|
.... 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?
Yeah, to illustrate 959's point, see rknop's response to my post above.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, there's no reason why PFS can't try it out for six months. For six months, characters can replace potions and scrolls and expensive spell components on items used on them with OOC consent. Nothing is mandatory. No being a "jerk" at the table if someone refuses to pay back.
I honestly think this is the best option, right now the arguments have boiled down to "this will cause bigger problems than the issue it fixes" and "no it won't." Two arguments based entire on a hypothetical; the only way we can move forward with discussion in a constructive manner is to test the proposal, and see which side was actually correct.
|
|
Limit the option to Breath of Life Scrolls right now.
While I can understand the notion of limiting the scope of the test, not sure if BoL only will yield much useful data. 1) Based on the posts in these forums, many people are already using this method with BoL, so not much may change; 2) I'm guessing there is only a small subset of players who actually have BoL come into play. Lower level groups (I'm guessing the majority of games in PFS) don't carry these and even high level groups need a death to even bring this rule into play.
Probably need a wider set of items beyond BoL.
Another option is to test it out in one area for several months and get feedback.
Another key issue with BoL specifically is action economy of the scroll. You'd have to move, pull the scroll, and then cast the spell, which you can't do in one turn, which is the effective limit of the spell. You'd have to have the scroll in hand at the time of death, or use the spring loaded wrist sheath, which is both subject to table variation, and some GMs are vehemently against the SLWS/scroll combo.
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depending on how you enjoy playing, spending a chunk of the resources needed to perfect your character build concept - in order for example to help out a badly prepared stranger - might be of no consequence or a genuine annoyance. There is nothing inherently wrong in trying to balance things and we have a limited number of very effective exceptions to the restrictions we have to place ourselves under if we want to have an OP campaign. I think that exploring some simple mechanical options regarding specific like for like replacements can be done without materially changing what players feel entitled to expect from each other.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I am on the side of allowing someone to purchase the item that was expended and mark it used, in place of the person who bought the original item marking theirs as used. I don't think I'd be in favor of exchanging gold for charges of a wand or anything like that.
Personally, I don't think I've ever bought a Breath of Life scroll intending it to be used on my character. I did have one used on me once, though it happened to be my scroll anyway. I've tended to only purchase them on characters who have a chance of using the scroll. My Cleric who is not quite high enough level to cast the spell yet, and my UMD heavy characters (Sorcerer, Ninja, Investigator). It's so tricky to pull off using a BoL scroll to begin with. Either you die right next to the person who has it, or if you're at a table with a GM who allows it in a wrist sheath, and the person who has the scroll can reach you in 1 move action, then they can use the scroll. So I figured buying something like that and handing it off to the Cleric expecting them to wear a spring-loaded wrist sheath and carry the scroll just for me wasn't a practical idea.
Instead, I view it as something I can do to help the party. Having a scroll means I have a chance to keep a teammate in the fight, even if I do have to make a DC29 UMD, or on one character a DC30 followed by a DC29. It's still a chance to keep a character around, not just for that fight, but for the rest of the scenario. And I guess, to me, that's most likely going to be a more valuable use of my actions than doing some damage or even dropping an enemy. Not always, but usually. I have First Aid Gloves on a couple of characters as well, because they don't have a chance to successfully use the scroll, and I wasn't planning anything for the hands slot. In fact, I've got First Aid Gloves on a Black-blooded Oracle who takes damage from Positive Energy, so there's no chance they could ever get used to heal him.
I'll use my own consumables for other characters when it makes sense, too. My Investigator carries a potion of Fly to use with Alchemical Allocation. But, he can also use Monstrous Physique to turn into something that flies (like a Gargoyle). So I've handed my potion to a party member before, because two of us being able to fly up and engage the enemy was better than one. Of course, now I have Infusions, so I can just prep Fly and give it out. I have a Wand of Lesser Restoration (partial from a chronicle) which I'll use on whoever needs it most.
Now, I've had players offer to replace a spent expendable before. I've always said no, because I knew it was against the rules. There have been situations where I've burned over 5,000 gold across two consecutive scenarios on expendables for other characters/the group. Being able to hang on to an item and let someone else pay for it would have been helpful in that situation, and I might have accepted if I could. But using those expendables kept other characters alive or helped us succeed, so I'd do it again reimbursement or no.
EDIT: As a further thought... Towards the end of season 4, when fighting REDACTED, he dropped 3 party members to dead in one round. I was one of those. The party Cleric lived, and had to decide who to bring back with his prepped BoL. I had happened to mention before the start of the scenario that my Sorcerer had a BoL scroll in a spring-loaded wrist sheet. Rather than hand that off to the Cleric, I kept it. The Cleric's player ultimately remembered that and used his BoL on me. We were all in a group of adjacent squares as I'd Dimensioned Doored us the round before. I then had to decide who to use my scroll on. There was another Cleric, though he was playing out of tier (I think a level 9 in 10-11), and there was an 11th level Magus. I decided to try to bring the Magus back, because I was guessing that the Cleric was too far negative for an average roll on the BoL to work (I was right. I think he was at -50 something). Initiative order was an issue, too, as the Cleric wouldn't have another turn before the Magus was dead for good. I successfully brought the Magus back. I needed a 4 on the die, and after much buildup, I rolled a nat 20. The Magus didn't have a BoL scroll or First Aid Gloves, so the 9th level Cleric stayed dead. We went on to defeat the scenario. That would have been unlikely with half the party dead instead of just one of us. The Magus, after that scenario, made a point of buying First Aid Gloves. I'm pretty sure we either chipped in on the Raise Dead for the 9th level Cleric, or he insisted on using prestige.
Anyway, I guess I would say when it comes to BoL, it's a good thing to have if you can use it. If you're buying a scroll expecting someone else to use it on you, then buy the talisman or the Aegis of Recovery instead.
|
If you're buying a scroll expecting someone else to use it on you, then buy the talisman or the Aegis of Recovery instead.
This is *not* an option for folks that have an Amulet of Natural Armor in their neck slot, or a Necklace of Adaptation.
If someone could come up with a new magic item that does the trick that *doesn't* take the neck slot, that might be worth investing in?
|
|
Dawnflower Sash - Belt or Head
This long strip of red Qadiran fabric is designed to wrap around your waist or head several times and be held in place by its ankh-shaped clasp of red gold. When worn, you remain comfortable even in warm environments as if protected by endure elements. If you unwrap it to its full length and hold the clasp in your hand, you can feather fall once per day, briefly leaving behind a trail of pleasant red-gold light as bright as a torch.
If Sarenrae is your patron, once per day by command, you can use the sash to cast cure light wounds. You may trigger this ability automatically if you are reduced to –1 hit points or less, though thereafter you must recharge it by placing it in strong sunlight for 8 continuous hours. At will, you may cause the clasp to shine as brightly as a torch or cease this illumination; the light is warm, feels like sunlight, and is enough to make sun-fearing creatures slightly uncomfortable but not enough to cause them harm.
|
If you're buying a scroll expecting someone else to use it on you, then buy the talisman or the Aegis of Recovery instead.This is *not* an option for folks that have an Amulet of Natural Armor in their neck slot, or a Necklace of Adaptation.
If someone could come up with a new magic item that does the trick that *doesn't* take the neck slot, that might be worth investing in?
If you're getting hit enough to necessitate a BoL, then maybe an Amulet of Nat Armor isn't the neck slot item for you...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pirate Rob: So there is a potential non-neck, as long as someone follows Sarenrae. Got it.
If you're getting hit enough to necessitate a BoL, then maybe an Amulet of Nat Armor isn't the neck slot item for you...
Or the GM has 'hot' dice and is hitting 'hard'. It happens. And there's scarce little to be done for it, I guess?
|
|
Pirate Rob: So there is a potential non-neck, as long as someone follows Sarenrae. Got it.
Or the GM has 'hot' dice and is hitting 'hard'. It happens. And there's scarce little to be done for it, I guess?
If you're getting hit enough to necessitate a BoL, then maybe an Amulet of Nat Armor isn't the neck slot item for you...
Using the neck slot is a deterrent, but with the addition of Talismans, I'd say the utility you get out of them might actually outweigh the AC bonus. Keep in mind, you can wear three talismans at once. For a martial, having a Lesser Talisman of Life's Breath, a Lesser Talisman of Freedom, and a Lesser Talisman of Warrior's Courage means you're prepared for three situations that could take you out of a fight or at least cost you full attacks. Death, Grappling/Entanglement/Paralyzation, and Fear effects.
I do agree, an item in a different slot that offered something like BoL would be great. Chest Slot seems like a good option. Vest of Resuscitation maybe?
There is also the Shawl of Life-keeping, though that doesn't explicitly say it can keep you from dying. Also, it takes the shoulder slot, which is as problematic or more so that the neck slot.
EDIT: Funny note on the Shawl. I originally had this item for the negative energy affinity oracle I mentioned earlier, thinking that it could heal him if he went negative. Thankfully, it never came up while I was wearing it, because on closer inspection, it's based off of Cure Light Wounds and not something like False Life. So a GM very well could have ruled that it dealt 10 points of damage instead of healing it. That would have been embarrassing! I think nosig's Pathfinder Tales chronicle is the only thing that grants temp hit points when you go negative. I may need to get that applied to that character.
|
|
Pirate Rob: So there is a potential non-neck, as long as someone follows Sarenrae. Got it.
Or the GM has 'hot' dice and is hitting 'hard'. It happens. And there's scarce little to be done for it, I guess?
If you're getting hit enough to necessitate a BoL, then maybe an Amulet of Nat Armor isn't the neck slot item for you...
Correct. Your PC won't live one moment longer than it is supposed to. A +X bonus to natural armor won't change your PC's appointed time.
|
Instead, I view it as something I can do to help the party. Having a scroll means I have a chance to keep a teammate in the fight...
Now, I've had players offer to replace a spent expendable before. I've always said no, because I knew it was against the rules. There have been situations where I've burned over 5,000 gold across two consecutive scenarios on expendables for other characters/the group. Being able to hang on to an item and let someone else pay for it would have been helpful in that situation, and I might have accepted if I could. But using those expendables kept other characters alive or helped us succeed, so I'd do it again reimbursement or no.
This here is the key, and this here is the attitude I would much rather see in all players. Part of the reason I'm opposed to a reimubursement rule is that it won't just make this attitude unnecessary, but will actively suppress this attitude.
The reason you have expendables in ways can be portrayed as altruism is not pure altruism; it's somewhere between that and enlightened self-interest. You are more likely to survive and succeed if you have things ready to help your party as a whole, including expendables.
There's another aspect to this as well that has been mentioned, but that requires highlighting. I don't think there is a universal ratio of expendables to non-expendables that applies to all characters; a reimbursement culture implicitly assumes that there is. You really want your front-line fighter spending a lot of money on good weapons and good armor. That stuff is expensive. I've known casters, however, who aren't sure what they should spend their money on. An obvious answer is: expendables that will help everybody survive, whether it's Breath of Life, Fly, Align Weapon, or what not. My wizard and oracle both keep a lot of scrolls around, not to use on myself, but because they might be useful on somebody else. And I do this because it's the way those characters contribute to the party success. Neither one of them would be as well served spending a whole lot of money on a magic weapon. But they are served by perhaps spending some of their wealth on expendables so that fighters and paladins they end up in groups with *don't have to*.
A lot of people have pointed out that in home games, items go to the people who can use them best, and that the party benefits from this. In PFS, it's very rare to play with the same group multiple times. A culture of reimbursement only pushes us *farther* from this. The expensive magic weapon and armor would go to the front line fighter in a home game. Probably more than average of the healing will be used on that fighter as well -- at least, if the group's tactics are usually sound. However, a culture of reimbursement seriously hampers that fighter, as people will start to think that it's reasonable to expect that fighter to reimburse expendables used on him. In a home game, by dividing things sensibly, effectively others have subsidized that fighter's armor and weapon, as those expensive items go to him. If we're reimbursing consumables in PFS, but not finding a way to "tax" non-front-liners to help the front-liners pay for their expensive reusable items, then that's pretty bloody unfair.
What it really takes is an attitude like Ferious Thrune's. For each of your characters, think about what makes sense for a group that character is in to survive. Spend your money accordingly. (Well, also with some individual character building stuff, as always.) That may well be on expendables planned to be used on others. Come in with this attitude, rather than an attitude of strict commerce where you expect an expendable used on another character to be reimbursed.
|
|
What happened to teamwork and being team players? This seems like the exact opposite.
Which seems like the exact opposite? I'm not sure which side you're arguing on here.
Expecting reimbursement (and if it became legal, assuredly the cultural expectation would be for reimbursement to be standard) to me is the exact opposite of being a team player.
However, I could also see an argument that expecting that you *don't* have to pay for expendables used n you is the exact opposite of being a team player.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that allowing limited like for like replacement of a specific list of consumables introduces a "reimbursement culture". I cannot see anyone wanting to have the situation where money changed hands and it would be anathema to the running of a big OP campaign. If we allowed an exception permitting players to make the gesture of covering the replacement of e.g. a BoL scroll that saved their PC's life & that ends up souring the atmosphere more than the current rules do then it would be easy to return to the status quo.
|
|
For those suggesting a trial period, please refer to every other situation where something was allowed for a while, found not to work, and then removed.
I hope that the campaign staff make a decision on whether this is going to work or not, and then make the decision. 6 months is a lot of games and cons that can be affected, just to try something that people on this thread have already said they will abuse as much as possible.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those suggesting a trial period, please refer to every other situation where something was allowed for a while, found not to work, and then removed.
I hope that the campaign staff make a decision on whether this is going to work or not, and then make the decision. 6 months is a lot of games and cons that can be affected, just to try something that people on this thread have already said they will abuse as much as possible.
Use as much as possible doesn't mean abuse. While I don't like the plan, if it's legal why wouldn't you use it at every available opportunity?
The word abuse has some pretty heavy connotations.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am firmly of the opinion that those in the frontline should not have to pay for their own healing when they incur more risk of death, affliction, and debilitation then those that stand behind them.I don't know what scenarios you are playing, but less than half of anything I've ever played even has a frontline, or has tactics that invalidiate a frontline, or attack vectors that invalidate a frontline, or has intelligent opponents who don't want to waste time on things they can't hit well
I can honestly say that fighters are one of the LEAST attacked class I've played with in PFS
My personal experience in PFS is that meleers tend to suffer a roughly a 2:1 death rate compared to back rankers. Part of this may be skewed by the fact that melee builds seem to be popular in my area and that new, inexperienced player seem to gravitate towards them. But while there are intelligent monsters with tactics that target the back rank, they are not the norm and there are certainly plenty of PFS encounters with dumb monsters that just attack the closest creature.
As an aside, this particular discussion reminds me of one I had when I was still new to PFS. I had a 4th level monk with a 22 AC who usually tanked for whatever party he was in. While I new 22 AC wasn't stellar, I figured it was at least okay seeing as the highest AC amongst the 4th-level pregens at the time was 20. He was already half way through his second cure light wounds wand because of his tanking and I asked if it was fair if I asked other players to contribute some charges off of their wands since I was taking the hits for them. The response I got was along the lines of, "A 22 AC on a 4th level monk is pathetic. If you hadn't built such a suboptimal character you wouldn't be getting hit so much, so it is your own fault." I am glad to see no one making such comments on this particular thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I generally think these kinds of disagreements are better handled in PMs to avoid derailing the topic at hand.
That said, as a curious outsider, let me rephrase NN959's statement and follow up with a question (for the group, although I admit I'm curious what part you think makes his assumption a misrepresentation of your overall position rather than a subset of it).
If the proposed change is adopted, it will allow characters to delay personal consumable purchases until after they actually need them rather than as soon as they might need them as long as one of their comrades for the module where they need the consumable brought a spare. This means they can use that liquidity to purchase items for their build rather than contingencies. As a result, frontliners will be able to build up their survivability without draining their comrades' WBL.
Now, my understanding of your (Ragoz) position is that this proposal is ill-advised because it effectively endorses the idea that I might want a consumable you actually spent your gold on, meaning that if I need it while we're grouping together, your foresight lets me delay my expenditure until afterwards.
Am I misunderstanding? And isn't it just rewarding the group that you're a part of by making your foresight a clear boon for you rather than a mixed blessing where you helped the party work better, but you probably spent more on something that's gone now than the benefit you gained and I definitely spent way less on it than the benefit I gained?
I say stick with the system as is. PCs should be reluctant to spend significant resources on other PCs that they do not know well. This is reasonable and consistent with the Pathfinder ethos. As characters play together more frequently they will naturally want to give more freely. Players that know other players well will also be more likely to share as they will see the benefits of their generosity.
I believe that the current unofficial practice of reimbursement of BOL scrolls (or other expensive consumables) by some GMs should be officially discouraged as it breaks with the wealth rules outlined in the guide.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the proposed change is adopted, it will allow characters to delay personal consumable purchases until after they actually need them rather than as soon as they might need them as long as one of their comrades for the module where they need the consumable brought a spare. This means they can use that liquidity to purchase items for their build rather than contingencies. As a result, frontliners will be able to build up their survivability without draining their comrades' WBL.
Now, my understanding of your (Ragoz) position is that this proposal is ill-advised because it effectively endorses the idea that I might want a consumable you actually spent your gold on, meaning that if I need it while we're grouping together, your foresight lets me delay my expenditure until afterwards.
Am I misunderstanding? And isn't it just rewarding the group that you're a part of by making your foresight a clear boon for you rather than a mixed blessing where you helped the party work better, but you probably spent more on something that's gone now than the benefit you gained and I definitely spent way less on it than the benefit I gained?
You are not misunderstanding. I know you mentioned being an outsider so I'll just make this a bit more clear. PFS games reward you with gold at a pretty stable rate after each adventure. The item does not impact any character's wealth by level until it is both expended and its cost deducted from that character's gold. Normally that cost is paid in advance and then the benefit of the item is received. The proposed system changes the order, the benefit is received and then the cost is paid. When does this payment occur? It occurs after all the characters at the table have succeeded at the adventure and are now richer. This means they are all mechanically stronger characters.
In addition they don't have to know who will need this item until after the situation occurred. Characters who previously might have expended wealth to guaranteeing their safety are no longer doing so and instead are spending this excess gold on other items. Consumables have delayed value in return for their benefit. The new items they are purchasing do not.
So yes it is obviously a benefit to the characters to be mechanically superior. But you are labeling it as preparation and foresight where I am saying they will have everything they need and only after the adventure know what was actually needed and pay its cost. This is not preparation and not foresight. It means the characters don't need to be prepared and are being rewarded very heavily for it.
Just so it is clear it is not that I think a person choosing to not buy consumables is a problem nor do I think purchasing an item that is meaningful to their character is bad. The problem I have is the increased effective wealth by level each character gains from paying for their item at a later point in time rather than paying for it beforehand. Gaining the utility and benefit of the item and covering its cost later is not healthy for the campaign in my opinion.
If you need to see an example of this in action please reference my earlier posts where I showed how characters who under the current rules could not reasonably expect to buy both the scrolls they need and the metamagic rod they want but under the new system they do. The only counterpoint to this example has been that it is currently possible to get the items as I described but was noted that the character doing the consumable purchasing had lost 50% of his wealth by level. This is proof the new rule would dramatically alter how we currently play. They would be able to completely optimize their purchases to obtain more gear for every character in the party while having no major financial impact on any character.
This along with my posts about how the current FAQ on additional resources shared at a table don't meet the needs of this rules change is my current position on this topic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only counterpoint to this example has been that it is currently possible to get the items as I described but was noted that the character doing the consumable purchasing had lost 50% of his wealth by level. This is proof the new rule would dramatically alter how we currently play. They would be able to completely optimize their purchases to obtain more gear for every character in the party while having no major financial impact on any character.
Just want to clarify as I believe you misread my case. The character's effective wealth, while in play, because he was handing over his *armor*, a non-expendable, to another character, was 50% down (a 5,400 gp expenditure with approximately 10,000 gp earned at 4th level). Eventually, he'll be using that armor when the Barbarian gets around to buying her own. Its the same thing, allowing her to spend more on big ticket weapons while spending less on defense immediately. So in a level or two, they'll back to being closer to equivalent WBL. In the meantime, while adventuring, the effective wealth on that Barbarian is about 150%...
Actual uses of consumables for that group is much less over 11 adventures. I think total real expendables used is roughly 300 gp or so (Enlarge Person Potions and Oil of Magic Weapon mostly). Haven't needed to use any of the expensive stuff like Potion of Fly, Scrolls of Lesser Restoration, etc. As they're all half-orcs, we haven't needed an Oil of Daylight yet. We also have a variety coordinated wands purchased with PP as well (Protection from Evil, Shield, Moment of Greatness, 1 Cure light wounds wand, 1 Infernal healing wand usable by the Bloodrager).
As far as I can tell, the Barbarian is basically getting the flexibility of the potions and armor the skald brings, and can focus on her big ticket offensive items.
|
|
Not needing to buy magic weapons on the Skald means I tend to buy and use the necessary party consumables. With some exceptions bought with PP by the other two. Heck, I've bought the Barbarian her current magic mithral breastplate armor and hand it to her at the beginning of each adventure. Some people might view that barbarian as over the WBL by 50% or so at 4th level after being handed the armor.
Sure, the Skald will fall behind in WBL due to consumable use, and currently is about 50%...
I didn't think I misunderstood this considering you attributed falling behind WBL to consumables and make it the primary point of your example but if this not the case then our examples really aren't similar at all.
I didn't think I misunderstood this considering you attributed falling behind WBL to consumables and make it the primary point of your example but if this not the case then our examples really aren't similar at all.
Apologies, given the thread is about expendable use, I clearly didn't make it clear in the my original post that the 50% was armor.
I felt the fact that between 3 people we only need 1 copy of critical consumables was similar. For example, we've only bought 1 cure light wounds wand for 3 people. We have only a single potion of fly for 3 people. We only have one oil of daylight for 3 people. If one of those gets used, we replace it at the end of the adventure. If you wanted, any one of the 3 people could make the purchase, and it will be available to the group. That is reimbursement, legally, in the current system. All you need to do is always play together and hand it over at the beginning of each adventure.
Are you saying that in the newly proposed system there is some number other than 1 of each critical consumable is shared between, say Tom and Jerry from your example?
I think for any proposed list of purchases between Tom and Jerry under the newly proposed ruleset, my group could buy the exact same numbers and not have any issues. If the decisions made are identical for the two groups, the consumables are bought at the exact same time frame, the equipment they have at the start and end is the same, is it not the same?
Or is it the fact that Tom and Jerry then go on and potentially never play with each other again that makes it a different example?
|
|
You pretty much hit on the differences. You can mimic having a shared pool of items the change would cause but you are never able to truly reimburse each other. As you said as soon as you part ways and play a different adventure the entire system breaks down and this is the normal process for PFS games.
Example:
player 1 buys scroll of daylight
player 2 uses scroll of daylight
player 2 buys a replacement scroll of daylight for the next adventure
player 1 is at a new table and has no access to the benefit and probably will consider buying their own item once again.
You pretty much hit on the differences. You can mimic having a shared pool of items the change would cause but you are never able to truly reimburse each other. As you said as soon as you part ways and play a different adventure the entire system breaks down and this is the normal process for PFS games.
Example:
player 1 buys scroll of daylight
player 2 uses scroll of daylight
player 2 buys a replacement scroll of daylight for the next adventure
player 1 is at a new table and has no access to the benefit and probably will consider buying their own item once again.
Gotcha, so that is why you consider them different.
So, we can say it is not impossible to get the credit card effect now, but rather it is uncommon, and requires a bunch of friends to agree to play certain characters only together.
That I agree with.
Out of curiosity, do you feel organizing to such a degree amongst family and friends is a problem? I'm wondering if people might have issue with the play style we are using.
|
|
It doesn't impact other people if you only stick to yourselves. If you play with other people occasionally it probably wouldn't be noticed unless you had a lot of consumables (or they might think it odd that you give them your armor in your case). You have used about 300 gold you said. But it would be noticeable when extended to an entire campaign where people do play with other people frequently.
Here is an example of a friend of mine's gear and how I would expect some players would start to look especially if other people will cover the cost of their purchase in the future.
Acid x3 1 lb
Air crystal x3 -
Alchemical grease x4
Alchemical solvent
Alchemist's fire x3
Alkali flask x2
Antiplague x3 -
Antitoxin x3 -
Blood-boiling pill x9
Caltrops x3
1300 gp Diamond Dust
Dream Journal of the Pallid Seer
Ear trumpet, masterwork
Flint and steel
Garlic x5
Hound's blood x4
Marker dye
Oil x4
Oil of bless weapon -
Oil of daylight -
600 gp Onyx Gems for Animate Dead -
Potion of cure light wounds -
Potion of endure elements -
Potion of gaseous form -
Potion of magic fang -
Potion of remove sickness -
Potion of touch of the sea -
Potion of touch of the sea -
Potion of touch of the sea -
Reagent, urea x40 -
Scroll of animate dead
Scroll of aqueous orb
Scroll of aspect of the nightingale (x4)
Scroll of barkskin (x2)
Scroll of beacon of luck
Scroll of bless
Scroll of bull's strength (x5)
Scroll of carry companion
Scroll of channel vigor
Scroll of comprehend languages
Scroll of dimension door
Scroll of disguise self
Scroll of disguise self
Scroll of dispel magic
Scroll of dispel magic
Scroll of expeditious retreat
Scroll of faerie fire
Scroll of faerie fire, faerie fire, faerie fire
Scroll of fireball
Scroll of fox's cunning (x3)
Scroll of freedom of movement
Scroll of frigid touch
Scroll of glitterdust
Scroll of haste
Scroll of invisibility
Scroll of invisibility, invisibility
Scroll of lesser (x5) restoration
Scroll of levitate
Scroll of long arm (x5)
Scroll of magic circle against evil
Scroll of magic weapon, magic weapon
Scroll of obscuring mist, obscuring mist
Scroll of overland flight
Scroll of pilfering hand
Scroll of protection from evil, protection from evil
Scroll of raiment of command, raiment of command
Scroll of reduce person (x2)
Scroll of remove curse
Scroll of remove fear, remove fear
Scroll of remove paralysis
Scroll of remove paralysis
Scroll of restoration
Scroll of see invisibility
Scroll of see invisibility
Scroll of shield, shield
Scroll of speak with animals, speak with animals
Scroll of speak with dead
Scroll of speak with plants
Scroll of spider climb, spider climb
Scroll of teleport
Scroll of tongues
Scroll of unbreakable heart
Scroll of versatile weapon
Stillgut
Sunrod x3
Tanglefoot bag x3
Tindertwig x3 -
Torch x10
Trail rations x5
Vermin repellent
Wand of honeyed tongue (50 charges) -
Wand of infernal healing (50 charges) -
Wand of shield (50 charges) -
Wand of summon monster i (CL 3rd, 9 charges) -
Wand of unwelcome halo (50 charges) -
Wolfsbane x2
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I find fascinating about this debate is that both groups -- those pro-refund and those anti-refund -- have the same end goals in mind.
OUR COMMON GROUND
Both groups want characters (both individually, and as a team) to carry survival gear and recognize that there are limited funds. One person cannot buy everything.
Both groups want inter-team harmony and cooperation.
___
WHERE WE DISAGREE
Where we differ is in what we foresee as the likely outcome of such a change.
As a person who has only played PFS locally or in PBPs, I know that I will run into those that I play with over and over again. In a pool of players where everyone knows everyone else, there is a feeling of community and trust. As a result, I've seen a lot of resources shared freely. On a local level, I think that the proposed change of allowing reimbursement of BoL and/or First Aid Gloves would work quite well.
However, I can see how conventions might foster the opposite approach, considering that you will likely play with a group of strangers that you will never see again.
___
GOING FORWARD
I'd still like to see voluntary reimbursement. Still believe that cooperation and teamwork is the entire point of PFS. That's what attracts me to Society play: the word cooperate.
I think it would be a worthy six-month experiment.
However, many people that I respect and honor, people with a lot more experience than I, have concern over this. They don't want to adjudicate "I got saved and I didn't want to be" arguments.
Is there a way that we could come up with to minimalize the tension over this? Maybe allow a player to veto the BoL being used on them before another character does the revival? Would that solve this issue?
Hmm
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OUR COMMON GROUND
Both groups want inter-team harmony and cooperation.
Mostly, but not all. Some people seem to genuinely want everyone to carry around their own personal copy of everything they need, even if you only ever need 1 of it. Personally, I feel this violates the whole "cooperate" tenet. The ability to discuss equipment before a mission so that people don't double up needlessly, and any gaping holes can be filled, well... to call this a Good Thing (tm) seems a truism. Personally, unless I see some decent reasoning supporting these stances I'm going to ignore them.
WHERE WE DISAGREE
Where we differ is in what we foresee as the likely outcome of such a change.
This.
Will the change bring greater co-operation between pathfinder, or will it simply provide a way of players intimidating other players? Will it even provide people with a possible wealth distribution loophole?GOING FORWARD
I... Still believe that cooperation and teamwork is the entire point of PFS.
Is there a way that we could come up with to minimalize the tension over this? Maybe allow a player to veto the BoL being used on them before another character does the revival? Would that solve this issue?
I believe players basically always have autonomy over what happens to their character, so this wouldn't be much different. The player using a consumable on another player without asking first (if dead this may be a bit difficult), doesn't get to demand them back. You're partly doing it because they're a fellow agent, part just being useful. partly perhaps because you'll get paid back. If the last is big enough that it might make a difference, ask beforehand or you don't get to complain.
I want to see this in society. I don't the the doom and disaster predicted will come true, and I don't think, even if a few pockets do, the rest of society should be essentially punished for a player problem. This seems a fairly trivial thing, I'd like to just have the option.