an adventure. Too much formal setting structure where it isn't serving a specific story only prevents future stories from being told.