Sharing consumables (PFS Rules Change?)


Pathfinder Society

251 to 300 of 437 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

BNW, you're scaring me. I not only understood what you are saying (I think) but I sort of agree with it... a little... maybe.

Then there's the big difference in preparation between the guy who has the potion of Touch of the Sea and the guy who doesn't - when they both need it...

"Jo, I'd sell you my potion, but (glug) I need it myself! Maybe next time you should buy one too?"

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Some well thought out arguments on both sides.

I still find myself agreeing with rknop. I'm not interested in creating a cultural expectation.

I'm not interested in a system that allows payback and would probably seriously reconsider my participation if it became mandated in any way.

Silver Crusade 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Started a poll

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think fears about cultural expectation will be realized.

If you don't want to feel like you owe someone else, make it clear before you accept an offer of aid. Or, better yet, be prepared yourself.

1/5 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

"Gee, Fred.

It was really awesome of you to have that Breath of Life handy.

I'd love to *COOPERATE* with you and cover at least part of that expense because those things aren't cheap. I'm planning on buying one now that I've seen it, but there's nothing I can do to repay you even a fraction of what I owe because I'm not allowed to *COOPERATE* like that.

Maybe we can sit down at a table someday and I *might* be able to return the favor?

Maybe?

If we ever play at the same table again?

And if we do, we can swap scrolls, even! That way it's win-win!"

Side note: I'm probably too cynical, but I forsee individuals that were leaning towards altruism looking at this thread and perhaps reconsidering their options.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Andrew Christian wrote:

Some well thought out arguments on both sides.

I still find myself agreeing with rknop. I'm not interested in creating a cultural expectation.

I'm not interested in a system that allows payback and would probably seriously reconsider my participation if it became mandated in any way.

Andrew, how is reimbursing people who help heal you different from spreading the cost of a condition removal spell casting service across the group?

1/5

9 people marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
I must confess that some of the comments in this thread are mind blowing. It is amazing to me that players are threatened that a culture of being expected to pay someone back for something they benefited from is some horrible thing.
Here's the thing. We live with part of that culture, and part of it sucks. Look at all the "CLW Wand" threads. Not only is there very strong cultural pressure to buy a CLW Wand with your first two prestige, you can find people who will loudly proclaim that they will refuse to use any of their healing abilities on a wounded player who doesn't have their own wand. Of course, this is mostly the forums, and it's common to find dicks on web forums, but these kinds of things have in the past led me to think that PFS is just not a nice place to be.

Until now, I've tried to avoid comparisons to the CLW situation, but you've brought it up in a context that is appropriate to discuss. I firmly believe that the CLW culture exists specifically because of the rule that prohibits repayment. If, for the sake of argument, every time someone used their CLW wand on another (with OOC consent), the user got 15gp from the receiver at the end of the scenario, the CLW culture would vanish. In fact, I'll bet dollars to donuts that it would transition from the expectation that you carry a wand to the expectation that you don't carry a wand because you're wasting your 2 PP on something your character can't directly use. Instead, Fighters could spend that 2 PP on retraining hit points, or MW weapons after the 1st mission.

The very thing you think sucks exists because of the artificial and contrived restraint on item replacement. Now to be fair, I don't think the proposed system should allow repayment of a wand uses. But it will solve it for other consumables like the BoL scroll. I've seen more than a few posts that say after level 7 or so, BoL should be an item everyone carries. This attitude arises from the same source as the one that creates the CLW attitude.

Quote:
If we open the can of worms of an expectation that any time anybody used something consumable on you that it would be replayed, I predict that cultural expectations would grow.

The problem with this argument is that it treats all expectations the same. They are not. The idea that everyone should carry a CLW arrises out of the artificial nature of PFS mustering. It is not a naturally occurring expectation in the world of Pathfinder/D&D 3.5. The idea that I would contribute or replace an item given to me by another is a naturally occurring expectation in our society and probably all societies. Not only is it natural, players will blatantly violate the rules to satisfy it. Telling me that we don't want any rule that leads to communal expectation fails when the very example you are using directly results from the absence of the change many of us would like to see implemented.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the community creating an expectation of people willing to foot the bill for consumables they consume or that contribute to their survival. It is exactly what happens in real life. and it is far better than the expectation that everybody carry the same exact consumables or be considered a freeloader.

One of the natural and essential functions of a community is to establish a culture. If I am the PFS leadership, one thing I'll look at is the types of values this game engenders in younger players. Right now, the message is that there is no expectation to compensate someone for helping you. Worse, the message is if you want to pay your debts, you have to circumvent the rules to do so. The idea that allowing this to happen in PFS just like it should happen in RL is a bad thing, doesn't make any sense.

Quote:
First, if somebody used a consumable on you, the expectation would be to pay it back, and people would start to consider you a jerk if you didn't.

First, the consumable will only be used on your with your OOC consent. So nothing is being forced on the player. Second, the player can state that they would prefer not to use the consumable but will accept it if it's given freely. Problem solved.

Quote:
Second, following on to that, people would start expecting spellcasters (particularly buffing types like Bards and Clerics) to have any manner of consumables on them at all times, because, after all, they know they'll get paid back, so why aren't they ready with <thing I need>?

You state this as if there aren't already deep rooted expectations based on class. Players already have these expectation. Most wizards I play with have a ton of scrolls. My Investigators carry just about everything they can craft along with an assortment of wands. My Barbarian carries just about nothing. You aren't changing the culture with the notion that someone can pay you back.

More to the point, if I am the type of player who likes being prepared, I am no longer screwed over by the system. I can carry all the things I want, benefit from the party being able to use them, and dramatically reduce the wealth drain as a result. You and others keep looking at this as some kind of increased burden when it is the opposite. It enables play styles rather than curtails them. There are many scrolls or potions I might purchase because I know it could seriously help someone on a team. But, under the current system, I am totally discouraged from doing so.

Quote:
Finally, it just becomes all so self-focused and accounting-focused. I'd rather play in a campaign where people come together to face the scenario together.

Ironic, because I think the current system breeds more me vs the world mentality. I find the expectation that I must carry all kinds of items my character would not normally carry far more opporessive and off putting than one where I am expected to replacement something I've used. .

Quote:
Yeah, there are always going to be some freeriders out there who don't bring their share of consumables, but I'd rather put up with a few of those than have the entire system turned into "every tub on its own bottom", which leads to a dog-eat-dog kind of world.

This seems nonsesnical to me. If I am getting compensated, there is no "dog-eat-dog" world mentality. It's only when my personal WBL is being depleted at the expense of others does this mentality arise.

Quote:
If I thought the option would come in without the expectation, then I'd be for it..

I view the expectation as a positive. It reflects real life and it engenders a system of cooperation. I would want my children to learn that when someone gives you something that saves your life, you should immediately want to repay that kindness.

Quote:
Some people probably feel guilty right now for not having their own CLW wands. More people probably wish that they could have spent their first 2 PP on a Mage Armor wand, or that they didn't have to feel guilty spending 1PP on a Wayfinder after "The Confirmation" was the first scenaio for a character, or that there weren't so many insufferable people on the forums on a high horse about how people without CLW wands don't deserve any healing from other party members.

And this is exactly the problem that has arisen because I cannot compensate someone from using their CLW wand on me. Guess what happens if it were allowed? All those players would go and buy those wands that were more directly beneficial to their character. Not only would you probably need less healing to begin with, but the people with the CLW wands would feel like they are providing an appreciated service rather than resent the fact that their resources were being depleted.

While I completely agree that we need to be careful of what expectations may arise from any new rule, arguing against this one doesn't make sense. You're essentially telling me that the RL expectation of paying someone back is something we should avoid in PFS and your using an example that has arisen from the lack of the very thing you're arguing against.

Dataphiles 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For those opposed to all. How do you justify the allowance of sharing of resources to raise a dead party member?

I find myself appalled that people in general are more worried about the extreme minority that will game the system (and always will game the system) than the rest of the player base who would actually like to help each other in the spirit of being good Pathfinders.

I am not a fan of polls on forums because it only represents a small portion of the actual player base and I would rather have the campaign management just make the call as the campaign will survive either way

For the sake of consistency we should either allow it or not allow it. Having a exceptions to the general rule of having party members help raise the dead is what opens this door to this discussion. The rule book to PDS play is large enough, let's simplify it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:

Allowing a swap of a physical item you already have, for one that is used on you by a colleague to save your life, both allows you to reimburse your colleague, AND rewards individual preparedness. It still allows for someone to selflessly use their own items to save others without thought of repayment as well.

It also eliminates the idea of "quantum gold" being able to be any expendable you need it to be, after the fact. And it's the closest thing to what is being done now by prepared players: swapping items in advance or using each other's BoL in the first place instead of their own.

The mention of quantum gold raises the amusing question of quantum items in the current rule set.

What happens when everyone hands their identical BOL scrolls to the cleric and he shuffles them? Last I checked, the game has no rules governing shuffling identical items so it is up to the GM how to determine which one is on top of the stack. Is it in a superposition of quantum states until used, at which point it settles on a particular one owned by a particular player?

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Hiruma Kai wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:

Allowing a swap of a physical item you already have, for one that is used on you by a colleague to save your life, both allows you to reimburse your colleague, AND rewards individual preparedness. It still allows for someone to selflessly use their own items to save others without thought of repayment as well.

It also eliminates the idea of "quantum gold" being able to be any expendable you need it to be, after the fact. And it's the closest thing to what is being done now by prepared players: swapping items in advance or using each other's BoL in the first place instead of their own.

The mention of quantum gold raises the amusing question of quantum items in the current rule set.

What happens when everyone hands their identical BOL scrolls to the cleric and he shuffles them? Last I checked, the game has no rules governing shuffling identical items so it is up to the GM how to determine which one is on top of the stack. Is it in a superposition of quantum states until used, at which point it settles on a particular one owned by a particular player?

That is how I would run it.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hiruma Kai wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:

Allowing a swap of a physical item you already have, for one that is used on you by a colleague to save your life, both allows you to reimburse your colleague, AND rewards individual preparedness. It still allows for someone to selflessly use their own items to save others without thought of repayment as well.

It also eliminates the idea of "quantum gold" being able to be any expendable you need it to be, after the fact. And it's the closest thing to what is being done now by prepared players: swapping items in advance or using each other's BoL in the first place instead of their own.

The mention of quantum gold raises the amusing question of quantum items in the current rule set.

What happens when everyone hands their identical BOL scrolls to the cleric and he shuffles them? Last I checked, the game has no rules governing shuffling identical items so it is up to the GM how to determine which one is on top of the stack. Is it in a superposition of quantum states until used, at which point it settles on a particular one owned by a particular player?

So, what you're saying here is that all scrolls are considered both used and unused right up until we figure out who died?

Personally, I really like this idea simply because it alleviates compensation concerns. Everybody already spent the money, after all. The problem comes up when Bob didn't buy one and he's the one that goes down. Clearly, the cleric is going to use a scroll (unless he's a cleric of Abadar). Heck, this problem would come up with me because my characters skip the scroll in favor of First Aid Gloves. If this is a viable alternative, I'd start buying the scrolls, which I have a lot of concerns about actually functioning due to free hand constraints and action economy.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Jared Thaler wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Some well thought out arguments on both sides.

I still find myself agreeing with rknop. I'm not interested in creating a cultural expectation.

I'm not interested in a system that allows payback and would probably seriously reconsider my participation if it became mandated in any way.

Andrew, how is reimbursing people who help heal you different from spreading the cost of a condition removal spell casting service across the group?

It basically boils down to whether it's a group decision or an individual decision. People tend to be more selfish when they make individual decisions rather than group ones. It is also the difference between paying 1/6th of the cost and 100% of it.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spark Monkey wrote:

I can see both sides of this.

(The following is the pessimist in me coming out - seeing the potential bad parts of such a change).

I also realize that there are people in this game who feel that everything players can do in game should be splint into "Prohibited" & "Required" categories. "If it's not Required, then we need to Prohibit it." Sometimes I call them Type 1 gamers.

...snipping to save space...

“Seems to be a deep instinct in human beings for making everything compulsory that isn't forbidden.”

― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One major thing that needs to be considered if this rule gets put into place is how to handle consumable items that were bought with PP rather than gold. As it stands right now, you aren't allowed to sell items you got via PP. The only practical way I can see with dealing with this on a payback system is eliminate the, "you can't sell PP purchased items" rule. Is it worth getting rid of that rule to implement the reimbursement one? Sure you could ask them to reimburse you via PP, but the value of PP tends to vary from individual to individual a lot more than gold, and people that may be willing to spend 750 gp may be a lot more reluctant to spend 2 PP and vice versa.

As an aside, I am wondering how frequently we might see:

Rogue: I feed the unconscious fighter a Potion of Cure Serious Wounds.
Fighter: Wait! I'm not paying 750 gp for that when the Cleric can cast it on me for free when its her turn.
GM: Stop metagaming fighter. You are unconscious. You can't say anything.
Fighter: It's my gold. I will metagame if I want.
Cleric: But I was going to Channel to damage the monsters.
Fighter: It's not your 750 gp. Heal me instead.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The general you can only sell things for what you paid for them" rule would cover that.

4/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thread has reached Heinlein. I think we all know what comes next.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

1 person marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:

One major thing that needs to be considered if this rule gets put into place is how to handle consumable items that were bought with PP rather than gold. As it stands right now, you aren't allowed to sell items you got via PP. The only practical way I can see with dealing with this on a payback system is eliminate the, "you can't sell PP purchased items" rule. Is it worth getting rid of that rule to implement the reimbursement one? Sure you could ask them to reimburse you via PP, but the value of PP tends to vary from individual to individual a lot more than gold, and people that may be willing to spend 750 gp may be a lot more reluctant to spend 2 PP and vice versa.

As an aside, I am wondering how frequently we might see:

Rogue: I feed the unconscious fighter a Potion of Cure Serious Wounds.
Fighter: Wait! I'm not paying 750 gp for that when the Cleric can cast it on me for free when its her turn.
GM: Stop metagaming fighter. You are unconscious. You can't say anything.
Fighter: It's my gold. I will metagame if I want.
Cleric: But I was going to Channel to damage the monsters.
Fighter: It's not your 750 gp. Heal me instead.

Rogue: It isn't your 750 gp. It is mine. If you want to pay me back later, that's up to you.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

BigNorseWolf wrote:
The general you can only sell things for what you paid for them" rule would cover that.

Well, first you are expanding the dynamic from "expectation of gold reimbursement" to "expectation of gold or PP reimbursement."

Second, this would necessitate only reimbursing people for fully used items. This would actually discourage the use of wands, multiple spell scrolls and First Aid Gloves.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Jared Thaler wrote:
Rogue: It isn't your 750 gp. It is mine. If you want to pay me back later, that's up to you.

That is completely dependent upon the Rogue's expectation. As has been voiced before, there is concern that this policy will change expectations. Right now, the Rogue has no expectation of repayment. So it is his decision alone whether he uses the item or not. The new rule would add a second person to the decision making process which may not be conducive to smooth play.

The Exchange 5/5

Plot Thickens wrote:
The thread has reached Heinlein. I think we all know what comes next.

posts by Jared Thaler and Trollbill?

3/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I've used scrolls of BoL and Raise Dead on other party members, and at the end, they'd buy one and give it to me.

It hadn't occurred to me that this was against the rules.

Oh well. No more buying scrolls of BoL.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 *** Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to tell you all about the wonderful item called Talisman of Life's Breath... So worth it for frontliners who don't want to deal with the hassle of demanding the cleric use a scroll on them.

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Fourth Horseman wrote:

I've used scrolls of BoL and Raise Dead on other party members, and at the end, they'd buy one and give it to me.

It hadn't occurred to me that this was against the rules.

Oh well. No more buying scrolls of BoL.

and thats the downside to the current system, and its far bigger than any of the perceived issues

Shadow Lodge 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
I'd like to tell you all about the wonderful item called Talisman of Life's Breath... So worth it for frontliners who don't want to deal with the hassle of demanding the cleric use a scroll on them.

A pity it occupies the neck slot.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

3 people marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
Jared Thaler wrote:
Rogue: It isn't your 750 gp. It is mine. If you want to pay me back later, that's up to you.
That is completely dependent upon the Rogue's expectation. As has been voiced before, there is concern that this policy will change expectations. Right now, the Rogue has no expectation of repayment. So it is his decision alone whether he uses the item or not. The new rule would add a second person to the decision making process which may not be conducive to smooth play.

How so.

Right now, the rogue *can't* get reimbursed. If he is going to use the potion, he is going to use it without that expectation

Under the new system, he is either not expecting reimbursement, in which case, no change, or he is expecting reimbursement, in which case, the fighter will be like "I'm not paying for that," and the rogue will be like "Well, I will do something else then." And the cleric will be like "Sorry, I can save you, or I can save all of us and hope you stabilize."

Making the rules based on the *assumption* that we can't have nice things because some people will be jerks only cements the perception that PFS is a haven for jerks and hidebound rules lawyers.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Jared Thaler wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Jared Thaler wrote:
Rogue: It isn't your 750 gp. It is mine. If you want to pay me back later, that's up to you.
That is completely dependent upon the Rogue's expectation. As has been voiced before, there is concern that this policy will change expectations. Right now, the Rogue has no expectation of repayment. So it is his decision alone whether he uses the item or not. The new rule would add a second person to the decision making process which may not be conducive to smooth play.

How so.

Right now, the rogue *can't* get reimbursed. If he is going to use the potion, he is going to use it without that expectation

Under the new system, he is either not expecting reimbursement, in which case, no change, or he is expecting reimbursement, in which case, the fighter will be like "I'm not paying for that," and the rogue will be like "Well, I will do something else then." And the cleric will be like "Sorry, I can save you, or I can save all of us and hope you stabilize."

Making the rules based on the *assumption* that we can't have nice things because some people will be jerks only cements the perception that PFS is a haven for jerks and hidebound rules lawyers.

I wasn't making an assumption that this would be the default. Just that it was a possibility for table disruption that we do not have right now. Even if the discussion is much more amicable than the one I described, it is still a discussion that does not normally occur currently.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

BigNorseWolf wrote:
The Fourth Horseman wrote:

I've used scrolls of BoL and Raise Dead on other party members, and at the end, they'd buy one and give it to me.

It hadn't occurred to me that this was against the rules.

Oh well. No more buying scrolls of BoL.

and thats the downside to the current system, and its far bigger than any of the perceived issues

Sorry, but I do not consider having the table attitude change from a generosity based attitude to a more mercenary based attitude to be a lesser concern than getting my gold back for using a consumable on someone. I am not saying this will happen, but if it did, then the change would not be worth it, IMO.

Again, I am not totally against this. Just trepidatios about it.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

As for comments about friends helping friends:

I know the intention was not to guilt anyone into doing anything by claiming they aren't a good friend if they don't repay you for uses consumables. Every friendship is defined differently and some dynamics may not have the expectation of repayment of generosity.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

As the wolf has mentioned, the predominant argument lately has been of the "But this rule may allow people to co-operate so that they don't quintuple up on things that we only need one of, allowing people to buy more of the other things that we will need to survive this scenario!"

This is, to me, a perfect example of why the rule *SHOULD* be implemented. It doesn't allow bypassing the WBL, and it certainly doesn't give you a line of "credit", as even if you did not buy the consumable in advance, *someone else in your party did!* The proposed system simply allows you to pay them back for it.

Otherwise... many parties will run without anyone who could use a scroll of BoL, so much of the time even a higher level character might not see much point in carrying said scroll because they'd rather spend the money on something they know they'll actually use. This means a Cleric might pick them up and carry one or two around, as she can actually use them without a DC30 UMD check. But every time someone dies, it comes out of her pocket. Someone dies and the Cleric has to either give up their share of gold for the mission, or refuse to heal them because they failed to provide her with their own scroll.

If people are worried about there becoming a culture of expectation, then explain how such a thing didn't come up surrounding sharing costs of the raise dead, or explain how this thing will ruin the game where the former did not

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The Fourth Horseman wrote:

I've used scrolls of BoL and Raise Dead on other party members, and at the end, they'd buy one and give it to me.

It hadn't occurred to me that this was against the rules.

Oh well. No more buying scrolls of BoL.

and thats the downside to the current system, and its far bigger than any of the perceived issues

Sorry, but I do not consider having the table attitude change from a generosity based attitude to a more mercenary based attitude to be a lesser concern than getting my gold back for using a consumable on someone. I am not saying this will happen, but if it did, then the change would not be worth it, IMO.

Again, I am not totally against this. Just trepidatios about it.

Its not more mercenary based. It just makes the generosity reciprocal rather than one way.

Dark Archive

On a different point, those who say it should only be allowed for scrolls of BoL, I worry that you will create a culture of expectation. As mentioned above, most characters will be utterly incapable of doing anything more than wiping their arses with such a scroll. Plus there's the requirement to either be standing next to the victim or use a spring loaded wrist sheath in order to manage the action economy in the one round allowed. Gloves of First Aid are twice as expensive per cast, but can be used by anyone and are comfortably usable without trying to break the action economy, For such a vital spell, I'd say it's worth spending the extra money, but then the job of wasting their actions (and possibly money as well) falls to the cleric, because the cleric is the healbot, right?

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Librain wrote:

As the wolf has mentioned, the predominant argument lately has been of the "But this rule may allow people to co-operate so that they don't quintuple up on things that we only need one of, allowing people to buy more of the other things that we will need to survive this scenario!"

This is, to me, a perfect example of why the rule *SHOULD* be implemented. It doesn't allow bypassing the WBL, and it certainly doesn't give you a line of "credit", as even if you did not buy the consumable in advance, *someone else in your party did!* The proposed system simply allows you to pay them back for it.

Otherwise... many parties will run without anyone who could use a scroll of BoL, so much of the time even a higher level character might not see much point in carrying said scroll because they'd rather spend the money on something they know they'll actually use. This means a Cleric might pick them up and carry one or two around, as she can actually use them without a DC30 UMD check. But every time someone dies, it comes out of her pocket. Someone dies and the Cleric has to either give up their share of gold for the mission, or refuse to heal them because they failed to provide her with their own scroll.

Party cooperation doesn't work the same in PFS as it does in a home game. It's one thing to coordinate who has what when you know you will be adventuring with the same people next week, and another when you don't.

Quote:
If people are worried about there becoming a culture of expectation, then explain how such a thing didn't come up surrounding sharing costs of the raise dead, or explain how this thing will ruin the game where the former did not

You are comparing everyone agreeing to split costs versus two people agreeing on who has to pay 100%. They aren't the same.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

2 people marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
Jared Thaler wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Jared Thaler wrote:
Rogue: It isn't your 750 gp. It is mine. If you want to pay me back later, that's up to you.
That is completely dependent upon the Rogue's expectation. As has been voiced before, there is concern that this policy will change expectations. Right now, the Rogue has no expectation of repayment. So it is his decision alone whether he uses the item or not. The new rule would add a second person to the decision making process which may not be conducive to smooth play.

How so.

Right now, the rogue *can't* get reimbursed. If he is going to use the potion, he is going to use it without that expectation

Under the new system, he is either not expecting reimbursement, in which case, no change, or he is expecting reimbursement, in which case, the fighter will be like "I'm not paying for that," and the rogue will be like "Well, I will do something else then." And the cleric will be like "Sorry, I can save you, or I can save all of us and hope you stabilize."

Making the rules based on the *assumption* that we can't have nice things because some people will be jerks only cements the perception that PFS is a haven for jerks and hidebound rules lawyers.

I wasn't making an assumption that this would be the default. Just that it was a possibility for table disruption that we do not have right now. Even if the discussion is much more amicable than the one I described, it is still a discussion that does not normally occur currently.

Again, How so?

It replaces the existing table disruption:

Rogue lends cleric his BoL scroll
Fighter goes down.
Cleric goes to use scroll on fighter.
Fighter, cleric, and rogue get in three way arguement over whether the cleric can spend the rogues scroll on the fighter. Fighter points out that if he hadn't moved to give the rogue a sneak attack flank, he wouldn't have been where the second bad guy could hit him, and he wouldn't need BoL...

I have noticed a disturbing trend in these discussions to assume that any change will lead to more bad behavior than the status quo. And honestly, I wonder what sort of people you all are playing with that this is your expectation.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

hay! I use Poisoners Gloves to deliver an extract (infusion) of Breath of Life... can I get a some help to defray the cost of the Gloves? How about some help on a second set?

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Jared Thaler wrote:
I have noticed a disturbing trend in these discussions to assume that any change will lead to more bad behavior than the status quo. And honestly, I wonder what sort of people you all are playing with that this is your expectation.

It's called, "Better the devil you know than the one you don't." People know what to expect from people under the current system. They don't know for sure how they will behave under this proposed one.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
It's called, "Better the devil you know than the one you don't." People know what to expect from people under the current system. They don't know for sure how they will behave under this proposed one.

I haven't seen the "devil I know" since AD&D.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
trollbill wrote:
It's called, "Better the devil you know than the one you don't." People know what to expect from people under the current system. They don't know for sure how they will behave under this proposed one.
I haven't seen the "devil I know" since AD&D.

Funny, isn't there a whole series that has that as a name? Or am I misremembering?

Silver Crusade 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Librain wrote:

Otherwise... many parties will run without anyone who could use a scroll of BoL, so much of the time even a higher level character might not see much point in carrying said scroll because they'd rather spend the money on something they know they'll actually use. This means a Cleric might pick them up and carry one or two around, as she can actually use them without a DC30 UMD check. But every time someone dies, it comes out of her pocket. Someone dies and the Cleric has to either give up their share of gold for the mission, or refuse to heal them because they failed to provide her with their own scroll.

This is why the only BOL scroll I've ever bought on any PC was for a cleric, who bought it around level 7 or 8 (don't remember now). I never did use it, and the cleric's now level 9, and prepares the spell to save on action economy, so I was actually thinking of selling the scroll back.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fromper wrote:


This is why the only BOL scroll I've ever bought on any PC was for a cleric, who bought it around level 7 or 8 (don't remember now). I never did use it, and the cleric's now level 9, and prepares the spell to save on action economy, so I was actually thinking of selling the scroll back.

Well, um... right now you might want to hang onto it because if the rules stand as they are, then someone else with a BOL may need to swap with you to make the math work...

Silver Crusade 4/5

12 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm obviously missing something here.

I don't understand why all the opposition to replacing a consumable, expensive or otherwise. I don't see how this is corrupting or problematic. It's very practical and pragmatic except for some strange reason in Society. Yes, I abide by the rules, including this one, but it just seems a bit too stringent.

The very nature of Society play is that you may never see the table of players your at when your consumables are expended for them. It's not like you're helping yourself at some future time by essentially being altruistic and spending down your wealth on other players. If the other players can reimburse for something that you owned but was for their own purpose...why not?

You'll get examples like this (which I'm sure really happen all the time):

Example #1
Player 1: I sure could use a potion of Fly right now.
Player 2: Sure here you go.
Player 3: Excellent, at the end of the adventure my character will purchase a potion of Fly and then immediately expend it; in lieu of purchasing it for another player's expenditure.

Example #2:
Player 1: [Dies during end boss fight]. Hey, I'll reimburse anyone who can expend a BoL on me.
Player 2: [Has a BoL scroll but doesn't advertise it because his character is cash poor and this is not his normal table of players he's with. Maybe he'd be more generous with his normal crowd.] I got one and you'll get that cast on you this round.

Example #3:
Player 1: [Dies during end boss fight and has no intention to reimburse anyone or cannot due to the rule]. Hey, can someone raise me?
Player 2: [Has a BoL scroll but doesn't advertise it because his character is cash poor and this is not his normal table of players he's with. Maybe he'd be more generous with his normal crowd.] SILENCE.
Player 1: [Now needs to spend either 24 PP or a mix of PP and gold to be raised instead of helping out with a 1125 GP expenditure.]

Society play is is a team sport. If a character neglected to purchase an item before an adventure that another character legitimately has at the table, why can't they agree to reimburse? What's so evil about that? It's not like they head back to the Grand Lodge at the end of the adventure to get the debriefing and the VC immediately teleports everyone in the party at great distances apart from each other to enforce non-reimbursement.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Jared Thaler wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Some well thought out arguments on both sides.

I still find myself agreeing with rknop. I'm not interested in creating a cultural expectation.

I'm not interested in a system that allows payback and would probably seriously reconsider my participation if it became mandated in any way.

Andrew, how is reimbursing people who help heal you different from spreading the cost of a condition removal spell casting service across the group?

Tangible items verse an expenditure for services at the end of the adventure. But that isn't the crux of my issue. I don't want it to become mandated by rule or peer pressure to have to replace anything.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


"Gee, Fred.

It was really awesome of you to have that Breath of Life handy.

I'd love to *COOPERATE* with you and cover at least part of that expense because those things aren't cheap. I'm planning on buying one now that I've seen it, but there's nothing I can do to repay you even a fraction of what I owe because I'm not allowed to *COOPERATE* like that.

Maybe we can sit down at a table someday and I *might* be able to return the favor?

Maybe?

If we ever play at the same table again?

And if we do, we can swap scrolls, even! That way it's win-win!"

Side note: I'm probably too cynical, but I forsee individuals that were leaning towards altruism looking at this thread and perhaps reconsidering their options.

Having had a character raised by money provided in part by the other characters at the table, I view it as my responsibility to "pay it forward". Almost certainly I will never be able to pay back *those* characters. But because I've benefitted from the generosity of others, it would be quite selfish of me to never be willing to do the same for anybody else.

If you play enough, you'll get some benefits, and you'll pay some out. It'll more or less balance out in the end. Yes, there will be some leeches, but the cost of having a few leeches is tiny compared to the cost of adding more rule and more cultural taboos.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:
You're essentially telling me that the RL expectation of paying someone back is something we should avoid in PFS and your using an example that has arisen from the lack of the very thing you're arguing against.

You want to bring RL into this?

Let's do that then. And let's do it right. The RL comparison is not going to a restaurant and splitting the bill. Because if a bunch of Pathfinders go to a restaurant (as they do sometimes in scenarios, although the word is usually "Inn" or "Tavern" rather than Restaurant), we generally and reasonably expect each of them to pay for their own food.

If we're going to make a RL comparison, it's going to be a bunch of people going into a dangerous and life-threatening situation together. Ideally they all come prepared. Something comes up where somebody's life is threatened, and somebody else has something that could save it. A bottle of air, say, when forced to be underwater. Gas in their car used to evacuate them from a fire. Whatever. The person who does this-- is he going to be going later to the other person and say, OK, pay me back for that. Is that what we expect in these kinds of situation? No! At least not unless we're selfish and sociopathic. We help each other out. We do what we can. We do what's necessary to save the lives.

Of course, the RL comparison is ridiculous, because this is a game. And, for that very reason, the RL comparison you suggest simply doesn't apply.

On the other hand, every time I try to say something in this thread, you call it nonsensical, so I suspect the two of us are simply unable to communicate on this matter.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
Darius Silverbolt wrote:
I find myself appalled that people in general are more worried about ....

We really need to stop being appalled and horrified that there are people who disagree with us. There are valid arguments on both sides of this issue. It would behoove all of us to see how somebody on the other side of the issue that might be a thinking reasoning person, and not somebody worthy only of horror and censure.

Community Manager

Removed some posts and their responses. Please be civil, folks, and agree to disagree, and ask for clarification from PFS staff.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
The Fourth Horseman wrote:
Oh well. No more buying scrolls of BoL.

Have fun watching companions die. Or, have fun at that TPK because you didn't restore somebody you might have restored if you weren't so worried about making sure that you didn't spend a gold piece on somebody other than your own immediate benefit.

5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
I'd like to tell you all about the wonderful item called Talisman of Life's Breath... So worth it for frontliners who don't want to deal with the hassle of demanding the cleric use a scroll on them.
A pity it occupies the neck slot.

If you wear (or can wear) armor, then the determination armor special quality may be of interest. It is cheaper than the greater talisman and has the same effect.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
Jared Thaler wrote:
I have noticed a disturbing trend in these discussions to assume that any change will lead to more bad behavior than the status quo. And honestly, I wonder what sort of people you all are playing with that this is your expectation.

Honestly, I get this expectation far more from reading the forums than I do from the people I actually play PFS with.

It does make me think that my judgement is seriously flawed in continuing to be around here....

1/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:


Let's do that then. And let's do it right. The RL comparison is not going to a restaurant and splitting the bill.

I have to totally agree with you on that.

Quote:
If we're going to make a RL comparison, it's going to be a bunch of people going into a dangerous and life-threatening situation together. Ideally they all come prepared. Something comes up where somebody's life is threatened, and somebody else has something that could save it. A bottle of air, say, when forced to be underwater. Gas in their car used to evacuate them from a fire. Whatever. The person who does this-- is he going to be going later to the other person and say, OK, pay me back for that. Is that what we expect in these kinds of situation? No! At least not unless we're selfish and sociopathic. We help each other out. We do what we can. We do what's necessary to save the lives.

But your situation is somewhat of a disanalogy and lacks the specificity to be applicable.

Pathfinders are, in my mind, like a group of mercenaries with special ops training, each one of us in completely different areas and skills sets: Demolitions experts, snipers, political science experts, propoganda specialists, medics, engineers, scientists, telecom experts, surveillance experts, hackers etc.. They don't all carry the same equipment. Nor would they. Some of their gear is consumables and some of it is very expensive consumables. A demolitions expert isn't going to carry around a bunch morphine ampules if he has no idea how to administer them. Nor is a medic going to be carrying around C-4.

If our mission is to infiltrate a high tech building and steal corporate data, we are not all going to be carrying the same equipment. More importantly, the institution that pays us is going to either cover the cost of all expenditures, or, this is the most important part, give us a lump sum of money with which we use to complete the mission. In either case, no one individual is going to bear the cost of any item used to assist the others.

To my knowledge there is no special ops unit in existence that operates under the PFS paradigm of totally random individuals getting together for a random mission where they each pay for all their own equipment, they each get paid individually, but only based on group success. In addition, I find it hard to imagine that a RL mercenary/specialist is going to voluntarily risk his/her life with a bunch random strangers who may or may not be qualified to do the mission. Nor is there any way way an organization is going to accept a random group of mercenaries who may or may not have the special training for this specific mission. There is no real life comparison because the situation is totally contrived.

That leaves us to guessing at what the culture would be if it were RL. And I'll bet my entire WBL that in a system where mercs have to supply all their own gear, if they use up an expensive item saving a fellow merc, the one who is saved is going to pay it back...happily.

Quote:
Of course, the RL comparison is ridiculous, because this is a game. And, for that very reason, the RL comparison you suggest simply doesn't apply.

I didn't suggest a RL "comparison," I suggested that what happens in real life is what should happen in the game. Someone saves your ass and you are more than willing to pay them back if you can. An old boss of mine bumped into me on the street and I needed to use his cellphone. I paid him back with lunch. When people do you favors, you return them. You're telling me this is a bad thing to cultivate in PFS and I can't agree.

Quote:
On the other hand, every time I try to say something in this thread, you call it nonsensical.

Hyperbole doesn't strengthen your argument.

1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:


.... or peer pressure to have to replace anything.

Right now, I feel like if one player buys a BoL and someone else dies, there is intense peer pressure for the BoL to be used on the dead player. The person who bought the BoL will be made to feel like a jerk if he objects and I've heard clerics say that they'll use it on whomever needs it.

So you prefer the existing peer pressure and social dynamic to one where all that evaporates and the only peer pressure is that the one who got rezed replaces the scroll?

251 to 300 of 437 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Sharing consumables (PFS Rules Change?) All Messageboards