Group purchases

[Wraithcannon]

I would like to know what the rules for PFS say about buying items during the scenario as a group and then selling said items at the end of the adventure and splitting the money.

An example would be the players wanting to buy a single pack horse (and all the related gear) for 100 gp by pooling their funds and five characters spending 20 gp each, and then selling it once the adventure was complete and everyone getting back 10gp (half the value).

I'm also curious about buying something for another party member with the expectation of being paid back at the conclusion of the adventure.

An example would be buying the fighter a dose of antivenom, which he then uses during the game, then pays you the 50gp at the end of the scenario.

[Enevhar Aldarion]

This from page 18 of the PFS Guide answers most of what you are asking:

Quote:

In Pathfinder Society Organized Play, you may never buy items from, sell items to, or trade items with another player. You may, however, allow another player to borrow an item for the duration of a scenario. You are also permitted to spend your character’s gold to help a party member purchase spellcasting services such as raise dead or remove disease.

[Andrew Christian]

Yup, my understanding was always, you basically are gifting an item to the other character for use in that particular scenario. If it goes unused, you get it back at the end of the scenario.

The horse question is a bit murkier. As a GM, I would probably allow your scenario, as long as it was marked clearly on everyones chronicle sheet what happened. In this situation, nobody is getting anything extra from another character.

If you are a member of a faction (or just roleplay someone who is miserly or greedy) that loves wealth, like Qadira, then you probably should request they "owe you a favor" for a future scenario you might be involved with them. You can even have the GM mark it on both chronicles if you want.

[Starglim]

You get the amount of gold listed on the chronicle sheet that the GM signs for the adventure. You own the items that you have purchased with your initial 150gp or on a signed chronicle sheet, less those that have been consumed (by anyone) or destroyed (whoever happened to be holding them at the time) in play.

When the Guide says, as it does, that trading items with other players is not allowed, it actually means it is not mechanically possible.

[nosig]

I've wondered about the following (using potions in the example):

Example #1:
Player A, in the heat of battle, uses a Potion of Cure Light Wounds to revive Player B who was neg. HP. Player B now able to speak, hands Player A a replacement potion that he had in his pack. Play ends - who is out the potion? Player A (who used his on Player B) or Player B (who tried to "return" it)?

Example #2:
Player A, in the heat of battle, uses a Potion of Cure Light Wounds, knowing that the party has recovered several in an earlier encounter. Play ends- Player B insists that he had ALL the recovered potions on his PC, so Player A must have used one of his own, and not used one of the recovered ones. Is Player A out a potion?

Example #3:
In the first encounter Player A uses a potion of CLW. Treasure recovered from the monster after the fight contains a potion of CLW. Can Player A "replace" his used potion with the recovered one?

Thanks in advance for you input!

[Cpt_kirstov]

Example #1: I'd say the end result is the CLW from player B is taken off his inventory. The "can't give another character something to keep" was so you could hand another character a wand of cure light wounds at the beginning of the scenario to use on you if you are injured, and if you forgot to ask for it back at the end, they couldn't keep it for the next scenario, thus screwing up wealth by level table and allowing 'twinking'

Example #2: If he didn't have a looteded CLW on him, he uses the one in the inventory. All of the looted ones that go unused get turned into the Pathfinders at the end of the scenario, wether you want an item or not.

Example #3: See example 2

[nosig]

Cpt_kirstov wrote:

Example #1: I'd say the end result is the CLW from player B is taken off his inventory. The "can't give another character something to keep" was so you could hand another character a wand of cure light wounds at the beginning of the scenario to use on you if you are injured, and if you forgot to ask for it back at the end, they couldn't keep it for the next scenario, thus screwing up wealth by level table and allowing 'twinking'

Example #2: If he didn't have a looteded CLW on him, he uses the one in the inventory. All of the looted ones that go unused get turned into the Pathfinders at the end of the scenario, wether you want an item or not.

Example #3: See example 2

for #1 I have a little problem with this. It means that you need to know where your buddies keep their stuff on their body... "Yes I know you have a Cure Potion - but I'm not going to take the time to search you to figure out where it is. And I'm sure not going to use MINE." Had this happen in a game a while back. Thankfully I was not either of the PCs involved. (and my PC was able to stablize the downed guy before he bleed out).

#2 just re-inforces why we shouldn't let the greedy guy grab all the stuff. But I can see arguments ahead with who has what on them. (There is one guy in one of the groups I play that ALWAYS insists he gets the loot. Even when he couldn't have found it - he'll stop play until we say it's ok for him to carry anything of value found.)

#3 is just a wierd result of the way loot works in PFSOP.

[Jiggy]

Wow. I've never played at a table where someone insisted on carrying the so-called loot. In fact, every time my party has found multiple cure potions, there has (without exception) been a brief discussion as to who carries how many and then we split them up under consensus.

[nosig]

Jiggy wrote:

Wow. I've never played at a table where someone insisted on carrying the so-called loot. In fact, every time my party has found multiple cure potions, there has (without exception) been a brief discussion as to who carries how many and then we split them up under consensus.

yeah - I try to avoid tables he sits at. The scariest part of it for me is that this is not a RP character thing. It's a Player thing, and he is (in age) an adult. He also has a habit of looting bodies before the combat is done. A dropped bad guy can take his PC out of the fight for several rounds.

We have gotten him to agree to split most of the carried stuff up - as long as he gets first pick from each pile of loot (loot from the first encounter is noted, then from 2nd encounter, etc).
My example #2 above is a real example - not made up. read it again and think about how you'd handle this at your table, as the judge.

[Dennis Baker]

I suspect the majority of GMs will allow a player to lend another player gold or an item until the end of a scenario so long as it's repaid with gold or a like item by the end of a scenario. Similarly a player can buy a potion to replace one another character used on their behalf during a scenario. Similar to the way you can borrow a cup of sugar but you don't return the same cup you borrowed. So long as you repay it by the end of the scenario and it is returned with a like item you are fine.

[Thod]

As GM I don't micro-manage my players. I concentrate on the scenario and the story.

The rule is there to avoid (significant) wealth transfer. As long as I feel this tenet is uphold I let the players do.

Yes - I don't care who ticks of his silver if you buy a round in a bar to get a modifier or who chips in paying a bribe or who used up charges on a wand for whom.

The rule allows me to come down on any player who tries to misuse it. And for this I'm glad. Until I have to do this I trust my players that they sort it out between them and that overall it more or less evens out.

[godsDMit]

nosig wrote:

yeah -My example #2 above is a real example - not made up. read it again and think about how you'd handle this at your table, as the judge.

My answers to your questions:

1. Whoever wants to be out the potion can be out the potion. If Player B wants to reimburse Player A, then fine.

2. This is part of the 'Dont be a jerk.' rule. The player in question (especially when combined with everything else youve stated) is clearly being a jerk to the rest of the party. Learn to share. I've got a lot of younger players, and I dont need an adult making the table less fun for them. :P

3. Nope, sorry. If you had picked up the potions first, that's fine. but you cant recoup your costs from treasure found.

For the OP:
Id allow the horse, as long as all parties at the table are willing to split the cost.

For the antitoxin question, no, as said before.

[nosig]

godsDMit wrote:

nosig wrote:

yeah -My example #2 above is a real example - not made up. read it again and think about how you'd handle this at your table, as the judge.

My answers to your questions:

1. Whoever wants to be out the potion can be out the potion. If Player B wants to reimburse Player A, then fine.

2. This is part of the 'Dont be a jerk.' rule. The player in question (especially when combined with everything else youve stated) is clearly being a jerk to the rest of the party. Learn to share. I've got a lot of younger players, and I dont need an adult making the table less fun for them. :P

3. Nope, sorry. If you had picked up the potions first, that's fine. but you cant recoup your costs from treasure found.

For the OP:
Id allow the horse, as long as all parties at the table are willing to split the cost.

For the antitoxin question, no, as said before.

Thanks GodsDMit. very well said (typed, whatever).

also on the OP - for the antitoxin question, this sounds odd. If my PC handed the Fighter a vial of antitoxin to use, it would be nice of him to return a vial at the end of the mod. If my PC loans him 50gp, I would expect him to return that also. SO... if my PC hands him 50gp while we are in Ye Olde Potion Shop and he uses it to buy a vial of antitoxin, I would expect my PC to be given 50 gp at the end of the adventure (not a vial of anti-toxin). Most other results would feel like "transfer of wealth" between my PC and the Fighter.

[The Grandfather]

Thod wrote:

As GM I don't micro-manage my players. I concentrate on the scenario and the story.

The rule is there to avoid (significant) wealth transfer. As long as I feel this tenet is uphold I let the players do.

Yes - I don't care who ticks of his silver if you buy a round in a bar to get a modifier or who chips in paying a bribe or who used up charges on a wand for whom.

The rule allows me to come down on any player who tries to misuse it. And for this I'm glad. Until I have to do this I trust my players that they sort it out between them and that overall it more or less evens out.

I agree 100%.

The rules are in place to avoid farming and similar abuse.

Pooling for a horse that is later sold or helping the fighter to an anti-toxin is not an actual violation. No foreseeable complicatipns can come off of this. This is fine.

However if the fighter only has 4000gp and wants to upgrade his mwk sword to +2 and other players want to loan that character the ladt 4000gp in expectatipn of being payed back later that session, I would oppose it since there can be unforeseeable problems down the road, especially if the scenario does not pay as well as hoped. Further that character might not have the Fame for that kind of equipment. I advice to stay far away from this kind of situation as this is what the rules are there to prevent.