Zizazat wrote:
The intent was to remove the very easy available loophole in terms of PFS play.
Well it depends what you are considering abusive.
If you're talking about being able to get a 750gp wand after just one mod.. well THAT can be abusive.
Why bother with a crossbow with your wizard when you can pick up a wand of magic missiles at no cost!
That's a question of society play and rules, and I'm not commenting upon it. If Josh had further restricted what 2PA could obtain I would have never said boo about it.
James Maissen wrote: In both cases this has been the case since the start of 3rd edition. Zizazat wrote:
Standing on history doesn't really help in this case. Increasing the version number and letting time pass doesn't mean that there aren't bugs waiting to be uncovered. Neither is being obtuse when it comes to understanding this rule. Some logic and intent must filter in.
First, it speaks towards the issue. Which if it's how a divine scroll of lesser restoration needs to cost 150gp minimum rather than 25gp minimum, then it's part of a bigger core issue which should be a CORE RULES issue rather than a SOCIETY fix.
If it's simply what 2PA should be able to obtain, that's something different.
I agree that intent has to figure in. However, I've not been able to get what the intent was.
There have been several 'intents' that have been presented:
1. To make things 'simpler'
2. To be more 'realistic' as Paladins don't scribe scrolls in Golarion
3. To remove 'abusive' items
Zizazat wrote:
Witches can buy scrolls of CLW that they are able to cast at the end of the day. The rule wasn't put in place to cripple casters from buying stuff off their spell list, the rule was put in place to stop a 'free, 2PA purchase' of a Wand of Lesser Restoration. Keeping it where it 'belongs' the same wand now means you need 18 PA to buy it!
First, Witches can buy DIVINE scrolls of CLW, but not ARCANE scrolls of cure light wounds. How do you know that arcane cures aren't considered 'abusive'? Curing is the domain of the divine after all! Also Josh changed the wording on the rule that had expressly allowed such so that it no longer does. Absent explanations it does seem that the intent is to prevent Bards and other such casters from being able to purchase scrolls of many of their spells.
Also you can't spend 18PA to buy anything, you can spend 2PA at a time. Or has this changed? Arbitrary rules like this can easily be misunderstood even by those of us that spend a lot of time on these boards. Imagine the casual player's confusion if we are confused at some of these!
Zizazat wrote: The change should have probably gone directly at these cases, agreed. I haven't looked over the spell lists enough to know how many others may fall into this case, but I'd guess the number is low.
[\quote]
Depends what you choose to filter to 'abusive'. Is it abusive that a wand of speak with animals can be had for less than a twentieth the price of another such wand depending upon which spell list you look at? Or does that just mean that it pays to look around?
IF you are correct on the intent of the rule, then you're right there are better solutions that cause far less confusion.
So if you are correct, then we should ask for a better, less confusing solution.
Quote:
When a hyper minority case could be responsible for a hyper majority of market share, you have to ask yourself why that is.
So what price should a divine scroll of bless weapon at minimum caster level be? What is the price in PFS?
What about an arcane scroll of magic mouth at minimum caster level?
How should the cost of a magic suit of full plate compare to an inferior base armor with the same enchantments?
You're applying a logic here that is faulty to the base assumption. You could also argue against spells as magic isn't real..
-James
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zizazat wrote: The rule wasn't put in place to cripple casters from buying stuff off their spell list, the rule was put in place to stop a 'free, 2PA purchase' of a Wand of Lesser Restoration. Keeping it where it 'belongs' the same wand now means you need 18 PA to buy it!
james maissen wrote:
Also you can't spend 18PA to buy anything, you can spend 2PA at a time. Or has this changed? Arbitrary rules like this can easily be misunderstood even by those of us that spend a lot of time on these boards. Imagine the casual player's confusion if we are confused at some of these!
I didn't say you had to spend 18 PA, I said you need 18 PA to buy it. Perhaps it would have made more sense for you if I said you need 18 TPA to buy it?
But since you clearly want to pretend like you don't understand all of this I guess I'll just leave you to your obtuseness. Your ridiculous hyperbole isn't doing anything to advance the possibility that this rule might be sub-optimal.
Hey, why don't we just do it the easy way and say that if the spell is not on the cleric or wizard spells lists, then it is not available at all as a scroll, potion or wand? Or better yet, since people do not want to play nice with the toys they are provided, maybe scrolls, potions and wands are not purchasable at all if not on a chronicle sheet? /sarcasm
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Enevhar Aldarion wrote: Hey, why don't we just do it the easy way and say that if the spell is not on the cleric or wizard spells lists, then it is not available at all as a scroll, potion or wand? Or better yet, since people do not want to play nice with the toys they are provided, maybe scrolls, potions and wands are not purchasable at all if not on a chronicle sheet? /sarcasm That certainly would be a better solution since magic isn't real anyway.
Zizazat wrote:
I didn't say you had to spend 18 PA, I said you need 18 PA to buy it. Perhaps it would have made more sense for you if I said you need 18 TPA to buy it?
Sorry, I misread what you wrote. No need to be snarky about it, things like that can happen without dire portents. You were talking about spending 2PA for a 1st level wand, and other people had made the mistake before about being able to spend more than that for more costly items. I leaped to a conclusion, sorry.
Zizazat wrote:
But since you clearly want to pretend like you don't understand all of this I guess I'll just leave you to your obtuseness. Your ridiculous hyperbole isn't doing anything to advance the possibility that this rule might be sub-optimal.
I'm sorry? Dude, chill.
You assume that everyone is seeing 1st level lesser restorations as abusive. Well, you're wrong. I don't. It's not being evasive or 'trying to get away with something' but rather I don't see it as a problem.
-James
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
james maissen wrote:
You assume that everyone is seeing 1st level lesser restorations as abusive. Well, you're wrong. I don't. It's not being evasive or 'trying to get away with something' but rather I don't see it as a problem.
-James There is the source of your problem then... Josh does see it as abusive..and he makes the rules, As soon as you accept that the sooner you will be happy...
More to the point, it does not matter if you don't see it as abusive, but it does matter that Josh does..
You have clearly stated your opinion on this and josh has seen it, for the Love of God and all of our sanity...Drop it..
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
james maissen wrote: You assume that everyone is seeing 1st level lesser restorations as abusive. Well, you're wrong. I don't. It's not being evasive or 'trying to get away with something' but rather I don't see it as a problem. I don't assume everyone sees it that way. I do however believe the regulating authority has ruled in this matter, and you should probably come to terms with it.
Getting a 4500 GP wand for a 2 PA spend is something I do see as a problem. You claim to not understand the basis for this rule change, or the ability to understand the intent behind it. I'm sure Josh will correct me if needed, but I'm pretty sure I've laid it out there for you. And I've nailed the reasoning.
Getting a 4500 GP wand for a 2 PA spend is a big problem.
On the plus side we aren't polluting the FAQ with this drivel anymore :)
Dragnmoon wrote:
There is the source of your problem then... Josh does see it as abusive..and he makes the rules, As soon as you accept that the sooner you will be happy...
More to the point, it does not matter if you don't see it as abusive, but it does matter that Josh does..
Great so does he see Bards buying 25gp arcane scrolls of cure light wounds as abusive as well? Is it abusive?
Or is it just the lesser restoration spell?
Cause this does change a lot of things, and is an extra, unneeded rule. That in itself is a problem.
Why not just make it a 2nd level paladin spell instead of a 1st? Or take it completely off the paladin spell list for that matter.
Dragnmoon wrote:
You have clearly stated your opinion on this and josh has seen it, for the Love of God and all of our sanity...Drop it..
I'm sorry, why is it a problem for you?
-James
Zizazat wrote:
Getting a 4500 GP wand for a 2 PA spend is something I do see as a problem. You claim to not understand the basis for this rule change, or the ability to understand the intent behind it. I'm sure Josh will correct me if needed, but I'm pretty sure I've laid it out there for you. And I've nailed the reasoning.
First, to nitpick, it's not a 4500gp wand it's a 750gp wand.
Second, for my 'hyperbole' and going with your logic is it just as abusive or more so to be able to spend 2 PA for what you would call a 15,750gp wand?
Third, am I right with this that you don't think that spending 'real' gp on a 750gp wand of it would be abusive? If so then Josh's rule really missed the mark, didn't it?
Are the core rules in this case abusive, or is it merely the interaction with spending PA for 'free' items that causes the problem?
Zizazat wrote:
Getting a 4500 GP wand for a 2 PA spend is a big problem.
On the plus side we aren't polluting the FAQ with this drivel anymore :)
Yes we were both guilty of that. Though I wouldn't call it drivel, though thanks for sharing your thoughts,
James
james maissen wrote: First, to nitpick, it's not a 4500gp wand it's a 750gp wand. This. This right here makes me believe you don't get it. At all.
It is NOT a 750 gp wand. A wand of Lesser Restoration is a 4,500 gp wand, because as the rules for PFS state; it has to come from the clerical cost list. Level 2 cleric wands cost 4,500 gp. You want it to be only 750 gp. That is the problem. Prices and wealth were balanced around it being 4,500 gpp, not 750 gp. That 3,750 gp difference is HUGE. As Zizzat has stated, it's the difference between a 2 PA purchase, and needing 19 TPA to acquire. That's huge. It's the gold equivalent to buying two +1 weapons, or +1 weapon and +1 armor with change left over. It's the difference between my level 6 cleric just buying the wand at 750gp and looking long and hard at the cost because I need 11,000 for a rod I want to buy.
Either you really don't get it, and never will, or you're being argumentative because you want something that you can't have.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
james maissen wrote:
First, to nitpick, it's not a 4500gp wand it's a 750gp wand.
A wand of lesser restoration as created by a cleric would be 4500 wouldn't it? This is the heart of what this rule addresses, in my opinion. Your edge cases about other spells while cute don't matter as much. A CL1 wand of CLW still costs 750 no matter who (Bard, Witch or Cleric) were going to actually create it. There isn't much impact there. This wand of lesser restoration, however, is a big difference in terms of access.
Quote:
Second, for my 'hyperbole' and going with your logic is it just as abusive or more so to be able to spend 2 PA for what you would call a 15,750gp wand?
I'm having a little trouble following this, but is it just a mocked up example? 2 PA should get ~ 750 GP worth of magic as per the Guide. Getting 4500 GP worth of magic is a problem. Getting 15750 would be more of a problem yes.
Quote:
Third, am I right with this that you don't think that spending 'real' gp on a 750gp wand of it would be abusive? If so then Josh's rule really missed the mark, didn't it?
No actually you are still missing it. It's only further abuse that you don't have to actually spend gold to get it. The fact that you are getting 6:1 on the cost of the wand is abusive enough on it's face.
Quote:
Are the core rules in this case abusive, or is it merely the interaction with spending PA for 'free' items that causes the problem?
Mainly in terms of PFS. In terms of the core rules any player of mine who tried to pull this kind of 'shopping around' I would have more latitude to deal with them as I saw fit. Any player of mine who was a paladin and took all the feats to actually do it, I say game on.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
james maissen wrote:
I'm sorry, why is it a problem for you?
-James
I don't care anymore... It is just not a problem for me...Just Drop it...Please, for all of Us... Flag me if you must..
Edit: This is me being Nice about this, I am one step from being Not Nice anymore..
Dragnmoon wrote: james maissen wrote:
I'm sorry, why is it a problem for you?
-James
I don't care anymore... It is just not a problem for me...Just Drop it...Please, for all of Us... Flag me if you must..
Edit: This is me being Nice about this, I am one step from being Not Nice anymore.. There are a lot of "house rules" in Pathfinder Society Organized Play (PFS). More than likely the average player of PFS disagrees with at least one rule. However, they manage to keep playing, the exception to this, is the "no rebuild" rule. There was a player who was adamant on these boards that by not allowing him to rebuild his character, it would destroy the flavor he was going after and didn't want to have to play the same character from 1st level to his current level of 4 or 5 in order to use the new rules from the APG. He therefore quit. Now, I hate to see someone leave PFS because they disagree with a rule, but so be it. I too would like to rebuild my character using the new APG rules, but being 7th level, I don't plan on starting over from scratch, so I will continue on as is.
Because I enjoy PFS and despite any disagreements with some of the rules, I will continue to play PFS. There isn't a rule that will keep me from playing, yet.
Zizazat wrote: james maissen wrote:
First, to nitpick, it's not a 4500gp wand it's a 750gp wand.
A wand of lesser restoration as created by a cleric would be 4500 wouldn't it? This is the heart of what this rule addresses, in my opinion.
Quote:
Second, for my 'hyperbole' and going with your logic is it just as abusive or more so to be able to spend 2 PA for what you would call a 15,750gp wand?
I'm having a little trouble following this, but is it just a mocked up example? 2 PA should get ~ 750 GP worth of magic as per the Guide. Getting 4500 GP worth of magic is a problem. Getting 15750 would be more of a problem yes.
It's an example of the price of a wand of speak with animals when crafted by a bard rather than a ranger or a druid. That's because speak with animals is a 3rd level bard spell rather than a 1st level ranger or druid spell.
And yes a wand of lesser restoration would cost 4500gp when crafted by a cleric. And a wand of lesser restoration would cost 750gp when crafted by a paladin. The former would be CL 3 based off a 2nd level spell while the later would be CL 1 based off a 1st level spell. Both are valid and legal PF items (not speaking to PFS here).
How much is the right price for a wand of poison at minimum caster level? Is it 11,250gp or 21,000gp?
The correct answer, even in PFS today is both. Depends where you 'shop'. And that's almost enough of a difference to purchase a second one!
Zizazat wrote:
Quote:
Third, am I right with this that you don't think that spending 'real' gp on a 750gp wand of it would be abusive? If so then Josh's rule really missed the mark, didn't it?
No actually you are still missing it. It's only further abuse that you don't have to actually spend gold to get it. The fact that you are getting 6:1 on the cost of the wand is abusive enough on it's face.
Quote:
Are the core rules in this case abusive, or is it merely the interaction with spending PA for 'free' items that causes the problem?
Mainly in terms of PFS. In terms of the core rules any player of mine who tried to pull this kind of 'shopping around' I would have more latitude to deal with them as I saw fit. Any player of mine who was a paladin and took all the feats to actually do it, I say game on.
But it is the core rules that have wands/scrolls/and potions of lesser restoration based in cost off the paladin 1st level spell.
Now you can cry foul! But I don't see what's foul. They are valid items, rather than say player 'designed' items trying to use the DM's table of guidelines for new items.
Why is the cleric lesser restoration the default? And others are 'cheating' as you seem to think of it as.
Which casting class is the default for price for antimagic field, poison, or see invisibility as examples?
Classes don't own spells. Many classes get the same spells at different levels. The rules as they are support the pricing of each of them differently as little sense as that might make.
I mean is the idea that you don't expect Paladins to invest in an activity that would make it easier for others to relieve people's suffering? Or that if they would do so that they would overcharge them? Cause it doesn't seem likely.
-James
Shieldknight wrote:
There are a lot of "house rules" in Pathfinder Society Organized Play (PFS). More than likely the average player of PFS disagrees with at least one rule.
And in my opinion they should be kept to a minimum.
LG suffered from getting bogged down by eventually accumulating so many house rules that it was easier to learn to play LG if you DIDN'T know D&D than if you did!
-James
I think that the wand, scroll issue, is assessed in the latest guide.
Page 21: "All potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables are made by wizards, clerics or druids in Pathfinder Society"
Armenfrast
from France
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
james maissen wrote: It's an example of the price of a wand of speak with animals when crafted by a bard rather than a ranger or a druid. That's because speak with animals is a 3rd level bard spell rather than a 1st level ranger or druid spell.
This seems to be a recurring problem when trying to talk to you. Are you evening listening? This has exactly what to do with anything? As per the rules this should come off the Druid list as 1st level. 750 GP done. No question, no dispute, no ambiguity. Perhaps you should pay closer attention to the message boards you are posting under. This area is for Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Therefore when we are talking about things it really should be in the context of Organized Play. So again, as per the Guide, that wand would be created by a druid with a CL1 so it should cost 750.
Quote: Both are valid and legal PF items (not speaking to PFS here). Since you obviously aren't listening to any of us, do you even bother to listen to yourself? I don't care what you do in your home game, in this context I care about what is done in Organized Play.
In Organized Play a wand of lesser restoration was created by a cleric and cost 4500, and apparently a wand of speak with animals was created by a druid and cost 750.
Quote: How much is the right price for a wand of poison at minimum caster level? Is it 11,250gp or 21,000gp? Well, given the intent that seems obvious to me I'm going to go with 21,000 and it was created by a 7th level cleric. I have, however, been wrong in the past. I also reserve the right to be wrong in the future.
Quote:
The correct answer, even in PFS today is both. Depends where you 'shop'. And that's almost enough of a difference to purchase a second one!
This might be an example that needs express clarification, but I doubt the official answer is both. In fact, the ordering of the list in the rule leads me to believe you should take wizard, cleric and druid in that order for resolving such conflicts.
Quote:
But it is the core rules that have wands/scrolls/and potions of lesser restoration based in cost off the paladin 1st level spell.
Seriously, do you read what people are writing? I explained this perfectly well.
As a GM, if you were my player in a normal home game and told me you wanted to buy a LRW for 750 created by a Paladin I'd let you waste a lot of time looking for it and not find one. In fact since you were such a meta-gaming cheapskate I'd probably have something bad happen to you besides. If you were a Paladin who wanted to create one and invested the required feats, you'd be welcome to do that.
Quote: Why is the cleric lesser restoration the default? And others are 'cheating' as you seem to think of it as. I don't recall using the word cheat.
Quote:
I mean is the idea that you don't expect Paladins to invest in an activity that would make it easier for others to relieve people's suffering? Or that if they would do so that they would overcharge them? Cause it doesn't seem likely.
It's ok for you to invoke some 'realism' here but not me?
Paladins are more martial than that, and don't generally have the 'luxury' of magic item crafting would be my general gut-check response. Not impossible, not unheard of but such a meta-game move that I'd probably react punitively against a player who tried it.
james maissen wrote: Now you can cry foul! But I don't see what's foul. They are valid items, rather than say player 'designed' items trying to use the DM's table of guidelines for new items.
Why is the cleric lesser restoration the default? And others are 'cheating' as you seem to think of it as.
Look, while I don't think anyone has explicitly spelled this out yet, that's because (I think) it's glaringly obvious unless you're trying to rules lawyer. Although people keep trying to take the wrong tactic in explaining it.
This doesn't have a whole lot to do with caster levels and wealth. It does have everything to do with character level and item availaility. Lesser Restoration should not be readily available to Character Level 1 characters. Ability damage is intended to be extremely difficult to deal with until Character Level 7, when PCs can afford to start tossing around Leser Restorations on their own. Entire scenarios have been written which hinge on these facts. The ability to go out and, for 7 CPA at most, trivialize a scenario low-level scenario removes ability damage from the designer's toolbox.
Without this house rule, expect to start seeing lots of "This effect cannot be removed by anything other than Restoration" effects to start being put into scenarios, essentially making Lesser Restoration in all forms completely useless.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Armenfrast wrote: I think that the wand, scroll issue, is assessed in the latest guide.
Page 21: "All potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables are made by wizards, clerics or druids in Pathfinder Society"
I <3 you.
Armenfrast wrote: I think that the wand, scroll issue, is assessed in the latest guide.
Page 21: "All potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables are made by wizards, clerics or druids in Pathfinder Society"
Armenfrast
from France
And the next line: "The only exceptions are spells that are not on the wizard, cleric, or druid spell list."
So as cure light wounds is on both the cleric and druid spell list, arcane scrolls of cure light wounds are not available for witches and bards. Likewise arcane scrolls of entangle are not available among other things.
Moreover PC Rangers and the like might be able to cast some spells that they can't effectively read scrolls of!
Now it does directly say one thing: that there are paladins out there scribing scrolls of heal mount, but not lesser restoration. Or if they are making the later, the greedy little bastards are keeping them for themselves! ;)
Now I'm not sure whether or not these scribing Paladins are also hoarding the scrolls of bless weapon that they are scribing nor potions they are brewing. That's because it is a clerical domain spell, so whether or not that counts as 'not on the list' or not is debatable.
But as far as curbing 'abuse' I'm not sure if it does it or not or if that's even the goal. As some of the abuse can be found within those three classes as well as from without. But I'm just going secondhand what's 'abuse' here.
That's one reason I was asking and have been asking Josh to say what the rule is supposed to achieve. I think it's not quite hitting accurately.
If it's as Zizazat's been saying then honestly there should just be a small list of banned spells. As it is one of the things that caused this problem (someone not realizing that the lesser restoration spell existed on other lists) is now required for everyone rather than optional for anyone.
Before if you got it 'wrong' you had a legal item that you paid more than you needed to pay for it. Now you might pay more or less than you should, but your item will be ILLEGAL.
Its not a step in the right direction. And it draws questions as people do come out to ask. But then I stupidly reply and this chases them away.
-James
Zizazat wrote: james maissen wrote:
How much is the right price for a wand of poison at minimum caster level? Is it 11,250gp or 21,000gp?
Well, given the intent that seems obvious to me I'm going to go with 21,000 and it was created by a 7th level cleric. I have, however, been wrong in the past. I also reserve the right to be wrong in the future.
Poison is a 3rd level druid spell and a 4th level cleric spell. Both are valid 'creators' for consumables in PFS.
You may elect to read into these rules that there is an order, and that spells that are on this list can be made by bards in the right circumstances be allowed. But it's certainly not what it says. In fact language that specifically allowed things like that were removed in the latest version.
As to when I was discussing core rules was to show you that prices of consumables can vary a lot, and there's not one price that's 'correct' while others are 'abuse'.
By your logic a wand of speak with animals for 750gp is far more abusive than the wand of lesser restoration for 750gp. Yet you have no problem with one over the other.
Why?
-James
Chris Kenney wrote:
Ability damage is intended to be extremely difficult to deal with until Character Level 7, when PCs can afford to start tossing around Leser Restorations on their own. Entire scenarios have been written which hinge on these facts. The ability to go out and, for 7 CPA at most, trivialize a scenario low-level scenario removes ability damage from the designer's toolbox.
Without this house rule, expect to start seeing lots of "This effect cannot be removed by anything other than Restoration" effects to start being put into scenarios, essentially making Lesser Restoration in all forms completely useless.
This is an interesting post.
First of all, I disagree that prior to 7th level lesser restoration is not easily available. It is, and in many forms.
Secondly, then your problem is with the core rules. Is PFS a good place to be altering them? If so, then the easiest and least evasive change is to make lesser restoration a 2nd level Paladin spell. That way they have to wait until 8th level to cast it rather than 4th.
Third, if you're trying to do things like 'this should be a challenge so I'll bend the rules to make it one for X level PCs' then you're going to enter into bad writing. There was a 'season' so to speak in LG where you encountered more areas that were dimensionally locked than places that WEREN'T. It was sad.
I'm hoping that PFS can learn from prior organized campaigns' mistakes.
-James
You missed the key word. "Readily." Yes, a cleric or druid can use one of their (very few) spell slots as early as third level, and a Paladin as early as fourth, to prepare it. An Oracle can even take the spell at fourth and have lots and lots of castings. However these choices have a significant opportunity cost. The decision to spend 2 PA or 750 GP to have far more castings than you will need in your career is not costly at all, by comparison.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
james maissen wrote: You may elect to read into these rules that there is an order, and that spells that are on this list can be made by bards in the right circumstances be allowed. But it's certainly not what it says. In fact language that specifically allowed things like that were removed in the latest version.
This is pure speculation on my part and I may be giving Josh credit for something I just made up myself, but here goes.
Wizards and Cleric represent the most 'pure' forms of their respective spell caster types. Druids less so, but have a lot of spells that clerics do not. So you read the list as written from left to right and resolve any conflicts that way. Any spell not on any of those three lists must come off the list of the caster who's spell list it's legal for and would be calculated at that cost.
Quote:
As to when I was discussing core rules was to show you that prices of consumables can vary a lot, and there's not one price that's 'correct' while others are 'abuse'.
In the Core yes, but I'm not talking about the Core. I'm talking about Organized Play, and you should be too. In OP I'm pretty sure there should be one price, that way it's easy to know if you've got the right price or not from table to table or city to city.
Quote:
By your logic a wand of speak with animals for 750gp is far more abusive than the wand of lesser restoration for 750gp. Yet you have no problem with one over the other.
Why?
It's more abusive because it follows the rules? That is a 1st level druid spell, it cost 750. It doesn't matter that it shows up on the Bard or Ranger spell list. Bard and Ranger aren't part of the 'always crafted by' list. Since it doesn't only appear on the Bard and Ranger list, it must come off the druid list and cost 750.
Good day sir.
I wonder if I'm the only person who sees where this is going? If I were running PFS, I'd be sick of this "discussion" and just say, fine. No potions, scrolls, wands or other consumables unless you find it on a Chronicle sheet. That would put a quick end to this pointless waste of server space.
Shieldknight wrote: I wonder if I'm the only person who sees where this is going? If I were running PFS, I'd be sick of this "discussion" and just say, fine. No potions, scrolls, wands or other consumables unless you find it on a Chronicle sheet. That would put a quick end to this pointless waste of server space. *points to my earlier post on this page that may have actually been more serious than sarcastic*
Zizazat wrote:
Quote:
By your logic a wand of speak with animals for 750gp is far more abusive than the wand of lesser restoration for 750gp. Yet you have no problem with one over the other.
Why?
It's more abusive because it follows the rules? That is a 1st level druid spell, it cost 750. It doesn't matter that it shows up on the Bard or Ranger spell list. Bard and Ranger aren't part of the 'always crafted by' list. Since it doesn't only appear on the Bard and Ranger list, it must come off the druid list and cost 750.
Good day sir.
You're using circular logic here.
You're saying that PFS made this rule to stem 'abuse' which you defined as being able to use the 1st level paladin lesser restoration instead of the 2nd level cleric lesser restoration.
And you're claiming that this rule is fixing this 'abuse'.
So I put forth the opposite scenario to you, and asked why this wasn't 'abuse'.
You claim it's not abuse because the rule doesn't address it!
-James
Zizazat wrote:
In the Core yes, but I'm not talking about the Core. I'm talking about Organized Play, and you should be too. In OP I'm pretty sure there should be one price, that way it's easy to know if you've got the right price or not from table to table or city to city.
Well first off.. are bards allowed to buy arcane scrolls of cure light wounds for 25gp? Or is it, as someone else posted on the FAQ thread, that in PFS we don't use 'arcane/divine' with scrolls?
That leads to.. what's the price for a divine scroll of plane shift? It's a 5th level cleric spell but a 7th level wizard spell.
You're suggesting that a 9th level cleric could not (without a check for failure) read a scroll of a spell that they could memorize...
Does that seem right to you?
Meanwhile a Bard would pay 25gp for a 1st CL scroll of a spell that's on his 3rd level spell list.
-James
Hey James, Zizazat, and other in this discussion, I have a serious question for you and the answer may have something to do with how Josh came to this rule. Rank for me in order, objectively and not just for PFS play, all the spellcasting classes from most likely to least likely to spend precious feat slots on the Crafting feats needed to make scrolls, potions and/or wands and to also be likely to make said products to sell and not just for personal use.
I personally do not think the druid should be third on that list the way Josh has them, but the cleric and wizard would definitely be one and two. In my opinion, a bard, or even a sorcerer is more likely to do this than a druid. And I just do not see rangers or paladins doing this at all. As for the APG classes, I have not done enough studying of them yet to determine their placement in this ranking, though none of them strike me as scroll writers or wand makers, while a witch and potions seem like a natural combination.
Edit: By the way, I just had one of those "Duh!" moments when I was re-reading the scroll creation info. Josh probably set it at cleric, druid and wizard because they all share the same costs on the respective scroll, potion and wand cost charts in the Core Book, and for no other reason. And while all the classes have the exact same price for 0 and 1st level spells, the other classes all have their prices vary from those three after 1st level.
Shieldknight wrote: I wonder if I'm the only person who sees where this is going? If I were running PFS, I'd be sick of this "discussion" and just say, fine. No potions, scrolls, wands or other consumables unless you find it on a Chronicle sheet. That would put a quick end to this pointless waste of server space. That would be very similar to how it worked in Season 0. Of course, that means that it kind of sucks to be a wizard or a witch...
Quote: Or is it, as someone else posted on the FAQ thread, that in PFS we don't use 'arcane/divine' with scrolls? I asked if there's a link to that. He sounded pretty sure of himself though, so he's probably not just divining it. Maybe he'll respond with a link or something. I can't find it in the society document, but maybe it is there.
The earlier half of this thread has some stuff I can't really make sense of (a way to get a discount on a wand or scroll of silence), which I'm not sure is relevant to the current society document or not, based on being older.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
james maissen wrote: More words that James apparently willfully refuses to process. I said, "Good day sir!"
Enevhar Aldarion wrote: Edit: By the way, I just had one of those "Duh!" moments when I was re-reading the scroll creation info. Josh probably set it at cleric, druid and wizard because they all share the same costs on the respective scroll, potion and wand cost charts in the Core Book, and for no other reason. And while all the classes have the exact same price for 0 and 1st level spells, the other classes all have their prices vary from those three after 1st level. Bingo.
Josh wants consistent scroll (wand, potion) costs for all characters. He want the Wand of Cure Light wounds to always cost 750 gp and he wants a wand of lesser restoration to always cost 4,500 gp. It's as simple as that. James keeps obfuscating the issue, and at this point if he doesn't get it, it means he will never get it, and it's a moot point.
Seriously folks, keep responding and it'll keep being an issue. Just let the thread die (and that's it for me, I'm done with this stupid discussion).
Enevhar Aldarion wrote: Hey James, Zizazat, and other in this discussion, I have a serious question for you and the answer may have something to do with how Josh came to this rule. Rank for me in order, objectively and not just for PFS play, all the spellcasting classes from most likely to least likely to spend precious feat slots on the Crafting feats needed to make scrolls, potions and/or wands and to also be likely to make said products to sell and not just for personal use.
That's a fair question.
However, do we want to say limit the availability of say magical exotic weapons? How many bolas will be enchanted, etc?
Also, you'll note that divine scrolls of heal mount are available for purchase scribed by paladins. If this were the avenue then one would think that paladins would take things like brew potion in order to make potions of lesser restoration available to more people, etc.
-James
MisterSlanky wrote:
Josh wants consistent scroll (wand, potion) costs for all characters.
But the rule doesn't do this.
My 'obfuscation' is pointing out spells like poison that is a 4th level cleric spell and a 3rd level druid spell.
How much does he want the wand of poison to cost? 21,000 or 11,250gp?
Does he want the druid player to have to look at other people's spell lists in order to figure out the prices for purchasing scrolls from his spell list?
My 'obfuscation' is saying that while previously some people might have paid more than they should have through ignorance of the rules and spell lists, now ignorances like this will result in ILLEGAL items.
I think I'm bringing up valid flaws here.
-James
Chris Kenney wrote: However these choices have a significant opportunity cost. The decision to spend 2 PA or 750 GP to have far more castings than you will need in your career is not costly at all, by comparison. True. I do grant you that being able to spend 2PA for 1st level wands does change the game.
For example, if you write a scenario with a few minutes between encounters then since everyone after 1-2 mods has a wand of cure light wounds, the party is fully healed.
But if the problem you're having is fundamental in the game. Which is what you're really saying by PCs under X level shouldn't have easy access to a wand of Y. Then really you've had a problem with 3e since day one, as this has been an item since day 1. Mind you in 3.5 it was a 1500gp item rather than a 750gp item but I don't think that would change your objection to the given item.
As to getting a good stable of consumables, that's something any serious PC should have his player look into for him. That you can spend 2PA for any 1st level wand and/or 3rd level potion is VERY strong and I would assume was meant to encourage this.
How late in the game is reasonable access to a potion of flying for you?
-James
I know where James is coming from, but besides that since apparently it's too hard to explain to people...
This is why I haven't looked on these boards in a year or that anything PF makes anymore is well not exciting to me anymore - the only reason I can on was I was looking at more info for the special at Ucon - BIG MISTAKE. I was starting to feel excitement for this game again but that has thoroughly been squelched from reading all this nonsense with house rule rules. These are what put people off that had played LG before. I wish LG was still around since at least they didn't get stupid will all the errata - when is another going to come out, next month? I have better things to do then spend time reading then re-reading new and changing rules to rules. ::rolls eyes::
See you at cons, but signing off of here.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
So you just came to fuss at us about how we're a bunch of mouth-breathing, bug-squashers? Wow.
Well, thanks for sharing. You're input, such that it was, will be sorely missed, no doubt.
-Skeld
I would respond, but since LdyPike has left forever (again) and thus negated the point of me responding, I'll say this:
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society
|
