RANT - Purchasing Consumables - RANT


Pathfinder Society

51 to 74 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 2/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
hogarth wrote:
Why is that not a Core problem? Can you link me to the post where this was explained? I've been following this discussion very carefully, but perhaps I missed a thread or a post where the PFS/non-PFS difference is explained in detail.

Because in the Core you don't have PA to get a 'free' wand of lesser restoration after 1 adventure?

Oh, and you have GM discretion to tell the player to get bent if he wants to go looking for such a thing.

It was discussed at length in the 3.0 FAQ and House Rules threads, both of which I believe you have read and commented in.

Good day sir!


Zizazat wrote:
Oh, and you have GM discretion to tell the player to get bent if he wants to go looking for such a thing.

Right, that's Complaint #2 that I discussed above.

Zizazat wrote:
It was discussed at length in the 3.0 FAQ and House Rules threads, both of which I believe you have read and commented in.

So you don't have a specific post to link to, even though it's been "talked to death". Bummer. :-(

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

hogarth wrote:
Why is that not a Core problem?

Because PA is not used in Core to determine the spending power of the players. That is a decision by the GM.

hogath wrote:
Can you link me to the post where this was explained? I've been following this discussion very carefully, but perhaps I missed a thread or a post where the PFS/non-PFS difference is explained in detail.

The explanation is that it is a function of cost control, item access, and consistency within PFS. I do not see where an additional explanation is needed.

EDIT...Ninja'd by the Ziz

Grand Lodge 2/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
hogarth wrote:
So you don't have a specific post to link to, even though it's been "talked to death". Bummer. :-(

I said, "Good day sir!"

The Exchange 2/5

hogarth wrote:
teribithia9 wrote:
hogarth wrote:
MisterSlanky wrote:

I agree with Dragonmoon and TwilightKnight (are you two related?)

Here's how I see it:


  • A cleric should always purchase from the cleric list using the divine spell level for the cleric class.
  • The wizard/sorcerer should always purchase from the wizard list using the arcane spell level for the wizard/sorcerer class.
  • A druid would always pick from the druid list using the divine spell level for the druid class.
  • A caster not yet mentioned would purchase the spell first from the the wizard list using the appropriate wizard level of the spell, or if not present there, from the cleric list at the appropriate cleric level of the spell, or if not there from the druid list at the appropriate druid level of the spell. If all three resources do not have the spell, only then do the purchase it from their own spell list at the appropriate level of their own class.
  • Non-casters using the UMD skill get to pick from the cheapest list simply because they're trying to emulate some other class.

Just my opinion on how it should be read though.

Using your list, you still end up with the weird case where a witch can buy a divine scroll of Cure Light Wounds, but not an arcane one.

I'd much rather see a simple rule like: "Scrolls/wands/potions are only available to purchase from class lists that go up to 9th level spells." Of course, that means that bards, summoners, etc. get the short end of the stick, but they're already getting the short end of the stick anyway.

** spoiler omitted **

No--that's not the case. The witch is buying an arcane scroll of CLW. It's just PRICED like it was scribed by a cleric.
Where does it say that in MisterSlanky's post?

It doesn't, but Josh has stated this repeatedly during the many discussions of this topic.


teribithia9 wrote:
It doesn't, but Josh has stated this repeatedly during the many discussions of this topic.

Right, but it's not clarified in the PFS rules (yet).

The Exchange 2/5

hogarth wrote:
teribithia9 wrote:
It doesn't, but Josh has stated this repeatedly during the many discussions of this topic.
Right, but it's not clarified in the PFS rules (yet).

I can't believe this. Now your just being...

Never mind, I don't want to get banned from the boards because of you.

I'm done, I got my question answered.

Grand Lodge 2/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Shieldknight wrote:
I can't believe this. Now your just being...

You don't have those special PDFs for the current rules that update whenever Josh posts something?

Dude, you gotta get one of those. It makes life sooooooo much better.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Joshua J. Frost wrote:
This x 7,000,000.

Whoo, I got Josh's approval - by like a factor of seven-million even! Go me!

To anybody discussing this issue. It's taken a lot of thinking to figure this out, and now my brain hurts. I will gladly share my understanding of how this is implemented should any more questions arise of the what to do, but I will not be dragged into the discussion of why it is yet again.

1/5 **

Wow. I wish I hadn't read this thread, becuase now I'm confused. :P

I have a society cleric on his way to wizard, then on to MT. Given my classes, I don't think my intention to be a "walking scrollrack" should be a surprise. Since I'll be both a cleric and a wizard, I figured anything that appears on both lists would just be the cheaper of the two. Is that incorrect?

I'm not being deliberately obtuse; I really would like to know so I'm sure I'm doing this right. As I said, I've read the thread, and it almost seems the rule of thumb is to use the most expensive option.


bugleyman wrote:
... I figured anything that appears on both lists would just be the cheaper of the two. Is that incorrect?

You are correct. You select the cheaper of the two.

Edit: Edited for clarity.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

bugleyman wrote:
I'm not being deliberately obtuse; I really would like to know so I'm sure I'm doing this right. As I said, I've read the thread, and it almost seems the rule of thumb is to use the most expensive option.

Yup that is a good rule of thumb, but I think you're a strange case.

The vast, vast majority of the time it should be pretty obvious how much you should spend on a scroll. You learn fireball as a 3rd level wizard spell, you learn holy smite as a 4th level cleric spell. I really doubt there's much confusion over this. Where it gets touchy are on the small handful of spells that appear on both lists, spells like plane shift (which isn't a great example because you won't have it as a wizard due to it being level 7).

Again my opinion here...

(Bad example because of the levels involved, but it will have to do). I would believe that if you were trying to have a spell around for general reading because you're capable of casting 5th level cleric spells, you would buy it off the cleric list at cleric price. You could cast it as a 5th level cleric spell off the scroll should you want to. You could not though scribe that scroll as a wizard because it was purchased at the wrong price. Scribing as a wizard though, again you'd go to the wizard list (you are a wizard in this case) and buy it there as a 7th level spell.

It's an interesting dilemma though and one that I could be entirely wrong on.


Shieldknight wrote:
hogarth wrote:
teribithia9 wrote:
It doesn't, but Josh has stated this repeatedly during the many discussions of this topic.
Right, but it's not clarified in the PFS rules (yet).

I can't believe this. Now your just being...

Never mind, I don't want to get banned from the boards because of you.

I'm done, I got my question answered.

The problem isn't with the handful of us who have been a part of this discussion, or the silent readers of all these threads, that have kept up and seen every ruling by Josh in every thread. The problem is with all the players who do not read the forums and only have the Guide for all the legal rules and rulings on how to play their PFS characters. Now, this is why hogarth said (yet) and this is also why Josh starts an FAQ thread for each Guide version. Official clarifications like these are supposed to be in one place where the average player or GM can go and read through and hopefully find the answer they need. I do not have the spare time, but if someone does, could you please go through all the threads since the 3.0 FAQ was started and transfer official decisions like the one here into it? This will also help Josh make sure it all gets into 3.1 of the Guide. It really sucks to tell a player, "hey, it's not in the official Guide, but there really is an official ruling somewhere here in the forums."

1/5 **

Joshua J. Frost wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
... I figured anything that appears on both lists would just be the cheaper of the two. Is that incorrect?
Yes.

So, for any spell that appears both on the cleric and wizard lists at different levels, I'll need to pay the higher level cost -- correct?

I'm fine with that, I just want to get it right.


Sorry, I misread. You are not incorrect. You select the cheaper of the two. I've edited my post.

Grand Lodge 2/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Joshua J. Frost wrote:
Sorry, I misread. You are not incorrect. You select the cheaper of the two. I've edited my post.

lol - that's what I said but deleted it after you posted :)

If UMD shoppers get to shop around, then someone who actually has both lists should get to shop around too :)

Shadow Lodge 2/5

hogarth wrote:
Zizazat wrote:
hogarth wrote:

"Buying a scroll made by a paladin/ranger/summoner/whatever results in a scrolls that's unfairly cheap." -- If this is the argument, then the place to fix it is in the Core rules, not in the rules to Pathfinder Society play. And, in fact, Josh pointed out in this post that this is not the case; he says it's a PFS-only problem that he's trying to fix.

Am I missing something?
There are like two other threads where this has been talked to death. Basically it's not a Core problem in as much as the interaction with the '2 PA' purchase for a wand that should be a 2nd level (4500 gp) means much earlier access to spells that should be out of reach for awhile longer. Lesser Restoration, I'm looking at you!
Why is that not a Core problem? Can you link me to the post where this was explained? I've been following this discussion very carefully, but perhaps I missed a thread or a post where the PFS/non-PFS difference is explained in detail.

It's not a core problem because GMs at home can resolve it however they think it appropriate. Some GMs might handle it the way Josh handles it but then some will want to run things the way James M. does or some third way. Being flexible is the advantage of a home game over Organized Play.


Shieldknight wrote:
hogarth wrote:
teribithia9 wrote:
It doesn't, but Josh has stated this repeatedly during the many discussions of this topic.
Right, but it's not clarified in the PFS rules (yet).

I can't believe this. Now your just being...

Never mind, I don't want to get banned from the boards because of you.

I'm done, I got my question answered.

Just to be clear:

  • I love PFS play.
  • Josh is doing a terrific job.
  • I want everything in the PFS guide to be as good as it can possibly be, so that players don't have to troll through the Paizo message boards to figure out any nuances on the issue.
  • Hopefully after the next revision, the wording for things will be just about perfect and Josh won't have to spend any more time futzing with the PFS guide.

We're all on the same side here, folks. Hooray for PFS!

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
hogarth wrote:

[

Just to be clear:
  • I love PFS play.
  • Josh is doing a terrific job.
  • I want everything in the PFS guide to be as good as it can possibly be, so that players don't have to troll through the Paizo message boards to figure out any nuances on the issue.
  • Hopefully after the next revision, the wording for things will be just about perfect and Josh won't have to spend any more time futzing with the PFS guide.

We're all on the same side here, folks. Hooray for PFS!

Here is the Problem Hogarth,

You are asking why..why...why.. Instead of Can you clarify how this rule works.

Josh has stated many times that he is not going to go into every reason why he makes a certain rule, but for this one he capitulated and said why.

Some posters did not like his reason, and went on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on...and on some more on why they did not like the reason for the rule and why josh had to change it. Josh stated thank you for your input but he was not going to change the rule. So there is no reason to bring up this subject anymore, unless you need clarification on it, since Josh will not change it in the foreseeable future.

Nothing against you Hogarth, but the reason why for this rule is a dead subject and many of us would prefer it not be brought up again.


Dragnmoon wrote:
hogarth wrote:

[

Just to be clear:
  • I love PFS play.
  • Josh is doing a terrific job.
  • I want everything in the PFS guide to be as good as it can possibly be, so that players don't have to troll through the Paizo message boards to figure out any nuances on the issue.
  • Hopefully after the next revision, the wording for things will be just about perfect and Josh won't have to spend any more time futzing with the PFS guide.

We're all on the same side here, folks. Hooray for PFS!

Here is the Problem Hogarth,

You are asking why..why...why.. Instead of Can you clarify how this rule works.

As I pointed out above, I thought that the intent was to fix one of two possible complaints; if it's either of the things I suggested, then I think the proposed rule is not as good as it can possibly be (and I suggested two alternate solutions).

Honestly, I am trying to help, not just complain!

1/5 **

Joshua J. Frost wrote:
Sorry, I misread. You are not incorrect. You select the cheaper of the two. I've edited my post.

Clear enough...thanks.


I plan to make no changes to this rule.

I plan to modify the way I explain this rule in a future guide update.

I also plan to place cotton in my ears and shout LALALALALALALALA at the top of my lungs whenever I see this thread pop up again in the future. ;-)

Spoiler:
Two of the three things above are true.

The Exchange 2/5

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

I plan to make no changes to this rule.

I plan to modify the way I explain this rule in a future guide update.

I also plan to place cotton in my ears and shout LALALALALALALALA at the top of my lungs whenever I see this thread pop up again in the future. ;-)

** spoiler omitted **

So you are going to make changes to the rule. I knew it. Just when I was getting it figured out too. Man. :)

Liberty's Edge

This sounds great.

51 to 74 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / RANT - Purchasing Consumables - RANT All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.