Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[Thomas Shey]

Ah. I skipped over that one. I hopped over and skimmed whatever page was current. It looks like an argument between old-school and modern sensibilities. I think I’ll pass on that discussion

Yeah, I can't honestly say I've seen too many of those go anywhere productive. Its not impossible, but its not the way to bet.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It is really unwelcome that 5E players struggle with this exact same issue even forty(?) years later...

When you do a design callback to earlier designs, its not going to be surprising that you end up with some of the same problems. It requires considerable work often to do one without the other.

Edit: More to the point, if you want treasure to be a significant factor in the game, you have to have something that the vast majority of characters (and players) will find worthwhile to do with it. The only real options I've ever seen games that do that and also go for the "big bags of gold" school are experience or magic items. If you avoid both those they just lay there for a lot, maybe the majority of people.

(Its possible to do this by handling treasure so it lands more in the area where the cost of normal-ish things of use to an adventurer is such that you can burn through it regularly, but that requires cutting the amount of treasure way the hell back, and if you're dealing with a class system, is probably going to matter more to some types than others).

 

[CapnZapp]

Edit: More to the point, if you want treasure to be a significant factor in the game, you have to have something that the vast majority of characters (and players) will find worthwhile to do with it. The only real options I've ever seen games that do that and also go for the "big bags of gold" school are experience or magic items. If you avoid both those they just lay there for a lot, maybe the majority of people.

A shame you weren't working at WotC headquarters circa 2013-2014 to tell them their idea to avoid having to spend time on magic item prices by coming up with a nonsensical rarity system was a terrible one.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A shame you weren't working at WotC headquarters circa 2013-2014 to tell them their idea to avoid having to spend time on magic item prices by coming up with a nonsensical rarity system was a terrible one.

Its not actually a coincidence I only am willing to engage with a very few D&D-sphere games.

 

[kenada]

Sorry what problem?

The one you bolded in your original post about warrior-types being advantaged because they could save money spent on striking runes to spend on skill-boosting items.

Compared to the standard game, ABP leaves warriors with considerably more cash to spend on skill bonus items or whatnot (relative to casters).

 

[kenada]

When you do a design callback to earlier designs, its not going to be surprising that you end up with some of the same problems. It requires considerable work often to do one without the other.

They took the nostalgia minus the systems that supported that style of play. Like how exploration is supposed to be one of the game’s pillars of play, but there are effectively no structures that provide exploration gameplay. But woe be is you to point that out when 5e homers are around.

 

[Thomas Shey]

They took the nostalgia minus the systems that supported that style of play. Like how exploration is supposed to be one of the game’s pillars of play, but there are effectively no structures that provide exploration gameplay. But woe be is you to point that out when 5e homers are around.

In this particular case, this was something that was a problem even in The Dim Times, because from the start D&D assumed many more players were going to want to invest in property of one sort or another than ever were. For all the bitching directed at the magic-mart, 3e was the first version of the game that actually gave most players something to do with their money, and moving away from that without doing something new was going to go right back to the problem.

Yes, you can make an argument that OD&D had an answer to this from the start, but it was a nonfunctional answer even from the get-go with most players.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Though, at least in the ol DND games (or ADND anyway), the rules actually pointed at those property acquisitions-- fighters got people who follow them as a class feature, assassins had to become the masters of assassin's guilds to progress, in theory this meant any player who was looking ahead was probably at least dimly aware that it was a thing they were meant to engage with.

About the previous conversation, PF2e can let any ancestry start with an 18 even if its a flaw, you just end up with marginally worse stats overall. Also on the subject of the wealth thing, ABP does seemingly leave fighters and such with more gold to throw around, but they still probably need more of it-- property runes on weapons stack up fast if you have more than one weapon and so forth, nothing technically stops the group from investing or splitting unequally either. It also arguably just puts martials in the same position the casters are already in: gold is very nice and nets you some more power (by letting you burn slots more aggressively) and versatility, but you don't need very much of it to function reasonably well anyway.

Wands and Staves aren't as important to casters as +1s and Strikings are to Martials, they're like a tier of importance below that, probably alongside property runes and such-- don't need them to function, but provide an unquestionable increase in power/versatility vs. not having them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Though, at least in the ol DND games (or ADND anyway), the rules actually pointed at those property acquisitions-- fighters got people who follow them as a class feature, assassins had to become the masters of assassin's guilds to progress, in theory this meant any player who was looking ahead was probably at least dimly aware that it was a thing they were meant to engage with.

Way too little, way too late, even if people had given it any mind; there were references to most of that in OD&D, but they weren't particularly central, and most people didn't care; they weren't playing to be estate managers, they were playing to dig into dungeons and hunt manticores. You'd literally had to have presented it as being the primary intended end game right up front and central for people for it to matter, and also to make people expect to get to that point (which, even if they'd been interested, most people never did).

In practice, it still added up to money was part of what got you experience, but other than as a success marker, really didn't do anything for the actual game experience for most players.

 

[CapnZapp]

The one you bolded in your original post about warrior-types being advantaged because they could save money spent on striking runes to spend on skill-boosting items.

Right.

So, if I understand your question correctly...

Wouldn’t only the variant with just devastating strikes have that problem (with skill-boosting items)? The one in the GMG gets rid of all items bonuses except for armor, which includes skill-boosting items.

...you're asking if reducing ABP to devastating strikes only leads to a problem with warriors being able to purchase more skill-boosting items?

I think we're mixing two separate subjects.

I was talking about a reduced ABP to point out that it really is only the striking runes that occupy this triply uncomfortable place where they're a) totally expected by the game's math, yet still not given out automatically b) you really have to give them to your players and c) they far outshine all other magic items. I'm assuming ABP exists because people find the default implementation inelegant and still reliant on items (a vestige of the woes of PF1). If so, the part of ABP you really really need is devastating strikes. Something like a weapon potency rune meets criterias a+c but not b. So you might still want to have ABP replace potency runes, not because you have to, but because they're too good compared to most other items. This does, as stated, help warriors, not casters, so one problem leads to the next...

The other thing I said was about how striking runes only affect warriors, and so not having to purchase them (because you get devastating strikes for free) frees up a lot of money for other stuff, advantaging warriors compared to casters. If you want to fix this, you need something like having striking runes be useful for spellcasters too.

I haven't suggested reducing ABP as a solution to the warrior-caster imbalance. I discussed reducing ABP because I feel that's a better ABP, one that doesn't remove more of the magic item economy than it absolutely has to. I realize you could infer there was a connection, but please read my thoughts on ABP as a sidetrack or rant. It was brought on by your mention, but not really germane to the main gold for XP discussion.

And of course, ABP came up when you suggested ABP as being better than PWL at fixing the rather PF2-specific issue where nothing you can purchase comes close to a level.

I would say PWL is damned near mandatory for an XP for GP campaign with a functioning magic item economy where the same gold purchases everything. Another way of saying this is that the level you add to proficiency makes it impossible to mix gp and xp. If you run a game where gold can buy you xp but nothing else (i.e. you're running magic items much like 5E rather than the default PF2 system) you don't need to do anything, of course.

Using ABP on the other hand is retreating from a fully functional magic item economy, since far fewer items are left to exist in the game. Since you remove pretty much all the really worthwhile items, I'd say ABP amplifies the problem instead of mitigating it. If you can't even purchase a skill bonus (let alone an extra weapon die) you damn sure won't part with a penny that doesn't go towards XP...

I hope that was on topic. But I'm not 100% sure...