Consumable Purchase Rules

[james maissen]

This has been a sticking thorn in my side for quite some time as I don't see it as useful.

There are some arbitrary restrictions on what consumables that a PC can purchase in PFS.

I'd like to bring it back up again, that it be considered to be removed from the PFS rules.

1. It doesn't make things simpler, but rather more complicated.
2. It makes no sense the way it stands in game.
3. It makes a 2nd CL scroll of magic missile unobtainable by someone that could commission a Holy Avenger to be made!
4. The more house rules you have in an organized campaign the worse. It serves as a barrier to those that know the core rules but don't know all the society house rules. And for those that don't know the core rules it confuses the life out of them when they have two conflicting sources.

-James

[james maissen]

As far as I can tell, it boils down to lesser restoration being a 1st level paladin spell and that some people don't like that being part of the core rules.

Beyond that, the rest of the 'explanations' don't hold water.

1. Its more complicated a rule, rather than a simplification.
2. Without the rule all items would be valid even if some cost more than others.
3. If NPC item crafters of certain classes don't exist or are rare then there wouldn't be any of those items rather than just not an arbitrary subset.

Without this rule, if you wanted to buy a scroll for your Bard PC, you could just look at your spell list and pay the price based on the formula. You might be able to pay less by knowing the way the game works, but you were fine even if you didn't do your homework.

With this rule, if you want to buy such a scroll you have to search over three spell lists other than your own. If you don't find the spell there then you still might wind up in the same situation as without this rule.. namely paying more than you otherwise would by fully doing your homework. If it does occur you need to figure out the price based on that rather than your own class.. which might mean that you cannot read the scroll that you've bought without having to make a check!

This has nothing to do with the organized nature of the campaign, and really shouldn't be a house rule for PFS.

-James

[Michael Brock]

Thanks for the input.

[Ross Byers]

I removed a post. If you want to ignore someone, then do so. Announcing it just trying to get the last word in.

[Callarek]

PSFOP Guide v4.0 wrote:

Potions, Scrolls and Wands

All potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables are made by clerics, druids, or wizards in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. The only exceptions are spells that are not on the cleric, druid, or wizard spell list. For example, a scroll of lesser restoration must be purchased as a 2nd-level scroll off the cleric spell list and may not be purchased as a 1st-level scroll off the paladin spell list. If a spell appears at different levels on two different lists, use the lower level spell to determine cost. As an example, poison would be priced as a 3rd-level druid spell instead of a 4th-level cleric spell. All potions, scrolls, and wands are available only at minimum caster level unless found at a higher caster level on a Chronicle sheet.

For the sake of simplicity, there is no difference between an arcane and divine scroll or wand in Pathfinder Society Organized play. Thus a bard and cleric may both use the same scroll of cure moderate wounds.

Finally, scrolls of spells of 7th-level or higher are not permitted unless you gain access to them on a Chronicle sheet specifically listing them.

As James mentioned, the first paragraph includes some things that making buying consumables more difficult, not less.

Old: You could just buy the item using your character's spell list, or hit the comon source for the spell. If you wanted to, you could research the costing options, but this was not required.

New: You need to check your spell list, and at least two more, before you buy anything, so you can make sure you are buying it at the "legal" price.

Something Paizo needs to do, as a non-print product: Combined Spell Index, kept up-to-date with both new spells, and new spell caster's spell lists. Spell, current source (latest version), who can learn it at which level. The Android app Spellbook-PF is helpful, but not totally current.

That minimum caster level restriction is a bit odd, and not as visible as it needs to be, and is something that I, as a GM, have to keep telling my players about. And would uit really hurt PFS that much to have a few, properly costed, Wands of Cure Light Wounds (CL5) or Magic Missile (CL3) running around?

The no difference is an interesting variant, and mainly used to resolve the issues that the limited source rule creates, like the lack of any Arcane scrolls of Cure Light Wounds.

And the final rule is a bit confusing, and should have been spelled out better initially. I haven't seen anyone in my area it affected, so far.

[Herald]

As Michael said before thanks for the feedback.

I will say that I have actually had players come up to me and say how happy this rule makes them.

It sounds difficult at first but the quickly got the gist of it.

As for your request for a spell listing that request would be better made in the general RPG boards.

[james maissen]

Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:

I will say that I have actually had players come up to me and say how happy this rule makes them.

What about the rule makes them happy?

Before you could do the same thing (buy a scroll of the wizard, cleric or druid list) but now you have to if it occurs.

So are they happy that others can't do something? I'm puzzled.

-James

[Fozzy Hammer]

james maissen wrote:

Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:

I will say that I have actually had players come up to me and say how happy this rule makes them.

What about the rule makes them happy?

Before you could do the same thing (buy a scroll of the wizard, cleric or druid list) but now you have to if it occurs.

So are they happy that others can't do something? I'm puzzled.

-James

I'm generally in favor of anything that limits your (specifically you, James) fun, as long as it doesn't affect me. I sleep just a little sounder secure in the knowledge that you are personally frustrated by an arbitrary house rule.

(turning turbosnark off... That was actually meant as a joke. I really do actually like your outlook on rules most of the time, James.)

I too am confused why this rule would make someone happy - especially if they were playing a non-wizard/cleric/druid. I'm really not sure what the huge issue is with someone investing ranks into UMD in order to realize a cost savings on a paladin's Wand of Restoration, Lesser. (Or heaven forbid, that a paladin might actually take advantage of one of the few spells on his spell list.)

I mean if we are going to nerf random class features just because we think someone somewhere might take advantage of them, perhaps we could continue with the Oracle class that gets single-level-dipped so often. I'm sure that as a community we could develop a list of every class feature that someone somewhere might be jealous of, if they weren't playing that class, and snub them out one by one.

(oops. I think my turbosnark button slipped back to "engage". Sorry).