Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8149729" data-attributes="member: 70468">Actually, I was just trying to understand the original statement give the way things work in the GMG. It seems like an aside though, so it’s not important.Since I don’t want to step into a discussion on martial-caster balance, I’m just going to snip this. I think that’s a worthwhile goal if you’re going to do ABP. People complain about the Christmas tree effect, but I think investiture helps mitigate that problem. If you want magic items to provide any kind of mechanical weight, then you need to factor them into the math. Otherwise, you’re just pretending that they don’t matter even when they do (like 5e does).Well, you could make level be derived from all the options and items a PC has taken or acquired. That way, groups can do whatever they want, and the system’s tools for assessing balance would still work. Of course, that’s likely to be an almost entirely different game if people just buy the things they want with XP and build out however (tall or wide).I was just proposing it as a way of dealing with the issue of the PCs not having the expected wealth to acquire the items the system expects them to have. I’m not a fan of the Arneson method for games like PF2, so a better option is not to use it and do something else.This is why I keep bringing up how old-school D&D does it. If the PCs don’t have to spend the gp to acquire XP, then it doesn’t mess up the magic item economy. I hadn’t considered that angle, but it makes sense. If they don’t even have the mandatory competing for their gp, then PCs probably would just focus on grinding out levels.I’m not even sure what this thread is about anymore. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🥸" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f978.png" title="Disguised face    :disguised_face:" data-shortname=":disguised_face:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></blockquote>

Verification